NASA on UHI Effect

[IanC]

NASA - Satellites Pinpoint Drivers of Urban Heat Islands in the Northeast

Cities such as New York, Philadelphia, and Boston are prominent centers of political power. Less known: Their size, background ecology, and development patterns also combine to make them unusually warm, according to NASA scientists who presented new research recently at an American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting in San Francisco, Calif.

Summer land surface temperature of cities in the Northeast were an average of 7 °C to 9 °C (13°F to 16 °F) warmer than surrounding rural areas over a three year period, the new research shows. The complex phenomenon that drives up temperatures is called the urban heat island effect.

seemingly fact-free AGU fluff piece video on the NASA web page



a familiar shape for UHI

my question is......why do most UHI adjustments actually add to the trend rather than subtract, as would be reasonable?

 

[Old Rocks]

My question is why don't you fess up to having political reasons for seeking out deniers with no credibility? When Dr. Muller started his study, you said that you would accept the results. When those results came in, showing that the temperature record was accurate, you immediatly recanted and attacked Dr. Muller, as did WUWT.

But the work continues, and you are daily putting more egg on your face, Ian.

Berkeley Earth

 

[IanC]

My question is why don't you fess up to having political reasons for seeking out deniers with no credibility? When Dr. Muller started his study, you said that you would accept the results. When those results came in, showing that the temperature record was accurate, you immediatly recanted and attacked Dr. Muller, as did WUWT.

But the work continues, and you are daily putting more egg on your face, Ian.

Berkeley Earth

?????

I agreed with what he said he was going to do. what he actually did was different. and it was his daughter and a statistician whose name eludes me that did most of the work. Judith Curry asked for her name to be removed from the papers when the preliminary work was finished, what the specific complaint was, I cannot remember. Watts was pissed off because he gave Muller's group full access to Watt's data from his yet-to-be-published paper, and Muller splashed it publically at a Press Release without permission.

the four papers took years to be finally published in a third rate Indian pay-for-publish Journal. the first issue of the first year, no less! BEST itself seems to have faded from its early prominence.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Best paper were reiterating what had already been published elsewhere. It was a merely more of the same. While it confirmed in a big way the climate scientists data and methods, it presented nothing new.

 

[Crick]

Bingo. BEST was only exciting to deniers when it was assumed by them that Muller would "prove" AGW wasn't taking place. It was never exciting to mainstream climate science.

 

[IanC]

back to the OP

how many people have any idea about how adjustments for urbanization are made?

even NASA above points out that UHI causes huge increases in temps to urbanized areas. let's ask a simple question. is there a significant adjustment for UHI? no. is there a significant adjustment for TOBS? yes.

a reasonable person could make a case either for or against both UHI and TOBS.

 

[Billy_Bob]

back to the OP

how many people have any idea about how adjustments for urbanization are made?

even NASA above points out that UHI causes huge increases in temps to urbanized areas. let's ask a simple question. is there a significant adjustment for UHI? no. is there a significant adjustment for TOBS? yes.

a reasonable person could make a case either for or against both UHI and TOBS.

USCRN shows what is really happening in the global arena as they are away from mans influence and positioned such that man will have none. Interestingly GISS adjust pristine stations up to mach urban rises and gives false indications of temp rise globally. IF we were truly looking at the global average then every effort should be to remove the heat caused by mans influence and land use (UHI).

IF there was an anthropogenic signature it should be visible in the USCRN data, It is not.

 

[mamooth]

is there a significant adjustment for UHI? no.

Say what?

Even WUWT and ClimateAudit aren't making a claim which is that contrary to reality. Are you striking out on your own with a new conspiracy theory?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

My question is why don't you fess up to having political reasons for seeking out deniers with no credibility? When Dr. Muller started his study, you said that you would accept the results. When those results came in, showing that the temperature record was accurate, you immediatly recanted and attacked Dr. Muller, as did WUWT.

But the work continues, and you are daily putting more egg on your face, Ian.

Berkeley Earth

You either accept AGW as a "Fact" or you're booted from the Cult, that's how Newton got people to accept Gravity and Einstein got people to accept Relativity

 

[elektra]

Urban Heat Islands? You mean people who live together create heat, Nasa needed a Scientists, Millions of Dollars, and a study to figure this out?

Heaters, Air Conditioners, Refrigerators concentrated together make heat, wow, lets spend billions to figure out, "why"?

What is notable from the link is this;

NASA - Satellites Pinpoint Drivers of Urban Heat Islands in the Northeast

Development produces heat islands by replacing vegetation, particularly forests, with pavement and other urban infrastructure. This limits plant transpiration, an evaporative process that helps cool plant leaves and also cools air temperatures, explained Robert Wolfe of Goddard, one of the scientists who developed the method.

So instead of simply having "UHI's", NASA's and the Government's solution is Development of Rural areas, instead of pavement we will have square miles of Solar Panels. Instead of building we will Wind Turbine Towers, 1000 tons of material in each.

Changing the Wind patterns in Rural areas raises the temperature.

Covering the land with Solar Panels raises the temperature, according to the article its an 8 degree rise.

Now the AGW cult screams look, the temperature is going up, and they are the ones causing it, by covering the earth with junk, at the same time burning more oil to make that junk.

Idiots believe Solar and Wind do not drive the temperature up.

Imagine miles and miles of wind towers diverting the natural wind currents from the surface of the earth, last I checked a breeze cools, do we need "Scientists" to confirm the obvious.

That it is the Solar and Wind Farms that are driving the heat rise in rural areas. The "Scientists" expect us to "believe", with "faith", that Solar and Wind Development is different?

So many liars, so much deceit, so many idiots ignoring the irony, while stating development raises temperature, they ignore their development of the rural, into an industrial or commercial heat island. "ICHI".

 

[IanC]

http://oprj.net/oprj-archive/climate-science/31/oprj-article-climate-science-31.pdf

Survey date Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Total Rural Skipped
Urban warming Urban cooling Warm/cool Cool/warm
Feb 2008† 447 300 1342 1440 3529 2488 250
Aug 2010 457 265 1191 1098 3011 3124 164
Jan 2011 459 260 1184 1108 3011 3127 176
Jul 2011 451 266 1182 1112 3011 3131 180
Oct 2011 461 261 1181 1113 3016 3132 177
Nov 2011 455 265 1177 1117 3014 3136 177

Im sorry I cant rip images from this pdf. the urbanization adjustments come in a two leg format where each leg can either cool or warm the raw data. 455 out of 3014 cool both legs (as you would expect for UHI). the rest have at least one leg that adds(!!) to the trend rather than cool it.

figure 9 shows the magnitudes of the four types, which oddly converge to zero at NOV2011 (the last available data).

I highly recommend the article because it describes the GISS data which was public access until NOV2011.

 

[Crick]

The Connolly clan on Open Peer Review. What a surprise.

 

[IanC]

The Connolly clan on Open Peer Review. What a surprise.

They used (previously) available public data and analyzed it with a simple python code (in the SI). There is nothing spectacular done with the data except to make it public. Show me the GISS analysis, which this basically is.

 

[Crick]

The Connolly Family website

About Us - Global Warming Solved

They're a family of looney-tunes.

There's a good reason they're unemployed.

 

[Crick]

And that this is un-published

 

[Billy_Bob]

http://oprj.net/oprj-archive/climate-science/31/oprj-article-climate-science-31.pdf

Survey date Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Total Rural Skipped
Urban warming Urban cooling Warm/cool Cool/warm
Feb 2008† 447 300 1342 1440 3529 2488 250
Aug 2010 457 265 1191 1098 3011 3124 164
Jan 2011 459 260 1184 1108 3011 3127 176
Jul 2011 451 266 1182 1112 3011 3131 180
Oct 2011 461 261 1181 1113 3016 3132 177
Nov 2011 455 265 1177 1117 3014 3136 177

Im sorry I cant rip images from this pdf. the urbanization adjustments come in a two leg format where each leg can either cool or warm the raw data. 455 out of 3014 cool both legs (as you would expect for UHI). the rest have at least one leg that adds(!!) to the trend rather than cool it.

figure 9 shows the magnitudes of the four types, which oddly converge to zero at NOV2011 (the last available data).

I highly recommend the article because it describes the GISS data which was public access until NOV2011.

Interesting Ian... going to have to read it fully but a lot of their adjustments make zero sense and appear to have other reasons than scientific ones.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Rather interesting that they apply this metric globally when it is totally inappropriate. Looks as if the NOAA GISS problem is much deeper in political agenda than science.

 

[Billy_Bob]

In the conclusion section they spell out serious problems such as homogenization and other things. This paper seems to be well thought out and concise. Ive e-mailed the link to several colleagues. Going to wait a while and see what others have to say about this paper and the exposed NASA/GISS methodologies.

 

[IanC]

http://oprj.net/oprj-archive/climate-science/31/oprj-article-climate-science-31.pdf

Survey date Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Total Rural Skipped
Urban warming Urban cooling Warm/cool Cool/warm
Feb 2008† 447 300 1342 1440 3529 2488 250
Aug 2010 457 265 1191 1098 3011 3124 164
Jan 2011 459 260 1184 1108 3011 3127 176
Jul 2011 451 266 1182 1112 3011 3131 180
Oct 2011 461 261 1181 1113 3016 3132 177
Nov 2011 455 265 1177 1117 3014 3136 177

Im sorry I cant rip images from this pdf. the urbanization adjustments come in a two leg format where each leg can either cool or warm the raw data. 455 out of 3014 cool both legs (as you would expect for UHI). the rest have at least one leg that adds(!!) to the trend rather than cool it.

figure 9 shows the magnitudes of the four types, which oddly converge to zero at NOV2011 (the last available data).

I highly recommend the article because it describes the GISS data which was public access until NOV2011.

View attachment 35484

Interesting Ian... going to have to read it fully but a lot of their adjustments make zero sense and appear to have other reasons than scientific ones.

thanks for posting that figure.

whenever the major players in the global temperature dataset business produce an article to show their adjustments for UHI and urbanization they typically show a city like Tokyo and how its numbers are reduced. they fail to point out that the majority of adjustments add to the trend either in whole or in part!

it would be interesting to find out how much waste heat has been produced in the last 25 years and see what sort of impact it has made on local, regional and global scales.

 

[IanC]

The Connolly Family website

About Us - Global Warming Solved

They're a family of looney-tunes.

There's a good reason they're unemployed.

hahahaha. I see you are sitting at the feet of Old Fraud and learning the ways of personal attack rather than thinking.

where is the GISS explanation of urbanization adjustments with the facts and figures for their last version? I read the original Hansen paper from years ago. has it been updated? where are the test results showing that the models are 'working as expected'? surely a publically funded service that is used to make billion and trillion dollar decisions is totally transparent and open to public inspection. right?