Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Urban Heat Island in Pictures part 3

We have been examining the claim by the IPCC that the urban heat island effect is only about .06 degrees for 100 years as stated at source

This absolute utterly crazy claim is essential for the hysteriacs to maintain the fiction that the world is warming, not just the cities surrounding the thermometers. Tonight we will look at Toronto, Canada first.



The green is less than 23 deg C and the purple is above 30 deg C, a temperature spread of more than 7 deg C on this thermograph of Toronto. Yet the climatologists claim

“Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any urban-related trend is an order of magnitude smaller than decadal and longer time-scale trends evident in the series (e.g., Jones et al., 1990; Peterson et al., 1999). This result could partly be attributed to the omission from the gridded data set of a small number of sites (<1%) with clear urban-related warming trends. ” “Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis” IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007
source


Small number of sites with urban warming? What a laugh that is. Every city I have shown you has at least a 6 deg C temperature rise for the urban heat island effect. and tomorrow I will show the work of a guy who proved that even small towns have urban heat island effects, small though they are.

What about Providence, Rhode Island? It has quite an urban heat island effect. Below shows that the green is about 25 deg C and the purple is 40 deg C. This is a 15 deg C range.



See that area I have circled. The original blogger, Ed Caryl, who pointed this out, notes that the temperature for Providence is in that purple area. It is the airport, with 1300 deg jet engines heating the area. Yes, the hysteriacs know where to place the thermometers to make the world appear as if it is warming. If they were true scientists, they would actually think about how to get data NOT subject to the criticism Caryl made.

You can see the siting of the thermometer at the hottest place in Providence at this site. You can see that it is 15 deg C hotter than the surrounding countryside, and you are told to believe that it makes no difference. I have a bridge to sell you.

Lets finish up tonight with Washington D.C.



This map is in Fahrenheit. There is a 35 deg spread of temperatures from the rural to the hottest parts of the urban landscape here. THIRTY-FIVE DEGREES, and Jim Hansen says the urban heat island effect needs only a 0.3 deg C (~0.6 deg F) correction, and the IPCC says one needs only a 0.06 deg C correction. And you, Mr. Global Warming Hysteriac are foolish enough to believe them. You have no skepticism at all.

4 comments:

  1. Did I read you right? You don't think the average global temperature is increasing?


    Can I ask you why sea level is rising as expected with thermal expansion of the oceans and increased glacial melting? Why ecosystems are responding exactly as they would if the temperature were increasing? Why does satellite data indicate warming? Why has specific humidity increased since 1970? Why has September arctic sea ice extent decreased since 1955? Why do estimates of glacial mass balance show a general decrease since about 1975?

    From what I've read the long term trends (apart from mere surface temperature stations) indicate a general warming but there are some short term trends that show recent flattened temperatures, but since they are relatively short time spans they are less convincing relative to the longer term trends.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sigh, the present satellite temperature has gone negative and the instantaneous (not a trend but where we started and where we ended up is essentiallly FLAT for the past 30 years. See http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/02/uah-update-for-january-2011-global-temperatures-in-freefall/

    Now, we don't live in a trend. We are either hotter or colder than the point at which we started measuring tropospheric temperature. Right now, we are barely positive.

    Arctic sea ice anomaly is positive, meaning there is more sea ice than usual. It is above the norm for the past 30 years right now. See

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html

    As to water vapor, the satellite data marches to the beat of water vapor in the atmosphere. see

    http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/2011/01/beat-of-water-vapor.html

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/TTUVaY1porI/AAAAAAAABMI/nuGPqQFKdAs/s1600/WeatherWater%2Bvaporvs%2BSatellite.jpg

    The water vapor drives the temperature NOT CO2 which has no correlation with the satellite temperature nor the water vapor curve. But water vapor correlates quite strongly with temperature.

    So why has water vapor risen? Because the sun has increased in its activity since then.

    “The reconstruction shows that the current episode of high sunspot number, which has lasted for the past 70 years, has been the most intense and has had the longest duration of any in the past 8,000 years. Based on the length of previous episodes of high activity, the probability that the current event will continue until the end of the t wenty-first century is quite low (1%).” Paula J. Reimer, “Spots from Rings,” Nature, 431(2004), p. 1047

    And indeed, the sun's activity has dropped dramatically and guess what. The arctic sea ice is above normal, look out the window and see the snow, and the satellite temperature has gone negative again.

    Gee you ought to look more often at the data. Last year's data (I suspect you are hagiograph), is not keeping up to date.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh, yeah Mr Anonymous ( I guess you are afraid to say who you are), why don't you actually express your opinion about the topic of these posts.

    Do you think it is a good idea to place the US historical climate network thermometers in the hottest places of the urban heat islands? Do you think you get a pristine temperature by that procedure? My experience tells me that no warming hysteriac will answer that question.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What a moron you are, Morton. NOAA subtracts a calculated amount from modern readings to account for the urban heat island around some stations.
    Do you really think that an organization that has more than 7,000 monitoring stations worldwide, including about 2,300 in the US, would make such a simple mistake as "not notice that a city grew up around the thermometer"? These are men and women who know about this issue and are trained and educated in it, unlike you, a clearly biased individual spewing your own concocted theories on a blog. Sigh.

    ReplyDelete