Continuing with our look at urban heat island effects, I want to first comment that an anonymous commenter was asked a question about whether or not it is good scientific practice to place climatological thermometers in the hottest places in urban settings. I asked him if this was a good procedure to ensure that we would get a pristine data set. My experience has taught me that warming hysteriacs will no more answer that question than young-earth creationists will answer a question about why there are so many footprints throughout the geologic column, which should indicate an old earth. We will see if I am right.
There is often the claim that small towns don't have urban heat island effects. We will test that claim and find it wanting by using in a small town, population 277. This work was done Warwick Hughes and is excellent work. It can be found at this site.
He used an IR thermal monitor and drove through the small town. When he got to the center of the town, the temperature was 1.7 deg C hotter than the surrounding area.
Why did he see this result? Even small towns today use electricity, air conditioning, cars, cement roads etc. All these things heat up the environment. Below is a google earth of that town. You can see all the houses, each using electricity, presumably heating and AC. This town is the very same size as the little town my ranch is next to.
So when the IPCC crowd says that rural and cities show no difference, one might want to at least think of the possibility that rural areas are also heated up compared to the surrounding areas. Note in the above picture that there are cement roads. Most of the roads where my ranch is are dirt.
Now let's go on to look at another town, Baton Rouge Louisiana. Note how the roads are much hotter than the grassy or tree covered areas. There is a 40 deg C difference in temperature if you leave the natural areas. This will be important when we look at where the meteorology professors at the University of Arizona place their USHCN thermometer.
Every picture I have shown in this series, or almost every picture has shown that the roads are hotter than the surrounding, more natural areas.
Detroit shows the same thing. The cement roads are extremely hot.
So if the meteorologists know that roads are hot, then why in the hell do the professors at the University of Tuscon put their thermometer, which is used in the US Historical Climate Network, on top of cement? Don't they know that roads are hot? Or do they do this to keep the myth alive that they are showing a warming earth?
The meteorology profs at University of Arizona should know better. There is also a power plant one block to the east. In case the readers don't know, power plants put out a lot of heat. I previously 2 days ago, published the picture of Paso Robles, California showing that its thermometer was on cement in a parking lot by the city hall, next to a cement street. Looking at the thermographs of cities, it is quite clear that cement makes for a hot radiating surface that would affect the temperature.
Bartow Florida's station might as well be on cement. It has a pitiful amount of grass under it but it is surrounded by cement streets, parking lot and heat emitting buidling. And this is one of the stations they claim is good for being a baseline for climatological studies.
The thermal images shown above demonstrate that the cement can be 40 deg C hotter than grassy areas. This will affect the US Historical Climate Networks and their accuracy for measuring the global temperature rise.
I will ask the commenter again if placing thermometers on cement, which is 40 deg C hotter than the country side is good scientific practice. No doubt he will wish to talk about everything other than that.