Dr. Roy Spencer recently opined about this issue (which is different from UHI) in: Waste Heat as a Contributor to Observed Warming
If we divide that by the surface area of the U.S. in meters, we get 0.33 watts per sq. meter.
Now, compare that the the total radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations supposedly operating today, which (according to the IPCC) is somewhere around 1.6 W/m2.
…
…waste heat from our use of energy keeps getting generated, no matter how much our surroundings have warmed. So, with this correction, we now see that waste heat generation (0.33) becomes more like 50% of the remaining radiative imbalance (0.6) from anthropogenic GHG production.
Waste Heat is Mostly Released in the Lowest 10% of the Atmosphere
It seems his observations were spot-on, as this new paper just published in Nature Climate Change tells us. From the University of San Diego:
Urban Heat Has Large-scale Climate Effects
Researchers find that heat given off by metropolitan areas is enough to influence winter warming
The heat generated by everyday activities in metropolitan areas has a significant enough warming effect to influence the character of the jet stream and other major atmospheric systems during winter months, according to a trio of climate researchers.
Led by Guang Zhang, a research meteorologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, the scientists report in the journal Nature Climate Change that the extra heat given off by Northern Hemisphere urban areas causes as much as 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F) of warming in winter. They added that this effect helps explain the disparity between actual observed warming in the last half-century and the amount of warming that computer models have been able to account for.
“What we found is that energy use from multiple urban areas collectively can warm the atmosphere remotely, thousands of miles away from the energy consumption regions,” said Zhang. “This is accomplished through atmospheric circulation change.”
The study, “Energy consumption and the unexplained winter warming over northern Asia and North America,” appears in online editions of the journal Jan. 27. The National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, and NOAA supported the research.
Zhang, along with Ming Cai of Florida State University and Aixue Hu of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., considered the energy consumption – from heating buildings to powering vehicles – that generates waste heat release. The world’s total energy consumption in 2006 was 16 terawatts (one terawatt equals 1 trillion watts). Of that, 6.7 TW were consumed in 86 metropolitan areas in the Northern Hemisphere.
The release of waste heat is different from energy that is naturally distributed in the atmosphere, the researchers noted. The largest source of heat, solar energy, warms Earth’s surface and atmospheric circulations distribute that energy from one region to another. Human energy consumption distributes energy that had lain dormant and sequestered for millions of years, mostly in the form of oil or coal. Though the amount of human-generated energy is a small portion of that transported by nature, it is highly concentrated in urban areas. In the Northern Hemisphere, many of those urban areas lie directly under major atmospheric troughs and jet streams.
Zhang said the effect his team studied is distinct from the so-called urban heat island effect, an increase in the warmth of cities compared to unpopulated areas caused by human activities.
The authors report that the influence of urban heat can widen the jet stream and strengthens atmospheric flows at mid-latitudes. They add that the warming is not uniform. Partially counterbalancing it, the changes in major atmospheric systems cool areas of Europe by as much as 1 degree C, with much of the temperature decrease occurring in the fall.
Overall, these changes have a noticeable but slight effect on global temperatures, increasing them worldwide by an average of about 0.1 degree C.
The study does not address whether the urban heating effect disrupts atmospheric weather patterns or plays a role in accelerating global warming, though Zhang said drawing power from renewable sources such as solar or wind provides a societal benefit in that it does not add net energy into the atmosphere.
The authors also contend that the urban heat effect accounts for the discrepancy between observed warming and winter warming simulated in the models used by the climate science community for analysis and prediction of climate. They suggest that the influence of energy consumption accompany heat-trapping gases and aerosols as necessary variables in computer models.
###
Here is another press release from NCAR:
BOULDER—Even if you live more than 1,000 miles from the nearest large city, it could be affecting your weather.
In a new study that shows the extent to which human activities are influencing the atmosphere, scientists have concluded that the heat generated by everyday activities in metropolitan areas alters the character of the jet stream and other major atmospheric systems. This affects temperatures across thousands of miles, significantly warming some areas and cooling others, according to the study this week in Nature Climate Change.
The extra “waste heat” generated from buildings, cars, and other sources in major Northern Hemisphere urban areas causes winter warming across large areas of northern North America and northern Asia. Temperatures in some remote areas increase by as much as 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), according to the research by scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography; University of California, San Diego; Florida State University; and the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
At the same time, the changes to atmospheric circulation caused by the waste heat cool areas of Europe by as much as 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with much of the temperature decrease occurring in the fall.
The net effect on global mean temperatures is nearly negligible—an average increase worldwide of just 0.01 degrees C (about 0.02 degrees F). This is because the total human-produced waste heat is only about 0.3 percent of the heat transported across higher latitudes by atmospheric and oceanic circulations.
However, the noticeable impact on regional temperatures may explain why some regions are experiencing more winter warming than projected by climate computer models, the researchers conclude. They suggest that models be adjusted to take the influence of waste heat into account.
“The burning of fossil fuel not only emits greenhouse gases but also directly affects temperatures because of heat that escapes from sources like buildings and cars,” says NCAR scientist Aixue Hu, a co-author of the study. “Although much of this waste heat is concentrated in large cities, it can change atmospheric patterns in a way that raises or lowers temperatures across considerable distances.”
Distinct from urban heat island effect
The researchers stressed that the effect of waste heat is distinct from the so-called urban heat island effect. Such islands are mainly a function of the heat collected and re-radiated by pavement, buildings, and other urban features, whereas the new study examines the heat produced directly through transportation, heating and cooling units, and other activities.
The study, “Energy consumption and the unexplained winter warming over northern Asia and North America,” appeared online yesterday. It was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor, as well as the Department of Energy and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Hu, along with lead author Guang Zhang of Scripps and Ming Cai of Florida State University, analyzed the energy consumption—from heating buildings to powering vehicles—that generates waste heat release. The world’s total energy consumption in 2006 was equivalent to a constant-use rate of 16 terawatts (1 terawatt, or TW, equals 1 trillion watts). Of that, an average rate of 6.7 TW was consumed in 86 metropolitan areas in the Northern Hemisphere.
Using a computer model of the atmosphere, the authors found that the influence of this waste heat can widen the jet stream.
“What we found is that energy use from multiple urban areas collectively can warm the atmosphere remotely, thousands of miles away from the energy consumption regions,” Zhang says. “This is accomplished through atmospheric circulation change.”
The release of waste heat is different from energy that is naturally distributed in the atmosphere, the researchers noted. The largest source of heat, solar energy, warms Earth’s surface and atmospheric circulations redistribute that energy from one region to another. Human energy consumption distributes energy that had lain dormant and sequestered for millions of years, mostly in the form of oil or coal.
Though the amount of human-generated energy is a small portion of that transported by nature, it is highly concentrated in urban areas. In the Northern Hemisphere, many of those urban areas lie directly under major atmospheric troughs and jet streams.
“The world’s most populated and energy-intensive metropolitan areas are along the east and west coasts of the North American and Eurasian continents, underneath the most prominent atmospheric circulation troughs and ridges,” Cai says. “The release of this concentrated waste energy causes the noticeable interruption to the normal atmospheric circulation systems above, leading to remote surface temperature changes far away from the regions where waste heat is generated.”
About the article
Title: Energy consumption and the unexplained winter warming over northern Asia and North America
Authors: Ghang J. Zhang, Ming Cai, and Aixue Hu
Publication: Nature Climate Change, January 27, 2013
===============================================================
The Paper:
Energy consumption and the unexplained winter warming over northern Asia and North America
Guang J. Zhang, Ming Cai, & Aixue Hu
Abstract:
The worldwide energy consumption in 2006 was close to 498 exajoules. This is equivalent to an energy convergence of 15.8 TW into the populated regions, where energy is consumed and dissipated into the atmosphere as heat. Although energy consumption is sparsely distributed over the vast Earth surface and is only about 0.3% of the total energy transport to the extratropics by atmospheric and oceanic circulations, this anthropogenic heating could disrupt the normal atmospheric circulation pattern and produce a far-reaching effect on surface air temperature. We identify the plausible climate impacts of energy consumption using a global climate model. The results show that the inclusion of energy use at 86 model grid points where it exceeds 0.4 W m−2 can lead to remote surface temperature changes by as much as 1 K in mid- and high latitudes in winter and autumn over North America and Eurasia. These regions correspond well to areas with large differences in surface temperature trends between observations and global warming simulations forced by all natural and anthropogenic forcings1. We conclude that energy consumption is probably a missing forcing for the additional winter warming trends in observations.
The supplementary Information (SI) for this paper is here, and well worth reading:
Click to access nclimate1803-s1.pdf
I’ll have updates to this in follow up stories – Anthony
Climate clowns continue to look for arguments creating the notion of a problem that isn’t a problem at all. When their scheme started it was interesting. Now it’s extremely boring.
Very skeptical about this. Radiation out to space can be considerable at night and the jet stream is a POWERFUL entity that probably does not feel the tiny affects of escaping heat to its height at all. Plus the looping nature of that jet stream does not guarantee it will be anywhere near where it needs to be to face that escaping heat day after day. This seems a study in one discipline not schooled in a necessary secondary discipline to climate science: meteorology.
So In summary they have found that
1. People use energy to heat their homes and businesses
2. cities are places with a large number and density of buildings
3. So they get warmer as they are heated.
Or am I missing some profound truth here?
Surely if people use re-newable energy to do work and heat their homes in cities, this will still cause the cities to warm? Is that not the whole point?
“The heat generated by everyday activities in metropolitan areas has a significant enough warming effect to influence the character of the jet stream and other major atmospheric systems during winter months, according to a trio of climate researchers.”
“The authors report that the influence of urban heat can widen the jet stream and strengthens atmospheric flows at mid-latitudes.”
““This is accomplished through atmospheric circulation change.”
=================================
“Using a computer model of the atmosphere, the authors found that the influence of this waste heat can widen the jet stream.”
Let’s not forget that these “scientists” and even some real scientists often cannot tell the difference between radiant energy (IR) and air temperature (which comprises heat). All of the radiant energy goes largely to space. Only the warm air has the local effect which would be felt down wind, and not in all directions from a city.
The current temperature is the optimal one because it…and probably more importantly, the current sea level…is the one that our societies are currently adapted to. Furthermore, it is the one that the flora and fauna are currently adapted to. And, such flora and fauna are already under stress from other environmental issues (such as habitat loss and fragmentation, overfishing and hunting, …)
If the change were to happen very slowly over a long period of time, flora, fauna, and societies might not have so much trouble adapting. However, a century-scale change of the magnitude projected is very fast, relatively speaking.
Kevin-in-UK says:
First of all, you are comparing apples and oranges. The ~4 W/m^2 that will occur due to a doubling of CO2 is per meter squared of the Earth’s surface. The 1.36 W/m^2 that comes from a variation in TSI is per meter squared of an imaginary surface centered about the sun at a radius of the Earth. There is a geometric factor of 4 difference between them (Earth’ surface are = 4*pi*r^2) whereas the Earth’s geometric cross-section presented to the sun is a circle of radius r and area pi*r^2. In other words, you need to divide the 1.36 W/m^2 by 4 to get 0.34 W/m^2.
Second of all, nobody is claiming that the variability of the TSI of the sun between the peak of the sunspot cycle and the minimum has no effect on global or regional temperature. However, its effect on global temperatures should be at least a factor of 10 less than doubling CO2 (0.34 W/m^2 vs 4 W/m^2) plus the fact that the sunspot cycle is rapid enough that the climate system does not have time to completely respond to the change.
“All of the radiant energy goes largely to space.” Yes and anything above absolute zero radiates energy so 99.99% of our total energy from our fossil fuel / nuclear use PLUS what comes here from the sun, etc. ultimately ends up as heat or light and ultimately goes out to space. Some paths take a little longer than others though. (Deja vu? Did I mention “man made galactic warming” a while back or was it someone else?)
There’s really nothing to worry about. Okay there’s entropy but there’s also a lot of black holes to make sure nothing is “wasted”.
joeldshore,
Actually, that’s largely untrue — most flora and fauna would do much better at higher temps, and biodiversity will be higher. Also, we’ve seen lots of evidence that bigger faster swings in temps happen naturally. And sea level takes thousands of years to equilibrate to temp, so it’s hardly worth being concerned about, as least as a function of temperature, as we’re seeing little evidence of acceleration.
joelshore says:
“If the change were to happen very slowly over a long period of time, flora, fauna, and societies might not have so much trouble adapting. However, a century-scale change of the magnitude projected is very fast, relatively speaking.”
Wrong.
That is just more nonsense from Mr Politics. The fact is that the past century and a half has been unusually benign. In the past, temperatures have changed by tens of degrees over short, decadal time scales. But since the industrial revolution began, global temperatures have hardly changed at all.
So Planet Earth once again falsifies Shore’s globaloney nonsense. There is nothing unusual or unprecedented occurring. The mendacious alarmist crowd is just trying to stir up irrational fear to serve their own ends — which is taxing the hell out of honest, productive citizens, based on a false alarm.
Even NBC News has a story on this. Perhaps the wall is beginning to crumble?
http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/27/16702236-bingo-wasted-energy-from-cities-explains-a-global-warming-mystery?lite
And waste heat is going to exist even in an all electric society. Even if all the electricity is generated from wind turbines and solar panels. When all the alarmists give up their smart phones, computers, iPods, TV’s toaster ovens and hot showers then I will believe they are serious.
Will Obama ban Pop Tarts, Eggos and Toaster Strudels to combat climate change?
Waste heat has skewed the temperature record upwards. Wow, stop the presses. This is just more of Alarmists digging ratholes for themselves. Skeptics have only been telling them this for how many years now? Next, they’ll be telling us that the sun has more of an effect on temperatures than they thought. Oh, wait, they did. Sort of, anyway.
I find it rather implausible that this has not always been a component of previous efforts to model AGW! Granted, the money has mostly been dumped in Goracle-based consensus-building as a “working” definition of science.
lallatin:
At January 28, 2013 at 9:03 am you write
I find it rather implausible that this has not always been a component of previous efforts to model AGW! Granted, the money has mostly been dumped in Goracle-based consensus-building as a “working” definition of science.
You find that “rather implausible”?
The paper is too flawed to comment on, really.
[Please provide a valid email address. — mod.]
I thought it was only Tmin that was increasing, How does this wast heat only have an effect at night.
Sad-But-True-Its-You:
Your entire post at January 28, 2013 at 10:17 am says
Allow me to tell you what I read your post to say; viz.
You cannot find any flaw in the paper so you cite none, but you are so upset at what the paper reports that you felt compelled to say you reject it because you imagine it must be flawed somehow.
Richard
talldave2 says:
I don’t think you would find a lot of biologists that would agree with you that rapid changes in climate would be good for most flora and fauna. There may be some winners (like flora in Siberia), but lots of increased stress overall.
Actually, I believe the data show that rises in sea level can occur at quite a rapid rate…of 1 m or more per century. It may be true that it takes a long time for sea level to completely equilibrate, but a significant part of the rise can occur on centennial scales. Of course, because of the fact that it does continue for a long time, IPCC predictions of the sea level rise by 2100 significantly understate the eventual sea level rise. (And, in IPCC AR4, it is generally accepted that the sea level rise estimates by 2100 were too conservative because they simply did not include ice sheet dynamics effects that they are only beginning to be able to model reasonably.
In addition to the increase in heat due to albedo effect of solar panels, the energy they produce may also be transported from sunny dry areas to humid or cloudy areas where the energy that is dissipated as heat, will not be radiated as quickly into space.
This may be an unitelligent or non-scientific approach.
While the world’s total energy output as cited in Roy’s post looks impressive, how does that compare to the total energy in the weather systems. It strikes me that one Cat 4 hurricane = a greta deal of power, far more than man can generate. Of course man can influence local climate b ut to have a measurable impact on the system overall?
Regards
Paul
Paul Maynard:
At January 28, 2013 at 12:15 pm you ask
Your question is good.
Whether or not urban waste heat affects the climate system overall, the report says waste heat does affect temperature measurements. Therefore, waste heat affects measurements of global temperature (which are compiled from temperature measurements) and as energy use increases so does the affect on the measurements.
The article addresses both the issues when it says
Richard
joeldshore says:
January 28, 2013 at 11:15 am
“I don’t think you would find a lot of biologists that would agree with you that rapid changes in climate would be good for most flora and fauna. There may be some winners (like flora in Siberia), but lots of increased stress overall.”
Surviving Climate Change by migrating meters… or even millimeters…
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/jun/14jun2011a4.html
“Suggitt et al. (2011) indicate that “most multi-cellular terrestrial organisms experience climate at scales of millimeters to meters,” yet they say that “most species-climate associations are analyzed at resolutions of kilometers or more,” in what is “commonly known as the ‘bioclimate approach’ or ‘climate envelope’ modeling.” However, they go on to say that “because individuals experience heterogeneous microclimates in the landscape, species sometimes survive where the average background climate appears unsuitable,” which phenomenon is something that the vast majority of bioclimate studies do not consider in their analyses. “
DirkH,
Thanks for pointing out that, once again, joelshore is wrong. In fact, the planetary climate has been extremely benign for the past century and a half. It would be hard to find a comparable time frame in which global temperatures remained almost perfectly flat.
To Richard Courteny
Thanks, so the effect is in fact the UHI. So temps ex UHI affected sites are hardly affected in a measurable way?
P
D.B. Stealey says:January 27, 2013 at 7:49 pm
Underground coal seam fires are increasing.[..]
We have quite a few in Garfield County, Colorado. Sometimes they flare up and start surface fires, and from the report below often have surface temperatures that are quite warm. Some folks are talking about using it as a heat source. There have been many failed attempts to extinguish them.
http://mining.state.co.us/pdfFiles/fire_report_3garfield_pt1.pdf