Talk:Urban heat island

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Meteorology
 This article related to meteorology and/or specific weather events is part of WikiProject Meteorology and Weather Events, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to weather or meteorology. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance within WikiProject Meteorology.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Urban heat island article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Old

A page in sore need of attention William M. Connolley 22:03 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

"the retention of thermal radiation (generally from the sun's infrared rays) absorbed during the day from sunlight" is wrong: solar radiation is mostly non-IR; etc etc. The existing explanation was confused, and I've re-written it, but it needs more work.

"some scientists say" -> "some say" before link to sepp. Etc.

I'd like to move this article from urban heat island effect to urban heat island. Then, discuss what an urban heat island is, giving 2 examples. Also, how many there are and/or how much warmer they are than the surrounding are. Plus, whether and/or how much they have been getting warmer over the decades.

Then, report what scientists say about what causes these "heat islands".

Finally, get into the controversial stuff: the relevance of urban heat islands to the global warming theory. Some say this, some say that.

--Uncle Ed

  • Heat islands effects the global climate directly by increased use of air conditioning, etc
  • Use of cars, etc, does contribute to urban heat islands, but not as much as the albedo difference

I've (William M. Connolley 13:34 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)) added some stuff, derived from IPCC, about why the UHI impact is small. If googling turns up lots of articles saying the reverse, put links to them here, and we can either add them to the UHI page (if they make sense) or add rebutals (if they don't).

BTW, I now think the very last para looks unconfortable.

Well, the section relating UHI to GW is more than half of the article. I hope that's not too much.

Also, I guess I better check all those half-remembered sources again. If I recall correctly, the heat increase in urban areas is about 0.9C per century (as today's article states) -- but the trend in rural areas is much, much less; and the trend in uninhabited areas is basically flat, i.e., no increase.

Last week I visited a site which draws trend lines and calculates the R-squared values for a linear regression analysis of temperature readings. You pick a grid square by latitute and longitude, and you get a graph of the trend. Guess what? Wyoming isn't getting warmer. Georgia is hardly warming at all (negligible). But New York is warming rapidly! Hmm, these three statistics support my point, i.e., that most "global warming" is really just urban warming, and Kyoto advocates are confusing the urban heat island effect with real global warming. --Uncle Ed 17:20 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

Nope. Picking a few grid squares at random is anecdotal evidence. I think finding the 1/2 remembered sources would be a good idea... (William M. Connolley 22:50 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)).
From the IPCC report, which sites other references that I can list if you like, the urban heat increase for 1950-1998 is 0.1C per decade, or 1.0C per century, as compared to 0.8C for rural areas, and 0.92C overall. This isn't considered statistically significant in the IPCC report. Graft

I've (William M. Connolley 22:50 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)) changed "first found in the mid-1800's in the US" to "first found in the 1800's". There was no source for that,and googling says early 1800's in the UK: www.suite101.com/article.cfm/weather/53429 or http://216.239.57.100/search?q=cache:FRuyjhwGfo4C:geog.tamu.edu/~soma/UHI.ppt+urban+heat+island+1800&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Good catch, William. Thanks, and have a good weekend. --Uncle Ed 23:02 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

I've tried to begin balancing the biased IPCC sources with some objective scientific observations. If we listened only to the IPCC and other United Nations organizations, we might get a false impression.

The UN is biased on Israel: it does not condemn anti-Semitism. The US is biased on human rights. It lets Cuba (the world's biggest prison) onto the commission while voting the USA (where most refugees want to go) off!

Why would a UN-created body like the IPCC be any different? I mean, let's be objective here... okay, at least let's be neutral. --Uncle Ed 16:38, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:38, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)) To start, it would be nice if you stopped changing all instances of IPCC into "IPCC, a united nations organisation". Its silly. And can we leave Israel out of GW please? And no, of course, you shouldn't listen to IPCC only: you should read what they say, and if you disagree, you should follow up their references to see if they have misquoted the papers (most unlikely; I know of no examples at all, nor even any accusations) or if you agree with the original papers.

But more substantively: someone (I think Ed) inserted a quote from that well-known totally-objective source co2science, and misattributed it to a scientific paper. This was a fairly crass mistake: scientific papers don't say things like "It is ludicrous to believe that..."

More: the "first found in the 1800's" has now become an (unnamed) midwestern city. Please can whoever added that attribute it? Or I will re-correct, as above.

There is some deeply unconvincing text about "some sci anal" showing the T record depends on closeness to UHI. All unsourced. It should go, unless it can be sourced. Are these unsourced comments the "objective science" Ed mentions above?

I've now (William M. Connolley 11:55, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)) moved and substantially edited this para, to make the claims "asssertions", etc etc. If anyone can find sources for these various assertions, then of course they should be added and "assertion" changed to "found" or whatever.


  1. I gather you don't consider Co2Science objective.
(WMC) Absolutely
  1. If I misattribute a source as a "scientific paper" and it's really some other sort of document, please correct me.
I will :-)

--Uncle Ed 20:41, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:56, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)) Looking over the first few paras I find stuff that looks dodgy. So, to quote:

A heat island is any territory which is consistently hotter than the surrounding area. Weather maps usually show populated areas having hotter temperatures than the surrounding countryside, appearing like "islands" in a cool sea.

I've never seen one such, but perhaps they exist. Anyone got an example?

The urban heat island effect was first described in the 1800s, when it was discovered that a US midwestern city was getting hotter and hotter each year, compared to the farmland around it.

Some while ago I removed this US bit, since google suggested British city and the US bit is unsourced. Anyone know where this little bit of info came from?

Nearly all cities exhibit a heat island effect, particularly in Summer, with several degrees between the center of the city and surrounding fields. The difference in temperature between an inner city and its surrounding suburbs is frequently mentioned in weather reports: e.g., "68 degrees downtown, 64 in the suburbs".

"several degrees", 68 vs 64... are thse just random numbers, or do they have any source at all?

Oh, come on, William! You never heard of "HotLanta"?

See Ed, you *can* source things when someone pushes you: now how about doing it without being pushed, as routine?

And what about your comment pointing out the scientific work using logarithms and trendlines to relate city population to annual temperature increase? --Uncle Ed 15:52, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Pardon?

[edit] Halloween Documents

It has been known for some time that cities are generally warmer than the surrounding, more rural areas. Because of this relative warmth, a city may be referred to as an urban heat island. [1]

The urban heat island phenomenon was first discovered in the early 1800s in London. [2]

Surely "London and surrounding rural areas" :-)

According to satellite readings from NASA, average temperatures in cities and urban areas can range 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than surrounding areas. [3]

[edit] Links

[edit] Urban cooling effect?

The following paragraph presents a POV, in the guise of being "really true":

the heat island effect is primarily due to the difference in heat absorption between the generally dark surfaces of a city - tarmac from roads, etc - and the vegetation that the city/suburbs has replaced (see albedo). These dark surfaces absorb sunlight, heat up, and retain more of this heat than the suburban areas. However, the observations above show otherwise, since the main effect often occurs at night. A contributing factor is the lack of evapotranspiration from vegetation. Finally, hot air from vehicle exhausts and from industry heats up the air further.

I think it would be better to attribute the claims about heat absorption to the scientists (or others) making those claims.

Also, the claim that "observations show otherwise" should also be attributed to its advocates.

In fact, before today's round of edits, it seems that someone was trying to "dispute" the idea that cities are consistently hotter. I guess that's what that 180-year-old observation about 1/3 a degree Fahrenheit of daytime cooling was all about.

Well, everything should be footnoted and attributed. If there are people who insist on believing in GW who want to discount the UHI effect, they have just as much right to their beliefs as the real scientists :-) --Uncle Ed 16:19, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 16:25, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)) This is bizarre: you were totally happy with the para without the leading "It is common to believe that ..." when it asserted as certainty untruths about the UHI. No complaints about attribution then, eh? The observations show otherwise are in the article if you bother to read them - the fact that the heat isalnd is generally largest *after dark* for example.
And now I've just had a chance to read Ed's changes to the article. Ed: you ask for attribution from me, and yet you move and downgrade genuine attributed statements and replace them with completely sourceless stuff that happens to fit your POV: what is your source for:
Nearly all cities exhibit a heat island effect?
particularly in Summer?
In contrast to the modern phenomena of cities which are hotter all day and all night?

If my changes or comments seem bizarre to a practicing scientist, then perhaps we should just revert all my changes until I regain the power of coherent writing :-)

I am determined not to have an edit war on this page, so I'd rather just go back to the previously-acceptable version rather than kick up a fuss. --Uncle Ed 17:49, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:58, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)) OK but it really winds me up having you talk about attribution here like some poor wronged innocent and then adding unattributed stuff yourself.

I've done a re-write, rather than reversion, which emphasises the largest-at-night. If anyone can find reliable sources for otherwise, why, please put them in.

Thanks for the rewrite, and sorry about the bizarre, unattributed changes. I'm a poor writer, I admit it. Also, I have trouble writing neutrally about heat islands since I believe that IPCC and other environmental advocates are confounding the UHI effect with general global warming. I think cities are getting warm rapidly, and small towns are getting warm slowly. But I see no statistical evidence that the earth's surface as a whole is getting warm rapidly, whether due to anthropogenic causes or not. If you have proof to the contrary, please write about it for Wikipedia!! --Uncle Ed 14:29, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks and two suggestions

The claim about the "mistake" in co2science article is quite strained and seems out of place. From earlier comment, the only "mistake" is Connelly's opinion that the Idsos' "reviews" must not provide any info that the article being reviewed does not (overtly?) disclose. [suggestion: prove it's a factual mistake or say that you can't verify the sizes of the towns they identify or drop the point.]

(William M. Connolley 09:41, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)) Your spelling hasn't improved. The co2science stuff was an unhappy addition by User:Ed Poor - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Urban_heat_island&diff=1290018&oldid=1290012 - headed "A journal article sharply contradicts the politically-motivated conclusions of the IPCC". So I added context to it. It might be better removed entirely.
As to co2sciences mistakes, misreporting towns as cities is the most obvious, I'm surprised you missed it.

The IPCC estimate of 20th century effect of urbanization effect on the global surface temperature record was updated in the 2001 WG1 TAR.

Indeed. Thats why the text on the page is quotations from the TAR.

The upper end of the range cited is more than double the figure presented here. [suggestion: replace current treatment with one which reflects most recent assessment, such as: "IPCC cites urbanization effect of up to 0.12°C in the land surface temperature data for 2000.

It would be a good idea to cite the online report at this point.

The urbanization effect on temperature, they conclude, can be trended linearly back to zero in 1900. A co-ordinating lead author for that chapter of the TAR was lead author on a paper that explains the basis for that 0.12°C figure [see Folland et al., Global Temperature Change and its uncertainties since 1861, Geophysical Research Letters 28(13):2621-2624, July 1, 2001]."

This is wikipedia. Edit it as you please.


Your Wikipedia efforts are sincerely appreciated, and my comments reflect nothing but admiration for what you are doing.

Probably a bit over-smarmy (William M. Connolley 09:41, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC))

Steve Schulin

[edit] Reverting Ed

(William M. Connolley 17:25, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)) Welcome back to climate change, Ed. I've made a poor start though... anyway, too much of what you wrote was (IMHO) bad that I've reverted it rather than changing it line by line. Let me try to justify that:

The urban heat island (UHI) theory states that a populated territory tends to become progressively hotter than the surrounding area.

This is a bad start. UHI is the idea that cities are hotter than their surroundings. This isn't terribly controversial so its a good place to start. But you start off instead defining UHI as the theory that cities get progressively hotter. This *is* controversial, and isn't the usual definition.

What is controversial about these "heat islands" is how much this additional warmth affects the (global) temperature record (see below).

Note that you have removed my "whether" from this sentence. Yours implies that they *are* affecting the record, and all we need to do is work out by how much.

The winter/summer stuff.

I strongly suspect this is actually base climate dependent. For reasons best known to yourself you decided that there was only one report for winter.

Conservationists advocate that...
Supporters of the GW theory maintain either that...
However, GW theory supporters dismiss...

it isn't necessary to write the article in this deliberately provocative way. For you, Peterson must be a raving GW-er. You don't seem to understand the possibility that he may just be a humble scientist doing his research.

Etc etc. But thats enough for now: lets see whether you want to take this seriously or not.

[edit] Relation to Global Warming

This whole section needs a rewrite. It looks like it was cobbled together poorly or hastily. It fails to explain why the various advocates believe that UHI has or has not skewed the temperature record.

(William M. Connolley 21:01, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)) Good grief! I partially agree. I've stripped qiute a bit from this section that essentially repeated itself.

I'd like to see some assertions by scientists on both sides of this dispute. Like, Joe Blow says it's all hot air because his analysis of rural and remote land-based thermometer records shows very little warming: significantly less than even the most conservative of the IPCC "models". Or, B. Leaver compared rural with urban stations and found that there was no significant difference: cities are NOT warming up faster than the countryside. --Uncle Ed 15:29, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:01, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)) Less agreement. What you want is already there: the Peterson study. Perhaps you don't like the answer. I could make it more prominent if its hard to find...

I recall reading an assertion by a climate researcher that the IPCC, et al., have undercompensated for the UHI effect. If I locate a quote and a source for this assertion, will you allow me to put it into the article?

(William M. Connolley 17:18, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)) Sure, if its reputable. Even if its FS, in a peer-reviewed journal. What *wont* do is some press-conference quote, quoted only in the skeptic press.

Another assertion I remember reading is a study of all land-based thermometer records in California. The 20th century temperature increase these records showed was directly proportional to the size of the community in which the thermometer was placed: remote areas showed no significant warming, rural areas showed slight warming, small towns showed moderate warming, and cities showed just about the same amount of warming predicted by IPCC models for the average of the entire atmosphere. The writer implied that the only way to "account" for the UHI effect is to ignore all but the remote stations' readings.

(William M. Connolley 17:18, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)) That would be interesting too. My personal opinion is that, for US-based studies, the Peterson study is pretty good. Its recent though, so there has not been a lot of time for others to react. Its odd (don't you think) that people like co2science haven't chosen to review it?

Also, a Wikipedia link I followed to from a pro-IPCC site concedes that satellite and weather balloon readings (a) agree well with each other and (b) show hardly any warming compared to land-based thermometers. If I locate this quote, would you mind letting me place it into the article? --Uncle Ed 12:46, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 17:18, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)) Good reliable stuff is always welcome. But you have to be quite careful about this stuff. In particular, chopping stuff off at 1996/8 because if you go past that the S+C sat record shows warming is distinctly dodgy. S+C often tout the agreement between their record and the balloons but I'm doubtful of that, but not in a way that I can easily put in wiki. If you are really talking about the sat t record, then that page is a more obvious starting point.
(William M. Connolley 17:18, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)) Rather than having near-edit-wars, there is a lot to be said for discussing stuff we just know will be controversial on the talk pages first.
I have no particular objection to any of your recent reverts. Actually, when you give a _reason_ for a revert, it helps me to rephrase the point I was trying to make. I want Wikipedia's climate articles to stand scientific scrutiny: neither advancing a biased, anti-scientific environmentalist agenda nor advancing a biased, anti-scientific pro-industry agenda. --Uncle Ed 19:01, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Contamination

Ed Poor: SEPP examined some of Peterson's earlier work, but balanced it against Goodridge.

In 1999, Singer wrote:

It is likely therefore that the surface data are contaminated by the warming effects of "urban heat islands." Some data support this hypothesis [Goodridge, 1996], others do not [Peterson et al., 1999]. [4]
(William M. Connolley 20:59, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)) The important Peterson paper is from 2003. Note that G1996 isn't referenced.
Well, c'mon, doc, people have only been studying this stuff for 15 years; (research on global warming really started to 'heat up' in 1989, Lindzen says). And the billions of dollars per year America has put into research takes time to generate enough data and analysis to come up with a viable theory.
Has anyone figured out what to do with water vapor and clouds yet? What about soot? And solar variablity or sunspots? And how accurate are thermometers which only have to be good enough for local weather predictions? --Uncle Ed 14:37, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 18:56, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)) Um, those are some big questions. First, I'll stick by my point that P2003 is the one that matters. The abstract of P1999 is:
Using rural/urban land surface classifications derived from maps and satellite observed nighttime surface lights, global mean land surface air temperature time series were created using data from all weather observing stations in a global temperature data base and from rural stations only. The global rural temperature time series and trends are very similar to those derived from the full data set. Therefore, the well-known global temperature time series from in situ stations is not significantly impacted by urban warming.
So really its an earlier and weaker version of P2003. It has been cited 19 times. The Goodridge paper FS puts in opposition isn't a paper - its a letter. It has been cited once.
Meanwhile: water vapour and clouds are in the models. The GHG properties of WV are, AFAIK, preresented well: I've never heard any compliants. The distribution might be open to question. Clouds, of course, are tricky. But there is no reason the uncertainty should be biased towards warm or cold. Almost everyone agrees solar var is small, which is why the clouds-and-cosmic-rays people come in. Thermometers, individually, are accurate enough, probably. You can discuss exposure, drift, etc.

[edit] This and other GW related pages need to be purged of bias.

why the hell am i writing this??? i could just be doing just about anything else right now....

I just wanted to quickly note that this article and other GW articles repeatedly mention the "concensus" view, which amounts to nothing more than the IPCC view, which in turn amounts to nothing more than the view of about one half of the thousands of scientists who were consulted for the IPCC assessment.

Any time someone mentions a "dissenting" viewpoint, it is dismissed with no intellectual justification. A nice example is in this very article. It is mentioned that skeptics claim that UHI may be responsible for a large portion of the warming, BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE (?!?) or something to that effect.

There is evidence... tons of evidence, produced by radio sonde balloons and satellites, both of which show UHI to be an enormous and obvious factor in the surface record. Why certain contributors here are so determined to keep readers from hearing about them is beyond me.

It is something for other contributors to watch for. There is an institutional bias in this particular scientific field and everyone should watch for the types of omission and censorship that is almost to be expected. I find it very humorous that there is even mention of "no peer-reviewed papers to support" the skeptics claim. Does anyone wonder why?

Maybe I will contribute some nice quotes from respected climatologists (MIT, etc.) who are explaining the near certainty with which you will be denied grants and publication if you do not "toe the IPCC line".

Readers deserve the full truth, not the IPCC approved truth. That should include mentioning to them that the IPCCs own report omitted the opinions of about half of the contributing scientists.

(William M. Connolley 09:52, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Evidence... please provide it. Remember, peer-reviewed articles trump people sounding off to the press. Your own personal conviction isn't evidence of bias in the article.

[edit] New Study: 2004/11: Parker

(William M. Connolley 18:31, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)) I'll dump this in here to remind me to read it some time:

Nature 432, 290 (18 November 2004) Climate: Large-scale warming is not urban. DAVID E. PARKER Hadley Centre. Controversy has persisted over the influence of urban warming on reported large-scale surface-air temperature trends. Urban heat islands occur mainly at night and are reduced in windy conditions. Here we show that, globally, temperatures over land have risen as much on windy nights as on calm nights, indicating that the observed overall warming is not a consequence of urban development.

[edit] Utterly Confused

First, this article [Parker] talks about how the UHI is a generally accepted theory.

Then, it talks about how the UHI effect has had no overall effect on temperature measurements (re: global warming).

I can see 4 possibilities:

(1) temperature measurements happen during the time of the day when the UHI effect isn't apperent.

(2) The proportion of temperature measurements within urban areas vs rural areas is so tiny that it doesn't have any effect.

(3) UHI effect does effect temperature measurements, and the conventional wisdom is wrong.

(4) UHI doesn't exist -- sure, some cities are warmer than before, but others are cooler -- random variation.

  1. 1 seems extremely unlikely. #2 also seems unlikely. So what is it? #3 or #4?
Hmm, on reflection the language wasn't too clear. The important point is not the absolute temperature but the trends. I've tried to clarify that; tell me if I've succeeded. William M. Connolley 10:52:28, 2005-07-14 (UTC).
I suggest that the Parker paper be copied to this site, which is permitted under fair use, so we can read it. Or give us a link. The Parker paper is a red herring in the Urban Heat Island debate. raylopez99 17:27:99, 2005-10-14 (PST).
Copy it if you like, it will be deleted, of course, because it isn't fair use. You appear, however, to be confessing that you haven't read it, which is why your "red herring" assertion is so badly wrong. William M. Connolley 09:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
And now you are an expert on "Fair Use" as well as GW? ROTFL! What is your basis for the lack of fair use assertion? Perhaps you realize that Wikpedia fails the U.S. test for "fair use" because the articles posted therein are NOT intended for scholarly debate? You may be right--you seem to monopolize this board on the issue of global warming and use your incessant bias to censor all other viewpoints. As for the Parker paper, it does not make sense the way it is posted and from reading the abstract. Either UHI exists, or it does not. Which is it? The fact that it cannot be distinquished between windy and non-windy days and nights is a topic completely irrelevant vis-a-vis whether or not UHI exists. raylopez99 11:01.43, 2005-10-17 (PST).
Copying an entire document so it can be read by the public is generally not "fair use". Doesn't take much awareness of the purpose of copyright to understand the large number of situations where "fair use" does not apply. It is also better to protect Wikipedia by avoiding "fair use" usage. (SEWilco 18:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC))
Anyway, your time might be more productively spent in looking for papers which point out problems with Parker's paper. (SEWilco 18:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC))
[Edit conflict] A few years ago a journal publisher was able to successfully sue for copyright infringement because articles which were available in the company library were photocopied and distributed to staff. It's legit to make a copy for personal use, but not to distribute it. Posting the article here would amount to distribution. Guettarda 18:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I am not suggesting the entire Parker paper from Nature be copied and posted here. I am suggesting excerpts that back the claim in the article be copied here. In fact, if you Google the Parker paper you will find 'sound bite' paragraphs lifted from it. I am suggesting somebody lift more than 1 or 2 paragraphs; life a page or two and post it here. I cannot rebut the untruths that Dr. Connolley repeats on this website unless I can read a copy of the Parker paper. And untruths they are. Dr. Connolley (Dr. Bill as I call him at alt.global-warming) is a known proponent of AGW, that humans cause global warming. Nearly all scientists in the GW debate have agendas (me too, though I don't work in the field, thank God). Anybody care to email me the Parker paper? I will rip it to shreds, guaranteed. There are no sacred cows or sure things in science. As a science major I can assure you that. Even Einstein's laws have unexplained anomalies. I am at: raylopez99@yahoo.com raylopez99 00:11.23, 2005-10-18 (PST).

[edit] Diurnal behaviour

We seem to have an incipient disagreement... I've reverted:

Though the UHI is generally most apparent at night, this belies the fact that it is driven by daytime processes. Throughout the daytime, particularly when the skies are free of clouds, urban surfaces are warmed by the the absorption of solar radiation. As described above, the surfaces in the urban areas tend to warm faster than those of the surrounding rural areas. However, as is often the case with daytime heating, this warming also has the effect of generating convective winds within the urban boundary layer. Due to the atmospheric mixing that results, the air temperature UHI is generally minimal or nonexistant during the day, though the surface temperatures can reach extremely high levels.
At night, however, the situation reverses. The absence of solar heating causes the atmospheric convection to decrease, and the urban boundary layer begins to stabilize. If enough stablization occurs, an inversion layer is formed. This traps the urban air near the surface, and allows it to heat from the still-warm urban surfaces. Thus the nighttime UHI is formed.

That text was inconsistent with the text there The explanation for the night-time maximum is that the principal cause of UHI is blocking of "sky view" during cooling: surfaces lose heat at night principally by radiation to the (comparitavely cold) sky, and this is blocked by the building in an urban area.

I don't think the new text works: if convection moves away the daytime heat, then it wouldn't affect the nighttime. If the main forcing is during the day, the main effect would be seen during the day. At the least, that text needs some source.

William M. Connolley 21:33:05, 2005-08-25 (UTC).

Wow, that was quick. I'm new at this (the wiki bit, not the science), so please bear with me.

The basic argument is this - during the day, the sun heats the surface/ground/buildings/etc. The surface tries to heat the air, but the convection/mixing with rural air prevents significant warming. After the sun sets, the air stablizes and can be heated by the ground, which hasn't yet cooled. (While the warm air is more noticeable, the bulk of the heat energy is stored in the ground, due to much higher heat capacities.) Does that make sense?

I will work on finding some sources.

However, I disagree with the statement that the blocking of "sky view" is the principle cause of the UHI. It is certainly one of the causes, but nowhere have I seen it described as the primary reason, including in the sources listed.

--David Streutker 22:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


OK, we could do with some sources for the mechanisms. I know what you're saying re convection, but I'm rather doubtful that the (ground-1.5) t diff would really be highest at night from the mechanism you're describing. William M. Connolley 08:58:55, 2005-08-26 (UTC).

I've changed a bit of it and added some sources. I plan to add more soon (in a different section) to help clarify the difference between surface and air temperature UHIs.--David Streutker 03:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Omaha Shields merge

In my opinion, Omaha Shields should not be merged here. It appears to be both a neologism and original research and should just be deleted rather than being merged here. --Pak21 14:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There is some stuff about weather changes around cities, but I agree, this isn't suitable for merge William M. Connolley 19:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Omaha Shields has now been deleted (via proposed deletion). I have removed the merge tag. Cheers --Pak21 08:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] footnote problem

footnote number 2 is a broken link and i was just wondering if this claim was disputed because as of now it's not really cited.--Dmcheatw 02:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UHI and global warming

Article says:

Some advocates charge that temperature data from heat islands has been mistakenly used as evidence for the global warming theory.

Yes, and this view needs amplification. The two sides on this issue are:

  1. that the IPCC has compensated for the effect in its analysis of modern warming trends.
  2. that the "compensation" is not transparent (i.e., they didn't say how they compensatad); and that other calculations show that when temperature records affected by UHIE are omitted, global warming is significantly lower than the figures the IPCC uses.

I've tried to add info about this dispute before, but I can't find it this year. Has anyone seen where it's gotten to? --Uncle Ed 13:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eds eds

Ed removed Not to be confused with global warming, scientists call this phenomenon the "urban heat island effect, errm, for reasons that are unclear. Many people do confuse the two: making it clear that they are separate seems a good idea.

Ed removed: ...for example, urban and rural trends are very similar. with the comment the POV that urban and rural trends are very similar needs facts and figures which is clear proof that he hasn't bothered to read the article, which lower down says: the trends in urban stations for 1951 to 1989 (0.10°C/decade) are not greatly more than those for all land stations (0.09°C/decade). and simlarly the rural trend is 0.70°C/century from 1880 to 1998, which is actually larger than the full station trend (0.65°C/century)

So I've put them back. Naturally enough, I took out the unpublished tripe from WH, because the published results in the page are better.

William M. Connolley 16:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think your deletion is an example of "point of view editing". Why not allow the article to be balanced with an opposing POV? The fact that you are a climate modeller yourself (and a Senior Scientific Officer to boot) carries no weight at Wikipedia, you know. --Uncle Ed 17:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll leave that for others to decide. As to deletions: do you mean Warwick? Why should his unpublished nonsense be given any weight at all? Why is it any more interesting than my ramblings on my blog on Wegman? [5]
And... are you going to confess that your rm of the urban/rural was a mistake? William M. Connolley 20:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Woo-hoo! A chance to confess ... "Father, forgive me for I have sinned."
Please point out my error more specifically so I can make a suitable apology.
Truely Ed this is absolutely pathetic and amkes me doubt your good faith. The error in question is the one just above... shall I repoeat it, since you seem unable to read it... OK, here we go:
Ed removed: ...for example, urban and rural trends are very similar. with the comment the POV that urban and rural trends are very similar needs facts and figures which is clear proof that he hasn't bothered to read the article, which lower down says: the trends in urban stations for 1951 to 1989 (0.10°C/decade) are not greatly more than those for all land stations (0.09°C/decade). and simlarly the rural trend is 0.70°C/century from 1880 to 1998, which is actually larger than the full station trend (0.65°C/century)
Have you got that now? William M. Connolley 21:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rural vs. Urban temperature trends

I already had that, mate. I'm interested in adding the opposing POV that rural trends are significantly higher than urban trends. In California, for example.

Also, Atlanta is 5C hotter than the surrounding area. If that happened in 5 centuries, that would be a 1 degree/century greater urban increase than rural.

And please, spare me the personal remarks like "pathetic" and "good faith". I'm interested in the article. --Uncle Ed 15:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested in adding the opposing POV that rural trends are significantly higher than urban trends - ah well, nothing like making your biases known. I suppose the actual numbers in the article mean nothing against that? I consequence, I've reverted your changes William M. Connolley 15:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not "bias" to add an opposing POV. "Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view," you know.

As for "actual numbers in the article", they represent one POV (the one you, my notable friend, espouse :-) with which other sources disagree. "Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion." --Uncle Ed 20:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Alas, Ed, you tend to see things in terms of fighting POVs, which is very unhelpful for science articles. If you have some other numbers - large scale ones, not just individual places - then please provide them. Otherwise you have nothing. BTW, do you really mean you want rural trends are significantly higher than urban trends? I thought you wanted it the other way round? William M. Connolley 20:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Ever affable, my friend. I appreciate that. Yes, I meant that the POV opposing yours is that rural temperature trends are significantly lower than urban trends. Perhaps you know of a study that compares urban, suburban, rural and "remote" temp data? Be cool . . . --Uncle Ed 21:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, there is the Peterson eon, ref'd in the article... though of course that gives the "wrong" result from your POV... :-) William M. Connolley 21:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Health impacts

I added a paragraph on the health effects of rural vs. urban populations from Johns Hopkins University. 18:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Link Removed: Appears to be relevant

After visiting site, it does not appear to be spam and offers useful content which appears to be relevant. If there are no objections, I will repost.

Thank you for entering this in the article discussion first.
Regarding the link to eoearth.org, you stated "offers useful content which appears to be relevant". This, however, is not the sole criteria in the WP:EL standard. WP recently has been tightening their external link standards because WP is getting flooded with link spammers who are not simply trying to sell products but are trying to promote their own websitesWikipedia:WikiProject Spam. Here's an extract from this guideline on links to be avoided;
"A website that you own, maintain or are acting as an agent for; even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked to. This is in line with the conflict of interests guidelines."
Further it states in its guidelines that the following links are to be avoided:
"Links that are added to promote a site..."
"Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." eoearth.org is less than 6 months old.
It appears that an individual or group of eoearth.org users have been flooding WP with links to promote this website. In most cases, the only contributions to WP by these users are the addition of these links. In the case of User:KonaScout (who added this link), this user was warned twice prior to cease link spamming eoearth.org by two other editors and the links were removed. If you check his contribution list, the vast majority are simply adding external eoearth.org links. From all appearances, he has stopped his link spamming. Other eoearth.org users likewise have been warned by other editors and most have stopped.
My removal of this link was in accordance with the WP standard. If you still object to its removal and think that its retention should be treated as an exception, this Talk page is the place to do it. If consensus is reached and the link meets WP guidelines, then it can be added.
Again, thanks again for taking the time to write and explain your position. Calltech 17:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loads of questions

I'm going to put a big load of text in here - when this is answered please go ahead and delete it, but I've got a bunch of questions first!

there is a risk that the effects of urban sprawl might be misinterpreted as an increase in global temperature. However, the fact that heat islands have such a large effect is, paradoxically, evidence that it is largely absent from the record, otherwise warming would be shown as much larger in the record. The 'heat island' warming does unquestionably affect cities and the people who live in them, but it is not at all clear that it biases trends in historical temperature record: for example, urban and rural trends are very similar.

I'm really sorry - but can someone explain what this means? I get that the trends are the same in city and rural - great. But this 'large effect means it must be absent since we see a small effect' argument seems paradoxical - perhaps we see a small part of the 'large effect'. To give an analogy - maybe we are not seeing a skyscraper being built next to the thermometer - maybe they just paved the road to it. Can someone explain? --Dilaudid 22:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, why is this complex? People say, the UHI effect is large. But if it is large, it must be largely absent. I suppose you could invent some magic whereby we only see a small part of a large effect... but why? I don't understand your analogy William M. Connolley 23:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Within the context of global warming analysis, the sentence in question is illogical. Overall temperature change at a location over time is the change in baseline temperature plus a change due to urbanization. If it is known a priori that the baseline temperature has increased (due, say, to global warming), and if the total measured temperature increase is only slightly more than the change in baseline, then it can be concluded that the urban heat effect is slight. However, the question within this section of text is whether temperature measurements taken over time in or near urban centers can be used as evidence for an increase in baseline temperature. The sentence in question simply assumes a positive conclusion to this question, and states the implications in regard to the significance of urban heat effects. SteveH (no username), Thu Dec 28 15:09:22 EST 2006.
The sentence makes no such assumption. What it does point out is that if the assertions of a very large UHI effect were true, then all urban areas would should large warming trends and the overall warming trend would be large. But this is not observed William M. Connolley 20:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
In theory, a large UHI effect could be offset to some degree by a decrease in baseline temperature. In order to conclude that ``the overall warming trend would be large`` you need the assumption that baseline temperature has not fallen. But this assumes the conclusion. SteveH (no username) Thu Dec 28 21:50:23 EST 2006
Not if you assume (as many seem to) that the UHI effect is much larger than the background changes William M. Connolley 11:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Nation's IPCC

IPCC release your data on how you "compensated" for the UHI.

The IPCC doesn't compensate for anything, because they don't do research. They just compile peer-reviewed research into a comprehensive report. Mishlai 04:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
IPCC release your raw data on how you compensated for the UHI, which you later compiled. Frauds.70.176.5.79 04:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be having a hard time understanding. The IPCC doesn't have the raw data - it is only synthesising the results of other papers. You need to go back to the originals and rant at them instead William M. Connolley 09:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
If the IPCC has no raw data, then they have no authority. Thank you for playing the entrapment game. 70.176.5.79 19:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The IPCC has no raw data and does not do its own research. This isn't a secret. The IPCCs authority lies in the quality of its synthesis of published research. Since it does this well, it has a high authority William M. Connolley 22:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lindzens comments

We have a disagreement [6] over the inclusion of some text from Lindzen. My argument is that reporting his earlier comments, without including the latter ones that clearly show he accepts the current record, is misleading. One solution would be to delete the misleading text Some have argued for an ill-defined "influence" of the UHI on the temperature records without attempting to quantify it - for example Richard Lindzen in 1990 William M. Connolley 09:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image in 'Causes' Section

I would like a second opinion as to whether you agree with the statement attached to the image in the 'Causes' section of this article. It explains the image shows cooler areas marked by denser vegetation but in my view it actually shows the complete opposite! Surely this is demonstrating the reverse effect discussed in this article and therefore makes for a very odd example? Domentolen 00:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

 ? Darker green areas correspond to darker purple William M. Connolley 08:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unwarranted adjustments to the temperature record

This article needs to address two very important issues: 1. the controversy around unwarranted government adjustments to the temperature record (to adjust for "rural cooling" rather than "urban warming")[7] and 2. ongoing research into the controversy regarding poor siting of temperature stations leading to a warming bias (especially in rural sites). Government adjustments to the temperature record are continuing. But check this out [8] and this. [9] I came across this on Comment 15 here.[10] I have done enough reading now to be convinced that the 1990s were NOT warmer than the dust bowl years of the 1930s. I believe alarmists like Jim Hansen are playing with the temperature record. In effect, these "adjustments" to the temperature record are done in order to create evidence of global warming. I also believe there are a number of warming biases in our land surface temperature network as pointed out by the Davey and Pielke paper in 2005. [11] I am aware of the Peterson paper in 2006 which tried to say the problems Davey and Pielke found in eastern Colorado are not wide spread and there is no UHI warming bias. However, there are a number of problems with the Peterson paper. [12] Pielke has called for a thorough documentation of the sites, including photographs and that effort is underway now led by Anthony Watts [13] and encouraged by Pielke [14] [15] and Steve McIntyre.[16] I need some help locating additional reliable sources on temperature adjustments. If anyone would like to participate in this effort, you can go to my User Page and click the "Email this user" button and we can discuss where this information may be found. RonCram 00:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify a few points. Pielke and Matsui's paper "Should light wind and windy nights have the same temperature trends at individual levels even if the boundary layer averaged heat content change is the same?" [17] refutes Parker's paper "Climate: Large-scale warming is not urban." [18] The Davey and Pielke paper "Microclimate exposures of surface-based weather stations - implications for the assessment of long-term temperature trends." [19] showed a number of poor quality stations in eastern Colorado. Peterson's 2006 paper "Examination of Potential Biases in Air Temperature Caused by Poor Station Locations" [20] was written in response to the Davey and Pielke paper and claims the few poor stations in eastern Colorado are not a big deal. Pielke wanted to publish a response but the journal publisher would not allow it (this type of gatekeeping is another big issue in this controversy). But Peterson did not consider a number of factors, as Pielke points out on his blog. Peterson's paper has a host of problems starting with the fact it flies in the face of a number of peer-reviewed papers (besides Pielke's) including:
  • “Reexamination of instrument change effects in the U.S. Historical Climatology Network” by Hubbard K. and X. Lin August 2006 [21]
  • “Land use/land cover change effects on temperature trends at U.S. Climate” by R. C. Hale, K. P. Gallo, T. W. Owen, and T. R. Loveland in 2006 [22]
  • “The Geoprofile metadata, exposure of instruments, and measurement bias in climatic record revisited” by Rezaul Mahmood, Stuart A. Foster and David Logan in 2006 [23]
When taken together the evidence indicates even the rural surface stations have a warming bias through the decades due to land-use changes at these stations. The work being done now by SurfaceStations.org (http://www.surfacestations.org/) documents that this is not limited to eastern Colorado. The GISS should not be adjusting temperature downward for the 1930s and 40s nor adjusting the temperature upward in the 1990s. These weather stations were put into service to provide forecasts for the military and to predict severe weather events. The station network was not originally designed to provide information on climate or to measure global warming by tenths of a degree. While some adjustments to the temperature record may be warranted, the adjustments done by the GISS fly in the face of the evidence or a warming bias in the peer-reviewed literature. RonCram 20:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute, uncited fact

I believe the bolded portion is unsupported:

"Another view, often held by skeptics of global warming, is that the heat island effect accounts for much or nearly all warming recorded by land-based thermometers. However, these views are mainly presented in "popular literature" and there are no known scientific peer-reviewed papers holding this view [dubious — see talk page]."

If there is no supporting evidence to this claim it should not be included. --Theblog 21:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Since we cannot proove a negative, and since you apparently believe that it is incorrect - the simple way of dealing with this is to find such a paper - perhaps you should ask Ron? --Kim D. Petersen 21:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopedias should not make unsupported facts, therefore it should be removed, the onus isn't on me to disprove the fact, its on you to prove it. Since you are unable to, then it should be rephrased or removed. --Theblog 22:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
As said below - we will just remove the whole paragraph. Which under all circumstances isn't backed by any scientific evidence. The whole paragraph is/was a nod/summary of the popular literature - and without the caveat would give undue weight to the rest. The paragraph doesn't really interest me enough to fight for it. --Kim D. Petersen 22:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

(Comment moved from wrong section)

I don't see why the para needs to be cut. Its talking about something we all know is out there. Were there any papers saying this, the septics would have found them, so its no good pretending they might exist William M. Connolley 08:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Since when can you put unverifiable info in an encyclopedia? A part of me can't believe that I have to argue that. --Theblog 14:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
William and Kim, please read WP:V the first paragraph includes the phrase: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." The line I marked clearly violates this policy. --Theblog 15:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Then cut the whole paragraph - by strict interpretation of WP:V it would have to go. Which then would mean that no coverage of this sceptical talking point is removed. --Kim D. Petersen 15:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Well I didn't put it back in! What is in there now is worse than having nothing IMO, there is some criticism of the IPCC's view on UHI, but it doesn't come from Lindzen's 1990 article, which was uhhh you know, well before the IPCC and certainly the prominantly cited IPCC UHI articles (ie Parker 2004). --Theblog 16:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Then please cite this critique of the "IPCC's view" (as the IPCC is doing assessments and not research, its view really should be the prevalent scientific opinion on a subject) on UHI. I'd be very interested. If its scientific sources - then they surely should be included in the meat of the article according to weight. --Kim D. Petersen 16:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This is nothing to do with IPCC. IPCC isn't everything, you know; they are very good but you don't have to keep falling back to them William M. Connolley 22:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
That section is strongly (if not totally) from the IPCC or studies cited in the IPCC. Did you read WP:V yet? You still haven't addressed that issue. --Theblog 23:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

(Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.) The statement is unverified, the onus is on YOU to prove it when you put it back, not the other way around, you are just pretending it is not there. You can not verify it therefore it should be removed. --Theblog 23:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

There are two choises here - either cut the whole paragraph (strict interpretation of WP:V) - or try to resolve via common sense and finding a source that provides verification that the statement isn't correct. The reason that i'm referring to common sense here is that its easier to disprove the current statement, than it is to prove it. --Kim D. Petersen 23:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed it, to replace it, you must follow WP:V, the burden of proof lies on the editor which replaces it:
"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article."
You can't just wish it away or ignore it. --Theblog 03:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
May i suggest that you read Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means? This case is one of either including relevant information - or loose it entirely because of strict interpretation of WP:V (yes this goes for the whole paragraph). --Kim D. Petersen 08:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
And now that we have WP:IAR (a policy which btw. i do not like) on the table - could we get down to the essentials? Can you convince me (and WMC), that the statement is in fact incorrect? I'm willing to cease immediatly if you can at least provide me with something that raises reasonable doubt that this is the case... --Kim D. Petersen 09:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Just find sources if you want the paragraph so much, I do not have to convince you that the statement is incorrect. Read WP:V AGAIN. I believe that removing the unverified portion is better than having it in, it is unencyclopedic to have a statement hanging out there like that. I can't explain a basic policy and how the statement is clearly violating it any better than I have. You'll just have to deal with it not being in as long as it breaks the rules. There is no reason to IAR, its not some special case, it is just unverified. --Theblog 14:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Please stop harping about WP:V - its a policy - yes. So is WP:IAR. Try relating to what i've said. The current consensus is for the paragraph staying. So please, argue your case for it to be removed - without trying to wikilawyer it. --Kim D. Petersen 15:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Now I've added a source, do you think you might stop deleting the para, or explain why you don't think the source is good enough? William M. Connolley 16:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure, now the first sentence looks verified, the rest is still unverified though. Kim, just read WP:V already, the line you want to focus on is: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability if it does not meet this threshold it shouldn't be included. --Theblog 16:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually now that I reread the cite, I'm not sure it says that at all. The cite says: "This argument maintains that much recorded climate data is inherently unreliable because of where weather instruments are situated." while the article says: "the heat island effect accounts for much or nearly all warming recorded by land-based thermometers [2]." These two are clearly not the same. --Theblog 16:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps if you'd troubled yourself with reading as far as the second para? Most are in or near cities, which produce their own heat; so the rapid warming measured over the last century could be just a record of urbanisation. William M. Connolley 18:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll change it around to match better, but it is not the same. --Theblog 19:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Will you please stop your insistance that we read WP:V - i've read it several times. (as well as just recently being involved in policy changes). And i'm quite sure that WMC has read it at least a magnitude more than i (or you) have, in his aspect as WP admin. Get to the specifics: What exactly is your gripes with the paragraph? What exactly do you think is wrong - and based on which sources? --Kim D. Petersen 18:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the first part of the section, it is STILL unverified despite you two constantly removing the citation needed tag. Do you believe that the bolded portion above is verified? --Theblog 19:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Added the following reference: Sandalow, David B. (2005-01-28). Michael Crichton and Global Warming. Brookings Institution. Retrieved on 2007-07-06.

In contrast, as one source reports, “there are no known scientific peer-reviewed papers” to support the view that "the heat island effect accounts for much or nearly all warming recorded by land-based thermometers.”

it may be that Sandalow's source is Wikipedia (which isn't stated - but a distinct possibility) - but i'll assume for now that he did his research and fact-checking. --Kim D. Petersen 23:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It is almost certainly from wikipedia since it uses the exact same wording, but whatever. --Theblog 04:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I've changed my mind and removed the line and source, it is not an acceptable source or statement. --Theblog 04:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop deleting stuff you find inconvenient. There are no known papers saying this William M. Connolley 13:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:V it needs to be supported, uncited think tank hit pieces (which use the exact wikipedia wording) are not RS. --Theblog 16:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
And just how do you decide that it must be from WP - and not that both got it from the same original source? As it stands now - its directly attributable - follows WP:V and while we may have suspecions that Sandalow got it from WP - we have no knowledge of this. Do you have any reasons to doubt that Sandalow is a non WP:RS here? Or do you have any reasons to suspect that he hasn't done his research here? --Kim D. Petersen 18:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV ill-defined

I believe the bolded portion of the following is POV pushing:

"Some have argued for an ill-defined "influence" of the UHI on the temperature records without attempting to quantify it - for example Richard Lindzen in 1990.[19]"

Since Lindzen himself does not describe his paper as "ill-defined" it can not be described as much by editors, if there is a quote from a source that believe so, that would be fine to use. --Theblog 21:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

All very well - but the wording is not specifically directed at Lindzen, but used in general, because the effect isn't defined... you have no way to determine what the impact is - how much it is - where its located etc.(quantification). Look up in the dictionary for what ill-defined means. Find us a paper that actually quantifies it (or suggest another good wording with the same meaning) - then this debate will go away. --Kim D. Petersen 21:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Alternatively we can cut the whole paragraph, which isn't based on science - but on a rather obscure sceptical viewpoint without scientific backing. And therefore could be said to be undue weight. --Kim D. Petersen 22:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Heres the paragraph (which i cut) - can we reach a consensus on it - or should we just leave it out entirely?
Another view, often held by skeptics of global warming, is that the heat island effect accounts for much or nearly all warming recorded by land-based thermometers. However, these views are mainly presented in "popular literature" and there are no known scientific peer-reviewed papers holding this view [dubious – discuss]. Some have argued for an ill-defined "influence" of the UHI on the temperature records without attempting to quantify it - for example Richard Lindzen in 1990.[1]
--Kim D. Petersen 22:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not for editors to make the call if it is ill-defined or not, that is left to other scientists, I believe I can reword the paragraph in such a way that I am happy, yet is still accurate, I'll give it a shot in a bit. --Theblog 22:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you are focusing on the word - instead of the contextual meaning. Ill-defined just means that it isn't quantified or stated in which direction and how large such a bias would be... The Lindzen paper is a rather good example of this - he hints that it could have an influence - but doesn't even try to quantify it. (try reading page 290 the paragraph starting with "The determination ..."). --Kim D. Petersen 23:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Would it help at all to replace "ill-defined" with "un-defined". Lindzen certainly provides no clarity on the issue. Perhaps you can find some other septic who does? And perhaps some papers that do assert an influence? William M. Connolley 22:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

how about we just leave the subjective descriptor out altogether? --Theblog 23:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pielke et al(2005) and Parker(2006)

Pielke et al(2005) cannot refute Parker(2006) - that is not possible. Its rather more likely that the good Dr. Pielke really meant Parker(2004) and included Parker(2006) by error. And that is not WP:OR - its editorial oversight. --Kim D. Petersen 18:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Secondly the Pielke et al(2005) paper does not reference Parker(2006) [or any preprint thereof] - but only the Parker(2004) paper. --Kim D. Petersen 18:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And that is not withstanding that you are putting rather much weight on Pielke alone - what rationale do you have for that? Have you checked the AR4 for other research - and their assessment? Note that the AR4 would have more weight than a single paper - because its a secondary source rather than a primary according to WP:PSTS. --Kim D. Petersen 18:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
You are speculating, research from an earlier paper can refute a later paper, many papers take a long time to publish or the author will not read all research in the field and get published anyway. A paper does not have to cite a paper to rebut it, the research just has to have different conclusions. Also, Pielke referenced a 2007 paper in the quote, which you seem to have forgotten. You are making a judgement call.
As for the weight, it is one paragraph (which currently only partially covers his views), Parker (and Peterson) have one paragraph, they should be approximately equally weighted, both peer review papers on the point, from scientists in the field. It is

not clear to me why you feel . --Theblog 19:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Parker et al paper has been extensively cited (well, 16) and extensively quoted and was published in a prestigious journal, Nature. The Pielke 2005 paper has been ignored (0 cites) and published in a less presigious journal (GRL). Hence they should be weighted differently: Parker far more highly. Research from an earlier cannot refute a later - you are being rather desperate there, try to remember your credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by William M. Connolley (talk • contribs) 20:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll repeat myself for the two of you: "Also, Pielke referenced a 2007 paper in the quote, which you seem to have forgotten." Is it in the realm of possibility for a 2007 paper to rebut a 2006 2005 or 2004 paper? The difference between my two versions is 9 whole words and one cite, which adds a fair amount of information. --Theblog 01:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Assuming you mean the Walters thing, it is of no clear relevance. Pielke thinnks it is, but thats only his opinion. It too has zero cites (of course, being new). The 2007 paper rebuts nothing: Pielkes assertion that it does is simply wrong. and no, we are under no obligation to reproduce every assertion he makes in his blog William M. Connolley 12:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
You are clearly doing OR. --Theblog 16:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Only if you think that applying the no-undue-weight policies is OR. Face it: everything has to be evaluated William M. Connolley 19:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This is OR: "Assuming you mean the Walters thing, it is of no clear relevance. Pielke thinnks it is, but thats only his opinion. It too has zero cites (of course, being new). The 2007 paper rebuts nothing: Pielkes assertion that it does is simply wrong." The weight issue is another subject, apparently you two believe the nine extra words crosses some mythical weight line you've established. --Theblog 22:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Theblog - Pielke's view really isn't that important - its mentioned which is just about the weight that it can receive according to WP:WEIGHT. Pielke is a single scientist, and we know at least from Realclimate that other, just as expert sources ,do not agree with him - And even more importantly we know that the source with the most weight, AR4, is also in disagreement with him. --Kim D. Petersen 23:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he's got one sentence while AR4 which already includes Parker and Peterson and then the separate Parker and Peterson have ~6 paragraphs, I hardly think 9 more words is going to tip the balance. How about we take out the think tank cited line and put in those 9 words? The additional Pielke words are certainly more valuable to the article than "facts" from a hit piece on a SciFi author.--Theblog 01:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - but we are not talking about the other paragraph. We are talking about the Pielke one. One is science - the other is not.
Can you explain to me why you feel that we should give weight to something that Pielke apparently is the only source to? And on top of that something that hasn't been published? (going against the WP:SPS rules - even for experts). Can you demonstrate to me that this is a significant minority view according to WP:NPOV? Or are you (as you blame WMC for) simply conducting WP:OR by assuming that Dr. Pielke's view is correct/significant? despite Pielke indicating that its his own personal view - and not shared by the IPCC?--Kim D. Petersen 01:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm just trying to get the most accurate article possible, I did trying widen the article beyond just Pielke's view by adding the other article, but it was deleted. What OR have I conducted? I am only going by what Pielke said and trying to get the best sentence in there I can, he is the expert, we are not. How can you say I have done this? Unlike others in this discussion, I have made no claims at all to the accuracy of either viewpoint. --Theblog 02:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It all comes down to assessing the relative weight of different ideas. It is *not* true that because an "expert" has said something, it should be in the article. Nor is it true that because X has 8 sentences then Y deserves at least 2. Your understanding or OR is wrong: if I'd put that on the article it would be; on the talk page its fine. We are allowed to use our judgement in assessing what goe sin - how could it be otherwise? There is no clear way of assessing the significance of Pielkes views: the fact that they were published in a less prestigious journal that Parkers, and that they have not been cited whereas Parkers have been, is a clue, though William M. Connolley 10:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not arguing that Pielke's sentence should be given more weight than Parker's, I do feel that an extra 9 words will more fully demonstrate his thoughts and should be put in.--Theblog 15:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes. This is a controversial topic and both sides should be included. Some people, as usual, are trying to remove any view except their own. Paul Matthews 13:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:V problems

I believe the bolded portion is unsupported:

"Another view, often held by skeptics of global warming, is that the heat island effect accounts for much or nearly all warming recorded by land-based thermometers. However, these views are mainly presented in "popular literature" and there are no known scientific peer-reviewed papers holding this view [dubious — see talk page]."

If there is no supporting evidence to this claim it should not be included. --Theblog 00:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the bleedin' obvious to me. But its easy enough to refute, as has been said before: just find a paper. Since the septics would love to find one, if it existed, it shouldn't be too hard William M. Connolley 10:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Not my job, its yours. --Theblog 14:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Watts

I removed [24] because I don't believe the T errors stuff. Its not possible to know William M. Connolley 08:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It certainly *is* possible to know. As part of the data gathering procedures, all site maintainers are contacted and given the opportunity for editorial review to ensure that diagrams, photos, and survey forms provide a true picture. They know where the data is going as well, a public web site. They have the opportunity to fix any errors. The t errors stuff was set up by the CRN, not Watt. He was just using an objective standard already in place. You can create a different objective standard if you like but go argue with the CRN as to why their error ratings are "not possible" before you take your POV and try to impose it on the article. I undid your reversion. TMLutas 17:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me cover the basics here on the Watts project. It is not funded by energy interests. Watts is a meteorologist and the expenses (mostly bandwidth for the website) are funded out of his own pocket. He is not accepting donations. The rules for submitting sites requires site maintainers be informed of what is going on (including where the results are going to go) and for them to be given an opportunity to fix any errors. There has been no prior effort to check the physical condition of USHCN sites, nothing to compare Watts' efforts to. The universe of people who know what's going on is Watts' volunteers and the site maintainers themselves. There is no meaningful independent review of Watts' efforts available outside the collective opinions of the site maintainers and those independent reviewers are consulted as part of the survey structure. The only analysis done by the Watts project outside of measuring physical distances is toting up the totals of the CRN ratings and making a pie chart.

My assertion is that conventional peer review is largely meaningless in this class of studies. The data gathered is pretty straightforward and nobody who has not been consulted yet is going to be able to meaningfully contribute to accuracy. This is an extremely rare case because usually you don't have large scale critical scientific systems (like ground temperature systems) going for decades without meaningful physical review. But you do in this case.

I further assert that ground station temperature readings are so foundational that an effort that succeeded in finding large unaccounted for error would throw an unknown but very large number of studies into doubt. It is useful and proper to give some sort of mention to such efforts as a heads up so that changes can be noted incrementally and we don't have a 'Pravda moment' where certain conclusions that are rock solid on Monday are completely false on Tuesday. (If you don't like the tag 'Pravda moment', and at least one editor doesn't, come up with a better one and I'll use it). TMLutas 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Once this material has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, it may be worth mentioning, preferably once it has been referenced by other reliable sources. At present this is self-published material, coming off a blog. If the authenticity of the blog can be established, then it could reasonably be considered a reliable source for Watts' opinions. However, according to the Anthony Watts article, he's a weatherman. I can't see how he would be considered an expert on this subject. Guettarda 02:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
You may not have properly understood the nature of the material. While Watts is the compiler of the data, the data itself is assembled by a volunteer corps who actually inspect sites. One of the requirements for data to be included in the project is that the USHCN site maintainer must be told what's going on and be given the opportunity to correct any inaccuracies. So even if Watts isn't an expert, surely the USHCN site maintainers are on their own sites. Furthermore, I don't think that I'll be getting my blog publications requested in the form of a speech at UCARS. Watts did in August and I think that's a pretty good indication that this isn't your run-of-the-mill self-published blog entry. The rap on blog postings has long been that they tend to be long on opinion and short on factual research and they don't have any outside editorial controls. Neither is true for this project and so I think we should avoid dealing with stereotypes here. The material should be evaluated on its own merits and 421 outside experts reviewing station surveys, diagrams and photos is a good deal better than what you get at most academic journals. The only analysis that Watts seems to be doing is to tote up 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, and 5s according to the CRN standards, as well as putting up a pie chart. That's the basic study. As a separate thing, he may also be doing more sophisticated analysis but that's not relevant to including the basic study. The more advanced analysis *should* wait for publication before being included in Wikipedia. The basic study? not so much. TMLutas 05:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
(1) If Watts presentation was invited, that is interesting. Where is your evidence for that? (2) Where is the evidence for the 421 experts? (3) You are wrong about your T assertions. The classifications don't say the measurements *are* wrong by 2 oC, or whatever (if they were, you could just ocrrect them. If they were, you'd know if it was + or -) William M. Connolley 09:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll try and dig up confirmation that he was invited. The 421 experts are the 421 site maintainers for the surveyed sites and will grow to 1200+ as the project goes to completion. I know that they are there because the site rules mandate that they have an opportunity to correct false surveys diagrams and pictures. As for exactly 2C, I don't believe I've said that and Watts certainly didn't, much less the CRN. If I did, it was a misstatement. The proper figure would be 2C>= or greater than or equal to two degrees celsius and that would be for CRN category 4 sites. It could be 2, 3, or 4 degrees off. The nature of the problem could change over time (think shifting colors of asphalt over years). How do you correct for a parking lot that gets retarred every 3 or 4 years where weathering makes it progressively lighter over time and the new tar makes it suddenly darker (or not, new tar itself might have color differences over time due to new formulations coming into use)? The tarring might be irregular enough not to leap out at you in a temperature record. Do you see the problem now? Asphalt parking lots are only an example of the correction challenges and trying to work out a fix for them seems very WP:CRYSTAL as we have no evidence that any sort of sophisticated correction like this is actually being used or even could be used though you might get a paper out of it elsewhere. TMLutas 14:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I ended up not getting a good reference so I wrote the surfacestations.org contact site. I received an email reply fairly quickly. He paid his own way and Dr. Pielke invited him to submit a paper on the project. His stuff passed the normal process for inclusion. TMLutas 22:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The source you are trying to insert into the article is Watts' blog posting. You have said that the station operators are able to edit the data for their stations, but there's nothing in the post or the presentation which mentions this. There is also no evidence that they station operators are aware of this or motivated to do this. So we can't really judge data quality based on your statement. More importantly is the issue of selection criteria. Slide 18 shows a marked geographic bias in the samples. Are they a random sample? If not, what biases exist in the data set? This is the sort of question a reviewer should ask, but since this has not been peer-reviewed and Watts' methods have not been presented, it's impossible to tell. Assuming that Watts has characterised the sites accurately, there's still the issue of Slide 91. How did Watts come up with these numbers? How did he calculate the errors? How were the errors distributed? Are they randomly distributed (in which case they only affect precision, not accuracy) or is there systematic bias? Without this information, the next step is meaningless - mapping the errors to the stations. And it is that last step which provides the information that you are trying to insert into the article. Guettarda 21:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The rules of use (rule 3) establish the site maintainer's right of approval of all data. Does that help? Selection criteria is a transient artifact associated with the fact that this is a volunteer effort. They're not doing a statistical sampling. They're going to do all 1221 stations unless individual sites bar project volunteers from surveying. In the end it's not going to matter but I agree that for the moment it poses something of a problem. Here's my proposed solution. We discuss and arrive at a consensus on how much of the network has to be bad before the survey deserves inclusion in the UHI article. When the appropriate number of stations are reached, we include it because even if selection bias was extreme (all the stations not covered yet are good stations) the total number of bad stations is still enough to warrant mention. So, what's your number? I think 10% would be about right (which is why when I calculated that it's at 22% already I put the edit in). As for the errors, the explanation is simple. Watts did not calculate the errors, CRN did. A priori, CRN stated that a category 4 station is going to be off by at least 2 degrees. CRN stated that a category 5 station is going ot be off by at least 5 degrees. Each category rating has an error value as sort of a data pair. Watts is just applying the CRN criteria and then using the CRN error ratings attached to the category. I think that the CRN is by any reasonable definition a reliable source and their standards and practices should have a good deal of weight. They might be wrong but they should always be included.
I think that it's a reasonable system. If you site your station on a flat tar roof of a building surrounded by concrete at the local sewage treatment plant, that's a category 5 station. It does not take any great leap of faith to figure out that one can say that such a station is going to be off at least x degrees C and I think that if the CRN figured it out that the appropriate value for x is 5 for a category 5 station and 2 for a category 4 station, that's very likely to be close to the objective truth of the thing. TMLutas 03:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that your line of reasoning is orthogonal to everyone else's concerns. Other editors are focusing on the lack of peer-review and independent verification, and you're talking about numerical thresholds. It's as if other editors are saying they're allergic to ice cream, and you respond by asking whether it would be better to serve vanilla instead of raspberry. Raymond Arritt 04:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
"The rules of use (rule 3) establish the site maintainer's right of approval of all data. Does that help?" - No, not really. There's no evidence that (a) the rules are actually followed, or (b) how often the site operators actually review the data.
"Selection criteria is a transient artifact associated with the fact that this is a volunteer effort. They're not doing a statistical sampling" - if it isn't a random sample, then all you can say from the data is that 223 stations (18%) are class 4 or 5, not 223 out of 331. You can't say anything about the population if you did not sample the population.
"Here's my proposed solution. We discuss and arrive at a consensus on how much of the network has to be bad before the survey deserves inclusion in the UHI article..." No, we can't do that. No way, no how. That violates Wikipedia policy. We can report on what others say about this, preferably after it has been properly peer-reviewed and published.
"As for the errors, the explanation is simple. Watts did not calculate the errors, CRN did. A priori, CRN stated that a category 4 station is going to be off by at least 2 degrees. CRN stated that a category 5 station is going ot be off by at least 5 degrees. Each category rating has an error value as sort of a data pair. Watts is just applying the CRN criteria and then using the CRN error ratings attached to the category. I think that the CRN is by any reasonable definition a reliable source and their standards and practices should have a good deal of weight. They might be wrong but they should always be included.". So what you are saying is that the error isn't based on this data set? These are just "off the shelf" estimates? The underlying question remains - what is the distribution of errors? Without knowing that, it's impossible to say whether the errors cancel each other out, or whether they bias the estimates. It isn't a matter of whether the CRN is a reliable source, it's a matter of how their results are being used. If the results are being used incorrectly, the conclusions being drawn will be erroneous...which is why (a) we can't use studies that have not been adequately reviewed, and (b) why, even then, we shouldn't use the publications, we should be reporting on what secondary/tertiary sources say about the results after they are properly published.
There's nothing here that can be used in a Wikipedia article. Guettarda 05:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course there is. Whether it belongs here or only on Watts' wiki page might be up for grabs but it certainly is worthy of inclusion in some form in Wikipedia. TMLutas 22:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Its become clear that the equivalent peer review TMP is claiming is spurious. The claims of temperature errors are also clearly wrong, for reasons I've explained, but TML has failed to grasp William M. Connolley 09:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to your monograph explaining how you are right and the CRN is wrong. Please drop me a line when it is out. So far what you've argued against is a misrepresentation of the temperature errors figures, in other words, a straw man. You certainly can have a list of errors that mean that your station's readings will vary by at least some minimum amount. When you have a real criticism on these grounds, let me know.
I already wrote elsewhere that I should have used the term independent editorial oversight. I repeat it here. Anyone can review the data, some reviewers (the station maintainers) are contacted ahead of time and are thus, to a certain extent, guaranteed. How this is "spurious" independent oversight does escape my grasp, but mostly because you have not explained it at all. The station maintainers are independent. They have editorial oversight at the time of data gathering. The math applied to the figures is trivial and can be challenged by anyone who is willing to tote up the figures independently. The only thing left is a transient bias effect that urban stations are more likely to be surveyed than rural ones until the survey is complete. The predictable effect is that you're going to start off with a high bad stations % and it will go progressively lower as the predicted better and more remote sites are surveyed. If that's the actual objection, I wouldn't have a problem with taking the number of bad sites actually discovered as a percentage of the total sites in the USHCN network. That leads to a figure of 23% of the network is bad (so far) and will lead to a progressively higher percentage as time goes on. There's no possible selection bias on this figure, just a fraud one and I think we've covered fraud adequately. But I've laid out this offer before and been persistently rebuffed in every variant I've offered. TMLutas 22:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The station maintainers are independent. They have editorial oversight at the time of data gathering. - there is no evidence of this occurring. You have been told this numerous times on several pages and have no reply, other than to repeat yourself, which convinces no-one.
There you go again libeling Watts. There is evidence because it's part of the rules of the project and Watts maintains that project according to the rules. You start from the assumption that Watts is a liar and only then does the situation fit the description of 'no evidence'. I could probably do some original research and dig out testimony from station maintainers but that's not supposed to be how wikipedia works. The man is a weather professional and there should be some vague shadow of evidence before his word on how the project is run counts for nothing. But evidence free accusations seem to be in style. That's not a game I like to play. I've had it used on me in an official setting in my own past and find it offensive when I see it. Who gave you the right to accuse without evidence? TMLutas 15:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, so we are making progress: you're now admitting that there is absolutely no evidence that this so-called peer review has occured. So please stop claiming that it has William M. Connolley 16:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Had an uncivil moment in the previous revision so I'll take it down and say the same thing in a civil fashion. You are behaving unfairly and I believe against both the letter and the spirit of the rules of Wikipedia. It is my further belief that it is only the generous libel laws of the US that protect you legally. There's no winning on this and so I withdraw here and on the other two pages. TMLutas 14:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jones 1990

I reverted this [25]:

On the other hand, the data ostensibly used by Jones et al. (1990) was apparently not existent.[2][3]

I have some sympathy for the substance, but the edit can't stand as is. The first ref is simply a confused rehash of the second, so shouldn't be there. The second is from E&E, a dodgy source. The edit fails to make clear that its only the China data that is in question. The edit confuses data with metadata William M. Connolley 13:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As I have explained, the current version is better than no version. If you have an improvement to the current version, feel free. I notice you did not even attempt to work with the middle ground. If the choice is between the current version and no version, then it should be the current. 86.153.155.15 (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me simplify the matter: your edit, that the Jones data does not exist, is simply wrong. It is not supported by your source. If you can't be bothered to correct your errors, please leave them out William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation Issue

A problem exists regarding the citation number 15 for this: "Another view, often held by skeptics of global warming, is that much of the temperature increase seen in land based thermometers could be due to an increase in urbanisation and the siting of measurement stations in urban areas [4][5]. However, these views are mainly presented in "popular literature" and there are no known scientific peer-reviewed papers holding this view.[15]"

But upon following citation labeled [15] it leads to an article by David B. Sandalow, and the relevant text is: "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, using only peer-reviewed data, concluded that urban heat islands caused “at most” 0.05°C of the increase in global average temperatures during the period 1900-1990 — roughly one-tenth of the increase during this period. In contrast, as one source reports, “there are no known scientific peer-reviewed papers” to support the view that “the heat island effect accounts for much or nearly all warming recorded by land-based thermometers.”"

The problem here is that there is no reference for this "one source". What we have is a reference to an article by David B. Sandalow, but he is quoting an anonymous source. The statement itself is not Mr. Sandalow's, but rather anonymous. So in effect we have a wikipedia citation that is citing an anonymous source -- because it is not Mr. Sandalow that said this, but rather an anonymous quotation.

I recommend therefore that the sentence: "However, these views are mainly presented in "popular literature" and there are no known scientific peer-reviewed papers holding this view.[15]" be struck unless a better citation is found. SunSw0rd (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That would only be relevant if you have any reason to assume that the Sandalov reference is unreliable. The threshold for inclusion in wikipedia is attribution to reliable sources - not truth. If you can, on the other hand, show that the statement is false though - i'd say it should go. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
My concern is that the original source is anonymous. Thus it is by definition unreliable. SunSw0rd (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The original source was probably wiki, but we'll never know for sure. However, we're quoting Sandlow, who has taken the quote up. If Sandlow is reliable, this is fine. If not, it isn't. A better thing to do would be to find some proper sci papers that do present the alternative view, if there are any William M. Connolley (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
How about this government site?
It has a Heat Islands Group - follow the link for publications -- such as this one:
Existing Climate Data Sources and Their Use in Heat Island Research
Citing from this paper: "We demonstrate the use of existing data sources with a historical analysis of temperature trends in Los Angeles, California, and short-term analysis of the urban temperature profile for Phoenix, Arizona. The Los Angeles climate was examined with eleven long-term data records from the cooperative network. Statistically significant trends of rising temperature were detected at Los Angeles Civic Center and other stations over some parts of the year, although timing of the increase varied from station to station. Observed increases in temperatures may be due to long-term climate changes, micro-climate influences, or local-scale heat islands. A short-term analysis was made for Phoenix using the PRISMS station network. Mean diurnal temperature profiles for a month were examined and compared with those for adjacent rural areas. Data from stations in the center of Phoenix showed clear and significant night-time and daytime temperature differences of 3 - 4°F. These temperature increases may be attributable to a local-scale heat island."
Multiple NASA satellite studies have confirmed the urban heat island effect. Therefore, I suggest that those who claim that temperature monitoring stations in urban areas are not effected -- need to prove their point -- rather than asserting that "since no peer reviewed papers" have published that there is any impact being sufficient, this should be reversed -- requiring that there should be peer reviewed papers asserting there is no impact.
And again -- the quote cited in this article is not Sandlow's statement -- he is quoting an anonymous source. That quote is not Sandlow's words -- therefore it does not make sense for wikipedia to accept that quote and then reference Sandlow as the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SunSw0rd (talk • contribs) 15:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Your site is no good, because its only for one city, and says may. We know full well that some cities show +ve UHI effects. Others show -ve ones: see Peterson. You could find 10, or 100 cities showing +ve UHI trends: it would mean nothing, without a proper satistical analysis of the overall balance. If you have a ref for Multiple NASA satellite studies have confirmed then provide it. Sandlow: by quoting the quote, he takes responsibility for it. If he is a RS, the quote is OK William M. Connolley (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry -- did you mean to ask whether multiple NASA satellite studies have confirmed the urban heat island effect? If so, here you go:
(June 18, 2002) Top Story NASA SATELLITE CONFIRMS URBAN HEAT ISLANDS INCREASE RAINFALL AROUND CITIES
(July 29, 2004) Top Story URBAN HEAT ISLANDS MAKE CITIES GREENER
(January 30, 2006) Keeping New York City "Cool" is the Job of NASA's "Heat Seekers"
(July 25, 2006) THERE’S A CHANGE IN RAIN AROUND DESERT CITIES
Each of the above links is from NASA itself. Each refers to satellite confirmation of and studies of the urban heat island effect. There are plenty more links to papers also -- I am just providing a sample of the requested "Multiple NASA satellie studies have confirmed" request.
Question -- what do you mean by "if he is a RS"? SunSw0rd (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The existence of the UHI isn't in doubt. Was is in doubt is the impact on the *trends* in the temperature record. Your reports (I checked the first two) don't touch on that. RS is WP:RS William M. Connolley (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
So -- after reviewing the wikipedia specification for a "reliable source" I would have to question the validity of the citation to David B. Sandalow. For his biography at Brookings states that his former positions were government administrative positions, not scientific ones. Further, by education he is a lawyer, not a scientist. He is a self-stated "expert on energy policy and global warming" -- but nothing in his background would give any indication that he is more than an administrator with a legal slant. I also note further that while Brookings has the "edu" suffix, in fact it is a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, DC -- not a real science organization at all! SunSw0rd (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I brought this up about 7 times before, it is obviously impossible to prove a negative, despite what this "RS" claims. The line should be removed- the burden of proof is not on those wishing to take the line out, but those wishing to keep it in- they need to show the lines validity, which they of course can not do without the reference that even WC and KD both admit was probably based on the original unsupported wikipedia article. There is no good reason to leave a line in that everyone admits is not cleanly supported. --Theblog (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Objection to Deletion

I object to the deletion of material by User:William M. Connolley. The quotation was:

With mounting evidence that global warming is taking place, the cause of this warming has come under vigorous scrutiny. Recent studies have lead to a debate over what contributes the most to regional temperature changes. We investigated air temperature patterns in California from 1950 to 2000. Statistical analyses were used to test the significance of temperature trends in California subregions in an attempt to clarify the spatial and temporal patterns of the occurrence and intensities of warming. Most regions showed a stronger increase in minimum temperatures than with mean and maximum temperatures. Areas of intensive urbanization showed the largest positive trends, while rural, non-agricultural regions showed the least warming.

Reason -- most of the material in the "global warming section tends toward the point of view that urbanization is not an impactor. See "Fourth Assessment Report from the IPCC" immediately proceeding. Now I have cited material that takes the contrary opinion, and it was well cited. I suggest that this material needs to be included for balance. Now Mr. Connelley stated: "california != global; read the peterson stuff. we could find any number of different regional effects" as justification for reversion -- that is an assertion that could be applied to the IPCC material as well. The fact is, I believe, that providing a more balanced perspective helps maintain NPOV. I am restoring my edit and request any discussion be held here before any reverts. SunSw0rd (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The point that California is not the globe is obviously applicable. Furthermore, the material is quoted out of context to make an argument not made in the paper itself. Indeed the paper assumes that GW is occurring! Reverted. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You don't provide "balance" by stuffing in something that doesn't fit. There will, inevitably, be regions where the urban trend is greater than the rural, and regions where the rural trend is greater than the urban. But these need to be synthesised on a large scale in order to mean anything in this context William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me?
(1) I don't believe the material was asserting that GW is not occurring. I believe the first sentence in the blockquote asserts "With mounting evidence that global warming is taking place..."! And contrary to the material being quoted out of context -- it comes right from the Abstract at the top of the article! Did you think the purpose for the edit was to assert GW is not occuring? If so you are incorrect. The purpose of the edit is to point out that urban heat islands appear to be contributing factors to the measurement of global warming.
(2) The section is titled "Relation to global warming" -- as in , does the urban heat island effect relate to global warming? Now clearly typical urban heat island studies will be regional -- so what? Do we we reject any study related to global warming unless the study itself is global? Shall we reject a study on the Maldive Islands related to sea level because -- the study was only done in the Maldives? When a study titled "Outbreak of Vibrio parahaemolyticus Gastroenteritis Associated with Alaskan Oysters" is a reference in the main wikipedia GW article, is it rejected because it was, in fact, a local study (e.g. Alaskan Oysters)? No, clearly not. Is this an official wikipedia editorial policy? I think not.
(3) Wikipedia:NOR and Wikipedia:SYN are listed as a reason for revision. No original research? But this specifically applies to non published research. Yet the reference points to a clear scientific publication. Wikipedia:NOR/Wikipedia:SYN is absolutely not applicable for the referenced scientific paper!
Therefore, for these reasons, I am reverting the revision. And I am doing so because I am asserting this edit specifically helps provide balance: e.g. NPOV and Wikipedia:Verifiability to this section. And I quote: "A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV. A Wikipedia article must comply with all three guidelines (i.e. Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research) to be considered compliant."
As I have just demonstrated: This is not original research, it is verifiable, and it does support NPOV. Please do not revert again unless you can show that it does not support verifiability, does not enhance NPOV (for this section), or is original research (which since it is published in a scientific publication, good luck with the latter.) SunSw0rd (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Heat Island works in both directions, so to only quote trends in one region is misleading. Focusing too much on any one region disrupts NPOV. Thus, we limit this to the discussion UHI has on global measurements. On (2), we attempt to keep a global perspective, focusing on micro studies is not helpful. Think of it as an economy. We talk about GDP for a nation. There could be a study showing a depression in Arkansas, but it would not be relevant to an article about the US economy as a whole. Finally, I think the claim of OR was made because you are quoting to show something that was not being shown on the paper. Cheers, Brusegadi (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
For the question regarding OR -- the quote was directly from the paper itself. Follow the link and see -- it comes right from the paper abstract at the top of the paper. So why is it being asserted that I am quoting to show something not shown in the paper? Because the material keeps being deleted, I include here the link: "Recent California Climate Variability: spatial and temporal patterns in temperature trends". Open this up and look at the very first paragraph.
Please note that it was properly referenced as well -- excerpting from the reference we see:
title=Recent California Climate Variability: spatial and temporal patterns in temperature trends
| publisher=Inter-Research
| first=Steve
| last=LaDochy
| coauthors=Medina,Richard; Patzert,William
| accessdate=2007-12-14
| format=pdf
| work=Climate Research
| pages=159–169
Now -- regarding the fact that the study is regional rather than global -- this is true. However -- note the article currently cites: "Peterson (2003) indicates that the effects of the urban heat island may have been overstated..." -- this study was limited to the continental US -- it is not global. Note also in the current article references: "Satellite-derived urban heat islands from three coastal cities and the utilization of such data in urban climatology" -- 3 cities? That is not global either. Therefore -- clearly the current article has bias and is not WP:NPOV -- because as I am pointing out -- the same standards are not being applied. Current studies that are local or regional are currently included as references -- yet when I attempt to add a regional study it is being reverted because -- it is claimed to be regional. Face facts -- almost all studies related to GW or to urban heat islands are regional or local. (As pointed out previously regarding the Alaskan oyster study re: GW.)
So -- why the double standard here? Please address these points. SunSw0rd (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the edit is to point out that urban heat islands appear to be contributing factors to the measurement of global warming. - yes thats what I thought. Since the best science is that this is wrong, your point is wrong, and shouldn't be in there. contrary to the material being quoted out of context - no-one said you were quoting out of context. Read what I said. I said that what you wrote doesn't fit *into* this context. We shouldn't include a study about a study on the Maldive Islands in an article about global sea level, ebcause its local, unless there is some reason for the Maldives to be more important than the thousands of better managed tidal stations around the world William M. Connolley (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Right -- so now we get down to it. It is not "my point". Rather, it is "a point". Yes, that viewpoint is in fact contrary to the perspective of that section of the page. Which is quite why it is needed -- it restores WP:NPOV. As I understand it, you are taking the perspective that urban heat islands do not negatively impact temperature data measurements. Perhaps you are correct. But that is not really the issue, is it? The fact is -- the "Relation to global warming" right now is slanted one way. It is not currently WP:NPOV. So unless you can identify any serious problems with the science done in the particular study which I have advanced as supporting the contrary viewpoint, I suggest it does not follow wikipedia standards to keep deleting the material. Since there clearly is an opposing viewpoint, it is not neutral point of view from an encylopedia perspective to ban it. Right or wrong -- as long as that viewpoint is backed up by authentic science (which this study appears to be) -- then it is a valid perspective that should be presented. Currently there are seven paragraphs that lean one way. Having a single paragraph, well cited, the provides a contrary viewpoint, is precisely WP:NPOV SunSw0rd (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
You're using the [wiki] article to make a point which is not made in the [journal] article itself. That's proscribed by WP:SYN. The journal article is an investigation of the causes for regional climate change as such. It's not an evaluation of the effect of urban biases in the temperature on detection and attribution with respect to global warming. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I clarified the two uses or "article" in your comment above, hopefully correctly. Meanwhile, NPOV: does not mean that all viewpoints should be discussed. RA is correct re SYN: you are using it to make a point that it does not itself make. the "Relation to global warming" right now is slanted one way - you will find this happening quite often in science articles; for example, the one on the shape of the earth is slanted towards the view that the earth is round and not flat. The one on gravity discriminates rather heavily against Aristotles excellent ideas. What you call "slant" I would call "truth". You will say (correctly) that UHI is not as settled as gravity; but it is not an entirely open field in which all points of view are equally viable, either. In cases like this, wikipedia is almost bound to go with the IPCC viewpoint, since that is the most appropriate external synthesis available. In some cases (recent work on trop trends comes to mind) it may become out of date; that isn't true for UHI William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Raymond, you indicate that the article does not make the point. I am not saying that the study was done for the purpose of making the point -- as they looked at multiple possible factors. However, it is clear that they did discover that the urban heat islands in California had a very high correlation with the particular instrumentation stations that showed the greatest amount of temperature increases over a 50 year period. From the article conclusion:
"If we assume that global warming affects all regions of the state, then the small increases seen in rural stations can be an estimate of this general warming pattern over land. Larger increases must then be due to local or regional surface changes. Using climatic division data, the fastest rates of warming were recorded in the southern California divisions, where urbanization has been greatest."
What they discovered is that when they did an overlay, showing the stations with the greatest increase, those stations correlated to urban areas. So while perhaps the study was not done in order to reach the conclusion reached, in fact the study does make the point -- and very clearly so.
William -- I do say that the impact of UHI on instrumentation has not been resolved. It is true that more studies need to be done -- a European study would be excellent. But -- as I point out -- this is a very well done study. And in fact -- some of the existing citations do not necessarily make the point that the article asserts. For example: existing citation #12 also says: "Clearly, the urban heat island effect is a real climate change in urban areas, but is not representative of larger areas. Extensive tests have shown that the urban heat island effects are no more than about 0.05°C up to 1990 in the global temperature records used in this chapter to depict climate change. Thus we have assumed an uncertainty of zero in global land-surface air temperature in 1900 due to urbanisation, linearly increasing to 0.06°C (two standard deviations 0.12°C) in 2000."
In addition citation #13 is to a single page (actually less than a full page) source -- very little there.
Then citation #14 is merely to a newspaper article -- which itself is based on an interview with the same scientist (Parker) cited in #13.
And the current article cites a dispute with Parker's conclusion and I quote: "However, Roger A. Pielke has claimed that Parker 2004 has "serious issues with its conclusions"."
Please further note that I pointed out in a previous talk thread that David Sandlow is quoted as claiming there are no peer reviewed studies supporting the view that UHI may affect instrumentation. Yet he is not a scientist -- from his bio he is a lawyer and bureaucrat working for "a nonprofit policy studies think tank" -- perhaps not an unbiased source. I suggest that this article, to which I am trying get referenced here, is a response to his claim. SunSw0rd (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
"I am not saying that the study was done for the purpose of making the point" -- that's the whole issue, really. Please see WP:SYN, where it explains:
Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.
If you want discuss how observational bias affects the global temperature record, then you need to reference articles that show how observational bias affects the global temperature record. You can't reference an article that evaluates regional climate change, put that together with the notion that regional climate change affects the global temperature record, and use that to advance the position that the referenced article implies a bias in the temperature record. That's textbook WP:SYN. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
And, as it happens, does this apply to the existing citations? Or just to this study? And do newspaper articles or statements by non-scientist lawyers working for "think tanks" just happen to have more weight than actual scientific studies? Or should I go into the existing article and start weeding on the extant poor citations? SunSw0rd (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome to improve existing citations. But please keep WP:POINT in mind and edit constructively. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
WRT to the last point - unfortunately wiki does *not* have a strong policy giving priority to sci journals over other sources for science articles. It becomes a matter for discussion. See WP:SPOV William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
However I do note that in WP:RS we see this statement: "Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion are usually considered reliable. However, they may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative scholarly explanations. Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic. The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals."
This seems to me to be pretty clear that the Wikipedia Reliable Sources perspective does in fact give preference to peer reviewed journals, and academic journals. SunSw0rd (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I disagree. If RS wanted to say it gave priority to journals, it would say so. It doesn't. What happens is that subject areas develope their own rules in the absence of usable global ones William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data

From Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data in the "Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres".

Local land surface modification and variations in data quality affect temperature trends in surface-measured data. Such effects are considered extraneous for the purpose of measuring climate change, and providers of climate data must develop adjustments to filter them out. If done correctly, temperature trends in climate data should be uncorrelated with socioeconomic variables that determine these extraneous factors. This hypothesis can be tested, which is the main aim of this paper. Using a new database for all available land-based grid cells around the world we test the null hypothesis that the spatial pattern of temperature trends in a widely used gridded climate data set is independent of socioeconomic determinants of surface processes and data inhomogeneities. The hypothesis is strongly rejected (P = 7.1 × 10−14), indicating that extraneous (nonclimatic) signals contaminate gridded climate data. The patterns of contamination are detectable in both rich and poor countries and are relatively stronger in countries where real income is growing. We apply a battery of model specification tests to rule out spurious correlations and endogeneity bias. We conclude that the data contamination likely leads to an overstatement of actual trends over land. Using the regression model to filter the extraneous, nonclimatic effects reduces the estimated 1980–2002 global average temperature trend over land by about half.

What does this mean? It means -- according to Patrick J. Michaels (one of the co-authors): "Scientists have known for years that temperature records can be contaminated by so-called "urban warming," which results from the fact that long-term temperature histories tend to have originated at points of commerce. The bricks, buildings, and pavement of cities retain the heat of the day and impede the flow of ventilating winds...Adjusting data for this effect, or using only rural stations, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states with confidence that less than 10% of the observed warming in long-term climate histories is due to urbanization.

That's a wonderful hypothesis, and Ross and I decided to test it...we built a computer model that included both regional climatic factors, such as latitude, as well as socioeconomic indicators like GDP and applied it to the IPCC's temperature history...IPCC divides the world into latitude-longitude boxes, and for each of these we supplied information on GDP, literacy, amount of missing data (a measure of quality), population change, economic growth and change in coal consumption (the more there is, the cooler the area).

Guess what. Almost all the socioeconomic variables were important. We found the data were of highest quality in North America and that they were very contaminated in Africa and South America. Overall, we found that the socioeconomic biases "likely add up to a net warming bias at the global level that may explain as much as half the observed land-based warming trend."

We then modified IPCC's temperature data for these biases and compared the statistical distribution of the warming to the original IPCC data and to satellite measures of lower atmospheric temperature that have been available since 1979. Since these are from a single source (the U.S. government), and they don't have any urban contamination, they are likely to be affected very little by economic factors.

Indeed. The adjusted IPCC data now looks a lot like the satellite data. The biggest change was that the high (very warm) end of the distribution in the IPCC data was knocked off by the unbiasing process..."

Now -- I have pointed out before -- there ARE studies that indicate that the UHI may be affecting the IPCC data. But when I tried posting before, I was told that the data was "regional" and therefore not applicable. Or that a single study is insufficient. Well, more studies are now coming out. Here is another one. And it points out clearly that socioeconomic factors ARE impacting the data. So...how many studies must be done before their information can be added to the page to provide balance and WP:NPOV??? SunSw0rd (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please contribute comments here. I have hesitated to edit the article due to previous rv however -- this paper meets the criteria of global coverage. If there are not sufficient valid negative comments I will add this reference to the page. SunSw0rd (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Earth

Hello i have recently proposed the Wikiproject Earth. This Wikiproject`s scope includes this article. This wikiproject will overview the continents, oceans, atsmophere and global warming Please Voice your opinion by clicking anywhere on this comment except for my name. --IwilledituTalk :)Contributions —Preceding comment was added at 15:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)