Comments on: More on Asphalt

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 04 May 2011 08:16:47 +0000

[...] [...]

By: Willis Eschenbach

Willis Eschenbach — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:12:48 +0000

My bad, I was half asleep last night, should have been 8°F of UHI warming in just over 50 years, with a quarter of that warming happening in the last seven years.

… still half asleep, but it’s the other half …

By: jae

jae — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:34:26 +0000

223:

And UHI has no effect on the weather data? Really? Eight degrees of urban warming in fourteen years

Yeah, and note the definite TREND there. The anomalies can’t wipe this out.

By: MarkW

MarkW — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:29:55 +0000

And that’s assuming that there has been no contamination of the Casa Grande National Monument station in the last 57 years. From what we have seen of the development in and around other parks, I would not be quick to assume that there has not been any contamination.

By: MarkW

MarkW — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:28:06 +0000

Maybe it’s just that my math is weak, but I could have sworn that 8C is greater than 0.05C.
Maybe we should ask Mr. Jones about that?

By: MrPete

MrPete — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:15:30 +0000

Willis, perhaps it is not UHI so Urban Sinking — with the additional population, Phoenix is sinking. Three degrees per thousand feet, isn’t it?

By: Willis Eschenbach

Willis Eschenbach — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:04:31 +0000

There's an interesting article on Phoenix here. A quotable quote:

Dr. Golden points to differing temperatures between downtown Phoenix and a rural weather station at the Casa Grande National Monument, about 50 miles southeast. In 1950, he says, it was only six degrees warmer in Phoenix than at the Casa Grande Monument. By 2000, the temperature in Phoenix was 12 degrees higher. Now, it is almost 14 degrees warmer in the city than in the adjacent rural areas.

And UHI has no effect on the weather data? Really? Eight degrees of urban warming in fourteen years ... w.

By: gdn

gdn — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:06:13 +0000

Anthony, does your copy of the CRN standards contain a cut and paste error, or is the definition for class 4 and class 5 actually verbally identical?

Class 4 (error >= 2C) – Artificial heating sources = 5C) – Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.”

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

I looked over your surfacestations site, and I thought I’d seen this previously linked to, but can’t recall where it is. Thanks.

By: Julian Flood

Julian Flood — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 05:44:31 +0000

As posts 204 and 207 are still here, perhaps I may be permitted to follow their digression…

re 204: ‘cool13′ The reference contains one of those ‘we know it’s not, therefore’ arguments I dislike. ‘The 1880s warming occurred before CO2 levels rose, therefore it’s not man-made warming’ is a rough summary. No, we know it’s not CO2 warming — we don’t know what caused it (or, allowing for chaos we don’t even know if it just happened). There are other possible anthropogenic causes for global warming.

re 207: final graph. I really hate this graph. It contains a gross distortion, the ‘bucket correction’. Until some enterprising climate scientist sorts out the SST record from 1910 to 2007 then we will have very limited understanding of what was going on.

Good data is the only path to truth. But if some bright young thing sets up a website and begins to collate all westerly facing lighthouse data to recalibrate the SSTs, there will be defenders of the paradigm who will bitch about his or her motives. Follow the data. It doesn’t matter if it refutes your favourite theory, it doesn’t matter if your house of cards falls about your ears. If you’re a scientist then all that matters is the truth.

Mind you, I would say that: I can see the Kreigesmarine effect on the anomaly graph on Warwick Hughes site…

By: tetris

tetris — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 04:01:38 +0000

Re: 212
Lee
I am very much for real, as a good number of people in business and science would tell you. It’s just that over the years I’ve developed very sensitive arm waving detectors [Steve M has asked that we use nice language], which is what I have been getting from you all day.

I don’t prima facia accept the data you put in front of me. Happens. And incidentally, URLs are not the issue.

I ask you some straightforward questions about the possible existence of other relevant and useful data. Nothing unpleasant there I would have thought.

I refer to Trenberth’s argument that we absolutely need to develop a proper understanding of regional climate dynamics before we get lost in [in his opinion] completly meaningless “global climate models”, an argument which makes good sense to me, and I get yet more arm waving.

If you can’t or don’t want to deal with my questions or the issues I raise, just say so. Preferably with a coherent explanation so the others on this blog understand why. That’s OK.

If you don’t agree with Trenberth, say so. That’s OK. Publish a rebuttal on the Nature blog if it makes you feel better. But please, no more highminded arm waving and ill disguised ad hominems.

Look forward to your answers to my questions.