Sentences with phrase «uhi influence»

I have noticed this before, as it make no sense to have the land warm faster than the sea, unless there is a UHI influence in the data.

For instance, if you compare neighboring thermometers around the world, and also compare their population densities (as a rough indication of UHI influence), it can be easily demonstrated that substantial average UHI warming occurs even at low population densities, about ~ 1 deg.

Were they justified in reporting a negative result for UHI influence on the temperature record?

Granted, I only worked up the land based measures, but we live on land; — RRB - http://justdata.wordpress.com Despite the inherent UHI influence on the readings, there was only minor warming in the Arctic.

The Parker paper directly addresses your «bubbles» idea: if the UHI influence was large, then it would be larger on still days as opposed to windy ones, because on windy ones the bubble of warm air would get blown away more readily.

Among all the interesting details it mentions a few papers that directly discuss efforts to identify and quantify UHI influences on the global temperature trend including this one (PDF), which would be a good one to cite:

Not exact matches

By examining the UHI intensities of 50 cities with various urban morphologies, the researchers evaluated the degree to which city configuration influences the UHI effect.

I am sure that the UHI problem is largely resolved in developed countries, as there are a lot of rural stations which can be used to compensate for the UHI of large towns (there are some residual individual and regional problems, like irrigation in valleys, but that doesn't influence the general trend that much).

So, even without the obvious influence of UHI, somewhere in the neighborhood of.6 -.7 °F is added to the modern temps.

We know that UHI and other anthropogenic effects are influencing temperature records.

It has been suggested that UHI has significantly influenced temperature records over the 20th century with rapid growth of urban environments.

The average of individual UHIs globally gives rise to a GHI (Global Heat Influence).

which I call UHI + or UHIP) influence removed.

Perhaps much less, because this is derived from a model world, i.e. a world without UHI, without any solar influence beyond TSI or any other mechanism, explaing MWP or other climate variability of the past.

I can not believe that people are STILL talking about UHI and siting issues when the oceans tell us these are NOT siginificantly influencing the trend.

Period of significant divergence starts in the 1950s, when various man made influences (CO2, UHI, CFCs etc) may have come into play.

I have one question: Did Mr. Parket actually visit any of the weather stations to see what influences (UHI or otherwise) may be affecting the wind and temperature gathering and hence the data, or is this another armchair data wrangling study?

I would expect UHI to have it's biggest influence just after sunset.

An alternative view has been suggested in our discussion: that the windy day / night measurements reflect the influence of air from a broader region, which has a lesser UHI.

The zero temperature trend differences averaged over the globe for the 50 years, that have been purported to be those must influenced by any potential anthropogenic influences, becomes another simplifying result that can be used to claim that the «average» UHI effect over those critical years was zero.

The presumption in my mind is that UHI adjustments would always adjust temperatures lower as urbanization does not act as a cooling influence on the planet.

It comes down to the apparent judgment of almost all participants in this debate that an UHI effect exists and is probably quite significant, but the differences lay in the whether and how these UHI effects have influenced temperature measurements at the «official» measuring sites.

Key is to see whether or not the natural influences, UHI effects and changes / «modifications» in temp records are really so clear identificable / recognized that a tiny signal (like 2/3 of a degree over a century) can be identified clearly as caused by humans.

Any other influences verified (UHI distortions, etc.) would deduct from that.

The coherence with global indices is nonexistent, except at the very lowest trend - influenced frequencies of similarly UHI - corrupted indices, such as HADCRUT and BEST.

In summary, it is indisputable that UHI [Urban Heat Island] and LULC [land - use land - cover change] are real influences on raw temperature measurements.

The fastest warming areas (across Canada and Russia) have a low population density, so maybe that means UHI fails the first test as far as its global influence goes.

Both of these UHIs however do not contribute to warming trends over the 20th century because the influences of the cities on surface temperatures have not changed over this time.»

«It is worthwhile to note that the urban heat island (UHI) effect may also influence plant growth.

Fred Pearce, leader of the Guardian's Special Report band of sleths, seems to ignore your observations about the many other papers on UHI effects, or your observation that whatever influence UHI effects may or may not have on temperature records, they can't cause earlier springs, melting of glaciers or warming of the oceans.