Manmade climate change. Why?

[W*GS]

This is an all-new thread for Boomhauer to explain his theory of global warming.

Go for it!

[Pony Boy]

28881

[Boomhauer]

If you really feel like getting pwned again F*GS....................................

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_sUNn6XbeBM8/TTEGqaXpY4I/AAAAAAAACAQ/6_-9RUzqFag/s1600/pattaya-hot-air-balloon.JPG
While the basket (surface) temp may be only 15*F warmer than ambient (wildland) temp, the air in the balloon is maintained 150*F over ambient. Consider industrialization covers 3% of the Earth's surface, with an average surface Heat Island of 15*F, the global atmospheric heating from industrialization would be 4.5*F
Thus, accounting for all global warming observations - synced with industrialization.

"The compact city of Providence, R.I., for example, has surface temperatures that are about 12.2 °C (21.9 °F) warmer than the surrounding countryside, while similarly-sized but spread-out Buffalo, N.Y., produces a heat island of only about 7.2 °C (12.9 °F), according to satellite data." http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/heat-island-sprawl.html
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/462130main_atl_urban_heat.jpg
Pave paradise, put up a parking lot.........

[W*GS]

Consider industrialization covers 3% of the Earth's surface, with an average surface Heat Island of 15*F during the day (burning), and the global atmospheric heating from industrialization is 4.5*F

In other words, the urban heat island effect accounts for the entirety of the global warming signal.

3% of the surface can make the entire globe 4.5 °F warmer? That's quite a lot - how much would the UHI have to be in the actual urban areas to increase the global average that much?

How do you explain warming sea surface temperatures, and the warming polar regions and rural areas?

What about the observed stratospheric cooling and ocean acidification? How are those accounted for with your "UHI explains all" theory?

There is some literature on the effect of UHI on the global surface temperature trend; they are referenced <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect-intermediate.htm">here</a>. Can you address those articles, and why they're incorrect?

[Boomhauer]

A few years ago I was outside CO Mills mall having a smoke when a Red-tailed Hawk flew about 50ft overhead. It proceeded to make 300ft soaring circles over the parking lot. Gradually the thermal updraft raised its altitude until, after several minutes, it was around 1,000ft high. At that point it took off on a soaring B-line, following Hwy6 and its thermal updraft, toward and over the foothills miles away. Within suburbia, that parking lot created a pocket of heated air over 1,000ft high and probably equally wide.
http://www.planetofbirds.com/Master/ACCIPITRIFORMES/Accipitridae/pics/Red-tailed%20Hawk.gif

[W*GS]

A few years ago I was outside CO Mills mall having a smoke when a Red-tailed Hawk flew about 50ft overhead. It proceeded to make 300ft soaring circles over the parking lot. Gradually the thermal updraft raised its altitude until, after several minutes, it was around 1,000ft high. At that point it took off on a soaring B-line, following Hwy6 and its thermal updraft, toward and over the foothills miles away. Within suburbia, that parking lot created a pocket of heated air over 1,000ft high and probably equally wide.

Nice story.

What percentage of the volume of the atmosphere is a 1000'x1000'x1000' cube?

Have you read the literature on how UHI is treated in surface temp analyses?

[cutthemdown]

I don't know about cooling the earth but it would be cool to see big cities try and get more green roofs, more trees growing throughout the city etc etc. I read an article where they are just now discovering how much c02 a city can trap if they really planted a ton of trees, and replaced ones when they died.

[Boomhauer]

...it would be cool to see big cities try and get more green roofs, more trees growing throughout the city etc...

Greenroofs are the simplest way to reduce HVAC (heating and AC) costs, storm runoff, yet increase albedo and evaporative cooling. It needn't be fancy or high maintenance, but makes a huge difference.
http://i1113.photobucket.com/albums/k518/DwiPermana/blog%20posting-01/green-roof-epa-building-denver.jpg

Another major issue is suburban parking lots, which are typically only filled to 30-40% peak capacity. Urban parking is a different story - several usually. The Orange Bowl in Miami has an attractive asphalt / lush grass parking lot that is better than an all-asphalt one, but impractical in most ways.
http://invisiblestructures.com/project_profiles/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/img.php_8.jpeg
A better solution is a pavement lattice that allows thinned-out grass to grow everywhere and improve drainage, while still supporting vehicle weight. Prefab concrete paving stones are ideal for small lots in tight settings that wouldn't want large asphalt equipment and small, damaged sections could be easily replaced by hand. Large lots would likely pour (asphalt or concrete) over forms to create the lattice, followed by filling in dirt/gravel, but the reduction in concrete/asphalt needed and ease of replacing sections outweigh the initial effort and investment. Concrete pavers are shown below for examples of lattice pattern and natural wearing of the grass, but asphalt would need to have thicker tracks with rounded tops - creating a cobblestone effect to reduce erosion.
http://floridaturf.com/hillsbof.jpg
http://www.omnipropittsburgh.com/images/turf/main.jpg

Asphalt roads, from city streets to interstate highways, are the hottest pieces of infrastructure, most abundant and biggest contributor to global warming. Concrete has a higher albedo than asphalt, but is expensive and unfit for cool climates. The slick surface allows ice/snow to accumulate in the grooves/textures, creating a severe safety issue once the temps drop. A much better and less expensive solution is to dust iron oxide (some types having a red/infrared reflectance over 50%) onto freshly laid asphalt and spray iron oxide sealer onto old asphalt. The pic below is from Wyoming, but the same has been done in Mississippi, Hawaii, Abu Dhabi and elsewhere.
http://images.travelpod.com/users/gypsykat/3.1294938544.red-pavement-in-wyoming.jpg

Lastly, plant a F'n tree. In fact, plant one every year on Arbor day. It's the last Friday in April.
~~~In interests of full disclosure, this post was brought to you by a former Sierra Club employee.~~~

[W*GS]

These are good ideas to re-green our cities.

However, let's get back to figuring out of Boomhauer's theory that UHI accounts for all the same observed changes in the climate system that anthropogenic CO2 does.

By my count, it does not.

[Boomhauer]

...By my count, it does not.

Yes, but it's already been proven that you're a hack with no understanding of climatology and oblivious to basic scientific methods - only parrots false, incomplete and doctored reports to push agenda and profit at the detriment of the environment.

I understand if you don't remember, or wish to forget, discussing your hysteric babbling earlier, because.............
http://media.247sports.com/Uploads/Boards/968/20968/140394.jpg

[cutthemdown]

I think I see it like this wiggs. I am at the mercy of people who are way smarter then me to explain the earths weather, a volcano, earthquake, DNA evidence, complex math computations, how to do a heart transplant, how to make crystal meth etc etc lol. So I like simple things like plant more trees, try not to waste energy, that is all i can do. I sort of refuse to go along with being taxed on it though. I am taxed enough already. Also I don't want to see high energy prices just because people think earth is warming. It's actually leveled off anyways right? So yeah lets try and be more green because it's easy to do and doesn't cost a ton. I'm going to plant some trees in my backyard when I do my new drought tolerant lawn. But I'm not buying a hybrid car until they are the same price as regular ones and get the same performance, with no distance limitations.

[Requiem]

Boomhauer,

Can we plant a tree in your anus and then light it on fire?

[W*GS]

Yes, but it's already been proven that you're a hack with no understanding of climatology and oblivious to basic scientific methods - only parrots false, incomplete and doctored reports to push agenda and profit at the detriment of the environment.

How so?

I asked some relevant questions and for support of your UHI-is-all claims, and all I get back is a personal attack.

That's not science.

So, what's your evidence for your theory that the UHI effect explains the observed changes in the climate system (all of them, not just increasing temperatures) better than CO2 from burning fossil fuels?

Remember, you also need to explain all the pertinent observations. For example, how come the satellite record is so close to analyses of surface obs? Sure, you can claim that the surface obs are "tainted" by the UHI effect, but how does UHI impact satellite obs?

I'd prefer some data and evidence, and leave the *ad hominem* nonsense out.

[Boomhauer]

... For example, how come the satellite record is so close to analyses of surface obs? Sure, you can claim that the surface obs are "tainted" by the UHI effect, but how does UHI impact satellite obs? I'd prefer some data and evidence, and leave the *ad hominem* nonsense out.

That's an interesting strawman post, as I've never made or implied such, especially followed by insistence you're interested in truth, not nonsense. Not sure if you're accidentally a hypocrite, or trying to be a deceptive liar. I'd guess both. Perhaps you'd be willing to provide the "data and evidence" you've said I disagree with, followed by why I think so. Maybe also explain the "tainted by the UHI effect" comment and how it agrees with my previous statements that global warming exists. That would be an interesting bit of convoluted reasoning.

Three other points;
a) "What percentage of the volume of the atmosphere is a 1000'x1000'x1000' cube?" - Are you suggesting thermal expansion results in a cube, or is that the only volume you know how to calculate?
b) "How do you explain warming sea surface temperatures, and the warming polar regions and rural areas?" - That's called global warming, something you've repeatedly shown you don't understand.
c) "...Boomhauer's theory that UHI accounts for all the same observed changes in the climate system that anthropogenic CO2 does." - Another strawman statement, as I've never said such. In fact, that's just a completely retarded statement to make - and expected from you. I've also never said global warming is soley due to the Heat Island Effect, but the culmination of mankind's industrialization. If you actually knew about the causes of climate change, not just read and reposting "Idiot's Guide" releases, you'd know mankind has done a lot more than just build heat factories dozens of miles across. Of course, then you also wouldn't be a CO2 hysteric either.

[W*GS]

That's an interesting strawman post, as I've never made or implied such, especially followed by insistence you're interested in truth, not nonsense.

In your first post, you made specific mention of "Heat Island":

Consider industrialization covers 3% of the Earth's surface, with an average surface Heat Island of 15*F, the global atmospheric heating from industrialization would be 4.5*F Thus, accounting for all global warming observations - synced with industrialization.

(BTW, 3% of 15 isn't 4.5, it's 0.45 - you were off by a factor of 10.)

First off, you need to show that "industrialization" (and define that, too) indeed covers 3% of the surface; that the "average surface Heat Island" is indeed "15*F (sic)", and that somehow that accounts for "all global warming observations".

That's three things you need to provide evidence for, and, correct your arithmetic error. Well, actually four things, as "global warming" isn't the sole observed effect - there's stratospheric cooling and ocean acidification, among other effects, that you need to show how "industrialization" explains.

Not sure if you're accidentally a hypocrite, or trying to be a deceptive liar. I'd guess both.

Neither. I'm a skeptic asking for evidence. You know, one of the things scientists do.

Perhaps you'd be willing to provide the "data and evidence" you've said I disagree with, followed by why I think so. Maybe also explain the "tainted by the UHI effect" comment and how it agrees with my previous statements that global warming exists. That would be an interesting bit of convoluted reasoning.

For one piece of evidence, look up what the "Keeling Curve" is. I don't doubt you're familiar with it.

Secondly, one of Watts' games is that he believes that the surface temperature record is irretrievably damaged by poor station siting (a variant on the "it's all UHI effects" meme), despite the fact that other analyses have shown him wrong, as well as the paper he "co-authored" with Pielke Sr., which basically destroyed his own argument.

Lastly, rather than me disproving your theory, how about you provide data to support it? I've already listed three things (well, four and more) you need to do; if you're as familiar with the scientific method as you claim I am not, you ought to know how to build your case.

Three other points;
a) "What percentage of the volume of the atmosphere is a 1000'x1000'x1000' cube?" - Are you suggesting thermal expansion results in a cube, or is that the only volume you know how to calculate?

I was being generous and allowing a simple volume as a 0th-order approximation. Pick any shape you like - the point stands, which is that what appears to us to be a significant piece of atmosphere warmed to a certain temperature is but a very negligible fraction of the whole troposphere. Why don't you show me how you can calculate that volume, so I have some evidence that you can do math.

b) "How do you explain warming sea surface temperatures, and the warming polar regions and rural areas?" - That's called global warming, something you've repeatedly shown you don't understand.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that your claim is that our "industrialization" is heating specific local areas to the extent that the energy is being distributed around the globe, thus resulting in the observed temperature increase. Do you have an estimate for the energy that our industrial (and other, I assume) activities is dumping into the climate system, and, the amount of energy necessary to raise the temperature by the observed values, and then compare the two numbers? If you can show that our activities have put more than enough energy into the system to account for the temperature increase, then you've got a better case. However, you'd also need to account for the other changes that have been observed, which I think would be rather difficult for your theory. How would increasing the temperature near the surface result in a cooling stratosphere?

c) "...Boomhauer's theory that UHI accounts for all the same observed changes in the climate system that anthropogenic CO2 does." - Another strawman statement, as I've never said such. In fact, that's just a completely retarded statement to make - and expected from you. I've also never said global warming is soley due to the Heat Island Effect, but the culmination of mankind's industrialization. If you actually knew about the causes of climate change, not just read and reposting "Idiot's Guide" releases, you'd know mankind has done a lot more than just build heat factories dozens of miles across. Of course, then you also wouldn't be a CO2 hysteric either.

Well, I was going by what you actually wrote, so excuse me for taking your claims at face value. You did mention UHI specifically, and then claimed that it explained "all global warming observations".

However, now you're saying that UHI isn't all. Could you explain your "a lot more than just [...] heat factories" comment? The implication is that some sort of waste heat plays a role. Can you provide some evidence, perhaps you can reference the work of Flanner et.al., who wrote a paper on just that a couple years back, IIRC.

Besides, it's not like you've discovered (or are noting) something new to the climate science community. Some rather extensive analysis has been done on the effect of urban areas on temperatures, and while it is indeed non-zero, it doesn't account for "all global warming observations", as you stated.

All the above aside, one of the things you need to learn is that my dubiousness about your claims isn't a personal attack - I'm questioning you to explain yourself better, and provide data to support your views, which is one of the ways science is done. You see, anyone can toss out an opinion or claim, but without observations/evidence/data to support the opinion or claim, it's not credible.

[W*GS]

I think I see it like this wiggs. I am at the mercy of people who are way smarter then me to explain the earths weather, a volcano, earthquake, DNA evidence, complex math computations, how to do a heart transplant, how to make crystal meth etc etc lol. So I like simple things like plant more trees, try not to waste energy, that is all i can do. I sort of refuse to go along with being taxed on it though. I am taxed enough already. Also I don't want to see high energy prices just because people think earth is warming. It's actually leveled off anyways right? So yeah lets try and be more green because it's easy to do and doesn't cost a ton. I'm going to plant some trees in my backyard when I do my new drought tolerant lawn. But I'm not buying a hybrid car until they are the same price as regular ones and get the same performance, with no distance limitations.

Most of the above is quite reasonable. I'll leave it at that.

[Boomhauer]

1) First off, you need to show that "industrialization" indeed covers 3% of the surface; that the "average surface Heat Island" is indeed "15*F (sic)", and that somehow that accounts for "all global warming observations".
2) I'm a skeptic asking for evidence. You know, one of the things scientists do.
3) Lastly, rather than me disproving your theory, how about you provide data to support it?

The opening statement was, of course, a 'show me jab' since you decided to turn on the lights and step back into the ring for another pwnage. There's insignificant relation between a hotair balloon and global warming, (like there's insignificant relation between CO2 and global warming) and using the 10fold temp increase between basket and balloon to calculate global warming is, of course, completely absurd. But this is your ring, your CO2 hysteria rules in which false math, ridiculous comparisons, bad science and deceptive logic (like your prolific strawman and red herring attempts) are at home here. Just like bait I dropped in the earlier thread (which you should have recognized) to see if you can tell the difference between fact and fiction, you've gobbled a clearly fictitious statement up balls deep - just like you do with CO2 hysteria.

So that's the story now, you're a scientist? Funny, since you've proven otherwise and admitted that you're not, but a computer nerd that obediently cut/pastes CO2 hysteria articles you don't understand, also claiming to have co-authored others, for money.

That third point is pure hypocrisy as in the last thread I pointed out the logical fallacy of having to disprove a falsity and asked you for evidence, rather than just CO2 hysteria. You did not, and have not provided any. Your rules have already burned that bridge.

[W*GS]

I've asked perfectly reasonable questions, and yet you choose to lard your response with attacks, smears, and slurs.

Why?

[W*GS]

Let's keep discussing your theory, Boomhauer.

[BroncsRule]

Here's how bored I am at work: I bothered to calculate the percentage of a cubic kilometer of air as a fraction of the total troposphere.

please note I did not bother to calculate for variances of air density, but rather used average air density. So my result might be off by maybe half an order of magnitude.

The answer is: .0000000244 % or 244 ten billionths of a percent.

BTW - Boomey, you have been thoroughly and consistently destroyed in these discussions.

I haven't seen PWN rape this bad in a long, long time.

That you seem to think you're winning is rather pathetic. And I don't mean pathetic in that cute, endearing kind of way, but rather, just plain old pathetic and sad.

Carry on.

[BroncoInferno]

Strange that Boomhauer keeps claiming victory, when he has embarrassed himself in these threads time and again. W*GS has made an absolute fool him. Pretty delusional guy.

[W*GS]

Boomhauer is a coward and a quitter.

[Spider]

seems floridia and california are the cooler spots the rest of us triple digits ......I am heading to Detriot tomorrow ...... Loves me some a/c

[cutthemdown]

Spider right about one thing, the weather here in California is about the best it has ever been for a summer. A tad gloomy in June but that is normal. July has just been awesome, 80 degrees with a nice breeze about as hot as it gets, nice warm night that are great for being outdoors in. There just isn't anywhere in the country with nicer weather then southern california.

[Spider]

Spider right about one thing, the weather here in California is about the best it has ever been for a summer. A tad gloomy in June but that is normal. July has just been awesome, 80 degrees with a nice breeze about as hot as it gets, nice warm night that are great for being outdoors in. There just isn't anywhere in the country with nicer weather then southern california.

I couldnt believe how nice it was in San Diego ,irvine ,and El monte ..truned to **** in Blythe