By Steven Goddard and Anthony Watts
Fort Collins, Colorado is most famous for Balloon Boy, and Boulder, Colorado is most famous for Jon Benet and Ward Churchill.
Both are hotbeds of Climate Science, with familiar names like Roger Pielke (Jr. and Sr.) Walt Meier, William Gray, Kevin Trenberth and Mark Sereeze. Both are of similar size (Boulder 91,000 and Fort Collins 130,000) and located in very similar geographical environments along the Front Range – about 50 miles apart. The big difference is that Fort Collins has tripled in size over the last 40 years, and Boulder has grown much more slowly. Fort Collins population is shown in blue and Boulder in red below.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Collins,_Colorado
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulder,_Colorado
Until the mid-1960s, NCDC temperatures in the two cities tracked each other quite closely, as you can see below. Again, Fort Collins in blue, and Boulder in red – with Fort Collins temperatures shifted upwards by two degrees to normalize the left side of the graph. Since 1965, temperatures in Fort Collins have risen much more quickly than Boulder, paralleling the relative increase in population.
Source: NCDC Boulder Temperatures NCDC Fort Collins Temperatures
The graph below shows the absolute difference between Fort Collins temperatures and Boulder temperatures since 1930. There is some sort of discontinuity around 1940, but the UHI imprint is clearly visible in the Fort Collins record. The Colorado State Climatologist, Nolan Doesken manages the Fort Collins Weather station. He has told me that it has never moved or changed instrumentation. and that he believes the increase in temperature is due to UHI effects.
Roger Pielke Sr. further commented:
“the Fort Collins site did have the introduction of the CSU Transit Center a few years ago, although this is well after the upturn in temperature differences between Boulder and Fort Collins started to increase.”
From the promotional photo on the CSU website, the Fort Collins USHCN weather station (below) seems reasonably sited.
However when you look at the Google Earth street view, you realize that it is surrounded by concrete, asphalt, nearby parking, and a building just 7.5 meters away (By the GE ruler tool). It would rate a CRN4 by the surfacestations rating. It also appears to have been modified since the promo photo was taken as there is a new fence with shrubbery and wood chips surrounding it.
Besides the pressure of CSU expansion, Fort Collins has seen an increase of about two degrees since 1970, corresponding to a population increase of 90,000. This is probably a little higher than Dr. Spencer’s estimates for UHI.
The Boulder weather station is similarly sited since the concrete path is just under 10 meters away.
It is at the campus of NOAA’s and NIST’s headquarters in Boulder. Anthony Watts visited the station in 2007 and took photos for the surfacestations project. Like Fort Collins, it gets similar expansion pressure due to nearby construction as seen in this aerial photo.
Here are the temperature records fro these two USHCN stations:
NCDC Fort Collins Temperatures
There is some UHI effect visible in the Boulder record below, but much less than Fort Collins.
Conclusion:
We have two weather stations in similarly sited urban environments. Until 1965 they tracked each other very closely. Since then, Fort Collins has seen a relative increase in temperature which tracks the relative increase in population. UHI is clearly not dead.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
R. Gates (11:35:02) :
“More importantly though is the the trend in arctic sea ice on a year-to-year basis remains the same…down. See:”
But more importantly, RECOVERING.
Boulder is intentionally surrounded by open space, which chokes off any growth. Fort Collins has unlimited room to grow on the North and East and is rapidly merging with Loveland to the South. The climate changes dramatically to the North of Fort Collins, where it is not protected by the mountains – and it is very cold and windy towards Wyoming.
Interesting info here :
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2008/top100/
Anu (10:36:08) :
Bill Gates was an arrogant jerk.
I hear all his work was a hoax, based on faked data.
Nah, he just stole most of the good ideas from other people. 🙂
R. Gates (11:35:02) :”More importantly though is the the trend in arctic sea ice on a year-to-year basis remains the same…down. See:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png ”
An obvious falsehood. The recent trend is strongly upward. The ice is, in fact, currently within one standard deviation of the “average.” Saying the arctic ice is now trending down is like saying someone from LA driving west out of Denver at 60 mph is “trending towards New York.”
Just when you thought you heard every absurd claim concerning man-made global warming, we get this;
Cocaine users ‘making global warming worse’
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/03/03/cocaine-users-making-global-warming-worse-115875-22081755/
jdl
I am a sailplane pilot and tend to think that you have hit on something. As cities grow, the winds diminish in and around them. I would be willing to bet that UHI is directly related to the change in wind speed due to the build up in the general area, especially at ground level.
It also occurs to me that concurrent wind speed measurements were kept alongside the temperature readings.
R. Gates (11:35:02),
You make it so easy it’s fun:
“And it looks like we have just about reached are [sic] maximum sea ice extent for the winter season:”
That’s an Arctic graph. Here’s the Antarctic graph: click
Since Antarctic ice extent is greater than Arctic, what does that tell you about global ice cover?
You never answer that question, so I will: global ice is increasing: click [plenty more graphs available. Just ask]
So why do you post only charts of the Arctic? Answer: because the much bigger Antarctic contradicts your beliefs.
The entire CAGW conjecture is that global warming is gonna getcha. So you try and convince people here, who know better, that the Arctic represents the globe. It doesn’t. Here: click Read it and weep.
Very nice Post, Anthony.
I hope this will be a part of your coming paper on surface stations.
We need it all over the world as a part of the “Revence of the Science”, as Schmidt so nicely put it.
R. Gates (11:35:02) :
“…though I suspect it is not significant on a global basis…”
Yes, isnt it too bad we can only suspect, and have opinions on it.
I wonder who’s fault that is?
Ref – R. Gates (11:35:02) :
“Very interesting and well done article. No doubt the UHI effect has played some role in skewing temperature data, though I suspect it is not significant on a global basis…”
__________________________
Nuc bursts are not significant on a global basis either, unless there are enough over a period of time. Though UHI is no where close to the heat generated by a nuc blast for a similiar area, the continuous effect –even given the day-night up-down curve and seasonal variation– is cumulative on the seasonal environment: summers are warmer, winters are warmer, etc., etc.. Would seem to follow that the effects, although minor, can have an impact on weather. (Wonder what a Downwind Effects and Collateral Damage Message would looklike for NYC for a long hot summer:-)
Boulder/Ft Collins population stats (x1000)
http://www.populstat.info/Americas/usas-cot.htm
Year Boulder Fort Collins
c2000 94.7 118.7
c1990 85.1 87.8
c1980 76.7 64.6
c1970 66.9 43.3
c1960 37.7 25
c1950 20 14.9
c1940 13 12.3
c1930 11.2 11.5
c1920 11
e1916/17 11.7
c1900 6.2 2
Using Google Earth to look at Fort Collins Station:
Aerial imagery is dated Oct 14, 2002. Ot shows none of the up grade shown in the newer photo above (from GE street view). It shows construction of paved area to SE. It appears to be about an acre of concrete about 100 feet away. Their is no sign of the wide concrete sidewalks surrounding the station, nor the plantings nor the rock mulch that replaced the grass.
Streetview images (copyright of photos is 2009) show 6 foot sidewalk and a bus pickup station on the new concrete from 2002 imagery. “Eye altitude” is shown as 5012 ft. Parking spots adjoin the fenced area on the street south of the building and in a new parking lot to the east.
That would appear to be an impact on the Fort Collins station.
Steve, now you‘ve got me looking and a little station analysis. Here’s my first stab.
Using NCDC and looking southwest of you, Oklahoma City or Norman show no stations (think they are ACOS) but taking the nearest towns north, east, south, and west of Oklahoma City, each shows basically no trend in the highs but marked rising slope on the low temperatures. All four towns’ graphs and trends are very similar. That’s covering about 6400 square miles, 40 miles each way. Averaging the four highs and averaging the four lows you get these yearly linear trends:
Highs: y = 0.0016x + 68.605
Lows: y = 0.0169x + 13.113
The highs show it will take 1/0.0016 = 625 years to rise 1ºF and the lows show 1/0.0169 = 59 years to rise 1ºF.
That’s using 1368 monthly data points each.
Didn’t expect that! The highs are barely moving between 1895 and 2008 but the lows are what are trending higher. I wonder if this is a general truth globally. If the highs raise little but only the lows are getting milder who would see that as a problem? That seems the UHI. Of course, it could just be a regional curiosity; I think I’ll check Texas and northward up the plains for the same pattern.
Isn’t this tending towards all cities are different? All weather station sitings are different. The population density and the industry nearby would have an effect on each weather station . For instance — If there were thousands of people who worked near the weather station site, I bet the UHI effects would be different than at a station site that was situated in a lighter populated usage area of the city.
The one conclusion I would draw is there are many factors that affect each siting, and likely each site would need detailed on site analysis.
It’s going to be harder to get accurate data than sitting in an office, I think.
“I thought it was famous for Coors Brewery. When I visited the Solar Energy Research Center 30 years ago (DOE boondoggle), a side tour was to Coors. One of my all-time favorite bars, the Dark Horse Saloon (IIRC), was one of our night-time stops (not part of the DOE sponsored trip).
Back on topic: Are there any nearby rural sites, to use to calculate the UHI of Boulder and Fort Collins?”
Coors brewery is in golden, colorado…
During the 1970s a building boom took place but Boulder put limits on growth. For 5-10 miles in all directions around Ft. Collins changed to suburban neighborhoods from dry-land wheat. Both cities are near the foothills but I believe Boulder gets afternoon shadow earlier than Ft. Collins, so it may be more limited by daytime heating. The mountains rise more steeply next to Boulder than Ft. Collins.
wayne (09:46:45) :
In the photo, up is North. Prevailing winds are from the west, but due to the proximity to the foothills (mountains elsewhere), I believe that there is a pretty good mixing influence.
It shouldn’t affect the trends, but Boulder is closer to the foothills than Ft. Collins. It may seem logical, but Ft. Collins has spread more with it’s growth. What growth Boulder has seen is mostly by filling in open spaces. The perimeter of the city has not changed that much in the 20 years that I’ve been here.
There’s a saying around here: I’ve already moved here, now keep everyone else out.
wayne,
Most US states were as warm in the 1930s as they are now. Here is Oklahoma
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=timeseries02&byear=2009&bmonth=02&year=2010&month=01&ext=gif&id=034-00
and Alabama
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=timeseries02&byear=2009&bmonth=02&year=2010&month=01&ext=gif&id=001-00
and Pennsylvania
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=national&image=timeseries02&byear=2009&bmonth=02&year=2010&month=01&ext=gif&id=036-00
Any warming that has occurred has been out west. Southern states have cooled considerably.
It is also interesting to note from the aerial that the cemetery is irrigated up wind of the Boulder site, providing a false cooling effect.
UHI is similar to a teenager’s face.
If you map the global color of his face with color sensors located mainly on pimples (airports and city centers) and use them to make a gridded average, the face is pretty red. If you trend it from childhood the graph forms a hockey stick.
I think the climate scientists will experience global face redding as people figure this out.
hey steve.
Throw in a nearby rural for comparison
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425724690050&data_set=0&num_neighbors=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser,_Colorado
and dillion
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425724690010&data_set=0&num_neighbors=1
And cheesman
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425745310020&data_set=0&num_neighbors=1
It would be cool is surface stations also had metadata for things like
historical populations.
For small towns this is hard to come by using online information from US census.. but state census, library, historical societies.. neat work for the historically inclined..
Gallup
“Do you think that global warming will pose a serious threat to you of your way of life in your lifetime?”
67% No
32% yes
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/vsj_u-80huqgud6kgt9v9a.gif
Steven & Derek: “Coors brewery is in golden, colorado…”
Long term memory loss. I believe the Solar Energy Research Center was also in Golden. The bars we hit were in Boulder (a college town?), but not that far from Golden.
>> R. Gates (11:35:02) :
Very interesting and well done article. No doubt the UHI effect has played some role in skewing temperature data, though I suspect it is not significant on a global basis… <<
It wouldn't significantly change the global temperature anomaly, but it will significantly change the measured global temperature anomaly.
A much bigger concern is that, in 15 years of taxpayer funding for climate reasearch averaging about $2B / year (in the US alone), there hasn't been any effort by the professionals to do a site-by-site comprehensive analysis of the effect. This should be one of the earliest and most basic studies of climate research.