Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[TheClimateChanger]

15 hours ago, TheClimateChanger said:

 

Update for late reporting cooperative observation sites. Falcon Dam recorded a high of 106F yesterday!

 

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[TheClimateChanger]

 

[TheClimateChanger]

Some more information on that one... 

 

[WolfStock1]

Not an expert in UHI effects, but Lander isn't exactly the middle of nowhere - it is a town of 7k+ people.

What's needed is data like this from actual remote sites, that aren't at cities / towns at all - e.g. sensors at national parks / forests, etc.    Remove all question w/regards to UHI.

 

 

[TheClimateChanger]

1 hour ago, WolfStock1 said:

Not an expert in UHI effects, but Lander isn't exactly the middle of nowhere - it is a town of 7k+ people.

What's needed is data like this from actual remote sites, that aren't at cities / towns at all - e.g. sensors at national parks / forests, etc.    Remove all question w/regards to UHI.

 

 

We've had that for 21, going on 22, years - it's called the United States Climate Reference Network and it shows more, not less, warming than the official numbers over the period of overlap. 

 

[WolfStock1]

59 minutes ago, TheClimateChanger said:

We've had that for 21, going on 22, years - it's called the United States Climate Reference Network and it shows more, not less, warming than the official numbers over the period of overlap. 

 

 

Hmmm - well - looking at their locations https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/crn/  - that's not really what I'm talking about.   It looks like just about all of those sites are actually suburban sites, or at least "close to city" rural sites.     For example the one in central NC is in Duke Forest - but that's practically surrounded by Durham, which is a fast-growing urban area.   The one in southern LA is at Cade Farm which is rural-ish, but is only 3 miles from the edge of Lafayette.   The one in western VA is only 1 mile from I-64 and Charlottesville, Etc.

What I'm talking about would be truly rural sites - ones where there isn't a significant city within about 50-100 miles or so.    I see very few if any sites of those that fit that bill.

 

 

[GaWx]

55 minutes ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

Hmmm - well - looking at their locations https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/crn/  - that's not really what I'm talking about.   It looks like just about all of those sites are actually suburban sites, or at least "close to city" rural sites.     For example the one in central NC is in Duke Forest - but that's practically surrounded by Durham, which is a fast-growing urban area.   The one in southern LA is at Cade Farm which is rural-ish, but is only 3 miles from the edge of Lafayette.   The one in western VA is only 1 mile from I-64 and Charlottesville, Etc.

What I'm talking about would be truly rural sites - ones where there isn't a significant city within about 50-100 miles or so.    I see very few if any sites of those that fit that bill.

 

 

Blairsville, GA

[WolfStock1]

2 hours ago, GaWx said:

Blairsville, GA

Here are the Georgia sites:

 

 

[GaWx]

21 minutes ago, WolfStock1 said:

Here are the Georgia sites:

 

 

 

1) Cumberland is certainly rural: https://www.nps.gov/cuis/planyourvisit/staffordbeach.htm

2)-3) Ichauway appears quite rural, too:

https://www.jonesctr.org/about-us/

4) Colham Ferry appears to be a burb of Watkinsville, a town with only ~3K:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watkinsville,_Georgia#:~:text=Watkinsville is the largest city,County%2C Georgia Metropolitan Statistical Area.

 ————

 What do you think of these 4 as far as not having UHI to worry about?

[WolfStock1]

11 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 

1) Cumberland is certainly rural: https://www.nps.gov/cuis/planyourvisit/staffordbeach.htm

2)-3) Ichauway appears quite rural, too:

https://www.jonesctr.org/about-us/

4) Colham Ferry appears to be a burb of Watkinsville, a town with only ~3K:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watkinsville,_Georgia#:~:text=Watkinsville is the largest city,County%2C Georgia Metropolitan Statistical Area.

 ————

 What do you think of these 4 as far as not having UHI to worry about?

 

Yes unlike many of the others Georgia appears to have done a good job picking truly remote sites.  Ideally you'd like to see all the sites be like that, since it's usually an average of all sites that's shown (e.g. in the X post).

I haven't looked for it, but was just noticing that a lot of the references in this thread to records / high trends are in areas that may be subject to UHI effect.   Would be nice to see some for remote sites instead, since IMO that's much more meaningful.

[GaWx]

15 minutes ago, WolfStock1 said:

 

Yes unlike many of the others Georgia appears to have done a good job picking truly remote sites.  Ideally you'd like to see all the sites be like that, since it's usually an average of all sites that's shown (e.g. in the X post).

I haven't looked for it, but was just noticing that a lot of the references in this thread to records / high trends are in areas that may be subject to UHI effect.   Would be nice to see some for remote sites instead, since IMO that's much more meaningful.

Do you or does anyone else know how much these 4 GA locations warmed? I’d really like to know due to their supposed lack of UHI effect.

@TheClimateChanger

@donsutherland1

@chubbs

[donsutherland1]

34 minutes ago, GaWx said:

Do you or does anyone else know how much these 4 GA locations warmed? I’d really like to know due to their supposed lack of UHI effect.

@TheClimateChanger

@donsutherland1

@chubbs

Brunswick 23S (2005-2025), Newton 11 SW (2003-2025), Newton 8W (2003-2025) are warming about 0.9°/decade. That matches Georgia's statewide warming during 2003-2025/2005-2025. Watkinsville 5 SSE (2005-2025) is warming 0.6°/decade, which is somewhat slower than the statewide average. 

[chubbs]

17 hours ago, WolfStock1 said:

Not an expert in UHI effects, but Lander isn't exactly the middle of nowhere - it is a town of 7k+ people.

What's needed is data like this from actual remote sites, that aren't at cities / towns at all - e.g. sensors at national parks / forests, etc.    Remove all question w/regards to UHI.

 

 

In my experience UHI is a red herring. Often raised; but, never documented with hard evidence. UHI is a local effect while climate change is global. There are thousands of stations in the US. Easy to determine if most of the warming is from UHI or not.There is UHI of course, but it doesn't have much impact at most stations. The urbanization occurred a long time ago or doesn't occur near the station.  Lander appears to be one of those cases.

The Lander airport weather station is well outside of the town's footprint. In a dry area like Lander irrigation or grass watering could have an effect. The photo shows greening from watering outside the built-up area. There could easily be a negative or small UHI impact there. Lander's population rose rapidly before 1970 but hasn't changed much since 1970; with ups and downs, and a small decline since 2010. Lander Airport temperatures have risen slightly since 1940, with most of the rise after population stabilized in 1970. There doesn't appear to be much correlation between temperature at the airport and local population, with flat or declining temperatures during the most rapid population rise in the 1950s and 60s.  Note that the coolest year 2017 is impacted by missing data. Other regional stations weren't cool that year.  Removing 2017 would increase recent warming somewhat.

Bottom-line there isn't much evidence for a UHI warming impact in recent decades. Its possible that grass watering is counteracting other population effects; but, there isn't enough information to make a strong case.

 

 

[GaWx]

2 hours ago, chubbs said:

In my experience UHI is a red herring. Often raised; but, never documented with hard evidence. UHI is a local effect while climate change is global. There are thousands of stations in the US. Easy to determine if most of the warming is from UHI or not.There is UHI of course, but it doesn't have much impact at most stations. The urbanization occurred a long time ago or doesn't occur near the station.  Lander appears to be one of those cases.

The Lander airport weather station is well outside of the town's footprint. In a dry area like Lander irrigation or grass watering could have an effect. The photo shows greening from watering outside the built-up area. There could easily be a negative or small UHI impact there. Lander's population rose rapidly before 1970 but hasn't changed much since 1970; with ups and downs, and a small decline since 2010. Lander Airport temperatures have risen slightly since 1940, with most of the rise after population stabilized in 1970. There doesn't appear to be much correlation between temperature at the airport and local population, with flat or declining temperatures during the most rapid population rise in the 1950s and 60s.  Note that the coolest year 2017 is impacted by missing data. Other regional stations weren't cool that year.  Removing 2017 would increase recent warming somewhat.

Bottom-line there isn't much evidence for a UHI warming impact in recent decades. Its possible that grass watering is counteracting other population effects; but, there isn't enough information to make a strong case.

 

 

 Yeah, Charlie, it looks like also no UHI at those 4 GA locations that were just noted. OTOH, Phoenix (as a great example) has had a significant UHI as we’ve discussed to pile on top of CC’s effects there. So, it’s not always a red herring and it shouldn’t be ignored where it has had a lot of impact. Otherwise, it looks to others like it is purposely being hidden to exaggerate the effects of GW even if that’s not the case. I’m a disclose everything kind of person so that it doesn’t look like there’s something being hidden. That’s why I suggested Blairsville, GA, as a great choice for no UHI to cloud up the analysis. It’s also why I’m glad to see those 4 GA locations being rural.

[TheClimateChanger]

14 hours ago, chubbs said:

In my experience UHI is a red herring. Often raised; but, never documented with hard evidence. UHI is a local effect while climate change is global. There are thousands of stations in the US. Easy to determine if most of the warming is from UHI or not.There is UHI of course, but it doesn't have much impact at most stations. The urbanization occurred a long time ago or doesn't occur near the station.  Lander appears to be one of those cases.

The Lander airport weather station is well outside of the town's footprint. In a dry area like Lander irrigation or grass watering could have an effect. The photo shows greening from watering outside the built-up area. There could easily be a negative or small UHI impact there. Lander's population rose rapidly before 1970 but hasn't changed much since 1970; with ups and downs, and a small decline since 2010. Lander Airport temperatures have risen slightly since 1940, with most of the rise after population stabilized in 1970. There doesn't appear to be much correlation between temperature at the airport and local population, with flat or declining temperatures during the most rapid population rise in the 1950s and 60s.  Note that the coolest year 2017 is impacted by missing data. Other regional stations weren't cool that year.  Removing 2017 would increase recent warming somewhat.

Bottom-line there isn't much evidence for a UHI warming impact in recent decades. Its possible that grass watering is counteracting other population effects; but, there isn't enough information to make a strong case.

 

 

Yeah, I've always thought it was a red herring. The Lake Erie at Buffalo average annual temperature is rising at pretty much the exact same rate as the air temperature at Buffalo. So unless UHI is pouring into Lake Erie, it would seem the temperature represents a real trend. Lake is slightly warmer because it doesn't drop below 32F in the winter due to ice.

[chubbs]

20 hours ago, GaWx said:

 Yeah, Charlie, it looks like also no UHI at those 4 GA locations that were just noted. OTOH, Phoenix (as a great example) has had a significant UHI as we’ve discussed to pile on top of CC’s effects there. So, it’s not always a red herring and it shouldn’t be ignored where it has had a lot of impact. Otherwise, it looks to others like it is purposely being hidden to exaggerate the effects of GW even if that’s not the case. I’m a disclose everything kind of person so that it doesn’t look like there’s something being hidden. That’s why I suggested Blairsville, GA, as a great choice for no UHI to cloud up the analysis. It’s also why I’m glad to see those 4 GA locations being rural.

Let me clarify. I have no problem if someone makes a sound case using data. But often UHI is thrown out without looking at any data. That's when it is usually a red herring.

[WolfStock1]

I believe UHI effect, while a thing, is overblown as well.   My point though is - deniers like to point to UHI as tainting the data and general claims of trends, so in order to remove all doubt it would be good to have a data set (more than a single station, but rather hundreds of stations) that are truly remote.   It appears the USCRN is a mix of some remote and some not-so-remote sites.    Doing a filter of the USCRN data and weeding out the not-so-remote sites and presenting an average would seem like the thing to do.

The Lake Erie thing actually brings something else to mind.  Has anyone done studies on how much water warming (mainly rivers and lakes) is due to general industrialization vs greenhouse effect?    It seems like it could be quite significant actually.    I mention this because I was looking into water usage recently (context was discussion on data centers) and found that actually one of the biggest water consumers in the US is power plants - used for cooling.   There's more water used for cooling power plants than there is for irrigation, believe it or not.  Much of this is evaporative but much ends up back in rivers and lakes, raising their temperature.   Much is used for other industrial things as well, which certainly raises the temperature some.