Question:

So.... it appears as though Urban Heat Island effect is a significant part of reported global warming??

by  |  earlier

0 LIKES UnLike

As has been stated before, the surface stations used to collect temperature data MUST be repaired and re-located!!

Per Douglas V. Hoyt, et al:

UHI have significant impacts of measured trends. It is likely a large fraction of the 0.6 C warming reported for the 20th century is caused by spurious non-climatic effects such as UHIs. If 0.10 C/decade represents the warming in the central portions of towns and cities, as both pro and con arguments suggest, then it is reasonable to assume most temperature measurements are away from the center, so the UHI trends might be a quarter or a half of the central cities or 0.025 C to 0.05 C/decade. Kalnay suggests it is 0.027 C/decade over the US and this probably the most reliable number we have so far. That would mean about 45% of the observed warming is actually spurious urban warming.

Douglas V. Hoyt is a solar physicist and climatologist who worked for more than thirty years as a research scientist in the field. He has worked at NOAA, NCAR, Sacramento Peak Observatory, the World Radiation Center, Research and Data Systems, and Raytheon where was a Senior Scientist. He has conducted research on issues related to climate change, changes in solar irradiance on all time scales, and the sun-climate connection. His most recent publication is the book "The Role of the Sun in Climate Change" . He has published nearly 100 scientific papers on solar irradiance variations, the greenhouse effect, atmospheric transmission, aerosols, cloud cover, sunshine, radiative transfer, radiometers, solar activity, sunspot structure, sunspot decay rates, and the history of solar observations.

He has received no funding from any fossil fuel entity or government entity. His work is influenced only by the data and the study of the scientific literature.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/climate-change.htm

 Tags:

   Report

3 ANSWERS


  1. No way.

    Of course scientists have considered this possibility.  The data shows it's not true.  Peer reviewed references:

    David E. Parker (2006). "A demonstration that large-scale warming is not urban". Journal of Climate 19: 2882–2895. doi:10.1175/JCLI3730.1.

    T. C. Peterson (2003). "Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found". Journal of Climate 16: 2941–2959. doi:10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016<2941:AOUV...

    Of course you can believe some random guy's private website (a guy with a book to sell) instead.  Scientists would consider that idea absurd.  Not to mention this piece of nonsense on said website:

    "The sun may have warmed over the last 25 years"

    May?  He's uncertain?  A "solar physicist"?  Unaware of the massive database that proves it hasn't?  Silly.

    He also cites the decreasing diurnal temperature difference (fact) as though it disproves global warming, when actually physics shows that PROVES it.

    This guy is in NO way credible.  Dana has that part right.


  2. Bob, regarding you Peterson and Parker papers, I suggest you read these:

    Pielke Sr., R.A., and T. Matsui, 2005: Should light wind and windy nights have the same temperature trends at individual levels even if the boundary layer averaged heat content change is the same? Geophys. Res. Letts., 32, No. 21, L21813, 10.1029/2005GL024407

    http://www.climatesci.org/publications/p...

    Pielke, R. A., Sr., et al. (2007), Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229.

    http://www.climatesci.org/publications/p...

    Pielke, R. A., Sr., et al. (2007), Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229.

    http://www.climatesci.org/publications/p...

    Lin, X., R.A. Pielke Sr., K.G. Hubbard, K.C. Crawford, M. A. Shafer, and T. Matsui, 2007: An examination of 1997-2007 surface layer temperature trends at two heights in Oklahoma. Geophys. Res. Letts., in press.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007......

    These show the conclusions of Peterson and Parker to be incorrect.

    Bob wrote

    "May? He's uncertain? A "solar physicist"? Unaware of the massive database that proves it hasn't? Silly."

    For some reason, you always seem to forget that PMOD is not the only dataset. ACRIM shows a slight increase in TSI, though not significant.

    "He also cites the decreasing diurnal temperature difference (fact) as though it disproves global warming, when actually physics shows that PROVES it."

    It shows that the Earth has in fact warmed, yes. But land use changes and water vapor are the biggest factors. CO2 caused water vapor concentrations to go up to some extent.

    Dana wrote

    "No it's not. If it were, then the satellites would not show the same trend as the surface stations."

    It isn't through contamination, Dana. UHI and land use changes are an actual forcing on a large scale through teleconnections.

    -----------

    Edit:

    And this paper too:

    Huang S, Taniguchi M, Yamano M, Wang CH, 2008: Detecting urbanization effects on surface and subsurface thermal environment - A case study of Osaka. Sci Total Environ, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.04.019

    http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~shaopeng/s...

    Dana wrote

    "*edit* bob326 - actually while I did have urban contamination in mind (as it's BB's pet invalid complaint), that the satellites (measuring lower troposphere) agree with the surface stations (measuring air temperature at the surface) shows that the UHI effect is minor on large scales. See Box 2.1:"

    No, this only shows that urban contamination isn't a big factor. My argument is that the UHI and urbanization is a forcing (effects precipitation, air currents, temperatures) on a large scale through teleconnections. Your page doesn't even address this, so while interesting, it doesn't provide any evidence against me.

  3. No it's not.  If it were, then the satellites would not show the same trend as the surface stations.

    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/0...

    Not to mention all the other evidence that I'm not going to repeat for the billionth time.

    Honestly this sort of thing is exactly why 'denier' is the correct term.

    Coincidentally, as per his own bio, Hoyt hasn't published anything in a decade.  And the last thing he published was titled "Does the sun play a role in climate change?".  Duuuuuuur ya know, methinks mebbe it does!

    *edit* congrats on ignoring the data, as usual, BB.  I've come to expect no better from the deniers.  And if you don't want me to point out how weak your sources are, then don't reference weak sources.

    *edit* bob326 - actually while I did have urban contamination in mind (as it's BB's pet invalid complaint), that the satellites (measuring lower troposphere) agree with the surface stations (measuring air temperature at the surface) shows that the UHI effect is minor on large scales.  See Box 2.1:

    http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1...

Question Stats

Latest activity: earlier.
This question has 3 answers.

BECOME A GUIDE

Share your knowledge and help people by answering questions.