They join the UK Met office in embracing UHI now. Of course, my friend Jim Goodridge, former California State Climatologist, had this nailed in 1996 with his study of surface temperature in California:
MEDIA RELEASE Wednesday 13 October 2010
Hot cities
If you thought our cities are getting warmer, you’re right.
“We can now confidently say that the reason our cities are warmer and warming faster than the surrounding countryside during the day is because of the urbanisation…”
Bureau of Meteorology researchers have found that daytime temperatures in our cities are warming more rapidly than those of the surrounding countryside and that this is due to the cities themselves.
Bureau climate scientist, Belinda Campbell, said “we’ve known for a while that city night time temperatures have been warmer because the heat’s retained after sunset just that much longer than the countryside, and that city daytime temperatures have been warming too.”
“But what we didn’t know was whether city day time temperatures were also warmer because of the urbanisation or whether it was due to the overall warming of the planet associated with the enhanced greenhouse effect.”
“We can now confidently say that the reason our cities are warmer and warming faster than the surrounding countryside during the day is because of the urbanisation, the fact that all those offices, houses and factories absorb the heat and retain it a little bit longer,” Ms Campbell said.
On average, the enhanced greenhouse effect is responsible for about 0.5 to 1.0 degree of observed warming around the globe (more in some areas, less in other areas).
The additional effect of urbanisation on warming varies from city to city (depending on the buildings and open parkland close to the observation site).
The research team analysed data from 70 sites in the Bureau’s meteorological data archive in order to quantify how much the increases in daytime temperature can be attributed to urbanisation and how much to the enhanced greenhouse effect.
The sites were mostly from towns with populations ranging from 500 to 100,000, with a handful being either in cities with more than 100,000, or in isolated locations with hardly anybody for hundreds of kilometres.
Ms Campbell is presenting the results of the team’s work at the Australia – New Zealand Climate Forum in Hobart on Thursday (14 October, 2010).
For media inquiries
(03) 9669 4057
Mobile 0439 452 424
Source: http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20101013.shtml
===================================
h/t to WUWT reader “gibo”
===================================
Also, see this work I did in Reno, NV measuring and proving the UHI effect to myself:
…and if you’d like to measure UHI yourself:
Measure UHI in your town with this easy to use temperature datalogger kit
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
All I can say to the BoM is nice try Sunshine but it won’t wash. Too little, too late. Making a press release in the compliant lame stream media and hoping the public forget the past is so 1984. The lame stream media are no longer the gate keepers of opinion. Once the fourth estate, they are now the fifth wheel. We live in the age of the Internet, and Little Brother has been watching and recording. A web search for UHI and climate pulls up links to sceptic sites that have been discussing this for many years. The old techniques for backing away from gross malfeasance do not work in the age of the internet. BoM can look forward to having their noses rubbed in the ugly stain they have left on the scientific carpet that underlies our society. No amount of apologetic whining and puppy eyes is going to help.
I can’t believe they have only just proven it. I am truely shocked and stunned.
And even then, it was “…analysed data from 70 sites in the Bureau’s meteorological data archive…”, which seems a very week proof to me (meaning; insufficient knowlage of just how much UHI effect there actualy is).
NS says:
October 14, 2010 at 7:27 am
So the reason cities are warmer is because, they are cities (minus 0.5 to 1 degree of gw of course). I wonder what is the thermal output of an average city, has it ever been analysed?
+++++++++
I have made such a calculation recently for Ulaanbaatar which lies in a valley in a low wind area. The heat is about 6 GigaJoules per day in winter. The depth of the local inversions is 200 metres. The town is about 20 km long and the valley is narrow. There is a significant local warming which one can see on the car thermometer as one drives into town from, say, Gachuurt. It is several degrees C.
It amazes me that “scientific training” can blind people to the obvious.
I’ve been watching the temperatures recorded in Western Sydney with amazement over the last few years. It has undergone amazing growth and development over the last few decades and the temperatures have gone up with it. It used to be that summer temperatures over 37 degrees C were quite rare there, now they happen for several days each year.
Strangely though the temperatures in inland parts of New South Wales have not risen in the same way. Summers are now typically hotter at Penrith on the western edge of Sydney than in Narrabri 500 km north and about 300 km from the coast.
It can’t be climate change– only urbanisation can account for this.
If they are saying the UHI effect is 0.5 to 1 degree locally they are blowing smoke.
Here, near an urban area of about 150K (Tuscaloosa, AL) it is at least 5 degrees F.
I live about 20 miles north of town and sometimes my nightime lows are 10 degrees less than the official temp.
It might be worth stating here that whatever level of proof there may have been, there has never been a time in the last 200 year that urban heat (whether from heat production or heat retention) has not been taken into account in the analysis of the temperature record by climatologists. And this does not exclude AGW: Tyndall in the 1850-60 tried to deal, with as did Callendar in the 1930s. What is new with this research is that it is moving towards a more precise measure of the effect and its distribution around the daily cycle.
“On average, the enhanced greenhouse effect is responsible for about 0.5 to 1.0 degree of observed warming around the globe (more in some areas, less in other areas)
Assuming (as I think likely) that they are referring to the non-UHI component of warming; it is a meaningless statement without a time frame attached.
(And as I and others have asked before – why do UHI adjustments seem to be inverted in the temperature record – has anyone answered this satisfactorily? If so a link would be appreciated)
Mike says:
October 14, 2010 at 8:23 am (Edit)
The UHI effect is well known and has been taken into account by climatologists.
^^^^^^^^^^^
perhaps you can explain how GISS decide if a station is rural or urban?
Simple question. How do they decide?
dont fumble this question
So these facts should be subtracted from the current temperatures reported to compensate for this phenomena. And since the olden days before UHI didn’t have UHI there should be no changes to those temperatures done. The result as we should expect is that rather than cooling past temperatures they should be left alone, while recent temperatures should be reduced to compensate for UHI.
It seems so simple to understand, yet Hansen can’t seem to understand this simple fact. How he ever got away with doing the reverse of reality is beyond anything I could possibly comprehend.
So let me get this right- UHI effect has nothing to do with increased use of air conditioners pumping out heat from buildings, or incorrectly placed thermometers.
Anthony sez:
“…and if you’d like to measure UHI yourself:
Measure UHI in your town with this easy to use temperature datalogger kit”
Out of curiousity, do any of the “warmist” sites offer equipment for sale and invite us to “measure it yourself”?
Best,
Frank
John Marshall says:
October 15, 2010 at 1:28 am (Edit)
So let me get this right- UHI effect has nothing to do with increased use of air conditioners pumping out heat from buildings, or incorrectly placed thermometers.
$$$$$
very little to do with that. other factors drive it
(And as I and others have asked before – why do UHI adjustments seem to be inverted in the temperature record – has anyone answered this satisfactorily? If so a link would be appreciated)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the adjustmenst go both ways. The bottom line is the adjustments dont matter and cant matter. mathematically cant. steve Mc did a collation
very simply urban stations are adjusted to ‘follow’ rural.
if the rural cools and the urban warms, the urban gets cooled
if the rural warms and the urban cools, the urban gets warmed.
The adjustments do not matter in the big picture/
the Trick, that few seem to get is this
How hansen defines rural.
Thats the trick.
Data for Melbourne and elsewhere in Voctoria at
http://arts.monash.edu.au/ges/research/climate/urban/
(Unfortunately, some graphs lack units).
http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/~jon/WWW/uhi-melb.html
http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/~jon/WWW/deniliquin.html
http://mclean.ch/climate/Melbourne_UHI.htm
Actual measurements indicate one to several degrees over a century for Melbourne, about enough to make the record flatline after adjustment for UHI – depending on the constancy of UHI over days to months to years, when averaged for daily and seasonal effects.
Mr Mosher, (October 15, 2010 at 2:21 am)
I understand what you are saying and it seems a very sensible way to go about things
“…if the rural cools and the urban warms, the urban gets cooled – if the rural warms and the urban cools, the urban gets warmed.”
It’s just that it doesn’t seem to work that way in practice. It doesn’t explain why the historical (pre-UHI) records are adjusted for it at all. Nor do we hear much about rural or, especially, urban cooling; so I wonder when it has been applied in the manner you state.
Not all adjustments are in the wrong direction of course as per this example…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/21/fudged-fevers-in-the-frozen-north/
…but even then it seems unclear why it has been done in quite the way it has.
Of course you are right that it matters very much which stations you adjust but I would propose that it matters too that the adjustment itself is defensible.
“The adjustments do not matter in the big picture”
I must have misunderstood this statement. You seem to be asserting that 4-5 degrees of UHI measured at a large number of stations does not matter when looking for a signal of a fraction of a degree over the same period. Where have I got it wrong?
It’s amazing that the AGW is just now catching on; over ten years ago I was at a energy conference with an EPA representative where she stressed how we could ease the urban heat island effect by installing vegetation on roofs.
Haven’t we all been saying for years now that it wasn’t CO2 but all the concrete and asphalt? Heck! Kids don’t even go barefoot any more! The street’s too hot. I haven’t gone barefoot in 50 years. I think they’re adding old concrete and asphalt to beach sand too.
Any0ne who rides a motorcycle could have told them that… Nice and cool near an irrigated peach orchard, warm in town. Had that effect many nights in the Central Valley. Some times it was so pronounced that I’d be comfortable without a jacket in town, then visit a friend a couple of miles outside and be shivering from the damp cool near the orchards. (70 MPH can give a decent wind chill 😉
Then there is the seasonal shoulder effect in places with snow. We truck megatons of the stuff out of cities globally so the nice black asphalt is exposed. That has an impact on the surface temps in the entry / exit from snow season. It’s always warmer over the parking lot than it is over 5 feet of snow on the ski slope.
I think the ‘warmers’ need to get out more 😉
Mike says:
October 14, 2010 at 8:23 am
I’m calling bullshit on that one. There is no adjustment made for UHI in the surface temperature record nor is there any adjustment made for otherwise poorly placed temperature stations such as near airport tarmacs, parking lots, buildings, and air conditioning vents.
Warmists are quick to point out that CO2 measurements are best taken at great remove from sources and sinks; locations like Antartica and Mauna Loa. The same discipline is not employed in measuring land surface temperatures. The only reliable source of atmospheric temperature on a globally averaged basis is the satellite record beginning in 1979 and even that has problems associated with it like not having a good enough view of very high latitudes.