Sentences with phrase «with uhi»

A city will do fine, as you'll not have to faff around with UHI corrections.

I don» t believe 2,500 scientists (most of whom are not «climate scientists» anyway) based a major conclusion on anything having to do with UHI.

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.

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.

Gavin uses the rise in sea temperatures as evidence that there can't be too much of a problem with the UHI adjustments.

Same story with 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:

a) Under this analysis, we see that the difference in calm - day trends and windy - day trends reflects directly whatever is happening with the UHI trend.

However, just as with the UHI, it is weakened by the wind.

And is that with UHI in?

Parker asks whether the change in average temperature over time in areas with UHI is different than in areas outside the UHI.

Those with doubts about the data are unlikely to feel that this additional analysis has resolved all their doubts, with the possible exception of those whose only concern was with the UHI effect.

Where (quote the text) does parker ask whether the change in TMEAN over time in areas with UHI is different than areas without UHI?

Homogenised monthly mean temperature series (1780 - 2013) with UHI (Urban Heat Island), elevation and observation hours correction; and homogenised monthly precipitation amount series (1841 - 2013).

Problems for the GISS data set might be incorrect adjustments, problems with UHI and poor measuring sites, see www.surfacestations.org!!

For the other averages, differences seem to be in how they account for grid cells (typically 5Â ° x 5Â °) with only a few temperature stations, how they do what are called «variance adjustments», how they deal with cells with no stations (which is far more common than you would think), how they average the cells together, and how they deal with UHI.

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.

The presence and strength of the UHI in Arctic regions, therefore, has a strong seasonal component with maximum development and intensity in winter, and only weak or nonexistent expression in summer (Benson et al., 1983).

I have seen no time series method of UHI estimation that agrees with stationary methods.

Coming up with arguments for why inputs are to be ignored, such as how many of the stations that are collecting temperature reading are not properly set up or operated, or hiding which stations are used to determine the UHI off - set.

Assume it is somehow shown that the UHI is.2 C of.6 C and it all occurred in the decade of 1996 to 2006 indicating that only the most modest of the models was close to coming correct and that all those models so rigorously derived from other sources had errors of 33 % for a decade and a cumalitve error of 2c over a century and humans needed to be concerned with.4 C TOTAL change.

In calculating no trend between «windy» and «calm» days (with wind data obtained from NCEP / NCAR Reanalysis), Parker (2006), in effect, states that there is no modulation to speak of — in and of itself, that is a remarkable statement, or else there is no UHI to speak of.

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

This makes sense because UHI effects are stronger on calm days (where there is less mixing with the wider environment), and so if an increasing UHI effect was changing the trend, one would expect stronger trends on calm days and that is not seen.

Unless you're claiming that any area where humans abide are going to have the same degree of UHI, you're going to have to agree that there's a curve relating population with amount of UHI.

Data trends at climate station with 100 years of record show increasing UHI in areas having experienced large economic growth like at Fort Collins, Billings, Minneapolis.

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

In cities like Phoenix with bad UHI problems, the mean temperature has increased because nighttime temperatures don't cool much any more.

Lets see if the WUWT announcement this Sunday has something to do with the BEST data ie: in fact after UHI its only 0.7 C so insignificant even with GISS NOAA etc... so we can throw out all the AGW.

That being said, since most people actually live in / on these UHI affected areas, perhaps a UHI bias needs to be taken into account??? If not, then I'll go with RSS!!!

I don't mean just siting issues, UHI; I'm concerned with land vs. sea.

Steve Mosher, why should anyone in the industry employ Hockey Team member or likewise for their arctic endeavours, with the esoteric Hockey Stick shattered, sensitivity estimations currently falling apart, temperatures refusing to rise for over a decade and Watts / Evans about to prove that UHI in the US caused exaggerated trends by a factor of 2 or 3?

For what it's worth, the BEST GST yearly anomaly series is highly (R ^ 2 =.87) correlated (at zero lag) with a world - wide index of century - long records that incorporates capital cities with obvious UHI trends.

Since about 20 years, GISS and NOAA adapt UHI station output by homogenizing the data with that of their rural neighbours.

A very important contribution would be a temperature set with all the land surface non-GHG (UHI / land changes / etc.

That's a good question and I don't pretend to have a definitive answer — but have done a bit of work on localized temperature measurements on my own (utterly unscientific just me playing around with transducers) and you would be amazed at how much of a delta t you can get by placing temperature transducers closer / further from buildings; in parking lots vs green belts, close to AC units, UHI etc..

I think a measured rise of 0.13 C per decade, given that it is corrupted by UHI and other thermometer placement problems, is something that we can all live with.

There are better arguments to persist with if one is anti-AGW but UHI is one of the worst.

What do warmers such as Hanson / Giss do, well, they compare data from a highly UHI contaminated urban city weather station with CLEAN data from a neighbouring RURAL station.

«We evaluate to what extent the temperature rise in the past 100 years was a trend or a natural fluctuation and analyze 2249 worldwide monthly temperature records from GISS (NASA) with the 100 - year period covering 1906 - 2005 and the two 50 - year periods from 1906 to 1955 and 1956 to 2005... The data document a strong urban heat island eff ect (UHI) and a warming with increasing station elevation... About a quarter of all the records for the 100 - year period show a fall in temperatures... that the observed temperature records are a combination of long - term correlated records with an additional trend, which is caused for instance by anthropogenic CO2, the UHI or other forcings... As a result, the probabilities that the observed temperature series are natural have values roughly between 40 % and 90 %, depending on the stations characteristics and the periods considered.»

Isn't it more than a little curious that an adjustment supposedly made to deal with the effects of UHI actually has no discernable effect on the outcome of the calculations?

The thermometer network is made up of a patchwork of non-research quality instruments that were never made to monitor long - term temperature changes to tenths or hundredths of a degree... Furthermore, land - based thermometers are placed where people live, and people build stuff, often replacing cooling vegetation with manmade structures that cause an artificial warming (urban heat island, UHI) effect right around the thermometer.

Take the UHI out of California and report back with the results, please and thank you.

These elites live and work in the D.C. micro-climate warming bubble that is a direct result of federal taxpayer asphalt, steel, concrete and airports with very hot jet exhausts, which in combination have produced a rapidly warming urban heat island (UHI).

There is some other question as to whether «windy - calm» trends mean anything at all with respect to UHI... and if so what that meaning is both alleged to be by (Parker 2006) and actually is, for all values (positive, zero, negative) of «windy - calm» trends.

Some of the source of the UHI has to do with the number of people and some of it has to do with the buildings.

Several of us had a problem with Hansen stating that UHI was not detected.

As an example suppose in 1950 50 % of the station used for computing a US temp average were rural, and 50 % urban with constant 3C UHI effect (not increasing as per Parker).

As for UHI data, perhaps one could compare the temperature trends of long - term, mature urban areas like NYC and downtown Chicago with more recent and rapidly developing urban sites like Phoenix / Scottsdale, Orlando FL, Las Vegas NV and Santa Fe NM., or the once rural suburbs of those mature UHI sites.

Ergo, the UHI effect increases with time for most places.