Cities' Heat Can Affect Temperatures 1000+ Miles Away 263
Living in dense cities makes for certain efficiencies: being able to walk or take mass transit to work, living in buildings with (at least potentially) efficient HVAC systems, and more. That's why cities have been lauded in recent years for their (relatively) low environmental impact. But it seems at least one aspect of city life has an environmental effect felt at extreme distances from the cities themselves: waste heat. All those tightly packed sources of heat, from cars to banks of AC units, result in temperature changes not just directly (and locally) but by affecting weather systems surrounding the source city.
From the article:
"The released heat is changing temperatures in areas more than 1,000 miles away (1609 kilometers). It is warming parts of North America by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) and northern Asia by as much as 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius), while cooling areas of Europe by a similar amount, scientists report in the journal Nature Climate Change.
The released heat (dubbed waste heat), it seems, is changing atmospheric circulation, including jet streams — powerful narrow currents of wind that blow from west to east and north to south in the upper atmosphere.
This impact on regional temperatures may explain a climate puzzle of sorts: why some areas are having warmer winters than predicted by climate models, the researchers said. In turn, the results suggest this phenomenon should be accounted for in models forecasting global warming."
Not 1609 kilometers... (Score:5, Informative)
more than 1,000 miles away (1609 kilometers)
Seriously, if you have one rough rounded number you can't do an exact convert and add false precision to the statement...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
more than 1,000 miles away (1609 kilometers)
Seriously, if you have one rough rounded number you can't do an exact convert and add false precision to the statement...
At least they didn't quibble about the difference between the UK Statute mile and the US Survey mile (the US mile is longer by 3.2mm [unc.edu]), or even the rounding error of over a third of a km in their conversion.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but you can at least keep the error distribution centered on zero.
Re:Not 1609 kilometers... (Score:5, Interesting)
I took chemistry a long time ago. The teacher said if you turn in dissociation constants with more than two decimal places, he'd mark them wrong (for those students who did their calculations on digital devices and copied all 10 digits of result.) He explained that these were chaotic events and everything past the second digit was noise.
I think the point of the very specific number above is simply it being a single data point. In fact heat effects may travel tremendously further than even that. More important, if heat is shifting the jet stream, secondary and tertiary effects may be happening downstream many thousands of miles and include drought, flood, or unseasonable weather. As well, the city heat drives low altitude moisture and chemical particulates (soot and industrial dust) into the higher atmosphere (potentially punching a hole in the common inversion layers) and that moisture/nucleation may have significant down wind impacts as well. I'm looking forward to seeing what the models say. If we're lucky, the effect will be more cloud cover, increasing earth's albido, and be a thermal cooling factor over-all. If not, it may be adding to a climate that is growing ever more unstable and that's bad news for everyone.
My question is, why isn't anyone talking about the air pollution problems happening this month in China? Air that's being called lethal by some, over 40x more polluted that world health limits recommend. Here's a story [freerepublic.com] about a factory that burned for 3 hours because nobody could tell the difference between the smoke and the pall of smog. My greatest concern is that over the last ten years there have been several events of smog from China reaching the western U.S., this being the worst smog event in remembrance, there is a real chance it could make it to America. Thankfully, it winter and most likely will be washed into the sea by storm systems. Had this been summer we would certainly be facing serious environmental threat. So why isn't this a HUGE conversation right now, virtually nobody is even talking about it.
Re:Not 1609 kilometers... (Score:4)
I thought we'd been talking about that for years (especially around the time of the Olympics) and haven't stopped.
Re:Not 1609 kilometers... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they did create the EPA (Nixon).
Re: (Score:3)
Augh! Talk about teaching a good idea for the wrong reasons. If you can measure your original data to n significant figures, and your conversion factors and constants and so on go to the same number of significant figures, then there's no reason why you can't quote the final value with the same precision. (I'm glossing things over here; addition and subtraction work differently to multiplication and division.)
There's nothing magical about "two decimal places", especially given that the number of decimal pla
Re: (Score:2)
Since the dissociation constant is a ratio of dissociated ion vs associated whole dissolved molecules in solution (at equilibrium between between ionization and recombining) the value is completely independent of quantities or units of measure (the ratio between the two at let's say STP would remain constant, ergo Dissociation Constant.). Also because this process is incredibly sensitive to temperature and mechanical motion (including brownian motion), fine scale measurements are very noisy in nature. Which
Re: (Score:2)
Actually strictly speaking your dissociation constants have units that depend upon the reaction, given that they're a special case of the equilibrium constant. (It seems it's typical to eliminate units by some means or another.) While I understand that the measurements are tricky and noisy (I was never much good at labs) there is no intrinsic physical limit on their precision, and it would be more informative to point out that you can have no greater precision in your final results than you have in your inp
Re: (Score:2)
My question is, why isn't anyone talking about the air pollution problems happening this month in China?
Yeah, because what would /. be without dupes? [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not 1609 kilometers... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a bit rich to go on about "the other top nations" refusing to join in when the US flatly refuses to join the climate change accords that the rest of the developed (and much of the developing) world have established.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a bit rich to go on about "the other top nations" refusing to join in when the US flatly refuses to join the climate change accords that the rest of the developed (and much of the developing) world have established.
So what? Those accords haven't done jack shit in the past, they are largely a symbolic gesture and none of the nations who did agree to the last ones managed to live up to what they promised. You seem to think that not sitting down at a table in a room full of people is the same thing as doing nothing, which is about as far from the truth as is possible. There is a large and active environmental movement in the US, and we are actively taking steps to reduce emissions. Just because we're not willing to give
Re: (Score:3)
No, I'm saying that:
You can't decry other nations for failing to participate in the process, yet justify your own absence by saying the process is pointless.
Re:Not 1609 kilometers... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
you can't do an exact convert and add false precision to the statement...
Evidently you can.
Re:Not 1609 kilometers... (Score:4)
It reminds me of a joke.
A tour guide in front of the pyramid of Gizah : This pyramid is 4507.5 years old.
A tourist : Wow! Which dating methodology did you use to achieve such a precision?
Tour guide : It's quite simple actually. I got this job in summer 2005, and it was 4500 years old at that time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It says "more than", and it is obvious from context that it doesn't exclude an effect for less than 1000 miles (actually, the absolute biggest effect of a city is at 0 miles distance for sure). Therefore it cannot be an exact number.
Also, how probable is it that a natural phenomenon agrees to four significant digits with a completely arbitrary length unit not based on that phenomenon?
Re: (Score:2)
It says "more than", and it is obvious from context that it doesn't exclude an effect for less than 1000 miles (actually, the absolute biggest effect of a city is at 0 miles distance for sure). Therefore it cannot be an exact number.
Also, how probable is it that a natural phenomenon agrees to four significant digits with a completely arbitrary length unit not based on that phenomenon?
If you ever work with large sets of data, you'd be amazed at how many events occur precisely at midnight, down to the nanosecond. /sarcasm
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, but it's "about midnight" somewhere. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it always midnight somewhere?
Only on local sidereal time or local solar time
Re: (Score:3)
well, they are imperial star destroyers after all. the metric star destroyers just never took off.
I Almost Hate To Say This (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really. The overall temperature difference is the same. This is just affecting how the change is distributed. It's notable, and explains a known issue with the models, but it doesn't in any way invalidate the overall predictions, i.e., things are getting warmer.
Seriously, the entire waste heat production of humanity is nothing compared to solar heating. Solar heating is ~170 petawatts. The total energy production of humanity isn't even a tenth of a percent of that. Closer to a hundredth of a perce
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also the vast majority of CO2 production is not man-made. The carbon cycle is massive. We just tipped the balance it was in by chopping down some carbon sinks and burning up some reserves.
Re:I Almost Hate To Say This (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately tipping the balance is all that is required to mess it up.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"Citation please. How do you know that the vast majority of CO2 production is not man-made?"
Nice try. But I don't need a citation for "to the best of my knowledge".
Re: (Score:3)
"Fascinating. Jane's "I don't need a citation" reflex is so deeply ingrained that he doesn't even notice that the citation request was directed at viperidaenz's claim."
It is neither a matter of reflex or "not noticing". It is a matter of how Slashdot shows the comments. Slashdot has changed a number of things about their format lately, and whose comments are in reply to whom is not as obvious as it once was.
The way it is displayed on my screen, it appeared to be a reply made to me. Maybe one of these days I'll find a setting that shows them more clearly.
Re:I Almost Hate To Say This (Score:5, Insightful)
The heat island effect has always been taken into account for purposes of observation - when some of your data points are located in cities, you need to either discard them or compensate in some manner. This study shows that the effect covers a far wider area than previously thought. A few minor revisions to the models are needed. That doesn't mean previous predictions are suddenly all wrong - just that they are not as accurate as they will be once these revisions are implimented.
Re: (Score:2)
This is in fact a proper application of the butterfly effect.
Re: (Score:2)
The part of the earth that has warmed the most or the north pole. i am not sure how you could account for that by an urban heat island effect.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20130115/ [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Heat disburses in air. All the heat is still there, mixed in with the rest of the earth (and it's atmosphere).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about local weather versus global climate. It's perfectly natural that an effect might appear at one scale and not the other.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The excellent "Do The Math" blog estimates that we have 400 years [ucsd.edu] until we're consuming as much energy as the planet is receiving from the sun. That's a good rule of thumb I think. Anything beyond that and by definition we can't have our current combination of albedo and surface temperature.
Interestingly that estimate also states we have about 1500 years until we're using as much power as the sun produces in total, and we'll need to use the entire galaxy's power output in about 2500 years.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Ah, the joys of exponential extrapolation. Are you enjoying your 20 GHz processor, your 10 million wikipedia articles or the km-deep carpet of bunnies covering the surface of the Earth? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, the whole point is that it's a riductio ad absurdum: the conclusions of the model on a long time scale make it obvious that the model can't be sustained.
Re: (Score:2)
ah but if we figure out FTL in 1500 years we will be using that kind of power outputs.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming we can create a Dyson sphere, which would require us to consume most of the solar system for building materials.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if we develop near light travel and start to explore deep space with multi-generational bio-sphere ships we could easily use energy on such a scale.
Lets assume we can accelerate a space craft to .9C, that puts some near by galaxies in reach, within a few generations. I don't think you anything beyond that is practical because I don't think for social reasons it will be possible to stay on mission when none of the oldest living crew people can remember any of the folks who started out.
So to get anywher
Re: (Score:3)
Why would I mess with something so slow? I have 32Ghz (4Ghz * 8 cores).
As for the bunnies, we don't have quite that many here. We've been burning them to keep the steam engines running.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I mess with something so slow? I have 32Ghz (4Ghz * 8 cores).
As for the bunnies, we don't have quite that many here. We've been burning them to keep the steam engines running.
twenty vw beetles from 1960 don't go as fast as a single ferrari from 2013, no matter how much arm, intel and amd are trying to convince you.
besides, we're already making energy that doesn't originate from the sun..
Re: (Score:2)
That's the whole point. A lot of our more bright-eyed views of the future are based on ideas about economic (i.e. population), scientific, and resource growth that simply do not scale onto long times.
Re: (Score:2)
There may be zero scarcity of smurf berries and farmville farms, but despite GM etc there will be an upper bound of wheat and other food that you can produce on this planet. You might be able to survive on food produced via nuclear energy, but given that there are already significant health differences resulting from merely different diets, I doubt humans would thrive on that.
We might be able to postpone things by developing space colonies - the asteroid belts hav
Re: (Score:3)
One would think there would be a way to convert the waste heat to let's say microwaves and shoot them at the moon. With a proper array on the moon you could immediately power a lunar civilization and remove earth's waste heat, two birds with one stone. If we created a small device that converted waste heat locally to hydrogen by splitting water, we could reclaim that energy or a reasonable amount of it. Heat concentrators could be used to remove heat from our cities where it would be converted to a frequen
Re: (Score:2)
Currently we use tens of terawatts. The power output of the best continuous-fire lasers or maser (and I use that term loosely) is on the hundreds of kilowatts. Pulsed lasers peak in the mega- to terawatt range but average power output is a lot less.
Re: (Score:2)
But what percentage of our industrial process ends up being waste heat, and what is the largest feasible array of transmitter one could reasonable build in, let's say the middle of the desert? Clearly the idea of building arrays of thousands or tens of thousands of high powered emitters would be daunting, however for any society looking to move their planet to accommodate increasing waste heat, it would seem to me should have the where with all to create huge, high efficiency quantum emitters to convert was
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and eating a car is easier than eating the moon, but it's still quite daunting even assuming currently energy consumption remains constant.
It's not an issue of waste heat, by the way: thermodynamics demands that every joule of energy we generate and subsequently use winds up as heat eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If we could actually capture and convert the waste heat into some form of usable energy, I believe we have plenty of use for it right here on Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
...where it would be dissipated into heat again when used. You can't consume energy without (ultimately) releasing that much energy as heat.
Re: (Score:2)
With studies like this, along with Kurzweil-ish woo-woo of extrapolating growth, can we talk an amusing guess at how long until heat waste renders the Earth, or at least certain parts of it uninhabitable?
Probably not. You've got to remember, that all this carbon we're currently emitting used to be a part of the carbon cycle. The Cretaceous period had half again as much atmospheric carbon as we do currently. A warming world might inconvenience humanity, and probably a bunch of other species, but it will advantage a whole bunch more. For the world as a whole, it's pretty much unimportant - it's been through such changes before.
This is part of the problem with the semi-religious zeal of the lunatic fringe of t
Glider pilots already knew this (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
umm which doesn't have much to do with this modelling of if that heat affects temperatures 1000 miles away from said cemetery.
bricklifter (Score:2)
The glider pilots in the DFW area refer to the plowed black-earth fields east of Dallas as "Texas brick lifters" in what I have been told is only mild exaggeration. So apparently heat island effects are not relegated to urban areas.
Another city effect: Thunderstorms (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Another city effect: Thunderstorms (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not the only downwind effect than can be attributed to human activity.
Science News had an article on down wind rainfall being affected by large scale irrigation projects in California.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/347691/description/Watering_fields_in_California_boosts_rainfall_in_Southwest [sciencenews.org]
I wonder how long it will take for someone to research downwind effects of some of the huge wind farms that have been built. Taking that much energy out of the atmosphere should theoretically have an effect that might be measurable.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem with that is in the UK you are almost *always* down wind of a city unless you locate yourself on the west cost of Scoltand.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem with that is in the UK you are almost *always* down wind of a city unless you locate yourself on the west cost of Scoltand.
that's the thing. where did they find the place to do the study in europe? most places are within 1000km of many cities..
Great (Score:4, Funny)
Yet another significant factor not accounted for in climate change models.
Also: News flash - Concentrated heat sources effect weather, back to you Tom Tucker.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't the Berkley study explicitly evaluate the urban heat island effect and find it had no bearing on the models?
That's a rhetorical quesiton.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I was referring to last year's study. I recall the accusations against Wang but as far as I can tell they were never actually substantiated.
Imagine that! Independent confirmation of results on one hand, and unsubstantiated innuendo on the other.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean this [nature.com], wherein independent confirmation (from a third source this time) found the same conclusions from trustworthy data?
The Real Global Warming? (Score:2)
Time to destroy the cities before we are all swimming, or over heated, or something.
Precision and accuracy (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You've still got too many significant figures in your output. There's only one in the input, so 2000km.
Re: (Score:2)
You've still got too many significant figures in your output. There's only one in the input, so 2000km.
That's correct, but practically speaking, when you translate some statement about reality you may want to avoid making the statement more surprising than the original statement. In this case you'd be spicing up the story quite a bit if you rounded it up to 2000 km.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, right. "Over 2000km" would be tres wrong. "Over 1000km"?
Re: (Score:2)
Megawatts (Score:2)
Hm, really? (Score:3)
Think of the impact this would have, if many of the data-recording points for temperature were slowly surrounded by urbanization or in the 'heat shadow' of urban areas?
http://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm [john-daly.com]
He makes a compelling case, the refutation of which has been on the order of "of course they considered this, they're experts"...when there's no trace of such analysis or correction applied to East Anglia conclusions or IPCC reports through at least 2005 (after which I stopped bothering to read them).
Re:Hm, really? (Score:4, Informative)
It was covered extensively in the BEST study and the correction was found to be negligible. (They applied the correction anyway.)
Re: (Score:3)
Think of the impact this would have, if many of the data-recording points for temperature were slowly surrounded by urbanization or in the 'heat shadow' of urban areas?
In that case, it would be a good thing we have a backup with the satellite record.
Wait... what? (Score:2)
On a more serious note, we all know that man-made stuff affects weather patters, but every large natural thing affects weather patterns as well. The weather is easy to affect, but what we should care about is not whether we affect the weather, but whether we do harm. Too many people run these together.
Poor reason for cities (Score:4, Interesting)
"Living in dense cities makes for certain efficiencies: being able to walk or take mass transit to work, living in buildings with (at least potentially) efficient HVAC systems, and more."
None of these are valid justifications for cities.
Transportation: I can and do walk, rarely needing a vehicle. No need for mass transport either. I live on a farm and work there as well as in the forest. No need to drive. I often go months without getting in a car or truck.
Efficient HVAC: Our high thermal mass, well insulated home is far more efficient requiring far less energy for heating than city buildings and it requires no cooling. It also doesn't affect the local or distant environments.
Cities stink, are filthy dirty, centers of disease and filled with vermin of both the four legged, six legged and two legged sort. Cities can't produce their own food or fuel and they can't get rid of their own wastes. Studies show that they are black holes, blemishes on the environment, soaking up the resources and polluting thousands of square miles around them.
The only question is where else do we put all those people?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyway, from what I've heard there are this things called digital computers (that thing you are using to convey your silly luddite drivel) that can model the theories of the climate scientists, and then the models can be compared with reality. This gives you those five steps.
Re:Testing the idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Something doesn't have to be scientific to be truth. Philosophy, history, mathematics - all have means of determining "truth" without relying on the scientific method. The problem is that "science" is increasingly taken to mean "rational", when that is not true - science is a subset of rationality. Stating something is not scientific is not necessarily an attack against it; it's purely descriptive.
Re: (Score:3)
First, what you do not seem to realize is that astronomers DO conduct experiments. They gather data, crunch it down, and see if the results compare with their hypotheses.
Second, there have in fact been a very large number of detailed physical experiments in astronomy. Apollo 8 was one such: no one knew for certain that the figure-8 "free return" trajectory family would really work, until they tried it in real life with a real spacecraft.
As for your comment about digital computers modeling the theories of
Re:Testing the idea (Score:4, Informative)
As for your comment about digital computers modeling the theories of the climate scientists, THAT EXPERIMENT HAS BEEN TRIED. REPEATEDLY. Every single climate model out there, when started with available historical data and allowed to run, FAILS to predict today's climate. A model which provably does not match reality is, by definition, an invalid model, no matter how cheap or how fancy a computer you ran it on.
Unfortunately, that's just not true [skepticalscience.com].
Re: (Score:3)
So what's so special about climate science that they are unable to exploit those opportunities? Where are you drawing the line tmosley? Geophysics? Geology? Microbiology? Come on now, it's your own private definition so let us know what it is if we are all supposed to be wrong if we don't stick to it. Define it
Re: (Score:2)
So your argument is that even though it's scientifically sound, you're sceptical because you find it politically distasteful?
Don't just hide from ideas (Score:4, Insightful)
When questioned with PR company lies that answer is a fairly obvious response.
When one "side" pretends that if the other is not omniscient then everything they say can be rejected and replaced with a handy PR lie that's when you get assertions of certainty in response. Certainty is possible in general terms even if unreasonable levels of precision is not.
There is a website called "google scholar" now so there is no longer any reason to pretend there is no rigorous testing just because you can't be bothered to ever set foot in a library before making these wild claims. What is this bullshit about flooding the net with noise to try to shout down anyone with a clue? Do you realise that your anti-expert bullshit is having fallout in other fields, and if you are good at anything at all such a line is going to backfire on yourself if it catches on?
I think it's about time to graduate from the childrens dictionary Bongo if you are attempting to be credible.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate is by definition the average large-scale atmospheric conditions over the long term! You can't complain about that, any more than you can complain that temperature is a measure of the distribution of kinetic energies of an ensemble of particles.
Your unstated premise that the models are over-fitted and poorly checked against data is simply not true.
Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this comment more or less an archetypal example? Veiled and nonspecific allusions to error, uncertainty, and weakness? No actual substance? Nonspecific accusations that could be leveled at any piece of research? Let's look at the issues you raise.
"The question is always, how do they know? What did they do to arrive at that result?"
It's in the papers. And countless popular accounts.
"...does not sound like a high standard."
That's why your rhetorical scenario is not the standard to which climate science is held. If you're interested it's... in the papers, and in the countless popular accounts.
"Where's your rigorous testing for that assertion?"
It's in the papers, and countless popular accounts. Assuming, of couse, you do not set an arbitrarily strict limit for "rigorous" that excludes them.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Isn't this comment more or less an archetypal example? Veiled and nonspecific allusions to error, uncertainty, and weakness?
When the comment is about the veiled and nonspecific "scientific process" of climate science, then no.. its not an archetypal example.
Science is a process. Are climate scientists following the process all the way through? The answer is that no, they are not, and certainly they cannot be blamed for not doing so because they dont have an atmosphere to perform tests upon.
But the lack of blame in no way elevates the process that they do accomplish to a level above what it actually is. The parts of the scie
Re:Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything is veiled and nonspecific if you refuse to read it. Experimental science is not all science. What is your stance on evolution? History? Epidemiology?
Also, that "Remark" is a blatant lie (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Consider a simple physical experiment. A ball is suspended 16 ft (4.9 m) above the ground. It is released at time t=0 s. We know from countless high school science demonstations and countless college freshman physics labs that the ball will impact the ground at about time t=1 s, and it will be moving at about 32 ft/sec (9.8 m/sec) when it hits. Using a stroboscope and a camera, we can determine its position with reasonable accuracy and precision at, say, 0.1 s intervals.
To be considered valid, a simulat
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, you might want to start here [skepticalscience.com].
Skeptical science has also done many blog post on predictions and how they've faired [skepticalscience.com].
Re: (Score:2)
You must really hate evolution, forensic science, archaeology, history, your own memories...
Re: (Score:2)
i am sorry sir, though you have all the symptoms of cancer i can't really prove scientifically that you definitely have it. So i can justify giving you this expensive treatment. Come back in 20 years and we'll see if its got any worse.
Re: (Score:3)
high concentrations are less polluting per capita...
and you'd be surprised about per capita pollution compared to just 50 years ago and even more surprised to 100 years ago when things were a real mess in most big cities still(pumping sewage straight out, burning shitloads of coal within city limits etc..).
Re: (Score:2)
Celsius is just as contrived as Fahrenheit. Let me know when you start using Planck temperature.
Re: (Score:3)
Human heat sources are a rounding error compared to the energy Earth absorbs from the Sun every day. We get more energy from the Sun in 12 hours than the human race uses in a whole year.