BEST paper on UHI is published

[IanC]

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/96723180/Influence%20of%20Urban%20Heating.pdf

seems very similar to the preview. I find it hard to believe that UHI actually leads to a decrease in warming but, hey, I'm not a climate scientist.

lol. who are you going to believe? climate scientists or your own lying eyes? hahahahahahaha. this should be interesting.

 

[SSDD]

Makes perfect sense from a climate science point of view...more heat equals less heating. Wonder how long before they modify it to match the rest of climate science where more heat equals more and less heating?

 

[mamooth]

seems very similar to the preview. I find it hard to believe that UHI actually leads to a decrease in warming but, hey, I'm not a climate scientist.

You might wish to actually read the paper. It doesn't say there's no Urban Heat Island effect. It effectively says the UHI effect hasn't grown since 1950.

lol. who are you going to believe? climate scientists or your own lying eyes? hahahahahahaha. this should be interesting.

Denialist hero Judith Curry is an author. That's going to leave denialists very conflicted.

 

[SSDD]

If one is going to claim that the UHI hasn't incerased since 1950, one may as well claim that more heating equals cooling. Pure fantasy.

 

[depotoo]

Author Affiliations Top
1Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, 97330, USA
2Novim Group, 211 Rametto Road, Santa Barbara, CA, 93104, USA
3Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA
4Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley CA 94720, USA
5GeorgiaInstitute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA
6Berkeley Earth Project, Berkeley CA 94705, US

 

[mamooth]

If one is going to claim that the UHI hasn't incerased since 1950, one may as well claim that more heating equals cooling. Pure fantasy.

Because you "feel" that must be the case, eh?

In other words, the same as all your other "science".

 

[SSDD]

Climate scientists are well known for confuing signs....this will end up as just one more example. Any bets on how long before M&M shred it to the point that the publisher withdraws it in embarassment?

 

[SSDD]

Here is why the best paper on UHI will eventually be withdrawn in disgrace due to bad methodology as so often happens in climate science...

The best authors used the MODIS 500 meter dataset to identify what is and isn't an urban area. Here is an arial photo from 2013 with the actual MODIS overlay.

Every one of the grid cells would be classified as "not built up" because less than 50% of any of the grid cells is built up area. Imagine, an airport is not an area where UHI might influence temperature readings...and you can bet that there is a temperature gathering station found at that airport.

Using the best methodology, the photo below, of the same area shows exactly how much of the pictured area could be covered with houses, roads, parking lots, etc and still not be classified as built up.

Their methodology is obviously and terribly flawed which is all to common in climate science. Perhaps that is because actual scientists familiar with the scientific method are quite rare in the field of climate science which seems to be topheavy with political activists playing scientist.

Little wonder that they found little evidence of UHI since using their methodology, they might have a hard time finding actual urban areas. The photo below is a modern (2013) view of the same area and is still classified as rural and not built up....the red squares come the closest to being classified as urban because 40% of the area is covered.

Here is a photo of the weather station found on the grounds of the airport.

And here is an example what happens to that station over 100 times a day..

Imagine...using the best method, no evidence of a heat island effect would be found anywhere near that airport.

The whole explanation of the terribly flawed methodology can be found HERE

 

[IanC]

seems very similar to the preview. I find it hard to believe that UHI actually leads to a decrease in warming but, hey, I'm not a climate scientist.

You might wish to actually read the paper. It doesn't say there's no Urban Heat Island effect. It effectively says the UHI effect hasn't grown since 1950.

lol. who are you going to believe? climate scientists or your own lying eyes? hahahahahahaha. this should be interesting.

Denialist hero Judith Curry is an author. That's going to leave denialists very conflicted.

are you saying Curry is a denialist? she is a lukewarmer, and a competent scientist with the ability to work with most other scientists. it may or may not mean much that her name amongst the 'et als has dropped a few notches. and let's not forget when she rightfully criticized Muller during his media blitz during his 'publication by media' tour.


when a layman like myself sees a demonstrable effect like UHI that in many cases is well over 1-2C (larger than the whole temperature increase we have seen) and we know that the temperature datasets are loaded with urban sites and rural-turning-urban sites but a paper comes out and tells me that it makes no impact. that leaves me wondering where that increase went. is it a sleight-of-hand? why are the methodologies missing it? Steve Mosher (newly added to the et als) is doing yeoman service in answering questions and I thank him for that but it still doesnt answer where the UHI evaporates to.

past papers on UHI by Phil Jones are still leaving a stench in the field. this new paper seems to be another conjurors trick. I may not be able to figure out how the magician cuts the girl in half but I do know it wasnt by magic.

 

[gslack]

seems very similar to the preview. I find it hard to believe that UHI actually leads to a decrease in warming but, hey, I'm not a climate scientist.

You might wish to actually read the paper. It doesn't say there's no Urban Heat Island effect. It effectively says the UHI effect hasn't grown since 1950.

lol. who are you going to believe? climate scientists or your own lying eyes? hahahahahahaha. this should be interesting.

Denialist hero Judith Curry is an author. That's going to leave denialists very conflicted.

BULL!!!

Sorry its not even a sensible claim. It's nonsense using complex mathematics to give an impression of proof.

Since the 1950's we have increased highways, bridges, urbanization, so on and so forth. Using a mathematical process to deny simple reality is the very core of the problem..

They say its warming, and use complex mathematical equations to show it. Turns out its not warming and so they say "it's changing", and bingo all new mathematical sets to show it. Turns out the real world doesn't match their projections at all. Why? Because they created the math to show what they wanted.

Now they have to get rid of reality in the form of UHI's because it's showing one of the methods they used to create their fiction. So they make a new set of mathematics showing exactly what they want to see...

BULL!

 

[IanC]

this really is an important question.

there is little debate as to whether the UHI effect is real. urban centres are warmer and the effect progressively weakens as you travel outwards to more rural locations.

many temperature stations have seen their locale turn from rural to urban in the last 100 years. in those places there has been an increase in the trend which is attributed to 'global warming' but is in fact UHI.

in the 90's Phil Jones did a bogus UHI study based on Chinese temps and he proposed a 0.005C/decade addition to the error estimates as sufficient correction. that study has since been found to be fatally flawed and even produced fraud investigations against some of the contributors (found unguilty, of course). his 00's study bumped up the estimate by an order of magnitude and climate science stated it was 'consistent with' Jones's earlier work.

since 2000, the computer programs that turn raw global temps into an homogenized data set have been adding more and more 'corrections' that are significant fraction of the total trend (at least a third, perhaps more). these computer programs cannot detect and correct UHI. there is some adjustment for UHI but in many cases it is actually increasing the temps!, so that the net change is almost nothing.

as a concerned layman, I am pissed off that climate science is ignoring a known mechanism for increased temps and not making reasonable attemps to correct for it, while at the same time using computer programs that slice and dice raw temp data that are then put back together in ever increasing trends.

 

[SSDD]

Using the best methodology as illustrated above, one would have to question whether the authors even managed to find urban areas, much less the associated, and well documented heat island effects.

 

[editec]

Anyone who imagines that large cities aren't acting heat sumps is a damned fool.

 

[IanC]

Anyone who imagines that large cities aren't acting heat sumps is a damned fool.

it is somewhat peculiar that climate scientists seem to fall in love with their arcane models that disagree with common sense, and are then willing to argue past the point where obvious flaws have been pointed out. Mann still thinks his HockeyStick graph is scientific.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well now, Ian, when first it came out that Dr. Muller was going to do this study, you were cheering and stateing how it was going to show us 'Warmers' how wrong we were. And how you were willing to accept the results, whatever they were. But you just knew it would show that the data was skewed by the urban stations.

Once again, the study shows no urban heat effect skewing. The researchers have done their homework and it is the sceptics that have kept up a steady stream of lies.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/96723180/Influence of Urban Heating.pdf

Wickham C1, Rohde R2, Muller RA3,4*, Wurtele J3,4, Curry J5, Groom
D3, Jacobsen R3,4, Perlmutter S3,4, Rosenfeld A3 and Mosher S6

Abstract

The effect of urban heating on estimates of global average land surface temperature is studied by applying an urban-rural classification based on MODIS satellite data to the Berkeley Earth temperature dataset compilation of 36,869 sites from 15 different publicly available sources. We compare the distribution of linear temperature trends for these sites to the distribution for a rural subset of 15,594 sites chosen to be distant from all MODISidentified urban areas. While the trend distributions are broad,
with one-third of the stations in the US and worldwide having a negative trend, both distributions show significant warming. Time series of the Earth’s average land temperature are estimated using the Berkeley Earth methodology applied to the full dataset and the rural subset; the difference of these is consistent with no urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.10 ± 0.24/100yr (95% confidence).
Keywords
UHI; Land surface temperature; GISS; CRUTEM; Berkeley Earth;
MODIS

 

[Old Rocks]

Anyone who imagines that large cities aren't acting heat sumps is a damned fool.

it is somewhat peculiar that climate scientists seem to fall in love with their arcane models that disagree with common sense, and are then willing to argue past the point where obvious flaws have been pointed out. Mann still thinks his HockeyStick graph is scientific.

The recession of the alpine glaciers worldwide is not a climate model, it is a present reality. The melting of the Arctic Ice Cap is a present reality. As is the worldwide increase in extreme weather events.

 

[SSDD]

Well now, Ian, when first it came out that Dr. Muller was going to do this study, you were cheering and stateing how it was going to show us 'Warmers' how wrong we were. And how you were willing to accept the results, whatever they were. But you just knew it would show that the data was skewed by the urban stations.

Instead, muller wrote a paper that could not and still has not passed peer review. the best climate study was pitiful. Guess Ian was overly hopefull of anything honest coming out of the climate science community.

 

[SSDD]

Anyone who imagines that large cities aren't acting heat sumps is a damned fool.

it is somewhat peculiar that climate scientists seem to fall in love with their arcane models that disagree with common sense, and are then willing to argue past the point where obvious flaws have been pointed out. Mann still thinks his HockeyStick graph is scientific.

The recession of the alpine glaciers worldwide is not a climate model, it is a present reality. The melting of the Arctic Ice Cap is a present reality. As is the worldwide increase in extreme weather events.

Is this the first time they have receded? Is it anything unusual in the grand scheme of things? Can you prove that CO2 has had anything to do with it? Can you provide one single bit of hard data that proves that more CO2 causes more warming? Can you provide even one actual measurement of backradiation taken at ambient temperture?

 

[gslack]

Anyone who imagines that large cities aren't acting heat sumps is a damned fool.

it is somewhat peculiar that climate scientists seem to fall in love with their arcane models that disagree with common sense, and are then willing to argue past the point where obvious flaws have been pointed out. Mann still thinks his HockeyStick graph is scientific.

The recession of the alpine glaciers worldwide is not a climate model, it is a present reality. The melting of the Arctic Ice Cap is a present reality. As is the worldwide increase in extreme weather events.

The bolded/underlined part....How can there be ALPINE glaciers worldwide??? As for thwe rest of it, well it's BS too..