A Google search for colder in outlying areas turns up 19 million results – yet climate experts tell us that UHI has almost no effect on temperature.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- The Climate Of 1923
- Market Volatility
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
- “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Record CO2 Growth
- Walz’s For Trump
- 6,000 Year Old Tree In The Austrian Alps
- Gemini Can See The Future
- Clinton To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Climate Intelligence Means “Making Things Up”
- Comedy From The BBC
- The Climate Afterlife
- Rewriting The Northern Hemisphere
- Useful Graphs From ChatGPT
- Fort Lauderdale Drowning
- Sinking Of The Titanic
- Expert Arctic Forecasting
- Sinking Of The Titanic
- Nobel Prize Winning Forecast
- Changing Climate
- Gen Z Math And Solutions
- Orwellian NASA Maps
- Faking US Temperature Data
Recent Comments
- arn on Market Volatility
- arn on Gemini Can See The Future
- conrad ziefle on Gemini Can See The Future
- conrad ziefle on “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Bill on Gemini Can See The Future
- conrad ziefle on Market Volatility
- conrad ziefle on Hottest Summer Ever
- stewartpid on Market Volatility
- William on Record CO2 Growth
- Greg in NZ on Hottest Summer Ever
BBC local, as opposed to national, forecasts for the East Midland region of England (not the UK in this case) ALWAYS says “it will be several degrees colder in rural areas” when forecasting frosts. The only people who don’t accept a UHI of several degrees are Jones and friends.
Seems to be a disconnect for politicians who presumably watch the same weather forecasts as I do but still witter on about climate whatever at all times.
Google affords a mere 1.9M hits for reluctant aesthetic scammer Piet Mondrian.
0.13M of those reveal that his true calling, minus the Art World, was dedication to excellent renditions of flowers:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Piet+Mondrian+flowers&num=100&safe=off&prmd=ivnsob&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=ebDXUomeAca4kQeAnoFI&ved=0CAUQ_AU
“I have no patience with so-called common sense (a spurious article, unutterably different from the genuine one) one is told to use, and which they say one does not use as soon as one deviates from the ordinary course and takes a risk. I repeat, I have no patience with it. I have no patience with it for the very reason that my own common sense, if I reflect, leads me to wholly different results than the conclusion of narrow-minded worldly wisdom and prudent, half-hearted righteousness. Oh, that dawdling, oh, those hesitations, oh, that not believing that good is good, that black is black, that white is white.” – Vincent van Gogh (letter to Theo van Gogh, 1883)
“In the Dominican collection, was there not to be found a certain Doctor of Theology, Révérend Père Rouard de Card, a Preaching Brother, who in a brochure entitled:-Of the Falsification of the Sacramental Substances, has demonstrated beyond a doubt that the major part of Masses were null and void, by reason of the fact that the materials used in the rite were sophisticated by dealers? For years, the holy oil had been adulterated with goose-grease; the taper-wax with burnt bones; the incense with common resin and old benzoin. But worse than all, the substances indispensable for the holy sacrifice, the two things without which no oblation was possible, had likewise been falsified, the wine by repeated dilutings and the illicit addition of Pernambuco barc, elder-berries, alcohol, alum, salicylate, litharge; the bread, that bread of the Eucarist that must be kneaded of the fine flour of wheat, by ground haricot-beans, potash and pipeclay! Nay, now they had gone further yet; they had dared to suppress the wheat altogether and shameless dealers manufactured out of potato meal nearly all the hosts! Now God declined to come down and be made flesh in potato flour.” – J. K. Huysmans (Against the Grain, 1883)
“It is what Zola calls triomphe de la médiocrité. Snobs, nobodies, take the place of workers, thinkers, artists; and it isn’t even noticed. The public, yes, one part of it is dissatisfied, but material grandeur also finds applause; however, do not forget that this is merely a straw fire, and that those who applaud generally do so only because it has become the fashion. But on the day after the banquet, there will be a void a silence and indifference after all that noise.” – Vincent van Gogh (letter to Theo van Gogh, 1882)
“When the mists of a metaphysical-mystical philosophy succeed in rendering all aesthetic phenomena opache, it follows that are also incapable of being evaluated one against the another, because each of them has become inexplicable. If, however, they are never again compared with one another for the purpose of evaluation, there at last arises a completely uncritical frame of mind, a blind toleration, but likewise a steady decline in the enjoyment of art (which is distinguished from the crude appeasement of a need only by a highly acute tasting and distinguishing). The more this enjoyment declines, however, the more the desire for art is transformed back to a vulgar hunger which the artist then seeks to satisfy with ever coarser fare.” – Frederich Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human 1878)
Let me say it for you.. D’oh!
I am quite sure that the UHI of Edmonton, up here in northern Albeerta will not cause a Polar Vortex.
But, that is not the point. The point is that early temperatures were taken when the location of the instrument was NOT affected by UHI. The instrument, in most cases, were not moved as the cities grew. The growing city resulted in increased UHI. It’s the temperature record that is distorted, making it look like global warming occured when it may not have done so.
That is common sense. IMO
This is the first of 77 million results from “warmer in the city”
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/wurbheat.htm
Even TWC acknowledges UHI in the Phoenix area.
Nobody wants to LEARN anything, they just want to pontificate upon what they “know”. My Venus/Earth tropospheric temperatures comparison–over 3 years ago, now–showed that the Standard Atmosphere model of Earth’s troposphere agrees PRECISELY (above and below Venus’s planetary cloud layer) with the equivalent pressure regime (1,000 mb down to 200 mb) in Venus’s atmosphere (despite Venus’s 2400 times greater concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide), when the difference in solar distance of the two planets is taken into account, and nothing else–there is no further need to account for differences in atmospheric composition, planetary albedo, or–note–planetary surface (must I remind, again, that Venus’s surface is solid crust, while Earth’s is 70% ocean?).
The point is, UHI has no GLOBAL effect upon surface temperature, because the tropospheric temperature lapse rate–enshrined in the Standard Atmosphere model–rules on the global scale, and makes the global mean surface temperature utterly stable (the Standard Atmosphere, developed by detailed atmospheric temperature measurements from the late 19th century through the mid-20th century, agrees precisely with the Venus temperature-vs-pressure profile as measured on ONE DAY, October 5, 1991). Put most simply, the vertical temperature gradient causes heat to rise, not to hang around for very long in one place. The heating of the surface does not rule except locally and transiently; the atmosphere rules, due to its gravity-induced vertical temperature gradient–again, except locally and transiently, and especially, locally in the vertical direction. An urban heat island is most effective at producing a local temperature inversion overnight–in a temporary and very limited region near the surface–of the global temperature gradient (from the admittedly few examples I have yet seen, of the difference in the vertical temperature profile of the troposphere above a typical city between afternoon and early morning, such an overnight inversion affects only the lowest 1 kilometer or so of the atmosphere, and as you have noted, strictly limited horizontally as well, to the close area of the heat island).
What this all boils down to–and as I realized instantly, even as I was writing the original Venus/Earth article in November 2010–is that the troposphere (on both Earth and Venus) is warmed not from the surface, as everyone–even the “experts”–have naively assumed without question (and refuse to confront the contrary, definitive Venus/Earth evidence I keep plugging), but by direct absorption of incident solar infrared radiation.
What’s “UHI”?
Urban Heat Island:
Concrete, asphalt, etc. adds up to a massive heat sink.
Thanks and of course it does.
And as urban areas have expanded, temperature measuring stations, once perhaps immediately surrounded by say, a grassy meadow, are now surrounded by asphalt. Much of the heating we see in the temperature record is actually a measure of urbanization; not global-warming .
Anthony Watts has done a lot of work in this area. (http://wattsupwiththat.com/).
More important, vegetation causes cooling due to transpiration. In addition, photosynthesis is a cooling process as sunlight is converted to sugar, which is an endothermic reaction. Trees absorb sunlight yet remain cool for those 2 reason.
You are making a bogus point. AGW is about the long term global trend. If an urban area was an average x degrees 30 years ago, today it is that x plus the global rise in temperature since then. The global trend is the same, rural or urban. The localized difference in temperature between urban and rural means nothing on the global, long term trend temperature scale.
One thing that puts it into focus is to over-lay a global map showing temperature increase over the past 100 years on top of the global satellite nighttime photo of the earth. The urban areas glow in the night light amongst the relative darkness of the less populated rural areas. The temperature rise of the temperate region where most urban areas is .8c, whereas the temperature rise of the Arctic with no urban areas is 1.5c rise.
I ride my bicycle everywhere, an frequently notice 2-3 degrees difference at night between open space and a neighborhood 30 yards away. Even a one horse town with paved roads, lawns, heated buildings, snow removal, etc. is affected. Hansen’s night light approach is nonsense.
No one says other wise. What’s your point? No global warming because cities are warmer than rural areas. How does that make your case?
You just blew of my post entirely. How about some discourse on climate science. Just calling it all a fraud gets tiresome. I see where your traffic seems way down. All those weather antidotes turn folks off that are hungry for some honest debate.
All stations are affected by UHI warming. Comparing bright lights to dimmer lights is a ruse, because the dimmer light regions are also warming due to UHI
You still ignore the larger question of long term trend of global warming. What does it matter if the cities are warmer than rural areas, especially if the long term trend rate of warming is greater in the Arctic than the city. ?
Any idiot should see that as UHI effect increases, you cool the present and warm the past, not the other way around as our beloved climate scientists are doing.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Most stations are affected by UHI, so the entire temperature record is pushed.upwards.
Matayaya, it’s because cities are growing, a rural area with a thermometer in 1921 might be an urban area in 1994 with the same thermometer in the same spot. The temperature rise would be artificial.
I’m afraid you will probably just argue my point with some irrelevant nonsense now, because that’s what members of the Globa Nostra do. Not interested in the truth.
@matayaya Any idea what a rural thermometer will show when its location is effected more and more by a growing city or airport? any idea what the trend has been in the percentage rural vs city area? Any idea how many rural thermometers are now effected by cities etc?
That’s your global warming, while in fact it’s mostly uhi that you measure. do some research.
You really think climate scientists are that dumb? Many studies have been done on the issue and all of that is fully factored into conclusions. In spite of all the evidence, you choose to believe global warming is not happening, so be it.
So, you admit their adjustments are fraudulent!
“Believe” is a religious word. The only people who “believe” in CAGW are evangelical alarmists such as Matayaya. CAGW is not happening and the hype surrounding it is fabricated to gain trillions of dollars in additional taxes for the elites. Matayaya is pro the totalitarian elites, pro tax, pro poverty, anti freedom, anti middle class and anti humanity as are all the evangelical alarmists.
People who knowingly behave that way are sociopaths, and those who unknowingly behave that way are ignorant or morons. Given the evidence to date, Matayaya is a sociopath.
The adjustments they do are backwards. They should be lowering modern temperatures or raising historic ones, to account for UHI, but they actually lower historic ones.
Do I think climate scientists are that dumb? No, I think they are liars. And yeah, that dumb.
Actually, they are complete fools.
Not dumb; rather, criminally fraudulent.
So they say, and yet they refuse to release their raw data and their algorithms. Funny, that.
Unsupported manipulation of data is not evidence.
matayaya says:
January 16, 2014 at 10:31 pm
If the adjustmetns are wrong, & UHI is real, then there is no “long term trend” besides perhaps 0.5° of cooling over the last 150 years.