This is a small bombshell. I’ve been telling readers about UHI since this blog started. One notable example that I demonstrated by actual measurement is Reno, NV:
Click for larger image
The IPCC reports have minimized the effects of UHI on climate for quite some time.
From Warwick Hughes:
The IPCC drew that conclusion from the Jones et al 1990 Letter to Nature which examined temperature data from regions in Eastern Australia, Western USSR and Eastern China, to conclude that “In none of the three regions studied is there any indication of significant urban influence..” That has led to the IPCC claim that for decades, urban warming is less than 0.05 per century.
A paper in JGR that slipped by last fall without much notice (but know now thanks to Warwick Hughes) is one from Phil Jones, the director of the Hadley Climate Center in the UK. The pager is titled: Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China
In it, Jones identifies an urban warming signal in China of 0.1 degrees C per decade. Or, if you prefer, 1 degree C per century. Not negligible by any means. Here is the abstract:
Global surface temperature trends, based on land and marine data, show warming of about 0.8°C over the last 100 years. This rate of warming is sometimes questioned because of the existence of well-known Urban Heat Islands (UHIs). We show examples of the UHIs at London and Vienna, where city center sites are warmer than surrounding rural locations. Both of these UHIs however do not contribute to warming trends over the 20th century because the influences of the cities on surface temperatures have not changed over this time. In the main part of the paper, for China, we compare a new homogenized station data set with gridded temperature products and attempt to assess possible urban influences using sea surface temperature (SST) data sets for the area east of the Chinese mainland. We show that all the land-based data sets for China agree exceptionally well and that their residual warming compared to the SST series since 1951 is relatively small compared to the large-scale warming. Urban-related warming over China is shown to be about 0.1°C decade−1 over the period 1951–2004, with true climatic warming accounting for 0.81°C over this period.
Even though Jones tries to minimize the UHI effect elsewhere, saying the UHI trends don’t contribute to warming in London and Vienna, what is notable about the paper is that Jones has been minimizing the UHI issues for years and now does an about face on China. And even more notable is that Jones result are directly at odds with another researcher at Hadley, Dr. David Parker.
It seems that Parker is looking more and more foolish with his attempts to make UHI “disappear” To back that up, the National Weather Service includes the UHI factor in one of it’s training course ( NOAA Professional Competency Unit 6 ) using Reno, NV.
In the PUC6 they were also kind enough to provide a photo essay of their own as well as a graph. You can click the aerial photo to get a Google Earth interactive view of the area. The ASOS USHCN station is right between the runways.
This is NOAA’s graph showing the changes to the official climate record when they made station moves:
Source for 24a and 24b: NOAA Internal Training manual, 2004-2007
What is striking about this is that here we have NOAA documenting the effects of an “urban heat bubble” something that Parker 2003 et al say “doesn’t exist“, plus we have inclusion a site with known issues, held up as a bad example for training the operational folks, being used in a case study for the new USHCN2 system.
So if NOAA trains for UHI placement, and Hadley’s Dr. Jones admits it is real and quantifies it, I’m comfortable in saying that Parker’s claims of UHI being negligible are pure rubbish.
Its all about location, location, location. And climate monitoring stations that are poorly sited and that have been overrun by urban growth clearly don’t give a pure signal for assesment of long term climate trends. This puts a real kink in the validity of the surface temperature data in GISS and HadCRUT and could go a long way towards explaining the divergence between satellite and surface temperatures in recent years.
A problem arises in that if UHI effects could account for much if not all of the observed warming then where does that leave the supposed effects of a high level of solar activity and a positive PDO with an exceptional dominance of El Nino during the same period ?
Roger Pielke Sr. strikes again: Land use IS a first-order climate forcing after all!
Correction: This is a MAJOR BOMBSHELL.
Though the science may be considered minimal the politics surrounding this issue are huge. The IPCC and their reports have taken a direct and massive hit on this matter and the sooner that news is broadcast to the IPCC and worldwide the better.
That is very interesting. Also interesting that Geography departments in schools discuss UHI yet, in the main, do not relate it to the “warming” of AGW.
It would be helpful if Exam Boards were to introduce a discussion section on this and for schools’ publishers to use these examples as discussion points. The physics syllabuses have been overrun with discussion points to the exclusion of any “hard, mathematical” points. The discussions they suggest are so contrived and puerile. One on the effects of UHI on the climate models would be valid in the context of real discussion and argument.
Perhaps we could try a research project to see the effects of man in producing heat islands and how that can lead to catestrophic warming. If they see “man” and “catestrophic warming” in an application I am sure it would get funding!
what is the percentage of sites that are in urban vs. non-urban locations for GISS and HadCRUT?
if a site has always been in a city, the data is still valid for showing the temperature at that location and likewise, the temporal trends. should we stop using data from a site because in 1940 it was in a field and a forest has grown up around it since?
This should only show that the land monitoring sites are affected not the satellite measuring and possibly explain some of the difference in them. The Solar activity, PDO changes, etc are an explaination of the changes in temperature which is happening all of the time.
“Urban-related warming over China is shown to be about 0.1°C decade−1 over the period 1951–2004, with true climatic warming accounting for 0.81°C over this period.”
Mixing units like this requires some care when reading; at first glance they appear to minimise the UHI contribution. However, let’s put them in the same ballpark:
UHI = 0.1C per Decade
Climatic warming = 0.81C per 53 years = 0.15C per Decade
Now that’s something that should be shouted about – I make it that UHI is therefore responsible for ~40% of the “measured” temp rise per decade at certain sites.
No doubt this “won’t affect the trend – it’s robust”
Mark.
does the 0.81C of observed warming in china include the 0.1C/decade urban effect? or is that in addition to that number?
or for the the ~50 years of the study is it:
0.81 = (0.1C/decade * 5) + 0.3C
or
1.31C = 0.81C + (0.1C/decade * 5)
sorry it’s not quite clear to me
The folks at FSU and UF seem to be pretty aware of UHI effects in Florida.
http://coaps.fsu.edu/climate_center/docs/flhotseason.php
http://plaza.ufl.edu/gbaigorr/GB/Documents/Posters/CIRM%20Urban.pdf
“We show examples of the UHIs at London and Vienna, where city center sites are warmer than surrounding rural locations. Both of these UHIs however do not contribute to warming trends over the 20th century because the influences of the cities on surface temperatures have not changed over this time.”
Obviously there is quite a contradiction here: so year 2000 London’s UHI contribution over the XX century of greatest expansion, use of fossil fuels, industries, cars etc… has not changed compared to 1900 London? Well Dr. Jones that’s a good news -if you are right- because since we are also told that cities are the biggest CO2 “polluters” -if CO2 is supposed to be a pollutant- as seen on the google map of CO2, then Londoners should rest: they are not responsible for global warming or climate change. Viennese idem. Parisians probably too! Yahoo: we’re off the hook; please charge your carbon tax to someone else…
Compared with satellite measurements, up to half of warming observed by ground stations during the last 30 years may be caused by UHI. This is kind of “unconvenient truth”, since in the period 1910-1940 (low CO2 growth), observed warming rate was steeper than in 1977-2003 (higher CO2 growth).
In December I took a drive from Durham, NC to a state park north of Winston-Salem for a planned day hike. The downtown air temp when I left at 4am was 12F degrees per our local weather station.
My initial car temp gauge was showing 14F in my driveway but quickly dropped to 8F as soon as I got on the freeway out of town. As I drove through Burlington it climbed to 10F. Out of the city it fell back to 8F. When I drove through Greensboro the temp rose to 11F. Out of Greensboro it fell back to 8F. When I entered Winston-Salem it climbed to 10F and dropped to 7F upon leaving town.
Anecdotally, the temp gauge rose from 8F to 10F while out on the open (8F)road, but following 2 semi-trucks. As soon as I passed them the temp decreased back to the 8F ‘background’.
So there is little question in my mind that city UHI’s exist and the effect is quite visible in the coldest part of the early morning when human activity is at a minimum. To say that UHI’s have virtually no effect is non-sensical. Any model that does not contain significant UHI adjustments in there temp predictions is also non-sensical.
@ Stephen Wilde (07:42:59)
I can’t tell you how all the pieces of the puzzle go together. I can say that the IPCC doesn’t have it right and the prevailing assumption of AGW through greenhouse gas emissions — especially CO2 — is falsified by all the evidence.
By my count, at least half the warming is due to ocean currents, half is due to UHI, half is due to changes in the sun, etc.
Does that mean these factors don’t influence our climate? By all means, no! That the evidence is contradictory means we don’t have a good understanding of the climate system.
Since climate is complex and chaotic, this is quite understandable. That fact that nobody can really explain the climate and the observed changes over the last century, reinforces the fact that the IPCC is incorrect.
For all the money going to climate science, why doesn’t someone actually just study UHI? Take a 100 thermometers, spread them out over a grid in a city and surrounding countryside and measure temps for a year. Viola. Of course then they’d actually “know” the answer they might not want to hear.
Did you know, that the 19th century geneticist Gregor Johann Mendel (of the pea fame) also made a quick excursion in the climatological realm? And his observations concerned UHI in the city of Brno.
http://www.amet.cz/webmendel/GJMurbanenvironment.pdf
Whenever Groucho Marx returned from the UK and was asked how did he find things in London, he used to reply “The fog lifted and there everything was!”
Since the late 80s London is no longer known for fog. I can’t remember an instance of the type of fog that I grew up with. That fog I knew was dew mist, which was nothing compared to what Londoners lived with for several hundred years before the Clean Air Act. That fog was smog – a dense and poisonous mix of particulate matter from millions of chimneys of homes and factories, as well as dirt.
Under such conditions there was no chance for sunlight to penetrate to ground level as much as it does today. There was also less urban infrastructure to absorb and maintain heat. No asphalt, no tar roads, no concrete pavements. It was nearly all wood, earth and stone.
So when Dr. Jones tries to downplay London’s UHI and the effect of the Clean Air Act on heating the city and surrounding areas, he is simply incorrect (I want to use harder language but am not in the mood). He has no ground to stand on to make such claims that London’s UHI is negligible.
London is not a unique case either. Liverpool, Edinburgh, Dublin, Paris, New York, and other major cities have an identical history of urban changes and reduced air pollution.
A side note to those who believe humans have overpopulated the planet and other Malthusian ideas: London’s population today stands at half a million less than it did in the 1930s. This is despite increasing its territory by eight times and a large influx of immigrants since the 1950s. There is less urban sprawl and more space per capita. There is less homelessness, less poverty, less class division and less disease.
Contrast that with the various experiments with socialism that have taken place around the world. China and India are two good examples where socialism resulted in lower standards of living, widening class division, disease, famine and very high birth rates. India was rescued once by the Green Revolution (not to be confused with today’s Greens. The founder of the original revolution detests modern environmentalists), and then had to rescue itself again.
If it weren’t for the free market reforms of the 90s both nations would have faced disasters that even global warming alarmists can’t imagine (and if they could they would blame it on everything but socialism).
The moral of the story is that government should stick to defence and policing and leave most of the rest to the free market, only stepping in when absolutely necessary. The global warming hysteria is an example of government and politically motivated organisations overstepping the mark.
Mostly unrelated to this topic but I had to share.
A week or two ago XKCD posted a cartoon about correlation everyone here should note.
http://xkcd.com/552/ When you hover your mouse over the image you get this text.
“Correlation doesn’t imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing ‘look over there’.”
Too many researchers are seduced by ‘Correlation’.
It seems to me that it wouldn’t cost much or take a lot of staffing to do studies of UHI effects, and that there could be a lot of bang for the buck in the results (whichever way they turn out). (Even college or high school kids could do some of them as a project.) This is the “unknown” that could be most quickly resolved. So I hope .1% of that money intended for climate modeling supercomputers gets diverted into this area.
What I don’t understand is why they have been ignoring obvious heat sources if they are really looking for reasons for the surface temps allegedly rising. Fossil fuels (stored chemical energy) are brought to the surface and BURNED. Looks like heat to me. According to the 2007 world energy outlook, the rate at which we were burning those fuels was ~14billion Btu’s/sec. Not shabby. Now consider that since the early ’90s, nearly the entire world has been on the largest building binge in history. The oil that was not worth burning was poured onto highways and rooftops during this building extravaganza. There has to be multiple tens of millions of extra acres now absorbing massively larger amounts of sunlight than they did when they were covered by plant life, or sand, or even ice and snow. Where do these people think all of this heat is going?
The past decade has forced the warmists to admit that natural climate variations are at least as strong as the theoretical CO2 warming (N >= CO2). Now that a significant UHI effect is added to the warming makes:
N >= CO2 + UHI,
or
CO2 <= N – UHI.
That doesn’t leave much of the late 20th century warming to be contributed by CO2.
Anthony –
A little OT but *.wordpress.com items are blocked at my office but wattsupwiththat.com is not… If you were to store images at WUWT instead of .wordpress.com, I could see them… If this would be a convenient change, great… If not, I understand, worth asking.
I post stuff from WUWT on my wall pretty often, but I can’t get the pictures. This article would be a good one. Thanks, Mike S.
Reply: Answered via email ~ charles the moderator
I wish I could find the reference. A visiting professor at CU Boulder did a study on U.S. cities that have grown and those that have not, from about 1970 to the min 90’s, study published in late 90’s. Surprise, the cities that grew had the greatest increase in temperature, cities that had not increased in population had little or no temperature change. The prof’s name was Bitte or something like that. Probably got ridden out of town on a rail for contradicting what ‘everyone knows.’
Satellite data.
No doubt the UHI effect in some chinese cities would be simply massive, all you have to do is look at their mega cities like Chonquing, Shenzen, Shanghai, and Ghangzhou. I think the spelling on some of them may be a tiny bit different, but huge cities like those mean big UHI.
I don`t get it, why would Jones publish such a study.
That’s just it, Stephen. All of the “science” involved in proving and/or disproving man’s influence on climate is clearly NOT settled. There are so many variables and unknowns that it is ignorant at best to state AGW is real. At worst, it is a blatant attempt to control population and wealth through lies and propaganda.
Personally, I don’t believe CO2 is doing anything to the overall temperature trend of the earth. I don’t even know if it’s possible to determine with any accuracy what that trend is or should be. Even if we could determine that, I don’t think there is any way to accurately measure it. For example, do we just continue what is done today – (high temp. + low temp)/2? Should we take hourly readings and divide that sum by 24? Should we measure temperature to the hundredth of a degree? Thousandth?
I think the UHI effect was intuitively obvious — just didn’t know how much of an effect. Its probably a larger impact than indicated in the report — since its a Hadley report, and its intuitively obvious they will minimize the effect (if for no other reason than peer pressure).
None the less, I applaud Phil Jones and Hadley for the report.
Remember too that Shanghai suffers from dense smog. When that clears up the city will receive more sunlight and heat up. That from reducing air pollution!
Yep. Kudo’s to Phil Jones for admitting the obvious.
I live in a part of rural Britain, south-west England to be accurate. At the risk of some repetition, during the winter when I used to have to pick up my son or daughter 8 miles away in the provincial city, my car’s air-con system would read something like -0.3C, flashing the ice warning. After a couple of miles, allowing for wind friction over the sensor, the temp reading would read something like -0.1C, still flashing the ice warning. By the time I’d reached the outskirts of the city the temp reading is up to 1.0C, & in the city centre it would read 2C! So the heat island effect is real. Everyone I know seems to remark on the same thing during any winter, mild of otherwise, it’s warmer in the city than in the countryside. Whether this “real” effect is truly accounted or “adjusted” for is unknown.
Is there still some enthusiasm to check the UK weather stations on the cards? I would certainly help on the south-west stations. As said before we may encounter restrictons as we’d be accused of spying for terrosist organisations or something ridiculous, but we could have a go! Does anyone know if the CET station system accessible to the public?
Perhaps we should look at UHI effect as local weather rather than indication of climate change. I also think we need to distinguish between real temperature increases and measured temperature increases due to UHI effect.
As Anthony has shown, the supposed increases are most likely caused by bad measurments due to siting issues rather than real temperature increases of the climate.
I have two questions that have been bugging me for some time. Firstly, is there any accessible info on what proportion of global air temperature recording stations are in urban/airfield locations as against open (not forested) rural locations? Secondly, given that the UHI effect can be so strong, has anyone in, say, Europe or North America constructed and compared temperature trends for these two different environments over the past 50 years or so (and making allowances for land elevation effects)?
Lemme see if I can guess RC’s response.
“It doesn’t matter…”
This is not true. Satellite measurements are adjusted and calibrated using surface temp records. So UHI also contaminates satellite data. It would be nice if this were as simple as Al Gore and Gavin Schmidt say.
If we are on a long term cooling trend, due to orbital factors, which is likely due to the fact that our current interglacial is somewhat long in the tooth, then it means nothing with regards to those issues.
I don’t know if anyone has mentioned this before but there is a study of UHI in the UK currently underway. Reading, Manchester, Belfast, Birmingham, Cardiff, Exeter, Glasgow, Oxford, Sheffield and more cities are due to be surveyed under a Royal Meteorological Society experiment. There’s a very nice picture of Manchester’s UHI.
http://www.metlink.org/urban/background.php
I’m not entirely sure what they intend to do with the information but the goals of the hosting organisation seem very compatible with the intentions of the good people here a WUWT and Surfacestations.org
More specifically, the meteorological aims of the project are to:
. improve individuals’ abilities to collect and record weather data;
. appreciate weather differences from region to region;
. understand the reasons for the differences.
The long-term benefits of MetLinkInternational are seen as:
. a wider interest in the teaching of meteorological topics at both primary and secondary levels;
. a greater awareness of, and enthusiasm for, meteorology as a science-based subject;
. the recognition of meteorology as one of the few fields of study that can embrace the full scope of experimental method, scientific analysis and interactive ICT skills in an engaging way;
. the acquisition of a meteorological information and data resource which will be of value long after the project has ended.
Can someone explain to me how surface station readings impact satellite readings (in laymans terms)? I’m curious to understand it better.
I assume that the past 10 years or so, the impact would be smaller? the UAH readings have been higher this year than last – I assume UHI issues wouldn’t impact that?
Thanks for any info.
Ditto to what Jim, Allen63 and others have been pointing out. Am I missing something? Isn’t this all just common sense? Our local weather broadcasters routinely say things like, “Low of 40 in the city, you may get to mid-30’s in outlying areas.” Anyone with an eye, half a brain, and a temp-gauge can tell that it gets colder outside the city. Combine that with the expansion of the cities around the temp stations over time and you have a factor that simply MUST be taken into account for any accuracy in the record!
TJA @10:10:47
This is not true. Satellite measurements are adjusted and calibrated using surface temp records
Can anyone tell me or show me how?
Robert Wood (09:01:09) :
Satellite data.
I don’t think they heard you. RW has a point, folks. What about the trend in the satellite record?
I disagree with the notion that areas that are already built up won’t show an increase in warming over time. In other words, the statement:
“Both of these UHIs however do not contribute to warming trends over the 20th century because the influences of the cities on surface temperatures have not changed over this time.”
Is an assumption, not an observation. Look at London in the early 20th century. What did the roofs of the buildings look like and what material was used on them? What did the road surfaces look like? I would be willing to bet that there was more concrete and cobblestone where there is asphalt “black top” today.
One must not only consider the density of development but also the impact of materials used as they change over time. For example, it has been estimated that the use of “cool roofs” and “cool pavements” could reduce the Los Angeles heat island by 1 to 2 degrees in summer. Were the roofing and paving materials in use in 1900 “cooler” than the materials being used in 1999? How has the albedo changed? What was the impact of smokestack output on solar heating of these surfaces in the early 20th century and with clearer urban skies today, are we seeing more solar heating of these surfaces resulting in more heating?
To simply state that the urban heat island signature is doesn’t change of the course of the century ignores changes that have taken place over that century that can greatly impact the UHI signature. No evidence is given to support the notion that there is no change over time in London or Vienna. It is simply an assumption pulled out of thin air.
TJA (10:10:47) :
“Satellite measurements are adjusted and calibrated using surface temp records. So UHI also contaminates satellite data.”
No. I believe that it has even been discussed on this blog before that satellite measurements are NOT calibrated using surface temp records. Although, what is interesting, is that satellite (RSS and UAH) anomalies are highly correlated to those from GISS and HADRUC…
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/4way.jpg
So, where does the warming trend come from in the satellite data??
This is somewhat OT – but funny and related to the movement toward acceptance of AGW as myth:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/03/18/global-warming-alarmist-irked-cold-weather
All I can think of is “Duh”
UHI seems like an obvious concern with urban stations or stations being encroached upon by development, but somehow it is largely dismissed as a “Red Herring” when ever the subject comes up in climate circles.
Maybe the thought is local weather is not climate, but it is when you have enough of it.
Sort of OT, unless you consider all that asphalt that tends to be found in cities. Long time lurker here, but talk of UHI reminded me of a conversation with my 9 year old son yesterday.
One of the first really nice warm sunny days in Ontario so far this Spring. Driving with my boy, who had his window down. He made a comment about how much his black jeans were absorbing the heat of the sun, which felt good compared to the cool air coming in his window as we drove. He was chattering away about how much heat the colour black absorbs compared to lighter colours (totally without my input, BTW). So I asked him “So if black does such a good job absorbing heat, do you think it’s a good idea to put a thermometer close to a road?” His answer: (with the kind of incredulous superiority in his voice that only a kid can deliver) “Duh! Any moron knows that won’t work. The road will make it hotter.” Mr. Parker… nuf said.
I was having the same thought when I saw you had made the above post.
This would be a wonderful science lab project for some interested college students.
I’m not sure how many of you remember the “Day in the life of ” photography projects, where hundreds of photographers tried to document daily life all over a single country on the same day.
Here is the concept I propose.
Working title – One days temperature profile project
Recruit about 30+ interested students to the project in a location.
Build 30 identical low cost Stevenson screen enclosures with identical thermometers which are calibrated to a common reference source like a water ice solution.
Select a relatively compact moderate sized city surrounded by rural areas.
Pre-plan a grid one or more measurement locations for the Stevenson screens that meet good sighting protocols with photo documentation and GPS coordinates.
Train the students how to set up the screens allow them to stabilize (ventilated screens would stabilize quicker), and record pre-planned temperature readings
Have all the students take temperatures at these pre-determined locations at simultaneous fixed time intervals on the same day.
That would allow you to produce a one day snapshot of the thermal profile for the entire grid area at very high resolution.
Repeat the exercise on several random days.
Some enterprising graduate student could write a thesis on this and do the world a major favor in documenting the daily thermal profile of a community at high resolution.
You could even include some “poor location measurement sites” like roof tops, near roadways etc as reference controls to show how badly such locations bias the apparent temperature of the city.
Any meteorology professors or related professions willing to organize such a One Days Temperature Profile project?
Larry
It seems to me that it wouldn’t cost much or take a lot of staffing to do studies of UHI effects, and that there could be a lot of bang for the buck in the results (whichever way they turn out). (Even college or high school kids could do some of them as a project.) This is the “unknown” that could be most quickly resolved. So I hope .1% of that money intended for climate modeling supercomputers gets diverted into this area.
No, at least 10% should be directed to UHI studies, with the bulk of that money going to the Surfacestations Project, the recognized pioneer and leader in such studies.
I did not purchase the article, and so did not read the citations. I can only hope that the work of Watts et al. was cited and credited.
Once again, the Hinkel study of the situation at Barrow, Alaska, is instructive, i.e., a community doesn’t have to be what is commonly thought of as “urban” to experience a significant UHI effect. Because Barrow roughly doubled in size since 1979 (to about 4,700), the increase in cold season average temps with UHI effect looks a lot like Dr. Mann’s hockey stick.
If the other high latitude stations in Alaska, most if not all on airports, are similarly affected, though likely less than fast-growing Barrow, the flat to negative temperature trend at http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/7708Change.html may in reality be a lot steeper negative.
ISER recently completed a study of economic consequences of climate change in Alaska. I warned them (pre-PDO shift) that examining nothing but positive temperature trends may leave us short of well-thought-out alternative adaptive measures if the climate instead cools. I guess they weren’t being paid to look at that possibility.
Paul
Could this be Phil Jones trying to back-pedal in an effort to put “space” between him and an alleged fraud over a paper demonstrating the lack of UHI effect in China?
See http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm
ak (07:56:00) saith: “…if a site has always been in a city, the data is still valid for showing the temperature at that location and likewise, the temporal trends. should we stop using data from a site because in 1940 it was in a field and a forest has grown up around it since?”
Great point, ak. The answer is clearly ‘yes,’ especially if it’s a forest of buildings. Yes, UHIs will not affect (*) any current short-term trends. But they’ve already affected the long-term trends (1940 to present) that are used to pretend to show AGW. Something else must now be done to add more fictitious AGW at the same high rate. Something like, say, tampering with the old records. Do we know anyone who would do such a desperate thing?
(*) exception: heavy asphalt coverage will accentuate even short-term urban heating trends. On a very hot day, asphalted areas can jump ~20°F when the rest of the city is only going up ~10°F. Too bad if there’s a sensor there.
And don’t forget, guys. On April 1, everybody move your BBQ another three feet closer to the sensor. (jk)
MattN (10:10:46) sez: “Lemme see if I can guess RC’s response: ‘It doesn’t matter…’”
or “UHI is an outmoded concept.”
Adam (10:36:30) :
So, where does the warming trend come from in the satellite data??
Dr John Christy cites in this debate that satellite data is contaminated by UHI. Listen to the part when he talks about Sierra Nevada. The satellite data for the towns in the valley show warming whereas in the mountains and troposphere there is next to nothing.
http://jlf.streamhammer.com/speakers/globalwarmingdebate021109.mp4
Check out SurfaceStations.org for information on station siting. I believe Anthony is working on a study along those lines, but doesn’t have all the data in yet.
In answer to your question — Yes, stop using that data to show climate change. It may be valid to use to gauge changes in the local, microclimate, but when you include that site in the global dataset, it contaminates the data and shows more warming than actually happened.
The ‘average surface temperature’ or ‘average temperature anomaly’ are estimates. The raw data is manipulated, averaged, weighted and adjusted 8 ways to Sunday to reach those numbers. Bad data caused by UHI causes artificially high estimates.
Some of the more cynical ones of us think GISS uses surface stations for their data for this very reason, but that’s a story for a different time.
Hansen is stirring up more trouble along with the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/18/nasa-climate-change-james-hansen
How dare he say that the democratic process is being undermined when nearly all dissenting scientists are being told to shut up or insulted?
How dare he say that the democratic process is being undermined when the taxpayer has not had a say on whether they want to pay behaviour change taxes?
How dare he say that the democratic process is being undermined when electorate clearly don’t vote for the Green’s hysterical issues?
How dare he say that the democratic process is being undermined when he has the majority of politicians kissing up to global warming and the taxes it could bring government?
How dare he say that the democratic process is being undermined when the public clearly do not believe in global warming hysteria?
How dare he say that the democratic process is being undermined when he has been manipulating science that is funded by the taxpayer?
How dare he say that the democratic process is being undermined when the Greens have shown they have no respect for the democratic process every time they use physical and verbal attacks against industry?
How dare he say that the democratic process is being undermined by corporate lobbying when corporations donate vast sums of money to environmental groups and science?
Posted this at real climate just to see if I got a response.
Rob Says:
18 March 2009 at 12:22 PM
Does CO2 drive temperature rise or is it just UHI, according to the Jones et al study of 2008 40% of the increase in global temperature from 1951 to 2004 is from the Urban heat island effect.
In it, Jones identifies an urban warming signal in China of 0.1 degrees C per decade. Or, if you prefer, 1 degree C per century.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008JD009916.shtml
[Response: Read the paper a little more carefully. Jones et al suggest an urban effect in china (not globally) that reduces the regional trend (1950-2004) from ~1.3 deg C to 0.8 deg C. Still plenty of non-urban warming. Note too that this is with respect to nearby ocean temperatures which is not ideal. – gavin]
The Royal Meteorological Society of the UK is running an experiment for schools on the subject of UHI.
Interesting project and along the lines I was thinking but not enough control over the precision (garden thermometers) with no effort to calibrate to even the low tech water ice solution leaves a considerable margin of error in the measurements, although the data is good as a point of reference on how to set up a more controlled sample.
http://www.metlink.org/urban/index.php
http://www.metlink.org/images/urban/uhi-manchester.gif
Larry
Isnt the UHI a transient effect?
One day open field, 1 year later surrounded by houses. 10 years later surrounded by houses. 11 years later surrounded by more houses. etc.
In this scenario there should be 2 step increases in temp. There is unlikely to be a steady rise as most show!
Bill
For those of you wanting to rush out and study UHI effects. Settle down! This has been done for years. Pick up a copy of any 100 level college text for Physical Geography and look in the index. One on my shelf references the following: T.R.Oke, 1978, Boundary Layer Climates, Methuen & Co. p.254. Note the date. This is not a new idea. We’ve been teaching it for years to first year college students.
Aron (11:38:16) :
“Dr John Christy cites in this debate that satellite data is contaminated by UHI. Listen to the part when he talks about Sierra Nevada. The satellite data for the towns in the valley show warming whereas in the mountains and troposphere there is next to nothing.”
Sorry, John Christy has already answered this question directly on a previous blog post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/08/putting-a-myth-about-uah-and-rss-satellite-data-to-rest/
——————————————–
Anthony inquired:
“I’ve had some queries on my blog recently that are suggesting that the UAH and RSS satellite data is somehow “tuned” to the surface data, or that the surface data is used to provide some offset function. Given that the MSU looks at microwave emissions from oxygen, essentially a first principles measurement, I don’t see any reason that surface data would be used in any way to adjust the MSU data.
But I figured I’d ask the source, if you’d care to elaborate. If not, no worries.”
To which Dr. Christy graciously responded within a couple of hours:
“No other data are used in the construction. That is why we can do comparison studies without any interdependence.”
——————————————————–
I didn’t get to watch your video link, but, based on John Christy’s response above, I wouldn’t be surprised if you took him out of context.
[1] IPCC assumes that UHI is < 0.05C per century, and can therefore be discarded as noise.
[2] Jones (who is the previous authority relied upon by the IPCC) finds a UHI of approx 0.1C per decade, in China from 53 Years of data.
[3] For the same time frame (53 yrs) he finds “real” warming of 0.81C.
This suggests that he found
[4] A total warming signal of 0.81(AGW) + 0.5(UHI) = 1.31C over a 50 Year period.
So he gets to have his cake (AGW) and eat it too (refer to the data).
It’s possible that Jones is intellectually backing away from AGW.
The bottom line however is that the IPCC are out by a factor of 20.
Real Climates response (Ref Rob (11:54:43) : above) just puts the emphasis on the AGW signal and ignores the UHI elephant that has entered the room. It also gives no reason why the results for Urban China are not applicable anywhere else.
Is there something fundamentally different in Chinese cities – I think not.
Aaron, the green tranzies, Greenpeace, WWF and Sierra Club, amongst others, force their aggenda upon democratically elected governments in through coercion and vandalism.
“Millenarianism (also millenarism) is the belief by a religious, social, or political group or movement in a coming major transformation of society after which all things will be changed in a positive (or sometimes negative or ambiguous) direction.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenarianism
Of the same kind of “cargo cults”, with the difference that the cargo now is a carbon cargo vessel.
Someone asked me the other day what “sceptics” would start talking about now that La Nina and solar minimum had passed and global warming ceased to be hidded by these two short term factors.
My response – they would start to attack the “data”.
If nothing else you are predictable. Those who think this is a bombshell have not bothered to read the literature and failed geography (noting the planet is 70% water).
In Gavin’s reply to Rob’s post on RC, he replies to say the study was in China and not a global one. Of course this is correct, but last time I checked China was still part of the globe, and despite their communist system, physical processes work there exactly the same as they do everywhere else.
from the abstract:
“Both of these UHIs however do not contribute to warming trends over the 20th century because the influences of the cities on surface temperatures have not changed over this time.”
Do they have a plot for “the influences of the cities on surface temperatures” ?
(I do not want to buy the article). Or is it an assumption?
I think that a lot more gas oil and coal have been burning ( viz the CO2 curve) since WWII than before. With increasing affluence in the west came increasing number of cars and carelessness in heating economies, imo.
What I have never understood about the London “no increased UHI over this period” is that London had many more “man made” autumn, winter, spring, fog days in the early part of the 20th Century than it does now (almost none), so how did Jones adjust for this?
Intuitively, I would have thought that fog days makes the climate appear much colder by depressing the daytime temperatures.
“DJ (12:38:08) :
Someone asked me the other day what “sceptics” would start talking about now that La Nina and solar minimum had passed and global warming ceased to be hidded by these two short term factors.
My response – they would start to attack the “data”.
If nothing else you are predictable. Those who think this is a bombshell have not bothered to read the literature and failed geography (noting the planet is 70% water).”
someone obviously failed spelling……
Did you see “The prophecy”?…We all know that the guy is a grown up by now..
Guess what his name is?
I have a question for Dr. Christy. Do the satellites have sufficient resolution to demonstrate UHI if the correct procedures were implemented?
Could this latest paper from Phil Jones be an attempt to distance himself from an alleged use of fraudulent data in a previous paper which “demonstrated” that UHI was “insignificant”?
See http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm
If cities exhibit the UHI effect and they surely do then as this heat rises from the cities it will have some effect on the atmosphere above the city. Does anyone know of any studies as to what altitude this effect would be measurable and to what effect this would have on the satallite measurements?
If UHI is real (which everyone agrees it is) and satellites are reading actual temperature (which I believe to be the case), then at lower altitudes (“near surface layer” http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/amsutemps.html ) uncorrected satellite data has to include UHI effects. Since (I assume) UHI represents a smaller percentage of satellite data (RSS and UAH) relative to land based data (GISS and HadCRUT), the satellite data should give a more accurate (but not uncontaminated) global temperature.
Two Questions:
1 – Is satellite data corrected for UHI, if so how?
2 – How high does the UHI effect extend?
“We show examples of the UHIs at London and Vienna, where city center sites are warmer than surrounding rural locations. Both of these UHIs however do not contribute to warming trends over the 20th century because the influences of the cities on surface temperatures have not changed over this time
I’ve come late to this discussion and others have commented before but the above statement by Jones must be rubbish. To claim that London and Vienna in 1900 are comparable with London and Vienna in 2000 is absurd. There is no way their UHI effect can not have grown!
Now we know. When your mom screamed “Fer Crissakes close the door! Do you want to heat the whole outdoors?” She was right.
Aron (11:38:16) :
“Dr John Christy cites in this debate that satellite data is contaminated by UHI. Listen to the part when he talks about Sierra Nevada. The satellite data for the towns in the valley show warming whereas in the mountains and troposphere there is next to nothing.”
is this what you mean ?
as warm air goes up, it should also increase satellite temperatures in the lower troposphere.
as satellite data is not corrected for this effect, satellite temperatures are to high and their uptrend is also too steep.
Corrected ground based data should be lower than uncorrected satellite data. as ground based data is not lower, their uhi correction is too small.
as uhi correction is too small in ground based data, increasing uhi results in a too steep uptrend.
Forgive my ignorance, but can’t satellites take an IR image (like the FLIR images you posted of weather stations) that will show that actual warming of the city compared to surrounding area?
I will have to watch the video again, but what Dr Christy cites is that the Sierra Nevada Valley where he grew up shows warming because it is no longer a desert – it is now covered with towns, roads, sidewalks, car parks, vineyards, farms, etc so the temperatures have seen a rise there (UHI).
If there was “global warming” (as opposed to just lots of urban warming) then warming should also be evidence at higher altitudes around the valley but there is no warming occurring.
If the widely scattered thermometers were used only for determining local temperatures, and not applied to any further use, no problem. But these widely scattered thermometers are being used to determine the temperatures of huge amounts of air.
So take a large test tube 2/3rds full of water, with a thermometer in it, touching the bottom of the test tube, and hang the test tube in the lab. Noted temperature changes would at least come close to reflecting the overall temperature of the water in the test tube.
Then apply a bunson burner to the very bottom of the test tube for perhaps 30 to 40 seconds. Would the temperature measured by the thermometer still give a valid reflection of the average temperature of the water in the entire test tube? Of couse it wouldn’t.
The thermometers used for determining temperatures of huge quantities of air will always be sensitive to local changes of temperature which in no way can be applied on the broader scale.
Attempting to use so few thermometers for such a broad purpose is the height of foolishness. To then do some sort of averaging and say that the results represent the average temperature of a hemisphere or the entire planet is beyond foolhardy. And it surely has nothing to do with valid science, or proper scientific method.
I agree with you. Lou Dobbs of CNN said the other night that world population would reach 9 billion or so. I pointed out to Lou (because he failed to) that world population growth has been declining for a long time and is now at approximately 1.0% , down from over 2% around 1962.
Census Link
The fact is, the world population growth rate has been declining since around 1962 and is projected to continue to decline well into the 2050’s and perhaps beyond. The wealthiest countries in the world have the lowest population growth rates, as well as the lowest mortality rates (best of both worlds). The lesson here is that the better off a population is (wealth, prosperity, technology) the lower the population growth rate and the higher quality and longevity of life. Cap’N Trade and various CO2 taxation schemes, will surely work to undermine prosperity and the associated benefits. Further, the greater the prosperity in developed countries (such as the US), the lower the population growth rate in undeveloped countries (trickle down effect) as their own prosperity rises as well. Cap’N Trade and other CO2 taxation schemes will impact these undeveloped countries the most.
If cities exhibit the UHI effect and they surely do then as this heat rises from the cities it will have some effect on the atmosphere above the city.
Yes, but Roy you are not supposed to measure air above a city. That is just asking for contamination.
We shouldn’t be measuring temperatures in or near cities as a proxy for global warming trends in the first place. It should only be in the countryside, out in a field, and up a pole.
Every single surface station that isn’t like that should be scrapped, unless urban warming trends have scientific value.
Dr. Jones says:
I’m assuming, perhaps wrongly, that he means they haven’t changed in relation to rural sites in the surrounding areas.
I simply fail to see how you can introduce hundreds of thousand cars in London over the span of 100 years, and not effect urban temperatures. And that is just cars. Are they saying that conditions are exactly the same in 1900 as they were in 2000?
>someone obviously failed spelling……
Neil, perhaps you might tells us how large the UHI island effect must be to explain global warming given earth’s geography.
I look forward to your response.
A correction for the urban heat island (UHI) effect is applied to many temperature stations. However, this paper by DeGaetano and Allen indicates that these corrections are not efficient.
For 1960–96, they looked at the temperature records that showed the most extremes in maximums and minimums, greater than the 90th, 95th or 99th percentiles. They found, for example, that the rate of increase in extreme warm minimum temperatures at urban stations to be nearly three times greater than the rate of increase at rural stations (those less affected by growing urban heat islands).
Trends in Twentieth-Century Temperature Extremes across the United States
Arthur DeGaetano and Robert Allen
Journal of Climate Vol. 15 (2002) 3188–3205
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0442(2002)015%3C3188%3ATITCTE%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Another article on the inefficiency of urban heat island corrections. Changnon looked at 50 years of rural soil temperature measurements and found UHI-corrected data to overestimate the temperature change. He found that the stated increase of 0.6° was too large by 0.2°C.
A Rare Long Record of Deep Soil Temperatures Defines Temporal Temperature Changes and an Urban Heat Island
Stanley A. Changnon
Climatic Change Vol. 42 (1999) 531-538
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v4h5r00770rn4782/
Abstract:
A long-term set of deep soil temperature data collected over a 64-year period beginning in 1889 in a rural Illinois area provide a rare opportunity to assess the natural shifts in temperatures in a pristine environment without any urban or instrument bias. Temperatures from 1901 to 1951 increased 0.4 °C, and this was 0.2 °C less than nearby values from two high quality surface temperature data sets that supposedly are without any influence of urban heat islands, shifts in station locations or instrumentation, or other changes with time. Comparison of the soil values with surface air temperatures from a nearby weather station in a growing university community revealed a heat island effect of 0.6 °C. This value is larger than the adjustment based on population that has been recommended to eliminate the urban bias in long-term temperature trends in the U.S. Collectively, the results suggest that additional efforts may be needed to eliminate the urban influence on air temperatures, beyond techniques that simply use population as the basis. Population is only an approximation of urban factors affecting surface temperatures, and the heat island influences inherent in the values from weather stations in smaller communities which have been used as control, or data assumed to be unaffected by their urban environment in the adjustment procedures, have not been adequately accounted for.
Doing the “best you can” with inadequate resources is most often counter-productive, and in a goodly number of instances, is far worse than doing nothing at all. Applying data which is sketchy at best, and then killing the economies of most of our world by applying the results of these inadequate resources to cause great increases in our costs of energy is a crime against all humanity.
I believe the UHI definitely exists and greater than most was assert, however, I do not believe its contribution to actual global temperatures is measurable. Those “extra acres” you are talking about, amount to not even a drop in the bucket … not measurable. The impact is not the additional heat that UHI contributes to global temperature, the impact is our MEASURING of the global temperature.
There is a pretty good summary paper on UHI if anyone is interested:
Rizwan Ahmed Memon, Dennis Y.C. Leung & Liu Chunho (2008), ‘A review on the generation, determination and mitigation of Urban Heat Island’, Journal of Environmantal Sciences 20, pp. 120-128.
Having been involved (decades ago) in intercept and relay of weather data broadcasts from Southern China, I will note that the CW broadcasts were very reliable and started precisely when scheduled.
Their reports were (mostly) Synoptic and so contained much more than just temperatures. But the question to be asked is how good was the data from these Chinese stations? My suspicion is that the observations were more accurate than the majority of our USGHCN stations at present, but then that is pure speculation.
John, you wrote, “Can someone explain to me how surface station readings impact satellite readings (in laymans terms)? I’m curious to understand it better.”
Surface readings do not impact satellite readings. They’re two totally different measurements. There’s a minor problem on this thread–multiple problems being jumbled under a single heading of Urban Heat Island. The first problem is weather station siting, which Anthony is studying and reporting on at his Surface Stations website and here at WUWT. That’s not Urban Heat Island effect. That’s poor temperature sampling. Satellites would not have that sampling problem.
Urban Heat Island effect is primarily caused by changes to the land surface that results from urban development. Satellites will pick up this phenomenon and include it in their readings.
Many researchers consider UHI to have a small impact on global temperatures. Are they right? Land surface area only represents ~30% of the globe. How much of that 30% is actually urban area or rural area that’s impacted by the urban development?
I think the anxiety over this subject is caused by the way land surface temperatures appear to have accelerated since 1975 or so, where sea surface temperatures have not accelerated. (SSTs from 1975 to present have the same rate of rise as the warming period in the first half of the 20th century.) Some of this additional warming of land surfaces IS caused by urban development. Some of it is caused by the poor weather station siting. Some of it is caused by the impacts of natural ocean variability (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and El Nino-Southern Oscillation) on land surface temperatures and the fact that the ocean cycles were in synch (which isn’t always the case). And some of it appears as polar amplification, which is a natural response when global temperatures rise.
Did that help, or did I confuse matters more?
More fear factor from the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/18/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-melt
It’s like they get together every morning and say “How much old news can we keep repeating until people believe it to be true?”
Here in the UK we have had the coldest winter in the past 10 years or so. TV Weather forecasts during that time have regularly quoted temperature forecasts in cities with rural temperatures expected to be 3 to 4 degrees C lower. That, if nothing else, is surely a clear demonstration of the recognition of the UHI effect by professional meteorologists whose professional competence is tested daily. Who to believe; these weather forecasters or some “climate scientist”? I know who my money is on.
OT a little, my bad.
Our local “Science” Guy (hey, at least I didn’t use that pesky latinate SIC) at the Houston Chronicle (locally called the Comical) has posted a telephone interview with Joe Bastardi. (BTW, I love that guy, and not ONLY for his excellent name. Talk about latinate.)
This particularly caught my eye:
Still, Joe is picking 13 named storms for this year, which is above the long-term average for the Atlantic of 10 named storms a year. This is because he says the new leadership of the National Hurricane Center tends to name about two storms more a year that wouldn’t have been named a decade or two ago. . ..
[WHAT??? Did I get to the party late? When did this happen? Doesn’t “a decade or two ago” correspond to The Era of Hansen, which, I recall, started circa 1988??
So how is an INTEGER NUMBER of NAMED STORMS “data”, if the criteria changed? Why not use only an estimate of total cyclonic energy or such? As usual, Just curious.]
See the full skreed at http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2009/03/joe_bastardi_ma_1.html
DJ (12:38:08) :
Someone asked me the other day what “sceptics” would start talking about now that La Nina and solar minimum had passed and global warming ceased to be hidded by these two short term factors.
My response – they would start to attack the “data”.
If nothing else you are predictable. Those who think this is a bombshell have not bothered to read the literature and failed geography (noting the planet is 70% water).
DJ – It has always been about the data!
Please start with http://www.surfacestations.org/ and provide a good reason why a poorly sited network of stations with a large number of rural station drop-outs can be trusted to measure global warming?
Then follow with the extensive discussion of the Mannian Hockey Stick at http://www.climateaudit.org/ and explain how Mann’s data can be trusted to explain away the existence of natural variation in climate over the last 1000 years (i.e. disappearance of the MWP and the Little Ice Age)?
Could you also please explain why accessing the data and methods of Climate Scientists is so difficult – why is there an absence of openess and transparency in the Climate Sciences?
Also if the AGW Data is so solid – why is there an almost comprehensive reluctance by AGW Proponents to engage in open televised debate?
Do you consider the running of Computer Models to be “Data”? If so, how is that data validated?
LarryOldtimer (13:42:47) :
All you are measuring are micro climates surrounding the weather stations and those weather stations which were once rural are now mainly urban, no brainier. To many experts not enough common sense.
Quoting:
“A problem arises in that if UHI effects could account for much if not all of the observed warming then where does that leave the supposed effects of a high level of solar activity and a positive PDO with an exceptional dominance of El Nino during the same period ?”
Commenting:
As I see it, much, if not all UHI and much if not all solar activity and PDO/El nino, are not exclusive, but complementary – and leave little room for AGW.
Also, I think you may well see more of the second tier in the alarmist camp putting out CYA papers like this. ‘Tis they who are finding graffiti on the room separators.
And they want a little plausible deniability.
“We show examples of the UHIs at London and Vienna, where city center sites are warmer than surrounding rural locations. Both of these UHIs however do not contribute to warming trends over the 20th century because the influences of the cities on surface temperatures have not changed over this time.”
That assumes a heat sink does not exaggerate a warming trend, and I suspect it does indeed.
Bob (09:09:19) :
I don`t get it, why would Jones publish such a study.
It so happens that last Sunday Peter Risdon reported that right now mathematician Doug Keenan is seeking to have Jones’ co-author Prof Wang prosecuted for fraudulent falsification of data relating to UHI, that was key information for the IPCC. Not just that, but there is evidence of conspiracy to conceal the truth by the first disciplinary inquiry, that is surfacing with Dr Keenan’s second request.
>Also if the AGW Data is so solid – why is there an almost comprehensive reluctance by AGW Proponents to engage in open televised debate?
Science debates don’t play out in the media. They play out in science journals. A media debate is designed to influences minds and policy assisted by media norms which give people the false impression that the “sceptics” have science to offer.
According to the IEA, the US consumed about 1.03*10^29 joules in 2002. Assuming it all ended up as heat, that worked out to about 0.34 watts/m^2 for the US.
According to Vincent Gray, it was 0.81 watts/M^2 for California, 89.2 watts/m^2 for San Francisco, and 221.6 watts/m^2 for Essen Germany. This compares to slightly less than 4 watts/m^2
for a doubling of CO2 for the earth as a whole.
Besides adjusting for albedo in the UHI effect, you’ve also got to adjust for energy usage. I have a sneaking suspicion this urban factor is also a major reason for a majority of the warming showing up at night, and during the winter.
Scientific journals are not the final arbiter of truth in science, nor are consensus surveys.
http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/index.html
DJ,
In a field as primitive as climate science it would be quite easy for prof. lindzen to demonstrate that mr. gore, mr. mann et altri have no science to offer, and others like mr. hansen, schneider and media are spreading fears beyond what is declared scientific consensus.
DJ:
As a matter of fact, DJ, you’re wrong once again. Science debates don’t play out in science journals. Not when the debates concern a skeptical argument regarding global warming: click
As even you can see, skeptical scientists are being deliberately stonewalled. The information in that link was taken from another link in the comment by Lucy Skywalker immediately above your post.
The outright fraud that is being perpetrated in the peer-review and scientific publication industry is becoming increasingly well documented. In this particular case, over $7 million in grants were paid out of the public treasury, based on outright global warming fraud.
You’re on the criminals’ side of the argument, DJ. And your argument has been reduced at last to: “…media norms which give people the false impression that the ‘sceptics’ have science to offer.”
Pathetic.
I realize this is OT for this particular article, but there are some interesting articles here ( http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Ingles/Crista.html ) about the Antarctic ozone hole, including discussion of the complexities of the Antarctic vortex. ( http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Ozo/vortex.html ). There is some passing discussion of global warming theory there as well.
I’ve found that many parallels can be drawn between the dishonest way the world has been tricked into abandoning useful chemicals such as DDT, and CFCs, and the new nonsense about CO2.
It has been argued that the loss of DDT for control of disease carrying insects, and CFCs for safe, reliable refridgeration, have cost millions of lives around the world. How many people will the CO2 scare cost?
I think this paper is also related to the Aerosols issue as well.
With the asian brown cloud happening, they have to be able to explain why temps in China and India are not falling right now. In fact, if you look at the current February Anomaly at Hadley Centre (Jones’ agency), Asia is the big hotspot on the planet.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/index.html
They should have seen a decline in temps recently with less sunlight getting down to surface (a recent paper put the effect at -4 W/m2 right now, significantly larger than the GHG forcing to date).
There is a new Aerosols database that has been produced and the climate modelers desperately need to build bigger Aerosols impacts into the models.
It makes no logical sense to include these bigger numbers if the area and the latitudes that should be cooling off the most right now due to effect are, in fact, warming faster than anywhere else.
Hence, the exclusion of London and Vienna as well from the new urban heat island estimates since these areas have had a significant reduction in Aerosols – there is not enough warming in these two cities to fit in both UHI and an increase in temps due to declining Aerosols.
Aerosols up, temps up, big UHI impact – Aerosols down, temps flat, no UHI impact to account for.
Jones has not been known to take a hit for the Team before but since he was one of the original authors which set the UHI impact at just 0.05C and it now turns out to be based on “iffy” data and it doesn’t fit where they need to go now, he has put forward the new UHI proposal.
A hypothetical question: If an AGW promoter began to realise that “things are not as bad as previously thought” and/or ” a diminishing number of peer-reviewed scientists now accepts that AGW is real”, thereby suffering a crisis of faith; would he/she tell the world about it, or just quietly disappear?
My point? Perhaps there are now a lot fewer AGW promoters out there “than previously thought”.
“DJ (13:51:43) :
>someone obviously failed spelling……
Neil, perhaps you might tells us how large the UHI island effect must be to explain global warming given earth’s geography.
I look forward to your response.”
When you cast aspersions that we have all failed geography, I thought you might have had your own post in order seeing the obvious intellectual superiority you are implying for yourself. However, as to your question.
I didn’t fail geography at school, in fact I even managed to stumble on and get a university degree as a Bachelor of Architecture, in which there was a modicum of science relating to buildings and building materials. A subject called Building Science as I recall.
Please see Anthony’s transect across Reno at the very top of this thread, which is an actual experiment (as opposed to a computer model) taking continuous temperature measurements on a drive across and back from one side of Reno to the other. It clearly shows around 5 – 6F difference from the centre to the rural outskirts. Lets take GISS as an example. Apparently there is some very minor form of adjustment, around 0.05C for UHI effects in their algorithms. But the majority of the stations used by GISS are in medium to large cities and at airports as well at sewage treatment plants, and rural stations have been steadily dropped off the list. Total stations now used by GISS have dropped significantly in recent years. Therefore it is not hard to see, especially with the very low % of well sited stations in the USHCN that Anthony has documented, that the medium/large city temperatures, along with poorly sited stations, tend to dominate the record. This is how I see the UHI effect not being given sufficient credence in the temperature record.
Oh, and last time I looked at the temperature metrics there has been cooling for the last decade.
How does all this mesh with the temperature records of non UHI areas that show warming over the past century?
p.s. where did the other thread go? A correction would have been brave and honest… but deleting it and sweeping it under the carpet?? Now how will all the sceptics who read it on much less credible blogs than this one learn that it was in fact an incorrect article that made fraudulent claims about temperature records… ahh well. Obviously this is in the wrong thread and will get deleted, fair enough, but those who count will read it at least;)
Reply: It appears to be currently under revision, but I don’t know. I would appreciate you’re toning it down a bit. I’ve been quite lax with you up til now ~ charles the moderator.
REPLY: No pleasing this guy. He complains if it’s up, complains if it’s not. He just assumes he knows the reason and then proceeds to denigrate based on that. Could in be that I’m attempting to get in touch with Lorne Gunter? Could it be that I’m editing it and I don’t want people like yourself, poised to pounce, to read it mid-edit since WordPress autosaves while edits are going on?
Matt, you’ve lost the right to criticize now, since you just assumed you “know” and proceeded to comment on my “bravery and honesty” without having one iota of information to back up that claim. Also, although you would apparently like it to be so, I won’t edit Gunters words until he does so. He’s the author, the correction should lie with him. – Anthony Watts
Should it be removed under revision? It was being revised while still posted yesterday.
My hunch is that it has warmed, just not as much. One of the possible reasons why we had such a jump in temps is station drop out. That can screw up a clean research project any day of the week. The variables related to station temperature are numerous, which would require a large sample size in order to avoid false positives (nonrandom variation) and handle expected random variations in order to calculate significant trends. If your sample size changes dramatically, and in a consistent way (IE rural station dropout) midway through your data collection period, any results have to be suspect. You cannot rule out false positives.
‘Is there something fundamentally different in Chinese cities – I think not.’
Agreed. But what is distinctive is that the period in question (especially the latter half) experienced extremely rapid urbanisation across China – possible the most extensive and rapid urbanisation ever in history. And of course, while the impact on recorded temperature has been the most marked in the region, it has also contributed to inflating the global average, just as all previous periods of urbanisation in different parts of the globe have done. These have all incrementaly inflated the global average and (as someone pointed out: once a city warms it stays warm) that inflation continues to be present.
It would be interesting to trace the history of GISS global hotspots and compare them to the historical record of regional urbanisation. More importantly what needs to happen (and Hadley now has a duty to make this happen), is that all instances of UHI inflation need to be expunged from the record. My bet is that this would make comments like “2008 was the nth warmest in history” sound much less alarming.
Here is the experiment I want to see:
–Select a sample of cities with a variety of conditions. Windy, non-windy, desert, jungle, tundra, agricultural, sheltered, open, whatever. Mix and match.
–Use surface level sensors, as we are primarily interested in UHIE on the USHCN network. (This is important.)
–Sensors would be placed at varying points in the cities, and CRN-compliant sites outside (upwind, downwind, and crosswind).
–You’d need maybe a hundred sensors. Maybe 200, depending on your sample size. Standard-issue MMTS units would be preferable, but, OTOH, it might be more practical to use the self-contained, fully automated (and much cheaper) stuff. In quantity you could probably snag those for maybe $100 to $300 per unit.
Also, cheaper, better equipment would allow both hourly measurements and a Tmax/Tmin calculation. And they store the data automatically, so no need for daily readings and (joy of joys) no missing records. No FILNET. So long as the equipment is compatible, you’d probably get more experimental bang for the buck than by going the non-MMTS/Nimbus route.
–Run the experiment for at least a full year, making sure the stations were properly maintained and that the microsite remains constant.
This begs untested theory, variable atmospheric layers, what have you, and measures UHI effect the same way the GHCN does. In your face, down and dirty, and strictly empirical.
Until this is done, we WON’T REALLY KNOW.
Funding, anyone?
Oh, finger problem. Before someone picks it up and nitpicks, make that “2008 was the nth warmest on record”
what is the percentage of sites that are in urban vs. non-urban locations for GISS and HadCRUT?
For the US (USHCN):
Rural: 820
Suburban: 287
Urban: 113
REPLY: Unfortunately, many of the “rural” sites have serious microsite bias issues. – Anthony
‘Funding, anyone?’
For experimental, empirical climate research? Now that would novel. But someone might then miss out on their supercomputer upgrade.
I believe the best measurement of the total heat in the Earth climate system is by measuring the temperature of the water near the ocean floor away from strong currents. Find the places around which the various currents circulate and measure the temperature there near the ocean floor.
The temperature there will be very stable, not moving between day/night and probably not seasonally either. Any change you get in temperature should give you a very accurate picture of overall change in the Earth’s climactic temperature. No UHI problems, no siting problems, no weather problems. It just is what it is.
Stephen Wilde (07:42:59) :
A problem arises in that if UHI effects could account for much if not all of the observed warming then where does that leave the supposed effects of a high level of solar activity and a positive PDO with an exceptional dominance of El Nino during the same period ?
Large troubles a head… but the more honest info comes out the better.
Anthony’s stations project is one.
MattB (18:55:09) :
How does all this mesh with the temperature records of non UHI areas that show warming over the past century?
It’s being worked on!!!!!
Charles……..LOL 🙂
Satellite measurements are adjusted and calibrated using surface temp records.
Dr. Christy says not. Him I trust.
But bear in mind that what the sats are measuring is lower troposphere (etc.) by microwave proxy. That is not a direct measurement and lower trop is expected to increase at a faster rate than surface (1.2 to 1.4 depending on latitude). Those conversions are problematic.
My my,
This little hot-bed of [snip] is hilarious. Don’t you guys realise that REAL climatologists have long since thought of, quantified, refined and included the (very small) discrepancies due to UHI effects? Try reading a bit wider people. As Matt B asked, (that’s not me, by the way), what do you make of the fact that the clear heating trend remains unaffected when you take out the urban stations and just consider the unchanged rural ones? (with sufficient data point densities of course).
It astounds me repeatedly how similar this movement is to the creationist one, so much so that I would warrant there’s some interesting studies to be done. Straw men, half truths, outdated data, cherry picking, ‘arguments of the gaps’ ad homs, and an INCREDIBLE paucity of peer-reviewed ground-breaking published work from one side. By and large, REAL scientists don’t do this if they care about their reputations, but then that’s just the point isn’t it – it’s easy to cry out from the sidelines when you’ve never been able to create a reputation through an honest day’s work in the first place. And from what I’ve seen, there’s a distinct lack of [snip] willing to put their money where their mouth is when real bets are proffered by scientists who have an inkling of what they’re talking about.
And Crosspatch, nice idea but unfortunately the ocean floor (or near to it) is not just some static entity that is necessarily representative of the globe as a whole. It has its own microcosm of temp gradients, salinity changes, current directions/patterns, localised responses to the state of the crust below it and, most specifically, it lags centuries behind any surface changes anyway. No, the wonderful global surface averages that have been so carefully compiled over the decades, in combination with ever-improving proxies for the past are the best we have to go on and are highly valuable at that.
My hunch is that it has warmed, just not as much.
That’s my impression. My belief is that heat sink has exaggerated the warming trend. But for heat sink to exaggerate warming, there has to be warming in the first place.
REPLY: Unfortunately, many of the “rural” sites have serious microsite bias issues. – Anthony
Don’t I know it!
US Dropouts (my expanded list). Based on B91 filings. (There are a handful more on my “I have my hopes of getting their locations” list. Perhaps a half dozen.)
US Dropouts:
Rural: 70
Suburban: 21
Urban: 21
Bearing in mind what Anthony has said, above. A huge majority of those rural sites are real stinkers. (Same can be said for the entire lot, for that matter.)
It astounds me repeatedly how similar this movement is to the creationist one, so much so that I would warrant there’s some interesting studies to be done.
Urgh.
Analogies are all very well.
Shall we now consider how similar the other side of the argument is to the Revelationists? (The ones who bring a New Truth, separate the sinners from the righteous? Judgment, Rapture-ins, population reduced to eco-acceptable levels . . . end of the world Tuesday, next?)
But being an atheist (agnostic on my better days), I’d just as soon stick to the science.
And I think we all should, too.
Matt Bennett says:
You guys in the AGW movement are not very inventive when trying to put us sceptics down, are you?
For the record, I find Evolution a compelling explanation for the state of life on the Earth today, although abiogenisis is an open question at the moment.
Also, to forestall any other silly epithets you might throw my way, I am married to a person with a different skin color to mine and I have two daughters who I read books on paleo and poetry to when they were children, and I expect them both to get degrees in technical areas.
You also say:
Be more specific. Since they do not have the information that Anthony has compiled on sites across the US, and since they deny that UHI has any real influence, how can they have adjusted for it? How about in Siberia?
What is a REAL climatologist, BTW, or is that just an appeal to authority?
Ignoring for this discussion that there are proofs that the heat content of the earth has not much to do with global average temperature as it is measured either by satellite or by earth instrurments, I have a basic question:
Why is the human population and its effects on the climate to be treated as separate from the total planet?
I agree that earth instruments should be consistently sited as far as distances from sources of heat and shade, but I expect the towns to be in the measure as well as forests and dunes.
That the human population will have an effect on the temperature and its increase does not mean that it is not part of nature.
Think of a planet interspersed by innumerable termite mounds, forests, seas and deserts. If explorers measured a global temperature by satellite would they start correcting for the termite mounds?( they generate heat) Or would they treat the planet as a whole?
It is a different request to demand accurate temperatures an agreed distance from sources and sinks, and another to ignore sources and sinks on the effect on an average.
We might as well correct for forests, they are also living things that change the weather.
That a misguided scientific community decided a priori that any rise in temperature is due to CO2 rise does not mean that there is not a rise in temperature from a number of other human activities. All are within “nature” as it exists at the moment on this planet, and real scientists should be trying to untangle these.
DJ (16:51:28) :
Science debates don’t play out in the media. They play out in science journals. A media debate is designed to influences minds and policy assisted by media norms which give people the false impression that the “sceptics” have science to offer.
DJ – Examples of Sceptical Science can easily be found at http://www.drroyspencer.com/ as a start… and there are many others in the actual scientific literature.
For example Dr Spencer is finding it difficult to get his Satellite data showing negative feedback for water vapour into the current “Scientific Debate” in the journals – it seems to have something to do with the unwillingness of peer reviewers to deal with contrary hard evidence.
What do you say to that?
I agree that earth instruments should be consistently sited as far as distances from sources of heat and shade, but I expect the towns to be in the measure as well as forests and dunes.
Yes. But only in the correct proportions.
c. 3% of the land surface is urbanized/suburbanized. Yet 9% of USHCN surface stations are urban and 17% are suburban.
Matt Bennett (21:11:21) :
My my,
This little hot-bed of [snip] is hilarious. Don’t you guys realise that REAL climatologists have long since thought of, quantified, refined and included the (very small) discrepancies due to UHI effects?
So Matt,
Is UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions, challenged the IPCC’s climate claims.
“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!” Japar told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 7, 2009.
A real Climatologist?
REF: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3&Issue_id=
What do you say to that?
I say you are English or something vaguely similar as you do not put an abbreviation mark after “Dr” and spell “skeptic” with a “c”.
How about in Siberia?
Ah, yes, the GHCN Thought Criminals. I’d just love to survey those!
Matt Bennett (21:11:21) :
No, the wonderful global surface averages that have been so carefully compiled over the decades, in combination with ever-improving proxies for the past are the best we have to go on and are highly valuable at that.
Please check the many references to GISS, Hansen, and the surface station data on this site before asserting that “wonderful global surface averages that have been so carefully compiled over the decades”
Please check the many references to Mann, Hockey Stick and “The Team” at http://www.climateaudit.org/ before asserting “with ever-improving proxies for the past are the best we have to go on and are highly valuable at that”
Could you please provide links to actual hard, independently verifiable, evidence that,
[1] Man Made Emissions of CO2 will Cause Global Warming,
[2] That Global Warming will be Harmful.
[3] That Climate Change by Natural Variation does not account for current climatic trends.
[4] That the proposed mitigations of CAP and TRADE will avert the harm of Global Warming.
and
[5] That the costs of CAP and TRADE to the community will, in fact, be less than the costs of not acting.
Computer Models do not qualify as Hard, Independently Verifiable Evidence.
If you are unable to provide the above links, please admit your inability to Reason from Evidence.
Graeme Rodaughan (15:36:55) : DJ (12:38:08) :
Graeme I applaud your efforts to try educate some who post here, but I fear that in this case the adage “None so blind as he who will not see” applies.
Richard,
I applaud your obvious willingness to remain open-minded about topics, am relieved at your endorsement of the wealth of evidence behind evolution and am in no doubt that your children will be forever indebted to you for such a sound and well-rounded rearing. I mean that.
That aside, I fail to see how you’ve fallen for this one. As DJ clearly points out – the ONLY debate is that through the literature. The rest is blogs, sound bites, opinions and heresay and I’m really genuinely surprised that you have not intuited this. There IS no real doubt about AGW among those that matter, the people who’s job it is to assess climate – that’s who I mean by REAL climatologists. Not geologists, not astronomers, not physicists and not bakers, though no doubt they’ve all got their part to play. I don’t see any other topic where, for example a cardiologist will try to wax lyrical about the difficiencies in out understanding of a new type of structural architecture. (Most) people just know better than to roam outside their area of expertise and expect to be taken seriously.
ANYTHING (and I mean anything) that may affect various climate forcings will have been at least considered if not carefully quantified and accounted for long since by climatologists. They’re not stupid and of course have considered all manner of potential arbitraters and indicators of our global climate. Give them credit. You’ve been hoodwinked by various interests into believing that there still exists any real doubt about man’s devastating effects on the planet’s temperature regulation. That’s why I commented re creationism – it is a VERY similar style of ‘argument’ that ~snip~ use and is startling for its utter lack of contributive substance. Just like ID proponents need to appeal directly to the public, so too denialists must expound theories on the net and in books because anyone who’s serious about their science knows how to pick apart what they proffer. And don’t give me the ‘conspiracy’ among referees line – great science stands and falls on its substance, something that is utterly lacking in the denial of our CO2 induced creeping time-bomb.
Bob wrote:
Isnt the UHI a transient effect?
One day open field, 1 year later surrounded by houses. 10 years later surrounded by houses. 11 years later surrounded by more houses. etc.
In this scenario there should be 2 step increases in temp. There is unlikely to be a steady rise as most show!
Indeed, the situation is not so simple. There is a station set in the very center of Prague (over 1 million people) at the former Jesuite college (Klementinum) that has record over 200 years. It is not used in the world statistics, but it’s readings are homogenized for historical purposes with the nearby rural stations. There was a study that has shown an increase in UHI effect until 60’s, but further development (although slowed down) did not influence it anymore.
Matt, not many here dispute the fact that there has been some warming over the 20th Century. I think this has been exaggerated by heat-sink-due-to-microsite-violation, but for a heating trend to be exaggerated, there has to be a real heating trend to exaggerate in the first place.
That’s the “obvious” part. All well and good.
But for heaven’s sake, the adjusted (I would argue maladjusted) trend is under 0.8C for the 20th century, and we have kicked off the current century with a decade of mild cooling.
Yet the IPCC insists it’s gonna be, on average, 3.5C warmer (as high as 6C warmer) by 2100. All on account of speculated positive feedback loops–which have since been shown by the Aqua Satellite to have been coming back negative.
Yeah, we had a 20-year warming stint, prior, but the “big six” multidecadal cycles all flipped from cold to warm phase during that time. And now they are just beginning to flop back to cold phase.
Not only that, but the Sun may (possibly) be lining up for a Grand Minimum.
So I don’t think that a recently unprecedented step change to blast furnace is even evident, far less obvious. Why do you think it is obvious?
And it’s not as if environmental scientists–or demographers–have an unblemished record of prediction, either, looking back to the heyday of the Club of Rome and the Population Bomb.
So before we go tossing a third or more of world growth in the dumper (to depressingly small CO2 reductions), and with no tipping point even vaguely evident (except maybe to cooling), don’t you think the issue deserves a bit more examination?
Now that you’re here, why not take a gander at the other pov? We won’t bite you (at least not very hard). Quien sabe, we might even win you over (and you wouldn’t be the first).
Heck, it’s not completely out of the cards, you’ll win us over–all scientific questions admitting falsifiability.
Graeme,
If you are going to assert that the hockey stick is somehow fatally flawed (as an accurate representation of the past 1000 years or so) then I’m not going to waste time with you. It is one of THE most scrutinised scientific products in history and has withstood all criticism. As a test of its validity, any attempt that has been made to reconstruct recent past temps (on a global scale) ends up looking almost identical- you don’t even need to take Mann’s word for it.
I could just as easily link to 100 pages of robust rebuttal of you points (carefully laid out so even you could understand them) over at RealClimate and at least it would be coming from scientists themselves. But really, who wants to get into a ‘my linking’s quicker than yours’ battle anyway, for that’s all these things ever amount to. I will attempt to answer your specific points above when I’m not here at work, but for a start, who ever said cap and trade was the best solution? Where did I say that? It’s the science behind the validity of AGW that I’m trying to pin [snip] down on. And if you don’t believe it’s happening in the first place, what’s the need for measures to combat it? It must be fun living in the heady world of [snip]
Answer me this: where does all the extra heat go that is trapped by the undeniable rise in CO2 concentrations confirmed by the Keeling Curve and dictated by 19th century physics?
evanmjones,
There has NOT been any 21st century cooling, no matter how much you repeat that fallacy – none.
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998.php
I have certainly looked hard at your POV (mainly between about 1999 and 2003) and come to the conclusion that it is totally untenable. It takes quite some time to come to grips with all the facets of this huge problem and I will always stand ready to adjust my thinking and change my mind on the basis of contradictory evidence but that is exactly what we lack. In fact, if anything, many parameters are now tracking worst case scenario or worse as outlined by the conservative IPCC 2007 report. This really concerns me.
The Sun has been intensively studied with respect to all this and there is only ever a weak correlation and not a very predictable one at that. The fact remains, one can’t get the observed warming using any combination of known natural forcings in the absence of man-made CO2. Says it all, no?
Matt Bennett:
Tsk tsk Matt. Take a look at this:
All four global datasets.
It is well to bear in mind that it stands but indeed falls quite often. It wasn’t long ago at all that stress and spicy foods were the cause of ulcers and anyone who said otherwise was quite obviously a lunatic gibbering about utter nonsense. Perhaps a bit of a red herring of course, however what I mean to convey is not that science must be wrong now simply because it has been wrong before, but rather that claims of scientific certainty and dismissal of opposing views are not sufficient to impress me in and of themselves, because I realize paradigms are subject to shifts. I believe in evolution because I see convincing evidence; I am agnostic about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming because I do not. Once I’m satisfied that the required positive feedback mechanism has been observed in the real world, I will become as convinced as anyone, but in the meantime I’m not going to hand over most of my hard-earned income for the right to exist simply because certain people think that something might be possible.
DJ (13:51:43) wrote:
“Neil, perhaps you might tells us how large the UHI island effect must be to explain global warming given earth’s geography. I look forward to your response.”
The skeptical position isn’t that global warming can be explained away entirely by UHI, but rather that the steepness of the warming trend (and thus of alarmist projections of future warming) has been exaggerated by not comparing apples to apples. I.e., increasing urbanization around many station sites (or their relocation to more urban areas) has led to their reporting temperatures that are warmer than they would have been otherwise.
“the ocean floor (or near to it) is not just some static entity that is necessarily representative of the globe as a whole.”
And I believe it is the very BEST analog of the globe as a whole. So we can agree to disagree. Surface temperatures can very greatly. They are subjective in that they undergo various “adjustments” and moving a measuring location only a few feet can measure and entirely different micro-climate.
Climate varies on a scale of centuries, not years. And while there will be considerable lag in deep ocean temperatures, that is where the heat is. The amount of heat in the surface layer of the atmosphere is negligible compared to what is in the deep ocean. Average surface air temperatures can fluctuate a degree or more over the course of a few decades and reflect no actual global climate change, they are simply a normal cyclical variation.
Any changes in land measurements over a course of less than 60 years is “noise”. You really need a 60 year period to determine “average” or “normal” temperatures, not the 10 years we currently use. Normal natural variation seems to go in roughly 60 year cycles and so you need at least that long to capture an entire cycle.
Any changes that happen on a 10 or 20 year scale are simply blips. Here we are now not very far from the average from 1900 to 2000. If you go to NCDC, plot the latest 12 month period, you will find that we are, over the past 12 months, only fractions of a degree over the “average” temperature of the last 100 years. In other words … no climate change.
But if you want to measure the heat in the system, you need to go where the heat is stored … and that is deep in the ocean. Not on land and certainly not in the air.
If “earth” is warming at 1 degree per century, you will certainly see it there.
Matt Bennett (23:03:02) :
“…There IS no real doubt about AGW among those that matter, the people who’s job it is to assess climate – that’s who I mean by REAL climatologists. …ANYTHING (and I mean anything) that may affect various climate forcings will have been at least considered if not carefully quantified and accounted for long since by climatologists. They’re not stupid and of course have considered all manner of potential arbitraters and indicators of our global climate. Give them credit…”
———————————————-
when somebody asks to give endless credit to “real” climatolgists, peer review and settled science, I just have a look at the history of the number one scare graphics published in the number one journal and massively promoted by the IPCC, al gore and the BBC.
from the wegman and north reports:
“…The climate science community seemed unable to either refute McIntyre’s claims or accept them. The situation was ripe for a third-party review of the types that we and Dr. North’s NRC panel have done.
While the work of Michael Mann and colleagues presents what appears to be compelling evidence of global temperature change, the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as those of other authors mentioned are indeed valid.
“Where we have commonality, I believe our report and the [NAS] panel essentially agree. We believe that our discussion together with the discussion from the NRC report should take the ‘centering’ issue off the table. [Mann’s] decentred methodology is simply incorrect mathematics …. I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway.
Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.
The papers of Mann et al. in themselves are written in a confusing manner, making it difficult for the reader to discern the actual methodology and what uncertainty is actually associated with these reconstructions.
It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the [Mann] paper.
We found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling.
Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.
[The] fact that their paper fit some policy agendas has greatly enhanced their paper’s visibility… The ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction of temperature graphic dramatically illustrated the global warming issue and was adopted by the IPCC and many governments as the poster graphic. The graphics’ prominence together with the fact that it is based on incorrect use of [principal components analysis] puts Dr. Mann and his co-authors in a difficult face-saving position.
We have been to Michael Mann’s University of Virginia website and downloaded the materials there. Unfortunately, we did not find adequate material to reproduce the MBH98 materials. We have been able to reproduce the results of McIntyre and McKitrick
Generally speaking, the paleoclimatology community has not recognized the validity of the [McIntyre and McKitrick] papers and has tended dismiss their results as being developed by biased amateurs. The paleoclimatology community seems to be tightly coupled as indicated by our social network analysis, has rallied around the [Mann] position, and has issued an extensive series of alternative assessments most of which appear to support the conclusions of MBH98/99… Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.
It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent.
Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on [Mann’s work]. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2322
People like Warwick Hughes and I have emailed or written to P Jones since the early 1990s. Some of the verbatim record has already appeared on blogs. There are several issues and a few more noted here in passing.
1. In constructing an average climate for a country, the effect of selective choice of cities and towns can be huge. We pointed out to Jones that he had chosen large cities and towns for his seminal Australian calculations, while rejecting many rural sites. When asked for the records, he replied that they had been lost or that he could not obtain them. Warwick could.
2. It is hard to determine in retrospect when UHI started for a city. My “feel” (and it is only a feel) is that Melbourne where I live was about maxed out for UHI at its main weather station by around 1900. Thus, there could be some truth to Jones’ claim that London and Vienna UHI is now insignificant. It might be insignificant in the sense that it has levelled out since 1900 and that a change is now hard to discern. However, this overlooks the scientific requirement that an allowance for error should be deducted and to my knowledge, it has not always been.
3. The reports sent by authorities such as the Australian Bureau of Meteorology to assembly lines such as GISS and CRU/Hadley can contain “raw” data or “adjusted” data. The Australian BOM advised me last year that they sent out raw data as a commercial product. It is NOT raw data, it has been homogenised to a degree that is hard to reconstruct. Then, the BOM emailed to me that they have no control over what is done to the data when passed to others. It is entirely possible that the GISS and Hadley-type people apply adjustments to data that have already had adjustments which might or might not be for the same effect.
4. It is very hard to define a truly rural site and even harder to use it to correct a nearby urban UHI site. There is not enough known about the processes that link the sites to do more than a crude weighted distance correction. But 2 sites a few km apart, both considered rural, can correlate quite poorly on a daily basis, even monthly. (Like the ends of Vegas airport)
5. Something strange is going on with some surface temperatures. In some localities, in the last 40 years or so, seaside weather stations have been recording negligible temperature trends, while inland sites say 200 km or more inland, have been showing sharp increasing trends. It is possible that this effect has operated in the Antarctic, with most of the stations around the perimeter not being easily relatable to inland sites. At this stage it is my guess that the change to thermistor sensors in some countries is suspect. Some of them need to be replaced each 2 years, but I am not sure that this is always done. A candidate compounding factor might be dust or frost accumulation on the sensor.
6. There have been many studies where temperatures have been taken more or less simultaneously at many points in and around a city. It has been done for Melbourne. The BIG problem is that it is difficult to obtain the raw results of such studies; they are seldom published voluntarity to the sound of trumpets. It would not surprise me to find that Melbourne central has a +5 deg C UHI effect compared to truly rural comparison sites, averaged over a year.
7. As mercury thermometers and daily readings have been replaced by one-minute thermistors, it is possible to do filtering of spikes that might have affected thermometers. In any case, the transition from thermometer era to thermistor era would be expected to show a discontinuity, because experiments have been done that do show discontinuities. However, it appears that subjective, smoothing splicing has been done over the transition period so that the curves look unaffected. However, place yourself philosophically in the shoes of the climate scientist who finds (for argument) that thermistors routinely report a degree cooler than thermometers after de-spiking. You can make an announcement that all past data are suspect or wrong, or you can gently slide the transition into place over a number of years. Is this one reason why the global temperature is reported as either static or falling in the last decade, depending on the author? Then of course, it has to be aligned with satellite data.
Enough. Someone above asked what there was in it for Jones to make his UHI statement about China. The probable reason is that most people with an interest already knew. Besides, after a number of visits to West China in the eraly 1990s, I would disbelieve a temperature record in any case. I saw a lot of carnage that was done in the Cultural Revolution and spoke to people who had been through it. Did science function normally and calmly? Not on your nelly, mate. But that is another story.
re evanmjones (20:46:31) : 19_03_09
http://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/joe/Waters_1975.pdf
Satellite data was compared with thermometer data in the early years. I do not know how much of this calibration data, if any, is still used.
If you want to see the UHI, look here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
Try comparing Phoenix with rural surroundings or Vienna with Bratislava airport.
Matt Bennett
The fact remains, one can’t get the observed warming using any combination of known natural forcings in the absence of man-made CO2. Says it all, no?”
No it doesn’t say it all. Is this is a fact? Or your wishing it was? I think most people who regularly post at WUWT would suggest that natural climate variability is responsible for any warming that has been recorded in the late 20th century, along with the slight cooling so far this decade, with some contribution from land use changes, and a significantly smaller effect by CO2 than that posited by the IPCC. Your position seems to be that because you can’t identify what natural mechanisms may be causing the warming then it must be good old CO2. That looks more like a leap of faith.
This is all very beautful. All these eloquent comments to and fro of the sciences investigating climate change/global warming. Wonderful prose, almost poetic, but only fully understood by the scientific community. To everyone else on this planet, it is as it is – just talk. All science is pure hypothesis – an interpretation of measurement. As such it is always subject to influence, be it factual (hypothesis), political, financial, fashionable or subliminal. The majority of people in all walks of life, (including the scientific community) subscribe to general trends of opinion as a basis for forming their own opinion, subject to said influences. As beautiful as it is, scientechno speak is frustratingly useless to the general public at large. innit! Know what I mean? Givis th lowdown, the bottom line, in language my children understand.
Rather OTT I’m afraid but in case you haven’t seen it, there is now official recognition in the UK that global warming belief is effectively a religious belief.
“In the landmark ruling Tim Nicholson was told he could use employment law to argue that he was discriminated against because of his views on the environment.
The head of the tribunal ruled that those views amounted to a philosophical belief under the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations, 2003, according to The Independent”
Obviously the intent is to punish those naughty people who did not accept his religion, even when he became an outright bore about it, but this “recognition” is treating the belief as something other than a matter of science, which is inherently debatable.
Matt Bennett:
There is no reason to be concerned. This evidence directly contradicts the IPCC:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
Faced with solid contradictory evidence, it is you who are the true believer in the repeatedly falsified catastrophic AGW/CO2 hypothesis. Why is that?
There is no dispute that a very small amount of warming is attributable to human activity. But it is so tiny that, as you can see in the graphs above, it is overwhelmed by many other factors.
If that were not so, then rising carbon dioxide levels would cause global temperatures to rise. Which as everyone can see, is not occurring.
Face it, Mr. Bennett, the climate is not acting as the IPCC and the rest of the alarmist contingent desperately wants it to act: click
The planet is still naturally emerging from the last Ice Age, when Canada and the north midwestern U.S. was buried under a mile of ice. But for political, financial and personal reasons, certain people need to blame human activity for the climate’s natural long-term trend line: click
The long accepted theory of natural climate variability has been challenged by the new AGW/CO2 global warming hypothesis. That new hypothesis has failed to falsify natural variability, which remains well within normal historical parameters. The AGW/CO2 hypothesis fails, because it must explain reality better than the accepted theory, and it has not done so.
I have read your words, and it is clear that they are words without the necessary corroborating evidence that something other than natural variability explains the climate. If you are actually ready, as you say, to adjust your thinking and change your mind, then given the very strong evidence provided, it will be interesting to see if you have the character to adjust your thinking.
The alternative is to step up to the plate and falsify the long accepted theory of natural climate variability. If you can do that credibly, you will be the first to do so, and I will sit up straight and pay attention.
Matt Bennett (23:54:22) :
Answer me this: where does all the extra heat go that is trapped by the undeniable rise in CO2 concentrations confirmed by the Keeling Curve and dictated by 19th century physics?
If you could understand scientific terms, you would know there is no extra heat, just heat trapped/delayed for a while according to the equations of thermodynamics on its way to outer space.
I also remind you that 19th century physics is outdated. Was outdated from the introduction of quantum mechanics in the twentieth century. Nineteenth century physics would say there are no atoms, for example. The behavior of CO2 in the atmosphere was a hypothesis which cannot explain the observed temperature rise without unphysical ( i.e. negated by data) feedbacks with water vapor that the IPCC models have assumed.
Matt Bennett (00:05:03) :
The fact remains, one can’t get the observed warming using any combination of known natural forcings in the absence of man-made CO2. Says it all, no?
No.
There exist models that explain the warming without recourse to catastrophic CO2. It is obvious that you have not read the thread below this one:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/16/synchronized-chaos-and-climate-change/ that does describe the temperature rise without recourse to CO2, just by the circulating currents of oceans and atmosphere.
“So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,” Tsonis said.Tsonis said he thinks the current trend of steady or even cooling earth temps may last a couple of decades or until the next climate shift occurs.”
So you are dogmatic, but you are also wrong.
Matt Bennett says:
Sigh, someone who is ignorant and has not been to ClimateAudit.
No wonder you throw around epithets about creationism.
More HUA disease, it seems to me.
Regarding the discussion of valleys and surrounding mountains in California, the issue of the study was whether temperature trends support the fingerprint of AGW. After all, temperature anomalies were on the rise in the valley. Since CO2 in the atmosphere traps radiated heat (in the troposphere) and then the atmosphere further warms the surface, we would expect to see higher anomalies in higher altitudes. However, expectations (based on AGW) did not match reality. No noticeable anomaly trends were recorded higher on the mountains, but the valley did see trends toward higher anomalies. As is often found in studying climate issues, there are better explanations for developments rather than CO2-based AGW. The valley had undergone irrigation development, and increased foliage (perhaps supplemented by increased water vapor given off by plants) kept more heat near the surface of the valley.
A corollary fingerprint of AGW is that the stratosphere should cool while the troposphere warms (a faster rate than the surface.) Over the past few decades, the stratosphere has cooled, and this trend is often hailed as proof that the AGW theory is sound. However, one should always analyze data carefully before claiming victory. The significant cooling took place a couple of decades ago, and the temperature seemed to decrease in a step-down function correlated with major volcanoes that reached the stratosphere. Then stratospheric temperatures were quite flat from the end of 1994 to mid 2008, although the trend has been down in the last few months. Some scientists are discussing the role of ozone in driving stratospheric temperatures, but it appears that the science is not settled yet.
Galileo (04:20:28),
Fascinating story there. Why even have a hearing? The head of the three judge panel has already decided:
So the judge’s opinion is that the belief of the plaintiff goes beyond mere opinion.
Having a hearing after the judge’s statement seems redundant.
I asked this before but think it went unnoticed,
The Met Office claims that HadCET is adjusted for UHI but gives no detail how they make the adjustment. What is their method for removing UHI contamination from their data?
Geoff Sherrington (01:16:50) :
“2. It is hard to determine in retrospect when UHI started for a city. My “feel” (and it is only a feel) is that Melbourne where I live was about maxed out for UHI at its main weather station by around 1900. Thus, there could be some truth to Jones’ claim that London and Vienna UHI is now insignificant. It might be insignificant in the sense that it has levelled out since 1900 and that a change is now hard to discern. However, this overlooks the scientific requirement that an allowance for error should be deducted and to my knowledge, it has not always been.”
This is OK for concerns of temperature change if statement is accurate (small changes in Urban setting can still make a difference) but there is still a problem with the so called average temperature of the earth for any given time. This temperature is artificially too high and serves to provide impetus to their arguments that the 90’s was the hottest decade of the 20th century and 1998 was the hottest year. Additionally, they correct rural stations using urban values which agian creates an artifically high average earth temperature.
Jones’ 1990 paper saying that the Urban Heat Island in China was neglible and if extended to the whole world, would only result in 0.05C of UHI …
… was one of the primary principles on which global warming science was based.
All of the surface temperature data which was fed into the global warming formulae and theory was based on there being very little UHI.
When Jones was asked repeatedly to provide the data that backed up his finding, his answer was …
… “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. ”
And to this day, it has still not been provided to anyone.
And one of the fundamental conclusions of global warming science continued on for 18 years (actually GISS didn’t fully believe it and started trying to account for it in US temperatures anyway).
Now, it turns out there has been 1.0C of UHI in these same Chinese cities.
If we now extend that to the whole world, what do we get?
Well, NOTHING.
Nobody has changed the 0.05C of UHI in the global temperature record including Jones and his Hadley Centre so it has had no impact at all on anything. No climate model has been changed to account for the new numbers.
No wonder the troposphere is not warming anywhere near as fast as the models and the climate science says it should be. One-third of the surface temperature measurements contains UHI while the troposphere does not.
I imagine Matt Bennett has heard this whole story before at RealClimate so none of this will be news to him.
John Finn (10:31:19) :
Robert Wood (09:01:09) :
Satellite data.
http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt74/MartinGAtkins/UAH-GISS-Pub.jpg
DJ (12:38:08) :
Someone asked me the other day what “sceptics” would start talking about now that La Nina and solar minimum had passed
When did those events occur? Last I saw, the sun is still blank of sunspots and the nino index latest data is still in La nina conditions territory.
The IPCC drew that conclusion from the Jones et al 1990 Letter to Nature which examined temperature data from regions in Eastern Australia, Western USSR and Eastern China, to conclude that “In none of the three regions studied is there any indication of significant urban influence..” That has led to the IPCC claim that for decades, urban warming is less than 0.05 per century.
I’ve just uploaded a domain that looks at the Bureau of Meteorology temperature records over ~100 years for 32 locations across the 2.5 million square kilometres of Western Australia… http://www.waclimate.net
The data stretches back to 1876 and I’ve also compared the temperature histories of large vs small urban cities/towns/settlements, as well as coastal vs inland locations.
I’m a journalist, not a statistician, so I’m sure my comparisons will be criticised. However, skeptics and doomsayers will both be able to back their arguments from the results of the different comparison criteria.
There has NOT been any 21st century cooling, no matter how much you repeat that fallacy – none.
The 21st century began in 2001, of course, not 2000. Three out of four major metrics (UAH,RSS, HadCRUT, GISS) indicate cooling since then. Averaging them produced a slight cooling.
There was a severe el Nino in 1998, followed by a strong (and long) la Nina from 1999-2000. To avoid cherrypicking, one must include both of them IN, or include both of the OUT. Either method suits me.
I have certainly looked hard at your POV (mainly between about 1999 and 2003) and come to the conclusion that it is totally untenable.
‘WAY too early! The bulk of evidence has come well after that.
It takes quite some time to come to grips with all the facets of this huge problem and I will always stand ready to adjust my thinking and change my mind on the basis of contradictory evidence
Can’t ask for fairer than that, but . . .
but that is exactly what we lack.
For starters, I would argue that there are two strong pieces of evidence and an elimination of one contrary piece of evidence.
–The hockey-stick graph has been very thoroughly falsified (and refalsified when reissued).
–The lack of positive feedback and the presence of negative feedback, as indicated by the Aqua Satellite. (This is utterly devastating to IPCC projections).
–The severe problems with the data itself. Siting. Adjustment. Severe step changes created by Station moves, both undocumented and documented but ignored.
In fact, if anything, many parameters are now tracking worst case scenario or worse as outlined by the conservative IPCC 2007 report. This really concerns me.
Certainly CO2 emissions. But where’s the temperature rise? At best it is an underlying nudge, not a primary driver. QED
The Sun has been intensively studied with respect to all this and there is only ever a weak correlation and not a very predictable one at that.
There is a mere 0.1C variance from normal maximum to normal minimum. But I did not say “normal” minimum. I said “Grand Minimum”. As in Dalton. Wolf. Maunder. Spoerer.
The fact remains, one can’t get the observed warming using any combination of known natural forcings in the absence of man-made CO2. Says it all, no?
No. Sherlock Holmes Fallacy, the processes being very poorly understood. The Younger Dryas ended with a HUGE warming. around 10C in 3 years. No one has explained that with or without manmade CO2.
Besides, the half a dozen multidecadal oscillations going from cold to warm phase from 1976-2001 explain the observed warming quite nicely.
The previous warming from 1915 to the 1930s occurred without the CO2 spike since the 1950s. Then, as CO2 took off, temperatures declined until the mid 1970s. The recent rise began when the PDO went warm (to be followed by the IPO, AO, AAO, AMO, and NAO ). And now it’s headed the other way.
Not to mention the infamous MMTS conversion factor, which began around 1984 and remains ongoing.
Besides, even if CO2 IS responsible for most of the past warming how does that translate to 2.3C to 6.0C increase by 2100 without STRONG positive feedback loops?
anna v (05:10:28) :
Matt Bennett (00:05:03) :
The fact remains, one can’t get the observed warming using any combination of known natural forcings in the absence of man-made CO2. Says it all, no?
I know it’s tiresome but the true believers have a mangled logic. It goes along this line. “If you can’t explain why the climate changes it must be CO2”.
So back in time it was the gods and if not the gods then tell me what else it could be. If you can’t it must be the gods. We must sacrifice a goat and appease them. When you sacrifice one goat and the crops fail again it’s because the gods were not pleased with one goat, they need more. If you can’t explain why the crops failed for a second year, then it must be because the gods were not happy with one goat.
And then the priests of the IPPC were convened after much financial inducement unidentified that we had been feeding the demons with CO2 and this was the cause of all mankinds woes. We must sacrifice all our wicked ways with energy and live in poverty. That should force the climate to produce an abundance of poverty and mankind will be at one with mother earth.
If it doesn’t then you haven’t sacrificed enough.
MartinGAtkins (08:48:57)
Very well said. When pagan polytheistic religions dominated Europe over 2,000 years ago, men believed that we could offend Mother Earth by cutting down sacred trees or other actions. Yet we could assuage Mother Earth’s tears by human sacrifice. It seems like nothing’s changed.
“Mother Earth” doesn’t cry, really.
Neil Crafter (04:01:00) :
Matt Bennett
…
Your position seems to be that because you can’t identify what natural mechanisms may be causing the warming then it must be good old CO2. That looks more like a leap of faith.
Neil – Matt’s argument is an example of “Arguing from Ignorance”. I.e. I don’t know what is Causing It – It must therefore be …
Matt Bennett (23:54:22) :
Graeme,
If you are going to assert that the hockey stick is somehow fatally flawed (as an accurate representation of the past 1000 years or so) then I’m not going to waste time with you.
Is that because the science is settled, and the debate is over… Would you like to explain how the Hockey Stick code generates Hockey Sticks when fed random Red Noise Data?
Check the Mann studies at http://www.climateaudit.org/
… waste time with you … running away from the fight are you.
It is one of THE most scrutinised scientific products in history and has withstood all criticism. As a test of its validity, any attempt that has been made to reconstruct recent past temps (on a global scale) ends up looking almost identical- you don’t even need to take Mann’s word for it.
I keep asking for evidence – and you keep failing to provide any.
I could just as easily link to 100 pages of robust rebuttal of you points (carefully laid out so even you could understand them) over at RealClimate and at least it would be coming from scientists themselves. But really, who wants to get into a ‘my linking’s quicker than yours’ battle anyway, for that’s all these things ever amount to.
Pick your best links and put them up…
There are plenty of sceptical scientists and more keep showing up at http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3&Issue_id=
I will attempt to answer your specific points above when I’m not here at work, but for a start, who ever said cap and trade was the best solution? Where did I say that?
C&T is the most common solution and is a general question that is worth throwing into the mix.
It’s the science behind the validity of AGW that I’m trying to pin [snip] down on.
“pin down”. Excellent, could you please provide the hard, independently verifiable evidence that will pin down,
[1] Man Made emissions of CO2 cause Global Warming, and
[2] Global Warming is Bad.
And if you don’t believe it’s happening in the first place, what’s the need for measures to combat it? It must be fun living in the heady world of [snip]
Correct – I have no reason (due to the absence of evidence) to believe that Man Made Global Warming exists in any detectable form, and is leading the world to a catastrophic crisis. However you do – so what do you think of the major Policies that have been proposed to deal with AGW.
Answer me this: where does all the extra heat go that is trapped by the undeniable rise in CO2 concentrations confirmed by the Keeling Curve and dictated by 19th century physics?
Ref anna v (05:10:28) :
Matt Bennett (23:54:22) :
Answer me this: where does all the extra heat go that is trapped by the undeniable rise in CO2 concentrations confirmed by the Keeling Curve and dictated by 19th century physics?
If you could understand scientific terms, you would know there is no extra heat, just heat trapped/delayed for a while according to the equations of thermodynamics on its way to outer space. above.
In the end – I asked you for Hard, Independently Verifiable Evidence – which you have so far utterly failed to provide.
Please note that Computer Models do not count as evidence, and if you think that they are evidence – perhaps you could compare them with the financial models that have proved to be so successful (ironic) of late.
If you want to be respected on this blog – you need to provide real evidence for your position and reason effectively from it.
BTW: The tone of your words is arrogant, might I suggest that if you had real confidence in your position – you might be more emotionally secure about it and write in a more humble style.
The essence of my position is that I have not seen compelling evidence in support of the AGW position. I have also not seen compelling evidence for the existence of Ghosts, UFOs, Faires, Abominable Snowmen, and other apparent fantasies.
Show me some real evidence and I’ll adopt your position.
In the above post
I could just as easily link to 100 pages of robust rebuttal of you points (carefully laid out so even you could understand them) over at RealClimate and at least it would be coming from scientists themselves. But really, who wants to get into a ‘my linking’s quicker than yours’ battle anyway, for that’s all these things ever amount to. should be in italics as they are Matts words not my own.
Thanks for all that compilation waclimate.
Phew !!, what do you do in your spare time ?
I had never heard of the 1901 report by Cooke, must download that tomorrow when my BB usage allows. I would be sceptical about the BoM claims that early data is unreliable, it might be but they make those claims partly on a false premise. BoM people in 1991 told me the Stevenson screen was introduced to Australia in circa 1907-08 when the BoM was formed. I researched the issue and eventually had the luck in 1995 to publish a paper in IntJClim, there is evidence from 19C Intercolonial Conferences that the Stevenson screen was often in use from circa 1880.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/ozstev.htm
Having just read this whole thread in one go and trying to type through bleeding eyes, I have to say that Matt Bennett’s posts sound more like devil’s advocate stuff than real comment. After all, who could honestly defend the Hockey Stick and mean it?
EW (23:30:55) :
wrote:
Indeed, the situation is not so simple. There is a station set in the very center of Prague (over 1 million people) at the former Jesuite college (Klementinum) that has record over 200 years. It is not used in the world statistics, but it’s readings are homogenized for historical purposes with the nearby rural stations. There was a study that has shown an increase in UHI effect until 60’s, but further development (although slowed down) did not influence it anymore.
Development of the City
Prague has undergone a number of radical changes. In the ten years after the fall of the communist regime in November 1989.
Perhaps the reason there was only a small increase in UHI after the 60`s is that there was little or no development until the mid 1990`s when the country‘s political system, state administration and system of local government were transformed as the market economy and private ownership were re-established, it takes time to have an effect.
http://magistrat.praha-mesto.cz/64001_Development-of-the-City
Just for Matt, too help him progress from 19th Century Physics to the 21st Century.
Matt Bennett (23:54:22) :
Answer me this: where does all the extra heat go that is trapped by the undeniable rise in CO2 concentrations confirmed by the Keeling Curve and dictated by 19th century physics?
The link below is to a paper recently published at the International Journal of Modern Physics
http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
From the abstract.
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))
Abstract: The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
Comments: 115 pages, 32 figures, 13 tables (some typos corrected)
Subjects: Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (physics.ao-ph)
Journal reference: Int.J.Mod.Phys.B23:275-364,2009
DOI: 10.1142/S021797920904984X
Cite as: arXiv:0707.1161v4 [physics.ao-ph]
My emphasis is in Bold above. GR.
For DJ (16:51:28) :
>Also if the AGW Data is so solid – why is there an almost comprehensive reluctance by AGW Proponents to engage in open televised debate?
Science debates don’t play out in the media. They play out in science journals. A media debate is designed to influences minds and policy assisted by media norms which give people the false impression that the “sceptics” have science to offer.
I just love the quote.
“The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.”
I would suggest DJ that sceptics do indeed have science to offer, and not just any science, but falsification of the foundation of the AGW science.
Hmmm…
15*10^12watts power used in world (renwables are 1*10^12). Total input from geological resources=14TW
Of interest?
44*10^12watts average total heat flux from earth’s interior
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption
The Earth receives 174*10^15 of incoming solar radiation (insolation) at the upper atmosphere. Approximately 30% is reflected back to space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
Total solar radiation hitting earth is 52*10^15W
Human energy use is 14/(52*10^3) = 0.00027 of solar input
Heat Flux is 44/(52*10^3) = 0.00085 of solar input
Bill
I had never heard of the 1901 report by Cooke, must download that tomorrow when my BB usage allows. I would be sceptical about the BoM claims that early data is unreliable, it might be but they make those claims partly on a false premise. BoM people in 1991 told me the Stevenson screen was introduced to Australia in circa 1907-08 when the BoM was formed. I researched the issue and eventually had the luck in 1995 to publish a paper in IntJClim, there is evidence from 19C Intercolonial Conferences that the Stevenson screen was often in use from circa 1880.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/ozstev.htm
Warwick … I suspect the 1901 analysis by Cooke is a document that’s been overlooked by most researchers of climate trends in Western Australia. You’ll find a wealth of information in it, not just re temperatures from 1876 to 1899. On page 5 there are some interesting notes from Cooke back in 1901:
“A considerable amount of labour has been entailed in checking and inspecting the old records. In a number of cases the observations were palpably erroneous, and these have been rejected.
“This has caused many gaps in the records, but it was considered better to publish only those figures which were felt to be fairly reliable.
“The resulting tables will now be found with considerable accuracy the general meteorological features of the country, and will probably be consulted largely by farmers, pastoralists, bankers, doctors, immigrants, and all those whose interests are affected in one way or another by by the climate of the country of their adoption.”
As for the capital city of Perth, a paragraph by Cooke on p7 gives further clues:
“In dealing with the figures for Perth two things should be remembered: 1st, that the thermometers were removed in August, 1885, from the neighbourhood of the Surveyor-General’s office to an octagon-shaped louvred house in the Botanical Gardens, giving apparently a slightly lower record for the later years; and 2nd, that these observations were not discontinued when the Observatory was established. A new series was started at the Observatory on 1st January, 1897, but the figures for Perth, here quoted, are those for the Botanical Gardens up to the end of 1899.”
If you check my site you’ll see a PDF link to a 1908 report on Western Australia by the Commonwealth Meteorologist. You’ll find references to the Stevenson screen from p11 and it appears that there were 15 screens in operation by 1908.
I stumbled across these ancient documents at http://www.archive.org. Search “Australia climate” and you might find treasures that have lain dormant in an American university for the past hundred years.
My comparison of the 13 common cities/towns suggests the average mean minimum across Western Australia up by .4 degrees C and the average mean maximum down by .25 degrees C from 1876-1899 to 1979-2008. i.e. Western Australia is effectively cooler than ~100 years ago. If the pre-1900 data from the Government Astronomer was considered reliable, that’s an unexpected result, to say the least.
Thanks for your link to the Stevenson screen argument. I will link it from http://www.waclimate.net
waclimate (08:18:55) :
“The IPCC drew that conclusion from the Jones et al 1990 Letter to Nature which examined temperature data from regions in Eastern Australia, ……”
I have some more data to add. You might like to contact me at sherro1@optusnet.com.au
DJ wrote:
“Science debates don’t play out in the media. They play out in science journals. A media debate is designed to influences minds and policy assisted by media norms which give people the false impression that the “sceptics” have science to offer.”
If this were some arcane scientific matter that did not affect the public in a major way, costwise, the debate could be intramural. But, since the public is being asked (indirectly) for taxes in the trillions (over the years), it has the right to consider a second opinion before accepting the IPCC diagnosis.
Anna,
You accuse me of not knowing physics and then you go ahead and deny that extra CO2 in a system traps extra heat – which is absolutely entry level physics (but then you say that it does anyway, but is only ‘delayed’ for a time) Who needs to get their story straight?
As far as the hockey stick is concerned:
“There has been significant progress on many aspects of climate reconstructions since MBH98. Firstly, there are more and better quality proxy data available. There are new methodologies such as described in Rutherford et al (2005) or Moberg et al (2005) that address recognised problems with incomplete data series and the challenge of incorporating lower resolution data into the mix. Progress is likely to continue on all these fronts. As of now, all of the ‘Hockey Team’ reconstructions (shown left) agree that the late 20th century is anomalous in the context of last millennium, and possibly the last two millennia..”
From: RealClimate.org (Dummies guide to latest hockeystick controversy)
Graeme,
For a lengthy dissertation that deals with all your qualms, I would highly recommend “Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast” (David Archer) Out of the 6 or 7 books I’ve read that are ‘for’ global warming, it is far and away the most detailed and thorough in its treatment of the physics and really breaks it down to first principles so you can understand why we face such a serious problem and how we came to be so certain about it.
The science IS IN, no matter how much people in this tiny corner of cyberspace wish it were otherwise. That is why governments, corporations and organisations the world over are committing so many $$ and man hours to try to mitigate its worst effects. I really do recommend you read the above book – no one source is going to have all your answers, but that one comes close as far as getting to the nitty gritty of the problem. Though you may feel supported and emboldened on a site like this that re-inforces your false worldview, the truth is, you are in a very small minority that is likely to become smaller as confirmation arrives over the next few years. Wanna put some money on it?
Matt Bennett,
Please refrain from quoting, or referring to Realclimate again — until that ridiculously biased, agenda-driven and inaccurate propaganda site allows posters the same privilege of commenting without being censored as this, the “Best Science” site, allows you.
As everyone can see, it is Realclimate that exists in its own tiny corner of cyberspace; just compare the hits to WUWT. Realclimate is simply a propaganda site bought and paid for by George Soros. The science-oriented public that is interested in the causes of the very mild, natural global warming that has taken place has made clear its view that this site, which allows you to comment without censorship, is legitimate while RC is not.
Were it not for George Soros money, Real climate would not have even received the one-tenth the number of votes for “Best Science” site that WUWT garnered.
And Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ invention was deliberately based on bad data and on a dishonest methodology. It has been thoroughly discredited many times over. It shows no Medieval Warming Period, which is universally accepted as fact by mainstream scientists [which of course eliminates Realclimate fringe scientists].
Some of the central facts surrounding the alarmist global warming scare need to be pointed out:
1. Very mild global warming has occurred, but the causes are almost entirely natural. And that mild warming stopped in the late ’90’s.
2. The rise in global temperatures has been minor, and in fact the 0.6° rise since 1980 has essentially been entirely retraced.
3. The UN/IPCC has had to constantly back down from its projections.
4. The UN/IPCC is composed of 100% political appointees.
5. The AGW/CO2 hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified.
6. Both the UN/IPCC and Al Gore consistently tuck their tails between their legs and run away from any serious debate over global warming — proving conclusively that they have no confidence in their hypothesis.
7. Claiming that the debate is settled [“The science IS IN”] begs the question: when was that debate? Times and dates, please.
8. If CO2 caused global warming — the central argument for AGW — then that hypothesis has been decisively falsified: click
9. The UN/IPCC’s projections [ie, it’s predictions] have also been falsified: click
10. The planet’s temperature is following the natural warming progression due to its emergence from the last Ice Age. It is not conforming to the wildly inaccurate projections of the UN/IPCC: click
If I had attempted to post this comment on the biased propaganda site Realclimate, it would have never have been allowed to see the light of day. It would have been censored, as similar comments from many others have been censored. That tells you all you need to know about Realclimate’s agenda and lack of ethics.
Smokey, with respect, RealClimate is no more or less a biased site than this one. When “deniers” (a noxious term they are happy not to censor) chime in there, they are routinely dismissed. The place is a festival celebrating the tautology We Are Correct Because We Are Correct. (WACBWAC? hmm..) There is no skepticism, no urge to poke holes in AGW theory such as to understand it better. Its regulars simply know better than the rest of us, and the confirmation bias is palpable.
That said, as much as I might agree with many of the arguments and enjoy the newsflashes presented at WUWT, I can’t say that the level of bias here is much different or that the “alarmists” (another term I could do without) are treated with any more or less deference when they chime in. Kristof, whose columns I usually skim, wrote very well on the topic yesterday, I thought:
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/the-daily-me/
For non-scientists like me who are interested in figuring out what’s going on, I suppose what we can do is read to the best of our abilities the literature, such as the IPCC reports and other papers, and try to decode the truth that usually lies in the middle by reading across the range of all these climate blog interpretations and discussions. I can’t say that I’ve found one yet that is a disinterested, non-advocacy source of information.
Regarding the hockey stick, here’s Monckton’s long paper describing the shenanigans behind protecting it from criticism and “verifying” it, followed (pages 16-29) by summaries of 21 published papers that provide evidence of warming during the MWP. (Ten papers deal with Europe and the North Atlantic, eleven scientific papers address the period elsewhere on the planet.) Each summary occupies about half a page and contains a graph that illustrates key data points.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/what_hockey_stick.html
Matt: Here’s and eighth book that will provide another perspective on the controversy, Red Hot Lies bu Christopher Horner. Here’s the link to it (on Amazon):
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Hot-Lies-Alarmists-Misinformed/dp/1596985380/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237571039&sr=1-1
Here’s a summary, from the book flaps:
“Red Hot Lies, an exposé of the hypocrisy, deceit, and outright lies of the global warming alarmists and the compliant media that support them. Did you know that most scientists are global warming skeptics? Or that environmental alarmists have knowingly promoted false and exaggerated data on global warming? Or that in the Left’s efforts to suppress free speech (and scientific research), they have compared global warming dissent with “treason”?
“Liars–Al Gore, the United Nations, the New York Times. The global warming lobby, relentless in its push for bigger government, more spending, and more regulation, will use any means necessary to scare you out of your wits–as well as your tax dollars and your liberties–with threats of rising oceans, deadly droughts, and unspeakable future consequences of “climate change.” In pursuing their anti-energy, anti-capitalist, and pro-government agenda, the global warming alarmists–and unscrupulous scientists who see this scare as their gravy train to federal grants and foundation money–resort to dirty tricks, smear campaigns, and outright lies, abandoning scientific standards, journalistic integrity, and the old-fashioned notions of free speech and open debate. In Red Hot Lies, bestselling author Christopher Horner–himself the target of Greenpeace dirty tricks and alarmist smears–exposes the dark underbelly of the environmental movement. Power-hungry politicians blacklist scientists who reject global warming alarmism. U.S. senators threaten companies that fund climate change dissenters. Mainstream media outlets openly reject the notion of “balance.” The occasional unguarded scientist candidly admits the need to twist the facts to paint an uglier picture in order to keep the faucet of government money flowing. In the name of “saving the planet,” anything goes.”
The Amazon reviewer comments are worth reading too.
wmanny, you must be new here. The points covered in my post have been discussed many times. And yes, Realclimate is extremely biased, while WUWT is simply skeptical of many baseless claims. Saying “Show me” is not being biased, as you seem to believe.
Numerous others have complained on this site that their well-reasoned, polite, but skeptical views have been deleted by Realclimate without comment. Often they re-post their comment here to show that was not out of line, but was simply too uncomfortable for Realclimate to allow to be seen. [To be fair, Realclimate is just one example out of several pro-AGW sites that do the same thing; another site removes the vowels from skeptical posts.]
There is a glaring difference between the relatively few individuals who were deleted here. They were not banned because of their views on science — which is how RC operates — but because they violated site policy, and almost always disregarded repeated warnings.
You are clearly mistaken in your accusation of tautology [‘we are right because we are right’]. If I may repeat what has been pointed out many times here: no one has falsified the long accepted theory that observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability. If you see that as a tautology, then you don’t understand how the Scientific Method works.
It is those who insist they are right about their AGW/CO2 hypothesis, after it has been repeatedly falsified, that they are right because they are right. Occam’s Razor comes into play when natural variability completely explains the climate’s current fluctuations. Therefore natural climate variability explains reality better than a new hypothesis based on CO2, which improbably claims that the planet is on the verge of runaway global warming. Yet those putting forth the new AGW/CO2 hypothesis can not show where or how such a tipping point will occur. Their models fail to predict, as the past N.H. winter made clear. The AGW/CO2 hypothesis is all based on “what-ifs”. Disputing that doesn’t mean ‘we are right because we are right.’ It means we are skeptical. Show us your proof, or at least your strong evidence.
This site has a strong skeptical element, which you conflate with taking sides. Rather, the simple question is: if a steady rise in CO2 causes global warming, then where is that warming??
Show me where it is, because I’m a skeptic.
Hello wmanny 7 24 44
Nice to see what I think is your first post.
I think that climate realists (us) and irrationalists them) fail to realise there are a number of sub groups.
Many on this blog are either scientists or highly knowlegable and have thought deeply about the subject and read a great deal of material. We weren’t born a sceptic but have become that way BECAUSE of looking at the ‘evidence’.
On this blog (and others like it) we also have a number of posters where the term ‘denier’ could be used in its real, not perjorative, sense. They tend to dislike govt, or a particular person, or otherwise have some sort of deep seated dislike of ‘them.’ They tend to shoot from the hip and it is these that tend to get sceptics tarred with the same brush (hence my use of the term climate realist to signal some thought has gone into our position.)
On the other side are the serious minded people-some of whom you will find at Real Climate- and whilst some may be open minded many others tend to think they have all the answers. Generally they are great on their interpretation of science, but poor on history and don’t tend to like it when its pointed out that few things regarding the climate can be termed ‘unprecedented.’ They do however deserve our respect.
There is a sub group of climate zealots who would believe that man is responsible no matter what alternative evidence was shown to them and if the AGW bubble deflated would merely latch on to another cause in order to find the excuse to tell the rest of us how we should live our own lives
Zealots might include Al Gores climate shock troops described here
http://www.theclimateproject.org/
I have come across them in my local high street and their zealotry far exceeds even a basic knowl;ege of climate science (co2 apparently constitutes 30% of the atmosphere)
The point is that no one has ever managed to prove that doubling co2 will cause a rise of up to 4.8c without introducing all manner of exotic and equally unproven feedbacks.
I guess that is why this prize is still unclaimed.
http://www.ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/
Most of us here are perfectly rational and if this doubling hypotheses could be shown to be provable, or it was demonstrated that sea levels will rise 15 times faster than they currently are doing, or that ice levels will fall below those that occur in the arctic every 80 years or ….the list goes on.
Show us the proof and we wil all be posting on real climate urging everyone to do something before its too late to stop unprecedented climate change. As was said in 1930 and 1912 and 1817 and…
Look forward to reading more of your posts. (ps we also have a sense of humour here)
Tonyb
Smokey and Tony,
I have been aware of this place for a long time, and I don’t post that often here or anywhere else. I read broadly through a range of climate blogs, and when I have extra time, I tend to post at RC because as an AGW skeptic, that’s where I feel I can learn the most. (RC is the tautological site I accidentally dubbed WACBWAC, by the way, not Watts Up.) Granted I have to tread lightly over there as they are notoriously thin-skinned about those whose points of view are off the reservation. My point, though, is that even though I think WUWT is smarter, because I believe what it believes for the most part and so my prejudices are flattered, it strikes me that AGW proponents who visit here just as often have their motives questioned and hominems added.
Walter
Walter
I think that on the whole irrationalists who visit here from say RC are treated much more gently than traffic in the other direction. Gavin et al can exhibit a level of vitriol and scorn not generally found here.
However you are right that some here do go at visiting irrationalists all guns blazing. Personally I welcome them as otherwise we tend to end up congratulating ourselves and singing from the same song sheet!
What gets me (and I suspect Smokey) are those who come here after reading a ‘how to deal with sceptics’ web site expecting us to behave like neanderthals, but then find we are really more rational than they thought.
I hope you keep posting in both places. Best regards
Tonyb
Gidday again waclimate, you say, “Western Australia is effectively cooler than ~100 years ago. If the pre-1900 data from the Government Astronomer was considered reliable, that’s an unexpected result, to say the least.”
I can understand you and many others finding that “unexpected”. However check out my graphic “Average of 25 Regional and Remote Stations”, scroll down at;
http://www.warwickhughes.com/cru86/
The result is weighted towards East and SE Australia, where most of the data is from. What you have found in WA data agrees with my contention that the late 1800’s in Australia were comparable in warmth to the 1980’s.
Warwich Hughes just the man!
Did you see my post 04 08 02?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/despite-popular-opinion-and-calls-to-action-the-maldives-is-not-being-overrun-by-sea-level-rise/
it related to further information on Shaig who blogged you with information regarding the Maldives. If you see this it would be intersting to see your reply on the other thread.
The Aussie temperature sets look interesting. I did a follow up a little while ago on some of the records but gave up when one station in tasmania had only started recording 7 years ago and the high temperature was reported in the local paper as the hottest since records began. Technically true I suppose.
Tonyb
Oh my God – you guys seriously think this site is not biased?? At least the guys at realclimate have spent a lifetime studying the topic and actually know what they’re talking about. I think you’d probably be a bit snippy too if some ignorant punk …~snip~ Too many personal attacks. -mod.
PS – Roger I indeed had a look at that book you linked to and will definitely read it, esp considering it’s quite up to date. But having looked, as you recommended, at the reviews attached, I don’t hold out much hope of objectivity – did you read the reviews of scientists who were misrepresented, wilfully distorted or not even consulted?
And now we’ve had the moderator delete the gist of what I was saying, without having personally attacked anyone, and after offering a monetary bet to those who might want to back up what they sy.
Oh yes this is such an open-minded site.
[REPLY – We do our best. We aim to please. #B^1 ~ Evan]
Matt your angry display has earned you a 24 hour timeout. See you tomorrow when you’ve cooled down. – Anthony
Matt Bennett (19:15:43) :
I would like to draw Matt’s attention and everybody else’s too to these two plots
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png/400px-Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
where we see that the true prophecy is that the next ice age will be coming sometime sooner or later, and the expansion
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
of the holocene period, where one sees the slow cooling of the planet from an average optimum about a degree warmer than now, and also the fluctuations of +/- 1C as time progresses.
These are records which show no runaway warming, or tipping points, unless downhill.
Humans could predict that the sun would rise in the morning at the time when they had no idea what the mechanism was, and had invented gods and chariots as a theory. The predictions were quite reliable.
Predicting from the above plots has equal reliability, we are not at the scientific level to know for sure the why and exactly how the plots are driven, though there are theories better than gods with chariots.
p.s. Matt, I happen to be an ignorant punk of a physicist with over thirty years experience in fitting models to data, in another field to be sure ( particle physics). And yes, I took it personally.
Oh my God – you guys seriously think this site is not biased??
Matt, if this was one of those Alarmist sites or the Guardian you would be attacked personally on a constant basis or your posts would be deleted if a moderator thought your scientific evidence clashed with their world view. Be happy you found this site, it is a good place to learn and debate. There’s no thought police here because there is no political or religious approach to the subject.
wmanny (07:24:44) :
Are you not the tiny bit suspicious of studies emanating from the AGW grouping where the data to those studies is not made available to the wider scientific community, Manns Hockey Stick being an example. No such activity occurs within the skeptical community. I suggest you visit Climate audit to see how scientific data should be archived.
Do you actually believe without question the data emanating from the IPCC.
Rob, not in the least do I buy the fashionable AGW religion. I read CA all the time and I am quite familiar with the failings of the Team. Since I don’t know what’s going on with the climate, though, just as nobody does, I do feel obliged to check in on both sides of the debate as it evolves. Yes, the RC crowd is obnoxious in its high-handed treatment of skeptics, but they are winning the political war at the moment (in no small part due to the clever debating technique of claiming there is no debate) and they are naturally loath to concede any points, however small they perceive them to be. Thus you encounter the tortured logic, for example, of the paleo model being insignificant on the one hand, but rock-solid hockey on the other. Occasionally, though, they engage, and I find the site’s degree of defensiveness to be a good barometer of where the weaknesses in their arguments lie.
The IPCC is a political body that has advanced the climate ball, I believe, and you are obliged its reports, but its own confirmation bias is well established by now.
correction: you are obliged to read its reports,
For Warwick Hughes et al … Warwick, I’ve put a link to your pages at http://www.waclimate.net/bureau.html
Also on that page I’ve put a link to a 2005 report by Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation titled “Building a future on knowledge from the past: what palaeo-science can reveal about climate change and its potential impacts in Australia”.
In that report, I’m particularly intrigued by a graphic on coral cores from the Great Barrier Reef re Sea Surface Temperatures from 1600, uploaded to http://www.waclimate.net/imgs/csiro-palaeo-temps.jpg
The report authors best summarise what the top of the graph means:
“Annual records of sea surface temperature for regions around northern and western Australia have been derived from coral records (Figure 4). Current integration of these records suggests that, in contrast to the Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions (Mann and Jones 2003), SST in the tropical southwest Pacific during the latter part of the Little Ice Age (17th-19th centuries) were as warm as the early 1980s (Gagan et al. 2004).”
It looks remarkably similar to your graph re 25 Australian land temperature stations since 1882.
Gagan has interesting research re coral records and Australian climate history, including an abstract from one of his pages at the Australian National University: http://rses.anu.edu.au/people/gagan_m/index.php?p=abstracts
“Abrupt decrease in tropical Pacific sea surface salinity at end of Little Ice Age
Hendy EJ, Gagan MK, Alibert CA, McCulloch MT, Lough JM, Isdale PJ (2002). Science 295: 1511-1514.
Abstract:
A 420-year history of strontium/calcium, uranium/calcium, and oxygen isotope ratios in eight coral cores from the Great Barrier Reef, Australia, indicates that sea surface temperature and salinity were higher in the 18th century than in the 20th century. An abrupt freshening after 1870 occurred simultaneously throughout the southwestern Pacific, coinciding with cooling tropical temperatures. Higher salinities between 1565 and 1870 are best explained by a combination of advection and wind-induced evaporation resulting from a strong latitudinal temperature gradient and intensified circulation. The global Little Ice Age glacial expansion may have been driven, in part, by greater poleward transport of water vapor from the tropical Pacific.”
Note below: “in downtown Phoenix. Some studies, Hedquist says, have shown that the core of that city, one of the fastest growing urban areas in the nation, is on average between 7 and 11 degrees Celsius warmer than the surrounding countryside.”
From new story http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/42196/title/Urban_heat says in part:
Cooking by day and night
In one sense, urban heat islands have been around as long as urban areas have: They just started out small and grew as cities did. Buildings and pavement typically are made of materials that have a lower albedo — that is, they absorb more of the sun’s radiation than does the natural landscape — and, during the daytime, reach higher equilibrium temperatures than surrounding objects do. At night, the buildings and streets release much of that heat. The boost in both daytime and nighttime temperatures raises the average temperature in the city.
Another often unrecognized factor that boosts urban temperatures is the proliferation of impervious surfaces, says David J. Sailor, a mechanical engineer at Portland State University in Oregon. As the proportion of rain-shedding surfaces such as roofs, pavement, sidewalks and streets goes up, the water that previously would have soaked into the ground — and later would have soaked up heat as it evaporated — simply drains away into sewers or streams (SN: 9/4/04, p. 152). Areas swaddled with impervious surfaces, in essence, heat up because the ground has lost its ability to sweat.
The size, shape and arrangement of buildings, particularly in a downtown core dense with skyscrapers, can also influence urban temperatures, Sailor said at the AMS meeting. If the heat-soaked facade of a tall building can’t “see the sky” at night — in other words, if it is surrounded by other tall buildings — any heat it gives off at night ends up warming nearby buildings rather than radiating back into space.
Finally, says Sailor, human activity generates immense quantities of heat. Burning a kilogram of gasoline generates about 45 million joules of energy, enough to melt 60 kilograms of ice and bring it to boiling. So, each car on the road with moderate gas mileage — say, 10 kilometers per liter or 24 miles per gallon — releases enough heat to melt about 4.5 kilograms, or a 10-pound bag, of ice for every kilometer it travels.
Much of the energy used in buildings — for lighting, heating and producing hot water, for example — eventually makes its way into the environment as heat.
As a rough guide, Sailor notes, one-third of the anthropogenic heat contribution to an urban heat island comes from transportation, one-third comes from buildings and one-third stems from industrial processes. Nevertheless, all cities are different: The heat island in Houston, for example, is substantially aggravated by the large number of nearby oil refineries.
Although urban heat islands are nothing new, scientists haven’t conducted many detailed investigations of the phenomenon, says Brent Hedquist, an urban climatologist at Arizona State University in Tempe. In April 2008, he and his colleagues used portable weather stations and thermal imaging cameras to carry out a round-the-clock study in downtown Phoenix. Some studies, Hedquist says, have shown that the core of that city, one of the fastest growing urban areas in the nation, is on average between 7 and 11 degrees Celsius warmer than the surrounding countryside.
A first look at the Hedquist team’s field data qualitatively confirms what many lab studies might suggest: Facades of dense concrete and brick, some of which reached temperatures of 45°C, or 113°F, during the day, retained heat well into the night, while glass and metal cooled rather quickly after the sun went down. The details of that warm-up and cool-down, however, will be the topic of intense analyses. “The situation downtown is very complex,” Hedquist notes, with daytime heat absorption and nighttime heat loss depending on factors such as the angle at which the sun strikes building facades, the distance between the buildings and the speed and direction of prevailing winds.