Rather than compare urban sites to non-urban, thereby explicitly
estimating UHI effects, we split sites into very - rural and not very - rural.
Jones et al 2008 revisited this theme,
estimating the UHI for London at 1 deg and New Yok City at 1.5 deg C, editorializing that much of this would have developed prior to the 20th century.
How about a standardized method for
estimating UHI?
The study establishes a method for
estimating UHI intensities using PRISM — Parameter - elevation Relationships on Independent Slopes Model — climate data, an analytical model that creates gridded estimates by incorporating climatic variables (temperature and precipitation), expert knowledge of climatic events (rain shadows, temperature inversions and coastal regimes) and digital elevation.
In order to
estimate the UHI effect I also looked up the relevant temperatures for HohenPeissenberg a nearby rural weather station: 2.4 °C for the base period 1951 - 1980 and 6.4 °C for Nov 2014, i.e. a temperature anomaly of 4.0 °C.
As you know, you and steve Mc and Christy and spencer have all made a similar suggestion that the Trend in TLT should be pretty close to the surface trend, and perhaps that we could bound or
estimate the UHI contribution by looking at the difference between those trends.
Not exact matches
UHI or buckets or across - satellite calibrations affect
estimates of the long term trends.
Satellites supposedly overcome that concern about
UHI by sampling uniformly in order to give a true
estimate of global mean surface temperature.
The naked assumption that HADCRUT3 represents an unbiased
estimate of GST, as if that index was free of
UHI effects on land and had fully adequate spatio - temporal coverage over the oceans from1850 to present.
UHI is under
estimated, the homogenization method is not accepted by statisticians outside of the small club who created the technique — the climate-gate emails showed severe uncertainties and lack of knowledge of proper analytical and statistical techniques, and even suppression of information, even if this is more common practice than people believe... just unacceptable.
Our
UHI paper analyzing this indicates that the urban heat island effect on our global
estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero.
Can you explain why you think that the sampling used in this study is representative for the question of
estimating the impact of increasing
UHI on a global - warming measure?
For reasons that Neal has touched on (in particular, the beneficial cancellation that occurs in «crossing the river twice»), the best strategy for
estimating the component of
UHI in
estimated global temperature trends during the last 50 years is likely not the same strategy as is needed to provide insight into the physics of
UHI.
(if the models were tuned with
UHI - infested temperatures, though, then I guess there is some truth in what you are saying — I'm not sure about that) Curry is not convinced that either
estimate is correct, though, and concludes:
It
estimates that New York City's
UHI is 7 F.
That, too, expands the effect of land temperature on the global
estimate, including expanding the effect of any
UHI bias.
As far as quantifying the
UHI and adjustments component, the reviewer made us take it out as only an
estimate.
Could it not also be possible that they are saying that if the remaining stations have an exisiting or increasing
UHI effect and or an exisiting true warming relative to other regions, then those anomalys, legitmate or not, would show a warming, then the anomaly
estimates from those stations transposed to the no longer used rural stations could artificialy raise that anomaly as well?
In an accompanying presentation here,
UHI in Paris is
estimated at 8 deg C at night and up to 10 deg C in some suburbs in the afternoon.
Because it has been shown that
UHI has zero effect on
estimates of global mean temperature.
How UAH (University of Alabama, Huntsville) satellite temperature data supports Urban Heat (
UHI) as a real and significant factor when
estimating global temperatures.
But your post starts with «How UAH (University of Alabama, Huntsville) satellite temperature data supports Urban Heat (
UHI) as a real and significant factor when
estimating global temperatures.»
This is about the best approach I have seen to
estimate the effect of
UHI and the local effect of land use change on global temperature.
0.05 to 0.10 is a pretty good ballpark
estimate of
UHI or suburban heat island effect (land use) which isn't CO2 related or accounted for completely in the NOAA land temperature product.