Study projects a dramatic increase in annual high-heat days in the U.S. Northeast by the century's end

December 21, 2018 by Mark Dwortzan, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
A new study projects that compared to today’s climate, the annual number of days in which maximum and mean temperatures exceed 86 degrees Fahrenheit in the U.S. Northeast will increase toward the middle of the century, and even more so toward the end of the century. Credit: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Long-term assessment of likely regional and local climate impacts is critical to enabling municipalities, businesses, and regional economies to prepare for potentially damaging and costly effects of climate change—from prolonged droughts to more frequent and intense extreme events such as major storms and heatwaves.

Unfortunately, the tools most commonly used to project future climate impacts, Earth-system models (ESMs), are not up to the task. ESMs are too computationally time consuming and too expensive to run at sufficient resolution to provide the detail needed at the local and regional level.

To that end, a new MIT-led study in the journal Earth and Space Science uses a regional climate model of the northeastern United States to downscale the middle and end-of-century climate projections of an ESM under a high-impact emissions scenario to a horizontal resolution of 3 kilometers. Through downscaling, output from the ESM was used to drive the regional model at a higher spatial resolution, enabling it to simulate local conditions in greater detail. The resulting high-resolution climate projections consist of more than 200 climate variables at an hourly frequency.

Among other things, the study projects that between now and the end of the century, the region will experience significantly more days per year in which mean and maximum temperatures exceed 86 degrees Fahrenheit, and fewer days per year in which the minimum temperature falls below freezing. Over that period in Boston, the annual number of days the mean temperature exceeds 86 F increases from three to 22, and the number of days the daily maximum temperature exceeds 86 F increases from 49 to 78.

"Our approach allows for analysis of changes in temperature, precipitation, and other climate variables within a single 24-hour period," says Muge Komurcu, the lead author of the study and a research scientist with the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change and Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS). "The aim of these projections is to support further assessments of climate change impacts and sustainability studies in the region."

Downscaling of climate projections provides climate variables at the resolution needed to assess climate change impacts at regional and local scales. As a result, the variables produced in the study may be used as input to other models and analyses to assess the likely future impact of climate change on extreme precipitation and heat wave events, regional ecosystems, agriculture, the spread of infectious diseases (e.g. Lyme disease), hydrology, the economy, and other concerns.

To produce the study's climate variables, the researchers used a high-resolution regional climate model, the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model, to downscale middle and end-of-century climate projections of the Community Earth System Model (CESM) under a high greenhouse gas emissions scenario to a horizontal resolution of 3 kilometers for the northeastern U.S.

To ensure that their method is reliable, Komurcu and her co-authors—MIT EAPS professor of atmospheric science Kerry Emanuel and Purdue University Professor Matthew Huber and Ph.D. student Rene Paul Acosta—simulated the process using historical climate observations. They showed that their technique reproduced observed historical mean and extreme climate events over a 10-year period.

The study's 200-plus, 3-kilometer-resolution climate variables cover 55 years, encompassing middle and end-of-century time periods.

"To our knowledge, this is the first and only study that has downscaled global model projections to such a high resolution for a long time period for this region," says Komurcu.

To assist regional assessments of change impacts and sustainability studies in the northeastern U.S., the researchers plan to make all model input and output files from this study publicly available through the University of New Hampshire's Data Distribution Center.

Explore further: Why predicting the weather and climate is even harder for Australia's rainy northern neighbours

More information: M. Komurcu et al. High‐Resolution Climate Projections for the Northeastern United States Using Dynamical Downscaling at Convection‐Permitting Scales, Earth and Space Science (2018). DOI: 10.1029/2018EA000426

Related Stories

How climate change influences wind power

August 6, 2018

Climate change poses a big challenge for wind energy production in Europe. This is the conclusion of a study carried out by researchers at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) using spatially and temporally highly resolved ...

Team develops method to predict local climate change

February 18, 2016

Global climate models are essential for climate prediction and assessing the impacts of climate change across large areas, but a Dartmouth College-led team has developed a new method to project future climate scenarios at ...

Recommended for you

Nanoscale Lamb wave-driven motors in nonliquid environments

March 19, 2019

Light driven movement is challenging in nonliquid environments as micro-sized objects can experience strong dry adhesion to contact surfaces and resist movement. In a recent study, Jinsheng Lu and co-workers at the College ...

OSIRIS-REx reveals asteroid Bennu has big surprises

March 19, 2019

A NASA spacecraft that will return a sample of a near-Earth asteroid named Bennu to Earth in 2023 made the first-ever close-up observations of particle plumes erupting from an asteroid's surface. Bennu also revealed itself ...

Levitating objects with light

March 19, 2019

Researchers at Caltech have designed a way to levitate and propel objects using only light, by creating specific nanoscale patterning on the objects' surfaces.

57 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

BobSage
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 21, 2018
Is this similar to the study that projected no ice in the arctic by 2012?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2018
@sage poster
Is this similar to the study that projected no ice in the arctic by 2012?
1- please list the specific *study* that projected no ice by 2012 - thanks

2- a claim made by someone about the potential for [x] is not the same thing as a projection from a study. studies have error bars and information that is pertinent to the potential outcome being predicted

snoosebaum
2.6 / 5 (10) Dec 21, 2018
so it will be as warm as the 1930's ?
snoosebaum
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2018
list the specific *study*

here is a list

https://wattsupwi...ictions/

don't read it it will burn your eyes
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 22, 2018
@snooze
here is a list
so, that's a no, you can't list a specific study then?

moreover, the denier camp typically refuses to read any link to skepticalscience, regardless of the assload of links validating the claims, so why should anyone add revenue and attention to your watts site?
don't read it it will burn your eyes
your advice was taken, but only because I won't add attention to the idiocy presented on that site

Old_C_Code
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2018
under a high greenhouse gas emissions scenario


Stumpy: why are you defending BS alarmist articles with no real evidence to support them?
rrwillsj
4 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2018
oldcoot, even if you * snooze & bob were competent to comment about climate change?

It wouldn't matter. All you denialists of reality are russian & saudi bots. Paid to spread lies that discredit scientific research.
snoosebaum
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2018
YES ! I'M A RUSSIAN BOT ! YIPPEEE i can do something usefull for a change
snoosebaum
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 22, 2018
stump ; just curious , explain to me in your own words [ no links , no pastes ] the theory of AGW
Bert_Halls
4 / 5 (12) Dec 22, 2018
Jump off a bridge, denialist troll.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 22, 2018
LMAO.
Hey, Chicken Little jackasses. The NE US isn't even the US, far less the globe.
Keep braying at the heretics jackasses, you'll save the world.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 22, 2018
@old c
Stumpy: why are you defending BS alarmist articles with no real evidence to support them?
perhaps you are misunderstanding my post - I asked a question and I want to know where the sage poster was coming from

I already know where snooze is coming from

also - AGW is real, regardless of who doesn't believe it, so it should be addressed because of the potential problems associated with it

That isn't anything other than practical

.

.

@snooze
explain to me in your own words [ no links , no pastes ] the theory of AGW
nonsensical comment

Why use my words when you can read the science and see the observations for yourself?

Ah - because you want to play semantic games or introduce obfuscation. right.

how about this: just validate your claims with studies instead of bullsh*t, then get those studies validated like the climate change studies

make your argument one from evidence instead of ignorance
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2018
@old C addendum
under a high greenhouse gas emissions scenario


Stumpy: why are you defending BS alarmist articles with no real evidence to support them?
did you read the study?
The resulting high‐resolution projections are intended to support regional sustainability studies for the northeastern United States and are made publicly available.
this is important, IMHO

moreover, the very first paragraph of the study (under Introduction) explains some of why this study is important

note that I'm not talking about the article?

snoosebaum
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2018
@ stump,, HAHA ! can't do it Eh ? the man with no thoughts of his own

and , models don't produce facts and how to porduce models ? hmmm lets decide , should the model predict ? no that might not work. maybe we should make it follow the data we fudged ,, or ??? [ i can link the study ,u would love it ]
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2018
@snooze
can't do it Eh ? the man with no thoughts of his own
says the troll who's "science" is dictated by an idiot on a denier site that is directly contradicted by observational evidence
LMFAO

I don't know if you were going for Irony, Hyperbole or that you really believe it!
models don't produce facts
models are a means of exploring the physical world around you - it's no surprise that you didn't know that: https://en.wikipe...odelling

and how to porduce models ?
usually, this is spelt out in the "methods" of a study - it's no surprise that you didn't know that, either
i can link the study ,u would love it
is it validated?

A singular study is a point of interest - a validated study is something entirely different

it's no surprise that you didn't know that...

care to continue to elucidate how scientifically illiterate you are?
greenonions1
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 23, 2018
the man with no thoughts of his own
Based on what exactly?

OK Ok I get it. It is like Trump with policy decisions. 'I don't have to talk with any one else - cuz I am the expert on everything.' So if someone suggests considering the views of experts - they are attacked by Conservatives - as not having any thoughts of their own. Interesting! See - many times I have been to the doc - with my own diagnosis of what is wrong with me. Turns out I am often wrong. Why? The doc has many years of training, and experience, and knows lots more about the body than I do. So while it is fine to do my own research - and be as educated as I can - next time I get cancer (already had it once) - I am off to the doc.. To me it is the dumb asses - who say "I don't believe in science, I can know better than those elitist experts....
snoosebaum
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2018
oh come on stumps i want to know ; what is the 'baum proof ' arguement for AGW ? , in your own words

i'll be nice , you might even convince me, a complete idiot, as you say.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2018
Snooze
i'll be nice
unlikely
you might even convince me, a complete idiot
even more unlikely

in point of fact, statistically improbable given the fanaticism with which you defend your beliefs
i want to know ; what is the 'baum proof ' arguement for AGW ?
I'll make you a deal

You honestly tell everyone why you deny climate change and the climate science that has been repeatedly validated and I'll tell you information about the "'baum proof ' arguement" [sic] after some clarification from you
snoosebaum
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2018
nope, u first ,we would like to hear your educated view ,,,

[ fanaticism with which you defend your beliefs ] = things are polarized these days
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2018
@snooze
nope, u first
considering the fact that you never actually produce viable arguments from evidence, nor do you actually argue a scientific point, then why should I capitulate to your demands?
[ fanaticism with which you defend your beliefs ] = things are polarized these days
not in science

There is evidence, and there is validation

What you present is belief based upon your interpretation, which is subjective and only supported by those of a like mind, therefore it's a faith and can only be defended by fanaticism and the justification of "polarization" giving you the excuse of martyrdom and victimization

There is a polarization in politics, but again, that is a subjective argument based upon belief, so it's also no different than a faith

the latter is where your denial of climate science stems: You need to justify your political ideology (or religious beliefs)

rrwillsj
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2018
Captain, you are arguing with a tool, a denialist programmed bot.
All it can do is keep repeating whatever falsehoods it is programed with.

These tools are incapable of creative or inventive thinking.

The snooze & all the other bots are proof that the term Artificial Intelligence is an artificial affection of wishful daydreamers.

It would be much more more correct to designated these servitor units as Artificial Stupids.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2018
I personally would be fine with no more snow days and no salt on the roads ever again.

AGWphobes should try to be more optimistic.

You know I was driving through the countryside this morning and noted just how much of the forest was new growth. Lots of trees were cut down in centuries past for farmland and fuel. I was at the gym the other day, on the treadmill. They have a pretaped tour of paths through the Black Forest in germany, and I noticed the same thing. Lots of obvious new plantings within the last century.

Ever visit the town where you grew up? The trees looks so much taller, fields overgrown, etc.

The countryside changes all the time. Whats the big deal? Maybe younger people dont have this perspective.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Dec 23, 2018
1- please list the specific *study* that projected no ice by 2012 - thanks
Al Gore and his nice charts

"Former Vice President Al Gore references computer modeling to suggest that the north polar ice cap may lose virtually all of its ice within the next seven years. "Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years," says Gore" [and that was in 2009}
https://www.youtu...oIw4bvzI
snoosebaum
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2018
''considering the fact that you never actually produce viable arguments from evidence,''

HAHA, neither do YOU , come on , you read all those studies, give us a summary
snoosebaum
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2018
no no Otto, u have to produce peer reviewed studies utoob won't count [ i guess neither does algore , he isn't a peer reviewed study ]
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 23, 2018
So here is the quote from sage
Is this similar to the study that projected no ice in the arctic by 2012?
Take a minute to absorb that assertion.

So Captain asks sage for a specific referenct - to a study - that makes that assertion.

Snooze jumps in - and produces nothing.

Otto jumps in - and gives us a youtube of Al Gore - in 2009 - saying ""Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years"

A request for a study that shows "No ice in the arctic by 2012." Is met with a reference to Al Gore - saying that SOME of the models - suggest a 75% chance - that the polar ice cap will be ice free during SOME of the SUMMER months - by 2014 - 2016.

You guys can't even read - let alone TRY to make a cogent argument... Notice sage goes quiet. Moved on to the next article to troll with bull shit.
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 23, 2018
Study projects a dramatic increase in annual high-heat days in the U.S. Northeast by the century's end

Sounds like it is going to be really bad in 82 years!
Over that period in Boston, the annual number of days the mean temperature exceeds 86 F increases from three to 22, and the number of days the daily maximum temperature exceeds 86 F increases from 49 to 78.

Oh. Not really. We might have a few more days when the temperature exceeds 86 F degrees. Not anything to be concerned about.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2018
no no Otto, u have to produce peer reviewed studies utoob won't count [ i guess neither does algore , he isn't a peer reviewed study ]
All Gore produces charts from a dr weisenheimer during his talk reflecting, I assume, peer-reviewed studies. Dr Gore is a peer no?
You guys can't even read - let alone TRY to blah
Still trying to bait the adults in the room I see.
greenonions1
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 23, 2018
All Gore produces charts from a dr weisenheimer during his talk reflecting, I assume, peer-reviewed studies
You assume? But so what? - the statements made by Gore (the politician), do not support the assertion that sage made. I made that very clear in my last comment. So you validate the point that I make - that you clearly can't read, or develop a cogent argument.

If you see my comments as 'baiting' - that makes you pretty stupid for responding - si?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2018
@Otto
The countryside changes all the time. Whats the big deal? Maybe younger people dont have this perspective
it's not *that* there is change; change is inevitable

it's the rate of change, which may well prove to be faster than we can evolve to survive in
and by "we", I mean not only humans but their food sources, be it flora or fauna (kinda important to survival, IMHO)

.

.

@snooze
utoob won't count [ i guess neither does algore
correct:
neither are peer-reviewed studies so both are opinion unless there is validation for the claim and references to establish said validation...

however, most literate people prefer not to use those as sources because of the tendency for idiots to produce false claims and references that don't support said claims, like you do above, which takes far too much time to research considering the lack of annotated data in the description or the gish-gallop tactic sans a cohesive thread
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2018
@otto
Dr Gore is a peer no?
no
he is a politician and a spokesperson

also note: Gore may well not be conversant with the error margins in a study
When he stated, in your post, that "Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance" [sic], which model is he talking about?

Worst case scenario with every human on earth burning coal to cook and heat with while razing forests to generate more charcoal to barbeque the latest breakfast cereal?
I personally would be fine with no more snow days and no salt on the roads ever again
I won't

I f*cking hate summer
howhot3
4 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2018
I hate summer as well and they just seem to be so much worse and hotter than what I remember as a kid. I really pity the city kids in the future when heat-wave after heat-wave begins killing large groups hear exhaustion. When family farms are wiped out because the crops can't grow in excessive heat. Yeah, I think the deniers just don't get the full picture of how utterly horrible life can be if we screw the atmosphere as much as we already have.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2018
You assume? But so what? - the statements made by Gore (the politician), do not support the assertion that sage made
It wasnt a 'statement'. It was a presentation of data prepared by an alleged expert.

You would have known this if you had watched the vid.

Quit baiting me troll.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 24, 2018
no
he is a politician and a spokesperson
That was sarcasm duh. Why wouldn't I know who all gore is?

See, the humor is in the fact that gore sells himself as an expert when his real aim was to amass a few hundred million$ from speaking tours and writings.

"The former senator, who spent most of his working life in Congress, had a net worth of about US$1.7-million and assets that included pasture rents from a family farm and royalties from a zinc mine, remnants of his rural roots in Carthage, Tennessee."

"Fourteen years later, he made an estimated US$100-million in a single month. In January, the Current TV network, which he helped to start in 2004, was sold to Qatari-owned Al Jazeera Satellite Network for about US$500-million."

Duh.
greenonions1
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2018
It wasnt a 'statement'. It was a presentation of data prepared by an alleged expert
It was a presentation by a politician. Captain asked for a link to research that supported the claim of "No ice in the arctic by 2012." Your pathetic youtube link in now way accomplished this.
Quit baiting me troll
If you think it is baiting - grow up and stop responding. I am engaging the subject matter.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Dec 24, 2018
@otto
That was sarcasm duh
sometimes it's hard to tell with you
See, the humor is in the fact that gore sells himself as an expert when his real aim was to amass a few hundred million$ from speaking tours and writings
this is one of the things I dislike the most about gore

in fact, IMHO, I honestly think he may well be detrimental at times

I tend to just ignore him to tell the truth
snoosebaum
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2018
'' which takes far too much time to research''

you should know as i doubt you understand all the papers u link to . I'm still waiting for a description of AGW theory you are so passionate about .
tblakely1357
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2018
The horrors of every prophesied eco-apocalypse is always 20-100 years in the future. Of course when date arrives and the horrors don't appear the prophecies are memory-holed and are replaced by new eco-apocalypse prophecies. Such has been the state of environmentalism for the past half century or so.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2018
in fact, IMHO, I honestly think he may well be detrimental at times
haha now THAT was sarcasm. Uh right?

"Mr. Gore appears to double down on this by declaring in the new film's trailer: "Storms get stronger and more destructive. Watch the water splash off the city. This is global warming."

"This is misleading."

Ahaahaa funny stuff.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Dec 24, 2018
@idiot illiterate snooze
you should know as i doubt you understand all the papers u link to
false claim based upon your ignorance
I'm still waiting for a description of AGW theory you are so passionate about
and I'm still waiting for your study link that isn't to a known pseudoscience site

I got nothin' but time

.

.

@otto
Uh right?
a mix of sarcasm and hyperbole - I thought you would get a good laugh
EyeNStein
5 / 5 (3) Dec 24, 2018
I for one really appreciate the folk at MIT putting their best multi-disciplinary brains and computers together, to give the most useful answer they can, with the finest granularity they can manage.

But as this article said; it needs to be supported by a wider Earth System Modelling (ESM) effort. In order to include the best predictions of el-Ninio, and ocean currents, and jet-streams and ice melting etc. We need finer granularity and greater forecast accuracy worldwide to give our models, and forecasts, credibility.

As it stands my home town can have either sun or rain tomorrow and be 5C off depending on which disconnected national forecasting agency you ask. While we have disconnection, and ESM inaccuracy, it is too easy for deniers to call weather changes a fluke occurrence and call important climate predictions unreliable.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Dec 24, 2018
@EyeNStein
As it stands my home town can have either sun or rain tomorrow and be 5C off depending on which disconnected national forecasting agency you ask
that bad?
wow!

we use the NOAA.gov site

Ours is usually spot on up to three days out, sometimes requiring small changes
It gets problematic at a week out but can be fairly close (better than local news agencies)

snoosebaum
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 24, 2018
@ always- stumped , so which AGW theory do you espouse ? describe one lol
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Dec 24, 2018
@idiot illiterate snooze
so which AGW theory do you espouse ?
do you understand what "theory" means WRT science?

try this (I know it's hard, but try anyway):
1- define AGW
2- define "Scientific theory"
3- think about how they relate when put together

I don't expect much other than your usual witless banter and repetitious distraction along with regurgitation from known pseudoscience sites, but feel free to surprise me
snoosebaum
2 / 5 (4) Dec 25, 2018
the Theory of gravitation

''Climate models are made out of theory'' [ theres a link u would love]

duh

you need to explain what you expouse , u know so like, we don't think you're the guy who just posts links
snoosebaum
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2018
i'm not sure AGW 'theory ' even qualifies as science as there are no reliable measurments
rrwillsj
3.2 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2018
the snoozing woobot thinks the Theory of Gravity is an actual, literal, divinely ordained dictate.

All the TG does is predict the effect of Gravitational Force which is dictated by Mass. It does not explain what Gravity actually is. TG only explains the why? of Gravitational effects.
Ans. for the dullards, why? Mass!

That you denialist woobots are incompetent to understand the Climate Change data is your loss. Except for your deliberate efforts at spreading your mythinformation & outright lies.

Your lack of scientific knowledge metastasizes across the internet. Resulting in tumultuous confusion among many people who lack the Liberal Arts & Sciences education needed to parse through your false claims.

One of the worst collateral damages spun-off from you frauds? Is the campaign to convince frighten parents to deny immunizations to their children for preventable diseases.

& yes, every child stricken, every child that dies? Their blood is on your hands.
snoosebaum
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2018
willlzzzz , calm down and look at the context of comment , might have saved u sum typing
tpb
2 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2018
City temperatures in Boston as quoted in the article are meaningless because of the urban heat island effect.
What are the temperatures and temperature changes in rural areas in the Northeast?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2018
the snoozing woobot thinks the Theory of Gravity is an actual, literal, divinely ordained dictate.

All the TG does is predict the effect of Gravitational Force which is dictated by Mass. It does not explain what Gravity actually is. TG only explains the why? of Gravitational effects.
Ans. for the dullards, why? Mass!....

One of the worst collateral damages spun-off from you frauds? Is the campaign to convince frighten parents to deny immunizations to their children for preventable diseases.

& yes, every child stricken, every child that dies? Their blood is on your hands.

says rrwilliejoe

What campaign are you talking about, williejoe? There is no "campaign" to convince parents to not have their children immunised for diseases. That is up to parents themselves who take their children to paediatricians for evaluation.
And when are you planning to save the lives of future innocent children who are about to be murdered at abortion "clinics"? Chew on THAT awhile.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2018
City temperatures in Boston as quoted in the article are meaningless because of the urban heat island effect.
What are the temperatures and temperature changes in rural areas in the Northeast?

says tpb

That is correct, thank you. Tall buildings, asphalt roads/streets and concrete sidewalks absorb heat from sunlight and that heat is, in turn, given off at night so that the temps don't cool very much; while any cool winds become warm or hot due to blockage of enough movement around corners, for instance, where wind velocity is slowed by buildings. I have lived in both urban and semi-rural residences, and there is a marked difference in temperatures between such regions. AGW aficionados tend to take the temperatures from all locations in a region, AS A WHOLE, while ignoring the actual temperature differences in each and every location where temps vary - sometimes widely from one to another.
zz5555
5 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2018
City temperatures in Boston as quoted in the article are meaningless because of the urban heat island effect.
What are the temperatures and temperature changes in rural areas in the Northeast?

For at least the temperature changes, UHI is well known to not effect the temperature trend (https://www.skept...iate.htm ) so it's not really important.

You should probably check out the paper - it's open access, so just click the DOI link in the article above. The temperature change seems to increase as you go inland, which makes sense because coastal areas are buffered by the ocean. Rural vs. urban isn't important. Rather, the geographical location is what determines the temperature change.
Old_C_Code
2 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2018
It wouldn't matter. All you denialists of reality are russian & saudi bots. Paid to spread lies that discredit scientific research.


This is so crazy I find it hard to believe you aren't joking. You gotta be kidding!!! lol

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2018
It wouldn't matter. All you denialists of reality are russian & saudi bots. Paid to spread lies that discredit scientific research.


This is so crazy I find it hard to believe you aren't joking. You gotta be kidding!!! lol

says Old_C_Code

You must know by now that rrwillisj believes what he says, and expects everyone else to also believe what he says.
Russians and Saudis. Hmmmm and hmm - something about Russians and Saudis has placed a crab or pointed stick up williejoe's arse that seems to be bothering williejoe with no end in sight.
And williejoe does say a lot about Putin, but rarely anything about the Saudi King, which is discriminatory, IMHO.
We may never learn the truth about williejoe's intense fear/disgust/interest/adoration of Russians and Saudis, but we do know that CO2 and warm weather is the bane of williejoe's existence.

You have to wonder if williejoe keeps his house cold and uses no electricity for his appliances or petrol for his car.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (8) Dec 26, 2018
City temperatures in Boston as quoted in the article are meaningless because of the urban heat island effect.
What are the temperatures and temperature changes in rural areas in the Northeast?

For at least the temperature changes, UHI is well known to not effect the temperature trend (https://www.skept...iate.htm ) so it's not really important.

The temperature change seems to increase as you go inland, which makes sense because coastal areas are buffered by the ocean. Rural vs. urban isn't important. Rather, the geographical location is what determines the temperature change.
says Zz5555

That is what I basically said: "AGW aficionados tend to take the temperatures from all locations in a region, AS A WHOLE, while ignoring the actual temperature differences in each and every location where temps vary - sometimes widely from one to another."
i.e. Midtown Manhattan is hotter in Summer than the Jersey shore.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 26, 2018
The city of Richmond, Virginia in the US is hotter in Summer than the outskirts of the city going toward the Atlantic Ocean beaches.
The same with the city of Los Angeles, California - hotter in Summer than, say, the beautiful Muir Woods further North.
Location makes a huge difference - rather than the whole region being taken as a whole, where ALL temperatures from each location are added up for an average temp for the whole region.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (8) Dec 26, 2018
Richard Hedd tells us jebus did it to deceive us.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.