Urban 'heat island' effect is only a small contributor to global warming

[ecofarm]

No, you posted attacks on my point as if I was saying something wrong, then you say you already knew this from 20 years ago. It's just bizarre. You are all over the map.

Ouch!

Well, good luck with your doctorate. You'll figure it out sooner or later.

I can see why "the literature" is not helping.

I'll try this slowly. In undergrad or less terms:

I learned the urban heat effect carried little to no weight on the global scale twenty years ago. Stop pretending to be educated.

 

[Hafnium1979]

I can see why "the literature" is not helping.

I'll try this slowly. In undergrad or less terms:

I learned the urban heat effect carried little to no weight on the global scale twenty years ago. Stop pretending to be educated.

Someone is pretending here.

 

[Lord of Planar]

“
Jacobson and Ten Hoeve are authors of a paper describing the research that will be published in Journal of Climate. The paper is available online now. The study modeled climate response from 2005 to 2025.

Some global warming skeptics have claimed that the urban heat island effect is so strong that it has been skewing temperature measurements that show that global warming is happening. They have argued that urban areas are a larger contributor to global warming than the greenhouse gases produced by human activity, and thus drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are not needed.

"This study shows that the urban heat island effect is a relatively minor contributor to warming, contrary to what climate skeptics have claimed," Jacobson said. "Greenhouse gases and particulate black carbon cause far more warming."

Prior to Jacobson's study, claims about the importance of heat island to global warming could not be addressed directly. The few previous modeling studies by other researchers that had examined the effect of urban heat islands on regional scales did not calculate global impacts.

Jacobson's high-resolution study was the first study of the impact of urban heat islands on global sea-surface temperatures, sea ice, atmospheric stability, aerosol concentrations, gas concentrations, clouds and precipitation. He characterized urban surfaces around the world at a resolution of one kilometer, making his simulation both extremely detailed and globally comprehensive.

"This study accounted not only for local impacts of the heat island effect, but also feedbacks of the effect to the global scale," he said.”

Stanford Report

News, research, and insights from Stanford University.

news.stanford.edu

To read the paper: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/Others/HeatIsland+WhiteRfs0911.pdf

Yes, we know that the UHIE has almost no effect on the global values.

So?

I guess once again, you misunderstand what people say.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It will evidently be a surprise to Lord.

See...

You are always so damn wrong about me. It might help if you actually absorbed what I write, instead of making you decision based on confirmation bias.

That paper was discussed before at least once.

 

[Hafnium1979]

Yes, we know that the UHIE has almost no effect on the global values.

So?

I guess once again, you misunderstand what people say.

When told that studies shown (HERE) that UHIE does NOT skew the overall temperature data set you responded with:

I would like to see one of those studies. Haven't seen one yet that shows that.

Don't tell me... Some blogger told you those lies...

The studies that I have seen compare what they call an urban station with a rural one. All those studies shows is that the records between nearby large and small cities are very closely linked. Do you think small cities don't experience such an effect as they grow?

Serious.... I have never seen a study that concluded what you have said.

Link please.

It is interesting that you both KNEW this AND that as of a day or two ago you had never seen a study about it and thought it a "lie".

Interesting, interesting, interesting.

 

[Lord of Planar]

This makes sense. Urban areas don't occupy a very high percentage of Earth's land.

Exactly.

However, it does have a dramatic immediate area effect and the alarmists cry "climate change is causing heat waves" about when they claim "record high" city values. The UHIE is from land use changes, but they love to blame CO2 for the city heat indexes rising.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm a PhD candidate, Interdisciplinary Ecology (specializing in Gender). I plan to publish with a foreign university.

Stop pushing a bs history of science to advance Truther crap.

He really is a snobbish reactionary. Isn't he.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I learned 20 years ago, the urban heat effect carries little to no weight on the global scale. I'm glad you found out about that this week. Way to keep up with the literature.

LOL.

That's how I feel about it. Maybe they learned some facts?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Actually it kinda feels like seriously disorganized thinking on Eco's part. Too much aggression, too little actual thought.

Him and I disagree a lot. He is far less aggressive that you.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Someone is pretending here.

And it appears to be you.

 

[Lord of Planar]

When told that studies shown (HERE) that UHIE does NOT skew the overall temperature data set you responded with:



It is interesting that you both KNEW this AND that as of a day or two ago you had never seen a study about it and thought it a "lie".

Interesting, interesting, interesting.

Oh please. Surly you know there is a difference in "observed readings" and what the actual data would represent if the meteorological stations were farther away and not influenced by the UHIE.

Are you claiming the UHIE has no effect on the "observed readings?"

I never once, claimed the UHIE had a bearing on the actual global average value, because it is very low. If fact, that study claims it has more of an effect that I thought it did. You are too damn fast to judge, using your confirmation bias, to claim myself and others are wrong, when it is your misunderstanding of what we clearly say.

 

[Hafnium1979]

Oh please. Surly you know there is a difference in "observed readings" and what the actual data would represent if the meteorological stations were farther away and not influenced by the UHIE.

Are you claiming the UHIE has no effect on the "observed readings?"

I never once, claimed the UHIE had a bearing on the actual global average value, because it is very low. If fact, that study claims it has more of an effect that I thought it did. You are too damn fast to judge, using your confirmation bias, to claim myself and others are wrong, when it is your misunderstanding of what we clearly say.

You have been shown your words. Live with it or don’t. It matters not to me.

 

[Hafnium1979]

Him and I disagree a lot. He is far less aggressive that you.

Misrepresenting does not suit you

 

[Lord of Planar]

You have been shown your words. Live with it or don’t. It matters not to me.

Oh please. Your misunderstanding of my words is your problem. I have stated "observed readings," and that is what I was referring to. Not my problem you cannot comprehend the meaning of what I say.

Please stop with your creationist arguments.

 

[Hafnium1979]

He really is a snobbish reactionary. Isn't he.

Your aggression toward me is largely uncalled for. I suspect it is due to you realizing that I possibly know more science than you do and you are threatened.

Don't be. I'm not better than you. I may know more science in this area and do it better than you but I'm far from perfect. Don't feel threatened by me and don't get so snippy. Just relax.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Your aggression toward me is largely uncalled for. I suspect it is due to you realizing that I possibly know more science than you do and you are threatened.

Don't be. I'm not better than you. I may know more science in this area and do it better than you but I'm far from perfect. Don't feel threatened by me and don't get so snippy. Just relax.

I see you acting in a very reactive manner here. If the shoe fits...

 

[watsup]

Exactly.

However, it does have a dramatic immediate area effect and the alarmists cry "climate change is causing heat waves" about when they claim "record high" city values. The UHIE is from land use changes, but they love to blame CO2 for the city heat indexes rising.

Yes, global warming because of human-produced CO2 causes heat islands to be EVEN WARMER than it would be otherwise. That’s why the urban areas of the west are experiencing RECORD temperatures whereas without global warming they would be hot but not RECORD hot. What do you not understand about this? Urban heat islands are NOT exempt from the affects of global warming. That is a ridiculous assertion on your part.

 

[Hafnium1979]

Oh please. Your misunderstanding of my words is your problem. I have stated "observed readings," and that is what I was referring to. Not my problem you cannot comprehend the meaning of what I say.

Please stop with your creationist arguments.

"Creationist"? That's an interesting tactic. What do you mean, specifically by "creationist"? I assure you I'm not a creationist.

Do you start off all interactions with people by punching them? You seem awfully raged up on most things.

 

[Hafnium1979]

I see you acting in a very reactive manner here. If the shoe fits...

Umm, I don't even begin to understand what you mean by "reactive" in this case. I suppose you have a reason to throw around inappropriate words, but it is beyond me.

Perhaps you can fill us all in by what you mean.

 

[Hafnium1979]

He really is a snobbish reactionary. Isn't he.

Did you just buy a new dictionary? Or is this your first outing with your thesaurus?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes, global warming because of human-produced CO2 causes heat islands to be EVEN WARMER than it would be otherwise. That’s why the urban areas of the west are experiencing RECORD temperatures whereas without global warming they would be hot but not RECORD hot. What do you not understand about this? Urban heat islands are NOT exempt from the affects of global warming. That is a ridiculous assertion on your part.

OMG. You really don't understand these sciences at all. Yes, CO2 will cause a slight extra warming, but the UHIE is primarily from the land use changes.

You really are something else. D-K in full gear with you.

 

[Lord of Planar]

"Creationist"? That's an interesting tactic. What do you mean, specifically by "creationist"? I assure you I'm not a creationist.

Do you start off all interactions with people by punching them? You seem awfully raged up on most things.

There was another poster that got suspeded not too long ago. Your MO is identical to his, but he would use that term. You sure look suspiciously like him.

 

[watsup]

OMG. You really don't understand these sciences at all. Yes, CO2 will cause a slight extra warming, but the UHIE is primarily from the land use changes.

You really are something else. D-K in full gear with you.

The topic is excess human-produced CO2 and its affect on the atmosphere. As such, huge area-wide Western droughts and recorded temperatures cannot be blamed on "heat islands" of scattered cities, but rather a wider cause must be considered.

 

[watsup]

There was another poster that got suspeded not too long ago. Your MO is identical to his, but he would use that term. You sure look suspiciously like him.

And your MO of constant ad hom got you warned TWICE in a short period of time for an extended insult exchange, and yet you persist and somehow blame it all on others. You apparently haven't the slightest bit of self-awareness.
BTW, I don't blame your attitude on rage, but rather on simple arrogance. You evidently think that you are untouchable, I'm not sure why.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The topic is excess human-produced CO2 and its affect on the atmosphere. As such, huge area-wide Western droughts and recorded temperatures cannot be blamed on "heat islands" of scattered cities, but rather a wider cause must be considered.

What if the drought is caused by windmills resisting the natural flow of the winds, so they deviate a little?