Compared this to the Jan2007-warmest-month-stuff:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Plotted the difference.

Results available here:
GISS global mean comparison
???

w.

Dear Mr. Palmer:

Thank you for your reply (attached below). However, I fear that it is totally unresponsive. I had asked for a list of the sites actually used. While it may (or may not) be true that “it appears that the raw station data can be obtained from [GHCN]“, this is meaningless without an actual list of the sites that Dr. Jones and his team used.

The debate about changes in the climate is quite important. Dr. Jones’ work is one of the most frequently cited statistics in the field. Dr. Jones has refused to provide a list of the sites used for his work, and as such, it cannot be replicated. Replication is central to science. I find Dr. Jones attitude quite difficult to understand, and I find your refusal to provide the data requested quite baffling.

You are making the rather curious claim that because the data “appears” to be out on the web somewhere, there is no need for Dr. Jones to reveal which stations were actually used. The claim is even more baffling since you say that the original data used by CRU is available at the GHCN web site, and then follow that with the statement that some of the GHCN data originally came from CRU. Which is the case? Did CRU get the data from GHCN, or did GHCN get the data from CRU?

Rather than immediately appealing this ruling (with the consequent negative publicity that would inevitably accrue to CRU from such an action), I am again requesting that you provide:

1) A list of the actual sites used by Dr. Jones in the preparation of the HadCRUT3 dataset, and

2) A clear indication of where the data for each site is available. This is quite important, as there are significant differences between the versions of each site’s data at e.g. GHCN and NCAR.

I find it somewhat disquieting that an FOI request is necessary to force a scientist to reveal the data used in his publicly funded research … is this truly the standard that the CRU is promulgating?

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Willis Eschenbach

The beat goes on … sorry for my absence from the discussion, I’ve been on a consulting job in the Solomon Islands. Got to fly over the ITCZ a couple of times and look at the Hadley Cells from the air, always awesome.

w.

“2068 kcal per day. This appears to be a bit larger than what a typical person might consume a day,”

You’re kidding, right? Supersize that BK Stacker Quad and 2000 kcal is lunch.

Brings up another point – even if population is constant, the heat dissapation from all of those fattening asses could probably cover the spread predicted by ‘global warming’. Not to mention the unmodeled CH4 …

Per capita energy use in the USA is 7,795 kg oil equivalent. One kg oil = 43 x 10^6 joules. So per capita energy use ‘€” 7,795*43 x 10^6 = 335 x 10^9 joules/yr. If one assumes this energy use is spread out evenly throughout a year, it is equivalent to 335 x 10^9 / 3.15 x 10^7 sec/yr = 10,600 Watts.

So energy use produces 106 times more heat than human metabolism. Multiplying my factors in #31 by 107 gives 32 watts/m^2 and a hypothetical temperature increase of 11.8 to 36.4 deg C. Of course, this doesn’t make sense, since much of the heat is dissipated outside the city, and since IPCCs sensitivity figures are bogus. However, if one uses the better sensitivity estimate of 0.1 deg/W, one obtains a 3.2 degree rise, which is entirely possible, since EPA says cities can be more than 10 deg. F hotter than surrounding areas).

Then, you add the unknown amount of heat increase caused by converting greenish fields to concrete and asphalt. Just try to convince me that there’s no UHI effect!

Jae,

I found this exchange on Roger Pielke Sr’s site:

an amateurs question: Most of what I hear is related to radiation or insulative effects. The 20th century saw a massive increase in fuel usage from industry and cars. Is human heat generation taken into account in the models? Is it significant relative to the overall heat budget?

Comment by Barry Wise ‘€” October 21, 2005 @ 6:01 am

Barry-this is a really good question. On the local scale (such as in a heavily urbanized area), it can be a significant component on the surface energy budget. Text on pages 417-418 and Table 11-6 in my book Pielke, R.A., Sr., 2002: Mesoscale meteorological modeling. 2nd Edition, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 676 pp. illustrates the magnitude of this heating.

Surface heat input averaged over 10km by 10km grids of nearly 30 Watts per meter squared has been reported (by Harrison and McGoldrick, 1981), for example, for London and Birmingham in the United Kingdom, with over 600 Watts per meter squared over 1 kilometer squared areas in Teeside.

Averaged on larger scales, however, the contribution of this surface heating is very small. Of more importance to the surface heating on these regional and larger scales is the effect of landscape conversion from the natural state, which alters albedo, the portioning of absorbed solar energy into its sensible and latent turbulent heat fluxes, and the surface emissivity of long-wave radiation.

Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. ‘€” October 21, 2005 @ 7:54 am

I thought you might find it interesting. Hopefully I can find the text book and quote it for Wikipedia.

Jae,
I found this indicating the average seated relaxed person would give off 104 Watts of heat. This is in line with your post. However, what I would really like to find is a peer-reviewed article that applies this to climate as you have. Another Wikipedia policy is “No Original Research.” I cannot reproduce the calculations and expect other editors to accept it. I will keep looking.