|Where should we expect UHI in temperature data 1979-2009?16-01-2011 14:05|
|- In the largest urban areas or in areas with the fastest growing population?|
In the article http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/16/uah-and-uhi/ I suggested:
1) Ground based ocean temperature data matches fairly the UAH TLT ocean data - but the ground based land temperature has a warmer trend than UAH TLT land data. I argued that this extra heat in the ground based land data might originate from UHI, adjustments and siting problems.
2) The UAH TLT land vs ocean data has a rather similar trend as if they seek an equilibrium in temperatures. I mentioned the problem for ground based data that the land data vs. ocean data has an ever larger difference so far not explained.
Point 1) was intensely debated which as always brings about more knowledge. Especially one argument used based on expectations to where geographically UHI should be seen strong in the satellite years 1979-2010 has been rewarding to examine closer.
Bob Tisdale has made a very useful grid-wise compare of TLT UAH data vs GISS data worldwide which enables further studies on point 1).
This could shed light on the UHI question: If Ground based GISS data warms faster than UAH TLT in areas where we expect UHI, then perhaps a UHI signature is confirmed. And UAH data in compare with GISS data an indicator of UHI.
Example: Central North America/USA.
Bob finds no difference between USA temperatures for UAH vs. GISS ground based for 1979-2009. If one expects that there should be UHI in USA in this period, then according to my suggestion, we should have seen GISS ground based warming faster than UAH USA temperatures.
However, McIntyres calculation of Petersons USA city-vs-rural data shows no UHI 1979-2009 for USA either... So perhaps we should not expect UHI 1979-2009 for USA?
If our expectations to UHI geographical distribution 1979-2009 are wrong, then our conclusions are wrong.
Based on Tisdales results I have used the following labels on the graphic below:
"NoUHI " : Means that GISS ground based data often from cities and airports has a rather simlar warming trend compared to the TLT UAH.
"UHI" : Means that GISS ground based temperature trend is significantly warmer than UAH TLT and thus contains something that cannot be detected by satellite, we call it UHI for now.
Heres then how we should expect UHI to be distributed world wide based on Tisdales results:
Fig2 So... We should have UHI 1979-2009 in areas with not that dense urbanization? And not in the USA and similar places? Can this be true? Well, I don't blame anyone for saying that this is not really in favour of the UHI concept.
But before throwing data out in the drain and before skipping the UHI idea, do we actually know where geographically we should expect UHI 1979-2009? Lets examine it.
Where should we expect UHI in temperature data 1979-2009?
Lets take a look at the "bible" of UHI Thomas Karls analysis of UHI 1901-1984 done on temperature mostly without temperature corrections done in the period of the global warming debate - and the biggest research of its kind:
Thomas Karls data suggests that increase in population number for cities already large has much less UHI effect generally than a similar increase in population number for a small town. That is, UHI appears more significant for cities and areas where the population is growing in magnitude rather than from areas with a more constant population. To create most UHI warming, we need to see a larger relative population growth.
Or in a rough short version: UHI should be expected NOT necessarily in the biggest urban areas of the world, BUT in the areas with biggest relative population growth.
So where are the areas with the biggest relative population growth?
They are here:
Relative population growth: I found 2 such statistics from the 1979-2009 period, upper effective in 1990 and the lower in 2006.
Result: North America, Europe, Sibiria and Australia has the lowest growth while Africa incl Sahara, and Brazil and more countries in South America and also the rest of Asia has the biggest relative population growth.
So lets take a look at the UHI expectations from fig 2 from Bob Tisdales data compared to the relative population growth maps. I have pasted the "UHI"- and "No UHI"-expectaions from fig 2, Bob Tisdales data onto the map showing relative population growth:
- The match with the relative population growth 1990 and 2006 is perhaps better than we could have demanded since many factors hypothetically could have made the picture blurry.
Bob Tisdales analysis seems to confirm that the divergence in GISS ground based data compared to UAH TLT could possibly be due to UHI, at least partly. At least if we expect UHI mostly from areas not just with a large Urban fraction but rather UHI mostly from areas with the fastes relative growth. And this sounds to me reasonable.
UAH ocean temperatures , UAH land temperatures and the most often used SST´s has similar warming trend. The ground based land temperature trends have warmer trends.
This may indicate that the warmer ground based land temperatures has a faulty added warm trend from UHI, adjustments and siting problems.
Further more, the long term resemblance between UAH-land and UAH-ocean appears correct since temperatures over land and sea respectively should have a tendency to seek equilibrium at least on linger term. This further points to Ground based land data type as the source of the divergence.
Finally, this writing: Due to Bob Tisdales detailed research it appears, that the UHI fraction in GISS ground based data is not unlikely if we expect that UHI should be far most visible in areas with high relative population growth. The rather good match between relative population growth and divergence between GISS and UAH TLT does in fact also a support to the general idea, that UHI plays an important role for the ground based temperatures otften measure from cities and airports.
Finally we must add, that many other factors than UHI can play a role - see for example "post scriptum B".
However, notice in fig 1 how the divergenve between GISS goundbased data and UAH data just vanishes all together when we focus on an area with no UHI as McIntyres Peterson data suggests. This could indicate that UHI plays a role not that tiny for the descrepancy between UAH land data and Ground based land data.
* Post Scriptum A *
Where NOT to measure UHI...
Finally a little example I have to mention concerning UHI:
When speaking of "where not to measure UHI", the absolute best spot in the world is London.
Central Southern England is one of the areas of the world with highest population density which makes the area one big urban warmed area. In Southern central England, no matter from where the wind comes from it will come from a highly populated area, and thus there are no truly rural areas to test UHI with. On top of this, ever since 1900, London has been a multi million population city, which is extraordinary. So, any attempt to measure UHI using London of all towns compared to a non rural surrounding area is a remarkable quest indeed.
Non the less, London of all places is one of the corner stones when skepticalscience argues that there is no UHI worth mentioning:
* Post Scriptum B *
In Fig 2 above, I have inserted a "UHI"" mark in the north Atlantic.
This is not the Faroe Island or the like, no its due to a GISS (LOTI) ground based data for north Atlantic with warmer trend than AUH TLT, Bob Tisdale:
Obviously this is an example where UHI does not play a part in the difference between GISS and UAH. For the oceans, the GISS (LOTI) are hadcrut SST data sampled 2 meter under surface. In contrast, UAH mostly relects low Marine Air temperature, and these to different temperature sets are likely to induce some differences.
In the period in question, the AMO current has sent stil warmer waters to the North Atlantic. My guess is that an event like a strong AMO rise in the North Atlantic might play a role. The AMO is know for warming up the air of the North Atlantic land and sea areas, and if the heat comes from the waters, the AMO current, then perhaps its not impossible that water temperature in the period is slightly warmer than the air? This is what it take if the warm AMO current is warming up the Northern atlantic land areas etc. Just a guess, obviously.
* Post Scriptum C *
I have taken the liberty to write "No UHI" on the maps for Australia. In fact Bob Tisdale got GISS to have lower warming trend than UAH TLT on his "Australia".
In my maps for relative population growth, I only have full countries, but Bob Tisdale chose a fraction of central Australia, not the whole Australia. but if we use all of Australia the GISS trend is much warmer.
Heres a compare of the GISS (LOTI) temperature trend for Australia 1979-2009 [little picture] compared to recent development in population [big picture] - and we see that the actually slightly falling GISS trend for central Autralia happens to be accompanied by declining population in central Australia:
However im sure that world wide one could find many areas where the match between population and heat trends will be poorer than this due to a row of other factors.
More articles by Frank Lansner
Edited on 16-01-2011 14:08
|RE: Frank - this make no sense08-02-2011 21:23|
It is difficult to understand why you continue to argue for that there is a significant UHI effect globally.
UHI has a small effect on the global temperature today and in the past. In the future this effect may be larger.
The most recent study is:
James Hansen, NASA
James Hansen investigate the UHI effect using the most recent data and methods. Please refer to Page 4 in respect of UHI adjustments.
Most of your arguments relates to the local influence from UHI .
You have a missing link to the UHI globally.
You say that I argue that "that there is a significant UHI effect globally. "
Basically im not doing exactly that, im investiagting thing opne to what ever out come there is. The UAH compares with ground based temperature could just as well indicate that the UHI is tiny.
Theres a new article on the subject by me coming up soon, and this shows more details.
I will take a look at Hansens thing. Just dont forget that there has been done around 4000 UHI-related adjustments to temperatures stations used by GISS, do the article tell i Hansen looks at RAW data (that he does not share with us) or the adjusted?
|Hi Kfl, i just looked at the Hansen article.|
I thinks its funny how the AGW´ers invent one approach after the other to "show" that there is no UHI.
It is so simple, compare all possible pairs of urban-rural using unadjusted data and you get as Thomas Karl did 1984:
But ohh, they establixh some "wind" method to avoid this (parker) and this Night light method or whatever it is.
KFL, please explain why Karls 4-500 rural-city pairs "accidently" happens to show UHI before the age of severe global warming agenda if it is not true.
Further more, the "nightlight" approach for satellite years is doomed to fail, and this is what I show in my coming writing. The thing is, the UHI is generally believed to be a function of log(population). So we should look after UHI in areas with the greatest population growth rate. This is exactly NOT in the nightlight areas in the satellite age. So this method is systematically avoiding areas where UHI should exist in the most recent decades. Ok - one thing with these "alternative ways to avoid UHi" they are a little noisy written, so in fact im not 100% sure if I have understood Hansen and co correct after reading 2 times.
Hansen, Its so easy: take unadjusted data, compare as many rural-urban station pairs as possible, or even easier: Just use Karls 1984 results, its already done.
The UHI area is very small and as a consequence, UHI's has only a small influence on the global temperature.
You have not demonstrated that the UHI area is big - my guess it s less 2% of the total area.
It is impossible that a small area like the UHI area might influence the global temperature.
Unless you can come with at better estimation af the UHI area you must surrender.
|Hi Kfl, you write:|
"You have not demonstrated that the UHI area is big - my guess it s less 2% of the total area. "
Kfl, in GISS data, for each station they dont hesitate to use 1200 km radius. They use thousands of stations world wide in this way and thereby these temperature stations covers most of the Earth, and the stations are often from smaller or bigger populated areas, or airports. That is, trends from those populated areas influences most temperature grids of the land area. (Not the Antarctic...).
The size of the cities themselves (your 2%?) is irrelevant.
|Frank: I think you're arguing way too much about way too little.|
I mean... check out how hot the arctic circle is getting. This is measured today, yet previously predicted.
Going off about what you perceive to be some really important micro detail really ignores the big picture. Namely, the place is getting hot.
Anyone can see that the predicted massive temperature shift in the arctic is happening right now. Today.
|What makes you think CO2 increases temperature?||5||08-10-2019 19:13|
|Earth surface temperature measurements||93||25-09-2019 19:46|
|There is no valid physics that can show CO2 increases temperature||29||17-09-2019 22:35|
|If CO2 have higher temperature than O2 and N2 in the air?||3||17-09-2019 00:37|
|Earths Temperature||1||14-08-2019 20:08|