It is becoming too obvious to ignore: Mainstream press coverage of the Urban Heat Island . . . in leftoid Houston, Texas of all places!

submitted by iamonlyoneman from wattsupwiththat.com

all 19 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Global warming trends are, if anything higher from satellite data than for surface station based data: https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/plot/rss/plot/rss/trend

The UHI effect is real, but when Watts says that it is impacting estimates of global warming, he's talking shit.

[–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Everything Anthony Watts says is shit.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Pretty much.

He's spent a lot of time and energy talking shit for his fossil fuel interested paymasters.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

  • temperature stations all get averaged into the global number
  • so cities with UHI contribute to global warming because of UHI

it's not hard.

Also the only dataset I know of, that's not politically altered to cool the past and warm the present, is UAH. GIStemp and RSS are corrupt with all their sisters. UAH shows more of reality: There are decade-scale pauses between giant El Nino events that cause step changes and nobody knows why. The data are noisy on a trendline that is flat to 1998, then flat again to 2016, then flat again to current.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

temperature stations all get averaged into the global number

Not directly. If a station is changing temperature that is out of line with surrounding stations, it is not used in the calculation of the global trend.

And there are other corrections made. When the timing of the measurements changes it can bias the results and these effects are corrected for.

so cities with UHI contribute to global warming because of UHI

No. A station that is affected by increasing UHI would not affect the global trend, because the effect would be identified as being affected by a very local effect, or an error with that particular instrument.

Also the only dataset I know of, that's not politically altered to cool the past and warm the present, is UAH.

UAH is by a couple of denialist scientists. One's a religious crackpot who believes in intelligent design. The other is a career climate science denier with ties to denailist funding groups Heartland and Cato.

That of itself is not a problem, but they are unable to explain and refuse to supply the calculations for their version 6.0 of the UAH temperature calculations that saw the drop in temperature trend since previous versions.

RSS are a less politically motivated satellite temperature record.

GIStemp and RSS are corrupt with all their sisters.

That's a big call. You'll have some evidence of that?

The data are noisy on a trendline that is flat to 1998, then flat again to 2016, then flat again to current.

Satellite data are more noisy than surface station data, because there's only a few instruments, and there's a lot of error to correct for. And the instruments drift, and can't be re-calibrated, because they're on a satellite in low earth orbit. You have to infer changes from the measurements from the other satellites, and when there's less than 3, you can't tell which one is out.

Even so, the UHA trend is similar to station based measurements .

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

The 1970s called, they want their breaking news back.

The UHI effect does not explain the massive increase in land temperatures hundreds of miles from the nearest urban area, or the rising ocean temperatures, or the rising planetary temperatures measured from space, or the melting ice in Greenland. Not many big urban centres in Greenland.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

The UHI explains why downtown h-town is hotter than the suburbs, but whataboutism if you like

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

The UHI explains why downtown h-town is hotter than the suburbs

Which has nothing to do with global warming or climate change.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

we did this already

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Yeah, and you already got schooled on it too. Shame you refuse to learn.

"BuT mY uRBaN hEAt IslAnD eFfECt!!1!"

So please explain how the urban heat island effect is relevant to satellite measurements and ocean temperatures? Do you think there are many cities out in the middle of the ocean?

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

did you miss the part about politically motivated temperature data revisions?

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

did you miss the part about politically motivated temperature data revisions?

Yes.

What do you consider politically motivated data revisions?

  • "I don't understand the science, so it must be part of a nefarious plot."
  • " I do understand the science, but I don't like the results, so I pretend it must be part of a nefarious plot."
  • "Huh? Can you ask the question again using smaller words?"

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

When the climate "scientists" find there is no trend in the temperature data and adjust it for various reasons which somehow almost always cool the past and warm the present. If you don't know this is happening, you have been bamboozled!

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Ah, so it's the first answer: "I don't understand the science, so it must be part of a nefarious plot." Gotcha.

Let me see if I can give you a simple example you might be able to understand. Instruments are not always perfectly accurate. All instruments have errors, but sometimes they make systematic errors that can be adjusted for to correct the error. Like a scale that isn't zeroed properly, and so always adds 3 pounds to every reading. Or a car speedo that is consistently off by 5%. Or if the way the instrument is used is consistently different from how it was used in the past.

When scientists identify and correct for systematic errors, that's not "politically motivated" it's doing their job correctly.

You won't hear the denialists arguing that NASA should not correct the GISTEMP record for systematic error, because the raw data shows even more and faster heating and the corrections reduce the amount of warming.

So there's the inconvenient truth for the denialists. Corrections to the raw data are just as likely to reduce warming trends as increase them.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

ok and when the guys watching the thermometers in australia saw in real time as the data was switched, and the met said "oh it was just those specific two thermometers the rest are all ok we checked" that's legit too?

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If the Denialists are digging up the rotting corpse of the urban heat island effect to deny global warming, that just goes to show how desperate they are, and how they think that their audience is incapable of doing even the most basic research or investigation for themselves.

[–]iamonlyoneman[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

k