Sentences with phrase «find uhi»

It is no great feat to find a city (reno, new york, you name a huge one) and find a UHI signal.

If he did not find differnt trends, when UHI, by definition, is a measurable difference, then the direct implication is that he did not find UHI when he should.

Are we to believe that BEST's work to find UHI in the temperature data ranks up there with Michaelson - Morley's failed search for the aether wind?

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.

The ocean is 70 % of the earth's surface and so 70 % goes into the global T. Curry's BEST also found no UHI 3.

Not exact matches

«We found that more contiguous sprawling and dense urban development both enhanced UHI intensities.

The absence of such an effect (which is what Parker finds) is, conversely, evidence of a minimal UHI effect on the record.

The absence of such an effect (which is what Parker finds) is, conversely, evidence of a minimal UHI effect on the record.

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.

One would expect adjustments to subtract temps as time passes because of the UHI, but often WUWT found examples where it was exactly the other way round.

I don't think you can find one single person out there that doesn't believe man changes the climate in at least one way or another be it GHGs or UHIs or irrigation or dam construction.

My sense is that UHI has a much bigger effect on Tmin than Tmax — such that my son and I found a 10 degree F UHI in Phoenix in the evening, but I am not sure if we could find one, or as large of one, at the daily maximum.

On the other hand, if you find increased TMIN, you can not conclude UHI.

You now understand that UHI is found in TMIN.

IIRC, Spencer found that UHI begins at quite low levels of urbanisation.

(we havent found one like this yet got any clues) Anyway, UHI increases, according to parker defenders stopped 50 years ago.

Using that conclusion, what if on looking at individual station data on an annual basis we find that some years the trend indicates a UHI effect and other years in shows an anti- UHI effect and perhaps other years no effect?

Parker's methods likewise were not designed to find his keys (UHI effects trends), so why does IPCC or anyone else think that Parker's conclusions have scientific significance?

If one were searching for a finding that would in one result allow the AGW advocates to claim that little or no adjustment for UHI is required for there temperature trends this would, no doubt, be it.

I went back to Regional Map: Weather Underground linked in my previous post for the most recently complete year of 2006 and found that I could extract the data I needed to determine how the 13 Parker sites (that he claimed his windy / calm trend showed an increasing UHI effect) would perform in my analysis.

In my analysis I found that a wind velocity minimum often occurs at the Tmin and these velocities are in ranges that may not be capable of blowing away the UHI effect.

To point out just a couple of things: — oceans warming slower (or cooling slower) than lands on long - time trends is absolutely normal, because water is more difficult both to warm or to cool (I mean, we require both a bigger heat flow and more time); at the contrary, I see as a non-sense theory (made by some serrist, but don't know who) that oceans are storing up heat, and that suddenly they will release such heat as a positive feedback: or the water warms than no heat can be considered ad «stored» (we have no phase change inside oceans, so no latent heat) or oceans begin to release heat but in the same time they have to cool (because they are losing heat); so, I don't feel strange that in last years land temperatures for some series (NCDC and GISS) can be heating up while oceans are slightly cooling, but I feel strange that they are heating up so much to reverse global trend from slightly negative / stable to slightly positive; but, in the end, all this is not an evidence that lands» warming is led by UHI (but, this effect, I would not exclude it from having a small part in temperature trends for some regional area, but just small); both because, as writtend, it is normal to have waters warming slower than lands, and because lands» temperatures are often measured in a not so precise way (despite they continue to give us a global uncertainity in TT values which is barely the instrumental's one)-- but, to point out, HadCRU and MSU of last years (I mean always 2002 - 2006) follow much better waters» temperatures trend; — metropolis and larger cities temperature trends actually show an increase in UHI effect, but I think the sites are few, and the covered area is very small worldwide, so the global effect is very poor (but it still can be sensible for regional effects); but I would not run out a small warming trend for airport measurements due mainly to three things: increasing jet planes traffic, enlarging airports (then more buildings and more asphalt — if you follow motor sports, or simply live in a town / city, you will know how easy they get very warmer than air during day, and how much it can slow night - time cooling) and overall having airports nearer to cities (if not becoming an area inside the city after some decade of hurban growth, e.g. Milan - Linate); — I found no point about UHI in towns and villages; you will tell me they are not large cities; but, in comparison with 20-40-60 years ago when they were «countryside», many small towns and villages have become part of larger hurban areas (at least in Europe and Asia) so examining just larger cities would not be enough in my opinion to get a full view of UHI effect (still remembering that it has a small global effect: we can say many matters are due to UHI instead of GW, maybe even that a small part of measured GW is due to UHI, and that GW measurements are not so precise to make us able to make good analisyses and predictions, but not that GW is due to UHI).

What he did not find (except in 13 out of 290 cases) was any sign that the UHI was increasing over a 50 - year period.

So that's great, there is a value of the windy - day mixing ratio that would ensure: a) Compliance to Parker's finding that Ac - Aw has no trend; and b) Still allow the UHI * trends to be non-zero.

Sure, the UHI questions arising from BEST are interesting and valuable, and completely dismantle the original UHI complaints upon which WUWT is founded, and I'm with you that it's not so much in itself as to be worth a Nobel, but it's not nothing, and if it were all BEST achieved, it would be worthwhile.

I've looked at dozens of GISS records for Pennsylvania and in every case of adjustments I have never found a negative UHI adjustment.

That's for instance how the people found out that the previously secret Algore - ithm to adjust for the UHI effect actually made the observations hotter rather than colder.

Ross comes at the problem from a different perspective with a different method and finds that socio economic factors (a PROXY for UHI) do appear in the data actually used.

But published research has looked hard and found little support for UHI as an explanation for the warming trends observed even in the surface - station parts of the NASA, NCDC or HadCRU series.

In my mind, the reason Parker gives here for not finding a substantial UHI effect is the best available hypothesis.

Suspicious mind that I have, I just have to wonder how much time Phil Jones et al took to find met stations that could give a UHI of 0.05 - 0.06 C higher than their overall met station population gave.

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.

Also if a mere 30 — 50 stations globally are sufficient to accurately monitor global temps — what would we find from 50 continuous, site unchanged, UHI unaffected and entirely rural stations plotted over the last 100 or 150 years?

I'm not in a position to say it's right or wrong, or incompatible with any other finding, just never heard a UHI of that magnitude suggested before.

One might therefore conclude that a UHI effect, if found, would be compounded only a little by population change, but more by energy use per person; and that a reconstruction would be difficult because of changes in station location.

With UHI spikes even half what Hu finds, it is very important then to identify where in the pixels the met stations are, then to allow for that unique juxtaposition when including in any regional or global averaging.

Regarding Böhm et al. 2001, you will find an interesting evaluation of the UHI effect on the Alpine Network at the end of the nineteenth century (greater than 0.5 ° C).

It should be noted that whilst BEST claim no discernible effect of UHI on their record the UK Met Office acknowledges corrections of up to 1.5 C for this, largely to the minimum temperatures where most global warming is found.

There was another CA post on UHI and found that hundreds of locations worldwide reported as heavily rural were really local airports at developing cities.

I don't have access to JGR myself so I can't check properly, but everything I can see on the Jones et al 2009 findings again confirms that UHI does * not * play a significant role in the observed warming trend.

One previous study that also used satellite data found hardly any UHI effect, and a more recent study in Nature came to the same conclusion by comparing windy and calm nights.

Actually, journalists and organised groups have made it painstakingly clear for everyone what BEST found, as has Muller himself: The trend is clear, robust and by no means a result of UHI or irregular «tampering».

Rosenzweig et al. (2005) found that climate change based on downscaled general circulation model (GCM) projections would exacerbate the New York City UHI by increasing baseline temperatures and reducing local wind speeds.

* 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.

If you think that BEST adequately addresses the UHI problem with their finding that UHI has a negative effect on the temp record, that is OK with me.