Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog

Quoting Jedkins01:



Urban heat islands are growing warmer as the years pass, which is where much of the Global Warming bias comes from. We all know they derive their data from the increasing urban heat island situation.

Quoting Neapolitan:

WARNING: truthful science content ahead. There; you've been warned. ;-)

The urban The second is a global surface temperature anomaly map showing heating (and infrequently cooling) by region. Compare the two and you'll see there is simply no way to discern any correlation whatsoever between urbanization and warming. If the UHIE were the cause of warming in the globally-averaged record, you'd see it.To summarize: the claim that global warming is an artifact of the Urban Heat Island Effect is simply an artifact of the Urban Myth Effect...and about as valid.

Quoting greentortuloni:


Just curious: any idea why the anomaly over Southern Africa?

Quoting Neapolitan:

WARNING: truthful science content ahead. There; you've been warned. ;-)

The urban heat island effect has been thoroughly examined and found to have a negligible effect on temperature trends. (Also here.) NASA takes explicit steps in their analysis to remove any such spurious signal by normalizing urban station data
trends to the surrounding rural stations. So, yes, the UHIE is a real phenomenon, but it's one climate scientists are well aware of, and for which the required steps have been taken to remove its influence from the raw data.

But heavy duty data analysis and statistical processing aside, a little common sense and a couple of pertinent images should put this idea to bed. Here are two images. The first is a composite image of the nighttime surface of the earth. The second is a global surface temperature anomaly map showing heating (and infrequently cooling) by region. Compare the two and you'll see there is simply no way to discern any correlation whatsoever between urbanization and warming. If the UHIE were the cause of warming in the globally-averaged record, you'd see it.





To summarize: the claim that global warming is an artifact of the Urban Heat Island Effect is simply an artifact of the Urban Myth Effect...and about as valid.

So tell us: who this "we" to whom you refer? ;-)

Quoting TampaFLUSA:

When scientist show this global map, it looks deceiving bc it shows all of the artic having above normal weather. I understand it goes back x amount of years, did they have record for each square mile for 60 years? Satellites have only been up since the 60's, and I'm sure then they did not have a infrared satellites then.

Quoting TampaFLUSA:

When scientist show this global map, it looks deceiving bc it shows all of the artic having above normal weather. I understand it goes back x amount of years, did they have record for each square mile for 60 years? Satellites have only been up since the 60's, and I'm sure then they did not have a infrared satellites then.

Quoting biff4ugo:
P.S. Juneau has a higher low temp than Gainesville FL tonight.

Quoting Neapolitan:


True...but the map shows current anomalies from in comparison to the period from 1951-2008 bnased on based on surface air measurements at meteorological stations, along with ship and satellite measurements for sea surface temperatures.

The planet's warming, and warming rapidly. All over. And there is very little doubt about that fact among climate scientists.

Quoting presslord:
Metrodome mishap works out well for Detroit fans...been a while since they've been able to see professional football...

Quoting JRRP:

Quoting Seastep:


No it isn't. Hasn't warmed since 1998. You might have an argument if the planet goes higher than 1998. Temps have been pretty much flat since then.

Might they go higher? Maybe. We'll see, but not in the past 12 years, it hasn't.

You are very confident in your prediction of additional warming. Let's see if it plays out.

Quoting Neapolitan:

WARNING: truthful science content ahead. There; you've been warned. ;-)

The urban heat island effect has been thoroughly examined and found to have a negligible effect on temperature trends. (Also here.) NASA takes explicit steps in their analysis to remove any such spurious signal by normalizing urban station data trends to the surrounding rural stations. So, yes, the UHIE is a real phenomenon, but it's one climate scientists are well aware of, and for which the required steps have been taken to remove its influence from the raw data.

But heavy duty data analysis and statistical processing aside, a little common sense and a couple of pertinent images should put this idea to bed. Here are two images. The first is a composite image of the nighttime surface of the earth. The second is a global surface temperature anomaly map showing heating (and infrequently cooling) by region. Compare the two and you'll see there is simply no way to discern any correlation whatsoever between urbanization and warming. If the UHIE were the cause of warming in the globally-averaged record, you'd see it.





To summarize: the claim that global warming is an artifact of the Urban Heat Island Effect is simply an artifact of the Urban Myth Effect...and about as valid.

So tell us: who this "we" to whom you refer? ;-)

Quoting Seastep:


No it isn't. Hasn't warmed since 1998. You might have an argument if the planet goes higher than 1998. Temps have been pretty much flat since then.

Might they go higher? Maybe. We'll see, but not in the past 12 years, it hasn't.

You are very confident in your prediction of additional warming. Let's see if it plays out.

Quoting atmoaggie:
Here is a truthful comment about that format of "Global Surface Temperature anomaly" mapping: That makes the area of extreme positive temperature anomaly appear huge..."appear" being the operative word. Mercator, and the like, are terrible for polar region examination.

Not to mention the assumption that temp obs at Arctic airports is representative of the entire region.

Quoting GeoffreyWPB:


Every time a ding-a-ling blogs...an angel gets its wings.

Quoting barfkoswill:
Seems that global warming is turning into global cooling......although we still have people making up data to support the opposite.Link

Quoting Minnemike:

this claim is ridiculous, and i'd like to see a sourced graph or table before swallowing such non-sense. 1998 was a statistical outlier. whether the climate is warming or cooling is not decided each year to year, i.e. global warming from '97-'98 then global cooling from '98-'99... if you look at the accumulated averages, YES! the globe has been warming. there really is no debate on this, period. ask any number of intelligent AGW deniers... the debate is whether or not humans are the primary contributing factor or if it's just a natural cycle. please stop lying to people and making false claims that the global scale climate is not warming. if you truly believe this, you require an education on seeking trustworthy sources and take remedial statistics.

Quoting Seastep:
176. Neapolitan

Has it warmed since 1998. Or, over the past 12 years? Even GISS says not really.

You were speaking in present tense.

Also, when were these predictions made?

Let's go from the prediction point forward. That is how you validate a prediction.

Let's see what the obs show. Have to actually have the obs to validate.

So far, not much. Another 10 years, 20 years, 30 years? of no warming or *gasp* even cooling and the hypothesis is false.

Hey, you can continue with it, but if the prediction is for +0.2C per decade and it ends up being zero or within the margin of error means theory is wrong.

Quoting Neapolitan:

Huh? Even the GISS images on the anti-science site to which you linked clearly show that 2010 is the hottest year ever. Now, if the article's author wants to toss out all satellite data, he's certainly free to do so. But it seems to me tossing out valid, verified, and reliable data simply because it doesn't agree with one's preconceived notions is far from honest...and even further from science.

Quoting Seastep:


How is it ridiculous?

Look at 1998-2009 (2010 isn't over yet).

I'll even give you GISS below. Flat since 1998.

What is ridiculous is people that claim the planet has warmed since 1998.

Really doesn't do too much for the credibility factor.

Not me. See the GISS chart:

Quoting Minnemike:
i predict you hitting a massive wall of data, walking with your mind closed. falsifying supposed predictions in the face of active warming is another fallacy drawn from your perspective.

Quoting Minnemike:
i predict you hitting a massive wall of data, walking with your mind closed. falsifying supposed predictions in the face of active warming is another fallacy drawn from your perspective.

Quoting Seastep:


How is it ridiculous?

Look at 1998-2009 (2010 isn't over yet).

I'll even give you GISS below. Flat since 1998.

What is ridiculous is people that claim the planet has warmed since 1998.

Really doesn't do too much for the credibility factor.

Not me. See the GISS chart:

Quoting Minnemike:
if you use your EYES!!!! you wil in fact see warming.. you are proving my point with your graph, and missing mine and Neo's point about statistical outliers.

go back to that graph and plot an average line, and post that.

Quoting Seastep:


I predict your closed mind will not be able to grasp the fact that the world might actually not be warming for the next 20 or 30 years, as has been the case the past 12, which would be for 30-40 years total with now warming.

I actually think it will probably cool off a bit the way the climate cycles are lining up.

Hey, it's a prediction. We'll find out.

Quoting Seastep:


How many obs in the GISS set from the world's oceans? What coverage is there?

Very little coverage is the correct answer. :)

Quoting jeffs713:

Average out all those numbers to create a trendline, and it is definitely a positive slope. Stop cherry-picking.

Quoting Seastep:


Ahhh... something tells me your not looking at the ocean temps. Which, with GISS are weak anyway. Don't have nearly the spatial coverage necessary. That's why I use Sat, but just threw the GISS out there for your convenience.

And, yes, please use your eyes, excluding 2010 which isn't over yet. What do you see?

I'll graph it for you when I get home.

Quoting RipplinH2O:
...and it continues. As long as people continue to use terms meant to demean, talk at people instead of to them and assume that anything that does not fit your conclusion on a theory has to be wrong, your'e not discussing, debating, or engaging...you're dictating and that will push people away from your views. If your goal is getting your belly rubbed by like minded others on this blog, well done. If your goal is to convince or even convert, undone...

Quoting Minnemike:

it's good to know that i've been totally confused when i've been considering any presence of data before 1998. holy crap, how could i have been so mistaken. you're right.... since the earth began in 1998, there has been no warming.
honestly, you have got to be kidding.