Jim Steele
From peer-reviewed The Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Land Surface Warming (1850–2018) in Terms of Human and Natural Factors: Challenges of Inadequate Data
Soon et al (2023): The majority of the stations used for comparing the mid-19th century to the present are now urbanized… The rural and urban trend is 60% higher than that for the rural-only record. It seems plausible that at least some of this extra warming is a result of urbanization bias.”
Graphic A shows US weather stations with at least 70 years of data. Blue dots show cooling trends (34%) and red crosses warming trends (66%). Stations with warming trends are clustered in areas with the most Urban Heat Islands (graphic B), like the northeast, Lake Michigan area and west coast. Contradicting a homogeneous CO2 global warming effect, cooling weather stations are incongruously observed adjacent to warming stations. However, such contrasting pairs are easily explained by natural vegetation vs urban heat islands.
For Indianapolis, IN surface temperatures during July 2019 based on infrared satellite data reached 118F in urban centers (red in graphic D, and the gray areas using natural color in graphic C). Natural temperatures only reached 68F (blue in graphic D, and dark green areas of graphic C) for example the large blue area in the northwest of Graphic D is Eagle Creek Park.
Urban Heat Islands are centers for the most heat related deaths. The battle to save lives from unnatural extreme heat requires reducing urban heat island effects. Reducing CO2 is irrelevant!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A minor little problem is that “dense housing” reduces the possible area for trees to reduce UHI effects. “Suburban sprawl” typically has trees in the front and or back lawns, and lawns? How dreadful!
Dense housing can be vertical. Been there, did not like it.
Same old nonsense. Most of the planet’s surface is covered by ocean, which shows a robust warming trend similar to land surfaces. The ocean is not affected by urbanization bias. Satellite temperature estimates show the same strong warming trend, also unaffected by urbanization.
Same old deflection, trying to obfuscate the issue at hand. How many weather stations are in the oceans?
There are a multitude of observing sites in the ocean:
Prior to these, there were abundant measurements of ocean temperatures taken by ships, this is an example of a few day’s worth of observation tracks:
“Prior to these, there were abundant measurements of ocean temperatures taken by ships, this is an example of a few day’s worth of observation tracks”
hmmm… well I suppose you can make graphs of both- and tack them together- and probably find- a hockey stick at the end!
Your reply reveals absolutely nothing about WHY ocean warming is happening in different regions.
Sorry, you missed again. The topic is heat deaths in urban areas, not how hot it is shipboard.
So very few fixed point measurements in the ocean.
All over the place at random along shipping routes.
Basically NONE for a large proportion of the world’s oceans.
And the methodology is probably +/- a couple of degrees for each measurement.
Any results nothing more than a very rough guess.
I read a post elsewhere (can’t find it now) that discussed how far Argo floats move while they are descending and rising again to the surface. Very difficult to tie the temperatures they send to any given location.
precisely…
Its hilarious and farcical that the still have a gall to publish graphs showing SSTs back to the 1850.
Hmm Shipboard water temperature sensors. What could go wrong? Let’s see – Ships would be moving, moving ships come across cooler and warmer waters, no way to differentiate. Ships sensors in engine rooms? oh noes. Ships using buckets? How to determine the water depth to which the bucket fell? 😉
C’mon, how much have the oceans warmed in the last 100 years?
You apparently don’t realize that the water that makes up our oceans has a specific heat capacity more than four times that of air. Meaning, it takes four times as much heat energy to warm water by a unit of temperature as required to warm air by the same change in temperature.
You are exactly right – most of the energy increase in the earth system over the past century has gone into heating the oceans:
‘how much have the oceans warmed in the last 100 years?’
You missed out that question.
How much have the oceans warmed in the last 100 years?
‘The ocean is not affected by urbanization bias.’
Do you mean that urbanization bias exists?
Urbanization bias is a thing that exists, but is small at the global scale, and is accounted for by every major surface temperature analysis. The ocean surface has warmed by this much:
And as measured by satellites:
Thanks for the info.
So urbanization bias exists, just like the article claims.
And the temperature of the sea had an anomaly of -0.4 degrees in 1978, after 120 years of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
But urbanization bias doesn’t explain the observed warming, as the article insinuates. The satellite data uses a baseline period of 1991-2020, so zero is centered on the that time span.
The Earth has been slowly warming (about 1K+) since the end of the Little Ice Age, the coldest period of the current Holocene Interglacial. To attribute any portion of that warming to Mans’ activities is pure speculation. The CliSciFi climate models do not describe the actual climate, producing the spurious tropospheric Hot Spot among other inaccuracies. They are not consistent among themselves, with wildly varying “guesses” of the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS).
The Holocene Climate Optimum and the temperatures at the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods rival or exceed the current Modern high point. Dicking around and arguing tenths or hundredths of a degree K and their relation to Mans’ activities is a chump’s game played with academic rent-seekers, NGOs, politicians and other Leftists of all stripes. Your governments lie to you constantly about all matters great and small.
Wow! Great post.
The satellite data shows very little warming apart from El Nino events.
You have FAILED to make any point at all..
… except that you are an ignorant fool. !
The topic is the urban heat effect, which is measurable and can be several degrees or more than surrounding non-urban area.
You have yet to produce any measured evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.. so all you jabbering is meaningless.
Alan you seem desperate again to deflect and redirect the issues raised in this post. Bad Troll Bad!
FYI It is increased solar heating due to changes in cloud tropical cover that has added heat to the oceans.
Read : https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2023/01/the-science-of-solar-ponds-challenges.html
0r watch:
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl3_YQ_Vufo?version=3&rel=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&fs=1&hl=en-US&autohide=2&start=1080&wmode=transparent%5D
I’m directly challenging the main thesis of the article, which you are not here even attempting to defend, and are yourself trying to divert attention down an irrelevant rabbit trail.
Your article and video are simply misunderstanding the mechanism you are describing and mischaracterizing the single piece of research you cite. IR does not need to penetrate to great depth to force a warming of the ocean, it merely needs to reduce heat loss across the skin layer.
AlanJ You are just trolling like you always do and trying to dovert attention from the science you cannot refute. You are the only one who misunderstands.
CO2 IR is NOT reducing the heat loss across the ocean’s skin layer. The skin layer is ALWAYS cooler than the subsurface immediately below. You refer to the one and only researcher’s claim that has been debunked many times.
I never said the skin layer needs to become warmer than the subsurface. What needs to happen is for the gradient across the skin layer to be reduced, slowing the rate of conductive heat loss and forcing heat accumulation in the lower layers. That is what increasing downward IR flux does, and it is exactly what the researchers you yourself cited in your article (but now seem to be… disavowing? I guess?) say.
Neither of us misunderstands – I think you are very intentionally trying to divert the topic of discussion away. It’s not that you’ve failed to comprehend my point, it’s that you desperately need to pretend it was never made.
AlanJ, You revealed your trolling stupidity saying “I never said the skin layer needs to become warmer than the subsurface. What needs to happen is for the gradient across the skin layer to be reduced, ” Learn some science and then come back so you don’t look so ignorant!
The cools skin surface maintains the gradient needed to allow conduction from subsurface to surface. The cool skin layer happens because any IR absorbed by the skin surface is immediately radiated away in a thousandth of a second, as well as increasing cooling from more evaporation and conduction to the overlying air.
Solar heating during the day is the driving force increasing or decreasing the gradient. Solar heated water takes months to decades to rise to the surface, releasing heat in winter or during El Ninos, etc.
Try critical thinking sometime Alan! The alarmist researcher that made the claim you so blindly regurgitate noticed the same amount of IR was radiated from the surface during clear skies and cloudy skies. Since cloudy skies increase downward radiation he created the stupid narrative you blindly embrace that CO2 warming prevente oceean heat from escaping. The fact is cloudy skies also reduced solar heating of the subsurface layer, providing a smaller temperature gradients and less heat to radiate away! It was the sun stupid!
The surface is losing energy via emission, and downward IR offsets some of that emission. With this agreement in place, it doesn’t seem like you have any point to argue any more, you’re just denying to deny, and deflecting to deflect.
Again, complete anti-science RUBBISH. !
There is no measured evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
You are talking gibberish.. and you know it !!
It is just mindless , agenda-driven trolling.
Show us the math that supports this. Do you even know how to write a gradient equation?
Then show us the math about how IR heats the skin layer without also creating more radiation and evaporation.
You are just making assertions with nothing to support them. Anyone can do that. Even trolls. If you don’t have the ability to show an argument based on evidence, your are a troll.
They actually did some very accurate measurement at one stage,
And showed that on evaporation the layer underneath the skin layer actually COOLED.
But anyone sane and rational knows that evaporation has a cooling effect.
That leaves out people like AJ.
Are you earnestly asking me to explain how thermal conduction works, or are you taking the piss? I can explain the basic physics if it is truly the former.
Gorman simply asked “Show us the math”. AlanJ does his typical troll tactic to avoid an answer!
“to explain how thermal conduction works”
Why would anyone want to ask a scientific ignoramus about anything to do with science ??
No, you cannot explain physics because your meagre understanding is so twisted and distorted by your AGW brain-washing and lack of scientific comprehension.
You have shown you are basically clueless about how things actually work.
I don’t need you to explain thermodynamics to me. What I asked for was evidence in the form of math showing the gradient across the skin layer and how IR from the atmosphere changes it.
It is apparently beyond you to show that or to find a study that shows the math derived from measurements. That just makes your assertions nothing but pure opinion.
See Wong and Minnett, 2018: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC013351
Again AlanJ I already debunked the dishonest paper regards CO2 warming the surface yet still push their nonsense as gospel. Learn some science and then come back so you don’t look so ignorant!
The cools skin surface maintains the gradient needed to allow conduction from subsurface to surface. The cool skin layer happens because any IR absorbed by the skin surface is immediately radiated away in a thousandth of a second, as well as increasing cooling from more evaporation and conduction to the overlying air.
Solar heating during the day is the driving force increasing or decreasing the gradient. All the solar heated water takes months to decades to rise to the surface, releasing heat in winter or during El Ninos, etc.
Try critical thinking sometime Alan! The alarmist researchers Wong and Minnett are the only ones making the claim you so blindly regurgitate noticed the same amount of IR was radiated from the surface during clear skies and cloudy skies. Since cloudy skies increase downward radiation they fabricated the stupid narrative you blindly embrace that CO2 warming prevents ocean heat from escaping. The fact is their cloudy skies also reduced solar heating of the subsurface layer, providing a smaller temperature gradients and so less heat to radiate away! It was the sun stupid!
You keep making statements that are not at odds with anything I’ve said, or anything in W&M.
The skin layer temperature gradient exists because of the processes you describe, and it also controls the flux of heat from ocean to atmosphere . Reducing the gradient will reduce the ocean to atmosphere heat flux. This seems to be something you and I both agree on.
It is also true that the ocean surface emits and absorbs infrared radiation, this is also something you and I seem to agree on.
If this is the case, then it naturally follows, with no difficulty at all, that reducing the emitted flux (by increasing the absorbed flux) must reduce the temperature gradient across the skin layer. Thus increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases will lead to reduce flux from the ocean to atmosphere, and a reduced temperature gradient across the skin layer, and reduced heat loss from ocean to atmosphere, and thereby ocean warming.
So here we are, and it isn’t clear where your disagreement might lie.
Your critique of W&M seems to depend on a misunderstanding of their methodology. The observations used by W&M were performed at night – there was no solar heating occurring.
Just how stupid are you AlanJ, saying “W&M were performed at night – there was no solar heating occurring.”
Of course the sun doesnt add heat at night, but only a complete trolling fool would argue that nighttime subsurface temperatures are not a product of the previous daytime solar heating. God you are such a brainwashed idiot!
I’m not arguing such a thing, nor are M&W. The paper is examining heat flow from the subsurface as modulated by the TSL temperature gradient, itself modulated by heat loss at the air-sea interface.
Your hypercriticism of a work you do not seem to comprehend smacks of conceit.
ALANJ, All your replies smack or dishonesty and utter stupidity.
Indeed you and W&M are exactly arguing what only a complete trolling fool and alarmist researcher would argue by ignoring nighttime subsurface temperatures are a product of the previous daytime solar heating and then stating “observations used by W&M were performed at night – there was no solar heating occurring”
AlanJ you are an icon of misinformation stupidity and dishonesty.
They are not ignoring this at all, they are studying the rate of heat loss and how this is modulated by downwelling IR, they are not studying heat gain from sunlight. Hopefully this helps to clarify things for you.
Exhibiting a modicum of humility might help you out here, as it is doubtful that you are the smartest person on earth and you might still have things to learn in life. Ask more questions, hurl less invective.
A modicum of honest might make you appear as a less of a vile troll.
You clearly have no integrity about repeating the same lies. So once again, “The cools skin surface maintains the gradient needed to allow conduction from subsurface to surface. The cool skin layer happens because any IR absorbed by the skin surface is immediately radiated away in a thousandth of a second, as well as increasing cooling from more evaporation and conduction to the overlying air.
Solar heating during the day is the driving force increasing or decreasing the gradient. All the solar heated water takes months to decades to rise to the surface, releasing heat in winter or during El Ninos, etc.
Try critical thinking sometime Alan! The alarmist researchers Wong and Minnett are the only ones making the claim you so blindly regurgitate noticed the same amount of IR was radiated from the surface during clear skies and cloudy skies. Since cloudy skies increase downward radiation they fabricated the stupid narrative that you blindly embrace that CO2 warming prevents ocean heat from escaping. The fact is their cloudy skies also reduced solar heating of the subsurface layer, providing a smaller temperature gradients and so less heat to radiate away! It was the sun stupid!
Attached graphic is from your bogus Wong and Minnett. You idiotically argue the temperatures were taken at night to there was no solar heating effect, but W7M own data shows the subsurface oceans had lower temperatures from solar heat on cloudy days resulting in less IR out causing similar IR as on clear sky days with more solar heating. It is disgusting how alarmists like you and Minnett have grossly used that difference to argue more CO2 prevents ocean cooling.
AlanJ is the same disgusting troll he has been for the last 10 years. They must pay him well! He refuses to think critically.
What’s being shown in the upward flux through the TSL, not the heat content of the mixed layer. It’s important to have a good grasp on these research papers before you start putting on airs and pretending to know more than the scientists who study this stuff for a living.
LOL AlanJ the stupid troll should heed his own words. No one ever said it was the “mixed layer” just the solar heated immediate subsurface layer which is warmed by rising heat from the mixed layer.
Learn some science. You are making your cricket brain look bad!
Again, the diagram is showing flux into the base of the thermal skin layer. You are trying to pivot and deflect from this point, but it is important that you acknowledge and comprehend what I’m saying here, because it is central to your misunderstanding of what the diagram illustrates.
LOL Such a stupid bullshit reply. You keep making things up which you can’t support with any facts or scientific laws. Clearly you are a clueless liar AlanJ!
Yet you cannot articulate a coherent rebuttal. By this point you’ve made it pretty clear that you are not debating in good faith.
LOL I have articulated several coherent arguments several times You choose to avoid all the science I’ve presented and simply reply with more stupid dishonest comments and then expect a real debate LOL. You excel AlanJ in typical dishonest alarmist troll behavior. I think your stupidest comment in thus thread (there have been so many before) is to deny the effects of solar heated subsurface you simply say the diagram is just “showing flux into the base of the thermal skin layer” which is exactly what happens when the subsurface is heated by the sun during the day and tries to rid itself of the daytimeheat. You must believe everyone is as stupid and as dishonest as you!
These assertions are bizarre to say the least. Yet you say they prove that the skin layer “blocks” heat transfer away from the subsurface. To make this hypothesis true the atmosphere would need to be warmer than the skin layer. That would allow net heat transfer to take place into the skin layer. Thot always radiates at its temperature and in this case it is controlled by subsurface temperatures, not by atmospheric temperatures. Any radiation absorbed from a colder body (atmosphere) is immediately compensated for via the radiation already being emitted. This reduces the cooling gradient but does not increase temperature. In fact, Thot just keeps cooling.
The other thing this study does not address is how additional energy can be absorbed without increasing evaporation. Something is amiss.
There is not net heat transfer into the skin layer.
Another meaningless reply by AlanJ the stupid troll!
“I’m directly challenging the main thesis of the article”
And FAILING utterly and completely !!
Easy to resolve. Show us the sea surface measurements of incident insolation since 1900. Then show measurements of how much was reflected and absorbed.
No proxies, no estimates. Only actual measurements!
It is not IR that warms the ocean. The solar energy warming the ocean is at least 50% visible light.
That is correct. Increasing IR is not warming the ocean, rather, it is inhibiting the loss of heat gained from the sun.
Already shown that there were basically NO MEASUREMENTS for large parts of the world’s oceans before 2005
The HADSST graph is as FAKE as it gets.
Notice that in HADSST 2016 is much higher than 2016 El Nino.
… whereas in UAH they are close to the same.
You have just shown HADSST to be unreliable..
Given the lack of data it is based on , that is totally understandable.
“but is small at the global scale”
Yet makes up a large proportion of the farcical “global average temperature”
Would love to see where the SST measurements for say 1860 came from 🙂
oh, I see, just mix up all these different data sources- almost like real science.
Alan,
Can you please provide the conversion from Zetajoules to an increase in degrees K. (Basis total volume of the Earth’s oceans)? I assume this would also allow for a calculation of the average EEI over the period graphed, so please provide this as well. Thanks.
Heck just do it for the top 2000 m where ARGO works.
Alan you seem desperate again todeflect and redirect the issues raised in this post. Bad Troll Bad!
FYI It is increased solar heating due to changes in cloud tropical cover that has added heat to the oceans.
Rread : https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2023/01/the-science-of-solar-ponds-challenges.html
0r watch:
There are solar effects beyond the clouds that contribute.
What is fascinating is the the ocean temp when up, what 1 C, since 1880 and the atmosphere went up, what 1 C, since 1880.
Seems the ocean is warming the atmosphere.
Again, relying on data that is “mostly made up”
Let’s use proxy data to see what the graph above really represents
Convert those zeta joules to °C. Maybe you can show a huge amount of warming in temperature.
If that blue shade on the graph represents uncertainty bounds, then it is absurd and should not be trusted.
Geoff S
Oh look. The Ocean temperature is now measured in zettajoules.
Are those global average surface zettajoule anomalies ?
Are splicing of different data sources together now allowed in water temperature measurements to show trends?
Once again, AnalJ posts his fatuous nonsense of ocean heat content.
You really believe we are able to measure the temperature of every cubic meter of all the oceans of the Earth simultaneously, and with an accuracy and precision of +-0.001degree Celsius, and that since 1960?
Yes, he does believe it is possible.
robust to you- trivial to others
AlanJ try to stay on topic, instead of trolling. The topic is land surface temperatures. If you want to talk about the dynamics causing ocean warming learn some science and read : https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2023/01/the-science-of-solar-ponds-challenges.html
0r watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl3_YQ_Vufo&t=1080s
Same old nonsense in what way? You are conflating one thing with another. The topic is the extreme heat of urbanized areas, not the tiny 0.016C/yr trend of warming that one might assume, at most, is from CO2 rise.
There is a long-standing tradition amongst the contrarian set to claim that the planet is not actually warming, and any perceived warming is nothing more than UHI in growing cities. This claim is categorically false, as I’ve shown above. Temperature extremes around the world are increasing due to the ongoing warming trend driven by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
The long-standing tradition of alarmist trolls is to simply blame everything on CO2 and ignore the other factors that have increased at the same time
Even so-called rural areas have been affected by large population growth and densification since the 1970s.
There is no one here claiming the earth, rising out of the LIA is not warming. No one.
UHI is real, even if only based on the surface area of the building relative to the ground footing size. A 1 m^2 building 6 m tall increases the surface area by a factor of 25.
UHI is a real phenomenon, the point is that it is not causing the observed warming trend, because the trend is seen in both satellite and SST datasets.
You stated in no uncertain terms that all of us “deniers” were claiming no global warming. No you deflect.
I stated that contrarians like to claim that the warming is simply a product of urbanization bias, which is what the author of this post is claiming.
AlanJ you keep making shit up. I have never said urbanization is the only reason for warming trends. I’ve repeatedly posted : increased solar heating due to changes in tropical cloud cover that has added heat to the oceans and oceans heat the air
Read : https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2023/01/the-science-of-solar-ponds-challenges.html
0r watch:
[youtube
Jim, if you in fact are not claiming that US surface warming is being driven primarily by urbanization bias, then we have no disagreement on the point. Can you verify that that is not what you intended to imply in your post?
crickets
AlanJ you have a brain the size of a cricket! Why are trolls so blatantly and dishonestly stupid. Apparently AlanJ didn’t even bother to read or at least comprehend this article. So here are the first few sentences:
“From peer-reviewed [I was a co-author] The Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Land Surface Warming (1850–2018) in Terms of Human and Natural Factors: Challenges of Inadequate Data
Soon et al (2023): The majority of the stations used for comparing the mid-19th century to the present are now urbanized… The rural and urban trend is 60% higher than that for the rural-only record. It seems plausible that at least some of this extra warming is a result of urbanization bias.”
Ok, so you only think it might be possible that some of the warming might be the result of urbanization bias? All of my comments still apply exactly as I made them: the oceans are warming, satellites show the same warming, and the US Reference network shows the same warming as the full network. There is no indication of urbanization bias in temperature trends.
No stupid! Learn some science AlanJ. Satellites most definitely detect UHI as shown in this article’s graphics of Indianapolis. But Land surface temperature (LST) are determined by complex algorithms.
from Characterizing thermal fields and evaluating UHI effects Khan (2021) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128196694000027
“LST can be defined as the emission of thermal radiance from the land surface as well as the canopy of the vegetated areas The Landsat 8 thermal band is used to calculate LST. The TOA (Top of Atmospheric) spectral radiance, BT (Brightness Temperature), NDVI, Pv (Proportion of vegetation), and Emissivity value are derived, and finally using those factors LST is calculated.”
I hate stupid trolls!
Satellites can detect urban areas, but satellite temperature estimates are not contaminated by urbanization bias, these are different things.
You are very angry, and seem determined to argue with me at any cost. Taker a breath, take a moment before typing, and try to address things I’m actually saying.
True, I hate stupid dishonest trolls.
You might try reading before you post. Scan and scroll is insufficient.
Come on AJ, show us the human caused warming in the UAH data.
We can wait. .. for you to continue to make a fool of yourself.
UAH Land shows that most land warming happens at El Nino events.
… the URBAN surface data.. is so tainted by urban bias, that it can only be mostly urban warming.
Denial of URBAN WARMING…. the last fantasy of deniers of natural global warming.
There is a long-standing tradition amongst the contrarian set to claim that the planet is not actually warming,
You’ll want to quote the part following the comma 😉
LOL What a stupid reply. Soooo, if east Oshkosh and NYC are both warming it must be due to rising CO2, right? ROFLMAO Why are trolls so stupid!
This one is particularly DUMB as well as being totally brain-washed with anti-science gibberish.
Trend is satellite data comes purely from El Nino events.
So you are talking through your own ignorance, as always.
And as for your farcical SST graph…
… Show us where the sea temps were measured in 1870. !
Do you believe satellites massage their data to remove UHI? If not, then how does UAH become not affected by UHI?
You need to show measurements and data that CO2 in the atmosphere heats the oceans. Otherwise your claim is nothing but smoke blowing in the breeze and worth the same.
Satellites are orbiting in outer space, Jim, that is why they are not affected by urbanization.
So you think the temperatures they measure by using irradiance don’t contain temperatures of urban areas?
They contain temperatures from regions of the surface that are urbanized, which is 3% of 30% of the global surface area, but this has little impact on the global trend. Urbanization bias is primarily a sampling issue resulting from urban stations being used to represent non-urban areas.
FOTFLMAO What a completely retarded answer! AlanJ is so desperate to troll the UHI he shows how totally stupid he is saying “Satellites are orbiting in outer space so not affected by urbanization” So clueless!
AlanJ continues to fart into the wind… all he smells is himself.
Jim, I think there may be a small component of UHI effect in the UAH land data. It warms at about 1.5 times the global UAH data, mainly at El Nino spike/step changes.
But you need to remember that although urban data makes up most of the “surface” data measurements, urban areas only really make up about 5-10% of the actual land surface.
There are vast areas of “non-urban” that are not measured by surface data that are captured in the UAH data.
“the point is that it is not causing the observed warming trend”
It most certain is causing most of the land surface data to increase.
Denial of that fact makes you look like a complete moron, desperate to try and blame it on some minor change in a tiny component of the Earth’s atmosphere.
And FAILING utterly and completely.
You haven’t shown any such thing. !
UAH satellite data shows basically no warming except that NON-CO2 El Nino events.
The farcical “global surface data” is massively tainted by urban heat measurements.
You have no measured evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
But huge amounts of evidence of the urban heating effect, of several degrees or more in urban areas.
You are living in your own pathetic little la-la-land.
The topic is “saving lives from extreme heat”.
Nothing beats abundant affordable energy and air conditioning, whatever your belief in “warning trends”.
I think AlanJ saw the movie “Voyage to the Bottom of Sea” and got confused.
Ship at sea in the movie did suffer “heat deaths”.
l didn’t see the movie, but I do recall the TV series, probably because there was always a hokey scene in every episode where the cast would run from one side of the set to the other to simulate the sub’s being shaken by a giant squid or some other plot device.
The squid was also in the movie.
Basically, meteorites had ignited the Van Allen Radiation Belt heating the Earth.
Despite “the consensus” saying he was wrong, Admiral Nelson, played by Walter Pidgeon, concluded launching a nuke into at a certain point and a certain time would cause it to burn out.
(Strange. When I did a search for the movie this morning, no problem finding it.
When I did it just now, all I got was the TV show.)
UAH shows land warming 50% faster than oceans.
Which is exactly what we’d expect given the different heating capacity of solid earth vs water.
Your comment said:
“… ocean, which shows a robust warming trend similar to land surfaces.” ALAN J.
Land surfaces warming 50% faster than ocean surfaces did not meet my definition of “similar”.
It meets my definition, as it should anyone with any comprehension of thermodynamics. It is not just the surface ocean temperature that shows warming, the oceans show massive heat accumulation at depth.
You have no comprehension of thermodynamics, so that leaves you out.
There is not a “massive accumulation at depth”
There is a small trivial OHC warming, which can only come from the SUN or geothermal.
This warming is tiny compared to OHC over time from proxy data.
This is intermediate water temperature in the Pacific and does not represent whole-ocean heat content, but with that in mind the rate of increase across the modern era appears to be far higher than any time reflected in the earlier part of the record. Where is your evidence that this rapid warming you cite is coming from a change in insolation? And why has insolation changed so dramatically and rapidly across the modern era?
DENIAL yet again.
Only a complete moron thinks that the pacific ocean can be warmer to that extent and the rest of the oceans aren’t.
The same pattern applies basically everywhere over the globe during the last 10,000 years.
Stop showing yourself to be a complete moron.
The pattern of more rapid warming across the modern era in the Pacific than at any point in the last 10,000 years? Is that the pattern you’re referring to?
UHI is not solid earth. UNI is asphalt, concrete, steel, waste heat emissions, cars, people, etc.
Alan J,
If this divergence of temperatures is real, try to project to the future with an ever-widening gap. Impossible, unless something happens to start the gap reducing.
There are time limits on some of these effects that show that they cannot go on forever because you face runaway temperatures, for which there is no evidence to date.
Even ‘UAH Land’ shows next to no warming for long periods of time.
Urban areas are only some 5-10% or so of the land surface, so you would not expect to see a large urban warming effect in the satellite data.
You could of course do a linear trend through those El Nino based spike/step changes, if you were a trend monkey that wanted to prove you were ignorant to what is actually happened
Ocean isn’t affected by CO2, that is for certain.
Satellite temperatures show warming ONLY at El Nino events.
What’s causing El Ninos to keep getting warmer and warmer? It definitely isn’t urbanization.
Plate tectonics.
Alan you seem desperate again to deflect and redirect the issues raised in this post. Bad Troll Bad!
FYI It is increased by solar heating due to changes in tropical cloud cover that has added heat to the oceans. It is the sun stupid!
Read : https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2023/01/the-science-of-solar-ponds-challenges.html
0r watch:
The SUN, moron !
It certainly IS NOT CO2. !!
What is the sun doing that’s causing these step-ups? Be specific please, provide citations.
Where else is “The Heat” coming from?
“Be specific please, provide citations.”
PS Quoting Al Gore about the “millions of degrees” of the Earth’s core is not an answer.
Stop pretending to be an ignorant moron..
Or is it just you being you.
Start by learning something about what El Ninos are and how they work.
You seem to be deliberately ignorant.
Question, Alanj.
Do most heat deaths occur within Urban Heat Islands or not?
Yes or No?
Definitely ISN’T CO2 either.
Now you just have to wake up and get a basic education to figure out what it is.
It is obviously pointless people explaining REALITY to you time and time again, when you so DESPERATE to avoid facing it.
Poor little AJ.
Massive DENIAL of the huge and measurable urban warming effect.
Urban areas are only some 4-5% of the land surface, but make up a large proportion of the fabrication they call the “global temperature”
“UAH Land” is not as tainted with urban warming, and shows long periods of near zero warming, with steps at El Nino events.
Why does the temperature keep “stepping up” at every El Nino event?
Certainly NO because of CO2.
Even a scientific moron like couldn’t “pretend” that.
Solar input is prime cause, modified by clouds… and continues to increase.
Drop your AGW-cult ignorance, and you might have a small chance of gaining a basic understanding of reality.
Why is absorbed solar radiation increasing? Why is cloud cover changing?
Nothing to do with CO2, that is for sure.
So you don’t have any explanation? Just “It can be anything as long as it isn’t CO2?” Does that accurately sum up your thinking?
Sorry that you are a clueless moron.
Sorry that you have no empirical evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2.
Sorry you have zero thinking ability.. just brain-washed mantra pap.
That accurately sums up your whole being.
So, just to confirm, you cannot offer any explanation for why El Niño keeps “stepwise” getting warmer and warmer and warmer over time?
“Most of the planet’s surface is covered by ocean, which shows a robust warming trend similar to land surfaces.”
Some parts of the ocean show a robust cooling trend:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2444394-part-of-the-atlantic-is-cooling-at-record-speed-and-nobody-knows-why/
Part of the Atlantic is cooling at record speed and nobody knows why
After over a year of record-high global sea temperatures, the equatorial Atlantic is cooling off more quickly than ever recorded, which could impact weather around the world
By James Dinneen
19 August 2024
Satellite measurements show +0.21 C/decade over oceans and +0.13 C/decade over land. The warming trend over land is 62% higher. That’s not “similar.” Nor is +1.3 C per hundred years a “robust” or “strong” warming trend.
That measured warming trend is in line with the lowest projected trends of the infamously wrong climate models (RCP2.6), the one that assumes unprecedented global coordination and radical CO2 emissions reductions so that human emissions start to decline in 2020—four years ago, whoops!—and drop to zero by 2100. That target, which we’re missing by a mile, is predicted to raise global temperatures by the same rate we’re actually measuring when global CO2 emissions are rising at a rate that the models predict will cause up to +4.8 C of warming (RCP8.5), nearly 4 times higher than we’re measuring. Incidentally, RCP8.5, the most ridiculously wrong projection, is the one used for every study related to future climate. I wonder why. So much for models and their predictions.
Observed SST trends are in line with modeled projections for RCP4.5:
And the global land+ocean trends are in line with model projections for RCP4.5 as well:
The observation that SST trends are lower than land-surface trends is expected given the slower response time of the ocean – and as shown quite clearly in the plot of rising ocean heat content I shared in an earlier comment:
The bottom line is that you unequivocally cannot possibly explain observed warming as merely urban contamination of surface records. Even more plainly, in the contiguous US we have a network of pristinely sited, perfectly maintained surface stations (USCRN), active since 2005, that has no possibility of urban contamination whatsoever, and this pristine reference network shows the same rate of warming as the full station network (ClimDiv):
God, will Alanj’s trolling spam ever end. Model results are proof of NOTHING!
Oceans are heated differently than land. Land is undeniably warmed by UHI
Increased solar heating due to changes in cloud cover heats both but oceans are not heated by CO2 IR. Only one research paper Wong & Minnett ever made the bogus claim that IR can.
Read and learn : https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2023/01/the-science-of-solar-ponds-challenges.html
Or watch and learn:
[youtube
Observed SST trends are in line with modeled projections for RCP4.5
Funny. Even the overly warm SST (compared to UAH) validates what I just pointed out. CO2 emissions are growing at the RCP8.5 rate, not the lower RCP4.5 rate, but temperature trends (and sea level trends) are far more modest than the models predict, closer to the rates predicted by the lower CO2 emissions scenarios. Thanks for proving my point. And in other news:
-RCP4.5 predicted warming trend: 1.1 to 2.6 C, mean of 1.8 C
-Trend from satellite measurements (UAH): 1.5 C
-RCP4.5 predicted sea level trend: 0.32 to 0.63 meters, mean of 0.47 meters
-Trend from satellite measurements: 0.35 meters
Side note: you know the predictions are wobbly when the range varies by double (or more) the lower end.
“How much will the car repair cost?”
“€1100. Or €2600. But let’s say €1800, which is the average of what my 5 guys guessed.”
“I think I’ll get a better estimate from a reliable auto shop.”
We currently aren’t in a period where the RCP scenarios diverge enough to distinguish which path we are most closely following:
Story tip – The results are in: How much will wind energy cost this one state’s consumers? – American Thinker
We’re repeatedly told that wind energy is free. Isn’t charging for something that is free the epitome of price gouging? Where’s Kamala?
Humor is a difficult concept.
— Lt. Saavik
Urban heat reality was a thing back in the 1960s –
Summer In The City
The Lovin’ Spoonful
Hot town, summer in the city
Back of my neck gettin’ dirt’ and gritty
Been down, isn’t it a pity?
Doesn’t seem to be a shadow in the city
All around, people looking half-dead
Walkin’ on the sidewalk, hotter than a match head
not sure why you got 2 thumbs down so I pushed it back up by one
must have been LoserName and Nail or AlanJ
🙂
Maybe they just preferred Billy Idol’s 1982 rendition of UHI –
Hot in the city
Hot in the city tonight (tonight)
Hot in the city
Hot in the city tonight (tonight)
Great song, why can’t they produce music like that today?
Off thread, but there was certainly a heat island in Rivian’s parking lot at the weekend:
https://www.centralillinoisproud.com/news/local-news/fire-crews-respond-to-vehicle-fire-at-rivian-facility-parking-lot/
I would not ascribe the tiny handful of so-called “heat related deaths” to a “battle” to do anything.
Most “heat related deaths” are much more accurately described as “dehydration related deaths” or “just plain idiot-related” deaths (like going out on a desert hike in the summer without appropriate clothing or water supply, and failing to seek shade during the hottest part of the day). Virtually all humans will not succumb to heat if they hydrate, wear appropriate clothing (or none at all), and seek shade when the sun is hottest.
After all, humans and our ancestors have been doing that since we and they existed, having developed as a species in equatorial East Africa. And at least now we have technology, produced by fossil fuels, that provides cool air indoors to most of the developed world.
Cold related deaths can be virtually unavoidable, on the other hand.
If anyone is old and/or ill and can’t afford an AC, then let’s give them one and cover the power cost. A lot cheaper than net zero!
My thoughts exactly!
Plug-in portable ACs these days cost a few hundred bucks, and don’t have to be a permanent placement, just drop them off as & when conditions require.
Bulk-buy costs for municipalities would build up quite an inventory over a few years without traumatizing the budget.
Sheesh, I know of 40k population towns that have forked out #250,000 for a “climate response plan”.
That would have bought maybe 500 or 600 portable AC units to place in frail elderly folks’ homes.
Now we have available portable AC units. You can roll them around a home. Easy to install in almost any window- only the exhaust goes in the window, not the AC- so no worry about dropping it out the window or damaging the window frame. I now have 2 of these along with an older GE model AC in the window- which I actually dropped out the window once- it fell 20 feet onto cement- I thought it was done- but no, works as well as brand new- with some big dents. The portable units aren’t quite as powerful so you need to get one bigger than what’s suggested on the box, in my opinion.
My relative dropped an AC from a second story window and it never worked again. He has a high IQ. He sees himself as a do it yourself guy but can’t do anything right.
“He sees himself as a do it yourself guy but can’t do anything right.”
So, yes, a close relative of yours
A 110 volt 5000 BTU AC will cost from $75 to $150 retail. There is no reason to spend more than $100.
I cool two bedrooms with a $100 5000 BTU window AC and one $30 fan to distribute the cool air across the hall to another bedroom. Both are about 150 square foot rooms. That’s probably the limit for 5000 BTU. Far less expensive than central AC
I cool 2 bedrooms, lounge room, dining room, study and a kitchen with a portable Danby 14,000 btu unit. Gets 30C outside down to 21C no problems.
Remember the summer where Europeans went on vacation, leaving their elderly to die in non-airconditioned hovels?
Well, we could always paint everything white like they do in Greece. And stop heating our buildings.
From KOMO News – Seattle
“For those who have lived in Seattle for some time, we know the impacts of climate change. They are becoming more frequent and more pronounced,” said Tom Fay, Seattle Chief Librarian.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is among the first agencies to respond to a natural disaster. In August, they are awarding Seattle a $5.5 million grant to mitigate hazards caused by extreme heat and wildfire smoke.
There is a new article in Science on this subject https://www.science.org/content/article/hot-days-or-heat-waves-researchers-debate-how-count-deaths-heat?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=email&utm_content=alert&utm_campaign=DailyLatestNews&et_rid=303445155&et_cid=5329563
The article lies by omission! It does not address Urban Heat Islands or the fact more deaths are caused by cold. It ignores the fact deadly heat waves in eastern US happened over summer warming holes (graphic C) negating their blather about climate change. Most of the warming is in the winter when warming benefits people. Averaging temperatures obscure all the critical dynamics!
I know it was only a FYI
People who have never looked at any data, have no idea when warming actually happens. Winter not only shows more warming, but it also has a higher variance than summers.
Look at this graph and decide which months are showing more warming. BTW, this is a NOAA graph, so warmists can’t complain.
No Hockey Stick there.
No climate crisis there, either.
The only real warming is in the winter months from about 1983 to present.
“”Saving Lives from Extreme Heat Requires Reducing Urban Heat Island Effects Not CO2!””
On that I’m sure we can all agree. Between you and me, it’s a no-brainer.
But I was rooting around for stuff on major glaciations when I happened upon this “Monday Funny”: A chart from no less than USGS which shows the “present interglacial” and a scenarioed or predicted etc “”Carbon dioxide induced ‘Super-Interglacial”
I kid you not.
So they were saying we could stave of the descent into the next glacial (from eyeballing) by about 5,000 years. On behalf of all humanity – I wish. Pity it’s looking like CO2 is a bit pathetic in that regard though, and we may have to figure out how to increase TSI.
To whom do we attribute that lovely image?
Note that it goes up to a “tipping point” that goes down.
The “global warming”/”climate change”/”existential crisis” outfit
or ClimateCult™ isn’t going to like this bit of off-message nonsense.
Two years ago I was asked by a reporter from Cowboy State Daily about excessive heat waves. I pointed out that extreme heat was to be found almost exclusively in large urban areas — the trends of excessive heat are due to the way we construct cities. Not only is the lack of vegetation a problem, but also the extreme concentration of energy transforming devices, from lighting to electric motors and fuels consumption. Then there is simply the lines of tall buildings that deflect breezes from the countryside that once made cities cooler. Look at Miami as the best example of cutting off sea breezes — citizens then complaining about stifling heat.
Gustave Eiffel recognized the problem 130 years ago. He made suggestions about the need for city planning that permitted open spaces and parks which would separate dense developments into smaller islands then serviced by the breeze.
God, I remember visiting downtown Houston for work. Breeze? Only if you found the right street corner that channeled some air through.
All rural NOAA USCRN
+0.34 degrees C. warming per decade since 2005
Mainly NOT rural NOAA nClimDiv
+0.27 degrees C. warming per decade since 2005
These US data refute the claims in the article
So they are ignored.
Also, the number of heat related deaths is VERY small as a percentage of all cause mortality.
Approximately 1,220 people in the United States are killed by extreme heat every year.
All cause US mortality in 2023 = 3.1 million
Increased CO2 mainly causes warmer winters which benefits heart patients. Here in Michigan a lot less snow to shovel.
Warmer days are mainly caused by reduced cloud cover and reduced air pollution (more solar energy reaching the surface)
The only solution for UHI is AC and sweating.
Living on the street is a big risk.
Broadbased nClimDiv cannot be substituted for UHI.
After the regional homogenisation of urban data to “pristine” data sites (of USCRN) to remove urban effect….
(yes, they actually state that in their methodology)
… they end up with essentially the same value.
They have got better at it over time, as shown by the graph elsewhere
Makes ClimDiv totally meaningless of course, since it just becomes a close match to USCRN.
They would look pretty stupid if it wasn’t homogenised and continued to climb while USCRN is essentially flat or cooling apart from the 2016 El Nino event
Greene always cherrypicks and falsely claims he has refuted whatever. From Soon (2023) “The rural and urban blend indicates a long-term warming of 0.89 C/century since 1850, while the rural-only indicates 0.55 C/century.” So Greene cherrypicks a 2005 start date. LOL
The USCRN trends are now the most reliable way to estimate temperature trends free of UHI effects as researchers use various definitions of what constitutes rural
Also , RG still hasn’t got enough functional brain matter to figure out that USCRN is being used as a Reference to remove the UHI effect from the urban sourced data.
The level of cognitive non-functionality is bizarre !
OMG , still DENYING that USCRN is used as a reference to correct ClimDiv for urban bias.
Are you totally incapable of learning !!!!
ClimDiv ‘calculated’ value started slightly higher, and the methodology has been gradually adjusted so they match more closely
USCRN shown no warming until 2015, then a bump from the 2016 El Nino, then cooling from 2017 until the start of recent El Nino event.
“Approximately 1,220 people in the United States are killed by extreme heat every year.”
A Venn Diagram would be nice. Things such as elderly, impoverished, live alone, …, and poor health.
The cause is Man’s CO2? (Or anything else Man has done?)
Explain these. They are not CRN stations. They are statewide averages of rural states. Funny how the highest warming is during the winter months, i.e., the bottom of each graph.
I find it extremely difficult to see ANY warming trend at all in these charts.
Lower temperatures are warming, likely due to thermal energy stored in concrete, asphalt, steel, etc.
Maybe, but I picked rural states with not a lot of concrete, asphalt, and steel. So what causes the cold months to warm in rural states? CO2 should operate in both warm and cold months. One can’t tell from these averages if Tmax or Tmin is changing in the colder months so I’ll need to do more investigation.
It’s pretty hard to cool a large urban area.
If only there was a way to keep a home comfortably cool in very hot weather. Even one or two rooms within a home. Oh wait…
Net Zero advice:
Give worshippers blankets instead of heating churches, vicars told
It’s not worth keeping old buildings warm for limited use, says cleric spearheading Church of England’s net zero drive
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/26/give-blankets-instead-heating-churches-vicars-told/
On your knees, peasants.
Add rooftop heat sinks (reflective)?
So running AC to cool the interiors of massive buildings is not dumping waste heat into the city environment. Check. /s
Lots of people with body temperatures at 98 F and above do not dump heat into the city environment. Check /s
Cars, taxis, busses, etc. do not dump waste heat into the city environment. Check. /s
In early part of the 20th century tree planting and park creation in urban areas was a big thing. Now city bureaucrats see trees and parks as a maintenance cost. Also parks are a negative tax generator
Ever so slightly OT:
There was a report on the radio this morning of an extreme heat warning in the upper plains states. The correspondent interviewed folks on the street.* The first person stated:
“Sure beats -30.” (Fahrenheit, of course.)
The second person said:
“Yes, its hot – just stay hydrated and enjoy it.”
The correspondent apparently gave up after that.
*Note that a person-on-the-street-interview will probably be in an urban area.
He/she probably gave up because they were doing an election poll: are you going to vote for the fabulous, wonderful beyond belief Kamala Harris, or the convicted felon and would-be dictator Donald Trump.
Naaah, don’t include those two far-right, white supremacist climate deniers. It might skew our very objective poll.
It makes you wonder why governments (at least in Canada) are pushing “densification” as a solution to the housing shortage—that is, cramming more and more people into tighter spaces. Wouldn’t that lead to an increased UHI effect?
I got caught in Sydney’s western suburbs once on a really hot day.
This area suffers not only from massive urban warming, but the “Blue Mountains” to the west can cause the hot air pool to keep accumulating, as well as local air pollution to build up.
Extremely unpleasant.
A friends phone said it was 50+C walking on the footpath.
We found a local air-conditioned pub for a while.. gotta keep up the fluid intake, y’know… 😉
Then went to the air-conditioned meeting, then drove home in our air-conditioned car and had a late afternoon swim in the ocean.
“To measure global temperature, scientists collect temperature readings from weather stations on land and ocean buoys across the globe, averaging these measurements to calculate a global average surface temperature; this involves comparing each location’s temperature to its historical average (“anomaly”) and then combining those anomalies to get a global picture of temperature change over time. “
The most reliable longer term data is from the US. A look at the global map of weather stations show most of the data comes from stations operating for just 50 years. Global trends are mostly speculation!