Garpal Gumnut
Ross Island Hotel
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Posts
- 13,690
- Reactions
- 10,291
The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
Posted on 21 October 2011 by Andy S
A paper submitted for peer review by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study (BEST) finds that urban heating has an influence on global temperature trends that is “nearly negligible” and that what effect has been observed is even slightly negative, which is to say that temperature trends in urban areas are actually cooler than the trends measured at rural sites, and that the Earth's land surface has warmed approximately 1 °C on average since 1950.
The Urban Heat Island Effect
It has long been observed that temperatures in cities are higher than in the surrounding countryside, caused, in part, by human structures that reduce albedo and evapo-transpiration, as well as by the effects of waste heat emissions, McCarthy et al 2010. Even though most (99%) of the Earth’s surface is not urbanized, some 27% of the Monthly Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN-M) temperature stations are located in cities having populations of more than 50,000. Since urbanization has grown dramatically over the past few centuries, it seems reasonable to ask how much of the observed rise in global temperatures is due to urbanization.
For example, McKitrick and Michaels claimed in 2007 that about half of the recent warming over land is due to urban heat island effect, although this result was disputed by Schmidt in 2009.
.
Oh, how disappointing. And here I was thinking you were going all warm and fuzzy toward us.Thanks GG.. Just multiple kisses for all the good friends on the forum.
Actually... I was not able to put up a post for a couple of hours so the last one was a test run.
How about a Climate Change doc that doesn't give a rats rectum whether you believe in this climate change stuff or not?
Check out the clip and then perhaps the web site.
I'd be interested in feedback.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
a team from the National Technical University of Athens has now counted the floods over the past 30 years, and says, if anything, the world is getting fewer, not more
How comme the graphs end is 2000?
What happened to the last 11 years of data?
Looks like they copied someone elses report - beware of Greek students stating facts.
We also partitioned the total length of each time series into 30-year periods, (P1: 1891-1920, P2: 1921- 50, P3: 1951-80, P4: 1981-2010),
...And from What's up with that:
Why it seems that severe weather is “getting worse” when the data shows otherwise – a historical perspective
Analysis of trends and of aggregated time series on climatic (30-year) scale does not indicate consistent trends worldwide. Despite common perception, in general, the detected trends are more negative (less intense floods in most recent years) than positive. Similarly, Svensson et al. (2005) and Di Baldassarre et al. (2010) did not find systematical change neither in flood increasing or decreasing numbers nor change in flood magnitudes in their analysis.
In your ongoing desperation you failed to post a link to the peer reviewed study that shows observed evidence of man's 3% contribution to total CO2 driving that 5 degrees. Can you put up that link now? It's only been 6 months of asking. Did I already mention "Models" do not represent observed evidence (in case you forgot - again).
As usual Basilio your assertions lack conviction and credibility. Again I ask, are you paid to be posting on this thread or are you a member of a AGW extremist group? Nothing wrong with spilling a little truth for once to the folks here.
Basilio, will you ever provide the simplest of answers to the questions above. Now approaching 7months of side stepping and misleading posts. Facts please - not propaganda. Or can you simply admit there's no observed evidence - it's actually ok to flip-flop sometimes.
The Death Of Global Warming Skepticism, Or The Birth Of Straw Men?
SNIP: The mainstream media has been spiking the football in the proverbial end zone ever since a paper released last Friday claimed two-thirds of global temperature stations show some warming occurred during the past century. The media have been claiming the new paper delivers a death blow to skepticism, but the paper itself brings almost nothing new to the global warming debate and instead shows how far global warming advocates are from presenting credible evidence of a crisis. Rather than delivering a death blow to skepticism, the media has merely invented and shredded an insignificant straw man.
SNIP: Far from marking the death of skepticism, the media’s over-the-top sensationalism of the Muller paper shows just how far global warming advocates are from supporting their assertions of a human-induced global warming crisis. The straw man may be dead, but skepticism of a human-induced global warming crisis is alive and well.
I replied to your questions many times Ozzie. The analysis that proves man made CO2 is the prime mover in global warming can be found at
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-we-know-were-causing-global-warming-in-single-graphic.html
This brings together about 22 scientific papers that explore the human signature of global warming.
Unfortunately every time it's offered you reject this research as propaganda. I'm not interested in your refusal/inability to accept scientific research that you don't want to believe.
__________________________________________________________________
Moderators please note. This is the last time I want to see Ozzies repeated, incessant demands on this topic and refusal to accept a response. I find it abusive and against the spirit of any constructive debate.:
Moderators please note. This is the last time I want to see Ozzies repeated, incessant demands on this topic and refusal to accept a response. I find it abusive and against the spirit of any constructive debate.
SNIP: Like the scientists exposed then by leaked emails from East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit, her colleagues from the BEST project seem to be trying to ‘hide the decline’ in rates of global warming.
In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.
‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’
However, Prof Muller denied warming was at a standstill.
‘We see no evidence of it [global warming] having slowed down,’ he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. There was, he added, ‘no levelling off’.
A graph issued by the BEST project also suggests a continuing steep increase.
But a report to be published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation includes a graph of world average temperatures over the past ten years, drawn from the BEST project’s data and revealed on its website.
This graph shows that the trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all – though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly.
‘This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’
‘This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.
In your ongoing desperation you failed to post a link to the peer reviewed study that shows observed evidence of man's 3% contribution to total CO2 driving that 5 degrees. Can you put up that link now? It's only been 6 months of asking. Did I already mention "Models" do not represent observed evidence (in case you forgot - again).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?