California to quantify UHI statewide

From the if we can quantify it we’ll figure out a way to tax it department comes this short press release (h/t Kakatoa)

The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research is joining with Cal/EPA and several other State agencies on a new research project about the Urban Heat Island Effect. A major goal of this project is to develop a method to quantify the average temperature increase in California communities due to this effect. Currently no tool exists to quantify the extent and severity of an urban heat island for California.

We intend to produce a tool that can be mapped at the census tract level or smaller, and that enables state and local agencies to identify the areas that are most affected and quantify the benefits of heat island reduction measures.

One of the motivations for this project is to provide another indicator of climate change vulnerability for the CalEnviroScreen, Cal/EPA’s tool to identify disadvantaged communities for potential funding associated with greenhouse gas reduction revenues in California. Cal/EPA welcomes input from local agencies regarding development of the urban heat island quantification tool.

For more information please contact Bill Dean (William.Dean@calepa.ca.gov).

==============================================================

Apparently they aren’t so much interested in the basic research as they are in creating some sort of rsik database for the CAEnviroScreen Project. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see what they come up with.

About these ads
This entry was posted in UHI and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

69 Responses to California to quantify UHI statewide

  1. A C Osborn says:

    Anthony, have you sold them your Car mounting Temp measuring data logger?

  2. Bloke down the pub says:

    Perhaps they should start by looking at the areas around the weather stations.

  3. DaveA says:

    When you’re cold you want to be warmer, so that’s a disadvantage. When you’re hot you want to be cooler, so that’s a disadvantage.

    How much money are the people in Alaska going to get for being disadvantaged by temperature?

    (yes I know Alaska is not California, but same principal applies)

  4. oldfossil says:

    CalEnviroScreen, Cal/EPA’s tool to identify disadvantaged communities for potential funding associated with greenhouse gas reduction revenues in California.

    At the Calepa site I couldn’t find exactly what form the funding will take. Help anyone please? We can only hope that the money won’t be wasted on quixotic windmills and shady solar deals.

  5. johnmarshall says:

    The Uk government(?) wants more home insulation trying to eliminate heat loss. Another impossible wish thought up in the wine bar after the third bottle of Burgundy.
    Heat in-Heat out same as Garbage in-garbage out models.

  6. Bob says:

    Nice to know that California has such a surplus of tax revenues that they can waste it on projects like this.

  7. Chris Wright says:

    It’s funny how UHI means different things to different people.
    For believers, UHI is yet another way in which we will be doomed by global warming.
    For sceptics, UHI is a powerful argument that the official figures for global warming over the last century are significantly exaggerated.
    For my money, the sceptics are far more likely to be right.
    Chris

  8. Doug Huffman says:

    I wonder how many times, puzzled, I read “Kakatoa[sic erat scriptum]” before I realized its significance. Well done. Conjugate Reflections

  9. Chuck Nolan says:

    Now see what you’ve done Anthony!
    cn

  10. Elizabeth says:

    As an expert AW should be consulted. Also this is an anti-thesis. I doubt very much that city UHI has ANY effect on weather or climate although cement retains heat during the evening especially on hot summer days and obviously raises badly sited stevenson box temperatures . If UHI affected weather natural UHI such as heat retention in rock valleys of mountain range especially in summer would.. What comes in goes out ie negative feedback probably overcomes all excesses. just my cents worth BTW.

  11. Chuck Nolan says:

    We intend to produce a tool that can be mapped at the census tract level or smaller, and that enables state and local agencies to identify the areas that are most affected and quantify the benefits of heat island reduction measures.
    —————————-
    Do reduction measures include major fines or retraining camps?
    Holder ain’t talking so, I guess only time will tell if it includes predator drones.
    cn

  12. Dr. John M. Ware says:

    First they deny that UHI exists in order to say that CAGW is occurring. Now they want to tax UHI. Logical!

  13. Chuck Nolan says:

    Anthony, typo.
    some sort of rsik database
    cn

  14. Jeff Krob says:

    Potential typo alert;
    “some sort of rsik database for the CAEnviroScreen Project”
    should be
    “some sort of risk database for the CAEnviroScreen Project”

  15. Mikel says:

    This is only about wealth created by working slaves to be redistributed by government masters. Just think how wonderful the benevolent politicians will feel about themselves by being able to help the so called disadvantaged.

  16. mark says:

    I’m curious if they find that UHI accounts for the majority of “global warming” in CA, will they still see the need for “funding associated with greenhouse gas reduction revenues?”

  17. Jim Clarke says:

    “Greenhouse gas reduction revenues”?!?!? Is that like the increased revenues I receive when I take a cut in pay? Or like the extra money I get when my expenses go up? Or perhaps it is similar to the additional funds I have after being mugged!

    There is nothing like the clear understanding one gets from the political torture of language.

  18. janama says:

    I smell a rat!

  19. Jens Bagh says:

    Foegive them LORD for they know not what they do.

  20. Duncan says:

    Surely once they ascertain that there is a huge heat island effect they will have a hard time spinning that this does not influence the temperature readings at all those in town weather stations?

  21. FerdinandAkin says:

    I can see the conclusions from this study coming from 1.6093 kilometers away.
    We will be informed that urban areas are masking the true extent of global warming and it is actually worse than we thought.

  22. Kaboom says:

    I can see the results of that study vanishing in a drawer already. The consequences of a proven UHI effect for the warming narrative would be an unprecedented man-made disaster.

  23. Steven Mosher says:

    a few cities have these tract level measurements of UHI. interesting data once you get your hands on it.

  24. jimmaine says:

    “Jens Bagh says:
    March 7, 2013 at 5:08 am
    Foegive them LORD for they know not what they do.”

    Seriously? They know EXACTLY what they do, make no mistake.

    Back to the article…talk about junk science.
    Where’s the tie-in between UHI and GHGs?
    Where/how did anyone deicde that if it gets .5deg warmer in San Fran, that it’s a BAD thing and has massive impacts on anything?

    Cal and the U.K. are on equal footing in the nutshack. How do these people continually get empowered to do anything beyond wearing a hairnet and a name tag, and asking if you’d like fries with that?

    All of the fossil fuel money in the world couldn’t back the number of lawsuits to challenge each and every one of these agencies. There is no burden of proof or accountability for anything in government.

    Jim

  25. We all know that California liberals are nuts, but are they really this nuts. Measuring the UHI effect is like chasing a greased pig.

  26. Let’s see them explain the linkage between GHG and UHI (beyond their use of TLA) .
    It can only breed more skeptics.

    (TLA = three letter acronym).

  27. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:

    Apparently they aren’t so much interested in the basic research as they are in creating some sort of rsik [risk] database for the CAEnviroScreen Project. Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see what they come up with.

    I suspect it will be more depressing than interesting. The goal is to hand out cash to Democratic interest groups and likely voters; the pretense is climate research.

    On second thought, it may be interesting after all — to see how they reconcile claiming a high UHI value to maximize special interest payouts with claiming a low UHI estimate to maintain solidarity with the Green Orthodoxy. Sometimes political correctness is just so darn hard.

  28. thelastdemocrat says:

    Creating more victims to add to the victim class. If you work and produce wealth that can be taxed, here is yet another way you are evil: heat disparities. The middle class and wealthy oppress the poor and inner city people by living off the sweat of their brow to enjoy nice, cool A/C.

    I thought it was clever of the reds to come up with the idea of “food insecurity.” Logic: “Are you at any risk of losing your job in the near future?” “Yes.” “Are you at any risk of an unexpected expense in the next few months?” “Yes.” If that happened, would you face a challenge to provide a healthy, organic, free-range, pesticide-free, gluten-free, lacto-vegan diet to your family?” “Yes.”
    Therefore, you have food insecurity. Oppression of the food-insecure by the food-secure.

    Time to redistribute the wealth.

    Coincidentally, Rick Perry was recently back in the news – he continues as Texas governor, and lately has been traveling California trying to inform businesses about the more favorable business climate in Texas vs. Cali. -There is some climate change for ya. Better get while the gettin is good – before the UHI tax gets added to what you already pay in Cali.

  29. Crustacean says:

    The political motive for this seems obvious and twofold: 1) Conflate UHI with greenhouse warming and blur the distinction so as to beat down a key reason for AGW skepticism. 2) Use this to justify additional wealth redistribution.

  30. wws says:

    They’re going to conclude that UHI *Increases* overall global warming and that because of that, taxes on everybody and their brother need to go up.

    I’d bet that the conclusion and policy recommendations are already written, and they’re just waiting for some friendly data to plug into the blanks that need to be filled. But the game is rigged – in California, it’s always rigged.

  31. JackT says:

    You don’t “fix” UHI, you just recognize that it is scewing the average temperature to a higher level than actually exists away from the urban area. What will these California wackos come up with next? Their solution to a non-problem will be in-and-of itself alarming!

  32. John in NZ says:

    Crustacean says:

    March 7, 2013 at 6:10 am

    ” Conflate UHI with greenhouse warming”

    Easy. Just assume CO2 causes the UHI. Cities are obviously warmer because they have more cars and so produce more CO2.

  33. arthur4563 says:

    Another meaningless project to divert attention from California’s crappy economy.
    Well, at least their ideas match their financial condition : they’re both bankrupt.

  34. Steve Hill from Ky says:

    I say we give CA to Mexico

  35. Steve Hill from Ky says:

    In fact, let’s just break up the USA into several countries. I live in the welfare state with 25% on medicade….rolling eyes. I’d like to live in a good common sense conservative country, not one that’s broke from handouts and stupid global warming lies.

  36. Jim G says:

    thelastdemocrat

    Wyoming, like Texas, has no state income tax and if you are worried about global warming or UHI we have little of either here with less folks in the entire state than in a suburb of Houston. Move your business here. The minerals industry pays most of the taxes. In fact we could use a little warming of any type. This UHI study might be a good thing if it results in a Mao type program to ‘redistribute populations to more rural areas’ as was done in China. It is the city folks that vote for all the idiots and their programs to protect everyone from everything. Fewer city people fewer idiots in office. Not that we don’t have our share of morons in office here but that’s because Cheyenne is like a suburb of Colorado, itself a suburb of California.

  37. Fred2 says:

    Interesting, once they can quantify it they can take measures to reduce it. No heating (for cooling in summertime which dumps waste heat into the atmosphere) for YOU!

  38. pottereaton says:

    Alan Watt at 5:59 has it right. It’s just another wealth re-distribution scheme that buys them more votes. He who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul’s vote.

    It’s ironic (and typical) that the warmists have been asserting for years that UHI is not a much of a factor in global temperatures, and yet now they’ve figured out a way to tax it.

  39. David Chamness says:

    Elizabeth says:
    March 7, 2013 at 4:11 am

    Elizabeth, I’ve seen direct evidence of UHI on weather, and you probably have as well. I remember distinctly working in Downtown Atlanta and watching clouds roll in from the west. Many times we’d see a wall of low-lying clouds approach, split apart, and reform on the east side of the city as the front moved through.

    The difference, of course, was the heat effect of the city. Since the triple point of temperature, pressure and humidity was just reached by the surrounding countryside, good conditions for cloud formation existed at 500′ to 1000′ off the ground. When the front hit the higher temperatures of the city, however, the warmer air rose up and prevented the humid air from forming into a cloud. In fact, the rising of the air in the city created a bubble of clear air that extended several thousand feet up. The bubble was somewhere around 5 miles in radius around Atlanta. I’ve seen this happen dozens of times.

    So, direct evidence of UHI effect on weather. When the air warms in the city, it rises, pulling in cooler air from the surrounding countryside, altering wind patterns near the city. That has an effect on weather patterns as well.

  40. Steve Hill from Ky says:

    Jim G,

    What’s a good conservative town to move to, we are self employed and bring our job with us. A win / win!

  41. Bruckner8 says:

    I’m surprised they admit UHI is a real thing. That means they have to admit UHI contributes to increased global temps. If they come up with real science on how to study it, control for it, and minimize it, they’ll have made a good contribution to society. This looks like win-win to me.

    That said, it’s also possible their science will be questionable, their quantitative analysis corrupt, and their motives clearly based on collecting taxes–not improving the negative effects of UHI. It *IS* California after all.

  42. Joe Crawford says:

    Coincidentally, Rick Perry was recently back in the news – he continues as Texas governor, and lately has been traveling California trying to inform businesses about the more favorable business climate in Texas vs. Cali. -There is some climate change for ya. Better get while the gettin is good – before the UHI tax gets added to what you already pay in Cali.

    Before Gov. Perry goes too far he should figure out how many Californians come with those businesses he is recruiting. Californians have been moving to Colorado for several decades and even twenty years ago the Boulder area was starting to turn into another San Francisco. It’s nice to have the business but remember, the nut cases come with them.

  43. “… identify disadvantaged communities for potential funding associated with greenhouse gas reduction revenues…”
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Looks like a social policy issue to me, a way to justify transferring funds from say Los Angeles to towns “suffering” from the UHI drift from LA – measure the pollution dome and provide compensation to the “disadvantaged” communities. Then you can put infrared monitors on drones to keep track of the UHI affect (and put a few other little devices on it at the same time just for added benefit at little cost – sorry – excursioning off into 1984 there) . LOL ;-) Tax dollars at work.

  44. Yancey Ward says:

    One can already see the goal intended- “Sir, your parking lot is causing heat related issues, so we must tax it to subsidize this program for heat-abatement (probably anything other than giving away power consuming ACs).”

  45. azleader says:

    If a press release announcing a study to measure the urban heat island effect involving Cal/EPA exists, I can’t find it: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/PressRoom/

    REPLY: It was an email. Here is the link left in Tips and Notes:

    http://cert1.mail-mst.com/iRyjvE/cu6d6zc2q01/911iRlrbq/uec0zg1xb/vnqiR89r/xb911iRq/82xebj71vhcym?_c=d%7C10d2pm6q6hpdoey%7C119okui17work28&_ce=1362623856.e3569fbdc96a2f3d9926dc554539cbf3

  46. KevinM says:
    March 7, 2013 at 5:58 am
    Anthony, you MUST cover this:
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I wouldn’t worry too much about the polar bear. They have been around a long time in one form or another:

    It turns out Polar Bears have been around (or their ancestors have) for 5 million years. That means they were roaming the Arctic Boreal Forests (yes – forests) 5 million years ago with CAMELS. (Yes – camels originated in North America and migrated to Asia. It is thought the hump(s) was an adaptation for survival through the winter as it is a fatty storage area – not water like some think. The fatty deposits would have allowed them to survive the winter months in the north when food was less plentiful.)

    References:

    From: http://www.ibtimes.com/polar-bear-gene-study-finds-earlier-origin-tracks-traces-climate-change-730326

    “It turns out that polar bears have been around longer than previously estimated. Other studies have pegged polar bear origin at around 600,000 years ago, but they’ve actually existed as a distinct species as early as 5 million years ago, according to the group’s new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences”.

    From: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/science/paging-lawrence-of-nunavut-camel-fossils-found-in-canadian-arctic/article9296216/

    “Now a team led by Dr. Rybczynski, who is a paleobiologist with the Canadian Museum of Nature in Ottawa, has determined the bone’s owner was a camel. It is the first evidence that the ancestors of today’s archetypal desert dwellers roamed the Canadian High Arctic at least 3.4 million years ago.

    The find carries implications for climate science. While the planet was only two or three degrees warmer during that period, the camel bone along with fossilized plants from the same period show that average temperatures in the Far North were a whopping 14 to 22 degrees warmer than today.”
    *********************************************************************************************************************

    The more we know, the less we KNOW.

    http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/article00922.html

    http://www.newser.com/story/163957/camels-likely-came-from-canadas-arctic.html

  47. KevinM says:

    I just thought it was funny that conservation groups do not want to protect polar bears… apparently because a population increase would injure the case that AGW is decreasing their numbers. THats how I read between the lines.

  48. azleader says:

    Thanks for setting me strait about the email… I wrote an article about it and was trying to check references:

    http://informthepundits.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/the-heat-island-effect/

  49. oldfossil says:

    Allow me to be refreshingly different. I spent the last couple of hours reading the Calenviroscreen 2nd public review draft and it looks pretty good. I’m really quite optimistic that they plan to apply the greenhouse gas reduction revenues in genuinely productive ways, instead of throwing it away on windmills. Thumbs up Cal EPA.

  50. GaryM says:

    “the benefits of heat island reduction measures”

    Orwell is laughing his butt off in the grave.

    But this has the potential to be truly entertaining. The progressives who run California now have an incentive to maximize UHI to increase their ability to control communities on the micro level, but still need to minimize UHI for purposes of CAGW as an argument for control of the energy economy on a macro level. The fact that the two are mutually exclusive will be no bar to their arguing both ways.

    Cognitive dissonance is a sine qua non of progressive governance. But it will sure be fun watching them argue out of both of their two faces.

  51. Michael D Smith says:

    Thermal Justice

  52. Apologies in advance. I made my previous comment about using drones to monitor UHI in innocence without knowing there was an actual debate on their use in the US going on. Sorry, it was made totally tongue in cheek and I meant no offence.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/03/07/obama-holder-drones-rand-paul/1970077/

    Ref to post:
    Wayne Delbeke says:
    March 7, 2013 at 8:11 am

    “….Then you can put infrared monitors on drones to keep track of the UHI affect (and put a few other little devices on it at the same time just for added benefit at little cost – sorry – excursioning off into 1984 there) . LOL ;-) Tax dollars at work.”

    Didn’t mean anything by my comment as I had no idea of the current debate in Washington.

  53. Jim G says:

    Steve Hill from Ky says:
    March 7, 2013 at 7:37 am
    Jim G,

    “What’s a good conservative town to move to, we are self employed and bring our job with us. A win / win!”

    Better hurry as the tax and spend crowd is making inroads here as well. It’s easy when the minerals industry pays the taxes. As to the town, depends upon what level of services you desire. Sheridan, about 30,000 in the county, and Buffalo, about 8500 in the county, are two good ones. Jackson, very pretty, long winters but is for sure a suburb of CA. And Cheyenne being the capitol is too much like CO and windy. Depends on what you like. Douglas is a good small town but not as pretty or as close to the mountains. Gillette and Casper are larger markets but not so pretty at all and windy. The southeastern corridor has some good towns but watch out for the union minded democrats there. What’s wrong with KY? I thought that was consevative territory.

  54. tadchem says:

    The “potential funding associated with greenhouse gas reduction revenues in California” will turn out exactly the same way as the “potential funding” associated with the legendary ‘tobacco settlement’ – all smoke and mirrors. The ‘lawmakers’ will tap it an another revenue stream to be redistributed at their “discretion”.

  55. Doug Proctor says:

    In this case the government will be working AGAINST Hansen: it is in the interests of showing how bad we are that UHIE will tend to get exaggerated, i.e. the benefit of the doubt will go towards higher UHIE. But this will go against current UHIE corrections by Hansen et al, who claim UHIE to be well corrected for AND not a big deal.

    I sense a conflict with GISTemp final numbers for California, and therefore for the Union.

  56. James at 48 says:

    Anthropogenic waste heat, energy flux and albedo modification is responsible for at least 50% of Late Holocene surface warming. It is a metric of civilization. So therefore, let us tax civilization. To avoid the tax, regress to a savage lifestyle.

  57. Rhoda R says:

    James at 48 – I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic or not but I suspect that this will be the argument used by California when their windmill driven electricity drops and they have to institute rolling black outs again. As in: “Since you yokels don’t reduce your A/C (or heating) and don’t use solar to generate your hot water on your own, we are going to force you to retrench your electrical usage by shutting you down.”

  58. EternalOptimist says:

    If UHI is a fact (and I see no reason to doubt it), in cold places, the disadvantaged will be those living in the sticks, who have to pay more for heating than the average.
    In warm places, the disadvantaged will be those living in the city, who have to pay more for a/c and ice.

    So in California (a warm place), this would mean a few people living in the sticks (actors for e.g.) having to subsidise those living in the urbs.

    I like it

  59. Neil Jordan says:

    According to this article in today’s Department of Water Resources California Water News, carbon police have been at it for more than a year:

    http://www.ocregister.com/news/california-498418-southern-change.html

    “[...]an ambitious, interagency initiative called the Megacities Carbon Project. They’ve been probing L.A.’s airspace for more than a year, with the help of big-name sponsors like the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Keck Institute for Space Studies and the California Air Resources Board. If all goes well, by 2015, the Megacities crew and colleagues working in smaller cities such as Indianapolis and Boston will have pinned down a slippery piece of climate science: an empirical measurement of a city’s carbon footprint.”
    [...]
    “So climate scientists began to sniff around megalopolises. It makes sense: That’s where all the people and resources are. They now suspect that cities are some of the worst offenders when it comes to generating greenhouse gases, especially so-called megacities with more than 10 million residents, like Los Angeles, New York, Tokyo, and Mumbai. Urban areas and their enabling power plants are thought to pump out about 70 percent of humankind’s total fossil-fuel emissions.”
    [...]

  60. Duster says:

    What is most interesting is the blunt assertion that no tool exists to properly measure UHI. Hansen will choke.

  61. Bob Diaz says:

    The most important thing I’ve learned about living here in California is that the Politicians in Sacramento make me want to move to another state. :-((

  62. doonman says:

    The end result will be new requirements that mandate that all roofs (except those covered with solar cells) be white in color. After a few years of monitoring the success of this change, roads, automobiles and hats will be added to the mandated color change list.
    People who think this silly don’t understand California environmental politics. Politically, its very important to “do something now” for all problems real or imagined, as the jist of this article attests

  63. tobias says:

    @Jim G (11.41) and Steve Hill (KY) Just to let you know there is still lots of snow on the ground here in Canada so you are safe where you are!:) ;).

  64. old engineer says:

    oldfossil says:
    March 7, 2013 at 10:23 am

    “I spent the last couple of hours reading the Calenviroscreen 2nd public review draft ….”
    ===================================================================
    Oldfossil, if you are still around, thanks for doing the dog work that I don’t have time to do right now. Could you tell me exactly where “Greenhouse gas reduction revenues” come from? Is it from the carbon tax?

    Also, could you give some examples of the “productive ways” this money is going to be used in disadvantaged communities?

  65. Steve Hill from Ky says:

    Jim G

    Ky is a proverty state with high taxes. The people always vote Democrat except they are not stupid enough to vote for Obama. 25% of the people in Ky are on welfare and many of the lawmakers are crooks. The Democrat party’s moto is, “we love the poor and want to keep em that way”
    I want live somewhere where the sun shines 220+ days a year, low taxes, a small town. I was looking at Saratoga, WY. High income, low crime. We sell our product to manufactures, not locals.

  66. Steve Hill from Ky says:

    tobias,

    Obama makes Canada look like a progressive conservative state……just too cold there for me. :-(

  67. Lightrain says:

    Yabut, Dr Hansen says UHI is a myth; or if it isn’t they can just lower temperatures before the 50’s. Voila, case closed.

Comments are closed.