A Stunning Indictment Of UHI

NOAA and NASA say UHI isn’t important.  Compare these two stations in Louisiana 50 miles apart.

Urban

Screenshot 2016-01-30 at 08.22.19 PM

Screenshot 2016-01-30 at 08.14.54 PM

Rural

Screenshot 2016-01-30 at 08.21.02 PM

Screenshot 2016-01-30 at 08.14.38 PM

The frequency of hot days at the rural station has plummeted, while they have skyrocketed at the urban station. And then we get a double fraud through homogenization.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to A Stunning Indictment Of UHI

  1. Mark Luhman says:

    Exactly, and to think they call themselves scientist! All they are is a bunch of educated morons.

  2. tomwys1 says:

    This is not new! Look at what happened when HadCRUT3 transitioned to HasCRUT4:
    http://www.colderside.com/Colderside/HadCRUT4.html
    A slew of UHI villages were added and Guess What! The result was predictable!

  3. Andy DC says:

    You can’t prove any of this is cheating. The peer reviewed Al-Gore-Rythms used to make these adjustments are scientifically valid and above reproach. You are lying and attempting to commit fraud by showing the actual data.

  4. gator69 says:

    Obviously it is the high CO2 production of the city that is trapping the extra heat.

  5. Henry P says:

    I doubt that a UHI effect can be proven in the manner as proposed here;
    first of all because the stations are still 80 km apart, which can affect weather and weather patterns. You should also rather look at the overall average difference in annual temperatures between the two stations.,

    A simple test of mine proves that the UHI effect is minimal.
    I looked at New York Kennedy airport for the past 23 years which is equal in time to one Hale Nicholson solar cycle. From 1992 until 2016, it warmed on the airport on average by 0.040K / year. In other words it is 0.92 K warmer there now compared to 1992.
    Anyone would agree with me that looking at NY Kennedy a/p as a sample is crazy because of all the heat created by the airplanes & other UHI effects. Never mind all of that. I take the NY sample as true and representative of New York and indeed the whole NH… Now, note that NY Kennedy a/p lies at +41 latitude. We must at the very least, balance the sample with a station on the SH of similar [negative] latitude.
    We have a little island here, 2000km south east of Cape Town. It is called Marion Island, and it is situated in the middle of the ocean. There is virtual no human activity here. It has a good weather station though. It lies at -47 latitude.I think this would do for a reasonable two tier sample. I find that it cooled in Marion Island by -0.0334K /year on average since 1992. In other words: it is 0.77K cooler there now compared to 1992.
    It follows that from the NY and MI results I can estimate that the whole earth warmed by about 0.15K/2/23 = 0.003K / year on average, since 1992.

    Indeed, going back to my tables, where my sample size was larger, [but still balanced on latitude] this is not too bad an estimate on how much earth has warmed since 1992.

    if there was any UHI at all, there would be [some] chaos in my curve. There is none. Everything follows exactly on a curve. This is the ball that God throws at us…..it is life. There is no UHI. There is no man made global warming. Live with it.

    • If there were no UHI, sir, I would not be able to fry an egg on an asphalt parking lot on a hot, sunny day at 28°N latitude.

    • gator69 says:

      Sorry Henry, but UHI is an established fact, and it is not minor. UHI does not just corrupt the city temperatures, it corrupts any temperatures taken where human infrastructure has masked the natural environment, It is better detected in large land masses, and not islands, which are heavily influenced by their marine surroundings.

      Some parts of the Twin Cities can spike temperatures up to 9°F higher than surrounding communities thanks to the “urban heat island” effect, according to a new study from the University of Minnesota.

      The study, which was funded by the Institute on the Environment and published in theJournal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, used a network of 180 sensors deployed throughout the Twin Cities metropolitan area in residential backyards and city parks to paint the most detailed picture anywhere in the world of how temperature varies with time and place across pavement-filled metropolitan areas and surrounding communities.

      Recording surface air temperatures every 15 minutes from August 2011 through August 2014 across nearly 2,000 square miles and using U.S. Geological Survey data to fine-tune differences at the neighborhood level, the study uncovered several surprises. Among them:

      Temperatures in the urban core of Minneapolis, St. Paul and Bloomington average 2 °F higher in summer than in surrounding areas.

      The differential spiked as much as 9 °F higher during a heat wave in July 2012
      Urban heat island effect is stronger at night in summer and during the day in winter
      In urban areas during the winter when snow cover is less pervasive, temperatures are higher than rural areas in the daytime by an average of 2 °F.

      Paper: Brian V. Smoliak et al. Dense Network Observations of the Twin Cities Canopy-Layer Urban Heat Island*, Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology(2015). DOI: 10.1175/JAMC-D-14-0239.1

      • Henry P says:

        @richard
        @gator

        ok
        there is an effect called UHI
        as is the fact that one room in our house here is 2 degrees cooler than another room/
        what effect is that?
        I also noticed minima dropping where people chopped all the trees (Tandil, ARG) and minima increasing where deserts were turned into a green oasis (Las Vegas, USA)
        However, in the grand scheme of things, once you take averages, all around earth, and I suppose when the trade winds have blown a bit, all of these particular effects just cancel each other out and all what the results simply show is hat the amount of energy coming in and being let out is what determines “climate”,
        i.e. the change in temperature over time.
        By looking at the rate of change in K/annum rather than just anomalies you also eliminate errors due to UHI & difference in recordings at weather stations.

        • gator69 says:

          What makes UHI the elephant in the room, and important when discussing CAGW, is the location of weather stations that the alarmo-grantologists use. This is one reason why satellites and surface stations disagree.

        • Henry P says:

          surface stations are biased towards NH and are not balanced either by latitude or longitude.
          If you decide to rather look at the change in the rate of T per annum, longitude does matter.
          Do you know why?

        • gator69 says:

          Henry, in case you had not noticed, we are discussing UHI and how it is spread across the globe. This makes it a big deal.

          Do you know why?

      • Henry P says:

        note
        my words were:
        A simple test of mine proves that the UHI effect is minimal.

        • gator69 says:

          Effect on what? Global temperatures, or propaganda? City temperatures, or islands?

          There is a historic village near me that was used in the 19th century by city dwellers to escape the heat of their city, to those people UHI was a very big deal. Tthey would leave their homes for weeks at a time, driven out by an effect that was not minimal, and that was 150 years ago.

    • catweazle666 says:

      NASA on UHI:

      NASA researchers studying urban landscapes have found that the intensity of the “heat island” created by a city depends on the ecosystem it replaced and on the regional climate. Urban areas developed in arid and semi-arid regions show far less heating compared with the surrounding countryside than cities built amid forested and temperate climates.

      “The placement and structure of cities — and what was there before — really does matter,” said Marc Imhoff, biologist and remote sensing specialist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “The amount of the heat differential between the city and the surrounding environment depends on how much of the ground is covered by trees and vegetation. Understanding urban heating will be important for building new cities and retrofitting existing ones.”

      Goddard researchers including Imhoff, Lahouari Bounoua, Ping Zhang, and Robert Wolfe presented their findings on Dec. 16 in San Francisco at the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

      Scientists first discovered the heat island effect in the 1800s when they observed cities growing warmer than surrounding rural areas, particularly in summer. Urban surfaces of asphalt, concrete, and other materials — also referred to as “impervious surfaces” — absorb more solar radiation by day. At night, much of that heat is given up to the urban air, creating a warm bubble over a city that can be as much as 1 to 3°C (2 to 5°F) higher than temperatures in surrounding rural areas.

      The impervious surfaces of cities also lead to faster runoff from land, reducing the natural cooling effects of water on the landscape. More importantly, the lack of trees and other vegetation means less evapotranspiration — the process by which trees “exhale” water. Trees also provide shade, a secondary cooling effect in urban landscapes.

      Using instruments from NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites, as well as the joint U.S. Geological Survey-NASA satellite Landsat, researchers created land-use maps distinguishing urban surfaces from vegetation. The team then used computer models to assess the impact of urbanized land on energy, water, and carbon balances at Earth’s surface.

      When examining cities in arid and semi-arid regions – such as North Africa and the American Southwest — scientists found that they are only slightly warmer than surrounding areas in summer and sometimes cooler than surrounding areas in winter. In the U.S., the summertime urban heat island (UHI) for desert cities like Las Vegas was 0.46°C lower than surrounding areas, compared to 10°C higher for cities like Baltimore. Globally, the differences were not as large, with a summertime UHI of -0.21°C for desert cities compared to +3.8°C for cities in forested regions.

      http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/terra/news/heat-islands.html

    • richard says:

      You state it well;UHI affects only the urban areas; oceans are about 70% of
      the earth’s area and it is not urban, the urban area is a fraction of the land
      area, and when you add the polar caps, UHI is miniscule. So why is it important?
      The cherry pickers like to stick to the cherry trees for their data(urban areas).
      The actual effect of UHI is so small ,it can’t affect the planet as a whole. The
      fraudsters need data from them or they would have no case. It’s like trying to
      heat the planet up with bonfires 10 miles apart. If you sample near the campfires
      you will think you are warming the earth. Making cities a major part of your
      data set will certainly give a warming answer.

  6. Henry P says:

    Henry says
    A simple test of mine proves that the UHI effect is minimal.

    Gator says
    There is a historic village near me that was used in the 19th century by city dwellers to escape the heat of their city, to those people UHI was a very big deal. Tthey would leave their homes for weeks at a time, driven out by an effect that was not minimal, and that was 150 years ago.

    Henry says
    I have obtained my results. I am saying that my results show that effects from
    1) UHI
    2) more greening of earth
    3) any man made activities, including burning of any kind of fuels

    does not or hardly affects the actual temperatures on earth, for the longer term (of 23 years each).

    Warmer and cooler places on earth depend on a number of factors, mostly latitude, but also on other factors, like being caught between “walls” (hills & mountains). I am sure this is the case with your historic village, i.e. more cooler due to its openness.Cities were build exactly between hills so we could “use” the trapped heat for our benefit.

  7. lorne50 says:

    Give up Gator he’s stuck in a time loop . All that has to be said is city’s hotter there for uhi is real and pollutes the temps from the records

    • AndyG55 says:

      And Henry still refuses to put data from any other than his chosen years on his charts.

      Choose 3 years, can always draw a parabola, then pick another that happens to sit on the curve. And the years aren’t even equal times apart.

      • Henry P says:

        3 years?
        Andy, sorry, you are clueless. The data are based on daily data recorded from 1973. I cannot even begin to help you.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Then show the data for ALL years, not just your chosen 4 years.

          Sorry if you know nothing about parabolas.. it takes three non-collinear points to define a parabola, all you have done is then pick a fourth point that just happens to fit your parabola. Why the 7,10,10 spread.. why not 9, 9, 9 or don’t those points work ?

          You cannot even begin to help yourself, until you show your calculated points for ALL years.

  8. Henry P says:

    @gator
    obviously people gather at rivers for survival [water]
    but these rivers also come to the valleys where heats get trapped in winters due to inversion.
    Please explain where your village of coolness and where your city of [too] much heat is situated?
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/01/31/a-stunning-indictment-of-uhi/#comment-570657

    • gator69 says:

      Henry, I asked you to in your own words, please explain the point of Tony’s post.

      As for my location, that is my little secret, one I keep.

      • Henry P says:

        you or Tony give me the source of your data [of all days of all months of all years] of the two weather stations and I will give you my own honest opinion of the comparison of the data between the two stations.

    • gator69 says:

      Please explain where your village of coolness…

      I will paraphrase Wiki’s description…

      The location of this hamlet was attractive as during the intense heat of Summer, cool winds blew between the hills, and nights could be downright cold. Cities had no A/C at this time, so this spot offered respite from the heat of the city, starting in the mid 19th century.

      It was half a day’s ride from a major US city. Half a day’s ride west of that same city was another Summer getaway in a river valley. In fact, one can still travel in any direction from that city and find cooler weather in Summer.

  9. Henry P says:

    the data only refer to no. of days above a certain T>
    this discussion is getting ridiculous.
    Trying to help you I told you:
    there is no measurable UHI or AGW or CAGW.

    The sun not only determines how much energy goes in, it also seems to stipulate how much heat gets trapped.
    ……
    how does that work?

    it’s complicated

    • gator69 says:

      Henry, you a a farcical character, and a UHI denier. UHI is real, and denying it makes you look silly.

      Can you in your own words explain the point of Tony’s post? Can you?

  10. Henry P says:

    Gator, unfortunately
    you can prove anything with statistics
    hence, I was asking you for all the daily data from the two stations and not just a selected fraction\, as Tony did here,
    preferably presented to me in an excel file.
    Otherwise, you could let me know if the stations are represented on my favored website for weather data, namely, http://www.tutiempo.net

    it is sometimes also difficult for me to imagine me that there must be billions of people today having a barbecue, yet all that generated heat really does not seem to warm the earth at all.

    Perhaps it is because people just WANT to believe that WE must have some influence on the temperature on earth?

    • gator69 says:

      Earth to Henry! We are discussing UHI, not PHI. I have had enough of your strawmwen.

      Can you in your own words explain the point of Tony’s post? Can you?
      Reply

  11. RAH says:

    Anyone that ever went though basic training and was put into the “front lean and rest” (Push up) position on asphalt in the summer time will have some understanding about UHI.

  12. Henry P says:

    please remember my general stance
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/01/31/a-stunning-indictment-of-uhi/#comment-570662

    I do not deny that UHI and other effects exist.
    However, my measurements show that they do not affect global temperatures, at all.
    all data sets [except my own] of surface stations are not even properly balanced NH/SH so I do not accept them at all, anyway – with or without UHI bias.

    I cannot help you further, if you do not accept the results.
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/01/31/a-stunning-indictment-of-uhi/#comment-570621

    • gator69 says:

      However, my measurements show that they do not affect global temperatures, at all.

      Who said they do?

      Quoting Henry: There is no UHI.

      Can you in your own words explain the point of Tony’s post?

  13. Henry P says:

    gator says
    [henry said] However, my measurements show that they do not affect global temperatures, at all.

    Who said they do?

    Henry says
    so if we are all agreed that UHI and AGW and CAGW do not affect global T

    what is the point of discussing it further?

    I am going to bed. Good night you all.

    • gator69 says:

      Can you in your own words explain the point of Tony’s post? Can you?

    • AndyG55 says:

      Looks like Henry has measurements only from 1973, 1980, 1990 and 2000.

      I don’t think anyone can draw any meaning at all from that paltry amount of data.

      He still thinks getting R² = 1 on a parabola, using only 4 points, actually means something, so I have great worries about his knowledge of statistics.

      • AndyG55 says:

        For those not in the know.. You will always get R² =1 for a parabola using 3 points, so 1 extra specially chosen point is pretty much meaningless.

        That is why he MUST show his results for ALL years if he wants to be treated seriously.

        But I’m guessing that some of those points are nowhere near his parabola, hence his reluctance to show any more points.

        • Henry P says:

          I can take more years [the “from” regression] on the curve, but it would be a waste of time. With Rsquare=1 , the curve is defined with 4 points. Do you understand how the results for two stations, namely New York and Marion Island were arrived at? These two stations together really is the smallest trivial sample that I can take to estimate global T [change]
          i.e.
          https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/01/31/a-stunning-indictment-of-uhi/#comment-570621

          let me try and enlighten you on acquiring the basic data [do the exercise]
          My Rule no. 1: I decided to look at the change of weather (temperatures), rather than absolute temperatures.
          As an example look at the results for George (South Africa).
          My original data come from http://www.tutiempo.net
          I specifically used the data from this website as I distrust the various Anglo Saxon websites, like BOM, NOAA, Best, etc.
          You can type in the city that you are interested in and search the website.
          In the case of George, the link to the original data is here:
          http://www.tutiempo.net/clima/George_Airport/688280.htm
          It gives the average yearly mean, max. and min. temps, in that order, as per the first three columns.
          You must copy that data to an Excel sheet.
          For the years with missing data (red), you have to go to the individual months and look at every month’s average. Click on the relevant (blue) year and chose the month.
          (note for, 1983, 2002 and 2005)
          [Rule 2 For months with less than 15 daily data I applied the rule that I would rather take the average of [same] month of the preceding year and the following year, thereby adhering to Rule no. 1]
          The overall result for George is an average decline of -0.0131K per annum since 1978, that is -0.5 degrees C, in total, since 1978, as shown in the value before the x, of the linear regression line
          By selecting different periods of data [in the graph] you can get the various inclines/declines from more recent times {i.e. the values before the x}, getting at least for 4 points for the speed of warming/cooling.
          George is just one single result in my files. There are 54 stations in total,
          1) equal amount of stations NH and SH
          2) balanced on latitude
          3) 70/30 @sea and inland
          4) all continents
          Longitude does not matter as long as you look at the change in global T per annum.
          Let me know if there is anything that is not clear to you as to how I obtained the data. I can see if I can show all the data of the regressions here for the graph on minima
          [rising minima would be proof for those believing in AGW – my graph shows there is no rise in minimum temperatures].
          Best wishes,
          Henry

        • lorne50 says:

          You know henry yes small letter for you . Can you please tell me WTF is your point in all this BS ! Look the point is they use a very small UHI area to make there crap temps so really if you are disputing what is shown by Steve’s post you can fuck off now ! Thanks for confirming how stupid warmiers are !

        • AndyG55 says:

          Show the other years.. not from regression, but from the same method you got those 4 years out of 28 that you are PICKING to show a meaningless R² on only those four points.

          All that work, you MUST have points for all years, surely !

          WHY are you so adamantly REFUSING to show the actual calculated values for the other years.?

        • AndyG55 says:

          “With Rsquare=1 , the curve is defined with 4 points.”

          You confirm that you are mathematical imbecile.

          3 points will always be R² = 1, so your supposed curve fit is based on ONE extra point out of the 27 year period.. It is MEANINGLESS

          Show ALL your calculated points, not just the 3+1 that just happen to give you a nice curve fit.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “getting at least for 4 points for the speed of warming/cooling.”

          You need to get at least 3 time that number to get a meaningful graph.

          4 points in 37 years is meaningless.

          JUST DO IT. !!

    • ”… the valleys where heats get trapped in winters due to inversion.”

      Inversion? Henry, I think you mixed it up there.*) Temperature inversion is a term descriptive of the opposite effect:

      Cold air trapped by masses of warm air above it.

      Meteorologists call it inversion because normally the vertical temperature gradient in the troposphere goes from the warmest temperatures near the surface to ever cooler temperatures above.

      Temperature inversions typically happen in bowls and valleys. There are many examples around the world of these bowls where inversions happen frequently. Many of them are cities, and the resulting suppression of normal convection leads to trapped and persistent smog pollution. An interesting inversion spot is Hawley Lake, AZ located in a volcanic bowl. It reached -40° F on January 7, 1971:

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/destinations/2015/06/25/arizona-coldest-weather/29231517

      The money quote:

      “The temperature record is particularly difficult to duplicate because Hawley Lake sits in that bowl where cold air collects.”

      ——————–
      *) Besides, what kind of “inversion” would keep the hot air in the valley from rising through normal atmospheric convection? The whole premise just doesn’t make sense.

  14. roaldjlarsen says:

    Reblogged this on Roald j. Larsen and commented:
    It’s hard to make people understand how important this is ..!

  15. RICHARD says:

    WARMISTS STATISTICS
    the number of persons are very few
    who die after the age of 92
    just think how much safer I will be
    when I reach the age of 93!

    not mine, source unknown.

  16. lorne50 says:

    Wow must have been sick and tired I got blocked for the first time ever

  17. Henry P says:

    Andy says
    WHY are you so adamantly REFUSING to show the actual calculated values for the other years.?
    Henry says
    Why are you so lazy to do some work for yourself?
    Did you get the same result as I got for George?

    If Tony is interested in publishing my table, I will see what I can do. I might be interested in publishing all results of all 54 stations if he can put it up as a post, providing me with a reference link for future discussions.

  18. AndyG55 says:

    meant “go to 2006”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s