What is the Effect of Urban Heat Islands on Global Warming Trends?

Baltimore's Inner Harbor
It is well-documented that cities are significantly warmer than rural areas. This effect is commonly described as an urban heat island (UHI). Some argue that some (or all) of the increase in global temperatures can be explained by the effect of the UHI effect on global temperatures. It makes some intuitive sense that this might be the case, but let's consider some important lines of evidence that suggest otherwise.

First, while urban areas are warmer than rural areas, urban areas are warming at about the same rate as rural areas, so temperature anomalies are not significantly affected by urban heat islands.[1]

Second, there is a well-documented bias that can be added to the temperature record from urbanization. As a rural area becomes more urban, it will warm at a faster rate than cities and rural areas. An area that is rural in 1950 but urban in 2020 will become progressively hotter due to urbanization, and not changing climatic conditions. However, numerous studies have shown that this potential source for bias in temperature trends is corrected by bias correction.[2][3] One interesting study concludes that UHI is insufficient to contaminate the temperature record: “If ∼30% of the highest population stations were removed from the analysis, no statistically significant urban heat island was detected. The implications of this work on U.S. climate change analyses is that, if the highest population stations are avoided (populations above 30 000 within 6 km), the analysis should not be expected to be contaminated by UHIs. However, comparison between U.S. Historical Climatology Network (HCN) time series from the full dataset and a subset excluding the high population sites indicated that the UHI contamination from the high population stations accounted for very little of the recent warming.”[4]

Third, using the US as a case study, if you compare the USCRN dataset (with significant homogenization) to the USHCN dataset (with fewer but well-sited stations) they are indistinguishable from each other during the years when they overlap. This confirms that bias correction is working, successfully removing bias from the data.[5] Consequently, rural, urban, and rapidly developing areas are all generally free from bias from urban heat islands. One study from 2013 says this: “Time series of the Earth’s average land temperature are estimated using the Berkeley Earth methodology applied to the full dataset and the rural subset; the difference of these is consistent with no urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.10 ± 0.24/100yr (95% confidence).”[6]

Fourth, cities take up a small fraction of the globe's surface, so whatever bias may remain in the data after homogenization must be small. Most of the planet's surface is ocean, and most of the land's surface is natural land and rural.

What this suggests is that UHI is a non issue for global warming trends. It may still affect regional and local trends (and likely does), but trends in global warming are unaffected by urbanization.

References:

[1] Jones, P. D., Lister, D. H., and Li, Q. ( 2008), Urbanization effects in large‐scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D16122, doi:10.1029/2008JD009916.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008JD009916

[2] Menne, M.J. and C. N. Williams Jr. “Homogenization of Temperature Series via Pairwise Comparisons.” Journal of Climate 22 (2009): 1700-1717. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2263.1

[3] Parker, D. E., 2006: A demonstration that large-scale warming is not urban. J. Climate, 19, 2882–2895.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI3730.1

[4] Peterson and Owen, “Urban Heat Island Assessment: Metadata Are Important” Journal of Climate 18 (2005): 2637-2646.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3431.1

[5] https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/how-ncdc%E2%80%99s-datasets-compare-each-other

[6] Wickham C, Rohde R, Muller RA, Wurtele J, Curry J, et al. (2013) Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications. Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 1:2. doi:10.4172/2327-4581.1000104
https://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/UHI-GIGS-1-104.pdf

Comments

  1. Nick DangerMarch 27, 2022 at 11:55 AM

    Consideration of the UHI is as old as global temperature records themselves. Guy S. Callendar's historic paper, THE ARTIFICIAL PRODUCTION OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON TEMPERATURE (1938) examined the rate of warming in "Large Towns," "Small Towns," and "Best Exposures (rural areas). His conclusion:


    "This shows that no secular increase of temperature, due to " city influence," has occurred at these city stations, in spite of the great increase of population in the immediate neighbourhood during the period under consideration."

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Marketing of Alt-Data at Temperature.Global

Image
Temperature.Global (12-month running average, sort of) A few years ago, I started seeing people post links to a new dataset for global temperatures at a website called temperature.global. There are at least four unique features of this dataset. First, the website claims to update global temperature in near real time. Second, every year in the dataset averages below "normal." Third, there is absolutely no transparency regarding their methodology (those who administer it are anonymous, most of the data is hidden, and much of their methodology is unclear). And fourth, what is disclosed about their methodology reveals that what they are calculating is not the Earth's surface temperature. Description of Temperature.Global If you go to the temperature.global website, it becomes almost immediately apparent that this website has little concern for transparency. The website is hosted by Parler (the alternative social network), which if nothing else is pretty odd. There are no name
Read more

Are Scientists and Journalists Conspiring to Retract Papers?

Image
Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr has published two posts recently having to do with extreme weather and the IPCC. In the first post , he expresses frustration over an apparently inevitable retraction of a paper on extreme weather. The paper is Alimonti et al 2022 (A22) published in The European Physical Journal Plus (EPJP)[1]. I became aware of this paper about a year ago; it was not a good paper and was not particularly influential; it received almost no attention except for a brief period of time when the usual blogs promoted it, and then after SkyNews in Australia publicized this study as demonstrating there is no climate emergency. In the second post , Pielke summarized what he believes the IPCC's position is on extreme weather, and here he refers again to this previous paper. He declares that he believes that popular and scientific treatments of extreme weather have become far mor extreme than the position taken by the IPCC. According to him, "with the exception perhaps of only extr
Read more

Tropical Cyclone Trends

Image
In a previous post , I covered the distinction between detection and attribution. These are normally considered sequentially. First you detect a signal above natural variability, then you examine if some portion of that signal can be attributed to human activity. The previous post shows that the two are statistically independent from each other, so there is no need to limit attribution studies to signals that are detectable above natural variability. This distinction and clarification I think is important in discussions of tropical cyclone trends. While trends are clear since 1980, the longer term record (since ~1850-1900) is less clear due to selection biases arising from our increasing ability to detect tropical cyclones. This makes detection difficult long term, but that doesn't necessarily mean that scientists can't also examine ways in which human activity is affecting tropical cyclone trends. Detection in the Satellite Record (Since 1980) The satellite record provides us
Read more