UHI Contamination?

Posted on September 3, 2014 by Tony Heller

ScreenHunter_2522 Sep. 03 13.35

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to UHI Contamination?

  1. Tom Wiita says:
    September 3, 2014 at 6:02 pm

    I love your site. You often post a graph of arctic ice extent showing lower extent during the few years prior to 1979, and many comment that older satellite images could confirm and expand on this information.
    We may be in luck. Images back to 1964 have just been posted by NSIDC as follows:
    http://cires.colorado.edu/news/press/2014/nimbus.html

    Good luck and hope you find something really interesting for all of us!!!
    Thanks for all you do!

    Reply
  2. SMS says:
    September 3, 2014 at 9:13 pm

    And yet NOAA won’t make any corrections for UHI based on a political study done by Tom Peterson. Political because it did not meet any scientific standards but it did meet a need by NOAA to disregard adjustments for UHI. These adjustments would have lessened greatly the claim of CAGW.

    Reply
  3. justthefacts62 says:
    September 3, 2014 at 11:43 pm

    Maybe UHI, but more likely Ocean influence. Sydney has surrounded the Observatory site for 150 years. Any UHI should be in earlier years not later. Most coastal regions in AUS have warmed most likely from ocean heat influence. Also there are many examples of inland sites with cooling trends same as Bathurst. http://eyesonbrowne.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/is-it-getting-warmer-in-australia-well-that-depends-on-where-you-live/

    Reply
    • stevengoddard says:
      September 3, 2014 at 11:51 pm

      I hope you aren’t suggesting that the ocean has been heating steadily for the last 150 years.
      As cities get larger, the magnitude of UHI increases.

      Reply
      • AndyG55 says:
        September 4, 2014 at 1:54 am

        If you want to look at a similar coastal site, which is pretty much untouched by UHI, look at Nobby’s Head in Newcastle NSW, 150km north of Sydney.

        Reply
      • justthefacts62 says:
        September 4, 2014 at 4:57 am

        Not really Steve. If it were just UHI I would have thought we would have seen it much earlier in the record. No doubt there is UHI. Just that there seems to be recent warming at other coastal locations as well. Some with no UHI issues. Love your stuff btw.

        Reply
    • SMS says:
      September 4, 2014 at 3:40 am

      justthefacts62; You need to take a closer look at the temperature records for several of the coast line temperature sites used as examples on the link you supplied. Several don’t show any warming for several of the most recent decades. Most of the temperature records shown are heavily spliced. Can’t but wonder how Echuca got an airport in 1881.

      Reply
    • Streetcred says:
      September 4, 2014 at 7:01 am

      The ocean would need to be bloody hot to yield that amount of warming to Sydney.

      Reply
    • cementafriend says:
      September 4, 2014 at 8:42 am

      justthefacts Sydney Observatory is on a hill well above any buildings. It used to have a lot of park land around it. A lot of the parkland is gone and there is now a bitumen road with bitumen car park plus a number of buildings on the site. However, more importantly now it is overlooked by tall buildings of more than 30 stories. There has been a UHI affect increasing from around 1960. While Bathurst is an in-land city once planned to be the capital of the state of NSW is has a very rural surrounds. There is an Agricultural Institute which may have been the site for weather recording in the past and an airport which is likely the location now. The airport is mainly for light aircraft there is no regular commercial airlines landing there. It is open and has a lot of grass surrounds.My recollection may not be good but I think in the mid 1980’s planes were landing on grass. It could be regarded as a rural location. The downward spike around 1960 could be due to a move to the airport while the more recent upward trend maybe due to industrial buildings and roads around the airport giving a UHI effect.

      Reply
  4. AndyG55 says:
    September 4, 2014 at 1:59 am

    Steven, I think the Asphalt sign is incorrect. Here is a closer view..

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/sydney_observatory_wxstation.jpg

    Reply
    • AndyG55 says:
      September 4, 2014 at 2:01 am

      Wrong again.. looks like concrete.

      Reply
      • Gail Combs says:
        September 4, 2014 at 2:21 am

        It is still surrounded by nothing but asphalt.

        Station quality ratings obtained from NOAA/NCDC via this source:

        Climate Reference Network Rating Guide – adopted from NCDC Climate Reference Network Handbook, 2002, specifications for siting (section 2.2.1) of NOAA’s new Climate Reference Network:

        Class 1 (CRN1)- Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.

        Class 2 (CRN2) – Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation 5deg.

        Class 3 (CRN3) (error >=1C) – Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

        Class 4 (CRN4) (error >= 2C) – Artificial heating sources <10 meters.

        Class 5 (CRN5) (error >= 5C) – Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.”
        http://www.surfacestations.org/

        it is next to a building and within 10 meters of lots and lots of blacktop.

        The best rating it could get is a Class 4 but given all the black top in the area and the building, it looks like a class 5

        Reply
        • AndyG55 says:
          September 4, 2014 at 2:23 am

          I agree, it is NOT a good site !!

        • Gail Combs says:
          September 4, 2014 at 2:30 am

          If the rating is class four then the error is >= 2C. That means the increase in temperature as shown in the graph could just as easily have been a DECREASE in temperature because the “increase” is well within the margin of error.

          In other words you can not determine if Sydney was warming or cooling using this instrument or site. The use of a decimal point in the data is completely unjustified too.

  5. AndyG55 says:
    September 4, 2014 at 2:43 am

    Here is” the Berk” in action on Newcastle temperature data.

    First the raw data. Notice 2010 is approx = 1880

    http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Stations/TAVG/Figures/152044-TAVG-Raw.png

    And now after “the Berk adjustments” Now compare 2010 and 1880

    http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Stations/TAVG/Figures/152044-TAVG-Comparison.png

    Reply
  6. kenskingdom says:
    September 4, 2014 at 3:41 am

    Hi Steven

    Several people have urged me to contact you re Australian data, as I have studied Australian data for some years and with Jennifer Marohasy we’ve stirred up a hornet’s nest about adjustments. She can vouch for me. I may be able to help if you wish. You can contact me at kenskingdom.wordpress.com or through Jen.

    Regards

    Ken Stewart

    Reply
  7. Philippe Jones says:
    September 4, 2014 at 10:28 pm

    How do you guys find the unadjusted data?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *