Gee where have we seen something like this before? Dads/Moms and Grandparents: if you’d like your children/grandchildren to be able to do something on UHI for the spring science fair, here’s an easy to do idea. – Anthony
From Science @ NASA.gov – Satellites Pinpoint Drivers of Urban Heat Islands in the Northeast
Cities such as New York, Philadelphia, and Boston are prominent centers of political power. Less known: Their size, background ecology, and development patterns also combine to make them unusually warm, according to NASA scientists who presented new research recently at an American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting in San Francisco, Calif.
Summer land surface temperature of cities in the Northeast were an average of 7 °C to 9 °C (13°F to 16 °F) warmer than surrounding rural areas over a three year period, the new research shows. The complex phenomenon that drives up temperatures is called the urban heat island effect.
Heat islands are not a newly-discovered phenomenon. Indeed, using simple mercury thermometers, weather watchers have noticed for some two centuries that cities tend to be warmer than surrounding rural areas.
Likewise, researchers have long noticed that the magnitude of heat islands can vary significantly between cities. However, accurate comparisons have long eluded scientists because ground-based air temperature sensors tend to be unevenly distributed and prone to local bias. The lack of quantifiable definitions for urban versus non-urban areas has also hindered comparisons.
Satellite technology, which offers a more uniform view of heat islands, is in the process of changing this. The group of researchers from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., presented results based on a new method for comparing heat islands at the AGU meeting.
| Visible Light | Surface Heat | Developed Land | Vegetation Cover |
|---|---|---|---|
| › Larger image | › Larger image | › Larger image | › Larger image |
| Visible Light | Surface Heat | Developed Land | Vegetation Cover |
|---|---|---|---|
| › Larger image | › Larger image | › Larger image | › Larger image |
Satellite-produced maps of Providence and Buffalo highlight the role that differences in development patterns and vegetation cover can have on the magnitude of a city’s urban heat island. Though the two cities have the same approximate size, Providence has a significantly stronger heat island. Credit: NASA/Earth Observatory
“This, at least to our knowledge, is the first time that anybody has systematically compared the heat islands of a large number of cities at continental and global scales,” said Ping Zhang, a scientist at Goddard and the lead author of the research.
Land surface temperatures in cities, particularly densely-developed cities, tend to be elevated in comparison to surrounding areas — a phenomenon called an urban heat island. Credit: NASA
Heat islands can be deadly. This graph shows how the number of deaths spiked in Paris during a sweltering heat wave in 2003. Credit: University of Hawaii at Manoa/Benedicte Dousset
Air conditioning systems release waste heat into the atmosphere such that their widespread use can inadvertently elevate city air temperatures. This graph shows the result of a model that calculated the likely magnitude of the effect during the 2003 heat wave in Paris. Credit: Météo France/Cécile de Munck
Surface temperatures vary more than air temperatures during the day, but they both are fairly similar at night. Credit: EPA
› Larger image Development produces heat islands by replacing vegetation, particularly forests, with pavement and other urban infrastructure. This limits plant transpiration, an evaporative process that helps cool plant leaves and also cools air temperatures, explained Robert Wolfe of Goddard, one of the scientists who developed the method.
Dark city infrastructure, such as black roofs, also makes urban areas more apt to absorb and retain heat. Heat generated by motor vehicles, factories, and homes also contributes to the development of urban heat islands.
A New View
The new method for comparing cities, which the team of scientists has honed for about two years, involves the use of maps of impervious surface area produced by a United States Geological Survey-operated Landsat satellite, and land surface temperature data from the Moderate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), an instrument aboard NASA’s Aqua and Terra satellites.
Impervious surfaces are surfaces that don’t absorb water easily, such as roads, roofs, parking lots, and sidewalks. Land surface temperatures tend to be higher and more variable than air temperatures, but the two generally vary in sync with each other.
By analyzing data from thousands of settlements around the world, the Goddard team has pinpointed key characteristics of cities that drive the development of heat islands. The largest cities, their analysis shows, usually have the strongest heat islands. Cities located in forested regions, such as the northeastern United States, also have stronger heat islands than cities situated in grassy or desert environments.
Most recently, the Goddard group has shown that a city’s development patterns — whether a city is sprawling or compact — can also affect the strength of its heat island.
By comparing 42 cities in the Northeast, they found that densely-developed cities with compact urban cores are more apt to produce strong urban heat islands than more sprawling, less intensely-developed cities.
The compact city of Providence, R.I., for example, has surface temperatures that are about 12.2 °C (21.9 °F) warmer than the surrounding countryside, while similarly-sized but spread-out Buffalo, N.Y., produces a heat island of only about 7.2 °C (12.9 °F), according to satellite data. Since the background ecosystems and sizes of both cities are about the same, Zhang’s analysis suggests development patterns are the critical difference.
She found that land cover maps show that about 83 percent of Providence is very or moderately densely-developed. Buffalo, in contrast, has dense development patterns across just 46 percent of the city. Providence also has dense forested areas ringing the city, while Buffalo has a higher percentage of farmland. “This exacerbates the effect around Providence because forests tend to cool areas more than crops do,” explained Wolfe.
Cities in desert regions, such as Las Vegas, in contrast, often have weak heat islands or are actually cooler than the surrounding rural area. Providence, R.I.; Washington, D.C.; Philadelphia, Pa.; Baltimore, Md.; Boston, Ma.; and Pittsburgh, Pa.; had some of the strongest heat islands of the 42 northeastern cities analyzed.
“The urban heat island is a relative measure comparing the temperature of the urban core to the surrounding area,” said Marc Imhoff, the leader of the Goddard research group. “As a result, the condition of the rural land around the city matters a great deal.”
Heat Island Impacts
Ratcheting up temperatures can have significant — and deadly — consequences for cities. Heat islands not only cause air conditioner and electricity usage to surge, but they also increase the mortality of elderly people and those with pre-existing respiratory and cardiovascular illness.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that, between 1979 and 2003, heat exposure has caused more than the number of mortalities resulting from hurricanes, lightning, tornadoes, floods, and earthquakes combined.
“It is the lack of cooling at nighttime, rather than high daytime temperatures, that poses a health risk,” said Benedicte Dousset, a scientist from the University of Hawaii who also presented data about heat islands at the AGU meeting.
Dousset recently analyzed surface temperature images of Paris and showed the spatial distribution of heat-related deaths during a sweltering heat wave in 2003. Some 4,800 premature deaths occurred in Paris during the event, and excess mortality across Europe is thought to be about 70,000.
The risk of death was highest at night in areas where land surface temperatures were highest, she found. Buildings and other infrastructure absorb sensible heat during the day and reradiate it throughout the night, but the cooling effect of evaporation is absent in cities. The lack of relief, particularly among the elderly population, can be deadly, she explained.
Ramped up air conditioning usage may have even exacerbated the problem, other data presented at the meeting suggests. Cecile de Munck, of the French Centre for Meteorological Research of Meteo-France, conducted a series of modeling experiments that show excess heat expelled onto the streets because of increased air conditioner usage during heat waves can elevate outside street temperatures significantly.
“The finding raises the question: what can we do to design our cities in ways that will blunt the worst effects of heat islands?” said de Munck, who notes also that her research shows that some types of air conditioning exacerbate heat islands more than others.
Making sure cities have trees and parks interspersed throughout the compact urban cores can also help defend against heat islands. And studies shows that painting the surfaces of roads and buildings white instead of black and creating “green” roofs that include vegetation can soften urban heat islands.
“There’s no one solution, and it’s going to be different for every city,” said Dousset. “Heat islands are complex phenomena.”
Related Links:
Beating the Heat in the World’s Big Cities
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GreenRoof/
EPA Heat Island Resources
Ecosystem, Vegetation Affect Intensity of Urban Heat Island Effect
www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/terra/news/heat-islands.html
Urban Heat Island: Baltimore
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=36227
Scientific Visualization Studio: Related Materials
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a010600/a010699/index.html
Briefing Materials: Slideshows
Lead Author Ping Zhang; Goddard Space Flight Center
Benedicte Dousset, University of Hawaii
Cecile de Munck; French Centre for Meteorological Research of Meteo-France
› Download pdf Adam Voiland
NASA’s Earth Science News Team
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.






steven mosher says:
they talk about “cool parks” 2-5C cooler.
Cooler “than what”? The nearby 10 C hotter surfaces? …
I’ve long believed that the issue of UHI is of huge importance in the AGW debate. There are reasons to believe that, if UHI were properly accounted for, the total 20th century global warming would only be about half of the standard figure (i.e. little more than a third of a degree Celsius).
It has been pointed out, correctly, that the absolute amount of UHI today does not matter. What matters is how much the UHI has increased by from 1900 to 2010. Clearly, in a large proportion of cities and urban environments UHI has probably increased by a large amount. This study indicates that UHI is far stronger than most people previously thought, in fact some of the figures are quite staggering. It then follows that corresponding increases in UHI 1900-2010 will also be much larger than previously thought.
In the Providence image the most prominent heat island is the airport. I seem to recall that around half of all the reporting weather stations are located at airports….
Many warmists have started to use UHI to terrify us even more, despite the IPCC’s bizarre claims that UHI is insignificant. It is ironical that UHI may be the very thing that finally destroys the AGW delusion.
Chris
E.M.Smith says:
December 15, 2010 at 2:44 am
Perfectly described – and it is something that is never really properly illustrated within data/graph presentations.
I wonder what the largest distance between any two current stations is? As you say – Trends of imaginary thermometers! LOL – but the crucial word is ‘computed’ – as in ‘estimated’ or ‘guestimated’ using some arbitrary algorithm.
As I said on another thread, an average temp of a station, averaged with nearby stations to form a gridded average, averaged with other grids, etc, etc to form some kind of GMT is ultimately statistically difficult to justify as valid methodology in my opinion. Sure, the defenders will say – ‘thats all we have to work with’ – but with homogenisation and individual station adjustments – it’s hardly raw data anymore! With the station number reductions, you have to ask why?
Personally, I consider any global temperature anomaly produce to be absolute rubbish. I would easily accept localised (country scale?) trended anomalies, with good station data – but ‘adding’ them together with other less measured ‘countries’ – no way! It is and always has been a fanciful notion invented by the climate guys to try and scare the world. But isn’t it funny how specific analysis of many stations undertaken by ordinary bloggers doesn’t seem to support the ‘overall’ temp trends?
Tim Folkerts, December 14, 2010 at 9:09 pm –
“I’m not an expert, so I was wondering what the difference is between the “land surface temperature” that they are discussing here and the typically recorded air temperature. Is “land surface temperature” the temperature measured on the actual surface? Anyone who hasever walked bare-footed knows that paved surfaces are much hotter than than natural plant-covered surfaces. And while I would not be at all surprised to find that the surfaces are 10F – 20F hotter on average in cities, I don’t think this implies the average AIR temperature is also 10F – 20F hotter.”
My understanding is that, the surface, whether land or sea, presents a step change in the radiation characteristics of the materials present. This creates a steep gradient in the temperature profile as you move out of the surface into the air above. I would guess it is very steep, so (pure guessing now), most of the gradient will be seen within a foot of the surface. I imagine this is why the standard for surface temperature stations is several feet above the ground. The sea surface has this same characteristic but is “conflated” with evaporation issues.
steven mosher says: December 14, 2010 at 9:39 pm
UHI is seasonal.
I have to call BS on this Steven. The disproportionate heating from the synthetic urban heat sinks (UHI) goes on all year.
Perhaps social scientists should review the self reliance and Urban planning models implemented by Ieng Sary in the 1970’s as a way to deal effciently with the UHI effect.
Hansen’s 0.5° ? … most probably too low
7° to 9° ? … most probably way too high …
climate science is too easy … you sit in front of a computer, and publish whatever comes out of it … they should get out and measure a thing or two …
E.M.Smith says:
December 15, 2010 at 3:10 am
steven mosher says:
they talk about “cool parks” 2-5C cooler.
Cooler “than what”? The nearby 10 C hotter surfaces? …
#######
read the articles. If fact if you read the article and all the associated material
you’d see that they have an average for various types of cities from -.21C to 3.6C
You see the baltimore airport in the Jpegs. Then you could look at the baltimore GISS record. Or go get the MODIS surface temp data and register that to actual stations
in the database. Its easy.
#
#
E.M.Smith says:
December 15, 2010 at 2:44 am
Robuk says:
Normalizing urban station data trends to the surrounding rural stations.
If they can do that they must have enough rural stations to construct the data set in the first place without using the currupt urban data.
Am I missing something.
Yes, the rural stations.
The studies I did were on the 2009 version of the code. It has 8000 “Grid / Boxes”. I believe the present version ups that to 16,000.
The problem is that there are not presently 16,000 thermometers used for the globe.
####################
Sorry, you need to keep up with the data that is out there.
Do you believe the LIA was cooler? why?
steven mosher says:
December 15, 2010 at 12:48 am
Rob R says:
December 14, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Mosh,
How do you know if the “really rural” stations in the GHCN dataset are actually the best stations available.
Here is what I challenge people to do. present a hypothesis. Sites with 100% ISA
will warm faster than those with 0.
A simple test for UHI, choose at random 100 rural photographed weather stations spread throughout the US, (it doesn`t matter whether they are in the GHCN data set) then choose 100 known urban stations within say 50 miles of each rural station, start from 1900 to 2000+ and compare the trend with each other, simple and you dont need complex maths to do it.
like this,
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/peters26.gif
http://wanews.org/news/uhi.htm
Anyone with a lick of common sense knows that cities are warmer than rural areas. This is not news. What is new here is the researchers trying to make this an alarmist issue by showing how deadly it can be. More junk-science from the center of junk-science; NASA.
One point that might have a diminishing effect on UHI in Buffalo: I would guess that the climate of that city is strongly influenced by weather patterns coming off the water of Lake Erie, which could, in summer, cool the entire surrounding area and mitigate any extreme urban heating vis a vis the surrounding area. Providence would not have that same mitigating factor.
Just a guess.
Russ R. says:
December 14, 2010 at 12:24 pm
My personal view (and I could be convinced otherwise) is that the impact of UHI effects on estimates of CHANGES in global average surface temperature can only be significant on time periods of at least a few decades. Cities tend to take a long time to develop and grow.
That’s an interesting point, Russ, and if reporting stations had remained as they were even thirty years ago, I’d agree with you.
However, it does seem that there’s a distinct downward trend in the number of rural stations reporting versus urban and suburban stations. If this really is the case, and if the UHI reported above is anything close to being correct, an artificial trend would have been created.
It bears investigation.
Proff Jones method for calculation of global temps when applied to russia shows that
you can obtain the same results with 4 weather stations as you can with 12, 37, 121 or 476. Russia has 11.5 of the global mass.
View the video posted above by Amino Acids in Meteorites, this shows clearly the effect
of UHI.
I am happy to see this mentioned, and even more so that it is quantified to some extent. I’ve been asking about this for quite some time. It appears to be a real, but small, factor. I did not think it was major, but was curious as to what contribution it might have.
A couple of years ago there was a post on WUWT about someone and his son who drove into and out of Phoenix and measured the temperature rise, which was (as I recall) about 7°F. That seems to support this finding, but not by much. Some of those NE city UHIs are freaking HUGE.
I am terrifically happy to see this come out of NASA. What took them so long?
Last comments: Are the warmists going to ask us to cut down in cities? Are we going to be seeing “Asphalt Credits”?
I’ve never once argued that we haven’t affected the climate – but I have vehemently argued that it was not CO2, that land use is far and away the most prominent anthropogenic cause. And yet, what is there to be done, if it is land use? We can’t very well stop building cities. Or erase the ones we already have.
A question to all the skeptics: Why do RSS and UAH readings show the same warming trend as GISS and HadCRU? Are there urban heat islands in the lower troposphere, several miles above the ground, too?
Significant points, IMHO:
The UHI overall for a city is X°C above the surrounding landscape. At the urban/suburban/airport weather stations it is Y% x X°C, with Y% being normally less than 100% and different in every case.
Thus these peaks in urban areas is not totally captured in the global average, and the amount captured is unknown thus far.
But what IS gathered now must be understood to be a TBD blend of UHI (as measured at the weather stations) and the rural weather stations’ readings.
1. It appears that the temps in rural areas either do not reflect any bleed-over from cities, or the bleed-over is negligible, as measured so far. (This would suggest that the UHI is NOT actually warming the globe as a whole, because if it is bleeding over, then the rural temps would also be warmer. Perhaps they are warmer to some amount we would want to determine, but if not that would imply that the non-UHI-affected global temps are actually trending lower. But it also would mean that we are lucky we do have UHI, because it might be counteracting the new ice age predicted in the 1970s. I doubt this is the case, though.This throws a big “????” into the entire mix. Now any global averages need to incorporate the AREAS of the UHI on top of the amount of the UHI. 5-degree parcels are no longer adequate. Weighting of areas becomes critical for understanding present temps – but then that means present and past temps are apples and oranges.)
2. The Chinese study that Phil Jones co-authored is now seen to be worse than worthless.
3. Just determining the UHI for any station is huge undertaking, all by itself.
4. In 2004 Michael Crichton in State of Fear pointed this out, comparing, as an example, NYC to West Point, 40 miles to the north. While the UHI effect – coming from land use – seemed common sense to us “deniers” long before that, it was swept aside and he was labeled a loony. I am sure Michael is smiling in his grave today.
5. YES, some of the UHI comes from burning of fossil fuels, since most of our internal combustion engines are used in cities and are spewing hot exhaust into the air. How much remains to be determined.
6. According to the codes as found in the Climategate files, CRU (lazily and unscientifically) uses an average value for UHI adjustments. From this study, it is clear that no average value can be used; each city has its own UHI adjustment due to several factors, and each of those adjustments will need to change over time, as each city grows or spreads out – and at times like now, maybe does nothing for a few years.
It is all going to be more complicated now…
Feet2theFire says:
December 15, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Each city has its own UHI adjustment due to several factors, and each of those adjustments will need to change over time, as each city grows or spreads out – and at times like now, maybe does nothing for a few years.
I think you are missing the point, view the Russia lecture from Amino Acids in Meteorites.
All of this on UHI goes to show quite conclusively that when compiling data to show regional, national or global temperature or climate trends, urban reporting stations including airports must be discarded. Corrections for UHI cannot be estimated even for an individual urban/airport based station as it it is going to vary significantly on a daily and hourly basis.
Up to now it looks like the inclusion of large numbers of urban and airport-based stations has obscured the real trends, either accidentally or deliberately. If discarding all urban and airport stations may results in few reporting stations in some countries, but this is far better than continuing to use a combination of rural and urban stations with no confidence in the resulting trends.
steven mosher says:
December 14, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Sky
“That’s why no credible estimates of trends are possible where there are is no coverage by long-term (say >100yrs) uncontaminated rural station records.”
largely false. But since we do have records of that length that are utterly rural, would you have a hypothesis to test?
============================================================
The hypothesis I’ve already tested extensively is: Given UNCONTAMINATED century-long rural/small-town records, the regressional trend of time-series SYNTHESIZED from anomalies of ALL OTHER station-records (including urban) in the area is CONSISTENTLY very significantly more positive than that of the former.
The key to such such testing is having solid analytic criteria for recognizing various nonstationarities and other flaws in records (including nominally “rural” ones). It is not just a matter of the clerical synthesis of anomalies, al a GISS, NOAA or Hadley– a practice that you blindly defend. Common sense should tell you that no UNBIASED estimates of SECULAR trend can be made where there are no uncorrupted century-long records reasonably densely available (i.e., most of the world outside of the USA).
Luuuuuuuurvely delta UHI caught with its pants down (hint: compare the winter months with the rest, and think District Heating pipes)
Although the extract is specifically about UHI, what “the Russian lecture” is hinting at is that Jones’ methodology seems to get the same warming trend what ever data he uses. Where have we heard that before?
I wonder how much of a role, if any the chopping down of the trees in the rain forests plays since less trees results in a reduced “evaporative process?”
Perhaps somebody could run an experiment where they have two exact same sized (very large) buildings, one with more trees and a controlled Co2 level of say 380PPM, the other with less trees and a much higher CO2 level, say 600PPM. I’d like to see the temps of each of these controlled environments under the same conditions (they’d have to be close to each other and receive the same amount of sunlight, etc).
Roald says:
December 15, 2010 at 2:01 pm
A question to all the skeptics: Why do RSS and UAH readings show the same warming trend as GISS and HadCRU? Are there urban heat islands in the lower troposphere, several miles above the ground, too?
Hmmm. Do they show the same trend? If GISS is adjusting the past downwards for UHI, which is grossly inappropriate, then no they are not.
Of course, the climate models are based largely on data derived from sets using adjustments for UHI that may be wholly inappropriate*. If these models are currently able to accurately hindcast, but do not include issues with UHI, then these models are incorrect. This is one good reason to find out exactly what the contribution of UHI is to the global trend. Unfortunately, given this paper’s finding that “…ground-based air temperature sensors tend to be unevenly distributed and prone to local bias…” it is going to be difficult to accurately assess the accuracy of adjustments to the records. One thing is certain, though, the current adjustments are likely wrong in sign and magnitude.
*- As far as I know, UAH and RSS weren’t used in development of climate model calculations, which means that the effect of UHI is being attributed incorrectly by the models, and possibly extrapolated to the future.
I should have said …accurately assess the veracity…. I hate using the same word twice in one sentence.