|
Post by louise on May 14, 2011 16:22:28 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 8, 2011 11:07:57 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 18, 2011 11:09:31 GMT 1
See temps rise at Seattle-Tacoma AirportPosted on July 17, 2011 by Anthony Watts From Cliff Mass, a study that demonstrates how adding a runway generated a hockey stick in temperature difference to surrounding stations. As I’ve been saying for years, the dynamic environment of the airport is the wrong place to measure “climate change”, and in this case, Cliff Mass shows why. Last week the Seattle Times had a front page story about the Northwest becoming warmer and wetter based on recently updated climate statistics at Seattle-Tacoma Airport. But can we use one observing site to reliably determine region climate trends? … Between 2004 and 2008 there was a huge change at the airport, one of the largest construction/earth moving projects in the region in years–the building of a third runway. In this blog I will ask the question: did the construction of the third runway have an impact on summer temperatures reported from the airport? My conclusion and that of my colleague Mark Albright is: it sure looks like it. But first a few pictures. Here is a picture of Sea-Tac before the third runway was installed. I have also indicated the position of the National Weather Service/FAA temperature sensors (their ASOS system) by a blue circle (just to the west of the second runway). … Here are two recent pictures of the current runway situation (with the blue circle showing the sensor position). Quite a change. Did the runway change the summer climate at the airport? My colleague, Mark Albright, calculated the difference in summer temperatures (June, July, August) between Sea-Tac and an average of four nearby official reporting locations (Olympia, McMillan Reservoir near Tacoma, Kent, and Buckley). Negative means that the neighbors are warmer than Seattl-Tacoma, which you would expect since they are farther inland and generally south of Sea-Tac (which has some cooling influence from the Sound). You will see that Sea-Tac was generally cooler than those surrounding station (by roughly 1.5F) early in the period. And the slight shift in 2002 had little impact. But after construction began in 2004 (particularly in 2005 to 2006 when the heavy earth moving occurred) things changed: Sea-Tac temperatures warmed up by roughly 2F so it was the same or warmer than the surrounding, more inland, stations. I strongly suspect we are seeing the influence of the third runway. … Bottom line: It really looks that the third runway has significantly warmed summer temperatures at the airport. Thus, one must be really careful in assuming that any warming there is the result of some kind of greenhouse gas influence. Full story at Cliff Mass blog here cliffmass.blogspot.com/2011/07/did-sea-tacs-third-runway-change-our.html
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 18, 2011 11:16:07 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 28, 2011 11:49:14 GMT 1
New paper: UHI, alive and well in ChinaJOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D14113, 12 PP., 2011 www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010JD015452.shtmlObserved surface warming induced by urbanization in east ChinaKey Points The rapid urbanization has significant impacts on temperature over east China A new method was developed to dynamically classify urban and rural stations Comparison of the trends of UHI effects by using OMR and UMR approaches Xuchao Yang, Shanghai Typhoon Institute of China Meteorological Administration, Shanghai, China Institute of Meteorological Sciences, Zhejiang Meteorological Bureau, Hangzhou, China Yiling Hou, Shanghai Climate Center, Shanghai, China, Baode Chen, Shanghai Typhoon Institute of China Meteorological Administration, Shanghai, China more here wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/28/new-paper-uhi-alive-and-well-in-china/#more-44189
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 28, 2011 11:51:56 GMT 1
Another one for the BBC alarmists to ignore.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Aug 29, 2011 19:33:00 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 6, 2011 18:56:53 GMT 1
A very nice demonstration of what may be the Urban Heat Island Effect from our very own Met Office! If you work out the CET (Central England Temperature series - the longest in existence) annual temperature anomalies and then the MET OFFICE England annual temperature anomalies and deduct one from the other, you should just get a line bouncing around the zero line (unless the climate of one is moving out of phase with the other). If you take 1961-90 as your base period and deduct CET anomaly from England anomaly for all 101 years during which the England series has existed, you get this: Where the line is above the zero line, that’s a year when the England anomaly is warmer than the CET anomaly and vice-versa. For most of the 101 years of the Met Office England series, you get the bouncing around zero that you would expect, then for the last 4 to 8 years, the CET has been growing notably colder than the England anomaly. ....curiouser and curiouser, if we do the same thing with the CET vis-a-vis the Met Office series for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, we don’t get this problem! Instead, we just get the bouncing around zero that we would expect. THANKS AGAIN TO WUWT wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/05/cet-vs-meto-a-problem-with-temperature/#more-46674
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Sept 6, 2011 20:49:00 GMT 1
What makes you think that it might be the UHI effect? Why could it not be natural? Unfortunately WTF WUWT does not provide a link to the source of the data, as more reputable organisations do, so we are left floundering. We should know what the Met office says before jumping to conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 6, 2011 23:19:29 GMT 1
Looks like another hockeystick, to me, Eamonn, and about as believable. Why do YOU think the CET is moving out of phase with the rest of England while remaining in phase with the Celtic fringes? Don't tell me you are suggesting "natural variation" !!! (gulp, gasp)
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Sept 6, 2011 23:32:41 GMT 1
Why do YOU think the CET is moving out of phase with the rest of England while remaining in phase with the Celtic fringes? Dunno. What is the met Office's explanation? One possibility that occurs to me is that the anomaly is greatest in the south and east of the UK because it is closest to continental Europe, with less of a moderating effect from the ocean. It would be interesting to see data for different parts of England - if my hypothesis is correct then the North will be more in line with the Celtic fringe. But I am speculating.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 7, 2011 10:21:53 GMT 1
Another explanation is that the Met Office's data fiddlers have missed a "trick" somehow. Oh, dear.
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Sept 7, 2011 10:42:18 GMT 1
Another explanation is that the Met Office's data fiddlers have missed a "trick" somehow. Oh, dear. Or to paraphrase, you don't understand the science therefore it is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 22, 2011 9:21:30 GMT 1
New Paper “Climatic Trends In Major U.S. Urban Areas, 1950–2009″ By Mishra and Lettenmaier Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L16401, doi:10.1029/ 2011GL048255 reports on the effect of urban areas on multi-decadal surface temperature trends. The abstract reads [highlight added] We evaluate changes in climatic indices for the 100 largest U.S. urban areas and paired surrounding non-urban areas. During the period 1950–2009, we find that there were statistically significant changes in as many as half of the urban areas in temperature-;related indices, such as heating and cooling degree-days and number of warm and cool nights, almost all of which are reflective of a general warming.Similarly, statistically significant changes (mostly increases) in indices related to extreme precipitation, such as daily maximum intensities and number of days with heavy precipitation, were detected in as many of 30% of the urban areas. A paired analysis of urban and surrounding non‐urban areas suggests that most temperature-related trends are attributable to regional climate change, rather than to local effects of urbanization, although the picture is more mixed for precipitation. Among the conclusionsConsistent with previous studies [Easterling et al., 2000; Kalnay and Cai, 2003], trends related to temperature minima in the urban areas are generally stronger than those related to temperature maxima. For both minimum daily temperature based climate indices and precipitation-related trends, changes in urban and non-urban areas are generally consistent; suggesting that the trends are dominantly a response to climate [Parker, 2004; Peterson, 2003], rather than local land cover changes during the period of analysis. However, there is somewhat less consistency in urban vs. non-urban trends in climate indices related to daily maximum temperature, which suggests that land cover change may be at least partially responsible for those trends. Thanks to Dr Roger Pielke Sr More here wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/21/pielke-sr-on-a-new-paper-discussing-urban-climate-issues/#more-47877pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/new-paper-climatic-trends-in-major-u-s-urban-areas-1950–2009-by-mishra-and-lettenmaier/
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 30, 2011 0:48:36 GMT 1
|
|