Sentences with phrase «uhi paper»

The UHI paper is BS and Muller lied about it in his WSJ article.

You bet the UHI paper is weak.

But the UHI paper clearly states that they did not do that.

There is evidence of wrong - doing without a doubt, and enough prima facie evidence to call into question some scientific issues, such as Briffa saying he thought temperatures were warmer than today 1,000 years ago, Wrigley criticizing Mann's work and also Jones» co-author on the 1990 UHI paper.

A similar phenomenon was noted for all U.S. sites with records longer than 70 years in the study by Wickham et al. (2011)[i.e., the UHI paper — CM].

The Station Quality paper and the UHI paper each address two other related skeptical concerns.

BEST's UHI paper sticks out as a prime example.

The UHI paper is a joke, and I would like to see Judy explain why it is not, if she cares to defend something that carries her name.

Our UHI paper analyzing this indicates that the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero.

Not exact matches

How much UHI contamination remains in the global mean temperatures has been tested in papers such as Parker (2005, 2006) which found there was no effective difference in global trends if one segregates the data between windy and calm days.

(c. UHI remains a counter intuitive result and disagrees with direct simultaneous measurement in some papers.

There is also a discussion of the UHI magnitude on the USGHCN in the paper, which should pique your interest, as well as this one which should help to improve your understanding of the UHI phenomenon.

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.

Could that be the same Wang who also wrote a paper about UHI where the figures from Chinese stations were so suspect that even a lead IPCC author expressed disgust?

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:

Parkers paper on wind and UHI: Actually, we had a spirited discussion about Parker's paper on CA some time ago.

If you weren't intending to muddy the water over whether Parker is about the existence of UHI, then why did you spend so much time in this article discussing possible experiments, and data sets, and existing papers, and averages, that address whether there is a UHI, and that do NOT address Parker's point about the impact of UHI on trends over time?

-- The whole purpose of Parker's technique is to get a look at the UHI effect as it is normally defined: for example, see the papers by Hinkel et al. on their studies of Barrow, Alaska.

Their 1997 paper in Science (Jones and Parker were among the co-authors) will probably go down in history as the worst approach ever to finding the UHI — or the best approach to not finding it.

-- As I understand Parker's paper, his point was to demonstrate that the global GW trend had not been contaminated by a growing - UHI trend.

When SteveM makes his clearly stated, several times, argument that Parker was disputing the existence of UHIs (what else is SteveM saying, when he argues taht Parker's paper does nt disprove the existence of UHIs) he was simply being dishonest.

How one can read even that short abstract and miss that this paper accepts the existence of UHI, and that it is about the impact of UHI on the magnitude of temperature TRENDS over time, is utterly beyond me.

As far as I can tell the only supportable conclusion that can be drawn from this paper is that windy days spread around a portion of the UHI effect via mass transfer.

SteveM seems to think that «main impact» (of UHI) means the same thing as «main conclusion» (of the paper).

Read the freaking paper on UHI.

I don't think it is clear from the article that the Parker paper explicitly states that the UHI effect does exist.

They have said above (in their replies, but not in the paper itself) that that particular AGW signal is bounded by a maximum of.66 C per century, and that the AGW signal may come from (1) a recent CO2 increase — which you are apparently assuming is the sole source), (2) measurement error / bias (UHI and bad thermometer sites) and (3) other causes.

The land is only 30 % of the total, as the paper notes the cycle they find is found in the SST, where there is no UHI.

Dr. Eric Steig, at «Real Climate», in a response to a comment about Zeke Hausfather's 2013 paper on UHI shows us a way.

The paper gives the largest population as 33,368, which is now known to be ample for UHI to show itself.

If the methodology of the paper is correct, this looks to me as the UHI was responsible for possibly 80 % of the reported «warming».

Somewhere on a crashed disc I have an email to Phil Jones ca 2005 in which I suggested rather bluntly that he owed the world an explanation for his (possible) cherry picking of stations used for Russia, China & Australia in a Nature 1990 paper on UHI.

And here's the kicker: remember, the whole point of the paper is to show there is no difference in temperature trends between specifically rural sites and the unknown mix of gridded networks, and then use this to claim that any UHI effect is very small.

Its not like I was the lead author of a major paper published in JGR on UHI in the U.S. or anything (which, I should mention, is linked in the post): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JD018509/abstract

What disturbs me is that IPCC should have put so much reliance on this rogue paper, when we have known for ages that UHI has been increasing, with asphalt, concrete, central heating, air - con, cars, and so on.

NASA do perform a UHI correction as described in hansen 2010 (and previous papers as well) This correction is ONLY applied to stations that have nightlights values greater than 10.

I also got recently a paper from Rob which says «London's UHI [Urban Heat Island effect] has indeed become more intense since the 1960s especially during spring and summer»

But then there is this figure 4 page 10 of the UHI BEST paper.

SirCharge, you have misread the Jones paper, which does not attribute 0.1 celsius to UHI.

If you're referring to his post on the UHI, then you need to read the RealClimate article here — the Peterson paper (no UHI effect on the T record in the USA) totally supercedes Dr D — William]

The author uses the paper Jones (2008) as his evidence that UHI is a nonfactor.

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.

The abstract to this 2010 paper, including Jones, http://www.springerlink.com/content/kr5w2616551w7810/ explicitly states: «Although impacts of UHIs on the absolute annual and seasonal temperature are identified, UHI contributions to the long - term trends are less than 10 % of the regional total warming during the period.»

* New questions will be raised regarding UHI, however the next IPCC assessment's first draft will be singularly forgetful of any peer - reviewed paper on the topic

Satellite data, who needs it — we have «peer» reviewed paper covering some Chinese cities that establishes that the UHI is minimal, please move on — this issue is settled, and no you don't get to see the Chinese data.

* According to the Berkeley group, the Earth's surface temperature will have risen (on average) slightly less than what indicated by NASA, NOAA and the Met Office * Differences will be on the edge of statistical significance, leaving a lot open to subjective interpretation * Several attempts will be made by climate change conformists and True Believers to smear the work of BEST, and to prevent them from publishing their data * After publication, organised groups of people will try to cloud the issue to the point of leaving the public unsure about what exactly was found by BEST * New questions will be raised regarding UHI, however the next IPCC assessment's first draft will be singularly forgetful of any peer - reviewed paper on the topic * We will all be left with a slightly - warming world, the only other certitude being that all mitigation efforts will be among the stupidest ideas that ever sprung to human mind.

«Satellite data, who needs it — we have «peer» reviewed paper covering some Chinese cities that establishes that the UHI is minimal»

(Here is < a href = «http://climateaudit.org/2010/11/06/phil-jones-and-the-china-network-part-3/#comment-245106"one example, on the UHI effect — an old, poorly done paper that is still cited by the IPCC.)