Anthony Watts has a nice post today on the Urban Heat Island effect, or “UHI” as it’s known (because we propeller-head types have to use acronyms to keep you commoners off balance). He looks at the temperature records of two cities within close proximity of each other: Ft. Collins and Boulder, both in Colorado. The results of his study are pretty amazing.
Over the last forty years Fort Collins has about tripled in size, while Boulder has grown much more slowly. When we turn to the temperature records for the two towns, we see that they are almost indistinguishable between 1930 and 1970. Then in the 70’s, about the time that Ft. Collins starts to grow, a strange thing happens: Ft. Collins gets warmer and warmer and warmer to the point that, today, it records significantly higher temperatures than Boulder. See for yourself, the blue line is Fort Collins temperatures and the red is Boulder.
How can this happen? It’s the UHI effect. Many skeptics, Watts and Spencer most prominently, have said that urban areas, as they grow, give off more and more heat – particularly if the temperature measurement stations are poorly located – and that throws off temperature readings. (Note that only about 2.5% of the land in the US is developed, so urban areas are NOT representative of the nation’s climate as a whole). Alarmists have pooh-poohed the UHI effect (with extra poo) but I don’t know how you can refute Watts’ logic here. Either “climate change” selectively affects Ft. Collins much more than it does Boulder, or there’s something screwy in the way we measure temperature. I’m betting on the latter.
Again, for probably the 15,000th time, this does not mean that we have not been in the midst of an overall warming trend for a few decades. We have been. But, the fact that the surface temperature records are so unreliable suggests that the magnitude of changes have been greatly exaggerated. (Not to mention that crabby conservatives like me think that most of the change is entirely natural anyway).
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
It seems also, that with two minor exceptions (1994 & 2006) the overall high temperatures are equal to, or lower presently than in the 1930s and 1950s.
But isn’t it also true, Mr. Trzupr, that there have been no polar bear sightings in either Boulder or Fort Collins since 1970?
I was drug to an Indigo Girls concert / rally in the People’s Republic of Boulder back in 2005 and saw a very hairy hippy that may have been a Yetti. Does that count?
See Rich you use your “science” but I have a far more logical explanation for why Boulder is cooler. Pot smoke. See the Mary Jane haze that hangs over the People’s Republic of Boulder is so dense sunlight (and common sense) barely penetrate it at all. The only reason the temperature there is not even lower is the warmth provided by the burning of American flags.
A bunch of filthy, filthy hippies. I hate Boulder.
You are 100% correct about Boulder, Veruckt. I grew up about 20 miles from there, and it’s nearly as bad, or worse than Berkley!
Actually, there are polar bears in the suburbs of Denver:
http://north.aurorak12.org/
Very cool you are linking to Mr. Watts today. He is pretty well known in our area for his tv and radio work and I was surprised a few years ago when I found out he was known in the larger scientific/meteorlogic communities as well. Its nice to see mention of him here, he is one smart cookie.