It really depends on what you mean by geoengineering. Dumping things into the atmosphere has been easy to detect for a while now, but with NASA spinning down their space assets focused on climate data [1] there’s definitely dimensional data that’s being lost. However, there’s still plenty of data being supplied via the EU Copernicus team [2] to track a lot of those things that hopefully will be able to fill some of the gaps.

All of this to say, with enough stable overhead assets then most things can be detected that would cause possible impacts in climate.

1. https://www.npr.org/2025/08/04/nx-s1-5453731/nasa-carbon-dio...

2. https://dataspace.copernicus.eu/explore-data

Basically every country has been conducting a massive geoengineering project in the open for the past decades by releasing billions of tonnes of CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) into the atmosphere. We've been able to detect that, yes.

The other thing is that people use the classic chart trick of not starting the Y axis from zero Kelvin (the only scientific scale). If you do that you see that even including all these stations the trend is imperceptible.

Wait so, in response to an article about the current year being hot, you excluded the past 50 years and made a conclusion that things are flat. Am I missing something from your post?

May i suggest you consult the website realclimate.org? this and many other classic denialist tropes are well addressed there. Thank You!

It's not something that climatologists and meteorologists are unaware of. Even for longer-running weather stations you can get a heat island effect if they're in a city and it's built up over time. So while I can't say exactly why you got the result you did with this specific query and dataset it is something that is taken into account when analyzing this kind of data.

Show me the source, Luke!

I have many questions about your methodology:

- How many stations were you left with?

- Did that number decline over time (as you excluded replacement stations)?

- What was your scale?

- Are you willing to share your results?

- How is this still the top comment after 30 minutes?

But your comment touches on a common misconception, which is that heat islands must be excluded to accurately measure the overall temperature. You refer to the idea as "heat-producing objects", but I would argue that a parking lot is more of a heat reflecting object. More to the point, even heat islands must be considered as part of the worldwide climate, simply because they are part of this wide world. Their heat does not simply disappear (I hope you agree that would violate physics).

Imagine we want to measure the average temperature inside a single 30-foot by 10-foot room during winter. We have two probes: one near a burning fireplace on one end of the room, and one near a window on the other. If we excluded data from one probe or the other, do you believe we would get an accurate average reading?

Of course, when scientists are calculating a global temperature, they have to handle special cases in the data (like heat islands). This has been known for some time, and you can read more about it here: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-ma...

I fear that I've spent too much time responding to this, but I wanted to take it on in earnest.

We can't only be concerned about the environment. We've got to maintain a healthy economy too. Building out expensive coal and natural gas just because some environmentalists demand it is an inefficient use of funds and a drain on taxpayers and electricity bill payers. Solar and wind might not make you feel good, but the economy doesn't run on feelings.