|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 22, 2010 9:42:06 GMT 1
Looks like they’ve discovered what great heat sinks asphalt and concrete make: Photo by Tyrone Turner/National Geographic - infrared showing heat loss from NYC buildings Record night-time temperatures in the US?. I wonder why? This is a typical weather station monitor - USHCN climate station in Fayetteville, NC Here is what you see in visible light Here is what the infrared camera sees Note that the concrete surface is around 22-24°C, while the grassy areas are between 12-19°C. This was shortly after a rain, about 2 hours before sunset. The rain did nearly nothing to cool down the concrete.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Oct 15, 2010 16:25:49 GMT 1
Here is the clearest demonstration one could ask for re UHI. This comparison was conducted by Jim Goodridge, former California State Climatologist, who had UHI effect nailed in 1996 with his study of surface temperature in California
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 7, 2010 17:39:40 GMT 1
Steve McIntyre has got his teeth into Phil Jones' role in the genesis of the IPCC reports' assertion that urban heat island has a negligible effect on recorded global mean temperature. First he demolished dendro-paleo-climatology (the "Hockeystick" and Michael Mann's reputation) and revived the Mediaeval Warm Period. Now he is going to demolish the other prop of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis by dishing up the long story of the UHI travesties that pass for climatology these days. Find it here on Climate Audit in three parts. climateaudit.org/2010/11/03/phil-jones-and-the-china-network-part-1/Here's a taster on the form of Tom Wigley's climategate email on this topic
Phil,
Do you know where this stands? The key things from the Peiser items are …
“Wang had been claiming the existence of such exonerating documents for nearly a year, but he has not been able to produce them. Additionally, there was a report published in 1991 (with a second version in 1997) explicitly stating that no such documents exist. Moreover, the report was published as part of the Department of Energy Carbon Dioxide Research Program, and Wang was the Chief Scientist of that program.”
and
“Wang had a co-worker in Britain. In Britain, the Freedom of Information Act requires that data from publicly-funded research be made available. I was able to get the data by requiring Wang�s co-worker to release it, under British law. It was only then that I was able to confirm that Wang had committed fraud.”
You are the co-worker, so you must have done something like provide Keenan with the DOE report that shows that there are no station records for 49 of the 84 stations. I presume Keenan therefore thinks that it was not possible to select stations on the basis of …
“… station histories: selected stations have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times” [THIS IS ITEM "X"]
Of course, if the only stations used were ones from the 35 stations that *did* have station histories, then all could be OK. However, if some of the stations used were from the remaining 49, then the above selection method could not have been applied (but see below) – unless there are other “hard copy” station history data not in the DOE report (but in China) that were used. From what Wang has said, if what he says is true, the second possibility appears to be the case.
What is the answer here?
The next puzzle is why Wei-Chyung didn’t make the hard copy information available. Either it does not exist, or he thought it was too much trouble to access and copy. My guess is that it does not exist — if it did then why was it not in the DOE report? In support of this, it seems that there are other papers from 1991 and 1997 that show that the data do not exist. What are these papers? Do they really show this?
Now my views. (1) I have always thought W-C W was a rather sloppy scientist. I therefore would not be surprised if he screwed up here. But ITEM X is in both the W-C W and Jones et al. papers — so where does it come from first? Were you taking W-C W on trust?
(2) It also seems to me that the University at Albany has screwed up. To accept a complaint from Keenan and not refer directly to the complaint and the complainant in its report really is asking for trouble.
(3) At the very start it seems this could have been easily dispatched. ITEM X really should have been …
“Where possible, stations were chosen on the basis of station histories and/or local knowledge: selected stations have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times”
Of course the real get out is the final “or”. A station could be selected if either it had relatively few “changes in instrumentation” OR “changes in location” OR “changes in observation times”. Not all three, simply any one of the three. One could argue about the science here — it would be better to have all three — but this is not what the statement says.
Why, why, why did you and W-C W not simply say this right at the start? Perhaps it’s not too late?
—–
I realise that Keenan is just a trouble maker and out to waste time, so I apologize for continuing to waste your time on this, Phil. However, I *am* concerned because all this happened under my watch as Director of CRU and, although this is unlikely, the buck eventually should stop with me.
Best wishes, Tom
P.S. I am copying this to Ben. Seeing other peoples’ troubles might make him happier about his own parallel experiences.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Nov 8, 2010 14:23:14 GMT 1
Bt what affect does concrete as a heat sink have upon global warming? Does it aid or detract from AGW?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 15, 2010 12:13:03 GMT 1
It means the "AGW" is concentrated where people are at highest density. That is, the AGW is a function of urbanism rather than a function of CO2. Because the global mean temperature is calculated using mainly urban/airport data it makes it appear the globe is warmer than it actually is.
Then, again, cement manufacture, releases lots of CO2 into the atmosphere, too, so you get a double whammy (that is, if "you" are one of those worried about CO2).
The answer to your question "Does it aid or detract from AGW?" is, I guess, nay, that the urban heat sink effect has been PASSED OFF as CO2-induced atmospheric warming so it is certainly a FORM of ALW (anthropogenic local warming) but not the right FORM if you are a CO2 alarmist!
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Nov 15, 2010 12:26:56 GMT 1
It means the "AGW" is concentrated where people are at highest density. That is, the AGW is a function of urbanism rather than a function of CO2. Because the global mean temperature is calcllated using mainly urban/airport data it makes it appear the globe is warmer than it actually is. Then, again, cement manufacture, releases lots of CO2 into the atmosphere, too, so you get a double whammy (that is, if "you" are one of those worried about CO2). The answer to your question "Does it aid or detract from AGW?" is, I guess, nay, that the urban heat sink effect has been PASSED OFF as CO2-induced atmospheric warming so it is certainly a FORM of ALW (anthropogenic local warming) but not the right FORM if you are a CO2 alarmist! Well I suppose any heat-retaining medium in fact aids GW, the biggest culprit being the sea, but that is not AGW of course whereas concrete induced warming is. It will aid AGW because, instead of heat being radiated into the night (or day) sky, it keeps it, and if there is a large enough supply of concrete then the worse the effect.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Nov 15, 2010 16:04:55 GMT 1
It means the "AGW" is concentrated where people are at highest density. That is, the AGW is a function of urbanism rather than a function of CO2. Because the global mean temperature is calcllated using mainly urban/airport data it makes it appear the globe is warmer than it actually is. Then, again, cement manufacture, releases lots of CO2 into the atmosphere, too, so you get a double whammy (that is, if "you" are one of those worried about CO2). The answer to your question "Does it aid or detract from AGW?" is, I guess, nay, that the urban heat sink effect has been PASSED OFF as CO2-induced atmospheric warming so it is certainly a FORM of ALW (anthropogenic local warming) but not the right FORM if you are a CO2 alarmist! Evidence?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Nov 15, 2010 18:38:34 GMT 1
Evidence, abacus?
Have you not perused reply #1?
I think the California State Climatologist demonstrated the UHI effect pretty conclusively back in 1996. Why certain parties are STILL denying it is what you should be addressing, abacus.
I suppose that the least populous counties could also be those at altitude and therefore cooler whereas the most populous counties could be at sea-level but that would not affect the differentials in general trends, would it, unless CO2 is VERY selective in the places that it warms up?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Nov 15, 2010 20:56:53 GMT 1
Evidence, abacus? Have you not perused reply #1? I think the California State Climatologist demonstrated the UHI effect pretty conclusively back in 1996. Why certain parties are STILL denying it is what you should be addressing, abacus. I suppose that the least populous counties could also be those at altitude and therefore cooler whereas the most populous counties could be at sea-level but that would not affect the differentials in general trends, would it, unless CO2 is VERY selective in the places that it warms up? I think you'll find that this effect has little impact on overall global warming.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Nov 15, 2010 23:30:32 GMT 1
@abacus
The method used to determine the Global temperature is based on averaging the readings from thermometers.
If, over the years, these thermometer sites become surrounded by urban development ( = concrete) then their readings will steadily rise. And so, the global average figure will falsely rise in proportion.
The point about post 1 is that the (newly added?) concrete path is acting as a hot water-bottle, and so will cause the thermometer to over-read.
PS; For gradual distortions of the global average figure, check out the reduction in numbers of rural thermometer sites; the urbanisation/development of airfield sites, and so on.
PPS; In essence the Urban Heat Island effect is about the effect on the record of thermometer readings, than the heating up of the world per-se.
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Nov 16, 2010 14:06:34 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Nov 16, 2010 19:46:45 GMT 1
@enquirer
Thanks for indirectly providing possible proof of the UHI effect, particularly with regard to Tokyo.
We do know that, since WWII, Tokyo has been largely been rebuilt using concrete & brick, and asphalting the roads. The original wooden buildings presented a great danger, as proved by the devastating fire-raids on Tokyo by the US, which were overshadowed by the more spectacular A-bomb attacks.
And, I am puzzled by Tamino's post, which gives no reason for the downward adjustment of the figures. Why reduce the rise? Was it to deflect investigations into such a steep rise, and to keep it down to an 'acceptable' trend?
Could you answer this one?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Nov 17, 2010 0:33:19 GMT 1
Pretty near the truth - frighteningly.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Nov 17, 2010 10:32:37 GMT 1
@abacus The method used to determine the Global temperature is based on averaging the readings from thermometers. If, over the years, these thermometer sites become surrounded by urban development ( = concrete) then their readings will steadily rise. And so, the global average figure will falsely rise in proportion. The point about post 1 is that the (newly added?) concrete path is acting as a hot water-bottle, and so will cause the thermometer to over-read. PS; For gradual distortions of the global average figure, check out the reduction in numbers of rural thermometer sites; the urbanisation/development of airfield sites, and so on. PPS; In essence the Urban Heat Island effect is about the effect on the record of thermometer readings, than the heating up of the world per-se. You are not seriously suggesting that urban heat islands are a significant cause of AGW, are you?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Nov 17, 2010 10:34:04 GMT 1
Paranoid clap trap, in my opinion.
|
|