From Roger Pielke Sr.
A very good news article titled Expanding cities contribute to global warming by Doyle Rice has been published on USA Today.
The article is based on our paper
Fall, S., D. Niyogi, A. Gluhovsky, R. A. Pielke Sr., E. Kalnay, and G. Rochon, 2009: Impacts of land use land cover on temperature trends over the continental United States: Assessment using the North American Regional Reanalysis. Int. J. Climatol., DOI: 10.1002/joc.1996.
The USA Today article reads
The USA’s expanding cities and suburbs are contributing more to global warming than previously thought, says a new study in the Royal Meteorological Society’s International Journal of Climatology.
“We found that most land-use changes, especially urbanization, result in warming,” said study co-author Eugenia Kalnay of the University of Maryland.
Most scientists believe man-made climate change is primarily the result of increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. So, does this mean rising temperatures due to greenhouse gases are less significant? No, say study authors.
“I think that greenhouse warming is incredibly important, but land use should not be neglected,” Kalnay said. “It clearly contributes to warming, especially in urban and arid areas.”
As for how much it contributes, compared to greenhouse gases, “we cannot provide a specific percentage,” writes study co-author Roger Pielke, Sr., of the University of Colorado in an e-mail. “But our results suggest that land-use change can affect surface temperatures as much or more than what has been simulated by the global climate models as being due to added CO2 from human activities.”
The study recommends that the predicted land-use changes be incorporated into the computer models designed to forecast changes in climate conditions. This is key, according to study co-author Dev Niyogi of Purdue University. He said that even with aggressive green emission controls, warming will still continue unless how we use the land is considered.
“Continued temperature changes will occur as long as the landscape continues to be altered,” added Pielke. “The subject of the effect of future land use change on local and regional climate should be a major focus of upcoming climate assessments.”
Among the study’s findings:
– Land use conversion more often results in warming than cooling.
– Urbanization and conversion to bare soils have the largest warming impacts.
– Conversion to agriculture results in cooling, while conversion from agriculture generally results in warming.
– In general, the more the vegetation covers an area of land, the cooler its contribution to surface temperature.
– Deforestation generally results in warming, with the exception of a shift from forest to agriculture
– The temperature effect of planting a new forest is unclear.
UHI in cities. What a surprise, I never would have thunk it.
Congratulations. To both the authors and USA Today.
Most scientists believe man-made climate change is primarily the result of increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse
So some would have us believe. You’re getting sleepy…sleepy.
I hate to be the one to pour Ice Water down the backside of warm & fuzzy all over green Utopia, but… the temperature record comes now primarily from the concrete jungle.
But … but … but … doesn’t me having a white roof solve all this????
So, when is Anthony going to release his analysis of the surface stations project, and refute that NASA thing from last spring? I’m so looking forward to seeing him blow the lid off the scam.
REPLY: One of the co-authors has a delay, so we’ll probably not finish up until end of year. – Anthony
R.P. Sr’s work is an interesting branch of climate science. He has clearly and consistently shown that observed local and regional warming is driven to a great degree by land use rather than CO2.
Like Svensmark in Denmark, he has been trashed by the AGW faithful for publishing the truth. Also like Svensmark, he has not come out as a skeptic, nor does he trash the believers back. He merely presents evidence of alternative warming mechanisms and backs them up with empirical observations.
Science has become truly strange in the 21st century. Unverified models based on weak assumptions which don’t perform or compare with the real world are held as revealed truth, while hypotheses based on observations are treated as false because they “might” distract from the message.
OT, but strangely familiar:
“Red-faced Times abandons fishy eco ad
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/06/times_fishy_ad_abandoned/
“Maritime conservation researcher Boris Worm had made the claim in a 2006 paper in Science, which despite its reputation as a prestigious peer-reviewed journal, has a weakness for publishing shoddy junk science on environmental subjects. In a note accidentally sent to the press, Worm had said the attention grabbing claim could be an effective “news hook to get people’s attention.””
Nothing new here then.
DaveE.
So we have a heat sink effect when looking at using concrete and bricks in passive solar design but somehow the AGW lobby then says its not important in climate measurements. Seems like the Hansen effect!
From the header,
“– The temperature effect of planting a new forest is unclear.”
Comment:
“- The atmospheric CO2 effect of planting a new forest is also unclear in the long term.”
Strange how this has not prevented Copenhagen from devoting a huge slice of agenda to forestry programs. I suppose there have to be some loopholes for the devious blood-suckers who are circling to slice up the carbon taxes. Maybe even some are in cahoots with those putting trees on the agenda.
“But … but … but … doesn’t me having a white roof solve all this????”
If every single one of those houses in that picture of Corona had a while roof and if the pavement was a “cool pavement”, the temperature there might actually be cooler than before the homes were built. Painting the roofs white can actually go a long way toward mitigating UHI.
That is one idea I actually support.
Doug in Seattle (20:20:45) :
“Science has become truly strange in the 21st century. Unverified models based on weak assumptions which don’t perform or compare with the real world are held as revealed truth, while hypotheses based on observations are treated as false because they “might” distract from the message.”
Not so strange. At one time eugenics was popularly accepted science, as was conversion therapy, astrology, graphology, phrenology, anthroposophic medicine, homeopathy, iridology, etc…
At one time ‘detracting from the message’ of eugenics got you sent to a labor camp and killed in certain countries.
So, Chico is a good example. Set a few thermometers East and West, North and South. And one in the city at the site of your choice. The topography is relatively level but there are dramatic changes in land use.
Any such study will be ridiculed in all the usual places, but the methodology should easily pass any competent peer review.
Instant case study in land use and the UHI.
Chico is ideal because it is still relatively compact, relatively level, and has a mix of Ag and original valley. A few miles should make a world of difference.
Be interesting to see the changes in the coming solar minimum with a cold phase PDO and Atlantic.
Don Easterbrook at WWU has done a lot of work on temps and glaciers over the years but does not get much mention. His work goes back to the ’70’s. He sees correlations with BE10, sun spots, solar cycles, temperatures and glacial advance and retreat.
It is good to see the focus shifting to land use (i.e. something that is certainly not a red herring).
A question that was on the mind of landscape ecologists in the 90s was, “Do different aggregation criteria affect spatial pattern?”
The short answer: YES.
Physical geographers know this as MAUP (modifiable areal unit problem). Those familiar with “drilling down” in political polling numbers will probably quickly find the concept very familiar.
Interesting article Anthony & colleagues – common sense scores points.
The warming from cities and land use changes is regional or local and clearly affects sensor readings in the areas affected.
It’s then quite a leap to assert that it has any significant effect on GLOBAL warming after accounting for increased upward radiation, convection, cloudiness, rainfall, wind and the globally moderating effects of the oceans.
Is this just a desperate leap away from CO2 now that it’s supposed effect is being discredited ?
“The study recommends that the predicted land-use changes be incorporated into the computer models designed to forecast changes in climate conditions.”
Okay, but surely modellers need to sort out basic questions like real feedback values before adding more complications.
Roger Pielke Sr.
– Conversion to agriculture results in cooling, while conversion from agriculture generally results in warming.
Not sure about this. Most Gliding advice will include agriculteral land for good souring. It is important to include the amount of moisture in the land which may be another key driver in land temperatures. Agricultural land favours land that is well drained. In gliding wet land will have poorer on no thermals compared to surrounding dryer land. In addition a general lowering of ground water will lessen the cooling effect of evaporation.
If they do incorporate land use in the models, all that will do is show even more warming, and the reason behind it will be forgotten.
If you believe that planting real trees, unless they are managed forever, will have any significant effect on CO2, then I’d be pleased to know. I shudder at the waste of money proposed by those who forget thet when the new trees die, they release the CO2 they had stored. If new trees are not being replanted all of the time, an area of land will revert to something like its pre GHG state and all that will have been achieved is the transfer of money to shysters who are faster on their feet than the regulators/taxers.
Carbon sinks are only carbon sinks while they hold more carbon than before they were made. Forever.
It’s disappointing that they claim that C02 is still a cause of AGW, but at least the idea that land use is getting some mainstream attention/validity.
Bingo!
Walk across any mall parking lot in the summer in bare feet – the park lot is nothing but a massive solar panel sucking up energy and not letting that heat go back out into space – now compare that to the park grass right next to the mall. The amount of energy a parking lot can absorb is massive – I did the calculation once (it comes out to be a small power plant in the MWs).
Even the evening news where I grew up in Seattle shows the UHI. Seattle is generally a few degrees hotter than the surrounding area, especially during the winter.
You can even see the effect of black top occasionally from the air. Fly over a road when the clouds/fog is very thin and low to the ground with no wind and very often you can see exactly where the roads are because less fog or no fog directly above the road.
Urban warming is a fact but it is also a fact that some of the surface stations are situated in these areas with no adequate temperature correction. So there is a higher average temperature. But if there is a local high temperature so the laws of thermodynamics predict a higher rate of heat loss. This has been shown to be true by Dr. Richard Lindzen in his latest paper. So the Greenhouse Effect Theory is not correct. CO2 may heat up more than O2 but it looses heat faster. Again we know that water vapour is by far the most important gas to help heat exchange, insulate and control temperature by the evapouration of water, the formation of clouds and their role in climate. The exchange of heat due to latent heat is one way that heat can be transferred but this is never mentioned by main stream climate realists.
I like the photo. California living at its finest. 🙂 (Full disclosure – I live in NH on 0.3 ac but am swamped with dead maple leaves, however retirement will be on 95 ac on the side of Mt Cardigan where I don’t have to cart leaves to the dump.) (0,12 and 38 hectares if my math is right.)
“So, does this mean rising temperatures due to greenhouse gases are less significant? No, say study authors.”
Temperature = A+B
We now find that B is larger that we thought. Is A then smaller?
The answer is no according to the USA Today spin.
Add this effect to the UHI effect on the temperature record from the airport thermometers and what is left?
THANK you, Stephen Wilde. It’s funny, now that the Warmists have “suddenly” discovered UHI, they immediately see it as a significant contributor to global warming, instead of what it actually does – contribute to a warm bias in temperature readings.
Geo-engineering is sheer insanity. I don’t care if it is cheaper; it is still a huge expense trying to “solve” a non-existent problem, and it could have unintended and harmful environmental consequences.
Does it ever even occur to these nitwits that localized warming might actually be good, particularly in more northern climes? Also, with a significant period of cooling likely imminent, people will naturally be seeking warmth, meaning a possible population shift towards more urban areas.
The issue of land use is nothing but a red herring. It is simply one more way the Warmists try to muddy the water, the same way way they do with trying to conflate the mythical idea of AGW/CC with real environmental issues such as pollution, and with the human issues of jobs, hunger, disease, lack of clean water, etc.