Phil Jones published a flawed paper about Urban Heat Island effect in 1990 which has been used extensively to dismiss the obvious impact of asphalt and population on city temperatures. Both Jones and his co-authors had to separately deal with fraud allegations because of the knowingly faulty claims made. As per usual, they were found 'unguilty', and the paper was not even rescinded. The result was found that UHI was responsible for 0.05C increase, and even that was not an 'adjustment' placed on temps but simply added to the margin of error.
The last few days have had some interesting articles on UHI-
from NASA
from Climate Audit
also from CA
these three links illustrate the insanely poor climate science that has come out, been used extensively even though known to be at best misleading, and the collusion involved with trying to prop up bad science in the name of 'settled science'.
The last few days have had some interesting articles on UHI-
from NASA
NASA - Satellites Pinpoint Drivers of Urban Heat Islands in the NortheastThe compact city of Providence, R.I., for example, has surface temperatures that are about 12.2 °C (21.9 °F) warmer than the surrounding countryside, while similarly-sized but spread-out Buffalo, N.Y., produces a heat island of only about 7.2 °C (12.9 °F), according to satellite data. Since the background ecosystems and sizes of both cities are about the same, Zhang's analysis suggests development patterns are the critical difference.
from Climate Audit
New Light on UHI Climate AuditThe inquiries into CRU, as is well known, did not examine CRUs science. One of CRUs main contributions is the proof by Jones et al 1990 that the development of urban heat islands contributed no more than ~0.05 deg C to measured 20th century land temperatures. This proof is an integral component in justifying CRUTEM which makes no allowance or adjustment for increasing UHI. Jones et al 2008 revisited this theme, estimating the UHI for London at 1 deg and New Yok City at 1.5 deg C, editorializing that much of this would have developed prior to the 20th century.
Jones failure to allow for developing UHI has occasioned much skeptical criticism over the years. Jones and the Team have used their offices as reviewers to quash criticism from appearing in print e.g. going to town as a reviewer on papers that had the temerity to criticize and, as IPCC review authors, to initial suppress and then include only with adverse editorial comment criticisms like McKitrick and Michaels 2004. The recent McKitrick and Nierenberg 2010 is the most recent entry in this longstanding debate, replying to and rebutting Gavin Schmidts comment on McKitrick and Michaels 2007 all of which direct UHI indirectly.
also from CA
McKitrick and Nierenberg 2010 Rebuts Another Team Article Climate AuditMcKitrick and Nierenberg 2010, rebutting Schmidt 2009 is in press at the Journal of Economic and Social Measurement.
Schmidt (Int J of Climatology) 2009, which commented on McKitrick and Michaels 2007, was peer reviewed by Phil Jones (the puffball review is in the Climategate documents); McKitrick was not given a chance to comment. In contrast, when McKitrick and Nierenberg submitted to IJOC, despite specific requests that Schmidt not be a reviewer, McKitrick and Nierenberg ended up with what was, in effect, a Team peer review, with Gavin Schmidt an important and unreported member of the Team. As in other incidents of Team peer review, the Team managed to stifle the comment at IJOC. In Climategate terminology, the Team ensured that there wasnt a leak at IJOC. Eventually, McKitrick and Nierenberg submitted to the Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, which was not subject to the Team.
these three links illustrate the insanely poor climate science that has come out, been used extensively even though known to be at best misleading, and the collusion involved with trying to prop up bad science in the name of 'settled science'.