Urban heating explained

I frequently see references to so called “urban heating” which try to explain the phenomenon by handwaving references to anecodatal causes such as direct heating from houses or changes in solar absorption of concrete. Most of these are so obviously wrong that I felt like giving a quick debunk of some of them.

Direct heating

London was the first place where urban heating was recognised and it is usually quoted as being raised by a degree centigrade or more:

The Mean Temperature of the Climate … is strictly about 48.50° Fahr.: but in the denser parts of the metropolis, the heat is raised, by the effect of the population and fires, to 50.50°; and it must be proportionately affected in the suburban parts.

Based on the size of London (609square miles) and population (1.3 million households), thus the average area per household is about 1000m2. When I last looked average electricity consumption is 400w and something like half of all energy usage, so let’s say 1000w over 1000m2 = 1w/m2. The change in global temperature is usually quoted at about 4w/m2 per degree C suggesting around 0.25C warming. But the figure will be smaller for a small region as there are more ways for heat energy to escape,  thus this direct heat accounts for only a small fraction of the warming.


I searched for papers giving the relative change in albedo between urban and rural environments. And it quickly became apparent that they are difficult to find (This is often an indication that the subject doesn’t fit in with the global warming alarm). However, despite the lack of research, this subject is relatively easy to check, because most energy from the sun arrives in the visible region, a change in albedo will be shown as a difference in lightness/darkness of the ground. To check this I had a look at aerial photos. I chose relatively small areas where i could be certain the images were from the same run of aerial photos.First an area close to where I live in Scotland where there is a distinct change from urban to rural:

UrbanVRural1A village in Scotland where an area of urban and rural image have been rendered black and white and then blurred.

The original aim of blurring the square was to produce a uniform shade. I think the difference at the centre was 33 & 38 percent?) but perhaps the fact that the square are not uniform shade, but still retains some of the change within the area, also shows that the variation between urban and rural is far less than the variation within urban and rural.

However, this is Scotland where it is damp and moss grows on roofs. So I wanted to check this in a the drier parts of the UK and chose London.

UrbanVRural2 UrbanVRural3

South London showing areas of greenery amongst the housing in colour (left) black and white (right). When shown as B&W, the green largely disappears except for areas of woodland. Likewise, the urban area is relatively uniform except for modern warehouse style buildings which show white.

I was going to repeat the exercise, but as soon as I removed the colour, I was unable to spot the areas of green as they were virtually the same colour as the areas of housing. The easiest way to show this was to reproduce the image with and without colour. Again, the variation within areas of urban and rural is more significant than the variation of the average between them. Importantly, the really dark areas are woodland and the very light areas are warehouses. And of the two, in all but a very few places, the area of woodland is much greater and therefore more important in terms of temperature than the area of warehouse, which although they stick out like a soar thumb, their size is small.

Thus contrary to many assertions that albedo dramatically changes, there is in fact very little difference in albedo between (UK) housing and open fields. Indeed, as the following shows even in Central London the difference is small


Image of central London shown in colour & B&W showing that even in central London, there is little difference in shade between built up areas and parkland.

In contrast there is very considerable differences between types of farm land. As such it is difficult to explain “urban heating” by a change in albedo.

The real causes of urban heating

This leave two other related effects:
1. A reduction in average wind speed over urban environments
2. A reduction in evaporation

The reason they are related is because around 50% of all heat lost via air movement from the surface is through evaporation, and this is in turn affected by wind speed.

The reason the wind speed is reduced is because the presence of housing roughens the surface and increases drag on wind. This also happens in woodland, where the wind speed is dramatically reduced near the ground. But unlike woodland, houses do not evaporate from their roofs. So the key here is that air speed is dramatically reduced at the level at which evaporation from plants is important.

Anyone who has ever gone into a wood on a hot day in a dry summer, knows that a wood is much cooler than the dry open fields whereas the wind speed reduces and the humidity increases. Thus, if it weren’t for the active cooling by the trees (with deep roots which still tap into water), then it would feel much warmer in the woodland.

The flip side: urban runoff

Urban areas are characterised by 75-100 percent impermeable material which is much higher than rural areas, which may have only 10% impermeable material. As water that runs off is therefore unavailable for evaporative cooling, this difference contributes to higher surface area temperatures. It is complicated because water also penetrates into the ground, so not all the precipitation contributes to cooling but with about 50% of the heat leaving the ground leaving through convection, and with evaporation being one of the key factors driving convection, even a small change in evaporative cooling in the urban environment will have a significant effect on temperature.

The flip flip side: urban cooling

The bizarre thing is that in some areas such as Australia, urbanisation has led to cooling not warming. The likely explanation is simple: in dry regions, people bring in water to grow plants. The result is that the evaporation from the plants cools the environment.


Whilst direct heating is the most often cause cited for urban heating, the actual scale of direct heating is relatively small. Likewise whilst changes in albedo can be significant particularly between woodland and farmland or between housing and warehouses, the average difference in albedo between urban and rural (farmland/parkland) environments is relatively small. Therefore the main reasons for urban warming are the effect buildings have in reducing average wind speeds at the “growing level” (i.e. where most plant leaves occur), and the reduction in evaporative cooling due to a reduction in plants and an increase in hard surfaces with runoff (which is then not available for cooling).

Posted in Climate | 1 Comment

Please sign petition: Leave the EU without a deal in March 2019.

The latest ploy of the anti-democracy politicians & EU is simple: to insist we must have a deal and then reject any deal. Thus claiming that leaving is impossible.

They are scum.

Please sign the petition:

Leave the EU without a deal in March 2019.

Posted in Climate | 5 Comments

PC fascism: it’s already here LITERALLY!

UPDATE! Please sign this petition:

The UK should not agree the UN’s Global Compact for Migration

This news is so profound and such a massive attack on western democracy, that it shows that the mass immigration of recent years was no mistake. It was an intentional policy by these people and that having been exposed they are now acting to make it ILLEGAL to criticise what is ironically their ILLEGAL policy. This shows, we are already living in a new fascist age where anti-democratic forces have ALREADY gained control and are about to turn our world into a nightmare where free speech does not exist.

If the video here is correct – and unfortunately it seems genuine, Governments are literally committing to make it illegal to criticise immigration policy IN ANY FORM WHATSOEVER. In other words, it will be a criminal offence to say that ILLEGAL immigration must be shopped. It’s not barmy – it’s intensely concerning.

Direct link to see video: https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1068557881438552064

Posted in Climate | 1 Comment

Brazil backs out of hosting 2019 UN climate summit

With the fire being taken out of the alarmists, Climate has become pretty dull recently, so much so that watching paint drying (or more literally concrete setting) has become a far more interesting subject for me. The fact that I have multiple surface all subject to wind and rain has made a combination of weather forecasts and the setting time of concrete a bit of an obsession recently as we head into winter … but I digress.

Following the election of Jair Bolsonaro as president, Brazil withdrew its offer to preside over Cop25, citing budgetary constraints and the political transition (link)

For anyone who has observed these COPs (at a far … as few sceptics can afford to attend), they are without doubt the biggest waste of money imaginable amounting to a huge taxpayer’s funded green-fest of crocodile tears with mostly government paid for green nutters flying from all over the globe in order to gather and moan about things like … the way so many people fly to so many unnecessary places.

Of course they live it up in style, whilst bemoaning the way money isn’t going to the poor. But they can’t stop going as it’s become the way these green nutters keep in touch and a “safe space” from the reality of real world of ever drooping public support and failed climate predictions.

So, the effect Brazil cancelling their contribution to this waste of money, isn’t that important (except to green nutters) … as it’s just another indicator that the global warming scam is dying. But when the history of the scam is written up … when our generation is being laughed at for being so stupid … future generations need a point in time in order to say “that generation was stupid but we (the later generation) aren’t … and this may well be the event they choose to demark the “stupid” time from the “sane sensible” period that (supposedly) followed.

Posted in Climate | 3 Comments

Anti-male propaganda

Back in the days when I used to get my views from the FNM (Fake News Media) like the BBC (Biased Broadcasting Company), I was convinced we lived in a society that was unfair to women.

That of course, like so much from the FNM is bullshit. It is bullshit fabricated by the left wing academics, fed to the FNM and then poured into the ears of gullible public and politicians – but worse back into the ears of the academics so that for decades we had a vicious cycle of fake news justifying ever greater dishonesty in academia. This then fed even faker news to the FNM which then fed back to academia creating a cycle of decline that was only stopped in its tracks by the advent of social media and rise of alternative and honest news sources, free from the cycle of fake news.

However, reason I post today is based on a single tweet. The content is hardly surprising as I’ve researched it before, but the list of ways society is outrageously unfair to men keeps growing …whilst falsely portraying women as being the victims of society.

(details as tweets like this tend to get removed from PC fascist twitter)
MALE PRIVILEGE: Deaths in battle Men 97.7% Women 2.3% Homeless Men 62% Women 38% Suicides Men 77.9% Women 22.1% Homicides Men 77.4% Women 22.6% Workplace deaths Men 93% Women 7% College graduates Men 40% Women 60% Winners of custody Men 17.8% Women 82.2% MALE PRIVILEGE

Posted in Climate | 4 Comments

Time to reform academia

Back in 2007 when I first started being a sceptic, almost every major institution and government, almost every media outlet, and most importantly almost everyone in every group that usually questioned government policy, were all lining up like a group of mindless zombies behind a policy that when I checked had almost no scientific credibility.

In truth, as few as half a dozen extremely politicised academics who had no compunction with lying to the public and whose academic ability didn’t include basic things like being able to use Excel, had gained control of the subject of climate and were leading the world trance-like toward economic oblivion using the lie of a CO2 catastrophe.

Whether intentional or just because they hated commerce & industry, their aim was clear: to destroy the oil based economies of the west. To destroy capitalism. To destroy the very economy that provided the wealth that employed them.

It is the closest the world ever came to self-inflicted suicide. Far worse than Nuclear war – because at least we knew that was bad when it was happening. The self-delusional process of lies being laid down over lies, data changing becoming ever more virulent meant we were on the verge of a big-brother world FAR WORSE than anything even the USSR could have done because there literally was almost no opposition.

We, few sceptics, stopped it just in time – any longer and we would have started to see the repression of free speech, concentration camps, etc. that were being openly talked about. And once such measures had been taken, there would have been no turning back the tide of repression. There would have been no chance for science based policy – because inconvenient science requiring credible impartial data and analysis simply could not be tolerated. It did not support the crazies who had gained control. Big brother was on the door, and almost EVERYONE was clambering over each other to ask him in.

I don’t think most people will ever realise how close we came to oblivion. After all most passengers on the Titanic had no clue how close they were to death until LONG AFTER they hit the ice-berg. And we sceptics were like cabin boys locked up from questioning the captain’s decision to go full speed into the dark. The cabin boy only gets remembered, if anyone who knows about them survives the incident and spills the beans (the cabin boy undoubtedly being locked up where they are first to drown). They don’t get remembered if the captain slows down.

And that is where we are at. The captain (nutter climate academics) are still running the ship, the cabin boys are still well and truly out of the picture, but the Titanic has slowed down and better still passengers are starting to question the captain’s zealous onward progress in the middle of a known ice field

But how did we get into this mess?

The main reason for this debacle stems with the incompetence of western academia. The issues are:

  1. Western academia is one of the most overtly politicised groups rivalling trade unions for their shear political bias. This not only extends to a blatant left wing bias, but also means that in many policy areas there is a de facto one party state in academia that does not accept alternative views.
  2. As a result Groupthink is rife. Anyone questioning the groupthink is sent to Coventry and the result has been the stagnation of many subjects from climate to archaeology.
  3. Introversion and rejection of external views is also rife. Partly because academia is so politicised and doesn’t share the worldview of those outside, but largely because like any closed shop, it sees those outside who have views on academic subjects as “the enemy”.
  4. Dishonesty & poor quality is rife in academia. The dishonesty stems from the lack of any adequate oversight and the huge incentives to make the data fit the theory. And quality is non-existent in many areas, because quality is driven by demanding customers and much of what academics work on has no customer at all.

To put it bluntly, in many respects academia has become a fifth column working against the rest of society, using government funding to create an alternative political power base, which is not subject to any oversight or control, and which has no compunction to create fake data and lies to push through its own policy agenda. And it works hand-in-glove with the similarly minded fake news media allowing the academia-MSM roadroller to push over and flatten the political wishes of the rest of society.

Thus, whilst the global warming Scam was the most serious immediate threat we have faced in recent history, it is but a symptom of a much greater illness: that academia has become a force for evil in society. We may have stopped the global warming scam from snowballing till those changing the data had so much power they could make it up with impunity and lock up critics so that there was no way for the people to regain control of their governments. But we have not clipped the wings of academia nor in any way stopped them from constructing a new scare. They are still able to make up fake social data to support their latest political fad whether it is anti-smacking, gender mutations or their general hatred of any social policy that is not on the extreme wacky left or supportive of commerce & capitalism.

What solution?

The problem is that the internet has immensely strengthened the power of academia to force its viewpoint on the rest of us. Through websites like Wikipedia, they create a fake view of “knowledge” that is highly politicised and extremely biased. By controlling the supposed sources of “authority” on knowledge: the academic journals, this extreme left-wing publicly funded political force can deny the truth simply by publishing papers that say black is white. You can’t fight academics on Wikipedia – they just publish another paper so they can write whatever they like

The only upside, I can see, is that the general public are not the gullible fools that academics take them to be. On global warming, despite the lies of academia on sites like Wikipedia, the public have generally seen through their lies. Indeed, even in academia, the nuttery of academics on Wikipedia is so well known that even many academics don’t like it.

I once heard it said, that the only closed shop Union that Margaret Thatcher didn’t dare take on was the doctors. It is true she didn’t take on the medics, but a  far more dangerous and powerful union she should have taken on is academia. Undoubtedly attempts were made to change academia by rewarding academics on the number of papers. But far from making them more subject to market forces, the result has been a decline in academic standards and general view in academia that the number of papers now matters far more than their quality or honesty.

Likewise, the internet should have been a force for good – allowing more scrutiny of academic work. But in contrast, what it did was to allow academics in the same subject to start working directly with each other so that each subject became a “gang” of people who then didn’t tolerate alternative views. The result has been a vast increase in groupthink and academics now view themselves as part of one global groupthink gang, rather than each being primarily a member of their own different University with an alliance primarily to their own colleagues in their own University.

So, in terms of solutions, I do not see many. Given that the current position means western academia is very much underperforming, one obvious “solution” is that the new academic powers of China, India, etc. having very different cultures, despite starting from a historically backward position, could easily outperform western academia with the inevitable consequence that their economies will dominate the future of our planet.

More palatable solutions (for us in the west) require some means to create oversight that is not massively left-wing politically biased. That cannot be done for free: the only obvious alternative source of knowledge competence comes from the private sector. Either those currently employed in the private sector – or those who have retired from the private sector.

I have already suggested a very modest proposal of Research University for the retired – focussing on those who have worked in the private sector. They will not have the public-sector bias of most academia and therefore will massively increase the amount of pro-private sector research. But that will in no way restore the balance.

Another option is to put such people in charge of the grant funding body. We simply replace every grant funding body with people who have retired from commerce. We don’t need to change their aims or terms of references, because the result will inevitably be to favour those who are more balanced in their political views.

Another possibility is to give money directly to the private sector to employ researchers, so that the private sector is in control of research. That has already been tried, but it clearly is not enough.

These are all pretty simple measures: but they will all be vigorously opposed by the highly politicised academia for obvious reasons. But that is not the problem. The problem is lack of political will, FROM THE RIGHT, to do anything about the extreme left wing prejudice of academia. A classic example is Trump’s failure even to do the most obvious thing and take on those faking the climate data. If he can’t do something that simple, there does not appear to be any realistic chance of the necessary reforms in the near future.

So realistically, it is almost inevitable that we are seeing the end of the dominance of western thought because I can see no realistic way to reform academia to make it capable of meeting future challenges. And that probably also means that our political systems will become a lot more like countries like China. And to end on an ironic thought … no doubt, those who will most strongly object in the centuries to come as we lose the freedoms we currently have and mimic other cultures, … is the extremists in academia whose predecessors caused the demise of western society.

Posted in Climate | 11 Comments

Tommy Robinson – Vindicated

When I originally decided to come out in support of Tommy Robinson, I knew I was taking a chance. On the one side, there was good evidence that there had been a campaign of press and establishment hatred against him and that the establishment were intent on putting his life at risk which would likely end in his death.

On the other, all the press agreed that he was someone everyone should hate and that only vile people could possibly support. However, human rights are rights irrespective of whether you agree with someone or what they say, and clearly Tommy’s human rights had been severely ELIMINATED.

However, yesterday I read his statement to the court found here and I was totally appalled. Because I had assumed he had mistakenly broke reporting restrictions. Instead, what I found is that he had done everything I could conceivably imagine AND MORE to ensure he did not break reporting restrictions. He had acted with the utmost professionalism and yet despite his vigorous attempts to do everything he could to comply, the judge WITHOUT EVEN A HEARING OR LEGAL REPRESENTATION summarily through him in jail for 13 months.

There is no doubt in my mind – particularly because the judge did not ensure that reporting restrictions were made available – and because the judge took no action against the BBC who Tommy was reading out – the judge is incapable of the necessary impartiality needed for a fair trial and …

That judge should be sacked

(Although I would allow them to present their case, have it heard and have legal representation – something they denied Tommy).

Posted in Climate | 6 Comments


There is so much wrong with this video. I found it searching for Dumbarton which is near Glasgow.

  • Why were they bouncing marbles was the obvious question. A question that never gets answered.
  • Why is the teacher near Glasgow speaking with an American accent. And don’t the kids pick up accents quickly?

  • What are the rules of this game?
  • Where are these marbles coming from
  • What on earth are the sticks they using for this …whatever it is?
  • What is that on the kids shoe?
  • Why the ruler?
  • Why do the side blocks move out (they are obviously being hit to the side but how)



Posted in Climate | Leave a comment

Could genetics be killing global warming alarmism?

If one looks at clothes fashions and women’s fashion in particular, it is very easy to see that from as far back as records permit us to view them, women’s clothes have been changing rapidly so that it is usually possible to distinguish a photo not to the decade or even the year but sometimes to within a few months.

And the small glimpses we have of history also show that throughout the ages women have been “fashionable”. So this clearly isn’t something that arrived in modern times, but instead it appears to be an instinctive human behaviour particularly of women.

A while back, I was pondering the reason for this, and began to hypothesise that the reason women regularly change fashion is that one generation tries to distinguish itself in some way from the previous generation. To put it very crudely, they try to advertise themselves as “fresh meat” on the sex/marriage market. And thus I hypothesised in order to show that they are “fresh”, women instinctively seek out ways to appear “fresh”. And they do this by finding new styles of clothing.

Global Warming

And then looking today at the latest information showing interest in Global warming has plummeted with it featuring last in all groups “Democrats shelve climate change as an election talking point” I was pondering why this occurred. For example: had we sceptic managed to convince the alarmists of the science? obviously not from my recent conversations. So what?

Then it hit me. Perhaps the sole reason that global warming alarmism is decreasing is … fashion. That each generation tries to find new ways to be new a fresh, and that after 20 years of being the last generations way of showing their distinctness from the previous ones, that the new generation just wants something new AND DIFFERENT FROM THE LAST GENERATION over which to show its concerns.

In other words, it’s not the science, it’s not the politics, it’s just that global warming is so “last generation” as an issue.

And thus … by implication … the only reason that global warming came to prominence may also be fashion. The previous generation having gone nuts about global cooling, what better way to show that they are a new generation with new ideas than to go nuts about entirely the opposite of the last general.

The concept that we’ve been fighting a mere fashion for the last 20 years, or that we won because scepticism literally became “fashionable” rather than the eloquence of our arguments etc. is profoundly depressing. I can’t think of anything more humiliating than to have won this debate because we literally became fashionable.

Posted in Climate | 8 Comments

Why faking the temperature has not been helpful to alarmists

Back before the days when the alarmists starting obviously faking the global temperature by adding in “readings” … is what best describes the dross data from buoys … to fake a warming trend, you could say two things about alarmists:

  1. They were winning the propaganda battle as most people believed them not sceptics
  2. They were hugely embarrassed by the lack of warming since around 2000.

But eventually, clearly the pause got to them and they fabricated warming by massively multiplying a miniscule sub-noise trend seen in buoys (and one extremely easy to manufacture by selecting where the buoys are placed). They then created their latest “graph” that clearly shows unequivocal warming … but they then lost the propaganda battle. Why?

I was thinking about this. From the public’s point of view, they have absolutely no way of knowing whether the alarmists are faking their data. So, how come they lost faith when the graphs got better?

The reason I suggest, is that people like the alarmists are a lot more believable when the data DOESN’T support them. To be more exact, the DATA is more believable when it doesn’t fit what the “experts” want it to be. That may seem crazy. The idea experts look more credible when they’re struggling to explain why the data is “wrong” sound crazy, but apparently it is true.

So, far from becoming more and more believable as the data became a better and better fit to the predicted CO2 “warming”, the reverse happened: it became more and more obvious the data was being tampered with and that the “experts” were just a bunch of frauds.

That’s because the public know that data that doesn’t fit what the experts want it to show is more believable, than data that happens to show exactly what the “expert” says (and particularly when a few years back they showed very different data that wasn’t showing what they wanted it to show).

The Role of Sceptics

Paradoxically, looking back, Sceptics did a lot to add credibility to the “not obviously faked” temperatures. Because the public naturally look at what those who are vociferously against something to work out how plausible it is. And when we sceptics were arguing about the nuances of temperature readings and whether an odd station was being tampered with but generally agreeing it had warmed, the public were thinking: “like all groups the ‘experts’ are pushing the scales, but despite all their efforts, the sceptics generally agree on warming”.

But these days, I know the temperatures are so corrupt that I won’t even discuss them.

So I had been thinking: “I know refusing to discuss looks like I have no evidence and it won’t look good – but on principle, I’m not entering a discussion where I know the temperatures are bogus”.

Fortunately, I can’t manufacture my contempt for what the alarmists did as my contempt is instinctive, not calculated. However I can see how my attitude has changed since the bogus temperatures, and I’ve no doubt that the public do see these “vibes”.

Indeed, even when I see alarmists posts these fake graphs, they obviously don’t say so, but the way they don’t pursue us, clearly shows they accept our feelings about the graphs are understandable.

The role of supporters

And I suspect the public also get the same vibes from supporters. Back in the days when they still showed the pause, we sceptics were being viciously attacked by the supporters of the alarmists. Then along came the fake temperature graphs and what did the supporters do? They went wild about plastic. In other words, they stopped attacking sceptics and changed the subject.

They never said they stopped believing the “experts”, but changing subjects is a very strong indicator that they did.

You couldn’t make it up

The alarmists bring out graphs that appear to show unequivocal warming. And what is the response? On the one hand sceptics stopping arguing about temperature, on the other supporters of the alarmists find something new to talk about.

Surely any reasonable person would conclude that the debate really was over?

But far from becoming MORE accepted, concern over global warming plummets. The reason I think is that the public recognise that despite the apparent surface of the “debate” showing the alarmists have won, the reverse is true: the “vibes” show they’ve just made up the warming. It would be impossible to co-ordinate people to behave in a way that drew the public to that conclusion, it is just what they conclude when they see supporters and opponents behaving in this odd way.

Posted in Climate | 3 Comments