Controlling the weather

[jpl458]

It is a human perception and even you experience it. It is a very localized phenomenon. And in a planned city, could be avoided or at least minimized by simply recognizing the direction of the prevailing winds and not creating funnels to enhance their strength.

What does that have to do with global warming, or influencing the weather? So it's a bit windy in some cities. I live in CentralTexas and there is a lot wind down here at times, but no tall buildings.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Why do I bother

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I live in CentralTexas and there is a lot wind down here at times, but no tall buildings.

And I live in south Louisiana, the home of red beans and rice. Things get pretty windy here, too, but we are more efficient. We contribute not only to the amount of wind but also to the amount of methane in the air. No sense in wasting a great opportunity to be twice as effective.

And again, you are conflating cause and effect. The wind in Texas would blow regardless of any tall buildings. However, there is the issue of drag, where the wind blows against something and experiences resistance. This is where the effects occur and it DOES NOT MATTER that you are talking about higher-level winds sometimes. Drag is drag and heat effects (frictional effects) due to increased drag work their way into the atmosphere regardless of where the drag occurs. We can't say it is precisely the "butterfly effect" but we even get drag and lots of feather fans stirring up a breeze on Bourbon Street in New Orleans, and the French Quarter has no tall buildings for many blocks around.

In case you were wondering, I am using reductio ad absurdam as a strategy against your arguments.

 

[jpl458]

And I live in south Louisiana, the home of red beans and rice. Things get pretty windy here, too, but we are more efficient. We contribute not only to the amount of wind but also to the amount of methane in the air. No sense in wasting a great opportunity to be twice as effective.

And again, you are conflating cause and effect. The wind in Texas would blow regardless of any tall buildings. However, there is the issue of drag, where the wind blows against something and experiences resistance. This is where the effects occur and it DOES NOT MATTER that you are talking about higher-level winds sometimes. Drag is drag and heat effects (frictional effects) due to increased drag work their way into the atmosphere regardless of where the drag occurs. We can't say it is precisely the "butterfly effect" but we even get drag and lots of feather fans stirring up a breeze on Bourbon Street in New Orleans, and the French Quarter has no tall buildings for many blocks around.

In case you were wondering, I am using reductio ad absurdam as a strategy against your arguments.

Doc. Pat inferred, in one of her rants, that tall buildings have something to do with weather or climate. Other than what they emit, tall buildings do not have anything to do with creating or changing the weather. Gradiant wind level is 2,000 feet above the topography. Mountans have infuence over the gradiant. You live next to the gulf of Mexico, which is pretty flat. Central Texas is also pretty flat. The wind where you live might be affected by the amount of red beans and rice that is counsimed by the population.

 

[Steve R.]

Doc. Pat inferred, in one of her rants, that tall buildings have something to do with weather or climate. Other than what they emit, tall buildings do not have anything to do with creating or changing the weather.

Pat is correct. Once again you pontificate in ignorance. Still waiting; so what is the correct temperature for the Earth?

Urban heat island - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Urban areas usually experience the urban heat island (UHI) effect, that is, they are significantly warmer than surrounding rural areas.

The "heat island effect" traps cities in domes of extreme temperatures. Experts only expect it to get worse.

The urban heat island effect can make the country's most populated cities 20 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than nearby areas. Climate change will only make it more suffocating.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Pat Hartman]

Doc. Pat inferred,

I imply, you infer

 

[ColinEssex]

Why do I bother

Good question. (Even without a question mark)
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Oh, Col, if ONLY you realized the supreme irony of your statement...

 

[AccessBlaster]

Still waiting; so what is the correct temperature for the Earth?

AB said:
without climate change or politics what should the earth's temperature be?

ChatGPT said:​

Without external factors like climate change or political considerations, Earth's average surface temperature is primarily regulated by natural processes such as solar radiation, the atmosphere's composition, and the planet's ability to reflect and absorb heat (albedo). In its natural state, Earth's global average surface temperature would be around 14°C to 15°C (57°F to 59°F).

This balance is achieved through the greenhouse effect, where gases like water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane trap heat, keeping the planet warm enough to support life. Without the natural greenhouse effect, Earth's temperature would be much colder, around -18°C (0°F) on average.

 

[Isaac]

The proper temperature of Earth should be 67° and mildly cloudy. Because I said so as I like it that way!

 

[Pat Hartman]

This balance is achieved through the greenhouse effect, where gases like water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane trap heat, keeping the planet warm enough to support life. Without the natural greenhouse effect, Earth's temperature would be much colder, around -18°C (0°F) on average.

This is apparently the result if climate change contingent gets their way. Maybe they should consult an AI to see if their "solution" actually makes sense.

 

[CJ_London]

surprisingly difficult to find the current global average temperature - nearly all links I found compare with temperatures 100 years or so ago (pre industry) as a percentage or degree change

However I did find this site

What Is Earth's Average Temperature?

It's a hot topic.

www.space.com

states the average surface temperature on Earth is approximately 59 degrees Fahrenheit, 15 degrees centigrade

So currently we are within the natural state - and the implication is the pre industrial temperature was just below the natural state

 

[Pat Hartman]

So currently we are within the natural state - and the implication is the pre industrial temperature was just below the natural state

And we were also 100 years further from having just exited a mini ice age. So higher now is also normal.

 

[ColinEssex]

Oh, Col, if ONLY you realized the supreme irony of your statement...

Most Yanks here don't get irony - well done.
Col

 

[Steve R.]

AB said:
without climate change or politics what should the earth's temperature be?

ChatGPT said:​

Without external factors like climate change or political considerations, Earth's average surface temperature is primarily regulated by natural processes such as solar radiation, the atmosphere's composition, and the planet's ability to reflect and absorb heat (albedo). In its natural state, Earth's global average surface temperature would be around 14°C to 15°C (57°F to 59°F).

This balance is achieved through the greenhouse effect, where gases like water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane trap heat, keeping the planet warm enough to support life. Without the natural greenhouse effect, Earth's temperature would be much colder, around -18°C (0°F) on average.

The response above does not provide a real answer. This response merely states states that based on the albedo the expected temperature would be around 14°C to 15°C (57°F to 59°F). That does not actually address the question of what the correct temperature would be for humans or even the environment as a whole. Furthermore, the answer does not provide a difference between the current Earth temperature and the temperature based on albedo effect. (Another factor that needs to be considered; what is the time span for the ChatGPT response? One year or 300 years? It is important, if one speaks of human caused global warming, that we get an average temperature of the Earth before the industrial revolution and subsequent population explosion. Did claimed global warming take-off after about 1800?)

One can make the assertion that a temperature from 14°C to 15°C (57°F to 59°F) is the "correct" temperature should that be the current temperature. But that temperature has changed (up and down) over billions of years and life has adapted to those changes. So, if one respects the evolution of natural processes there is no "correct" temperature for the Earth.

@AccessBlaster: Now that we know what the "natural" temperature of the Earth is based on ChatGPT, the next question can be asked: What is the Earth's current average temperature? (Two questions. Post industrialization and as a separate question prior to industrialization (1800).)

Should ChatGPT give a different temperature range, one can make the subjective assertion that if that temperature is higher than 14°C to 15°C then those wanting to reduce the Earth's temperature for the sole benefit of humans may have a case. They still may not have a case in terms of other animals and plants as they may prefer a warmer climate.

Should ChatGPT provide a temperature range below 14°C to 15°C, then there is no basis for "fighting" global warming.

 

[RogerCooper]

The thing about the ice cores is we have only around 300,000 years worth of history because prior to that, the planet had no polar ice caps. We were in a warm period as far as climate goes.

This is a false statement. Ice cores go back only about 300,000 years, because the ice flows out under pressure. The Antarctic ice sheet started forming between 60 MYA and 45 MYA. When dinosaurs roamed the Earth, things were much warmer than today and sea levels were higher. About 2.6 MYA, things became much colder.

The reasons for the cooling that has characterized the Age of Mammals involves both decreasing carbon dioxide levels and the land-locking of the poles.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Are you disputing the fact that our ice samples go no further than 300,000 years?

 

[RogerCooper]

Are you disputing the fact that our ice samples go no further than 300,000 years?

I am disputing your statement that there were no icecaps prior to 300,000 years. There is ice core data going back to 720,000 years ago but the ice caps were there long before. No ice caps would imply large amounts of what is now land having been under water something which would be easily detectable by finding marine sediments on land.

If go back to the Mesozoic, Antarctica had forests not icecaps and much of North America was underwater (that was only partially due to higher sea levels).

 

[Isaac]

I have read enough about the rise and fall of numerous methods of dating land layers and fossils to doubt all of those high numbers' accuracy.
Dating methods have risen and fallen (meaning been used and trusted, then debunked) too much. Relying on all of that is foolish

 

[RogerCooper]

I have read enough about the rise and fall of numerous methods of dating land layers and fossils to doubt all of those high numbers' accuracy.
Dating methods have risen and fallen (meaning been used and trusted, then debunked) too much. Relying on all of that is foolish

Please be specific. Which methods and what numbers are you doubting? The basic geological time scale has been well-established since the work of Arthur Holmes in 1912. The dating of geological time is established by multiple methods giving consistent results.

If you are claiming that Antarctica only became covered by ice 300,000 years ago, that counts as an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.