Why has the UHI effect stopped for 15+ years?

The Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect.
According to Guru Watts the UHI accounts for a large part of the temperature increase seen since the 1970s ...
Using WUWT as a resource of facts!

(update 2013/10/22 - To find the posts just do a search on watts site.)

Climate Craziness of the week – with the physical signature of UHI staring them right in the face, Mann & Borenstein go with their ‘gut’ instincts

Posted on April 12, 2013 by Anthony Watts  

 

A new paper showing how UHI and energy consumption are linked to long-term temperature change in China

Posted on October 2, 2012 by Anthony Watts

 

 

Recent paper demonstrates relationship between temperature and population density in the UHI of New Delhi

Posted on August 31, 2012 by Anthony Watts  

 

Spencer shows compelling evidence of UHI in CRUTem3 data

Posted on March 30, 2012 by Anthony Watts  

 

UHI in South Korea – responsible for over half of the warming

Posted on December 29, 2011 by Anthony Watts  

 

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

And much more!!!!!

BUT....

 

 the same impeccable resource says

Update and confirmation of ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago’ aka ‘the pause’

Posted on October 21, 2012 by Anthony Watts  

 

The Met office responds to ‘Global warming stopped 16 years ago’

Posted on October 15, 2012 by Anthony Watts  

 

Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts”

Posted on September 10, 2009 by Anthony Watts  

 

Sticking it to the Mann

Posted on August 26, 2013 by Anthony Watts

Global warming has stopped. Get over it.  A response to Michael Mann in the Richmond Times Dispatch By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley The collapsed global warming scare certainly has some odd characters coming to its defense in this paper

 

Digital Signal Processing analysis of global temperature data time series suggests global cooling ahead

Posted on September 11, 2013 by Anthony Watts  

 

Russian Scientists say period of global cooling ahead due to changes in the sun

Posted on April 29, 2013 by Anthony Watts

 

 

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

And much more!!!!!

BUT....

there have been 16 years of global temperature standstill (according to Watts and his sources). So what stopped the Urban heat island effect 16 years ago. Did the population stop growing? Were no more carparks/roads/offices built?

We need to be told!

 

 Watts and co seem to sometimes believe in temperature increase due to UHI and sometimes to suggest that there is no increase.

 

Watts and co seem to sometimes believe in temperature measurements ("there is no temperature increase")  and sometimes state categorically that accurate temperature measurements are impossible.

Cycle Mania and Hadcrut3

From the fun school of posts here are a couple of plots that reconstruct hadcrut3v from a series of sine waves.
One shows reconstruction from cycles only; this has problems getting a good fit in the 1800s but shows rhat the next few years should be a period of reducing temperatures. The long period controlling the plot is 317 year long
The other is constructed round a smooth increasing trend. A better fit in the 1800s and still shows that despite the trend the temperatures will be flat for a few more years before increasing with a vengance. The underlying trend is defined by this polynomial
y = 2.40389E-07x3 - 1.34093E-03x2 + 2.49320E+00x - 1.545547E+03

Do either have any predictive skills. = NO

The most importasnt thing shown is in the the trending plot where  despite an ever increasing trend there is still a period where temperatures appear not to increase - from 1998 to 2018. this is due to an underlying 60year period being on a down part of the cycle. This is something that the "skeptics" cannot seem to grasp - CO2 is increasing so why is temperature static?.

The all cycle:

317 year and 60.1 year cycles controlling the "trend"

The trend+cycle plot

Trend and 59.75 year cycle controlling trend

So what curve are we "following" - only another 4 or so years will tell!.

Earlier posts:
http://climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/simulation

USCRN/USRCRN - "perfect" data and how it compares

A quick look at a few CONUS (contiguous US states) data

"ITS WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT!"


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/08/an-incovenient-result-july-2012-not-a-record-breaker-according-to-the-new-noaancdc-national-climate-reference-network/

Tony has said that this date is as good as it is going to get as far as temperatures go.
He has invalidly compared USCRN with the older ghcn network using absolute values (does not get rid of any offsets between the data sets). And concludes this July is not a record breaker.

Leaving "records" aside this is the plot for 12 of the stations reporting from 2002 to current date (daily data)

A note: some of the stations reporting early in 2002 have much missing data that seems to give a high temperature anomaly in the first few months. This has been left in.

These are a simple arithmetic average of the 12 station data which individually have been averaged over 20days

This is a first stab at these plots so they may change if errors are found

Data from:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/daily01
plots updated - more data - corrected averaging

Max temperature plot

Linear fit gives 0.774C/decade


Min temperature plot

Linear fit gives 0..22C per dacade


Average temperature plot

Linear fit gives 0.44C per decade


Spaghetti plot showing station names

As a comparison here is the plot for crutem3v from wft

Over the same period a negative slope!

I wonder if Tony will reject the USCRN data in the same manner as he tried to kill the Best data!

More on Bart, FFTs and Cloud vs temperature

To me it seems that the plot has been lost on CA were discussions revolve around FFTs iFFT convolutions etc.

Is there a relation ship between cloud (Net_tot-SW_clr) and temperature or temperature and cloud?

How about a few simple plots:

The first uses data filtered with a Hodrick-Prescott filter of 1 and plots temperature anomaly against (Net_tot-SW_clr) sorted .

The second removes any filtering:

As can be seen the is a slight rising trend.

So now reverse the axis and plot cloud cover vs temperature anomaly (sorted) These are Duff!!

So there does seem to be a temperature and  (Net_tot-SW_clr) relationship. But which is the forcing????

Reconstructions with limited signals

Firs Set is using trend and the second is using cycles only
The minimum amplitude used is 0.03

Period years	amplitude	Offset months
0.5012	0	8.47
0.8395	0	2.82
0.8907	0	1.13
1.7692	0	0.92
1.9373	0	2.77
1.9906	0	5.72
2.0417	0	9.62
2.1095	0	10.57
2.2567	0	9.57
2.3139	0	6.72
2.5418	0	4.42
2.6735	0	2.47
2.7608	0	4.97
2.8737	0	2.52
3.1647	0	0.98
3.2734	0	6.37
3.4699	0	9.59
3.5777	0	3.07
3.7684	0	3.37
4.0192	0	6.87
4.7240	0	6.64
5.1020	0	5.57
5.2675	0	9.87
5.8528	0	6.67
5.9782	0	1.77
6.2558	0	4.37
6.6195	0	3.07
7.5727	0	3.22
8.3954	0	3.07
10.1027	0.034637599	6.87
11.0000	0.043331925	-75
11.8786	0	4.27
12.6922	0	4.77
14.8995	0.033178542	4.87
21.1000	0.046919237	4.37
35.0832	0	3.42
59.7500	0.107447989	3.07
110.2417	0	5.37
118.5000	0.048809315	95.17
290.2778	0	134.32
310.3644	0	-6.58
2508.2497	0	4.17
2508.3333	0	4.12

Period years	amplitude	Offset months
0.5012	0.036054	8.3
0.8395	0	2.9
0.8910	0	1.23
1.7692	0	0.95
1.9373	0	2.7
1.9911	0	5.8
2.0409	0	9.55
2.1091	0	10.55
2.2569	0	9.55
2.3139	0	6.75
2.5418	0	4.4
2.6714	0	2.35
2.7608	0	5
2.8746	0	2.55
3.1638	0	0.96
3.2734	0	6.55
3.4699	0	9.64
3.5794	0	3.15
3.7684	0	3.35
4.0150	0	6.75
4.7240	0	6.68
5.1061	0	5.5
5.2466	0	9.55
5.7274	0	6.65
5.9782	0	1.85
6.2516	0	4.35
6.6153	0	3
7.5693	0	3.2
8.4272	0	3.25
10.0693	0.030061	6.7
11.0000	0.038659	-69
11.7532	0	3.85
12.6336	0	4.55
14.9497	0.030069	5
21.2083	0.048414	4.45
35.6852	0	3.75
60.0833	0.119432	3.05
101.8333	0	96.15
110.2167	0	5.35
290.2778	0	134.3
317.0533	0.395701	2.3
2508.1661	0	4.15
2508.3333	0	4.1