Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Los Angeles Causing Global Warming
Large urban areas in California are causing average temperatures to rise. Duh! Ever heard of an urban heat sink? Asphalt, buildings and other structures absorb tremendous amounts of solar heat. Temperature differences between urban and rural differences are rather obvious.
Only the Shadow knows.
Average temperatures across California rose slightly from 1950 to 2000, with the greatest warming coming in the state's big cities and mostly caused by urbanization -- not greenhouse gases -- authors of a study released on Wednesday said.But, the fact that this is making headlines makes me wonder how much our global warming freaks are taking this into account. How much is the world warming overall vs. how much are urban areas warming? Are higher average temperatures in urban areas skewing the overall data? Does Al Gore actually understand any of this?
Only the Shadow knows.
Comments:
<< Home
and guess where most of the weather centres are, we have the meterological office in LONDON, MANCHESTER, not that many out in rural areas.
Very good question. Is the temperature higher in the hills of Vermont or Arkansas or Finland?? If we grew lots of trees, how much would have solve everything?
well, they are complaining about global warming, and increased c02, and to solve the fuel problems they need bio fuels, unfortunatly
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/uadb-baa030707.php
Due to the low yield, the land requirement is enormous. In the Biomass Action Plan (Annex 11) it is calculated that in order to achieve the 5.75% target (18.6 million toe biofuels), about 17 million hectares would be needed, i.e. one fifth of the European tillable land (97 million hectares). Since there is not so much marginal and abandoned land in Europe, the consequence would be the substitution of food crops and a huge increase of the food imports.
Energy farming would presumably have a big role in deforestation, because pristine forests would be cut down in order to cultivate energy crops. The consequences would be, besides a worrying reduction of wild biodiversity, a decrease in soil fertility, water availability and quality, and an increase in the use of pesticides and fertilizers, as well as negative social effects like potential dislocation of local communities**
but its so much better honest guv
Post a Comment
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/uadb-baa030707.php
Due to the low yield, the land requirement is enormous. In the Biomass Action Plan (Annex 11) it is calculated that in order to achieve the 5.75% target (18.6 million toe biofuels), about 17 million hectares would be needed, i.e. one fifth of the European tillable land (97 million hectares). Since there is not so much marginal and abandoned land in Europe, the consequence would be the substitution of food crops and a huge increase of the food imports.
Energy farming would presumably have a big role in deforestation, because pristine forests would be cut down in order to cultivate energy crops. The consequences would be, besides a worrying reduction of wild biodiversity, a decrease in soil fertility, water availability and quality, and an increase in the use of pesticides and fertilizers, as well as negative social effects like potential dislocation of local communities**
but its so much better honest guv
# posted by 
: 12:13 PM
: 12:13 PM Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
