PA43A-2179
The Benefits of Using Dense Temperature Sensor Networks to Monitor Urban Warming

Thursday, 17 December 2015
Poster Hall (Moscone South)
Tracy E Twine1, Peter K Snyder1, Christopher J Kucharik2 and Jason Schatz3, (1)University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN, United States, (2)Univ Wisconsin Madison, Madison, WI, United States, (3)University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, WI, United States
Abstract:
Urban heat islands (UHIs) occur when urban and suburban areas experience temperatures that are elevated relative to their rural surroundings because of differences in the fraction of gray and green infrastructure. Studies have shown that communities most at risk for impacts from climate-related disasters (i.e., lower median incomes, higher poverty, lower education, and minorities) tend to live in the hottest areas of cities. Development of adequate climate adaptation tools for cities relies on knowledge of how temperature varies across space and time. Traditionally, a city's urban heat island has been quantified using near-surface air temperature measurements from a few sites. This methodology assumes (1) that the UHI can be characterized by the difference in air temperature from a small number of points, and (2) that these few points represent the urban and rural signatures of the region. This methodology ignores the rich information that could be gained from measurements across the urban to rural transect. This transect could traverse elevations, water bodies, vegetation fraction, and other land surface properties.

Two temperature sensor networks were designed and implemented in the Minneapolis-Saint Paul, MN and Madison, WI metropolitan areas beginning in 2011 and 2012, respectively. Both networks use the same model sensor and record temperature every 15 minutes from ~150 sensors. Data from each network has produced new knowledge of how temperature varies diurnally and seasonally across the cities and how the UHI magnitude is influenced by weather phenomena (e.g., wind, snow cover, heat waves) and land surface characteristics such as proximity to inland lakes. However, the two metropolitan areas differ in size, population, structure, and orientation to water bodies. In addition, the sensor networks were established in very different manners. We describe these differences and present lessons learned from the design and ongoing efforts of these two dense networks located in the Midwest USA.