Sentences with phrase «of uhi»

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.

If you are looking for validation of the UHI effects identified by M&N there are much more direct experimental ways to do it.

So let me use another method to show that most of the differences between TLT anomalies and Surface Temperature anomalies are not a result of UHI effect.

I'm not questioning the the existance of UHI.

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.

True it is hotter at UHI, however; the total global area of UHI is??? And the rest of the globe is???.

I was not aiming to make something on UHI when examining NH data, but... data told a story of UHI.

Nice theory, but, a large part of the UHI effect is retained heat from insolation (incoming solar radiation energy warming concrete etc) and, if no sun, no warmth... which in large part happened in Dallas Ft. Worth just recently with our record snow; and we had continuing overcast afterwards too.

Maurizio Morabito: The only slight problem with your «argument» is that BEST shows that Earth is not warming up because of UHI.

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».

read: http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/urban-heat-island-uhi-city-heat-in-global-temperatures-85.php and exaples of UHI from all over the world: http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/urban-heat-island—world-tour-155.php

You provide no comparisons of urban temperatures to surrounding suburban temperatures, and that is something one would expect from a post that proved the existence of UHI.

But somehow, the results left nothing open to interpretations regarding whether the trend was a) real, b) significant, or c) not a result of UHI.

The questions having been raised against BEST and their treatment of UHI issues have, so far, been exactly the same tired arguments we have heard for decades now, which are already debunked in BEST itself.

UAH from their satellite data are suggesting that this is a more accurate record than the global temperature records because of UHI not being properly allowed for in urban weather stations records (supported by NASA 3 yr research on UHI).

You are the first person I've read who has tried to claim that anyone thinks the ONLY reason that temperatures have risen is because of UHI.

UHI and Arctic: the point is that if the temperature trend was solely an artifact of UHI, we wouldn't be seeing the strong heating trend we do get in the Arctic.

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

I said there is no way to know the accuracy of the UHI off - set.

Mann's Hockey Stick of 2001 has been disappeared, and has not been replaced, even in the text, in the Summary; there is also no mention of UHI challenges to the temperature record.

In the case of «1538» plus or minus half a degree Centigrade.The existence of the UHI effect in many instrumental records confuses data even further and the allowance for this factor in recent decades is probably insufficient.

Here's one simple but very clear picture of UHI trends from Russia (Salehard, Yamal) and here's a Russian scientist from Heartland giving actual figures based on analysing Russian / CRU data rel.

Telling everybody just how important it is to get an accurate understanding of the UHI effect because it is important we make sure the global temperature record is accurate.

It is why the tests that BEST did on the effect of UHI failed.

So looking at Jones's temperature data is not only important to understand if the problem of UHI is handled correctly, it's important because climate reconstructions depend on its accuracy.

To quantify the contribution of the UHI effect to phenological variation is therefore another hot topic for the future in the field of phenology.»

In a private email to the author the Met office described the amount of UHI as follows;

Can you point out errors in or critique what I have posted specifying Jones et al use of UHI affected stations at; http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/gridlist.htm in the case of grid cell studies.

Without access to the fundamental data, which Jones refuses to provide to anyone, no - one knows whether this year is globally warm, because of UHI's or because of Jones's methodology or something else.

With how many people have complained about the effects of UHI, why would anyone think it means anything that a single, urban station shows a warming trend not present in the trend of its area?

When we do that we see three to five degrees Celsius of UHI.

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.

I agree with your ideas about vegetation reducing the effects of UHI, but that doesn't mean the UHI isn't smeared all over the temperature datasets.

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).

While it does not matter whether the UHI is subtracted out of today's temps or added into past ones to correct it, as long as the temperature records are not subtracting out 3 - 5 degrees of UHI then the trend comparisons are not valid.

For example Berlin Dahlem with continuouis data from 1769 and Berlin Templehof with data from 1701 are» corrected» using data from the airports at Tegel, Schonefeld dating from 1953/63 where there was heavy military and civilian airtrafic and Alexanderplatz from 1991 all of which introduce a large UHI effect that shows in the» corrected data as +0.12 C — a seriosu undertimate of the UHI effect in my opinion as Templehof (an airport) already shows an increase over Dahlem (semi rural) of 0.15 C.

The existence of UHI is scientific fact.

I think that somebody already performed a short study of UHI in the US 48 by comparing the temperature trends in the purely rural network, and in the major data sets.

The difference between the UHI in forested, grassy and desert surroundings would point to the predominance of evaporation suppression under sunlight as a key source of the UHI effect (out of the polar regions at least).

If size matters then it would be nice to see a plot of UHI versus city size (& compactness & ecology).

Anyone can do a crude guesstimate of UHI by driving in and out of cities, and a number of posters at WUWT have done so, not particularly rigorously but enough to get an idea of the order of magnitude.

Aside from the effect of UHI on climate indices, the UHI quantum is interesting both from the point of view of impacts and adaptation.

The magnitude of the UHI effect is dependent on a number of factors but one of them is the size of the settlement.

Zhang has an interesting graphic showing the dependence of UHI on ecology — comparing Baltimore, Dallas and Las Vegas.

As more and more cities grow and reach a level of what I would call «UHI saturation», the slow growth of big cities and smaller in absolute values UHI increase for cities from a certain size explains a smaller delta UHI for an urban group that contains cities, in comparison with a UHI contaminated average containing many small locations growing — consistent with the results from the BEST study — divergence appearing in the 1950s — and with the logarithmic dependency of UHI growing trend based on population.

This is where the issue of the UHI is easiest to see and during the summer it is very clear that the issue is real.

I've seen little evidence of a proper discussion or understanding of the UHI or the natural heat island effects with respect to accurate measurements and post-measurement adjustments.

2 (Validity of surface record): I would agree with Judith that the jury is still out on this one; also the word «modestly» (for impact of UHI, station shutdowns and relocations, sparse data, etc,) is purely speculative.

I more than ever think that the data has to re-analyzed by breaking it down into its component parts and additionally that one would have to at least attempt to get a direct measure of Tmin versus wind as a measure of UHI.

How can you allow for this sort of UHI?