Sentences with phrase «if urban heat islands»

If urban heat islands significantly biased the temperature record, then you'd expect a global map of temperature change to have red spots where the population is concentrated.

Some climate change skeptics have wondered if urban heat islands may be contaminating global warming data.

If urban heat islands are to be discounted when looking for trends — surely they must be included when looking at the big picture.

The study team found that the trends match well; the «opposite» of what one should expect «if the urban heat island effect was adding anomalous warming to the record.»

Not exact matches

If you take into account that virtually all the world's concrete and asphalt which causes the positive feedback of UHI (urban heat island) was made after 1940 you could tweak up the model inputs for solar and down for CO2 and get just the same result for surface temperature.

I am not sure if WUWT fans know that here are no urban heat islands over the arctic ocean??

Likewise, they prefer to debate urban heat island effects rather than to discuss the rising temperature trends, other clear signs of rising temperatures, the positive feedbacks which are beginning to kick in so that climate change will take on a life of its own independently of what we do in the future if changes are not made now (# 111, «Storm World» post, comment # 141) and what such climate change will imply for humanity as a whole (Curve manipulation, comment # 74, A Saturated Gassy Argument, comment # 116).

The problem Stefan explains with the spuriously - normalized year - round urban heat island adjustment in the previous study is a crisp, iconic example of how statistical techniques can go astray if you lose track of the meanings behind the numbers.

If you are speaking of the urban heat island effect, we can use just rural sites and we get virtually an identical trend.

Why is it that climate sceptics have been going on about the Urban Heat Island * being the cause of the observed temperaure increase found in the global averages, if, as you say, there is no increase in the global averages?

In like manner, if I believe that the urban heat island effect is responsible for AGW, why can't I just subtract the urban temperature profile from the global surface temperature record and «whalla», problem solved.

It is a much more difficult situation if ~ 40 % of the global warming signal is simply an artefact of the Urban heat island effect.

If you take into account that virtually all the world's concrete and asphalt which causes the positive feedback of UHI (urban heat island) was made after 1940 you could tweak up the model inputs for solar and down for CO2 and get just the same result for surface temperature.

In other words, UHI * is the value of the urban - heat - island effect if wind were not reducing it by replacing warmer air with colder; and NSTI * is the effect of the near - surface temperature inversion if the wind were not mixing up the air near the ground with the air a little higher up.

Anthony Watts (et al) currently have a paper in review that does in fact contain evidence that the Urban Heat Island Effect has exaggerated the amount of warming in the surface temperature measurements — refer New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial If he is right about the U.S.A, then the surface measurements for the rest of the world should be questioned as well.

I also made a point of including some small towns in significant geographic locations such as Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and Glasgow, Montana, to see if trends extend beyond the urban heat islands in big cities.

If they get you in trouble, invoke the hockey stick or urban heat island or start complaining about how nasty they are.

And, in case the FAQ3.1 isn't good enough for you (and I completely understand if it isn't), here's a quote from IPCC AR4 WG1 chapter 3, section 3.2.2.2, page 243 where the report discusses the urban heat island effect specifically:

If you don't buy the satellite data and urban heat islands stuff, you presumably accept the standard interpretation of the surface data record for the last 100 + years, which shows sharp warming over the past 25 years or so.

If we can trust the RF calculation in the absence of effective peer - review — and using the observed global rise in T (criticism of urban heat islands and dodgy grid homogenising algorithms not - withstanding), then 0.7 = X (RF), where the RF for CO2 is.....?

There have been a number of studies suggesting that ground - based data is severely compromised by urban heat island effects, inappropriate placement of monitors that increase recorded temperatures over what they would have been if the instruments had been properly cited, and the drop - out of a large number of rural stations in the 1970s.

Heck, if O'Donnell wants to validate the offset by claiming an urban heat island effect in the manned AWS station