Urbanization raises the heat in Orange County, CA

UPDATE: I personally visited this station today, thanks to a family visit that coincidentally took me to within a couple of miles of this station. It’s on a rooftop at the fire station. I’ll have a complete report tomorrow, but here are some preliminary photos I’m submitting via WiFi at a local Starbucks a short distance away. – Anthony


Click thumbnails for larger images

From the Orange County Register:

Urbanization raises the heat in O.C.

August 7th, 2008, 2:00 pm by grobbins

Santa Ana photographed on Oct. 27, 2005

The average annual temperature in Santa Ana has increased by 7.5 degrees in less than a century, a spike largely attributed to urbanization which has seen the city’s population climb from less than 15,000 to more than 350,000. The temperature has gone from a low of 59.7 degrees in 1920 to 67.2 in 1997, with yearly temperatures near the all-time high as recently as 2006.

“Santa Ana now has a lot more buildings, parking lots and streets, which absorb and hold heat, some of it through the night,” says Ivory Small, science officer at the San Diego office of the National Weather Service.

The NWS analyzed the city’s climate and weather based on daily temperature readings from the Santa Ana Fire Station, which has been recording temperatures since 1916. The upward trend is depicted here by Register illustrator Scott Brown.

Warming trend

Forecasters calculated the average yearly temperature by determining the average high and average low temperature for each month. Then they divided those figures by two and got the average monthly temperature. Then they added up the average temperature for January through December of each year and divided by 12, getting the average annual temperature.

Santa Ana’s population has been on a steady, and basically predictable, rise for decades. The average annual temperature also has risen steadily. But the temperature increase didn’t occur in a predictable,  incremental year-by-year pattern. There were lots of hiccups. For example, the average high for 1961 was 64.0 degrees. Three years earlier, the average high was 65 degrees.

Scientists say the average temperature didn’t smoothly rise year-by-year partly due to natural variability. In other words, some years are hotter than others because of  natural fluctuations in weather and climate.

Guy Ball postcard of Santa Ana in 1920s.But over the long-term, the average temperature has been going up in Santa Ana (click to enlarge image of the ‘city” in the 1920s.)

“The increase in temperatures in Santa Ana, as well as an increase in extreme heat days and in heat waves is primarily — about 60 percent — due to the ‘urban heat island effect,’ ” says Bill Patzert, a climatologist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. 

“Santa Ana is embedded in the dramatic urbanization or ‘extreme makeover’ of Orange County. More homes, lawns, shopping centers, traffic, freeways and agriculture, all absorbing and retaining solar radiation, making Santa Ana and Orange County warmer.

“On a larger scale, Orange County is atmospherically connected to our ever-expanding and warming Southern California megalopolis. Global warming due to increasing greenhouse gases is responsible for about 40 percent of the overall heating observed in Southern California. “

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 9, 2008 12:38 am

Heh, of course you have to be politically correct about that last part. There are some UHI examples here in Southern California. There is a weather station at Fullerton that is a joke, always appearing several degrees higher(anomaly wise) than all other stations surrounding it, including San Diego and even Los Angeles: http://www.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=sgx
Reno, Nevada does the same thing but it is far worse; I simply can’t believe it is legit.

Leon Brozyna
August 9, 2008 12:50 am

Oh Stevenson, where you hiding? The roof? North of the Fire Station? Or perhaps hidden on the southside of the station? Can’t wait to see this one; wherever it’s at, it’ll be a real gem.
Global warming due to increasing greenhouse gases is responsible for about 40 percent of the overall heating observed in Southern California.“
This ‘global warming’ mantra’s wearing oh so thin. How about this — the UHI effect surrounding so many monitoring sites accounts for most of the observed warming? Heresy! Here’s another heretical thought — take away the UHI effect and the remaining observed warming is entirely natural and beyond mankind’s control.

Steve Berry
August 9, 2008 12:55 am

Since global warming was supposed to have started in the late 1970s, then if you look at that graph there doesn’t appear to be any rise in that time in Santa Ana. Over the entire time period, yes, but not the ‘global warming period’. By eye, one could even suggest a slight fall over that period, or am I just seeing things? Certainly, the net shift between 1978 and 2008 is zero.

August 9, 2008 2:32 am

Bill Patzert: In the event you visit here and missed my request at the linked “Orange County Register” blog, I’ll repeat it here.
You are quoted as having said, “Global warming due to increasing greenhouse gases is responsible for about 40 percent of the overall heating observed in Southern California.”
Please document the claimed percentage.

August 9, 2008 3:19 am

Unfortunately, it appears that only one comment has been approved in the last 36 hrs.

Steven Hill
August 9, 2008 6:09 am

It’s 58 this morning in Ky. Global warming has caused a freak cold front to come through.
As for information above, nah, it’s the same temp. comparison as 1895.

August 9, 2008 7:01 am

For those quick to jump on the estimate that 40% of the warming in SoCal is attributed to AGW, please note: a skeptic should be equally skeptical that the majority of the warming is due to AGW. Instead of asking for documentation of the 40% number, why are you not asking for documentation of the 60% UHI number?
Skeptics don’t get to pick and choose what they get to be skeptical about. At least, objective, unbiased skeptics don’t.
REPLY: And warmers don’t get to choose CO2 as the only possible answer

David L. Hagen
August 9, 2008 7:13 am

Did someone plant gray grass? Perhaps they need to paint the “grass” green! With apologies to: Alice In Wonderland – Painting The Roses Red

August 9, 2008 7:25 am

I wonder what evidence is used to assign the other 40% of the temperature gain to CO2.
Since no reason is provided, I can only speculate that once again the author (or the scientists he is reading) are using the rationale that since they can’t explain it through natural processes (like solar or ocean) then it must, by the process of elimination, be man caused.
The problem with that explanation is that it doesn’t actually prove that man is the cause. It simply assumes it to be so.
It doesn’t prove they are wrong either – it just doesn’t prove anything.

Pierre Gosselin
August 9, 2008 8:08 am

NOAA seems to be predicting a warm canadian Arctic this fall, but slight global cooling:
h/t: http://klimakatastrophe.wordpress.com/

Frank Ravizza
August 9, 2008 8:36 am

Please tell us how they deconvolve the temperature to determine which increase is caused by UHI and which is AGW?

Evan Jones
August 9, 2008 9:29 am

why are you not asking for documentation of the 60% UHI number?
See Yilmaz et al (2008) for drastic effects of temperature measurement over concrete as opposed to dirt or grass.

JFA in Montreal
August 9, 2008 9:35 am

Stevenson’s screen is probably located at the apex of the building, bolted on top of the air conditioning unit condenser, smack in the airflow to make sure there’s plenty of air movement on the sensor. You want to keep that sensor in the wind, don’tchya?.
Seriously, no matter where it is located, since there is not a patch with more than three leaves of grass on the station grounds, what would be the best possible rating for this station?

Scott Finegan
August 9, 2008 9:58 am

120 W Walnut St, Santa Ana, CA 92701-5749
Corner of S. Sycamore and Walnut.
On the roof, I believe.
Rotate the view until North is to the left ( view is larger).
I have no idea if this link will work.

August 9, 2008 10:02 am

Re: Stevenson. What is the object near the white care that is alone on the east side of the building?
Hmm–I got a different view than you did. http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=pmn4wc559s6b&style=b&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=6918792&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1

August 9, 2008 10:38 am

It would seen all 4 comments at the paper’s website ask the same question!
The author of the piece has replied that he has emailed Bill Patzert at JPL for an answer.

August 9, 2008 10:54 am

I noticed something odd in the temperature record for this station. There are a lot of days missing from the data on the NOAA site that are filled in on the observation sheet. It’s like FILNET in reverse.
Here’s a link to a page that will show you both for June 2008. I’m curious to see what the rest of you make of this.

Jim Arndt
August 9, 2008 11:12 am

60% UHI I think not. More like 99%. I live in Garden Grove which is right next to Santa Ana and when I drive on the freeway through Santa Ana the temp gauge in my truck goes up by 6 degrees! I can drive 2 blocks and the temp can swing by more that 2 or 3 degrees F. Santa Ana is also in a slight dip that causes a dead air zone where the on shore breeze has little effect. All of Orange County has grow dramatically in the last 20 years that is why the UHI has changed so fast.

Evan Jones
August 9, 2008 11:59 am

Right smack dab in the middle of town
I’ve found a paradise that’s trouble proof (up on the roof)

August 9, 2008 12:11 pm

“white care ” is supposed to be “white car”.
Why does your blog software throw those tupos on me all the time?

August 9, 2008 1:37 pm

Comment to Bill Patzert’s response: Again, just in case you wander into Wattsupwiththat but fail to notice the same comment at the “Orange County Register”.
Bill Patzert: The Pacific Ocean off the California Coast is a thermohaline circulation/meridional overturning circulation (THC/MOC) upwelling point. Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) oscillate there at a much greater amplitude. Please don’t confuse your audience by mixing topics, such as sea surface height.
Note: You changed your attribution percentage; you still haven’t documented your claim.

Frank Perdicaro
August 9, 2008 2:41 pm

Wow, all of you are really quick.
I read the article at 6:30 AM on Friday and was on the phone with
the editor of the paper by 7AM. Editor is Ken Brusic 714 796 2226.
Later in the day I got a call back from the author of the article, a Gary Robbins. He stated he “believed the measurements were accurate”,
and also stated temperature readings “were automated, saving a lot of
time for the firefighters”. Was a Stevenson Screen, but is now “automated”,
so the data collection method has changed, and that is just the first
obvious problem.
My point to the editor was this is really awful reporting and journalism.
This is the above-the-fold, front-page story for Friday Aug. 8. It is
based on exactly one data source, and that data source is of unknown
validity. Why would any major newspaper run a lead story based on
a single source of unknown validity? So far editor Brusic cannot explain
Feel free to apply the full-court press. The official policy of the OC
Register is “We will correct factual errors promptly”. Call 714 796 7951
or email corrections@ocregister.com
Comments on coverage can go to Denis Foley, dfoley@ocregister.com.
Denis is a good guy and takes his job seriously. He worked with me to
get a corrections out of the New York Times (on tax rates of motor fuel
in Europe).

August 9, 2008 3:01 pm

If you look at the recent b-91 forms for that station, you will see that there is a problem with the automated data collection. The last couple of months are all hand written, indicating that they have given up on the automated process. In prior months there have been two b-91s for each month — one printed and one hand written. Some months also have a printed b-91 with missing records filled in by hand.

Robert Wood
August 9, 2008 3:46 pm

A couple of years ago in the UK, it was reported that the highest temperature ever recorded in England had just been recorded ….
…at Heathrow Airport!!

Robert Wood
August 9, 2008 4:23 pm

I replied to the Patzert reply, the comment is awaiting moderation. I suggest you all pop over and read Patzert’s reply and comment on it; it is innadequate.

August 9, 2008 5:33 pm

Scott Finegan (09:58:42) :
“On the roof, I believe.
Rotate the view until North is to the left ( view is larger).”
With that view, there’s an attached addition beyond the foreground unit (with the curved brick facade). On the roof the addition there is a dark stripe going to a white box. I bet the the dark stripe is a walkway to protect the main part of the roof and the white box is the Stevenson screen. There is a shadow from the box that suggests the box is several feet above the roof, just about the right height.
Gotta have a paved walkway to the screen, right?
REPLY: Confirmed, on the roof, see pix in update. No paved walkway though. – Anthony

August 9, 2008 6:32 pm

OK. Maybe someone will help me with a simple question? To a simple mind like mine, it seems obvious (after months of subconscious thought) that the simplest way to determine if the earth is warming is to measure (via satellite) the amount of energy the earth receives MINUS the amount of energy the earth radiates. If the difference is positive, the long term trend is warmer. If negative, then the long term trend is cooler.
I surmise then, that the difference is so small as to be practically immeasurable?

August 9, 2008 7:40 pm

There was a heat island
and boy was it hot
so onto the rooftop
Evan went top.
And there he sat drifting,
drifting away.
I hope from the guard rail
he safely stays

Michael Bentley
August 9, 2008 8:29 pm

Anthony et al,
I don’t know what your problem with this station is. In the last frame you can clearly see that it is isolated from the hot roof by a lattice work of wood (apparently). Obviously you’re picking nits …
This is representative of the U S Government’s continuing quality effort to give the public the data they need.
REPLY: “Obviously you’re picking nits ” Uh, no, I’m not. NOAA is closing rooftop stations and citing the issues with them in their own training manuals.

Frank Perdicaro
August 9, 2008 10:06 pm

A variant of the story from the OC Register was the lead story a few times
today on KFI, a large SoCal radio station. I caught it twice, then called
in to the news tip line.
After explaining the precarious reasoning for the story, I referred the
KFI news department to this blog.
The story is no longer being played on the air. Apparently somebody is
paying attention.

August 9, 2008 11:40 pm

I don’t see what all the fuss is about. There are at least six trees around the fire station, it is clearly a rural location.
Over the weeks that I have been reading the entries here there have been many interesting questions raised about the accuracy of air temperature measurements. My unscientific brain can understand that feeding beef into a sausage machine will not result in the extrusion of a pork sausage. I can, therefore, understand that feeding inaccurate temperature data into a computer climate model might mean that the the computer’s conclusions are not correct. But, it seems to me, the conclusions will only be necessarily incorrect if the difference between the data used and the “true” data is statistically significant. I say “necessarily” because they might be incorrect no matter what is fed in or they might be accurate if the difference between the data used and the true figures is not significant.
To me it seems unlikely that the presence of so many square yards of concrete within so many feet of the measuring device has a predictable or calculable effect on measurement. And the effect of an air conditioning vent or, indeed, any other vent close to the measuring device seems entirely immeasurable.
Two conclusions seem inevitable from the fact that a measuring device is situated on a slab of concrete or, as in today’s example, on a concrete/brick/tarmac/slate/tile/whatever roof. One is that the readings will be too high during the day (and at night until such time, if ever, that the heat absorbed by the concrete during the day has dissipated entirely). The other, a result of the first, is that any adjustment to take account of the siting of the measuring device must be a downward adjustment (except, perhaps, for some days in winter when the concrete/brick or whatever acts as a refrigerator by storing cold and slowing a thaw).
Is there any way of adjusting accurately for UHI?
While I’m here, a word to the wise. I speak as someone who worked 80-100 hour weeks for over 20 years and took work with him on (rare) holidays. Result: major heart attack at the age of 44. Your work is respected and valued all over the world, but for goodness sake next time you have a day out with the family, Mr Watts, keep well away from weather stations. Just take a day off and relax.

Pierre Gosselin
August 10, 2008 2:55 am

That station is a real beauty!
Looks like an asphalt flat roof beneath it.
That little wood-slat base the station is sitting on hardly shields it from the asphalt heat.
Is that an A/C on the roof 2nd photo center poking up beyond the roof?
I have a feeling Anthony is saving the best photos for later.

Pierre Gosselin
August 10, 2008 2:59 am

With all the poorly sited stations found thus far, I have a feeling if we ignored them, we’d maybe wind up with global cooling instead.
Would it be possible to calculate the US temperature trend using only the 1 & 2 rated stations?

August 10, 2008 4:54 am

Another similar question: Do we end up with cooling if we eliminate the adjustments to the instrument temperature record?
The NCDC was kind enough to publish the adjustments they’ve made to the USHCN.
For a thread at another blog back in April, I reproduced it.
Then I subtracted it from GISS Contiguous U.S. Temperature Anomaly data and added polynomial trends. Yeah, I know I mixed data sets. But, hey, I’m a blogger, not a scientist.
If you smooth the data and run linear trends, the trends are almost exactly the same, except the Raw data trend is inverted.
This is why I asked Anthony to request the global adjustments when he went to visit the NCDC earlier in the year.

Gary in Olympia
August 10, 2008 5:35 am

Consider marking the July 17, 1955 Disneyland opening date on the temp chart when you complete the station survey (& Knotts’ Berry Farm?). My recall of the county in 1957 is that there was not much there.
Pielke Sr. may have something to say about the cooling, then heating effect of growing (& irrigating?), then removing those orange groves.

August 10, 2008 5:55 am

I posted this comment on the site and here is the answer I got:
An 8 inch ocean rise? Hmmmm….
# Dee Norris Says:
August 9th, 2008 at 3:17 am
Please explain how a 7.5 degree increase is 40% due to Greenhouse gases (GHG)? What is your evidence? What are your sources?
Is SoCal subject to a more intense effect of GHG than the rest of the planet?
Dude: After readers raised questions about Patzert’s figure, I raised the issue with Patzert. He emailed this amendment this morning:
“Actually, I would correct my original estimate of
the global warming share of Santa Ana warming at about 25%. How?
In the past century, the local oceans, at the coast and offshore,
have warmed about 2 degrees F. This ocean temperature rise is
certainly due to the excess heat radiated by the atmosphere and
absorbed by the Pacific and other oceans. (Fully, 84% of the
“global warming” is being absorbed by the oceans.) Sea level
rise is the unequivocal proof of this. (The global oceans have
risen 8 inches in the past century.) To the east the local
mountains have warmed about the same. This can be seen in our
shorter snow pack seasons. Thus my “estimate” that the Santa Ana
rise is mostly local “heat island” (approximately 5.5 degrees F)
with some larger-scale (ocean and unpopulated regions) “global”
signal (estimated at 2.0 degrees F) added on. This partitioning
of the local and global warmings agrees with many other scientist’s
estimates. My point is that Southern Californians are warming
due to our own “urban heat island” and GLOBAL (much larger than
local) WARMING.

Pete Fickenscher
August 10, 2008 7:14 am

On a different subject, I just noticed Roy Spencer’s update on his research – I think he’s really onto something:

August 10, 2008 7:25 am

[…] Anthony Watts, Watt’s Up?: Urbanization raises the heat in Orange County, CA How anomalies are […]

August 10, 2008 10:10 am

Pierre Gosselin (02:59:13) :
The folks (Idso and Idso) at this web site have been making comparisons between rural stations and those impacted by UHI for many years now. Here’s an example of the one of the rural station long-term trends:

Pierre Gosselin
August 10, 2008 11:58 am

Bob Tisdale,
Thanks for the graphics. Looks to me a good part of the global warming we’ve seen was produced by “adjustment”.
It would be interesting to calculate the past temperatures using ONLY rural stations. I have a feeling we’d get something Hansen would not find amusing.
Looking at the above station, a real whopper, I don’t see how accurate readings and temperature records can be discerned using urban stations.

Leon Brozyna
August 10, 2008 1:04 pm

@Dee Norris (05:55:53)
Dude?? Dude?! Dude??!!!
Also, I’m struck by the position of the air being responsible for warming the oceans. Sounds like he’s taking the position that GHG’s warm the air which in turn warms the oceans. Isn’t that a bit like putting the cart before the horse?
From reading a number of simplified explanations by Stephen Wilde, such as, THE HOT WATER BOTTLE EFFECT, I would think that it’s the water that heats the air, so that after the past century or so of heightened solar activity, what followed was:
• stronger repulsion of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR)
• reduction of GCR’s slowly result in reduction of clouds with high albedo
• greater amount of sunlight reaching the ocean warms the water
• same thing happens over land, but heat is released quicker than from water
• over the course of decades, surface water warms which in turn warms land
On the other hand, were we to experience an extended period of lessened solar activity, such as proposed by Livingston and Penn, I expect that we would see:
• increasing levels of GCR’s over the years as they overcome solar repulsion
• over the years a cumulative effect of heightened GCR’s to cloud formation
• high albedo clouds reflect more sunlight leading to gradual ocean cooling
• initially, while high albedo clouds cool land masses, the lag in ocean cooling will modify such cooling
By mid-century, assuming extended solar inactivity, the place is gonna be getting mighty chilly, no matter the amount of GHG’s pumped into the air.
But warm air heating the oceans? I doubt it.

August 10, 2008 1:09 pm

As Gary said Disneyland opened in the 1955. I got there in 1957 and there was still substantial farming in nearby. But a building boom was underway that completely changed the area.
Whittier, CA station records might be of interest.
Whittier is in the metropolitan L.A. area but due to geography and planning there has been much less change than in other cities. At least up to 1999 when I was last there.

Brett Murray
August 10, 2008 4:13 pm

The shelter on the roof at Santa Ana appears to be facing the wrong direction looking at the shadow it casts. The door should face north. So the sun could hit the thermometers when the shelter is open and since the minimum thermometer is usually read and reset first, the sun could be hitting the maximum thermometer for a moment in the heat of the day if the shelter is opened in the afternoon. Also, Just having the shelter facing the wrong way could bias readings anyway.
REPLY: You are correct, and I was wondering if anyone would catch that. I actually have photos of the reading in progress. More when I write up a full report. – Anthony

Michael Bentley
August 10, 2008 5:40 pm

My earlier post was entended as humor. I’m glad that NOAA is at least taking stations like this out of service. Anyone who has calked their house knows the roof is something you work on on cloudy days or in the shade. With all the stations surveyed that show problems this station takes the cake.
More to the point, the AGW (CO2) crowd supports the ground station data by saying that Hansen has an “adjustment” that takes this and other such stations into account. Do we know what that is, and has it been checked by “Peer review”.
During an earlier life in radio, I had to go out into the field behind the studio to check the max and min in the “weather station”. I remember grumbling on those snowy days as I trudged out to reset the little magnetic wires in the tubes. That station was one of your 1 degree’ers. At least the farmers in Pullman, Washington had good data to go from at that time (late 60’s early 70’s).
I detect a bit of pique in your response, and it was intended as humor. Like some of the videos on television you have to wonder about things like this…
Sorry if I upped your bloodpressure.

Mike C
August 10, 2008 6:15 pm

Those are the Santa Ana projects just on the other side of the location… did ya check for bullet holes?

Bob Hogue
August 10, 2008 7:25 pm

Anthony, I lived in Garden Grove , Orange County 1962-1978. I find the Register’s temp graph to be very interesting. Example, it shows an elavation in temp during thirties(known warm period). Then a cool period until 1950 followed by a steady climb into the 1960s It happen that Orange County went through a very rapid growth during this period .I don’t know how many, but must have been thousands of acres of orange groves and bean fields replaced by houses,asphalt streets and parking lots.
In the eighties and nineties the building was mostly up. Dont know if the taller buildings had anything to do with temperature readings.
In 1987 I moved to The rual part of Moreno Valley In the Inland Empire. I commuted From LA area. In the wintertime(the only time I payed attention to the outside temperature) I noticed something very strange as I traveled through Moreno Valley when I would reach the outskirts of town my outside tamperature gage would take a nose dive dropping by as much as 10 degrees F by the time I reached the grapefruit groves and open land(Area similar to pre 1950 Orange County.
In 1997 I started A business in Las Vegas were I now live
I’ve witnessed phenomenal growth here in just eleven years. The valley is all filled up now.
Thinking about all of this and the variables that would be
involved ,I can;t see how Hansen and his poeple, no matter how smart they are , could make any meaningful temperature adjustments or comparison in high growth areas.

Mike Bryant
August 10, 2008 8:42 pm

Bob Tisdale,
I’ve looked over the adjustments from the government website, and the graphs that you have produced from them. I am stunned. I can’t believe they still have that graph posted. I guess it will be removed soon.
Mike Bryant

John McDonald
August 11, 2008 12:44 pm

I think the article should read “Santa Ana has been getting colder for the past 33 years”. Interesting how AGW alarmists always (cpk=1.67) pick a low spot to start their graph from.
Global warming is supposed to be exponentially occuring with the fastest rate in the past 2 decades … Santa Ana’s temperature record does not support this.

Mike C
August 11, 2008 8:38 pm

Okay, I am now convinced that the reporter is as ignorant of climate as they come.
I posted a comment telling him about how the PDO affected the climate in OC. His response was that my comment “grossly distorted” the findings of Hartman / Wendler, Journal of Climate.
A quick review of the abstract of Hartman Wender revealed the title: Hartmann, B., Wendler, G., On the significance of the 1976 Pacific climate shift in the climatology of Alaska. Journal of Climate.
ROFTL, this guy either didn’t read the paper he cited, or he doesn’t know the difference between Southern California and Alaska. Then when I clowned him about it, he sent me an email telling me I am no longer welcome on his blog…. ROFL… then he errased his comment about the study.
It’s the old AGW crowd tactic of “when I’m in error I’ll cover my tracks.” Now you know why these guys will not debate… they can’t.
The NCDC or RC needs to hire this guy NOW!

August 12, 2008 9:53 am

Actually, the ocean off California is warmer during a PDO warm phase. The PDO does not affect only Alaska. So the whole Pacific doesn’t have to warm to affect OC, which adds confusion to claims about straightforward relationships between warming air, warming water, and resulting sea level. Keeping in mind that the PDO was in a warm phase from 1976 until recently, see the map at http://www.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

bi -- IJI
August 12, 2008 7:32 pm

So much noise, but the main question still remains unanswered:
Does this so-called “Urban Heat Island” effect cause a warming “bias” in Marysville, Watts’s poster child of ‘bad’ surface stations, as compared to Orland the ‘good’ station?
And the answer is no. There simply is no warming bias in Marysville as compared to Orland.
I repeat: There simply is no warming bias in Marysville as compared to Orland.
But I’m sure all the open-minded Galileo-like skeptics here will try to ignore or downplay this fact.
— bi, International Journal of Inactivism
REPLY: You neglect, as far as I can tell, in reporting something very basic. What specific datasets did you use? Citation with links to the datasets you used please.
And please explain why you won’t allow Mr. Goetz to post a response to this on your own blog. That hardly seems fair. You accuse him of “blowing smoke” yet delete his response to you as shown below:
frankbi said, on August 13th, 2008 at 03:07
(John Goetz: It’s clear you didn’t read this post before complaining that I wasn’t reading your post. That’s uncool, don’t you know?)
You appear to want discussion, and advertise for it here, but then block the responses from people you name? My goodness how convoluted that logic is.
I won’t bother commenting on your website if that’s the way you play.

August 12, 2008 9:14 pm

“What specific datasets did you use?”
Fair question. I’m using data sets that I wrote about before — that is, temperature records after homogeneity adjustments — and I’m uploading them.
“then block the responses from people you name?”
I have the right to block knee-jerk reactions and anything I deem to be dumb.
REPLY: You double posted this for some reason, see reply in other identical comment

August 12, 2008 9:18 pm

“What specific datasets did you use?”
Fair question. I’m using data sets that I wrote about before — that is, temperature records after homogeneity adjustments — and I’m uploading them.
“then block the responses from people you name?”
I have the right to block knee-jerk reactions and anything I deem to be dumb.
But whatever excuse to ignore the lack of warming bias, I suppose.
REPLY: OK I was pretty sure you plotted homogenized data, (the key is the “data_set=2” in the links to GISS) but I had to ask to be totally sure. The point of which shows that all you’ve done is plotted data that has been “homogenized”, so no wonder they look alike, with diminished differences.
From Wiki:

Homogenization (or homogenisation) is a term used in many fields such as chemistry, agricultural science, food technology, sociology and cell biology. Homogenization is a term connoting a process that makes a mixture the same throughout the entire substance.

So, you’ve plotted data that’s been homogenized within a radius, using data trends within that radius, and you’ve found the differences data trend from two stations from the homogenized data set to have a slight cooling trend. Note that that data doesn’t represent JUST Marysville and Orland, it has quite a number of station data in the region mixed in. Some stations in the nearby Sierra Nevada (also within the GISS homogenization radius) have in fact cooled. To better understand the issue see this post:
So it is no surprise in what you found. It also doesn’t prove your point because you are plotting data that is a mix of stations within the GISS homogenization radius. Try the raw data from NCDC, direct from the thermometers, without ANY adjustments or homogenizations from GISS, then you’ll actually be doing something that could show a difference between the stations that isn’t “homogenized” or adjusted. When you get that actual untouched raw data, please link to it.
But the issue of station siting remains. By NOAA and WMO standards, one station is sited poorly, one is not. When we get the significant majority of USHCN stations surveyed, then we’ll be able to answer the question for the entire dataset, which is what really is the most interesting and relevant issue.
It is unfortunate that you choose to block Mr. Goetz response, that demonstrates a lack of tolerance for differing views, such as we see regularly at RealClimate.

Mike C
August 13, 2008 12:29 am

I explained to science dude about how OC California warms and cools with the PDO, I even pointed out specific points on his graph to demonstrate, he responded by saying that my comment “grossly mistated” Hartman / Wendler. Hartman Wendler was a study about Alaska, not California. The “Dude” simply threw out a scientific cite without even reading the paper, the abstract, or the title.

Mike C
August 13, 2008 12:32 am

I noticed that with Petersons presentation. His point is that a bad station resembles a neighboring good station after homoginization but fails to mention that both stations were homoginized by averaging all of the local stations, what kind of a putz would think we cant figure that one out.

bi -- IJI
August 13, 2008 10:31 pm

If the homogeneized data are what Hansen and others use to build the global warming theory upon, then why shouldn’t I be looking at the same data to see if there’s a warming bias?
And indeed, the data that are used by Hansen and others show no warming bias in Marysville vs. Orland.
“But the issue of station siting remains.”
That’s backpedalling.
REPLY: No, its a basis, and it is reality. Look I get it, you don’t like me or any of the work I do and your mission is to discredit anything I say or do at any cost. So it wouldn’t really matter what I said or published. But, I’m hoping there is a reasonable person behind the affrontery you present, so I’ll try one more time.
You made a basic mistake, (even though you won’t admit it) and plotted homogenized data for two stations, making no point at all. So plot the raw data to actually show the differences (or sameness) between the stations which is the issue you raised. The issue has been and continues to be lack of siting compliance. Those differences (or sameness) at the scale we are working with, will show up in raw data, not homogenized data.
Plotting homogenized data between two stations is like trying to discern two shades of grey in resultant paint mixed from two cans each of black and white (hi and lo temp) and trying to determine what the component paint pigmentation levels were originally…you can’t, because GISS homogenization has mixed the starting four cans of paint, with other cans of paint within 250 kilometers. You won’t be able to tell if the four starting component paints before mixing were truly black, truly white, or something in between.
While that may not be a perfect analogy, it serves to illustrate the need to plot data that have not been homogenized in order to show the differences in the measurements at each site. The GISS homogenization routine is a regional smoothing routine, 250km. It’s not for small scale site to site comparisons.
I’ve been thinking about your block-out treatment of Mr. Goetz on your own website. Thus, it is clear that your agenda is to discredit, not to truly discuss or to carefully investigate. Otherwise, your response would be different.
You are welcome to come back when you get it right, and apply some fairness to commenters like Mr. Goetz. Thank you for your consideration. -Anthony

August 23, 2008 8:50 pm

[…] 23 08 2008 Two weeks ago I posted about a story from the Orange County Register titled Urbanization Raises The Heat in Orange County. It was front page news that day, on Friday, August […]

September 4, 2008 6:15 am

[…] Urbanization raises the heat in Orange County, CA Sphere: Related Content Ask a Question […]

%d bloggers like this: