Global Warming: Heat Islands?

Global Warming.Polar Bear

One of the problems with the global warming argument is that the methods of measuring temperatures aren’t accurate; they fail to take into account non-green house gas types of warming.

For example blue bird filled meadow is much cooler than the parking lot that replaces it.  This is neatly demonstrated by a local Graduate student:

Raleigh, N.C. — Research by a North Carolina State University graduate student has pinpointed Raleigh’s hottest locations, and she says they could be problematic for some area trees.

Emily Meineke, who is studying entomology, is examining the effect of temperatures on scale insects, parasites that feed on trees and plants. She placed small thermometers in trees throughout Raleigh and used their readings to produce a map of so-called “heat islands,” areas that stayed warmer longer.

Meineke said roads, parking lots and buildings “trap heat during the day and release that heat during the night time,” producing the heat islands. The temperature differences can be huge, she said.

“In some places, the air temperature is about 10 degrees hotter,” she said.

Indeed.  Concrete runways are warmer than pastures.  Sadly, science fails our young heroine:

The problem could spread to trees in rural areas and forests as the overall climate warms, she said.

Totally disregarding her research that shows warming may not be due to green house gases at all…

7 responses to “Global Warming: Heat Islands?

  1. You are completely missing the point of her research. The “problem” that could spread is the prevalence of scale insects. She found that those heat islands, which hold and then radiate heat much more than other parts of the area, keep the trees around them warmer and that allows the scale insects to prosper. None of that has to do with global warming. The conclusion is that, as the climate warms due to global warming, those scale insects will be able to prosper even in rural areas. That is to say, the problem that currently is located around heat islands (which is a civil engineering/design problem, not climate change) will spread to rural areas as the climate everywhere starts to match those urban hotspots.

    • You are completely missing the point of her research.

      No no no….I get it. She is trying to use local examples of warming to demonstrate what we’re in store for if the global warming ass predicted, continues.

      My point, however, is that it is these heat islands that are contributing to the rise in surface temps and not a global phenomenon.

      That is to say, the problem that currently is located around heat islands (which is a civil engineering/design problem, not climate change) will spread to rural areas as the climate everywhere starts to match those urban hotspots.

      Another problem is that she assumes global warming. Not qualifying it by saying that if warming occurs at predicted rates. Which, by the way, it is not.

      • My point, however, is that it is these heat islands that are contributing to the rise in surface temps and not a global phenomenon.
        So? She’s not saying (at least from the excerpts I’ve seen) that we need to stop building parking lots, she’s just examining what happens to the surrounding environment when the temperature is raised. I don’t understand your point.

        Another problem is that she assumes global warming. Not qualifying it by saying that if warming occurs at predicted rates. Which, by the way, it is not.

        So, you agree that her conclusion is sound if presented as “IF climate change results in warming, we will see this kind of effect in rural areas as well”?

        • So? She’s not saying (at least from the excerpts I’ve seen) that we need to stop building parking lots, she’s just examining what happens to the surrounding environment when the temperature is raised. I don’t understand your point.

          I think I understand now.

          My point is that I’ve never seen a proponent of global warming so exactly point out heat islands.

          It’s my belief that heat islands contribute to the warming we see. Not everything is due to green house gases. Though I DO believe that greenhouse gases do contribute to warming.

          So, you agree that her conclusion is sound if presented as “IF climate change results in warming, we will see this kind of effect in rural areas as well”?

          Yes. And sea levels will rise. And crops will react differently. And coral reefs may suffer.

          Yes.

          I just don’t think that we’ll see that level of warming.

  2. My point is that I’ve never seen a proponent of global warming so exactly point out heat islands.

    It’s my belief that heat islands contribute to the warming we see. Not everything is due to green house gases. Though I DO believe that greenhouse gases do contribute to warming.

    That’s pretty weird, I’ve never heard a serious discussion of climate change that didn’t include other elements such as deforestation and albedo effects. The IPCC report specifically identifies land cover as a cause of climate change. The focus on GHG is not because it’s the only cause, it is simply the cause over which we have the most leverage to create positive effects with less effort.

    I just don’t think that we’ll see that level of warming.

    She didn’t actually say the level of warning that would be necessary, she simply said that the effect we see near heat islands will show up in rural areas as the global temperature rises. Unless you are going to say global warming is simply not real, then your argument is only about the degree of warming we’d expect, and I don’t see anything in her results that states the level necessary.

    • Unless you are going to say global warming is simply not real,

      Nope. I think the globe is warming. Or has been, maybe not so much lately.

      then your argument is only about the degree of warming we’d expect

      Yes. That is the skeptic argument. I believe that:

      1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
      2. Greenhouse gases contribute to a warming planet
      3. We are, or have been, warming
      4. Humans have added to the level of CO2.

      I dispute the alarmists.

  3. nickgb,

    ” The focus on GHG is not because it’s the only cause, it is simply the cause over which we have the most leverage to create positive effects with less effort. ”

    I do not understand the ” less effort ” part. Trying to limit greenhouse gases is enormously expensive. There is also even less proof that limiting greenhouse gas emissions will reverse man made climate change than there is for man made climate change. Greenhouse gases can stay in the atmosphere for decades and even centuries. So how do you know whether your efforts are doing any good if the results appear beyond our lifetimes?

    Abridging high temperatures at heat islands would seem to be much more cost effective and have measurable results at the local level.

Leave a Reply