UHI at Heathrow Met Office site

Posted: May 12, 2012 by tchannon in methodology, volcanos
heath-5

Figure 1

Thermal signature at Heathrow April 2010.

Introduction

Warning this is a long introduction

There is a great deal of anecdotal and circumstantial evidence of aerodrome traffic producing UHI in meteorological data at co-location sites around the world but more direct evidence is lacking. The author is aware of none, moreover obtaining such data is likely to be very difficult.

A study opportunity was offered by the peculiar events during April 2010 at one of the major international freight and passenger airport in the world, Heathrow. An analysis exercise was carried out 2011 but the results were not published.

The UK Met Office is responsible for air traffic meteorological data. This involves a complex web of organisations which can be read about in the PDF published by the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) CAP782 where it should be kept in mind the entire airspace is shared military/other with joint radar, controllers and so on. The Met Office is part of the Ministry of Defence, where it’s primary role is military, civilian and other services are a side issue.

The Met Office public web site plays down the military operations, only mentioning civilian

The Met Office is the world-leader in aviation meteorology, one of only two World area Forecast Centres (WAFC) and contracted by the CAA under Single European Skies (SES) as the sole provider of aviation weather in the UK.

The above is mentioned because the Met Office have not been contacted to do with the study, their prior behaviour always withholding high resolution data and generally being awkward making contact a waste of time.

There are two meteorological sites involved, both visually following the classic Met Office enclosure and instrument style, but neither absolutely admitted as the sites used. Circumstantially there is no rational reason why complex and expensive met sites would be present but not used to meet critical obligations: if other instruments exists which are better… I am sure the reader can follow all the arguments.

Both aerodrome sites produce METAR data. This is transmitted twice hourly for EGLL (Heathrow) and hourly for EGWU (Northolt). Given the Met Office are the legal authority for air traffic met data in the UK it is almost certain the instruments in somewhat expensive met enclosures are the source of the METAR data, enclosures which otherwise would be of minor importance.

The Met Office use RTD which are calibrated, however the electronics is a further source of drift and error. These are fitted to various standard enclosures akin to the Stevenson screen. These are assumed to be competently manufactured, commissioned and maintained, really isn’t a problem in the UK although site metadata is not available to the public. Site exposure, suitability and other issues are a different matter.

Both sites have a remarkably similar exposure.

It was found the two sites do indeed track very closely but the radio data is quantised to whole degrees only and the time resolution is marginal for this kind of exercise.

The intended signature was the air traffic disruption as a consequence of the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull volcano, Iceland, mid to late May 2010..

  1. METAR Fr. message d’observation météorologique régulière pour l’aviation is an encoded aerodrome routine meteorological report. sourceCurrent for EGLL

Site, Heathrow

Heathrow has two runways, both referred to as L and R (Left and Right) dependent primarily on weather conditions. The Heathrow station is facing runway (27R / 09L), hemmed in by a concrete wall, next to a wide road and buildings.

The site has changed a little relatively recently, now with a gap in the wall and a small building has appeared close by.

The exact location is just east of the tunnel access to the main passenger terminals, on the north side. Video frames can be unearthed taken by passengers from the runway.

This location is liable to both takeoff blast and less likely reverse thrust on landing, degree unknown. It is also downwind of the prevailing south westerly, although tends to easterly during periods of high pressure blocking patterns over the near continent.

Heathrow traffic is primarily long haul by heavy aircraft close to MTOW.

Image the enclosure is in the middle here. A trawl of eg. YouTube will find video taken by passengers from the runway.

(I’ve switched to using Bing/Microsoft because Google are increasingly dreadfully behaved, unusable now as a link, http://maps.google.co.uk and find Heathrow)

The enclosure is typical older style Met Office.

The site is not one of the few UK international climatic stations but is is used within the UK.

Site, Northolt

This is a former WWII aerodrome which today is used by short to medium haul for government officials, royalty, surveillance, VIP etc.

It is about 8km north of Heathrow.

This too has a questionably located met site. It used to be standard RAF practice with the met enclosure located near the control tower but has been moved to next to the heavily used A40 London feeder road off the M40 and London Orbital (M25).

Image the enclosure is in the middle here. Those of you with Google street view can get a closer look from the A40.

Relative site locations

heath-north-1

Figure 2

Map courtesy Google. Overall relationship of the two sites.

Data

METAR data is transmitted twice hourly for EGLL (Heathrow) and hourly for EGWU (Northolt). Historic records are rare past a week or so. In this case I wish to protect the source from excessive attention/traffic, hence is not stated. This data usually needs preprocessing, is not a matter of an easy to use data format.

The radio data is low resolution, integer degree and tends to missing records.

Given the situation the author decided the easiest initial course of action was drop the excess EGLL records, leaving hourly data for both sites.

Similarly no use was made of the other parameters such as cloud cover, wind, which could be brought into use if necessary.

heathrow-3

Figure 3

Straightforward overlay plot of both datasets. Station data shows the progressing from winter to the start of summer can be seen in the rising absolute temperature and increase in the amplitude of the diurnal cycle. England tends to prolonged periods of overcast (>50% of the time), especially in winter.

heathrow-4

Figure 4

The difference data does not look promising yet does contain useful information in spite of the quantisation to whole degrees. The underlying data has an unknown output sample rate, probably 10 minute data or better.

Target signature of abnormal traffic

The anticipated signature was the air traffic abnormality as a result of air space closure and restrictions from 15th April 2010 toward the end of the month.

A further abnormal event occurred early April and was not anticipated but ought to have been, Easter bank holiday when planned extreme air traffic was present.

Results

The results for this study are primarily visual and is a presentation problem which the assertion proven as self evidentially correct by weight of public record. No statistics are provided. In the authors opinion a much longer dataset could be put together and then a statistics metric of likelihood of random effect could be computed. Given the awkward nature of the underlying data source this would take some time and is not warranted.

heathrow-2

Figure 5

This is a patch plot of the difference signal for the whole data period used in this study. Grey areas are missing data.

heath-plot-1

Figure 6

A spectrogram gives a useful picture, if not ideal given the data. The amplitude is diminished by windowing which acts as low pass filtering, and mean values, divide by 1/root(2) for peak to peak.

heath-6

Figure 7

This is an annotated repeat of figure 1 and is a patch plot of April 2010 only which contains the signatures.

Easter Good Friday April 2, Easter Monday April 5 with the excess around the latter date.

“New York and Dubai are among the top destinations for the millions of passengers who will pass through Heathrow airport. Almost two million people are booked on flights from Heathrow over the Easter period, with 336,000 reservations making Thursday the busiest day.” Guardian, but not the hotspot.

Long list of statements about cancellations 15th April 2010 at business traveller

Wikipedia has a catalogue of side effects.

Note there were further volcano problems during May 2010.

Further work

This is an incomplete work where the author shows what can be done as a provisional study and invites others to investigate in more detail.

It’s perfectly possibly my assertion is wrong so caution is needed.

The technique of using METAR in the absence of direct data obviously works although METAR archives are rare and paired stations with accurate instrumentation is probably very rare.


Appendix

Example METAR data after processing from raw source

metar

Spreadsheet in XLS format


Post by Tim Channon, co-moderator

Comments
  1. Michael Hart says:

    It’s a shame about the ‘granularity’ of the Heathrow data. With, I think, 2 minutes between take-offs at busy times, one might have hoped to look for a pattern. But with data reported only twice an hour that’s probably a forlorn hope.

    “England tends to prolonged periods of overcast (>50% of the time), especially in winter.”
    -Yes, quite a lot of people have noticed that. 🙂

  2. tallbloke says:

    Thanks Tim, a very important post I think.

    All flights were grounded at Heathrow from midday on the 15th April 2010
    Blow by blow account of the days events here:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/apr/15/volcano-airport-disruption-iceland

    Clearly a large UHI effect has occurred at airports as traffic has increased over the years

    History page for Heathrow from Russia!
    http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/8087#History

    This graph shows the increase in passenger numbers and freight volume since 1985 – the aircraft have been getting bigger, along with the backwash from the engines.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequences_of_the_April_2010_Eyjafjallaj%C3%B6kull_eruption#Military_and_civil_impact

    Heathrow was empty on the 18th April as reflected in Tim’s plot

  3. tchannon says:

    Probably not a popular topic in this place, doesn’t matter provided it is available somewhere.

  4. A C Osborn says:

    Tim, there have been quite a few “airport” comparisons to local temperatures using datasets, they have been on WUWT, Chefio’s forum and on Warwick Hughes’ Errors in IPPCC Climate Science to name just a few.

  5. tchannon says:

    Are any comparable? Pointers are welcome. I can add references but I don’t want to cloud things with vague handwaving must-be-something, such as instrument cockups/faults, site changed, monthly based, no explanation and so on. Is that reasonable?

  6. Roger Andrews says:

    I did a lot of work on UHI impacts a few years ago and one day I may get around to writing it up. In the meantime here are some snippets relevant to this thread.

    shows temperature anomalies compiled from individual records in and around 43 urban areas, 29 in the US and the other 14 elsewhere, plotted relative to distance from the urban center. Averaging all 43 urban areas together gives an overall UHI amplitude of about 0.6C and a radius of influence of about 45 miles. (So yes, Virginia, there is a UHI.)

    now plots the class means of the points shown in the first graph with the data segregated by station type (urban = concrete canyons, suburban = houses, roads, trees, parks etc., rural = open country, no large buildings, roads etc., and airports – mostly large ones.) Out to a distance of 40 miles from the urban center neither the urban, the suburban, the rural nor the airport stations show any obvious relationship with distance from the urban center. This suggests:

    1. That local conditions around the station, not distance from the urban center, determine the urban (actually a local) heating impact.

    2. That an Urban Heat Island is actually an Urban Heat Archipelago. It isn’t a single island of hot air regularly distributed around the urban center. It’s a lot of little islets of hot air, with more of them in the urban center than outside it.

    And I think it confirms:

    3. That airports do form local heat islands, or to be more precise, islets.

  7. tallbloke says:

    I think Tim C’s idea here is brilliant, because it shows an unequivocal jump back down to similarity in temperature on the no-fly days between two close locations using the same instrumentation. It’s a ‘gotcha’. Coupled with the ~ twofold increase in passenger numbers despite the ~ same number of aircraft movements which argues for much bigger aircraft with much bigger engine backwash, the case for an artificial increase in average temperature is strong.

    I wonder f it would be possible to identify step changes with, say, the introduction of the 747 Jumbo.

  8. Edim says:

    In general, UHI is a misnomer and misleading, almost all stations are biased (urban, suburban, rural, agricultural…). Airports too. The effect should be called anthropogenic local warming.

  9. Tenuc says:

    Great piece of work, Tim, which clearly illustrates how airports create their own micro-climate. Not just temperature that is influenced as I have anecdotal observational evidence (from many years of daily commute to work) of greater cloud cover over Gatwick airport than seen in Haywards Heath which is ~10m south.

    Average monthly rainfall shows this well…

    Haywards Heath
    Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
    65 45 30 40 22 37 27 29 42 51 67 58

    Gatwick
    Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
    78 51 61 54 55 57 45 56 68 73 77 79

    My guess is that lots of hot water vapour from jet exhausts causes the extra amounts of local cloud cover. Increases in the amount of traffic could cause gradual long term changes in the Gatwick instrument record, the real AGW effect?

    This is an area worthy of much greater study, and yet another elephant in the room for the current ‘CO2 is the major climate driver’ brigade.

  10. wayne says:

    There has been no Global Warming but from the rebound from the Little Ice Age plus a very real Local City-Airport Heat Islands, located curiously, at temperature stations (really vis-versa) and Tim C and TB hit it on the nose. Great work.

    Ouch greenies! Take that you nasty, self-centered, sorry lot!
    Let humanity go.

    Sometimes I feel like saying that. 😉

  11. Roger Andrews says:

    I think two factors are involved in generating airport heat islands:

    1. Concrete runways, taxiways, buildings etc, i.e. the standard UHI effect. The contribution will be constant assuming no significant change in weather over time and no airport expansions or station shifts.

    2. Traffic volume, as demonstrated by Tim C.

    Tallbloke and Tenuc speculate above that it’s jet backwash effects that generate the traffic-volume-related heating, and they may well be right. But another intriguing possibility is mixing of surface and higher level air during takeoffs and landings. Zhou et al. recently claimed to have found that wind farms increase surface temperatures by mixing surface and higher-level air, and maybe airliners do the same thing.

    Click to access nclimate1505-s1.pdf

  12. tallbloke says:

    Roger A: Didn’t Zhou et al say that the effect is operative at night? That’s when inversions form and warmer air is mixed down to the ground by wind turbulence. In the day the temperature profile is usually such that the near surface air is warmer than higher up. I think Tenuc’s point about water vapour is important too. The backwash is hot and dense, with a high and well charged heat capacity. This will spread warmth into the surrounding air very effectively.

    Tim C: I think it would be worth annotating fig7 with the no-fly days on the 15th and 18th April too. It would help make the point really clear.

  13. steveta_uk says:

    Can someone explain the axes of figure 6 please? I don’t understand the 50-hour days. Thanks.

    [Reply] I suspect it’s because the data is half-hourly. Tim C can confirm.

  14. tchannon says:

    steveta_uk,
    Apologies, excuse is I was struggling.

    Figure 6
    Quick explanation: Is a spectrogram (another name, SFT short period fourier transform), period (1/frequency) runs from front to back, so the period runs from 5 hours to 50 hours. The centre time of the many fourier transforms are stacked side by side left to right.
    Since there is a strong 24 hour pattern during heavy flying it appears as a hump.

    If I plotted data containing a strong eg. annual signal it would appear as a high wall running left to right.

    Severe constraints on the legends and any rational way to describe the above was a “bit of a poser”, I gave up. The following might help.

    I was in two minds on whether to show this at all. Originally (2011) it was to be the head image but my failure to find a way to sort out the axis and other things was part of the reason why I never published. Needing acres of explanation detracts heavily.

    The actual plot is produced by gnuplot, a useful but very awkward and poorly documented/supported application. Trying to get it to do anything is bad enough, literally trial and error, literally undocumented critical information. (spent weeks trying to find viable alternatives)

    Don’t know if this is too technical and off topic. Ignore the early half.

    Click to access 7A3safizadeh.pdf

    Fig 6 shows a gliding tone. Fig 7 is familar.

  15. tchannon says:

    Rog,
    “Tim C: I think it would be worth annotating fig7 with the no-fly days on the 15th and 18th April too. It would help make the point really clear.”

    Yes probably. Took me the best part of a week to produce the article and is still not clear. Details like that takes it into a lot more time having to try and unearth very definite information otherwise it gets challenged. I left it open ended. Newspaper reports count for only so much, was disruption, passengers were not flying, some reports of no actual aircraft movements.
    This leaves open non passenger flying, when good news doesn’t get mentioned, etc.

    Ideally it needs literal air traffic data, then the whole thing can be mapped. Even better, which runway and which direction. Couldn’t find anything although this information will exist in several official archives.

    Suggestions? Easy enough to annotate.

  16. […] UHI at Heathrow Met Office site […]