Deep Kimchi
18-02-2006, 03:29
This is not my work, but I find it fascinating, and I did check the data and the references. You may check them as well - it took some time.
I now believe that global warming is not caused by CO2, but by urbanization. The idea is a much better fit, and explains the anomalies in a better fashion (in fact, the CO2 theories don't explain them in any rational fashion).
Yes, there is global warming. Yes, the glaciers are melting. But it's not the CO2 that is heating things up.
Let us consider issues of global warming in relation to land use. It is well known that changes in land use will cause changes in average ground temperature. Cities are hotter than the surrounding countryside – what is called the “urban heat island” effect. Croplands are warmer than forests, and so on.
A high percentage of weather stations that were out in the countryside 40 years ago are now surrounded by concrete and skyscrapers and asphalt and so on. Which makes them register warmer.
These facts are well known within the scientific community. In fact, you can Google “urban heat island” and see the EPA’s explanation of the effect. So, researchers take the raw temperature data from the stations in and around the cities and reduce them by some amount to compensate for the urban heat island effect.
This reduction is calculated in several ways, depending on who does it. But most algorithms are based on population size. The larger the population, the greater the reduction.
At first glance, this may appear to be a logical way to do it. But it probably isn’t. It was studied by Bohm a few years back. Vienna has had no increase in population since 1950, but it has more than doubled its energy use and increase living space substantially. The urban heat island effect has increased, but the calculated reduction is unchanged, because it only looks at population change.
Thus, the heating from cities is being underestimated.
It used to be assumed that urban heating was unimportant, because the urban heat island effect was only a fraction of total warming. The planet warmed about 0.3 degrees C in the last thirty years. Cities are typically assumed to have warmed by around 0.1 degrees C.
It is likely that these assumptions are wrong, as I have illustrated. There is a Chinese report that Shanghai warmed 1 deg C in the last twenty years alone (L. Chen, et al, 2003, “Characteristics of the heat island effect in Shanghai and its possible mechanism,” Advances in Atmospheric Sciences 20:991-1001). And Shanghai is not unique. Houston increased 0.8 degrees in the last twelve years (D.R. Streucher, “Satellite measured growth of the urban heat island of Houston, Texas,” Remote Sensing of Environment 85(2003)). Cities in South Korea are heating rapidly (Y. Choi, H.S. Jung, K.Y. Nam, and W.T. Kwon, “Adjusting the urban bias in the regional mean surface temperature series of South Korea, 1968-1999,” International Journal of Climatology 23 (2003); 577-91) Manchester, England is now 8 degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside. Even small towns are much hotter than
surrounding areas.
Anyway, the point is that the graphs you see are not raw data – they have already been adjusted with fudge factors that are inaccurate to compensate for urban heating. But probably not enough, based on multiple recent studies.
Looking at raw, unadjusted data from Pasadena, California from 1930 to 2000 shows a dramatic rise in temperature. The record from Berkeley, California shows an incomplete record for the same time period, but you can see a clear warming trend. One might say it was indisputable.
Over the same time period, we can look at data from Death Valley, NV, one of the hottest, driest places on Earth – and there is no change. You’re thinking, perhaps it’s an anomaly. But we can look at other places – McGill, NV or Guthrie, OK. These stations are from the Nevada desert and the Oklahoma plains. They show temperatures that are flat or declining. And not only rural areas. Boulder, Colorado is of interest, because the National Center for Atmospheric Research is located there. No change. Truman, Missouri (down 2.5 C). Greenville, SC (down 1.5 C). Ann Arbor, Michigan (down 1 C). If the globe is warming, these places have been left out.
So, you might say, let’s look at bigger cities. Charleston, SC. Yes, it’s warmer. So a bigger city gets warmer. What about New York? Yes, New York City is warmer. But many other parts of the state, from Oswego to Albany, have become colder since 1930.
You might ask, “where does this data come from?” It’s from the National Historical Climatology Network data set. It’s a government data set, maintained at Oak Ridge National Laboratories. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html
You then might ask to see the data from the rest of the world. This is, after all, a global phenomenon.
As you can see, many places in the US do not seem to have become warmer since 1930. You might accuse me of cherry-picking my data, and I might have to some degree – but researchers are constantly doing the same.
You might say that the results do not surprise you – that weather varies locally. It always has and it always will. You might ask why the data I looked at goes back to 1930 when there’s probably data going back further than that.
And I’ll tell you – it definitely makes a difference how far back you go. As an example, West Point, New York, from 1931 to 2000 is trending down. But if you select from 1900 to 2000 – the trend is up.
Now you’re saying “HA!”. You’re thinking that I was massaging the data. That I picked intervals of years that made it look a certain way. And I say Absolutely. But the trick only works because temperatures in many parts of the US were warmer in the 1930s than they are today.
So, you’ll say, let’s go back as far as we have records. In the case of West Point, we can go back to 1826. You might feel confident because it’s well known that a worldwide warming trend began in 1850. You’re thinking the data will reflect that.
And as it turns out, there has been no change in average temperature at West Point from 1826 to 2000. None.
And you’ll argue that that is only one record. One of many. One of thousands.
New York City – up 5 degrees F in 178 years (1822-2000).
Albany, NY - -0.5 degrees F in 180 years (1820-2000).
And once again, you’ll say it is local variations. But I’m wondering – how do these local variations fit into a theory of global warming? As I understand it, global warming is caused by an increase in the so-called greenhouse gases – such as carbon dioxide – that trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere and prevent it from escaping into space.
So, according to the theory, the atmosphere itself gets warmer – just as it would inside a greenhouse. And these greenhouse gases affect the entire planet. And we know that carbon dioxide – the gas we all worry about – has increased the same amount everywhere in the world.
And its effect is presumably the same everywhere in the world – that’s why it’s called global warming.
But New York and Albany are only 140 miles apart. You can drive between them in a few hours. Their CO2 levels are identical. But one got a lot warmer and the other got colder. Is that evidence for global warming?
You’re still going to say that weather is local – but we are talking about climate, not weather. Climate is weather over a long time period. So I would agree with you if both locations got warmer, albeit by different amounts. But one got warmer and the other got colder – and West Point, which is midway between them – stayed the same.
I’ve read some theories of global warming – and some say that the global warming will have some places get warmer while others get colder. But as you think about it, does that make any sense to you? And you’ll say, “well, climate is a complex system…”
But going back to New York and Albany, the fact that these locations are so close, yet so different could lead you to wonder whether we’re really measuring something other than a global effect.
You would agree that in the last 180 years, New York has grown to over 9 million people, while Albany has not grown nearly as much.
And we know that the urban heat island effect makes cities hotter than the surrounding countryside.
And this urban heat island effect is a local effect, and according to proponents of the CO2 theory, unrelated to global warming.
So, tell me – how do you know that a dramatic increase in temperature in New York is caused by global warming, and not just from an excess of concrete and skyscrapers?
Because if cities like New York become larger and hotter than they were before, they will raise the average global temperature, will they not?
In which case, as cities expand all over the world, we might see an increase in average ground temperature simply because of urbanization. Without any CO2 at all.
And the mainstream scientists answer to this is that they have corrected for it – but as we demonstrated – by using a flawed correction.
If this were a lawsuit, we would want the evidence to be untainted – we wouldn’t want anyone to change the data. But in this case, the evidence is the raw temperature data. And it is tainted by the very scientists who claim global warming is a worldwide crisis caused by CO2. And while their adjustment is downward, studies indicate that it is not adjusted downward enough.
It’s a core issue – is global warming caused by urbanization or CO2?
A decent attorney would have no trouble tearing apart the tainted data.
One last thing to think about.
You’ve heard that CO2 levels have increased by an enormous percentage. You’ve seen graphs that look like Mount Everest. But here’s the reality.
CO2 levels have increased from 316 parts per million to 376 parts per million.
Sixty parts per million is the total increase. Expressed as a percentage, it looks huge. But that is deceptive, and most statisticians know it is deceptive.
That’s such a small change that it’s hard to imagine.
Take a football field. Imagine that those 100 yards are the Earth’s atmosphere. Most of it is nitrogen. So that is 78 yards. And most of what’s left is oxygen – which gets you to the 99 yard line. Most of what remains is argon. Now you’re 3.5 inches from the goal line. And how much of that is CO2? One inch. Now, how much has it increased over the last 50 years? 3/8ths of an inch. It’s a lot more CO2, but it’s a marginal change in our atmosphere. Yet you are supposed to believe that this tiny change has driven all of global warming.
Now. We know that New York City has gotten a lot hotter since 1815. And the population of New York was 120,000 in 1815. Now it’s nine million. The city has grown over 7500 percent. To say nothing of all those skyscrapers and concrete. Now I ask you – is it reasonable to believe that a city has grown hotter because of a tiny increase in CO2, or it is hotter because it is now vastly bigger?
I now believe that global warming is not caused by CO2, but by urbanization. The idea is a much better fit, and explains the anomalies in a better fashion (in fact, the CO2 theories don't explain them in any rational fashion).
Yes, there is global warming. Yes, the glaciers are melting. But it's not the CO2 that is heating things up.
Let us consider issues of global warming in relation to land use. It is well known that changes in land use will cause changes in average ground temperature. Cities are hotter than the surrounding countryside – what is called the “urban heat island” effect. Croplands are warmer than forests, and so on.
A high percentage of weather stations that were out in the countryside 40 years ago are now surrounded by concrete and skyscrapers and asphalt and so on. Which makes them register warmer.
These facts are well known within the scientific community. In fact, you can Google “urban heat island” and see the EPA’s explanation of the effect. So, researchers take the raw temperature data from the stations in and around the cities and reduce them by some amount to compensate for the urban heat island effect.
This reduction is calculated in several ways, depending on who does it. But most algorithms are based on population size. The larger the population, the greater the reduction.
At first glance, this may appear to be a logical way to do it. But it probably isn’t. It was studied by Bohm a few years back. Vienna has had no increase in population since 1950, but it has more than doubled its energy use and increase living space substantially. The urban heat island effect has increased, but the calculated reduction is unchanged, because it only looks at population change.
Thus, the heating from cities is being underestimated.
It used to be assumed that urban heating was unimportant, because the urban heat island effect was only a fraction of total warming. The planet warmed about 0.3 degrees C in the last thirty years. Cities are typically assumed to have warmed by around 0.1 degrees C.
It is likely that these assumptions are wrong, as I have illustrated. There is a Chinese report that Shanghai warmed 1 deg C in the last twenty years alone (L. Chen, et al, 2003, “Characteristics of the heat island effect in Shanghai and its possible mechanism,” Advances in Atmospheric Sciences 20:991-1001). And Shanghai is not unique. Houston increased 0.8 degrees in the last twelve years (D.R. Streucher, “Satellite measured growth of the urban heat island of Houston, Texas,” Remote Sensing of Environment 85(2003)). Cities in South Korea are heating rapidly (Y. Choi, H.S. Jung, K.Y. Nam, and W.T. Kwon, “Adjusting the urban bias in the regional mean surface temperature series of South Korea, 1968-1999,” International Journal of Climatology 23 (2003); 577-91) Manchester, England is now 8 degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside. Even small towns are much hotter than
surrounding areas.
Anyway, the point is that the graphs you see are not raw data – they have already been adjusted with fudge factors that are inaccurate to compensate for urban heating. But probably not enough, based on multiple recent studies.
Looking at raw, unadjusted data from Pasadena, California from 1930 to 2000 shows a dramatic rise in temperature. The record from Berkeley, California shows an incomplete record for the same time period, but you can see a clear warming trend. One might say it was indisputable.
Over the same time period, we can look at data from Death Valley, NV, one of the hottest, driest places on Earth – and there is no change. You’re thinking, perhaps it’s an anomaly. But we can look at other places – McGill, NV or Guthrie, OK. These stations are from the Nevada desert and the Oklahoma plains. They show temperatures that are flat or declining. And not only rural areas. Boulder, Colorado is of interest, because the National Center for Atmospheric Research is located there. No change. Truman, Missouri (down 2.5 C). Greenville, SC (down 1.5 C). Ann Arbor, Michigan (down 1 C). If the globe is warming, these places have been left out.
So, you might say, let’s look at bigger cities. Charleston, SC. Yes, it’s warmer. So a bigger city gets warmer. What about New York? Yes, New York City is warmer. But many other parts of the state, from Oswego to Albany, have become colder since 1930.
You might ask, “where does this data come from?” It’s from the National Historical Climatology Network data set. It’s a government data set, maintained at Oak Ridge National Laboratories. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html
You then might ask to see the data from the rest of the world. This is, after all, a global phenomenon.
As you can see, many places in the US do not seem to have become warmer since 1930. You might accuse me of cherry-picking my data, and I might have to some degree – but researchers are constantly doing the same.
You might say that the results do not surprise you – that weather varies locally. It always has and it always will. You might ask why the data I looked at goes back to 1930 when there’s probably data going back further than that.
And I’ll tell you – it definitely makes a difference how far back you go. As an example, West Point, New York, from 1931 to 2000 is trending down. But if you select from 1900 to 2000 – the trend is up.
Now you’re saying “HA!”. You’re thinking that I was massaging the data. That I picked intervals of years that made it look a certain way. And I say Absolutely. But the trick only works because temperatures in many parts of the US were warmer in the 1930s than they are today.
So, you’ll say, let’s go back as far as we have records. In the case of West Point, we can go back to 1826. You might feel confident because it’s well known that a worldwide warming trend began in 1850. You’re thinking the data will reflect that.
And as it turns out, there has been no change in average temperature at West Point from 1826 to 2000. None.
And you’ll argue that that is only one record. One of many. One of thousands.
New York City – up 5 degrees F in 178 years (1822-2000).
Albany, NY - -0.5 degrees F in 180 years (1820-2000).
And once again, you’ll say it is local variations. But I’m wondering – how do these local variations fit into a theory of global warming? As I understand it, global warming is caused by an increase in the so-called greenhouse gases – such as carbon dioxide – that trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere and prevent it from escaping into space.
So, according to the theory, the atmosphere itself gets warmer – just as it would inside a greenhouse. And these greenhouse gases affect the entire planet. And we know that carbon dioxide – the gas we all worry about – has increased the same amount everywhere in the world.
And its effect is presumably the same everywhere in the world – that’s why it’s called global warming.
But New York and Albany are only 140 miles apart. You can drive between them in a few hours. Their CO2 levels are identical. But one got a lot warmer and the other got colder. Is that evidence for global warming?
You’re still going to say that weather is local – but we are talking about climate, not weather. Climate is weather over a long time period. So I would agree with you if both locations got warmer, albeit by different amounts. But one got warmer and the other got colder – and West Point, which is midway between them – stayed the same.
I’ve read some theories of global warming – and some say that the global warming will have some places get warmer while others get colder. But as you think about it, does that make any sense to you? And you’ll say, “well, climate is a complex system…”
But going back to New York and Albany, the fact that these locations are so close, yet so different could lead you to wonder whether we’re really measuring something other than a global effect.
You would agree that in the last 180 years, New York has grown to over 9 million people, while Albany has not grown nearly as much.
And we know that the urban heat island effect makes cities hotter than the surrounding countryside.
And this urban heat island effect is a local effect, and according to proponents of the CO2 theory, unrelated to global warming.
So, tell me – how do you know that a dramatic increase in temperature in New York is caused by global warming, and not just from an excess of concrete and skyscrapers?
Because if cities like New York become larger and hotter than they were before, they will raise the average global temperature, will they not?
In which case, as cities expand all over the world, we might see an increase in average ground temperature simply because of urbanization. Without any CO2 at all.
And the mainstream scientists answer to this is that they have corrected for it – but as we demonstrated – by using a flawed correction.
If this were a lawsuit, we would want the evidence to be untainted – we wouldn’t want anyone to change the data. But in this case, the evidence is the raw temperature data. And it is tainted by the very scientists who claim global warming is a worldwide crisis caused by CO2. And while their adjustment is downward, studies indicate that it is not adjusted downward enough.
It’s a core issue – is global warming caused by urbanization or CO2?
A decent attorney would have no trouble tearing apart the tainted data.
One last thing to think about.
You’ve heard that CO2 levels have increased by an enormous percentage. You’ve seen graphs that look like Mount Everest. But here’s the reality.
CO2 levels have increased from 316 parts per million to 376 parts per million.
Sixty parts per million is the total increase. Expressed as a percentage, it looks huge. But that is deceptive, and most statisticians know it is deceptive.
That’s such a small change that it’s hard to imagine.
Take a football field. Imagine that those 100 yards are the Earth’s atmosphere. Most of it is nitrogen. So that is 78 yards. And most of what’s left is oxygen – which gets you to the 99 yard line. Most of what remains is argon. Now you’re 3.5 inches from the goal line. And how much of that is CO2? One inch. Now, how much has it increased over the last 50 years? 3/8ths of an inch. It’s a lot more CO2, but it’s a marginal change in our atmosphere. Yet you are supposed to believe that this tiny change has driven all of global warming.
Now. We know that New York City has gotten a lot hotter since 1815. And the population of New York was 120,000 in 1815. Now it’s nine million. The city has grown over 7500 percent. To say nothing of all those skyscrapers and concrete. Now I ask you – is it reasonable to believe that a city has grown hotter because of a tiny increase in CO2, or it is hotter because it is now vastly bigger?