4/ The #nocovid warriors must be panicking as the forecasted (by GBD) damage is becoming evident while Scandinavia is shining with dramatically lower mortality rates.
1/ Can you actually find a hockey stick in truly rural stations?
Not in a stitched statistical construct — in a real, coherent station record.
Here’s a tool to test it yourself.
2/ This map shows all stations with 100 years of data and at least 9 valid months per year.
That leaves about 500
🌎 🌎
Stations are colored by the level of built-up area around the site. Click any station to view its details and temperature curve. orwell2024.github.io/builtmap/
3/ Low built-up ≠ high-quality station. It’s a mandatory condition, not a guarantee.
Switch to sat view and inspect the site closely— the problems often shows up immediately. Like here.
Coastal locations
commonly have this issue. Water makes them appear rural. They aren’t.
2/ The analysis is already done. DWD and peer-reviewed literature.
It matches what we saw from JMA and KNMI raw data:
a +10–20 W/m² increase in surface solar radiation.
So the question:
How did they get away with knowing this and selling the story of ~1.4 W from CO₂ instead?
3/ What does the literature say?
“...dimming/brightening not only occurred when clouds are considered, but also under cloud-free conditions when cloud effects are absent.”
A remarkably way to say:
It’s not clouds. Not CO₂. Not climate. Pollution.
A +14 W/m² total solar increase over 50 years is realistic. Japan alone shows +20 W/m². That’s 10× larger than the minuscule additional CO₂ forcing (~1W). And nearly 50× greater than the impact of sunspot cycles (±0.5 W).
Japan has one of the best measurement data. The analysis is clear. The brightening amount to almost 20 W. That is a lot. But the main and dominant effect is still urbanization, which makes up to 6°.
Link 1: the brightening. It explains why the climate scam likes to start in the maximum smog dimming period of 1970. It is a shameless bad faith deception. The effect is ball part of +1°C. In dry areas up to 3°C.
UAH is a model inference, not a measurement. It can’t be tested, yet many treat it like real raw. Calling that a ‘measurement’ is wrong. Neither Lindzen nor us take it seriously. It starts in a cold period, with no long-term data — adjusted, multi mission stitched SW composite.🚮
UAH is not measurement — it’s model-driven inference. Satellites detect radiance, not temperature. The ‘trend’ is built through weighting functions, drift corrections, and stitched instruments. It’s untestable, synthetic, and not suitable for long-term climate baselines.
It’s astonishing how confidently some treat satellite-based inferences as god in heaven like truth. These are SW model outputs, not reliable measurements. Treating them as accurate fact is scientifically indefensible. If you do so, expect your credibility to be challenged.