Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
“I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw”
William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii
Following on from my look at the USHCN temperature dataset, I have gone north (if not north-north-west) and looked at the NORDKLIM dataset. This dataset covers Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland. Of the seventy-five stations in the dataset, fifty of them have records covering the period from 1900 to 1999. Figure 1 shows the average of those selected temperatures for that period.
Figure 1. Average of the 50 long-term stations in the NORDKLIM dataset. The warmest year in the data is 1934. Photo is of Tromso, Norway, 70° North Latitude.
As before, I wanted to look at the changes in different months, to see when during the year the warming occurred. Figure 2 shows the decadal changes in the temperature for each month.
Figure 2. Decade-by-decade changes in the temperature of the Nordic countries. Photo is of Tromsoe, Norway, 70° North Latitude
As you can see, the changes are similar to those in the US. The summer temperatures have not changed. Winter temperatures (January to March) have warmed. One difference is that the winter warming is larger in the NORDKLIM temperatures.
The more I look at these datasets, the more I think that we are looking at the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. This is the change in the recorded temperature due to increasing development around the recording station. Increasing houses, buildings, industry, parking lots, and roads all increase the recorded temperature at nearby stations. The NORDKLIM notes say:
Especially one should notice that stations represent local conditions, which may have been effected e.g. by urbanisation
This effect is known to be greater in winter than in summer. In a study done in Barrow, Alaska, for example, there is a 4.5°C difference in the UHI effect between January and July. The winter to summer difference in the UHI in Fairbanks, Alaska is estimated to be 1.2°C.
In addition to the physical development (buildings, roads, etc.), another reason for this UHI can be seen in the photos used to illustrate the graphs. This is the direct usage of energy in the cities. For example, estimates of the energy usage for the New York City area are on the order of 5 * 10^18 joules annually. This gives a local forcing of ~ 20 W/m2.
How large an effect is this? Well, to get this amount of forcing from increasing CO2, instead of merely doubling, it would have to increase by more than forty times …
The colder the city is on average, the more effect that this will have. A building kept at 70°F (20°C) will have little effect on temperature if the local temperature is only slightly below that. If the temperature is below freezing, on the other hand, this will be a much larger effect.
In addition, the colder the weather, the more energy is put into heating the buildings. This also increases the winter UHI. As a result, we would expect the effect we have seen, that the recorded change in winter temperatures is greater in the NORDKLIM dataset than in the USHCN dataset.
My conclusion? At least part of the warming in the US and the NORDKLIM datasets is the result of UHI distortion of the records. An unknown but likely significant amount of this UHI heating is due to direct energy consumption in the cities.
And knowing how much of the temperature change is from UHI is harder than telling a hawk from a handsaw.
For those confused by the ending expression (hey, I looked it up):
(Before looking it up I would have said sure, it’s easy to know the difference. A hawk is easier to sharpen, some are also good for smoking.)
The colder the city is on average, the more effect that this will have. A building kept at 70°F (20°C) will have little effect on temperature if the local temperature is only slightly below that. If the temperature is below freezing, on the other hand, this will be a much larger effect.>>
The other one I think gets missed a lot is inclination of the sun. A cold climate features shorter days, but also a sun that hangs lower on average to the horizon. So the vertical face of a building presents an almost perpendicular surface to incoming radiance and in most cases a darker color than snow. As a consequence, the amount of energy a building absorbs from the sun (and re-emitts as longwave) is higher in winter than in summer, and higher still than the amount of shortwave that would have been absorbed had it hit snow at a sharp angle and mostly just bounced off.
Is there no decadal record for 1999-2009?
Can’t we see the cheat of a 9-year average if the ten-year isn’t available?
Here are the monthly max temp linear trends (MS Excel TREND() function) of (a) the 4 longest-running Australian stations and (b) all 29 Australian stations with 100+ years operation:
overall trend deg C / 100yrs
month 4 stns all stns
Jan -0.4 -0.2
Feb -0.3 -0.1
Mar -0.3 0.5
Apr -0.1 0.2
May 1.1 0.7
Jun 0.9 1.0
Jul 1.2 1.3
Aug 0.5 0.7
Sep 0.6 0.6
Oct 0.2 0.4
Nov -0.2 -0.1
Dec -0.8 -0.5
full year 0.2 0.4
NB. In Australia, Dec-Feb is summer, Jun-Aug is winter.
harrywr2 (14:20:35) wrote of “The side walk effect.
Anybody who has ever shoveled a sidewalk or driveway knows the snow melts faster near the sidewalk/driveway… For for places like Barrow, simple side walks hasten spring snow melt, hence a change in albedo which creates warming”
I like this one. Next winter when I’m feeling lazy I can tell my wife that I can’t shovel the sidewalk because that causes The Warming. Perfect!
Urederra (15:02:55) wrote: “In addition, the colder the weather, the more energy is put into heating the buildings.
It would be interesting to study the graph of one of these southern american cities, Phoenix (AZ) for example, and see if there is a temperature increase versus energy consumption correlation.”
But, since most of that power comes from coal burning, these spinners will just link that CO2 output to The Warming.
The ‘CO2’ driven effect, recycling photons, should be easy to separate from the UHI effect by examining the kinetics of heating.
If you examined the change in daily warming and cooling on four days, at the Mar/Sept Solstice and June/Dec Equinox, you could work out the rates of heating and cooling.
The Solstice/Equinox makes life a lot easier as you are comparing two sets of two pairs.
Now, if AGW is correct, there should be an increase in the rate of warming and a decrease in the rate of cooling.
A UHI effect would probably slow the rate of warming (as concrete has a lot of thermal inertia) and slow the rate of cooling (as they radiate).
I have never been able to get a good set of data of an hourly series, from those four days, from the 60’s up to now.
If anyone knows a nice place, point it out to me.
I did do the analysis on the Vostock data, that showed no change in yearly cooling/heating rates; but I was informed it is not a fair test as there is no water amplification.
The 30s and the 90s look like the warm decades in both winter and summer. Supposing UHI effects in the latter are a reasonable hypothesis, but I wonder about the former.
know a hawk from a handsaw to be able to judge things; be discerning
[from Shakespeare (Hamlet II:2:375); handsaw is probably a corruption of dialect heronshaw heron]
Interestingly I immediately thought of:
hawk (plural hawks) A plasterer’s tool, made of a flat surface with a handle below, used to hold an amount of plaster prior to application to the wall or ceiling being worked on: a mortarboard.
But on closer examination, I suspect the meaning was intended to be:
to hawk at: to fly at or attack on the wing, as a hawk does. Of a person: To fly a hawk at.
1605 Shakes. Macb. ii. iv. 13 A Faulcon towring in her pride of place, Was by a Mowsing Owle hawkt at, and kill’d. 1633 G. Herbert Temple, Sacrifice xxiii, Who does hawk at eagles with a dove?
So what was “hand saw”?
Well looking to the OED we find the obsolete phrase: to draw the saw (of contention or controversy): to keep up a fruitless dispute. to be under the saw of contention: (of a question) to be the subject of profitless dispute. to hand the saw: to take turns, change parts, with another in some work or function. to hold (a person) at the long saw: to keep in suspense.
This was certainly in use at the time: 1674 Now because ghost cannot hand the saw thus with body+Thence ’tis [etc.].
So in my opinion (for what little it is worth) it would appear the judgement that Shakespeare was referring to was the judgement between those who fly at the attack like a Hawk and those that take it turn and turn about like those who use the “hand saw”.
Billyquiz (14:32:42)
One photo is Tromsø, one is Oslo.
David W (14:53:43)
I’ve not been able to find it … any pointers are welcome. Much of the NORDKLIM data doesn’t extend beyond 2000, or start before 1900.
mindbuilder (14:11:01)
I looked at comparing the NORDKLIM data to the satellite data, but unfortunately there’s only two decades of data overlap, and the confidence intervals are wide …
However, given that, here’s the graph. It is of the change from the 1980-89 decade to the 1990-99 decade.
Both pictures is from Tromsø, Willis. God work done with the graphs, thak you! Try this link for the Norwegian temperatures from 2000-2010
http://sharki.oslo.dnmi.no/portal/page?_pageid=73,39035,73_39049&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&6009_BATCHORDER_3197941
Ian H (15:33:33), thanks for your comment.
My statement is accurate (barring a stupid arithmetical mistake, which wouldn’t be the first time I’ve done that). A forcing of 20 W/m2 is more than five doublings of CO2.
I am comparing the size of the forcing, not the size of the thermal effects (which are unknown). I just want to give people a sense of the relative size of the two forcings, those of thermal UHI and of a doubling of CO2.
Part II .. So in my opinion (for what little it is worth) it would appear the judgement that Shakespeare was referring to was the judgement between those who fly at the attack like a Hawk and those that take it turn and turn about like those who use the “hand saw”.
Intrigued by what Hamlet may be referring to in the scene I’ve had a look and the crucial reference seems to be that the King of Norway is trying to trick Claudius (Hamlet’s step dad & uncle) into allowing a hostile army into his country. Claudius appears indifferent to the fact that a powerful enemy will be riding through his country with a large army in tow. Claudius is much more worried about Hamlet’s madness, showing that where King Hamlet (Hamlet’s dad – killed by Claudius) was a powerful warrior (the hawk?) who sought to expand Denmark’s power abroad, Claudius is a politician (hand saw … to be the subject of profitless dispute … endless going to and fro)
kadaka (15:40:42)
Shakespeare loved plays on words. There’s a couple of possibilities. One is yours, that the text is corrupted from a “hernshaw” or “henshaw”, meaning a heron.
The other one that a “hawk” is a shaped piece of wood used by bricklayers to carry mortar, that is to say a tool which is different from a handsaw. No one knows which was meant.
kadaka (15:40:42) : “(Before looking it up I would have said sure, it’s easy to know the difference. A hawk is easier to sharpen, some are also good for smoking.)”
Reminds me of the Lewis Carroll riddle, “Why is a raven like a writing desk?” The best answer: “Because you cannot ride either one of them like a bicycle.”
I think Willis makes an excellent point here, if large cities such as NY can create a 20w/m2 forcing, which is 5 times that of a doubling of co2, why have these large cities not yet been destroyed by severe floods, drought, shrinking fish, frog death etc…? If people dont even notice a 20w/m2 increase, why would they notice 3.8w/m2? I know one is localised and one is global, but no one is complaining about the warmer night time temps and winter temps, especially in NY!
“Why is a raven like a writing desk?”
Because Edgar Allan Poe wrote on both of them.
Sorry about the long post. This is just a quick thing I got interested in after reading this post.
UHI in New York City: A simple calculation
In 2003 New York City had a forecasted peak electricity demand of 11,020 MW (see http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/energy_task_force.pdf ). When considering the urban heating island effect, one must ask where this electrical energy goes. Any decent thermodynamics student should be able to tell you that this electrical energy will eventually end up as heat which is dissipated to the surrounding environment. This dissipation of heat is potentially manifested as an increase in surrounding temperature. Thermodynamically the atmosphere is considered a reservoir and as such under strict definition heat may be removed or added to a reservoir without perceptible change in reservoir temperature. This is a reasonable assumption considering a single piece of equipment. However, considering the large power use of a city this heat may indeed affect the temperature of the surroundings.
In the following analysis we will consider the following assumptions and parameters.
1) New York city has a land area of 790 square kilometers or 7.9 x 10^8 m^2
2) New York City has a electrical power use of 11020 MW
3) Things such as natural gas heating oil heating and other thermal heating loads are neglected (this is a really bad assumption but is likely counteracted by other assumptions below)
4) Transportation energy regarding those methods in which use fuel directly (not electricity) is also neglected (like 4 another bad assumption)
5) All thermal energy gets put into the atmosphere (likely a bad assumption but one that is balanced by assumptions 3 and 4 above)
6) As per reliability regulations 80% of the city’s power must be generated in city so the thermal heat from the exhaust of the power generation is included. I assume a thermal powerplant efficiency of 31%. With assumption 5 above this adds 24488 MW to the atmospheric thermal load. (isn’t likely that all the thermal energy goes to the atmosphere from the power plant as there are water bodies all around NYC but this is just an exercise right?)
7) The UHI bubble is 100 m tall and the entire volume is exchanged with fresh incoming air every hour (this largely depends on atmospheric conditions wind patterns etc)
8) The entire volume is a single temperature. (definitely not true but this is a simple minded estimate)
The calculation proceeds as follows Energy = Power x time = 35508 MW x 3600 sec/hour =1.278 x 10^14 Joules
Energy is absorbed by the atmosphere. Energy = volume (7.9 x 10^10 m^3) x density (1.16 kg/m^3) x Specific heat (1004 J/(kg x C) x temperature rise.
Solving for temperature rise Delta T = 1.39 deg C. So this means that the UHI in NYC with the assumptions stated gains 1.39 C even if the entire volume is changed with fresh air every hour. Now there are a lot of simplifying assumptions and really bad assumptions neglecting some energy sources and where the thermal energy goes to but this simple calculation shows that UHI is indeed a real phenomenon even without additions from pavement etc.
mindbuilder (14:11:01) :
Do we have reliable measurement and calculation of global temp rise from satellites? If so do they show the same warming as thermometers? If they do then doesn’t that discredit the UHI effect as insignificant? Or was most of the UHI effect created before the satellites started measuring?
**************
Yes we do. Woodfortrees.org is an excellent resource.
Actually satellite data shows a cooling from 1998 to 2010.
Ground stations show a warming.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2010/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2010/trend
That is why climate alarmists like ground statons.
There are no parking lots in space so they can’t put thermometers close to them.
he trend from 1998 to 2010 is:
GISS – our old friend Dr Hansen =+.0111 per year 1.11 o C in 100 years
UAH satellite data trend = – .00282 [that is NEGATIVE] OR NEGATIVE .28 o C in 100 years.
If you take a longer time period the GISS trend is ALWAYS higher than the satellite.
Why? Because there are no parking lots or UHI in space.
FACTS ARE SO INCONVENIENT FOR THE CLIMATE ALARMISTS.
J. Berg (17:04:54)
Many thanks, I’ve changed the head post.
Continuing my research, here are the changes from the 1980-89 decade to 1990-99 and 2000-10 for the USHCN surface temperature and the UAH MSU satellite data.
As you can see, there is a good fit between the USHCN and the UAH data. I assume this is because the NORDKLIM data has not been adjusted for UHI … but who knows?
of hawks and handsaws and hedging bets
“Despite the trend towards global warming,
people in Great Britain and Central Europe
will possibly experience cold winters more
often in the next few years.”
http://www.physorg.com/news190990917.html
I would also like to see the data from 2000-2009 included as we’ve previously been told from various sources that last decade was the warmest on record.
Is the data unavailable?
It’s probably available. It may well be the warmest on (our exceedingly short) record. But that argument is bogus because it has cooled measurably since the peak of 1998.
It’s as invalid as the argument (1984) that Reagan was worse for inflation than Carter (false) because — average — inflation under Carter was in fact lower than under Reagan (true). Reagan thoroughly shot down that silly argument with the immortal one-liner, “If the Carter administration were a book, you’d have to read it from back to front to get a happy ending.”
[P.S., If FDR had made the exact same remark, it would be referred to not as a one-liner, but as a “quip”.]
Willis, the acceptable agreement seems to be in the aggregate comparisons though.
It has always seemed to me that we should be comparing the final ground-station-generated map to the satellite map before the spacial averaging into a single temperature.
That is:
“USHCN says the temperature at Lat/Long is XXX, MSU says it is YYY, error, standard deviation, bias determination, etc.”
Taking something like the data from here:
http://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/Search.html?group=67
And comparing that to either individual surface stations or the resulting temperature map after the massive infilling steps.