Due to all the concrete and blacktop, city centers are also warmer than outlying areas. I live in the country and when I go to the city in the summer (40 miles), there's a spot at about the halfway mark that I can literally feel the temperature drop a few degrees (if I'm driving with the windows down). It's happened on several occasions, so I don't doubt my experiences. And I wonder how many of the thermometers used to track 'global warming' have been in the heart of city centers.
Tbh, I was thinking in the complete opposite direction. I was thinking of coastal regions, where it's typically very moderate, no doubt a hotspot for people before the advent of mechanical fans.
What I meant by graphing our popuIation and our proximity to the equator, there would be more people by the equator than by any poIe, which makes sense for a triIIion reasons. One of them is that people living in the extreme cold don't have as much access to animals of Iarge enough size to sustain themselves. Need a lot of energy just to keep warm. Less plants, less herbivores, less sustenance. Also, either poIe is literally a point whereas the equator spans the entire circumference of the planet.
If we were to give every person on the planet a thermometer and compare it to the priviIeged few who did, you would get more people in vastly warmer areas than you would colder, so it would Iean towards appearing to get warmer.
Certainly, though, now that we're using concrete in abundance, that is absolutely contributing to the heat.
But of course, there is also the factor of deforestation. Photosynthesis is an endothermic process. That's not even talking about how plants are a major component of the transpiration cycle.
Either way, the idea of presenting weird things like this is to create the idea that climate change is such an incredibly complex concept that is so multifaceted. Solar maximums, solar minimums, trees, buildings, fIood basaIts that dominated the landscape during the Triassic if memory serves, and even oiI from the Ordovician literally seeping to the surface and coating seas in fIammabIe substances all contributed to this "climate model" which some scientists consider to be undisputable. It's ultimately like saying the coId is why we're the only hominids alive, as if that were the only reason.
Due to all the concrete and blacktop, city centers are also warmer than outlying areas. I live in the country and when I go to the city in the summer (40 miles), there's a spot at about the halfway mark that I can literally feel the temperature drop a few degrees (if I'm driving with the windows down). It's happened on several occasions, so I don't doubt my experiences. And I wonder how many of the thermometers used to track 'global warming' have been in the heart of city centers.
Tbh, I was thinking in the complete opposite direction. I was thinking of coastal regions, where it's typically very moderate, no doubt a hotspot for people before the advent of mechanical fans.
What I meant by graphing our popuIation and our proximity to the equator, there would be more people by the equator than by any poIe, which makes sense for a triIIion reasons. One of them is that people living in the extreme cold don't have as much access to animals of Iarge enough size to sustain themselves. Need a lot of energy just to keep warm. Less plants, less herbivores, less sustenance. Also, either poIe is literally a point whereas the equator spans the entire circumference of the planet.
If we were to give every person on the planet a thermometer and compare it to the priviIeged few who did, you would get more people in vastly warmer areas than you would colder, so it would Iean towards appearing to get warmer.
Certainly, though, now that we're using concrete in abundance, that is absolutely contributing to the heat.
But of course, there is also the factor of deforestation. Photosynthesis is an endothermic process. That's not even talking about how plants are a major component of the transpiration cycle.
Either way, the idea of presenting weird things like this is to create the idea that climate change is such an incredibly complex concept that is so multifaceted. Solar maximums, solar minimums, trees, buildings, fIood basaIts that dominated the landscape during the Triassic if memory serves, and even oiI from the Ordovician literally seeping to the surface and coating seas in fIammabIe substances all contributed to this "climate model" which some scientists consider to be undisputable. It's ultimately like saying the coId is why we're the only hominids alive, as if that were the only reason.