Why is Europe the fastest warming continent?(phys.org)
phys.org
Why is Europe the fastest warming continent?
https://phys.org/news/2026-05-europe-world-fastest-continent.html
4 comments
If the AMOC collapses, they will soon be the fastest cooling continent as most of their heat is brought up from the equator.
[deleted]
It probably isn't. According to the article eastern Europe has warmed by up to 1C/decade, supposedly, but western Europe warmed by half as much. Europe itself supposedly warms at 2x the rate of the USA. It's called global warming for a reason - CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, the rate of CO2 increase doesn't vary globally and that kind of huge gap isn't supposed to happen.
It's much more likely this is a data quality issue, as there are lots of very serious and arguably borderline fraudulent practices going on in European temperature datasets which make it impossible to say how warm it actually is. Climatologists ignore these problems because they view the correctness and maintenance of the weather station network as out of scope for them, and besides, many of the errors create more perceived warming which is beneficial for their status and careers.
The USA used to have very similar problems until the Republicans forced the construction of a new weather station network that was built to a much higher quality than the prior network (which was never intended for climatologists). But Europe never did this. That was about 25 years ago. Since then Europe warms much faster than the USA.
Example problems with legacy networks include:
• Reports being recorded to multiple dps of precision from stations that haven't existed for decades (they are interpolated but are presented as if real measurements).
• Reports being recorded at the end of runways where the thermometers are being regularly blasted by jet exhaust (often reported as being in some random nearby village).
• Reports being recorded by thermometers that were once in open fields but are now next to tarmac or buildings. That compresses the reported min/max range and thus pushes up the average because tarmac re-radiates heat at night, but it doesn't reflect a genuine increase in atmospheric temperature.
• Thermometer sampling frequency being vastly increased due to the rollout of electronic sensors. Moving from a slow moving mercury reading twice a day to second-by-second recordings gives many more opportunities for brief "record breaking temperatures" that last only a minute or two.
• Climatologists constantly changing the aggregation methodology in ways that can violate causality and create other problems that invalidate everything built on top of these time series e.g. they can and do announce new "record breaking global temperatures" that are lower than prior announced records for the exact same time series.
A good example of these problems coming together is in the UK where new temperature records are regularly reported, without journalists telling readers that the reports come from the runways at Heathrow Airport. A similar problem occurred a few years ago when they reported a new supposed temperature record, this time sourced to a weather station in some little known village. It turned out that the thermometer wasn't in the village at all but rather at the end of a military runway, that the highest temperature had been recorded for only about 60 seconds, and that 60 second time period corresponded exactly with the moment a Tornado fighter jet landed. None of this was revealed to the public, all of it had to be found out by independent skeptics forcing it out of government agencies using legal tactics. And it turns out that while most weather stations are rated as only providing a few degrees of precision for these kinds of reasons, the CIs are stripped by the Met Office and temperatures recorded to a few hundredeths of a degree are then entered into climatology databases and reported to the public.
All this happens because there is zero incentive to generate accurate data on this topic. Anyone who cared about accuracy, rigor or the scientific method was purged from the institutions for being a "denier" long ago. Any claims about the Earth's temperature should be treated with a big pinch of salt.
It's much more likely this is a data quality issue, as there are lots of very serious and arguably borderline fraudulent practices going on in European temperature datasets which make it impossible to say how warm it actually is. Climatologists ignore these problems because they view the correctness and maintenance of the weather station network as out of scope for them, and besides, many of the errors create more perceived warming which is beneficial for their status and careers.
The USA used to have very similar problems until the Republicans forced the construction of a new weather station network that was built to a much higher quality than the prior network (which was never intended for climatologists). But Europe never did this. That was about 25 years ago. Since then Europe warms much faster than the USA.
Example problems with legacy networks include:
• Reports being recorded to multiple dps of precision from stations that haven't existed for decades (they are interpolated but are presented as if real measurements).
• Reports being recorded at the end of runways where the thermometers are being regularly blasted by jet exhaust (often reported as being in some random nearby village).
• Reports being recorded by thermometers that were once in open fields but are now next to tarmac or buildings. That compresses the reported min/max range and thus pushes up the average because tarmac re-radiates heat at night, but it doesn't reflect a genuine increase in atmospheric temperature.
• Thermometer sampling frequency being vastly increased due to the rollout of electronic sensors. Moving from a slow moving mercury reading twice a day to second-by-second recordings gives many more opportunities for brief "record breaking temperatures" that last only a minute or two.
• Climatologists constantly changing the aggregation methodology in ways that can violate causality and create other problems that invalidate everything built on top of these time series e.g. they can and do announce new "record breaking global temperatures" that are lower than prior announced records for the exact same time series.
A good example of these problems coming together is in the UK where new temperature records are regularly reported, without journalists telling readers that the reports come from the runways at Heathrow Airport. A similar problem occurred a few years ago when they reported a new supposed temperature record, this time sourced to a weather station in some little known village. It turned out that the thermometer wasn't in the village at all but rather at the end of a military runway, that the highest temperature had been recorded for only about 60 seconds, and that 60 second time period corresponded exactly with the moment a Tornado fighter jet landed. None of this was revealed to the public, all of it had to be found out by independent skeptics forcing it out of government agencies using legal tactics. And it turns out that while most weather stations are rated as only providing a few degrees of precision for these kinds of reasons, the CIs are stripped by the Met Office and temperatures recorded to a few hundredeths of a degree are then entered into climatology databases and reported to the public.
All this happens because there is zero incentive to generate accurate data on this topic. Anyone who cared about accuracy, rigor or the scientific method was purged from the institutions for being a "denier" long ago. Any claims about the Earth's temperature should be treated with a big pinch of salt.