I covered a similar study back in 2008 which you can read about here. This study takes it to a national level, suggesting once again that surface temperature records are not really measuring a “climate change” signal in entirety. The author of the study says that “correlation of temperature above background levels and national energy consumption is very high”. Seems like a no-brainer to me. This has far reaching consequences for the validity of the surface temperature record and its ability to discern a real CO2 induced climatic signal. – Anthony
Larry O’Hanlon writes on the AGU blog:
The greenhouse effect isn’t the only thing warming things up. There is also the waste heat released when we generate and use energy – even clean energy. Yet the regional impact of that heat – which moves from warm buildings, engines and power plants into the world around us – has not been well accounted for. A new study now shows waste heat may explain some temperature variations at a national scale better than do global climate change models.
“This is a major source of climate change that has not been looked at,” said John Murray of The Open University in Milton Keynes, England and lead author of the new study accepted for publication in Earth’s Future, a journal of the American Geophysical Union. “Any kind of energy consumption generates heat” Murray said.

To tease apart the waste heat signal, Murray and co-author Douglas Heggie of the University of Edinburgh compared national temperatures in Japan and the United Kingdom with global temperature trends and with energy consumption from 1965 to 2013. They focused on Japan and the U.K. because as island nations, they are more isolated than mainland countries and more likely to stew in their own waste heat.
The researchers found that for both countries, waste heat explains national climate variations: national temperatures track better with energy use than with global temperature trends. The data showed a correlation between a temperature drop in the U.K. and the current economic recession, which has caused a reduction in energy use there, Murray said. The study also found Japan’s steadily growing energy consumption parallels the worldwide increase in carbon dioxide levels.
The scientists caution that both countries are rather extreme cases: Japan has the 8th highest mean energy consumption in the world and the U.K. has the 13th. Of the two nations, Japan has a warmer climate and therefore less need to heat buildings.
Britain, on the other hand, shows a more pronounced local temperature variation, being a cold enough place to require indoor heating for about six months each year. There is also more cloud cover in the U.K. than in Japan, and those clouds hold waste heat closer to the ground, where it can raise the temperature.
“The correlation of temperature above background levels and national energy consumption is very high,” concluded Murray. This suggests that energy consumption should be factored into the national climate change projections of any densely populated country, he said.
The study:
From Urban to National Heat Island: the effect of anthropogenic heat output on climate change in high population industrial countries
John Murray, Douglas Heggie
Key Points:
• Annual heat output for the U.K. and Japan is determined from national energy consumption 1965-2013
• Strong correlations are found between energy consumption and temperatures above or below global background levels
• Heat output may affect climate change in countries of high population density
Abstract
The project presented here sought to determine whether changes in anthropogenic thermal emission can have a measurable effect on temperature at the national level, taking Japan & Great Britain as type examples. Using energy consumption as a proxy for thermal emission, strong correlations (mean r2 = 0.90 & 0.89 respectively) are found between national equivalent heat output HO and temperature above background levels ∆t averaged over 5 to 8 year periods between 1965 and 2013, as opposed to weaker correlations for CMIP5 model temperatures above background levels ∆mt (mean r2 = 0.52 & 0.10). It is clear that the fluctuations in ∆t are better explained by energy consumption than by present climate models, and that energy consumption can contribute to climate change at the national level on these timescales.
Introduction:
It has long been known that within large cities, thermal emission from heated buildings, industry and transport can contribute to a microclimate up to 12°C warmer than background levels in the surrounding area, a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect (Howard, 1833, Arakawa, 1937, Oke, 1973, Knight et al., 2010).
However, some of this heat difference is attributed to contrasts in evaporative cooling and albedo (Taha, 1997), absorbed and re-emitted solar radiation (Rizwan et al., 2008), and convection (Zhao et al., 2014). Here we consider thermal emission alone, but our study is not restricted to cities, but extends the concept to encompass heat generated by entire nations, thus including heat from smaller urban areas, rural districts and transport networks.
Weather systems do not respect political boundaries, so heat generated in one country could affect nations downwind. Japan and Britain are particularly suited to such a study, both being high population-density island nations largely isolated from the heat output of neighbouring countries by the surrounding ocean
…
Discussion and conclusions
Both countries are rather extreme cases, Japan having a mean annual energy consumption per unit area 1965-2013 of 1114 toe km-2, the 8th highest in the world 1965-2013, and the UK 870 toe km-2, the 13th highest (Statistical Review of World Energy 2014). Of the two nations, Japan has a warmer climate and consequently lower
heating requirements, and 60-65% cloud cover (Norris and Wild, 2009). However, Japan’s more consistently increasing energy consumption parallels world CO2 levels, meaning that the correlations with ∆mt are consistently higher than the UK, so the distinction between the two models is not so pronounced. Britain is better suited to this study, being cold enough to require ndoor heating for about 6 months per year, and with 75% cloud co er (Kontoes & Stakenborg, 1990), meaning that less surface-generated heat is lost by radiation. Most importantly, Britain is a country where annual energy consumption has fallen significantly as well as risen during the time period considered, so that the greater effect of heat output than other causes on UK temperature can be more clearly distinguished (Fig. 4, left).
The reliability and importance of our conclusions does not rest on the probabilities returned by our statistical tests, significant though these are by conventional standards:
- First, our hypo hesis was not suggested by the data, but by its qualitative reasonableness.
- Secondly, our results are reproducible, in that our statistical study of the UK data was completed, and the results noted, before testing our conclusions by consideration of the Japan data.
- Third, we carried out no other statistical study of these or any other data sets.
- Fourth, the effect seems large, in that variations of heat output correlate (Fig.2, bottom row) with temperature changes of a few tenths of a degree.
It may seem that, reasonable though it is, our hypothesis is harder to justify quantitatively, in the sense that heat output (of order 1 J m-2 s-1 ) is much smaller than insolation, by two orders of magnitude. On the other hand, what is at issue is the relative importance of fluctuations in these quantities.
The fact that the statistically significant results require averaging over several years is due to the small area of the Earth’s surface being sampled in both locations. At this scale, temperatures vary widely from one year to the next compared to world values (Figure 1, left).
Our results are strong evidence that changes in energy consumption contribute to temperature change over sub-decadal timescales in the two nations considered. Britain has experienced a drop in temperature of about 0°.5 C since the early years of the millennium (Fig.2, lower left) at a time when world temperatures have remained virtually stable, whereas Japan experienced a rise in ∆t of 1°.0 C between the early 1980s and 2000 (Fig.2, upper left), double the world rise in temperature over the same period.
Both these changes reflect changes in energy consumption in each country.
These conclusions might be perceived to be in contrast to recent studies of the UHI effect that relate to large cities, where warming of only ~0°.1 per decade or less is detected compared to nearby rural districts (Jones, 2010, McCarthy et al., 2011).
However, such studies are designed to detect urban/rural contrasts, not the effects of overall increases or decreases in heat emission in entire nations. UHIs are most pronounced in calm weather (Oke, 1973, Wilby, 2003), and are best measured at such times (Knight et al., 2010). Under average conditions, generated heat will drift downwind and may affect rural weather stations (Parker 2010). In addition, the problem of nearby road and urban development at long-lived rural control stations, which may have affected recorded temperatures, is discussed by Hansen et al. (2001). Certainly in Japan, Fujibe (2009) detected temperature anomalies from towns of population less than 1000.
Because anthropogenic heat is generated close to where temperatures are measured in both countries, we have not used a climate model to investigate the transport of such released heat further afield. Early attempts to do this globally found temperature variations of a similar order to the model’s natural fluctuations (Washington 1972), and Flanner (2009) found no significant effect for the present day. Oleson (2012) used CMIP5 simulations to model future changes in urban minus rural temperatures in response to changing climate over the 21st century, rather than the effects of changing energy consumption. More recently however, Zhang et al. (2013) despite including only 42% of world energy consumption in their model, found significant winter and autumn temperature changes up to 1° C in mid- and high- latitudes, far from heat sources, that correspond well to areas of previously unexplained differences between observed and modelled temperatures. Chen et al. (2014), entering anthropogenic heat flux into a refined model that included long wave radiation, found higher and more widespread increases over standard models: 1°-2° C in mid- to high-latitude areas of Eurasia, North America and parts of the southern hemisphere, and concluded that anthropogenic heating is an important factor in global warming that should not be ignored. Our study is the first of its kind that provides direct observational evidence of this.
If projections of energy consumption prove to be true, then future contributions of anthropogenic heat to climate change in Japan and the U.K. will have fallen by 2040. Japan is predicted to have an 18% fall (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2016), corresponding to a temperature drop of about 0°.3 C, and the U.K. a 3% fall (U.K. Dept. of Energy & Climate Change 2015), producing a negligible drop in temperature.
Read the entire open source study here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000352/epdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

…

I guess big islands don’t count but in the red centre they’re all inside looking around for some waste heat-
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/alice-springs-hail-red-centre-turns-white-as-storm-damages-buildings-powerlines/ar-AAhfS6E?ocid=spartanntp
Continental sized islands with minimal population density won’t show anything.
I’m a little curious about the idea of using island nations since their climate is dominated by surrounding ocean. Pop. density may be the key.
Their 7 pt graph has two rises and two drops. There is a good visual similarity but this is where stats are important. It may be quite easy for this degree of similarity to happen by accident on just 7 dots of random data.
Yup
Look at Ireland next door.
To their credit: at least they are looking. This is where climatology should have been 30 years ago !!
Except that they aren’t looking with the eyes of scientists. They are still stuck on stupid – the idea that the warming last century is manmade.
Silly The phenomena has been studied to death over decades.
google Oke energy balance methods
Dubious that heat generated is sufficient to change the temperature of a region.
More probable that local waste heat has biased the temperature measurements.
The reported result is probably a misinterpretation of the urban heat
That’s what I was thinking. On a global scale, people are microscopic.
It depends. In some citys it matters
Yep, UHI really DOES matter.
No matter how much your employers want to discount it.
And yes.. of course it feeds through to the surface temperature data..
Your employers do manage a PROPER and REAL discounting of UHI effect, don’t they Moosh 😉
Upwards in the present, downwards in the past..
Lets call it “regional expectations” shall we.
Summer’s here in the UK and its effing freezing – anything that ups the temperature is ok in my books
Oh dear. What a tragically muddled mess the authors of this “study” have made. First of all though, no mention is ever made of the fact that man’s “waste heat” has polluted the climatic record. That would negate the primary thrust, and apparently the motivation of the study which is that “changes in energy consumption contribute to temperature change over sub-decadal timescales in the two nations considered.” They looked for, and found a correlation and in classic CAGW form, jumped to the causation – man’s energy use.
Sadly for them, the biggest effect of both waste heat and UHI is on the temperature record, not the actual temperature of the planet (if such a thing can even be measured). In other words, sure, there is a very small overall effect but, like the conjectured effect of the additional CO2, it is too small to measure, and of no real consequence on climate.
But Leif Svalgaard said the energy we release as heat is the same as the energy we receive from moonlight, and therefore insignificant.
I am sure he will corect me if I misunderstood that statement.
Yes, it is insignificant in terms of climate. The effect is purely localized. The effect on the “planet’s temperature” would be too small to measure, just like the CO2 we’ve added. It is an absurdity that we are even worried about it, and an insanity for us to think we need to change our forms of energy use because of it.
The moon’s albedo is 0.12, meaning the moon reflects 12% of the energy it receives from the sun. The size of the moon in the sky is about the same as the sun, and the phases of the moon are such that 1/2 the time it is shaded.
As such, moonlight should deliver about 6% the energy to the earth that the sun does. Hardly an insignificant amount.
or you may need to correct for the angle from the moon to earth, vs the moon reflecting into a much larger arc of the sky, which would reduce the effect of moonlight on the earth significantly. in effect, the moon is not a flat mirror pointed directly at the earth, but it seems strange that the edges of the moon to the eye appear as bright as the center at full moon.
That might be true if the entire amount of energy emitted by the moon were to go only to the earth… But it does not. The angle subtended by the earth from the perspective of the moon is small.
While out for a drive look for some of those cooling towers typical at most new power plants. Then look above them at the “cloud” generated by the increased water vapor pumped up into the atmosphere. There seems to b e a constant cloud above the one near me. They also create fog, several of the multi car pile ups on interstate 10 in Texas have been attributed to this man made “fog”. Look at the tops of any high rise, hotel, business office building, again more industrial, water-evaporation, coolers.The wast heat does more than just warm the air, it also affects the atmosphere.
I highly doubt that they “create fog”, though they certainly could contribute to it. Under most circumstances, it would dissipate fairly rapidly, the exception being certain atmospheric conditions in addition to geographic ones causing it to sit in place and therefore build up.
Don’t tell the greens about it. Their answer will be to demand an end to all energy production! That solves the carbon dioxide problem and the waste heat problem. Of course millions of people will die as the world’s economy shuts down but what the heck. What’s a few million lives lost if it will reduce the earth’s temp by a few tenths of a degree.
Last week I flew from Florida to Connecticut. The morning was so clear I was able to take this picture of New York City from the aircraft. The first thing I noticed was how much development there was and almost not green areas. It is obvious that there must be heat retention in all these buildings that dominate the landscape.
http://oi65.tinypic.com/iel1kg.jpg
http://oi65.tinypic.com/iel1kg.jpg
Ah, I see – heat rises and is trapped by all that land in the sky.
/grin
Tiny pics downloaded this upside down of course, Help, anyone?
download this and upload it to the tinypic site
Oops. that didn’t work
http://vps.templar.co.uk/Odds%20and%20Ends/iel1kg.jpg
Thank You
The real problem is the mechanics put the wing back on upside down.
michael 😀
Looks like a fine picture of Queens, to me, with Manhattan in the Distance, and the beaches in the foreground. Did you land at JFK ( on the right hand side of the window.)?
I thought it was a temperature inversion, Tom. Nothing you can do about that.
There are no inductive inferences.
Karl Popper.
All knowledge is provisional, even scientific ‘laws’. Read more on Popper.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
Your statement is hardly the end of his analysis of science/non-science. Nor is Popper’s the last word.
Third, we carried out no other statistical study of these or any other data sets.
==================
this is very important. it establishes that the study was not contaminated by “methods shopping”
all too often climate scientists try various statistical methods until they finally find one the returns the results they expected (wanted) to find. Which completely invalidates the conclusions. However, no one sees this, because the climate scientists do not report what other methods they tried. This (methods shopping) leads to the crisis of false positives currently found in many areas of science.
Third, we carried out no other statistical study of these or any other data sets.
==================
this is very important. it establishes that the study was not contaminated by “methods shopping”
I blinked at that sentence. Did they deliberately avoid trying to break their theory with different tests, or did they not have enough time/money?
“Don’t tell the greens about it. Their answer will be to demand an end to all energy production”
Exactly, I’ve felt for some time that the reason CO2 was being demonized was because it is a proxy for energy production. This gives a rational for attacking any energy production that is not renewable regardless of whether it produces CO2 or not. So no fission or fusion guys. Back to wind and solar.
Their answer will be to demand an end to all energy production
===================
Clearly it was the domestication of fire that got Adam and Eve kicked out of the Garden of Eden. It wasn’t sex after all. The Church has got it all wrong. Fire was the forbidden knowledge.
No, an end to all cities. Pol Pot was ahead of his time!
The implications of this study are huge because it means that shifting to “green” energy sources will not stop the rise in temperatures. Rather, we have to stop using energy, which means that industrial civilization itself is the problem.
We must either do away with fire, which is the basis for human existence outside the tropical jungles, or we must learn to live with higher temperatures.
Either we return to the jungle or learn to enjoy the extra warmth, because we have run smack dab into the laws of thermodynamics.
The heat release from fossil fuels is recycled solar heat absorbed in the carboniferous period.
“Japan has a warmer climate and therefore less need to heat buildings”
Nonsense. Most of Japan has colder winters than Britain.
The average January temperature in Tokyo is about 0,5 degrees lower than in London. It is really only the southernmost island Kyushu that has milder winters than the UK (but not milder than SW Ireland). Northern Japan has much colder winters than anywhere in the British Isles (the tops of the Cairngorms possibly excepted). January temperatures in Sapporo are actually lower than in Oslo or Stockholm and northern Hokkaido is even colder (about equal to St Petersburg).
Annual averages are higher in Japan because summers are warmer, not because winters are milder. Japan is an island nation, true, but the island is situated on the western side of an ocean, so the climate is actually much more similar to the eastern US than to Britain.
The surface station record(s). (They’ve been changed quite a bit over the years.)
Why does “it” make me think of the kid who wants to stay home from school holding the thermometer over a light bulb so it looks like he has a fever?
The results of this study are not to be believed. Dividing total UK energy use (2250 TWh per year) by land area (2.4e15 m^2) gives about 1 W/m^2. With a transient climate response of about 1.3 K for 3.7 W/m^2, that would give warming of 0.3 to 0.4 K. Heat does not stay in one place, so any local heating must be *much* less than this. And any short term variation in temperature must be due to variations in energy use, which is a small fraction of total energy use. With annual average T covering a range of 2 K (Figure 1) any signal must be lost in the noise.
The result must be a coincidence. There was a drop in UK energy use that happens to coincide with a drop in T. The odds of that being a coincidence are high, even if you don’t consider the numbers that show that it must be a coincidence.
And the data are fishy. Figure 1 shows a 20% drop in UK energy use. How is that possible? The only thing I can think of is that it is due to reduced North Sea oil production. That only reduces UK energy production if you assign the energy from oil to the place where it is produced rather than the place where it is burned. But the heat is released where it is burned. So it looks like they are using the wrong data.
Compared to this study, Michael Mann does good work. And Michael Mann produces junk.
And the data are fishy. Figure 1 shows a 20% drop in UK energy use. How is that possible? The only thing I can think of is that it is due to reduced North Sea oil production. That only reduces UK energy production if you assign the energy from oil to the place where it is produced rather than the place where it is burned. But the heat is released where it is burned. So it looks like they are using the wrong data.
Compared to this study, Michael Mann does good work. And Michael Mann produces junk.
Looking at their data source.. well.. Go figure the link gven in their paper is dead.
http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.htm
but I found the current data.
http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/excel/energy-economics/statistical-review-2016/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2016-workbook.xlsx
For the UK
First data point is 1965
The drop from 220 to 200 to 193 is the period you are talking about
197.6 198.3 198.1 205.0 212.4 217.0 213.0 216.0 226.7 215.3 203.0 207.0 210.8 211.7 221.2 201.6 195.9 193.2 193.7 193.6 201.7 207.2 206.9 209.4 209.5 211.3 215.8 214.4 216.7 214.0 214.8 225.3 221.1 223.3 222.0 224.2 226.8 221.9 225.1 226.6 228.9 226.3 219.7 216.4 205.2 210.5 198.8 201.9 201.4 188.9 191.2
Steven Mosher,
And your point is?
From your numbers, it looks like the drop is from 226.8 to 188.9. OK, so 16% compared to the rough 20% I estimated from the figure. That is still suspicious.
My point was to help you Mike.
sorry.
You said the data looked fishy
Yes. so is it a chart probem? or processing problem? or underlying data problem.?
who knows?
Silly me I thought you wanted to find the answer so I gave you a link to the data.
My sense is your answer will be found in the document I linked to… if at all.
But if all you want to do is comment on blogs then ignore the data and carry on.
You sounded science minded to me… so I pointed you at the data
Steven Mosher,
Yes, I am a science minded person. As such, I do not believe in mind reading.
You sent an Excel file consisting of a few dozen links. I still don’t see much point to that. And I don’t see much point in tracking down the exact source of the study’s error; it will still be meaningless. And unfixable.
I realize that just because it is stated multiple times doesn’t make it the least bit true but were the claims based on something real?
At various climate sites, in discussions of possible warming sources, it has been stated that estimates of total annual human energy usage, from all energy sources, equals only a few hours of TSI. Thus heat from human activity (it all becomes heat, “waste” or not) cannot possibly influence temperature on the global scale.
There are plenty of figures on TSI floating around. Are there any reasonably reliable numbers on total human energy usage?
I have to say that although it is raining outside and the temperature outside is 16 degrees centigrade I am not freezing here in Lincoln UK it is now nearly seven degrees warmer inside my flat than outside with no heating on and the difference is getting larger each week with longer days and shorter nights keeping the temperature inside warmer. I admit that if we had seen the sun more than once every six days it would be a bit warmer but we saw even less of the sun during the formation of the last la nina .
One more time this is the engineering definition of waste heat
Waste heat
Waste heat is by necessity produced both by machines that do work and in other processes that use energy, for example in a refrigerator warming the room air or a combustion engine releasing heat into the environment. The need for many systems to reject heat as a by-product of their operation is fundamental to the laws of thermodynamics.
Waste heat – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_heat
Any skeptics wanna make a bet?
I have a really dense Island… Taiwan.. more densely populated than the UK
And we calculate the difference between Taiwan temps and the global temps after 1965
And the Primary energy consumption has gone up 10X
Given the authors thesis this should result in an increasing divergence between Taiwan temps and the global temps..
Any takers on falsifying?
And then Ireland…
Lets see what the Thesis is.
1. Look at the UK difference from Global Delta T
2. Look at the UK energy Consumption And see that dip around 1980.
3. Note that the Delta T goes Up and down like the energy consumption does,
So, Lets check Ireland..
Any bets? come on…
Mosher,
Not sure what you are saying, but I think you raise the right point. To make the claim the study makes you need to look at a lot of cases, not just one or two.
It’s pretty simple.
.. There is an easy check just to the west of the UK, namely Ireland, and also the Isle of Man
The authors look at the difference between UK temp and Global temp and define this as a residual.
They then argue that this residual ( after you average 7 years of it) is correlated with energy use or waste heat.
I’ll bet that the temperature record for Ireland and the Isle of Man have the same residuals as the UK..
not because of waste heat, but rather because the climate of those places is dominated by SST.
dont get me started on Island data…
Mosh must be being paid overtime. !
Just being funny here, but is Man made global warming hitting Japan and Ireland??
I expect will to come along and explain some things.
How did they decide to average over 7 years?
When you smooth data over 7 years and then look for correlations what will happen?
Waiting for William Briggs to show up and admonish people about looking for correlations after smoothing…
na… wont happpen
In the local environment in the developed world, the 20 to 40F higher temperature of asphalt is much larger than 3.7Wm2 forcing, plus the time constant for cooling at night is far far longer than the atm. This could easily explain warmer summer temps in the more developed northern hemisphere and the lack of a positive anomaly by the end of the year.
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2015/11/18/evidence-against-warming-from-carbon-dioxide/
The warmists have claimed the fastest warming from GHG based heating would/will be near the center of the troposphere by altitude. The alleged heating has been pointed out in the “boundary layer” Alchohol and mercury thermometers are located and observed there too..
The heat energy discussed in this paper is put into the boundary layer. Might be something here. At least this “practical heat” is in the right place when released. We are also raising the near surface humidity in areas and ol’ water vapor really does slow the loss of energy.
Some increase in temps is the fault of “ikky” humans. Land use, UHI effects of roofs and walls and streets, released energy. Just not warmists targeted GHGs.
The warmists have claimed the fastest warming from GHG based heating would/will be near the center of the troposphere by altitude.
Tropical tropospheric ‘hotspot’? That’s a prediction of heat transfer in the atmosphere regardless of the cause of warming (solar, volcanic, GHG, cloud cover changes). It’s not solely a GHG signature.
…anything but GHG. Anything, otherwise it’s a conspiracy.
ABC – Anything But Carbon. 🙂