NASA Confirms Rainy Cities 21
Devil's BSD writes: "It's true, urban areas are rainier than rural areas. Using the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission satelite to measure rainfall around cities, NASA found that areas downwind from cities had up to 116% more precipitation than those upwind from it. The cause? The major heat difference, up to about 10 degrees Fahrenheit (5.6 Celsius degrees), caused by the asphalt and concrete in cities. This story is posted on the Goddard Space Flight Center page."
Ridley Scott knew this years ago... (Score:1)
It's particulate matter that matters (Score:2, Insightful)
This has been known for some time. The claim, when I heard it, was that particulate matter in the air from exhaust etc gave the water vapor something to coallese onto and hence form water droplets. I think particulate matter is more reasonable to expect than temputure variations ( even tho these do exist ).
Why is Nasa re-inventing what is already known? This was out about 5 years ago ( or longer - memory rentention tends to blur ).
Re:It's particulate matter that matters (Score:1)
causation (Score:1, Insightful)
post hoc ergo proctor hoc
I'm too lazy to read the science and peer review it, but lots of cities sprung up around rivers (for trade & transportation), so the area might have been rainier before the city appeared to support the river.
Without before/after rain measurements, I can't accept their conclusions.
Re:causation (Score:4, Insightful)
So if the change of temperature was only caused by the body of water, the whole river would cause rain down-wind (this is probably true, but is an orthogonal problem).
Claiming that the observed effects can be explained by the rivers would imply that those river do not exist outside of the city...
Re:causation (Score:2)
Nitpick and link (Score:1)
Yes, and the "Weekend Effect" is similar... (Score:1)
Studies have already shown this (Score:2)
Nonsensical model (Score:2, Interesting)
Their model seems primarily to be: we noticed that this condition exists and this other condition exists too; perhaps through some mysterious not-precisely-known interaction of the one is causing the other.
The fact that rainfall is presumably (I'm not sure the observation is meaningful without comparative historical data) greater in the cities as well as downwind from the cities suggests another causative factor to me. The already posited airborn particulate output of cities seems to be a much stronger explanation in my opinion.
Re:Nonsensical model (Score:1)
As you correctly said, as air warms, it rises. Now, if you've ever taken chemistry, you might remember Boyle's Law of Gases that relates temperature, pressure and volume of a gas. If you lower the pressure of a gas, the gas expands, and the temperature falls. As that warm, moist air rises, atmospheric pressure falls, and the air cools. Because cooler air holds less water, moisture will condense, forming cumulus clouds. Because condensing water vapor releases a good bit of heat, that air can keep rising, building clouds higher. Rain can happen when heavy drops of water fall through those clouds absorbing other droplets until they are big enough to fall to the ground without reevaporating. But don't take my word for it. USAToday will explain it with pretty color pictures. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/basics/wworks0.ht
Re:Nonsensical model (Score:1)
Oops, disregard... (Score:1)
D'oh!
Great for agriculture! (Score:2, Funny)
No, just pave the farms (Score:2)
And we needed this because.... (Score:1)
Coming soon: The NASA water-color-detection satelitte array: are the oceans really blue?