Skip to content

Urban Heat Island In Alaska

August 19, 2013
tags: ,

By Paul Homewood

 

Barrow, Alaska

 

It is worth having another look at a paper, published in 2003, which looked at UHI in Barrow, Alaska.

 

The urban heat island in winter at Barrow, Alaska

Hinkel et al

 

Abstract

The village of Barrow, Alaska, is the northernmost settlement in the USA and the largest native community in the Arctic. The population has grown from about 300 residents in 1900 to more than 4600 in 2000. In recent decades, a general increase of mean annual and mean winter air temperature has been recorded near the centre of the village, and a concurrent trend of progressively earlier snowmelt in the village has been documented. Satellite observations and data from a nearby climate observatory indicate a corresponding but much weaker snowmelt trend in the surrounding regions of relatively undisturbed tundra. Because the region is underlain by ice-rich permafrost, there is concern that early snowmelt will increase the thickness of the thawed layer in summer and threaten the structural stability of roads, buildings, and pipelines. Here, we demonstrate the existence of a strong urban heat island (UHI) during winter. Data loggers (54) were installed in the ∼150 km2 study area to monitor hourly air and soil temperature, and daily spatial averages were calculated using the six or seven warmest and coldest sites. During winter (December 2001–March 2002), the urban area averaged 2.2 °C warmer than the hinterland. The strength of the UHI increased as the wind velocity decreased, reaching an average value of 3.2 °C under calm (<2 m s−1) conditions and maximum single-day magnitude of 6 °C. UHI magnitude generally increased with decreasing air temperature in winter, reflecting the input of anthropogenic heat to maintain interior building temperatures. On a daily basis, the UHI reached its peak intensity in the late evening and early morning. There was a strong positive relation between monthly UHI magnitude and natural gas production/use. Integrated over the period September–May, there was a 9% reduction in accumulated freezing degree days in the urban area. The evidence suggests that urbanization has contributed to early snowmelt in the village.

   

And is this UHI adjusted for by GISS?

  

image

Original Data

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=425700260000&dt=1&ds=12

 

image

After Homogenisation Adjustment

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=425700260000&dt=1&ds=14

 

No, on the contrary, the GISS adjustment actually increases the warming trend, by cooling the past. For instance, the original mean temperature for 1940 was –8.79C, but this has been adjusted to –9.29C by GISS.

 

There must be many more “Barrows” scattered around the Arctic Circle, which GISS rely on. For instance, Salehard, Russia, with a population of 22000.

 

Salekhard city view

http://russiatrek.org/salekhard-city

 

Not to mention the likes of Murmansk, the world’s largest city inside the Arctic Circle. (Again, GISS have increased the warming trend with their adjustment, rather than reduce it for UHI).

 

http://barentsobserver.com/en/visit-barents/murmansk-human-anthill-arctic

 

GISS temperatures across the Arctic rely heavily on projecting outwards from a small number of stations. How many of these stations can be said to be reliable, though, and free from urban bias?

2 Comments
  1. Brian H permalink
    August 21, 2013 8:21 am

    This is the UHI GISS steadfastly refuses to look at or measure.

Trackbacks

  1. Sorry, President Pants-on-Fire But Alaska Is Cooling Not Warming | Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: