The Urban Heat Island effect on temperature records is real, despite what some people wish you to believe. Peter, a sixth grader, and his dad, thought so too, and take the data from NASA GISS and show in a simple video, what we’ve been saying for years here at WUWT. Urbanization, land use, and station siting matter.
Watch Peter’s excellent video below:
They used a simple pairing of rural and urban sites to show the differences. This shows why homogenization, which smears all the data from urban and rural sites together, is a bad idea, and gives trends that don’t exist in reality.
I like the ending where he says in the rolling credits “Peter’s dad is not employed or funded by any energy or oil companies”. It’s funny that they’d feel a need to say this. No National Science Foundation funding needed either.
This video appeared in comments on WUWT, if anybody knows how to contact Peter or his dad, please advise. We are in touch now.
One wonders what the response of the well funded Hadley Centre, Met Office scientist Dr. David Parker, might be to this video.
Parker’s 2006 paper published in the Journal of Climate titled: “A Demonstration that Large scale warming is not urban” claims:
The analysis of Tmin demonstrates that neither urbanization nor other local instrumental or thermal effects
have systematically exaggerated the observed global warming trends in Tmin. The robustness of the analysis to the criterion for “calm” implies that the estimated overall trends are insensitive to boundary layer structure and small-scale advection, and to siting, instrumentation, and observing practices that increasingly influence temperatures as winds become lighter. Furthermore, even at windy sites (e.g., St. Paul, Aleutian Islands, in Fig. C1), the calmest terce and especially the calmest decile will be strongly affected by occasions with very light winds in passing ridges or blocking anticyclones, and should reveal any urban warming influence.
…the results of the present study also suggest that they have not affected the estimates of temperature trends.
Steve McIntyre gave Parker’s paper a scathing review in 2007’s article:
Buddenbrook,
“I usually rate this site very highly, so this is not a general criticism, but this thread is a low point scientificly and should not been posted with such bold assertions before the work had been checked, replicated, verified.”
Oh for God’s sake lighten up. I think nobody reading this article is going to think it’s peer reviewed science. For me it was one of the most engaging pieces I’ve seen in a long time and has raised questions that can’t be ignored. Why are the rural temps flat? Should we be homogenising temps the way we do? Why was not a similar pattern found in China? It’s all motivated me to take a look at the data myself.
All power to Peter and his Dad.
Seriously, nobody has done this before?
I just can’t believe it.
gjg (22:00:01) :
The r2 doesn’t mean much and it is not important.
The US has a great deal of variation and if one is just fitting a linear trend to it, it will simply have a low r2. Temperatures never approximate a straight linear line and all the temperature series have a low r2 compared to the trend.
WAG (20:44:36) The video just makes simple what climate scientists have been saying in peer reviewed articles, that there is a warming bias in surface temperature records. Such as..
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/do-the-cru-e-mails-change-the-ipcc-conclusions-on-the-late-19th-20th-and-early-21st-century-surface-temperature-trends-does-the-cru-data-and-thus-the-ipcc-overstate-the-magnitude-of-global-warming/
Tom Karl has refused to listen to scientists who have documented the warming bias and other problems, so perhaps he could understand what is obvious to a sixth grader.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/e-mail-documentation-of-the-successful-attempt-by-thomas-karl-director-of-the-u-s-national-climate-data-center-to-suppress-biases-and-uncertainties-in-the-assessment-surface-temperature-trends/
Need a favor:
Years ago I read Crichton’s State of Fear. In it I want to recall that he pointed out West Point NY’s station data as showing a long term decrease. I also *want* to recall that I went to the GISS link he provided in the book to check his figures, and he was right.
Am I remembering correctly? Did he mention a West Point decline in the GISS record? Because I went there last night and that is not now the case. Can someone who has the book or a better memory than mine check in? I wouldn’t want to think the GISS record is subject to ongoing changes.
Unlike so much of the pseudo science committed by CRU, Nasa, etc. this is easy to check. That makes it reproducible which makes it science. The conclusions may be wrong or they may be right, But, at least it is possible to check them.
The full data set from the NCDC for the US has a trend of
– 0.66C per Century (1900 to 2006) and
– 0.68C per Century (1895 to 2009).
So, I think gjg’s numbers are closer (at 0.59C per Century assuming equal split between rural and urban) than JohnV’s (at 0.875C per Century on the same assumption) JohnV’s are neccessarily higher than the full US dataset no matter what the relative proportion of each is.
———–
JohnV (20:37:08) :
I had a little time on my hands, so I did the analysis for the urban stations too. Here are my results:
Rural trend: 0.81 degC/century
Urban trend: 0.94 degC/century
Difference: 0.13 degC/century
————
gjg (22:00:01) :
This is from my data but I only have data to 2006. Still I don’t think it should make much difference. Again this is a limited population.
rural sites
y = 0.0008x + 13.333
Urban sites
y = 0.0111x – 7.3746
In 2005 Munich Re produced a paper on mega cities, which whilst pushing global warming, also had this:
Megacities are pronounced heat islands. The mean tem-
perature at the centre can be several degrees Celsius (up
to 10°C) higher than in the surrounding countryside.
Extreme weather is moderated in the cold season (e.g.
cold snaps, snow); in addition, considerably less dew, fog
and frost develops there. In the warm season, the
weather extremes are often significantly intensified (e.g.
heat waves, thunderstorms, hail).
– Concrete buildings and paved areas heat up considerably
when they are in the sun. This effect is particularly seri-
ous when there are long heat waves, because it consider-
ably reduces night-time cooling.
http://www.munichre.com/publications/302-04271_en.pdf
gjg:
Please ask Anthony Watts for the spreadsheet I sent him. Or if you prefer you could send your spreadsheet and I will compare. I am very confident that something went wrong in your analysis. I have looked at the rural stations in detail (more than once), and I am certain that the rural trend is more than 0.08 degC/century.
—
anna v:
I just confirmed that I was using the raw data after combining stations at the same location. This is the same data that gjg says he used. Something went wrong in his analysis.
—
Anthony Watts:
You also know what the rural trend looks like, and you know that it shows more than 0.08 degC/century warming. I sent you a spreadsheet with my work and graphs illustrating the actual trends. Do the right thing.
Here’s a graph of my results.
I sent the spreadsheet to Anthony if anyone wants to check my work.
Sorry for using a cheesy file upload site:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=16h4s93&s=6
Anthony — are you going to let this video stand without a retraction?
REPLY: John V I’m waiting to hear back from Peter’s dad, I sent an email last night. There’s something your probably haven’t considered in submitting your “proof”. If I’m right, then your complaint will likely be nullified.
So far, your analysis also shows a difference between urban and rural, though less. That doesn’t disprove Peter’s theory, and shows it to be true, but is a disagreement over magnitude. Also, you might want to put an x-axis year labels on your graph, as Peter did. For all we know you may have plotted 30 years worth of data.
-A
gjg (Peter’s Dad):
Congratulations, it’s a great piece of work, and very nicely presented. It looks like you’re giving your son an almost priceless gift: the ability to think for yourself. Keep on with the good work. I’m sure some of the experts here, including Anthony, will be able to give you invaluable help.
Chris (15:49:04) :
“Seems like someone on a low budget could take a weather ballon and an IR camera, and let it go over a city and capture temp empirically. I’m amazed there isn’t a satellite capable of doing this now.”
Actually, satellites regularly return IR images. They show the warmer urban areas very clearly. In fact they do look a bit like islands in the sea, so the name Urban Heat Islands is very appropriate.
Mark (15:03:02) :
“So what happens if one just plots the combined rural data? Is there warming or not? If there isn’t, then I don’t see how we’re causing the warming.”
Michaels and McKitrick published an important paper on this, I think it was 2008. They demonstrated a strong correlation between station warming and the surrounding environment, and therefore demonstrated a strong UHI effect. They concluded that if UHI were properly adjusted for, the warming of the last few decades would be cut by half. That implies a total global warming of perhaps less than 0.5 degree C. It would also mean that a greater proportion of the total warming occurred in the first half of the 20th century, when there wasn’t enough CO2 to cause any measurable warming – assuming, of course, that CO2 caused any of the warming in the first place.
*********************************************
Steve McIntyre’s comment about Parker and the IPCC is spot on. It’s completely bizarre that the IPCC claims UHI to be negligible on the basis of Parker. Why use such an indirect and problematic method when you can go out and measure UHI directly?
Actually, the answer to that question is blindingly obvious. This alone demonstrates how badly the IPCC and the Team have degraded science.
Some of you will recall the BBC Climate Wars series. The presenter gave a perfect example of how easy it is to measure UHI directly. He simply stood in front of the camera and measured the temperature. Then he drove into Las Vegas and repeated the measurement. It was several degrees warmer. The irony is that the program was pro-AGW. It didn’t seem to occur to the presenter that he had just demonstrated a powerful argument against one aspect of AGW.
I think UHI is one of the most important aspects of AGW science, because it’s so easy to demonstrate how bad the science is.
Chris
Question:
I am looking at the data for my own area, and I see it gives a single temperature for each month. Does anybody know how this temperature is calculated? I had assumed the records was made up from Tmin and Tmax.
Thanks
Anthony,
I have the E-mail address for the video maker.
e-mail me and I will pass it along to you
REPLY: Already have it, thanks, he left comments upstream. – Anthony
Keith G (18:40:24) :
” – except with a strongly Bayesian flavour. ”
I prefer paprika, myself 😉 (sorry, I couldn’t resist)
Richard Scott (20:30:31) :
“I wouldn’t take this too seriously, however without more work. I live 30 miles SE of Portland and have visited Hood River many times. They can’t be compared.”
JB, Portland Oregon (00:16:05) :
“Great video. One point, Portland, Oregon (Orygun not Or-Gone) and Hood River are in completely different climate zones and should not be compared.”
Actually, to Richard & JB, I must dissagree & I think you miss the point. The issue is not the daily individual temps, the point is the longterm trend between urban vs. rural temps. Hey, he could have taken temps from Rockaway Beach (rural, on the coast, if there was a station there), Portland & Hood River. Each about the same distance from Portland in opposite directions, in completely different climate zones, but yet, in the long term, Rockaway Beach & Hood River will most likely have a similar trend where Portland had an increasing trend which reflects the UHI buildup over time.
Oh, & by the way, east of Hood River along I-84 is *not* desert. Every time I drive along I see a whole bunch of wheat fields & other agriculture out there. Yes, it is arid, but irrigation (thanks to the Columbia River) helps to grow quite a bit in eastern Oregon & Washington.
Regards,
Jeff
Petergate?
Science: simple and open so everyone can check it and/or agree/disagree with it – even a child can do it. Now if only some adult scientists could do likewise.
Congratulations to Peter and his Dad for reminding us of the essence of scientific study at a time when science and theocracy are merging.
Of course an observant 6th-grader would notice it — every nite on the local weather reports! Every clear/windless nite the Washington DC news shows predicted overnite lows 5-10F cooler for the surburbs in any direction (including south or east) than the city center. Lately, tho, you have to get at least 20-30 miles outside the city to see the differences.
see Stephen 12:54:56.
Anthony, this is what we have been hoping for from you for some months now, with a careful matching of good and bad stations for climatic similarity. Do you have anything in the pipeline?
REPLY: yes two peer reviewed papers in the works – Anthony
VIncent,
“Oh for God’s sake lighten up. I think nobody reading this article is going to think it’s peer reviewed science.”
People have been posting it around as proof of fraud or whatever, I have noted it linked elsewhere as a result of this thread. The point is not about the quality of their work, which could be good or bad, but the blind assumption that it is excellent and shows or proves such and such thing before the results have been verified. This shows a bias.
“For me it was one of the most engaging pieces I’ve seen in a long time and has raised questions that can’t be ignored. Why are the rural temps flat?”
We know UHI is a problem and not fully accounted for. Pielke’s studies on this are convincing, for an example. IPCC’s favourite papers much less so.
Peter and Dad’s piece raises questions that can’t be ignored only if it is a valid piece, and this hasn’t been verified so far.
All credit to Peter and Dad, I’m sure they have been honest, but generally you shouldn’t jump the gun. Climategate has expanded the debate, and there are many skeptics in the media like Delingpole of Telegraph with lot of enthusiasm but a general lack of knowledge. In the worst case a thread like this gets distributed widely by their types and if later is shown to be bogus science, then can be referred to as an example to “prove” how the skeptics jump on any studies that support their beliefs.
Anthony:
This is getting silly and sad (but unfortunately not surprising). You are responding to other comments so I know you are in this thread. I have done the work to show that “Peter and his Dad” made mistakes in their analysis. You are ignoring that fact. I can only guess why you are not interested in accuracy.
Mistakes happen. “Peter and his Dad” probably made an honest mistake. This is a good example of the power of peer review. That and having the integrity to admit your mistakes would be good lessons for Peter.
REPLY: John V – do you know my wherabouts at every moment? Do you know exact when I’m online (like my response to you at 6;24 above) versus when I’m doing things like taking my son to school in the morning, managing my business, attending a Rotary club meeting, Christmas shopping, putting my kids to bed, or having breakfast? Because if you do, by all means, please publish my schedule here. Otherwise, refrain from saying you know when I’m online or not. I have a team of moderators that work in parallel. Just because comments keep getting approved and new posts show up doesn’t mean I’m online. Many posts are written in advance and scheduled.
I’ve sent an email to Peter’s Dad asking for the data he used. It is possible that you are BOTH right. I won’t know until I’m able to check it out. So far I haven’t gotten a response. When I do I’ll put it up and we can decide. As I said above your own analysis shows UHI, but the magnitude differs. You jump to a conclusion, citing a mistake, while that’s possible, there’s also another possible reason that I’m checking out.
In the meantime, you might want to think about congratulating this young man for his work, which shows curiosity, courage, and commitment. You are so busy trying to prove him wrong, you haven’t had time to look at the perspective.
As for your claims about: “I can only guess why you are not interested in accuracy.” I’ve explained what I’m doing. Let me say I’m not interested in your cheap shots Mr. V. If you want to make such accusations again, put your full name to it like I do with everything here. – Anthony Watts
Murray:
I second that motion. When is Anthony going to un-hide his station data and actually do some analysis with it? I did some work with it before he hid the data. NOAA did some work before he hid the data.
What’s up with the mysterious quality control Anthony?
[REPLY – Please be patient. These things take time. All will be forthcoming. ~ Evan]
REPLY2: People have been telling me that the work doesn’t matter unless it’s published in a peer reviewed journal. So that’s what I’m doing. As primary investigator and lead author that’s my right and that how it will be done like other papers. The data will be published in the SI and here too. Don’t like that wait? Sorry. People like JohnV want it early so they can draw their own conclusions before I get it published, and Mr. V has a track record of doing so. He did an early analysis with limited stations and poor spatial representation which was rushed to completion weeks after I started the surfacestations project. After publication, beat it up and much as you want using the data I provide. – Anthony
Wow, that would take a professor, three grad students, and a big grant to produce at a major university and they wouldn’t explain the whole process to you. Well done.
Interesting analysis. I see that raw temperature histories have been published for the UK, New Zealand, Scandinavia and Alaska (See ICECAP) . None of these indicate that the last decade was the warmest on record (see Copenhagen). In fact most show little historical change particularly over the last 70 years. I hope proxies for Peter and his Dad carry out similar excercises without fudge factors in say,France, Germany,Russia, China and South America – now that would be really interesting. Or have these analyses been published already?.
John G:
Keep in mind that the analysis is probably wrong. I attempted to verify it and got a very different answer. Anthony and “Peter’s Dad” have my spreadsheet to check my work.
>>> “”Sure, the UHI effect is real. That’s why they adjust for it, isn’t it?””
Yes, indeed. As we saw in the Darwin record, they adjust for the UHI effect by making the recent data much warmer. Errrmmm. Sorry, did we get that correction base over apex????
.
to: gjg “Peters dad”
If you see this, please check your email, specifically your AOL spam filter. I sent an email last night but have not gotten a response. AOL has a tendency to flag emails not in your regular communications.
I’ve just sent another email from my office account.
Thanks for your consideration, Anthony Watts
UPDATE: about 15 minutes later . gjg has replied from his work location, he’ll send me the spreadsheets tonight, as he has them on his home computer. Then I’ll be able to confirm or disprove my hunch about why John V gets different results. – Anthony