U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-11-2019, 11:45 AM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
4,475 posts, read 3,013,241 times
Reputation: 2052

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
So - why is what you said any different than what takes place everywhere else in the the world?

The sun is the main driver of the temperature. Based on NYC's geographic location on earth with respect to the sun, it's colder. In other words - human activity has virtually no effect on the climate of NYC.

Chemicals can blow away. CO2 is also absorbed by vegetation.

Your #3 makes my point. If human modifications in a highly dense populous doesn't result in a high enough temperature increase to make New York warmer... how would human modifications make the entire planet warmer, being that humans are spread out over the entire earth?
The sun isn't just the main driver. It's the only driver, more or less. What causes global warming are chemicals in the atmosphere preventing energy from the sun from escaping.


How humans affect things is through producing the chemicals that trap more energy from the sun. They blow away though, so they affect more than just the cities they were created in.

 
Old 06-11-2019, 11:50 AM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
4,475 posts, read 3,013,241 times
Reputation: 2052
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
By the way - did you notice how easy it was for you to come up with this? It's because it's unfiltered common sense.

If humans caused any warming on a global scale, we would see it and feel it on a local scale first - especially in the densely populated areas. But you correctly pointed out that humans can't effect the temperature in that way.

You didn't need a scientist to figure that out. And in fact - we just did the first principle in the scientific method - observation.
Why would we feel it on the local level first? Cities are wide, open environments where heat can disperse away from freely? There is an affect where cities tend to be warmer...but that's due to materials like asphalt roads and buildings more than local pollutants, so far as I know. They absorb and store heat longer than wilder environments apparently: https://weather.com/science/weather-...suburbs-cooler
 
Old 06-11-2019, 11:51 AM
 
2,549 posts, read 880,394 times
Reputation: 1785
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
We often hear from the AGW crowd that they "believe in science". "Minds that understand science" are sometimes very selective in choosing what scientific information they choose to believe or dismiss, yet contend that they are fully wed to the scientific method and the veracity of scientific data.


I wonder how many supporters of AGW believe:


1. That GMO foods are not safe


2. That vaccinations are harmful and cause autism


3. That chemtrails are intentionally created to alter weather


4. In using homeopathic or naturopathic medical treatments


5. Use fish oil or "supplements" is beneficial


6. Fluoridation of water is harmful


7. in the existence of ghosts


8. That the earth has (or is) visited by aliens from other planets
I tend to believe things that are supported by the majority of scientific experts in their given fields. So AGW yes, all of the above NO. If you believed in science, you would agree with me.
 
Old 06-11-2019, 12:16 PM
 
Location: Gulf Coast Texas
28,713 posts, read 15,570,064 times
Reputation: 11531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
The sun isn't just the main driver. It's the only driver, more or less. What causes global warming are chemicals in the atmosphere preventing energy from the sun from escaping.


How humans affect things is through producing the chemicals that trap more energy from the sun. They blow away though, so they affect more than just the cities they were created in.
But you just said that it wasn't enough to feel at the local level, which is correct. If the chemicals blow away and are dispersed, which means that they are less effective at insulating radiated heat, what is it really affecting from a temperature perspective?

If what you say is correct, it seems like it should effect the densely populated cities the most, because the effects of the chemicals will weaken as they are dispersed in the atmosphere and absorbed in the environment.
 
Old 06-11-2019, 12:19 PM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
13,828 posts, read 8,677,740 times
Reputation: 20129
The mini ice age, which lasted from about 1300 to about 1850 was caused by what...?
 
Old 06-11-2019, 12:19 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
4,475 posts, read 3,013,241 times
Reputation: 2052
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
So - why is what you said any different than what takes place everywhere else in the the world?

The sun is the main driver of the temperature. Based on NYC's geographic location on earth with respect to the sun, it's colder. In other words - human activity has virtually no effect on the climate of NYC.

Chemicals can blow away. CO2 is also absorbed by vegetation.

Your #3 makes my point. If human modifications in a highly dense populous doesn't result in a high enough temperature increase to make New York warmer... how would human modifications make the entire planet warmer, being that humans are spread out over the entire earth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
Why would we feel it on the local level first? Cities are wide, open environments where heat can disperse away from freely? There is an affect where cities tend to be warmer...but that's due to materials like asphalt roads and buildings more than local pollutants, so far as I know. They absorb and store heat longer than wilder environments apparently: https://weather.com/science/weather-...suburbs-cooler
To add to the above...gases around cities can blow away. Gases have to go up to escape our atmosphere, which I presume is more difficult. I don't know why it wouldn't be.

If gases do remain around cities...I don't know how much of an affect they'd have on temperature. I do know that when people talk about global warming, they're talking about stuff like...a frew degree average Celsius temperature increase over the Earth by the end of the century...something like 6 degrees or under. That's something it could be tough to notice without looking at global averages and comparing them to past temperatures. I don't know how you'd test a city to find out how much of an impact local gases from human activities produce either. You can't really compare it to other cities, because those other cities will be in different environments, and there will be other sorts of factors that may be causing the increased warmth, such as the aforementioned building materials.

It's probably going to be easier to just judge that...1. certain chemicals hold in heat 2. Earth's temperature is increasing during a time when the sun is in a mild cooling phase and 3. According to the National Geological survey, humans are producing much more C02 than volcanoes 4. Basically all of Earth's heat comes from the sun and the only way for Earth's temperature to be increasing is for it to somehow be holding in more energy, reflecting back less of it, or receiving more of it.

That's all just my personal opinion...but I don't think we need scientists to conclude that.

Aside from that...I just at things like, "well, the smart people probably know what they're doing, and they have considerably less reason to be biased than the oil companies, and the researchers who believe in man-made global warming seem pretty common all over the world." Then I just look up more specific answers to issues as I come across them.

Last edited by Clintone; 06-11-2019 at 12:35 PM..
 
Old 06-11-2019, 12:23 PM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
13,828 posts, read 8,677,740 times
Reputation: 20129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
I'm going to come back in several hours...maybe tomorrow, after I've looked at..................
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
#1. New York is a lot colder than much of the country............
You were gone for 11 minutes.
If you have no real answer you should just admit it.
 
Old 06-11-2019, 12:25 PM
 
Location: Gulf Coast Texas
28,713 posts, read 15,570,064 times
Reputation: 11531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
Why would we feel it on the local level first? Cities are wide, open environments where heat can disperse away from freely? There is an affect where cities tend to be warmer...but that's due to materials like asphalt roads and buildings more than local pollutants, so far as I know. They absorb and store heat longer than wilder environments apparently: https://weather.com/science/weather-...suburbs-cooler
Now what you said here as far as larger cities being warmer than less populated suburbs, that is true and we can see that on the local weather report every day. That's where I do believe the amount of population and human activity make a difference of a few degsF... but again, that's on a local level - not a global level.

The earth is too large and the atmosphere is too voluminous for us to put a dent in effecting the climate on a global scale.

Water covers over 70% of the earth's surface. Water vapor plays much more of a factor in temperature and climate than anything we do.

It’s Water Vapor, Not the CO2
 
Old 06-11-2019, 12:38 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
4,475 posts, read 3,013,241 times
Reputation: 2052
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
But you just said that it wasn't enough to feel at the local level, which is correct. If the chemicals blow away and are dispersed, which means that they are less effective at insulating radiated heat, what is it really affecting from a temperature perspective?

If what you say is correct, it seems like it should effect the densely populated cities the most, because the effects of the chemicals will weaken as they are dispersed in the atmosphere and absorbed in the environment.
If they blow away and disperse, I wouldn't say that means they're less effective at insulating radiated heat. It just means they won't be as effective at insulating radiated heat in the local area they were created in. They'll still accumulate in the atmosphere and have global affects that increase the more chemicals, like C02, are put into it.
 
Old 06-11-2019, 12:43 PM
 
Location: Divided Tribes of America
13,753 posts, read 5,577,169 times
Reputation: 5412
No one “supports” anthropogenic global warming. Many people accept that it is reality, based on strong evidence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top