Urban Heat Islands and Temperature Observations

[CrusaderFrank]

The Flat Earthers are really desperate.

Magnetic fields are heating the earth!

Undersea volcanoes are heating the earth!

Urban heat islands are heating the earth!

It couldn't be because we have almost DOUBLED the amount of a greenhouse gas called CO2, could it?

You're correct about the CO2; it can't be that and the science backs it up.

ManBearPig, 384 PPM still means 384 parts per million, CO2 is not 1%, it's not even 1/10 of 1%; it's a rounding error.

And CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas.

And now the arctic methane may kick in, which is 20 times more powerful than CO2.

Yet, the climate is cooling. Go figure.

 

[Big Fitz]

No, it's water vapor!

It's inaccurate instruments!

What's next?

Halley's Comet?

Better than the voodoo you're pimping.

 

[Chris]

No, it's water vapor!

It's inaccurate instruments!

What's next?

Halley's Comet?

Better than the voodoo you're pimping.

Not hardly.

CO2 in the atmosphere caused the Earth to retain heat.

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

 

[Big Fitz]

No, it's water vapor!

It's inaccurate instruments!

What's next?

Halley's Comet?

Better than the voodoo you're pimping.

Not hardly.

CO2 in the atmosphere caused the Earth to retain heat.

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

Apples and Oranges. A more relevant question would be why is Mars going through similar climatological change as Earth? Them Martians using up all their oil too?

You do realize that all your vaunted computer models refuse to take into account water vapor because clouds, rain and atmospheric moisture is too complex to model. Yet Water Vapor is far more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2 with a far greater quantity in the atmosphere than piddly little CO2. What portion of the atmosphere, other than water vapor so dramatically changes our climate? None. Well oxygen, but that's cause it makes life possible... but that's much more byzantine and even less relevant.

Plus, you're still ignoring my question about what you expect to be done about this. Let's talk specifics and solutions, mmmkay?

Or... do you just wanna pander your religion like some messed up hari krishna or UFO cultist at the airport to passer-byes hoping you get a hit off some other unstable soul as yourself who buys into the hatred of humanity and western civilization enough to join up.

Jobu can't hit de curveball for you either.

 

[Chris]

Better than the voodoo you're pimping.

Not hardly.

CO2 in the atmosphere caused the Earth to retain heat.

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

Apples and Oranges. A more relevant question would be why is Mars going through similar climatological change as Earth? Them Martians using up all their oil too?

You do realize that all your vaunted computer models refuse to take into account water vapor because clouds, rain and atmospheric moisture is too complex to model. Yet Water Vapor is far more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2 with a far greater quantity in the atmosphere than piddly little CO2. What portion of the atmosphere, other than water vapor so dramatically changes our climate? None. Well oxygen, but that's cause it makes life possible... but that's much more byzantine and even less relevant.

Plus, you're still ignoring my question about what you expect to be done about this. Let's talk specifics and solutions, mmmkay?

Or... do you just wanna pander your religion like some messed up hari krishna or UFO cultist at the airport to passer-byes hoping you get a hit off some other unstable soul as yourself who buys into the hatred of humanity and western civilization enough to join up.

Jobu can't hit de curveball for you either.

I answered your question in another thread.

Move toward alternative energy.

 

[Toronado3800]

Plus, you're still ignoring my question about what you expect to be done about this. Let's talk specifics and solutions, mmmkay?

I'll bite if I don't have to look up anything too intricate.

What do I expect to be done?
I expect folks to pollute less, be forced to drive cleaner vehicles that :gasp: might only have 160 to 200 HP like got us to 70mph in the late 80's.

I expect "developed" countries to promote modern technology in the 3rd world. No need to overly exempt them from any treaties like Kyoto. We didn't used to know the true effects of radiation on the human body, now we do so all countries are expected not to have reactor meltdowns or conduct above ground tests. No need to learn again.

Nothing earth shattering if implemented anything like properly. Remember the complaints about the Catalytic converter and taking lead out of our gas? Neither ruined the country.

 

[Big Fitz]

Not hardly.

CO2 in the atmosphere caused the Earth to retain heat.

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

Apples and Oranges. A more relevant question would be why is Mars going through similar climatological change as Earth? Them Martians using up all their oil too?

You do realize that all your vaunted computer models refuse to take into account water vapor because clouds, rain and atmospheric moisture is too complex to model. Yet Water Vapor is far more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2 with a far greater quantity in the atmosphere than piddly little CO2. What portion of the atmosphere, other than water vapor so dramatically changes our climate? None. Well oxygen, but that's cause it makes life possible... but that's much more byzantine and even less relevant.

Plus, you're still ignoring my question about what you expect to be done about this. Let's talk specifics and solutions, mmmkay?

Or... do you just wanna pander your religion like some messed up hari krishna or UFO cultist at the airport to passer-byes hoping you get a hit off some other unstable soul as yourself who buys into the hatred of humanity and western civilization enough to join up.

Jobu can't hit de curveball for you either.

I answered your question in another thread.

Move toward alternative energy.

Yes you did. And I debunked your answer as fantasy, quick to fail and great to bring misery on the world if followed.

 

[Chris]

Apples and Oranges. A more relevant question would be why is Mars going through similar climatological change as Earth? Them Martians using up all their oil too?

You do realize that all your vaunted computer models refuse to take into account water vapor because clouds, rain and atmospheric moisture is too complex to model. Yet Water Vapor is far more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2 with a far greater quantity in the atmosphere than piddly little CO2. What portion of the atmosphere, other than water vapor so dramatically changes our climate? None. Well oxygen, but that's cause it makes life possible... but that's much more byzantine and even less relevant.

Plus, you're still ignoring my question about what you expect to be done about this. Let's talk specifics and solutions, mmmkay?

Or... do you just wanna pander your religion like some messed up hari krishna or UFO cultist at the airport to passer-byes hoping you get a hit off some other unstable soul as yourself who buys into the hatred of humanity and western civilization enough to join up.

Jobu can't hit de curveball for you either.

I answered your question in another thread.

Move toward alternative energy.

Yes you did. And I debunked your answer as fantasy, quick to fail and great to bring misery on the world if followed.

Bullshit.

If we spent the $700 billion dollars we wasted on Iraq on alternative energy, we would be well on our way.

And American young people wouldn't have to die in the desert for foreign oil.

 

[Big Fitz]

I expect folks to pollute less, be forced to drive cleaner vehicles that :gasp: might only have 160 to 200 HP like got us to 70mph in the late 80's.

Not practical. Most families over 3 need a bigger vehicle and commercial/industrial uses need power and torque not possible in an electric vehicle that isn't on rails. This is why the SUV became popular. They met the needs these 2 cylinder put-puts can't. I would love to see a car with a 60-80mpg, but we need to get realistic on many points regarding motive power. Most environmentalists are not.

I expect "developed" countries to promote modern technology in the 3rd world.

Me too. As a matter of fact, ALL first world nations are cleaner than developing ones like China, India and much of Asia and places that have few to no environmental laws. This is already the case. But why don't we push for these developing nations to incorporate those laws? Simple, because they won't. They would kill their economies because they are improving by exploiting their economic advantage of cheap labor, lack of regulations and low taxes compared to the rest of the developing world. They can't afford the cleanliness and lifestyle that we in the developed world has.

So instead we focus on those doing the best to keep their nations clean by developing new technologies, penalizing them because they ARE able to afford these things, and driving the business out of these nations with restrictions and fees and fines and taxes.

Cleanliness requires capital.

No need to overly exempt them from any treaties like Kyoto. We didn't used to know the true effects of radiation on the human body, now we do so all countries are expected not to have reactor meltdowns or conduct above ground tests. No need to learn again.

So it's nothing more than 'tax the rich' instead of enforcing it on everyone equally. Socialism on a global scale is even more dangerous than it is on a national level. Kyoto is a mugging of the first world nations for the sake of developing and totalitarian regimes. It will destroy large swaths of international economic growth, and harm those it intends to help most.

Combine that with the fact that it won't do anything to the climate since it is beyond man's power to change what the sun and planet are doing as a whole. We may be able to poison ourselves and every living thing, but it will continue to snow and rain on our remains the same as it has done for thousands of years. Varying with the seasons of the planet and the sun.

Nothing earth shattering if implemented anything like properly. Remember the complaints about the Catalytic converter and taking lead out of our gas? Neither ruined the country.

The catalytic converter added the cost of a few hundred dollars to every car and consumes platinum more than all other sources combined. Didn't realize that did you? Yes, platinum is used more by the auto industry than all other uses. Why are we wasting such a precious commodity here? I also think drinking gold flecked beverages is asinine. As for lead, it's a poisonous material being put into the atmosphere as an aerosol. I don't know how much this increased the cost of gas, but I have to say I'm still in favor of taking airborne lead out of the atmosphere. That is a sane choice IMHO, till I see a cost/impact study on it.

Just helping you out of the AGW nightmare.

 

[Big Fitz]

If we spent the $700 billion dollars we wasted on Iraq on alternative energy, we would be well on our way.

Bullshit back atcha. This wouldn't have been spent on failed alternative energy. It would have been wasted on social programs for deadbeats and charlatans. Even if you DID dump it into Alternative energy, we just would have lost more money down this rathole.

At least our 700 billion in Iraq ended the reign of a monster and set millions of people free from tyrrany and oppression. Or are you for Sodamn Insane's genocidal war against the Kurds and dropping people into plastic shredders feet first for his entertainment?

And American young people wouldn't have to die in the desert for foreign oil.

This would also be the case if you enviro-freaks got out of the way of domestic oil production. oops. And if this was a war for oil... where the fuck is my cheap gas? Hmm?

Talk about fauxrage.

 

[Toronado3800]

Me too. As a matter of fact, ALL first world nations are cleaner than developing ones like China, India and much of Asia and places that have few to no environmental laws....

I'm split on how to handle this one. We could place an environmental tariff on certain products which are made certain ways. It's negative competitive effects would be offset by the ability of China or whoever to essentially learn for free from our cleaner technology.

Quote:
I expect folks to pollute less, be forced to drive cleaner vehicles that :gasp: might only have 160 to 200 HP like got us to 70mph in the late 80's.
Not practical. Most families over 3 need a bigger vehicle and commercial/industrial uses need power and torque not possible in an electric vehicle that isn't on rails. This is why the SUV became popular. They met the needs these 2 cylinder put-puts can't. I would love to see a car with a 60-80mpg, but we need to get realistic on many points regarding motive power. Most environmentalists are not.

I still disagree.

Families are smaller now than even back in the 80's. Americans are larger but that is not a sign we need larger vehicles.

To use an extreme example. In 1984 w/o fuel injection Dodge Caravans moved down the highway at 70mph full of kids with only 84 Horse Power Motors. The new ones have 251Horse. That's a lot of wasted power and technological research to move essentially the same vehicle full of kids. Maybe one less kid, but fatter kids.

In 1989 my Toronado had a 160 Horse 3800 V6. It was a heavy car with a touch screen and all kinds of goodies. How many horse did it's replacement Supercharged Auroras and Rivieras have? A lot more horse with no more fuel economy and still 4 seats.

Yes, platinum is used more by the auto industry than all other uses. Why are we wasting such a precious commodity here?

Catalysts typically reduce CO emissions by something like 3/4. Engine controls weren't fine enough in the 70s to get full benefit from the converters. Perhaps that is why folks complained.

 

[Big Fitz]

Me too. As a matter of fact, ALL first world nations are cleaner than developing ones like China, India and much of Asia and places that have few to no environmental laws....

I'm split on how to handle this one. We could place an environmental tariff on certain products which are made certain ways. It's negative competitive effects would be offset by the ability of China or whoever to essentially learn for free from our cleaner technology.

Quote:
I expect folks to pollute less, be forced to drive cleaner vehicles that :gasp: might only have 160 to 200 HP like got us to 70mph in the late 80's.
Not practical. Most families over 3 need a bigger vehicle and commercial/industrial uses need power and torque not possible in an electric vehicle that isn't on rails. This is why the SUV became popular. They met the needs these 2 cylinder put-puts can't. I would love to see a car with a 60-80mpg, but we need to get realistic on many points regarding motive power. Most environmentalists are not.

I still disagree.

Families are smaller now than even back in the 80's. Americans are larger but that is not a sign we need larger vehicles.

To use an extreme example. In 1984 w/o fuel injection Dodge Caravans moved down the highway at 70mph full of kids with only 84 Horse Power Motors. The new ones have 251Horse. That's a lot of wasted power and technological research to move essentially the same vehicle full of kids. Maybe one less kid, but fatter kids.

In 1989 my Toronado had a 160 Horse 3800 V6. It was a heavy car with a touch screen and all kinds of goodies. How many horse did it's replacement Supercharged Auroras and Rivieras have? A lot more horse with no more fuel economy and still 4 seats.

Yes, platinum is used more by the auto industry than all other uses. Why are we wasting such a precious commodity here?

Catalysts typically reduce CO emissions by something like 3/4. Engine controls weren't fine enough in the 70s to get full benefit from the converters. Perhaps that is why folks complained.

Well we at least have some things we can agree to disagree on here. And at least common starting points.

 

[Toronado3800]

agreed, really. What's scary is sometimes two points of view can more or less be correct especially when talking about the positive or negative effects of a situation outweighing one another.

 

[code1211]

No, it's water vapor!

It's inaccurate instruments!

What's next?

Halley's Comet?

Better than the voodoo you're pimping.

Not hardly.

CO2 in the atmosphere caused the Earth to retain heat.

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

Primarily because of avraging. We've discussed this here before. The orbit of mercury and the rotation of Mercury take about the same amount of time.

The Solar wind long ago stripped away anything on the surface of Mercury that wasn't pretty securely attached. This includes any atmosphere. Due to this lack of atmosphere of any kind, the surface temperature is completely dominated by the radiation of the Sun. The slow rotation allows the dark side of Mercury to cool pretty completely while the lit side gets pretty warm. Much warmer than Venus.

Luckily for Venus, the atmosphere is not compatible with Man so it will remain the paradise that it has become.

You omit Mars from your consideration. Mars has a higher amount of CO2 in the atmosphere than Earth, but no water vapor. When I say a higher amount, I mean more per cubic foot, not as a percent of the total. Mars is far cooler than Earth. Far cooler than any of the inner planets.

The temperature differences are too great to be compared without endless caveats. However, within those differences are variations. Of late, all of the inner planets, including Earth, have had increasing temperatures, have they not?

Might not this common overall increase indicate a cause common to all of the inner planets?

 

[code1211]

The Flat Earthers are really desperate.

Magnetic fields are heating the earth!

Undersea volcanoes are heating the earth!

Urban heat islands are heating the earth!

It couldn't be because we have almost DOUBLED the amount of a greenhouse gas called CO2, could it?

You're correct about the CO2; it can't be that and the science backs it up.

ManBearPig, 384 PPM still means 384 parts per million, CO2 is not 1%, it's not even 1/10 of 1%; it's a rounding error.

And CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas.

And now the arctic methane may kick in, which is 20 times more powerful than CO2.

97% of all CO2 originates from nature. The methane you warn of comes from nature. We need to pass laws that regulat nature.

Good luck with that.

 

[code1211]

Plus, you're still ignoring my question about what you expect to be done about this. Let's talk specifics and solutions, mmmkay?

I'll bite if I don't have to look up anything too intricate.

What do I expect to be done?
I expect folks to pollute less, be forced to drive cleaner vehicles that :gasp: might only have 160 to 200 HP like got us to 70mph in the late 80's.

I expect "developed" countries to promote modern technology in the 3rd world. No need to overly exempt them from any treaties like Kyoto. We didn't used to know the true effects of radiation on the human body, now we do so all countries are expected not to have reactor meltdowns or conduct above ground tests. No need to learn again.

Nothing earth shattering if implemented anything like properly. Remember the complaints about the Catalytic converter and taking lead out of our gas? Neither ruined the country.

This is a tad off topic, but in the days before time, that is, before the first Earth Day in 1971or 70 (?) of which I was an active participant, the cost of Gasoline went up when Lead Anti-knock compunds (great advertising language there) were added.

Shortly after 1971, the lead was taken out and, guess what? The cost was increased again. Interesting stuff, this lead. It cost to add it. It costs to take it out. It keeps Superman from seeing into Lex Luthor's lead lined evil lair.

Diabolical!

 

[code1211]

I answered your question in another thread.

Move toward alternative energy.

Yes you did. And I debunked your answer as fantasy, quick to fail and great to bring misery on the world if followed.

Bullshit.

If we spent the $700 billion dollars we wasted on Iraq on alternative energy, we would be well on our way.

And American young people wouldn't have to die in the desert for foreign oil.

First, we are not taking oil from Iraq. Would that this were true. If any of it comes our way, it is through purchase. In terms of warfare waged by super powers in the history of the world, the USA has been altruistic in the extreme. Pleae put that canard to bed and let it die a natural death.

Second, because we know so little about the costs and the efficiency of alternative fuels on grand scales, any conjecture on the topic is just that and very little else.

From a source that seems to know and seems pretty welll researched:

http://www.globalsubsidies.org/files/assets/pdf/Brochure_-_US_Report.pdf

Were all of America’s six million FFVs to run on E85, the cost to the U.S. treasury would be between $3 billion
and $4 billion a year (depending on the actual fuel economy of the vehicles), just in tax credits alone. Counting
state incentives, the figure would rise to at least $5 billion.
Table 4.8: Annual cost to taxpayers of operating a single 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe flex-fuel vehicle exclusively on E85
Variable Units ValueBased on EPA rating (note 1)
Performance, simulated city driving miles/gallon 11
Performance, simulated highway driving miles/gallon 15
Annual consumption of pure ethanol as E85 (note 2) gallons 1,020
Federal tax credits for the ethanol content of E85 (note 3) U.S. dollars $520
State tax payments or credits for the ethanol content of E85 (note 4) U.S. dollars $204
Based on Consumer Reports rating (note 5)
Performance, simulated city driving miles/gallon 7
Performance, simulated highway driving miles/gallon 15
Annual consumption of pure ethanol as E85 (note 2) gallons 1,384
Federal tax credits for the ethanol content of E85 (note 3) U.S. dollars $706
State tax payments or credits for the ethanol content of E85 (note 4) U.S. dollars $277
(1) Source:Search for Cars that don't need gas
(2) Using U.S. EPA standard fuel-economy assumptions of 15,000 miles driven in a year, of which 55 per cent are in cities and 45 per cent
are on highways.
(3) At 51¢/gallon.
(4) At 20¢/gallon.This level of production incentive is provided only in seven states.
(5) Source:“The Ethanol Myth”, Consumer Reports,October 2006.

 

[FactFinder]

Me too. As a matter of fact, ALL first world nations are cleaner than developing ones like China, India and much of Asia and places that have few to no environmental laws....

I'm split on how to handle this one. We could place an environmental tariff on certain products which are made certain ways. It's negative competitive effects would be offset by the ability of China or whoever to essentially learn for free from our cleaner technology.

Quote:
I expect folks to pollute less, be forced to drive cleaner vehicles that :gasp: might only have 160 to 200 HP like got us to 70mph in the late 80's.
Not practical. Most families over 3 need a bigger vehicle and commercial/industrial uses need power and torque not possible in an electric vehicle that isn't on rails. This is why the SUV became popular. They met the needs these 2 cylinder put-puts can't. I would love to see a car with a 60-80mpg, but we need to get realistic on many points regarding motive power. Most environmentalists are not.

I still disagree.

Families are smaller now than even back in the 80's. Americans are larger but that is not a sign we need larger vehicles.

To use an extreme example. In 1984 w/o fuel injection Dodge Caravans moved down the highway at 70mph full of kids with only 84 Horse Power Motors. The new ones have 251Horse. That's a lot of wasted power and technological research to move essentially the same vehicle full of kids. Maybe one less kid, but fatter kids.

In 1989 my Toronado had a 160 Horse 3800 V6. It was a heavy car with a touch screen and all kinds of goodies. How many horse did it's replacement Supercharged Auroras and Rivieras have? A lot more horse with no more fuel economy and still 4 seats.

Yes, platinum is used more by the auto industry than all other uses. Why are we wasting such a precious commodity here?

Catalysts typically reduce CO emissions by something like 3/4. Engine controls weren't fine enough in the 70s to get full benefit from the converters. Perhaps that is why folks complained.

I think the cost of replacement and that rotten egg smell may have influenced their popularity.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Better than the voodoo you're pimping.

Not hardly.

CO2 in the atmosphere caused the Earth to retain heat.

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

Primarily because of avraging. We've discussed this here before. The orbit of mercury and the rotation of Mercury take about the same amount of time.

The Solar wind long ago stripped away anything on the surface of Mercury that wasn't pretty securely attached. This includes any atmosphere. Due to this lack of atmosphere of any kind, the surface temperature is completely dominated by the radiation of the Sun. The slow rotation allows the dark side of Mercury to cool pretty completely while the lit side gets pretty warm. Much warmer than Venus.

Luckily for Venus, the atmosphere is not compatible with Man so it will remain the paradise that it has become.

You omit Mars from your consideration. Mars has a higher amount of CO2 in the atmosphere than Earth, but no water vapor. When I say a higher amount, I mean more per cubic foot, not as a percent of the total. Mars is far cooler than Earth. Far cooler than any of the inner planets.

The temperature differences are too great to be compared without endless caveats. However, within those differences are variations. Of late, all of the inner planets, including Earth, have had increasing temperatures, have they not?

Might not this common overall increase indicate a cause common to all of the inner planets?

Why does the Left Hate Science?

 

[Big Fitz]

You're correct about the CO2; it can't be that and the science backs it up.

ManBearPig, 384 PPM still means 384 parts per million, CO2 is not 1%, it's not even 1/10 of 1%; it's a rounding error.

And CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas.

And now the arctic methane may kick in, which is 20 times more powerful than CO2.

97% of all CO2 originates from nature. The methane you warn of comes from nature. We need to pass laws that regulat nature.

Good luck with that.

When we can stop decay, we can stop methane. But then corpses will be piling up thick and deep because no decomp will be happening. Microbiological scavengers do good work for our safety, and you're going to begrudge them their gas?