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.
Try to keep up …. it’s called FRAUD. You’re baking a cake …. you set your thermometer near the stove where it’s much warmer than the rest of the house, and then you claim that reading is the temperature of the entire house.
Now, for those who don’t have trouble processing basic information, this is what they have been doing for a long time now, and this phenomenon even has a name. It’s called the “Urban Heat Island Effect”. In densely packed urban cities where natural landscape and greenery has all but totally disappeared and replaced by asphalt roads, concrete and steel buildings, and heavy concentrations of people packed tight, streets jam packed with cars and traffic congestion, temperatures can be as much as 7+ degrees hotter than outlying areas beyond the city limits. This continues at night, as heat is absorbed by the asphalt, concrete and steel during the daylight hours and radiates throughout the night, generating temperatures as much as 5+ degrees hotter than the surrounding areas. These temperatures have no more of a relationship or effect on global temperatures than a campfire in upstate New York can warm residents of New Jersey.
Yet, these lying criminals take the temperatures recorded, say in 1900 NYC when horse and buggy was the main transportation (Henry Ford’s first automobile was still 8 years away, and New York city’s first skyscraper was constructed in 1901), and compare it to 2022, jam packed with skyscrapers, automobiles, and an exponentially larger concentration of people, modern heating and air conditioning, and electricity generation, and claim the 7 degree difference in temperatures is proof of “global warming”.
The reality is, you have warmer cities, while the temps in countryside are relatively unchanged. That’s the point here … if you are talking about measuring ambient temperatures (global temperatures) you don’t take your measurements next to a campfire. How difficult is this really?
I suppose some people just love to be lied to and defrauded. I don’t understand why, but that appears to be the situation.
There's been a good bit of fraud by so called "climate scientists." They are firmly committed to their cult so they lie and distort data to try to "prove" their cult dogmas, causing the rest of us to doubt them even more.
If they were confident, they would let valid data speak for itself.
Because we are talking about global effects, not the increase in local effects. If you took two measurements in 1900, one in upstate ny and one in nyc and get average X, then you took measurements in the same locations 100 years later and get average Y, where Y > X, now you need to dig deeper. If the upstate NY temp reading was the same for both time periods but only the nyc temp reading increased, then obviously your average will increase, but is that increase in average a sign of a macro warming trend?
An increase in average by itself with no context is not a useful measure of anything from the standpoint of establishing causal relationships, which is why many things that we track over time don't use averages (e.g. median home prices).
The context of your example is the modern day concrete and steel city contributed more heat to the average global temp than the rural tree shaded areas did. So yes, the concrete and steel cities do contribute to the macro global warming trend.
The so called 97% of climate scientists believe man is causing global warming is a lie on multiple levels.
This was a study of 10,000 articles, not just scientific papers.
The author of the study would not respond on how the articles were selected, but it managed to exclude anything from a prominent MIT climate change skeptic.
The actual results were that only 30% thought man caused climate change. 3% thought man didn't. The other 67% were not firmly on one side or the other.
It would be more valid to say only 30% thought man caused climate change than to claim 97%.
So what happens in extreme cold events? The theory is Climate change will impact at the extremes first, so you covered the hot part but what about the cold part?
Or are you saying the asphalt, Urban Settings, and Steel buildings give artificially cold readings too?
And what about the temps in rural locations that are breaking records at the extremes for heat and cold events, is there an Urbanization cause for rural areas too? Are the extreme temps seen across the US this summer in rural areas due to non-existent steel buildings? What about in places with little urbanization such as rural areas in Third-world countries, are they off due to your theory of urbanization?
Sounds like that article is making a case based on US infrastructure in major cities and forgetting most of the world including the US is not Urban or built up.
The context of your example is the modern day concrete and steel city contributed more heat to the average global temp than the rural tree shaded areas did. So yes, the concrete and steel cities do contribute to the macro global warming trend.
OK, now we're getting somewhere. So for you, the term "macro global warming trend" really is a "global temperature average increase" and is focused purely on a statistical measure vs effects on a global ecosystem. Fair enough.
I believe they are aiming at the effects of urbanization. That is as an extreme example, warming over time from what was a farm field in 1950 to the middle of a parking lot in 2022.
It would seem that all these asphalt, machinery, and other heat-producing, heat-trapping, or heat-accentuating objects are artificially warming our environment.
What would be the point of measuring the temperature in upstate NY and saying that is the temp in NYC? The temp is the temp in any given location. Asphalt and concrete make it hotter. That is no surprise.
The significance of human interference is practically negligible when compared to the earth doing it to itself.
The asphalt is not "artificially warming our environment". Such nonsense.
The significance of human interference is practically negligible when compared to the earth doing it to itself.
The asphalt is not "artificially warming our environment". Such nonsense.
Asphalt absorbs and holds the heat from the sun. Ever try to walk barefoot on asphalt in the summer? So where do you think that heat goes after the sun goes down at night?
Have you ever wondered why cities are hotter than the surrounding countryside?
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.
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.
