Climate Craziness of the week – with the physical signature of UHI staring them right in the face, Mann & Borenstein go with their 'gut' instincts

Some people wonder if Michael Mann is simply an activist masquerading as a scientist, this lends credence to that idea. I wonder if Dr. Mann has ever visited weather stations in China to understand what is going on there? I have.

mystery_weather_station
Official Weather Station in Shenzhen, China. The Government Meteorological Building is in the background with radome on top. The entire modern city and this weather station didn’t exist 30 years ago – Photo by Anthony Watts

I had to laugh when I saw this quote from Mann in Seth Borenstein’s most recent AP article:

“The study is important because it formalizes what many scientists have been sensing as a gut instinct: that the increase in extreme heat that we’ve witnessed in recent decades, and especially in recent years, really cannot be dismissed as the vagaries of weather,” said Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann.

The study he is referring to is this one, press release below. I’ll explain why Mann and Borenstein made me laugh (besides the “gut instinct” nonsense) after the press release:

===============================================================

Greenhouse-gas emissions raise extreme temperatures in China

9 April 2013 AGU Release No. 13-12 For Immediate Release

WASHINGTON – Humans are responsible for increasingly warm daily minimum and maximum temperatures in China, new research suggests. The study is the first to directly link greenhouse gas emissions with warmer temperature extremes in a single country, rather than on a global scale, according to the paper’s authors.

“There is a warming in extreme temperatures over China, and this warming cannot be explained by natural variation,” said Qiuzi Han Wen, an author on this paper and a researcher at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics in Beijing, China. “It can only be explained by the anthropogenic external forcings. These findings indicate very clearly that climate change is not just an abstract number for the globe; it is evident at regional scale.”

The study was recently published in Geophysical Research Letters—a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

To identify the human influence on temperatures, researchers from Beijing and Toronto compared data from climate change models with actual observations from 2,400 weather stations in China gathered between 1961 and 2007.

“The climate model produces historical simulations to mimic what would have happened under different influences—such as human-induced greenhouse gas emissions and volcanic activities—and produces many possible outcomes”,” said Xuebin Zhang, an author on the paper and a researcher in the Climate Research Division of Environment Canada in Toronto. “If we average these possible outcomes, the day-to-day weather noise cancels out, leaving us with a general trend.”

The climate model reproduces China’s present reality only if human emissions are included, indicating that global warming is indeed the culprit for China’s warmer day and nighttime temperatures and not natural weather fluctuations, Zhang said.

“Actually seeing a warming trend in a single location is hard,” Zhang said. “It’s like trying to see the tide change when you’re in a rowboat going up and down on the waves. You need a lot of data to distill the day-to-day weather noise from the general trend.”

But the key to cracking the warming trend in China, Zhang said, was the vast amounts of data that the research team distilled from the thousands of weather stations, over more than four decades. The researchers estimate that human emissions likely increased the warmest annual extreme temperatures—the daily maximum and daily minimum for the hottest day and night of the year—by 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit (0.92 degrees Celsius) and 3°F (1.7°C), respectively. They also found that human emissions likely raised the coolest annual extreme temperatures—the daily maximum and daily minimum for the coldest day and night of the year—by 5.1°F (2.83°C) and 8.0°F (4.44°C), respectively.

In addition to calculating the overall trend, Wen, Zhang and their colleagues separated the effect of each anthropogenic input. Carbon dioxide emissions had the highest impact on warming, explaining 89 percent of the increase in the daily maximum temperatures and 95 percent of the daily minimum temperatures.

Wen asserts greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will continue to affect China’s climate for years to come, regardless of mitigation measures taken to reduce future emissions. “As a result, we expect warming in China will continue into the future, and consequently warming in extreme temperatures will also continue,” Wen said. “This will have huge implications for China, as heat waves and drought have already become more and more of an issue in our country. We would expect more hardship for dry-land farming as water supply is already stressed, higher demand on energy for cooling, and increasing heat-induced health issues.”

Zhang stresses that the results of this study highlight that climate change is an urgent issue for China and that warming is already taking a toll on the country.

“There are heat waves almost everywhere in China and we’re seeing more droughts,” Zhang said. “China is getting much warmer, and people are very concerned.”

This study was funded by the National Basic Research Program of China and benefited from a collaboration between the Meteorological Service Canada and the China Meteorological Administration.

Paper: “Detecting human influence on extreme temperatures in China”

Journalists and members of the public can download a PDF copy of this accepted article by clicking on this link: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50285/abstract

Abstract

[1] This study compares observed and model-simulated spatiotemporal patterns of changes in Chinese extreme temperatures during 1961–2007 using an optimal detection method. Four extreme indices, namely annual maximum daily maximum (TXx) and daily minimum (TNx) temperatures and annual minimum daily maximum (TXn) and daily minimum (TNn) temperatures, are studied. Model simulations are conducted with the CanESM2, which include six 5-member ensembles under different historical forcings, i.e., four individual external forcings (greenhouse gases, anthropogenic aerosol, land use change, and solar irradiance), combined effect of natural forcings (solar irradiance and volcanic activity), and combined effect of all external forcings (both natural and anthropogenic forcings). We find that anthropogenic influence is clearly detectable in extreme temperatures over China. Additionally, anthropogenic forcing can also be separated from natural forcing in two-signal analyses. The influence of natural forcings cannot be detected in any analysis. Moreover, there are indications that the effects of greenhouse gases and/or land use change may be separated from other anthropogenic forcings in warm extremes TXx and TNx in joint two-signal analyses. These results suggest that further investigations of roles of individual anthropogenic forcing are justified, particularly in studies of extremely warm temperatures over China.

The full paper is open and available here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50285/pdf

=================================================================

So what did they do?

Here, we use a newly compiled and quality-controlled extensive Chinese daily temperature data set and ensembles of model simulations under different forcings, conducted with the second-generation Canadian Earth System Model (CanESM2) [Arora et al., 2011], to investigate possible causes of the observed changes in extreme temperatures.

China’s National Climate Center has recently compiled

and quality controlled an extensive daily temperature data

set [Wu and Gao, 2012]. Records of daily maximum, daily

minimum, and daily mean temperatures were collected from

2416 observation stations from 1961 to 2007.

They compared surface data to a model, and drew inferences from that:

We used optimal detection method to compare the observed China annual extreme temperatures for 1961–2007 with those simulated by the CanESM2 under different external forcings. Our analyses include one-signal analysis using climate responses to ALL, NAT, ANT, and individual anthropogenic

forcing, and two-signal analyses using various combinations

of responses to different forcings.

But the only forcing they considered was GHG’s. Nary a word exists in the paper about UHI, urban heat island, station siting, or heat sink effects.

We also found that the influence of anthropogenic forcing can be separately detected from that of natural forcings. These clearly indicate that among known external forcings, only anthropogenic influence can explain observed changes in China’s extreme temperatures.

That statement is ludicrous, and made me laugh, especially when the physics of heatsink effects is staring them right in the face by their own observations in the press release:

The researchers estimate that human emissions likely increased the warmest annual extreme temperatures—the daily maximum and daily minimum for the hottest day and night of the year—by 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit (0.92 degrees Celsius) and 3°F (1.7°C), respectively.

A larger nighttime signal than daytime signal is exactly what you would expect in the influence of poor station siting and UHI. The EPA says:

In contrast, atmospheric urban heat islands are often weak during the late morning and throughout the day and become more pronounced after sunset due to the slow release of heat from urban infrastructure. The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F (1–3°C) warmer than its surroundings.3 On a clear, calm night, however, the temperature difference can be as much as 22°F (12°C).3

I find big differences in Watts et al 2012

But never mind the exponential growth of China’s infrastructure during their industrial revolution in the last 30+ years adding heat sinks near weather stations, let’s go with our “gut feelings” rather than investigate any other avenues.

I’ll have more on this flawed study later.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

85 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Alan S. Blue
April 12, 2013 12:42 pm

Hal, no worries.
The key piece is recognizing that people focused on using ‘the anomaly method’ feel comfortable skipping this sort of calibration step. “Who cares it is actually 3 degrees off, the -trend- won’t be!”
But that is (silently but fundamentally) baking the assumption of unchanging short or long local weather patterns and an unchanging local climate into the cake.
So these are fundamentally studies of secondary importance to the ‘real scientists’ involved. But crucial to determining things like UHI, microsite issues, ground-to-satellite calibration, or competently assigning actual error bars to the GMST.

April 12, 2013 1:10 pm

WTF is next? I know now that they are moving AGW Warming to a country scale it will be very soon that they will move it (Back) on to a city level. MSM head line “Top scientists discover CO2 cooking cities” I guess they will jump back on this one:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/ad_hoc/12755100FullTextPublicationspdf/Publications/sookim/ElevatedAtmosphericCO2ConcentrationandTemperatureAcrossanUrbanRuralTransect.pdf
Of course the heat island effect will be ignored. See CO2 is a POISON, because the EPA said so, so it MUST be true. These people are the scum of the earth!!

Scott Scarborough
April 12, 2013 1:21 pm

So let me get this straight. The well mixed GHG, CO2, causes local warming in China, but according to Hansen, aerosols from China cool the whole world evenly. Maybe on two different worlds!

ANH
April 12, 2013 1:33 pm

‘Actually seeing a warming trend in a single location is hard’ – Quote from the paper.
I must be really stupid because I would have thought that if you have a weather station in one location and you have daily readings from it going back a long time then it would be very simple to see a warming trend if there was one.

Bryan A
April 12, 2013 2:19 pm

RE: Brian R says:
April 12, 2013 at 12:10 pm
Is there any good reason they would use 2007 as their end date?
This could be because it is the last dataset that allow for a 5 year smoothing as 2008 to 2012 (the last full year of data) is only 4 years

DD More
April 12, 2013 2:28 pm

Anthony,
Looking at your picture and referencing Google Earth, is that weather station right next to the 6 lane highway? Nothing but buildings on the line further back.
seanbrady says:
April 12, 2013 at 8:44 am
But the claim that the
observed increase in global average temperature is due to these changes in land surfaces is wrong, since the analyses showing the warming account for and remove any biases caused by urbanization (for example Hansen et al. 1999; Jones et al. 2001).

Until you read in the Climategate 2.0 emails that at 40% of the sites, Hansen’s adjustment actually raise the temperature instead of lowering them.
REPLY: yes, and in the center of downtown – Anthony

Bryan A
April 12, 2013 2:29 pm

RE: Peter Miller says:
April 12, 2013 at 12:37 pm
30 years ago, China was not very different from North Korea today: impoverished, economically backward and militarily powerful with nuclear weapons. Does anyone have a night time satellite photo of China 30 years ago to compare with one today. That should provide all the evidence needed to prove a strong UHI effect there over the past three decades.
My guess, if it is possible to find out, that there is no UHI in North Korea and there has been little or no warming there, other than the global average.
Again, Google Earth has an “Historical Imagery” (little clock) Icon located next to the Night/Day Icon. The Historical database goes back to 1979 and although they are ultra low resolution images they are vividly green and show evidence of heavy urbanization between 1979 & 1990 with extreme urbanization by 2000

u.k.(us)
April 12, 2013 3:14 pm

“If we average these possible outcomes, the day-to-day weather noise cancels out, leaving us with a general trend.”
======
The “noise” is what affects people, not the average.

James Sexton
April 12, 2013 3:16 pm

From my perspective we’re missing a very important aspect of this paper and the hoopla surrounding it. After skimming over the comments I see some have touched upon this but, haven’t made the statement.
What these authors are stating by implication is that the effects of our GHGs are immediate!!! As was mentioned by a few commenters, the air doesn’t stay resident to the local area. It gets moved. And so, for the GHGs to be warming China because of their emissions, the effects have to be immediate. This is entirely counter to the mantra of the warmists who claim it takes years for the energy to come back out of the earth’s systems. They can’t both be simultaneously true!
I think we can get a lot of mileage out of this.
And, of course, as was mentioned earlier. China was accused of causing cooling affects. Maybe the wind is discriminatory? Only blowing sulfates but keeping the CO2 in place…… 😀
I wrote a little post on it if anyone is interested. Just click on the name and scroll down.
It is, of course, UHI screaming at them. But, what can you expect from a bunch of sophists?

thingodonta
April 12, 2013 3:19 pm

“Humans are responsible for increasingly warm daily minimum and maximum temperatures in China, new research suggests”.
Its projection. Yes humans are responsible, for altering and misinterpreting the data.

April 12, 2013 3:31 pm

‘Gut instinct’ eh.
Well we all know what the gut produces don’t we?

HK
April 12, 2013 4:41 pm

They say they consider land use (LU in their study). Obviously very localized siting issues are separate, but would accounting for land use cover part of the urban heat island effect?

Editor
April 12, 2013 4:51 pm

But the only forcing they considered was GHG’s.

As usual solar forcing is presumed to be limited to the minute variation in solar irradiance, despite extensive evidence from solar-temperature correlations going back many thousands of years that some mechanism of solar amplification must be at work. The Chinese many not be as forgiving as the West of this patently fraudulent “science” once nature’s debunking is no longer deniable.

u.k.(us)
April 12, 2013 5:05 pm

Dang it, still can’t find the quote.
It said something like:
The first (found) mistake, is likely not the last.
——
Best to slow things down.
(speaking from experience).

Robert of Ottawa
April 12, 2013 5:16 pm

These clearly indicate that among known external forcings,
and how do they answer the question: “What about the unknown forcings?” to which, to keep their story solid, they can only reply “There is nothing unknown”.

April 12, 2013 5:24 pm

If I read one more study that says “computer models shows…………..” I’m going to scream. Until they measure reality, I don’t give a darn what their models claim.

April 12, 2013 5:52 pm

Wen et al. begin their evaluation in 1961, at the end of Mao’s Great Leap Forward from 1958-1961 (aka China’s Great Famine 1959-1961). During the world’s greatest famine resulted in about 30 to 40 million people dying from starvation, and a similar fewer number of children not being born or being postponed. See google Mao’s Great Leap Forward Images
How well were temperature records kept during that period when so many were “preoccupied” with life and death issues?
Similarly consider China’s Cultural Revolution 1966-1971. See google Mao Cultural Revolution, Images. During the chaos, the Red Guards were even allowed to loot army barracks and override the People’s Liberation Army. Mao’s “Down to the Countryside” movement resulted in massive numbers of urban youth being relocated to rural regions.
Were temperature records equally well kept during this chaotic period?
International uncertainty guidelines cover both statistical Type A errors, and Type B errors evaluated through scientific judgment. Evaluation of measurement data – Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. JCGM 100:2008 Corrected version 2010.
May I suggest that Type B errors have not been addressed by Wen et al, especially during these periods.

Mister Jimmy
April 12, 2013 6:22 pm

For Anthony Watts and the readership: Has anyone ever calculated the heat energy imported into a central city or extended metropolitan area? Not easy, I’m sure, but consider gasoline in an underground tank at 56 degrees being converted (60+%) into heat at 150 degrees+, or just look at an office building on a cold day shedding internal heat into the local atmosphere, heat generated by humans, by computers and equipment, by lighting and the like. Each commuter imports his or her heat load, and that does not even consider the known heat sink phenomena of concrete, asphalt and thermal storage of various building materials. Just asking.

PaddikJ
April 12, 2013 7:06 pm

Some people wonder if Michael Mann is simply an activist masquerading as a scientist . . .

No need to wonder – science is as science does. Michael Mann is no scientist (and for that matter, Seth Borenstein is no journalist).

Jeff Alberts
April 12, 2013 7:28 pm

Mark Bofill: “Any U.N. position appointments for that? Any junkets?”
St Maarten has some nice topless beaches…

Master_Of_Puppets
April 12, 2013 8:32 pm

Lots of Jet Lag and ‘After Effects’ following EGU 2013 … caught a head cold … hearing is reduced as if an ordinance exploded (pressure wave at close proximity) near my head on the right side but the shrapnel missed by head … otherwise I am back in safe quarters.
“St Maarten has some nice topless beaches…” that is true. However I for one would definitely not want to witness the good Prof. Slingo in such a circumstance … no no … not at all.

April 12, 2013 10:38 pm

It’s a small step for a Mann, but a great leap for Mannkind……..

April 12, 2013 10:45 pm

Er, ah, that’s a “giant leap”….. Guess I’ve got some Manning up to do~~~~~~~

Richard M
April 13, 2013 5:54 am

Brian R says:
April 12, 2013 at 12:10 pm
Is there any good reason they would use 2007 as their end date?

Of course. This was right after the PDO changed to its cool mode and global temps stated dropping. Probably also true for China.

H.R.
April 13, 2013 6:23 am

“Gut instinct”?!? Most of the time, when I have a gut feeling, it’s just gas.