This new study published in the Journal of Atmospheric Environment quantifies the different components of warming there, with UHI making up over half of the total warming:
On average, the total temperature increase over South Korea was about 1.37 °C; the amount of increase caused by the greenhouse effect is approximately 0.60 °C, and the amount caused by urban warming is approximately 0.77 °C.
A perfect long term urbanization experiment exists that can illustrate and test this:
The real test of this would be if North Korea has maintained a surface temperature record that could be compared. Given that they are a closed country, chances are that if it exists. getting it is close to zero. What I wouldn’t give to get it. I wonder if Phil Jones has any?
Here’s the paper abstract:
Quantitative estimates of warming by urbanization in South Korea over the past 55 years (1954―2008)
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
KIM Maeng-Ki (1) ; KIM Seonae (2);
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Department of Atmospheric Science, Kongju National University, Gongju 314-701, COREE, REPUBLIQUE DE
(2) Applied Meteorology Research Team, Environmental Prediction Research Inc., Daejon 302-831, COREE, REPUBLIQUE DE
Résumé / Abstract
The quantitative values of the urban warming effect over city stations in the Korean peninsula were estimated by using the warming mode of Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) analysis of 55 years of temperature data, from 1954 to 2008. The estimated amount of urban warming was verified by applying the multiple linear regression equation with two independent variables: the rate of population growth and the total population. Through the multiple linear regression equation, we obtained a significance level of 0.05% and a coefficient of determination of 0.60. This means that it is somewhat liable to the estimated effects of urbanization, in spite of the settings of some supposition. The cities that show great warming due to urbanization are Daegu, Pohang, Seoul, and Incheon, which show values of about 1.35, 1.17, 1.16, and 1.10 °C, respectively. The areas that showed urban warming less than 0.2 °C are Chupungnyeong and Mokpo. On average, the total temperature increase over South Korea was about 1.37 °C; the amount of increase caused by the greenhouse effect is approximately 0.60 °C, and the amount caused by urban warming is approximately 0.77 °C.
Revue / Journal Title
Atmospheric environment ISSN 1352-2310
h/t to Pierre Gosselin at No Tricks Zone
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There should be a satellite temperature record available for both countries.
No doubt, URBAN WARMING especially in winter……but how much does this translate into global values….the Earth is large and round…..
While the earth is large and round, most ground measurement stations with a long established record are situated in urban areas that have been built up during the last few decades that coincide with most of the perceived warming. Virtually all stations are situated in the immediate vicinity of settlements as opposed to the open mongolian steppe or on drifting icebergs.
How can they be sure that the rest of the heating was due to the Greenhouse effect? Have they ruled out the sun’s contribution?
Of course, they still assume the remainder of the warming is due to GHGs, not natural factors :/
Didn’t the IPCC declare that their models proved that urban warming has only increased by 0.01C over the last century?
Korea’s a good test case in part because the cities there have grown so rapidly. Does anyone have a copy of the paper so we can see what the linear regression revealed?
w.
FWIW…
http://user.chollian.net/~jis0523/korea-climate.htm
“the amount of increase caused by the greenhouse effect is approximately 0.60 °C”
WTF?
According to the Fourth Assessment Report from the IPCC: Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any urban-related trend is an order of magnitude smaller than decadal and longer time-scale trends evident in the series (e.g., Jones et al., 1990; Peterson et al., 1999). This result could partly be attributed to the omission from the gridded data set of a small number of sites (<1%) with clear urban-related warming trends. In a worldwide set of about 270 stations, Parker (2004, 2006) noted that warming trends in night minimum temperatures over the period 1950 to 2000 were not enhanced on calm nights, which would be the time most likely to be affected by urban warming. Thus, the global land warming trend discussed is very unlikely to be influenced significantly by increasing urbanisation (Parker, 2006). … Accordingly, this assessment adds the same level of urban warming uncertainty as in the TAR: 0.006°C per decade since 1900 for land, and 0.002°C per decade since 1900 for blended land with ocean, as ocean UHI is zero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island#Global_warming (last paragraph)
How do this compares to this study?
The chances of Phil Jones having any of N.Koreas surface temperature data and willing to share ? close to zero I suspect.
Dont forget, this is a regime run by a collection of totalitarian despots, totally immune to the needs of the people, they exist only to perpetuate their own lust for power and status. Human misery means nothing to these megalomaniacs and the penury of the people matters less. With their pseudo-Marxist philosophy and their mendacious twising of every mundane fact to support their viscious propoganda, they barely deserve the acknowledgement that they exist.
And the North Koreans are even worse
I don’t have access to the paper, but I’m willing to bet they are using min/max temperatures, most of the warming is in the minimum temperatures. Pointing to reduced urban aerosols and aerosol seeded clouds as the cause of the urban warming.
Note that many people probably have more access to scientific papers than they realize. If you are a member of an alumni association, you might have access to academic research papers and journals. For example, Stanford Alums may go to:
https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/perks/OnlineDatabase
Log in where it asks you to. At the bottom of the presented list of choices you will see “EBSCO Academic Alumni Edition”. Select that one a and you can select “Academic Search Alumni Edition”. Note that the Alumni edition does not allow you to read all such papers (this one is not available for download, for example) but many are.
The point is that if you are a member of an alumni association, you might have access to more papers than you might know, worth checking out.
I find the valuation of the UHE very interesting and quite valuable. Now let us apply it to readings throughout America and see where we stand.
As for the core temperature rise due to greenhouse gases, this author thinks it is partly due to the decadal oscillation.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.797/pdf
Since Seoul is so close to the border, alliterate comparisons should be very helpful. So where are they?
Ah, yes, 50 million candles burning in Pyongyang.
The 0.6 degrees over 55 years corresponds very well with the global 0.1 degrees per decade warming rate that has been observed. And the 0.8C since 1900.
The measurement of the UHI in Korean cities has not made that go away. Sorry, the elephant is still in the room.
@LazyTeenager
Is that the “Earth’s climate is not in stasis” elephant?
I think it used to be a Woolly Mammoth.
Why is the Greenhouse Effect twice as strong in Korea?
North Korea may be a strange place, particularly in the political area, but I suspect that they just might be open to sharing what information they have if approached in the right way.
If they could claim that their contribution was responsible for showing up current Western climate science for the bunch of crap that it actually is, and for putting the world back on the right track, I suspect that they would jump at the chance.
Of course, we have no idea at all if they have been keeping temperature records, let alone accurate ones.
But as my mum used to say: “There is no harm in asking”.
On average, the total temperature increase over South Korea was about 1.37 °C; the amount of increase caused by the greenhouse effect is approximately 0.60 °C, and the amount caused by urban warming is approximately 0.77 °C.
Huh?
I’d be more likely to believe 0.77°C from UHI effect if it wasn’t stated that “everything else” is attributable to the GHE. As I read this it suggests no natural warming component whatsoever.
Hence I’m suspicious of both values.
LazyTeenager
As far as ‘climate science’ is concerned, the “elephant in the room” has always been natural climate cycles.
Warmists refuse to believe climate can change naturally – well, to be more precise, they most particularly do not believe it can change naturally right now. Trying to fix climate, which is the warmist goal, is absolutely impossible. Anyhow, the goofy/green politicians are now spending hundreds of billions of dollars trying to achieve the impossible.
Returning to the subject of UHI, warmists always insist on underestimating its effect as it causes too many inconvenient aberrations in the pre-determined conclusions of their models.
In a worldwide set of about 270 stations, Parker (2004, 2006) noted that warming trends in night minimum temperatures over the period 1950 to 2000 were not enhanced on calm nights,
Parker used minimum temperature, which don’t typically occur at night, they occur in the early morning. The Parker studies tells us nothing about nighttime temperatures.
Changes in early morning temperatures are largely driven by changes in solar insolation (clouds). So its hardly surprising he found wind had little effect.
IMO the Parker studies are based on flawed assumptions and worthless.
Nik says:
December 29, 2011 at 11:26 am
—
There are numerous problems with the Parker study. Amongst the largest is they just assume that wind will always decrease night time warming. Most temperature sensors are at airports. Airports are rarely at the center of cities. As such, if the wind comes from the right direction, it could actually cause cause warming, not cooling.
They do a poor job of defining “windy”. It is defined as a fraction of the average wind speed for the area being studied.
Completely off topic, but I wanted to share my speculation on who may be behind the climategate dumps. I think it is an inside job, but not the way some may think …
If the moderators wish to delete I understand – it really is off topic!
Tez writes “How can they be sure that the rest of the heating was due to the Greenhouse effect? Have they ruled out the sun’s contribution?”
What is in the paper is the genuflect to the religion of CAGW. Remember Tom Lehrer’s Vatican Rag. If you put this sort of phrase in the paper, it makes it that much more likely the paper will be published; particularly as, in this case, it tends to provide evidence against CAGW.