posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:43 PM
I read a news item years ago -- and I apologize for not having the source any more, it was a while back -- where it was announced that evidence of
"global warming" had been found. So I read this thing and I find that most of the warming found was in the Southern Hemisphere and I go "Hmm."
Then I read a little bit further and find that most of the warming in the Southern Hemisphere was in the low temperature readings, or at night. I go
I studied weather and climate in college, you see -- didn't complete a degree but was well on my way through the core courses, had done experiments
in the lab, and so on. I had experimentally verified, in my lab requirement, that land heats faster than water. Much faster, in fact, given the same
amount of heat added to the system. I had also learned some things about microclimatology, which is climate on the small scale. I was especially
fascinated by urban heat islands.
What makes all this relevant? Well... turns out that the type of heating described by the study I read about went counter to the lab experimentation
and the common weather knowledge that I learned in my college courses. Instead of the Northern Hemisphere warming faster, because it has much more
land than the Southern Hemisphere, it was the Southern Hemisphere warming faster. And, instead of the warming being spread out over the entire 24
hour cycle as I would expect in a generalized warming event, only the nights were getting warmer.
I had seen that sort of pattern before. It happens when rapidly expanding cities grow past thermometer sites. Phoenix, Arizona is an infamous
example of this. Since the 1950s, when Phoenix was only a small city, it had generally more than 30 degree ranges between day and night and it
averaged about 88 to 90 degrees in July, and around 50 degrees in January. The latest averages I saw were about 94 degrees in July and 54 degrees in
January. In the same five decades, Phoenix's population exploded 1000 percent, from about 100,000 in 1950 to over 1 million in 2000. The main
airport, I believe it's called Sky Harbor, used to be on the outskirts but is now well within the urban sprawl. And here's the kicker: In the
averages, the nights warmed much faster than the days, from about 35 deg in January to 42 degrees in January, highs 65 to 66; and from about 75 deg in
July to 81 deg in July, highs, 105 to 106.
That's not a large scale caused warming event, that's LOCAL. The urban heat island simply expanded over the measuring site used to record the data
for the climate.
So... guess where cities have expanded far faster? The Northern Hemisphere? North America, Europe, Asia? No. The Southern Hemisphere. South
America, Southern Africa, and Australia; in South America particularly, urban growth has been nothing short of phenomenal overall. It's not hard to
figure out how that study I read about that trumpeted "man induced global warming" and cited the Southern Hemisphere warming as evidence -- how that
evidence came to be. The Southern Hemisphere cities simply did as Phoenix did -- they expanded over their measuring sites and presto! warming. Only
problem is, it was warming due to contamination by human activity -- replacing grass and trees with concrete and buildings -- not due to macroclimatic
change. The laws of physics don't change -- water still warms slower than land, so if you have faster warming in a regional zone that has more
oceans, look for another cause. Either the warming is coming from the seafloor's tectonic activity -- which is in fact true in the Arctic Ocean, or
it's coming from nearby urbanization at the thermometer sites.
I think it would be a good idea to hold way off on drastic carbon-cutting measures -- and by the way, we're made of carbon, it comes from our food,
and guess where plants get it from? -- hold off on CO2 emissions nonsense and do more research first.