Climate Change Is Extremely Political And Agenda Serving, Unfortunately It Is Also True

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, other one said:

Fauci is about to go to jail, or have not kept up with that?

Seems kinda unlikely.    In a free country, you need some evidence of a crime to jail someone.

[Sparks]

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You were telling me about the physics.    But you don't seem to understand how thermodynamics actually work.   Why don't you at least take a stab at it, and we'll see how that works out?

Keep in mind, about 27 percent of the US is urban.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/about-ers/partnerships/strengthening-statistics-through-the-icars/land-use-and-land-cover-estimates-for-the-united-states/

Anyway, let's see your numbers and I'll take a look at it.

I suspect the issue must be that you have no idea that asphalt in direct sunlight is much hotter, than say, the air temperature in a shady field.  Asphalt also radiates heat when the sun is no longer shining on it. 

Now that you know, think through this whole temperature sensor issue of setting them up in the wrong places. 

If you setup a temperature sensor in the heat-of-day over an asphalt surface (direct sunlight), you won't get the correct ambient air temperature.  If you don't tell the people back at the labs monitoring the temperature that the sensor is setup on asphalt or the side of a raging volcano, they will get the idiotic notion that Global Warming is real.

That is, in fact, what has happened.

[The Barbarian]

9 hours ago, Sparks said:

I suspect the issue must be that you have no idea that asphalt in direct sunlight is much hotter, than say, the air temperature in a shady field. 

Everyone is concluding that you talk about the physics of temperature and heating, but you're completely unable to use physics of thermal energy at all.   This is why it's a complete mystery to you how such stations turned out to be cooler than better-located stations.   As you learned from the research I showed you, the differences are very small, and don't significantly lower the overall average.

9 hours ago, Sparks said:

If you setup a temperature sensor in the heat-of-day over an asphalt surface (direct sunlight), you won't get the correct ambient air temperature. 

Here's a hint; soaring birds tend to move over urban areas to ride thermals upward.   The ambient temperature in such areas is higher than in countryside.    The ambient temperature in urban areas is higher than it is in other places.    But those temperatures still count in the total.   According to your blogger, many of them are cooler than they should be.    Fortunately, not significantly cooler.

If you think about it, you can probably guess why placing a sensor in urban areas where there's lots of asphalt and concrete buildings might very well result in lower than ambient temperatures.   

Your blogger got it exactly backwards.    Ironic, um?   Which station was being monitored while it was on the side of a raging volcano?   Sounds pretty unlikely, doesn't it?    BTW, volcanic eruptions tend to lower atmospheric temperatures.    He's lied to you about that, too.

Several eruptions during the past century have caused a decline in the average temperature at the Earth's surface of up to half a degree (Fahrenheit scale) for periods of one to three years.

https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/volcanoes-can-affect-climate

Your blogger, because he has no understanding of climate, is completely ignorant of such things.

 

[Sparks]

48 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Everyone is concluding that you talk about the physics of temperature and heating, but you're completely unable to use physics of thermal energy at all.   This is why it's a complete mystery to you how such stations turned out to be cooler than better-located stations. 

It wasn't cooler.  There was no mystery.  There was lying if the data says that it was cooler. 

I think you are the only one on Earth who believes that setting up a temperature station on asphalt yields cooler results.  Any child walking barefoot in the summer can tell you to stay off the asphalt because it's too hot to walk on, while somehow concrete and the grass is quite tolerable to walk on.  Try that experiment next summer if you doubt it. 

Until then ...

I am done talking with you about asphalt and weather sensors.  If you want to be this gullible about "Global Warming" you go right ahead. 

[The Barbarian]

43 minutes ago, Sparks said:

It wasn't cooler.  There was no mystery.  There was lying if the data says that it was cooler. 

You're just starting to repeat stuff already shown to be false.   I think you're done here.

44 minutes ago, Sparks said:

I think you are the only one on Earth who believes that setting up a temperature station on asphalt yields cooler results. 

It's just what the data showed.   BTW, no one set a sensor on asphalt.   They put them in little enclosures off the ground.  For the obvious reasons.  

45 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Any child walking barefoot in the summer can tell you to stay off the asphalt because it's too hot to walk on,

Which, I suppose, is why they put them off the ground in enclosures.   That way, they measure the air temp, not the ground temp.

46 minutes ago, Sparks said:

I am done talking with you about asphalt and weather sensors.

Wise move.   It wasn't going very well.

[The Barbarian]

The U.S. is covered in about 4 million miles of roads. And while that’s only a fraction of a percent of the total land area in the lower 48 states, it’s still enough to have a noticeable impact on the environment–from heat islands, to floods, to pollution runoff in nearby waterways. It’s also enough space that some argue roads could be used as solar generators to power the entire country.

https://www.fastcompany.com/3039983/these-beautiful-maps-show-how-much-of-the-us-is-paved-over

And that's just roads, not including parking lots, buildings, and all the other urban and suburban ground cover.   And yes, it counts.

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by The Barbarian

[Alive]

13 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

The U.S. is covered in about 4 million miles of roads. And while that’s only a fraction of a percent of the total land area in the lower 48 states, it’s still enough to have a noticeable impact on the environment–from heat islands, to floods, to pollution runoff in nearby waterways. It’s also enough space that some argue roads could be used as solar generators to power the entire country.

https://www.fastcompany.com/3039983/these-beautiful-maps-show-how-much-of-the-us-is-paved-over

And that's just roads, not including parking lots, buildings, and all the other urban and suburban ground cover.   And yes, it counts.

 

This made me think of the sandy desert areas of the world and how they fit in to this dynamic.

[The Barbarian]

44 minutes ago, Alive said:

This made me think of the sandy desert areas of the world and how they fit in to this dynamic.

It's complicated.   Deserts, lacking water, swing wildly in temperatures.   Very hot in the day, down to freezing at night.   Most sandy deserts reflect most radiant energy back because having a lower specific heat than moister land, they can't store it as efficiently.    This is why walking barefoot on sunlit grassland is comfortable at the same air temperature that would burn your feet on sand.   The sand rises to very hot temperatures quickly, but the moisture in the grassland takes longer to heat up.  

Forests are huge heat sinks compared to deserts.

[Alive]

8 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

It's complicated.   Deserts, lacking water, swing wildly in temperatures.   Very hot in the day, down to freezing at night.   Most sandy deserts reflect most radiant energy back because having a lower specific heat than moister land, they can't store it as efficiently.    This is why walking barefoot on sunlit grassland is comfortable at the same air temperature that would burn your feet on sand.   The sand rises to very hot temperatures quickly, but the moisture in the grassland takes longer to heat up.  

Forests are huge heat sinks compared to deserts.

My thought was comparing hard man made surfaces with natural ones.

[The Barbarian]

1 minute ago, Alive said:

My thought was comparing hard man made surfaces with natural ones.

Pretty much the same.   You'll find soaring birds using such areas to soar upward, much as they do in urban areas.   Such places release more thermal energy than grasslands, forests, or bodies of water.   And yes, they contribute to warming.

It's noteworthy that up to now, most of the increasing thermal energy trapped by carbon dioxide has been raising ocean temperatures.    Water has a much greater specific heat than land, so that thermal energy is mostly stored there.   The rise in ocean levels has so far, been due more to thermal expansion than to melting glaciers.    That is now changing as continental glaciers start to melt back.