|
Post by Ratty on Feb 4, 2009 6:44:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Feb 4, 2009 11:27:31 GMT
Ah, the urban heat argument, again . Many research has already been done on that, and, as far as I know, they have only shown a minor effect (0.05-0.1 C at most as far as I can remember) on the measured temperatures. (You should see differences between stations close to urban areas and in rural areas, and determine if this has a significant effect on the global average.)
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 4, 2009 14:31:22 GMT
Ah, the urban heat argument, again . Many research has already been done on that, and, as far as I know, they have only shown a minor effect (0.05-0.1 C at most as far as I can remember) on the measured temperatures. (You should see differences between stations close to urban areas and in rural areas, and determine if this has a significant effect on the global average.) Please, humor me with the "research" by empirical measurements supporting your claim. Would you consider Barrow, Alaska rural or urban? www.geography.uc.edu/~kenhinke/uhi/Hinkel&Nelson_JGR-A_2007.pdfApparently you didn't read the paper I posted earlier concerning Los Angelos? I'll be patiently waiting for the myriads of empirically measured "research" results supporting your POV.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Feb 4, 2009 15:07:50 GMT
In this paper they have selected sites so to maximize the effect. Also from the data shown it can be seen that the presence of the sea close to town has a warming effect. Also they state that this heating is large only for winter periods, but much smaller or absent in spring, summer and fall.
The IPCC (2007: p.244) states the following (including references):
Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any urban-related trend is an order of magnitude smaller than decadal and longer time-scale trends evident in the series (e.g., Jones et al., 1990; Peterson et al., 1999). This result could partly be attributed to the omission from the gridded data set of a small number of sites (<1%) with clear urban-related warming trends. In a worldwide set of about 270 stations, Parker (2004, 2006) noted that warming trends in night minimum temperatures over the period 1950 to 2000 were not enhanced on calm nights, which would be the time most likely to be affected by urban warming. Thus, the global land warming trend discussed is very unlikely to be influenced significantly by increasing urbanisation (Parker, 2006). ... Accordingly, this assessment adds the same level of urban warming uncertainty as in the TAR: 0.006°C per decade since 1900 for land, and 0.002°C per decade since 1900 for blended land with ocean, as ocean UHI is zero.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Feb 4, 2009 19:50:06 GMT
In this paper[/u] you will see that just because something has an imprimatur of the IPCC doesn't mean elevation to the status of truth. Have a read , and use google - it isn't hard to find people questioning the Gospel oF Gore, in detail.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Feb 4, 2009 20:07:51 GMT
Ah, the urban heat argument, again . Many research has already been done on that, and, as far as I know, they have only shown a minor effect (0.05-0.1 C at most as far as I can remember) on the measured temperatures. (You should see differences between stations close to urban areas and in rural areas, and determine if this has a significant effect on the global average.) You mistake the SMALL global temperature adjustments for the UHI effect for the actual daily, real heat island effect. If you read the literature put out by the folk who make the temperature series you will know what I mean. The heat Island effect during the heat wave in Melbourne was clearly in the order of 2C. Warm events exaggerate the heat Island effect. But for calculating averages, you need to account for the many days where there is zero UHI effect. Such as cloudy days, winter etc. So over a whole year, the UHI effect is estimated at something like 0.1C/decade warming. But, you totally mistake this for the actual, daily effect on a warm day. Have I made myself clear?
|
|
|
Post by crakar24 on Feb 6, 2009 3:05:09 GMT
Well after a brief lull the heatwave is back on, Today and tomorrow is expected to be above 40C, the MSM are having a field day and the words record and climate change are being tossed around with gay abandon. Apparently the Adelaide morgue had to be extended to accommadate all the dead people that died from the RECORD HEATWAVE", how do you extend a morgue instantly without building permits etc?
Anyway the local country paper where i live had a headline on page 5 of a total of 22 pages said "HISTORIC HEATWAVE NOT THE FIRST< OR THE WORST" it came complete with actual data from the BOM.gov.au.
Whats this? Actual data being reported in a newspaper, they must have a "denialist" in thier midst.
Believers in the GORACLE (aj et al) my find the follow scenes disturbing.
Record for the most consecutive days above 40C is 6, this has occurred twice,
Jan 14-19 1908 40.7, 43.1, 41.8, 43.4, 42.8, 43.4 Jan 27-Feb 1 2009
|
|
|
Post by crakar24 on Feb 6, 2009 3:24:43 GMT
Well here in Adelaide after a brief lull the heatwave is back on, Today and tomorrow is expected to be above 40C, the MSM are having a field day and the words record and climate change are being tossed around with gay abandon.
Apparently the Adelaide morgue had to be extended to accommadate all the dead people that died from the RECORD HEATWAVE, how do you extend a morgue instantly without building permits etc?
Anyway the local country paper where i live had a headline on page 5 of a total of 22 pages that said "HISTORIC HEATWAVE NOT THE FIRST, OR THE WORST" it came complete with actual data from the BOM.gov.au.
Whats this? Actual data being reported in a newspaper, they must have a "denialist" in thier midst.
Believers in the GORACLE (aj et al) my find the follow scenes disturbing.
Record for the most consecutive days above 40C is 6, this has occurred twice,
Jan 14-19 1908 40.7, 43.1, 41.8, 43.4, 42.8, 43.4 Jan 27-Feb 1 2009 43.2, 45.7, 43.4, 43.1, 41.1, 40.6
Four consecutive days above 40C has occurred 7 times
Feb 1899 Jan 1905 Jan 1906 Jan 1908 (Jan 1908 would have been a killer) Jan 1912 March 1940 Jan 2006
The hottest day recorded was in 1939
Now i dont know as much about the climate as Al Gore, but it would seem to me as though he has got it all arse about. This would indicate that the 20th century has cooled.
Now i know all you AGW twits will say "its only weather" but the facts dont lie, only the main strem media does, oh and Al and James.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 6, 2009 5:20:51 GMT
In this paper they have selected sites so to maximize the effect. Also from the data shown it can be seen that the presence of the sea close to town has a warming effect. Also they state that this heating is large only for winter periods, but much smaller or absent in spring, summer and fall. The IPCC (2007: p.244) states the following (including references): Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any urban-related trend is an order of magnitude smaller than decadal and longer time-scale trends evident in the series (e.g., Jones et al., 1990; Peterson et al., 1999). This result could partly be attributed to the omission from the gridded data set of a small number of sites (<1%) with clear urban-related warming trends. In a worldwide set of about 270 stations, Parker (2004, 2006) noted that warming trends in night minimum temperatures over the period 1950 to 2000 were not enhanced on calm nights, which would be the time most likely to be affected by urban warming. Thus, the global land warming trend discussed is very unlikely to be influenced significantly by increasing urbanisation (Parker, 2006). ... Accordingly, this assessment adds the same level of urban warming uncertainty as in the TAR: 0.006°C per decade since 1900 for land, and 0.002°C per decade since 1900 for blended land with ocean, as ocean UHI is zero. Is that the best argument you can come up with? An, no. The reason for the site for the 4 year study is precisely the opposite of what you assert. It is assumed rural is less than 100,000 population. Hansen assumes rural by counting lights via satellite; lights=0, which is how Parker et al determined UHI bias. Each and every paper referenced in IPCC AR4 is based on assumptions, not empirical data. Further, you claimed there were empirical measurements made demonstrating no significant effect from UHI. Running to IPCC for answers will not help your cause. The papers enlisted in IPCC AR4 are NOT empirically derived, meaning there is no study where they physically test by experiment to support their conclusions. Also, IPCC chose to cherry pick only those articles that supported their agenda, not to mention the same ones who authored the paper were the leading authors of the section you are quoting, that being David Parker and Phil Jones. You don't see a problem with that? I didn't think so. That said, do a quick check and see if the following are referenced in the IPCC section you quoted: www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-274.pdfwww.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-302.pdficecap.us/images/uploads/MM.JGRDec07.pdfwww.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-321.pdfwww.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-318.pdfwww.urban-climate.org/ITM04-Oke.pdfwww.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~shaopeng/stoten08.pdfwww.hko.gov.hk/climate_change/climate_change_hk_e.htmwww.bca.gov.sg/ResearchInnovation/others/UHI%20_2004-001_%20rev.pdfLots more where they come from, but its late so no time to summarize tonight. I don't expect you to review anything as apparently it is your belief the IPCC enshrines all the knowledge of the universe.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 7, 2009 4:18:46 GMT
The IPCC report contains more than that quoted.
And yes it does reference one of your linked papers, but only to show the rather silly assumption that paper was based on:
Some more from the report:
There are multiple flaws with the UHI bias argument.
For one thing some of the fastest warming regions on Earth are not urban - the arctic, the antarctic peninsula, etc.
Second the oceans show warming too, obviously nothing to do with UHI there.
Third the satellites show warming of the lower troposphere. Again nothing to do with UHI there.
Third, it should be real easy to show a significant UHI bias in the records - just take the rural stations and compare them with the urban stations. That noone has demonstrated a significant difference speaks volumes. Any studies that have attempted this have found little difference and so little UHI bias.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Feb 7, 2009 4:28:31 GMT
you are talking nonsense socold: I'll repeat: You mistake the SMALL global temperature adjustments for the UHI effect for the actual daily, real heat island effect. If you read the literature put out by the folk who make the temperature series you will know what I mean. The heat Island effect during the heat wave in Melbourne was clearly in the order of 2C. Warm events exaggerate the heat Island effect. But for calculating averages, you need to account for the many days where there is zero UHI effect. Such as cloudy days, winter etc. So over a whole year, the UHI effect is estimated at something like 0.1C/decade warming. But, you totally mistake this for the actual, daily effect on a warm day. Have I made myself clear? As an average over a year, the UHI effect is very small. In a heat wave, it is enormous.Want a rural effect: There is NO GLOBAL WARMING from the Rockies to the Appalachians. Checkout www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202005/NoGlobalWarm.pdf for other regions where there is no warming. & I note the NZ rural stations which I have analysed that show no warming.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 7, 2009 4:44:56 GMT
you are talking nonsense socold: I'll repeat: You mistake the SMALL global temperature adjustments for the UHI effect for the actual daily, real heat island effect. If you read the literature put out by the folk who make the temperature series you will know what I mean. The mere existance of the UHI effect is not the issue. The temperature records correct for UHI effect. Global warming skeptics bring up UHI to claim that the temperature records don't correct for UHI enough and so show too much warming. And why is this suprising? Some regions slow less than the global average warming trend, some show more. It's an average.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Feb 7, 2009 5:11:49 GMT
Socold, you don't appear to understand this thread. We are not talking about averages but an extreme event (heatwave) which is being used to promote "Global Warming"
In the context of a one off event, the UHI of 2C, when subtracted from the temperatures Melbourne has recently had, makes this event less extreme in the historic context.
Trying addressing the issue of the thread: Australian heatwave sign of climate change.
cheers!
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Feb 9, 2009 4:10:29 GMT
|
|
kaz
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by kaz on Feb 9, 2009 11:07:05 GMT
My prayers go out to the many people who lost loved ones in the Victorian bush fires over the weekend. 131 people have lost their lives in the bush fires and entire towns have been engulfed. I heard reports that the fire was travelling at 120km per hour at some stages and people simply did not have enough time to escape. It is utterly incomprehensible that some of these fires were deliberately lit. I watched the news this morning as our Prime Minister fought back tears. (I did too!) This is a terribly sad time for Australians, when we get to see the full force of our sunburnt country at its most devastating.
|
|