Readers recall that I carried a guest post from Dr. Roy Spencer on what he learned from analysing the CRUTem3 data: Spencer shows compelling evidence of UHI in CRUTem3 data.
Now he has turned his attention to what I consider a better data set – the ISH data set, and comparing it to CRUTemp3 the results are surprising.
The impact of making regional — rather than whole U.S. — population adjustments on the U.S. average temperature variations results in only a slight increase in the resulting temperature trend I posted yesterday, which is still well below that computed from the CRUTem3 dataset (click for high res. version):
Here are the population-adjusted temperature variations for the 3 northern U.S. sectors, with just the trailing 12-month averages plotted to reduce the messiness:
…and here are the 3 southern U.S. sectors:
The bottom line is that there is still clear evidence of an urban heat island effect on temperature trends in the U.S. surface station network. Now, I should point out that most of these are not co-op stations, but National Weather Service and FAA stations. How these results might compare to the GHCN network of stations used by NOAA for climate monitoring over the U.SA., I have no idea at this point.
Also, I need to clear up a misconception…the adjustments I perform do not remove the trends in the data. They remove only the component of the trend which is due to population density, using the regression coefficient alone (not the regression constant). There are no adjustments in January 1973 (the beginning of my data record), and then the adjustments increase linearly with time.