Reposted from Awesome Weather Facts Blog
Thursday, May 30, 2019
Disclaimer: Both of us appreciate the fact that the media exists to spread useful information around to people on a daily basis. However, when there is bias and poorly conducted journalism, it needs to be addressed seriously.
Introduction
Time and time again, media outlets and our elected officials misrepresent various social, economic, and/or environmental issues in order to boost their ratings, gain political power, and/or create mayhem and hysteria among their viewers and constituents, respectively. The climate change debate is no exception, as the issue is constantly conveyed to the public eye as a ‘crisis,’¹ (Figure 1) when in fact, good scientific analysis and data say otherwise. H.L. Mencken said it best; “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”² If one can exercise power, then that person has the ability to control you through your actions.
Agree to Disagree
While many people have the perception that there isn’t any common ground on climate change, this simply isn’t true. Dr. Judith Curry, a climatologist noted that there are a few key things most ‘skeptics’ and ‘alarmists’ agree on.³
- Global average temperatures are warmer than they were 100 years ago.
- Man-made fossil fuel combustion has contributed more or less to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
- Greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide and water vapor should cause some warming.
However, there is widespread disagreement and differing opinions on these two things…
- How much warming we have seen is or isn’t a result from man-made processes (including urbanization and land use) and what exactly causes the climate to change.
- How much more warming, if any we will see observe century (considering lower tropospheric temperatures have plateaued since the very strong El Niño of 1998) (Figure 2).⁴
Disagreement is actually good for science because it opens the door to new ideas, debate, and research. Without debate, advances in science would simply not occur.
Name-Calling Tactics
One of our biggest pet peeves in the entire climate change debate is the constant use of name-calling, and this name-calling primarily comes from those on who preach AGW. If you’re skeptical of the ‘climate crisis,’ you’re shunned and labeled as a ‘climate [change] denier.’ This use of name calling is not only unreasonable, but it also couldn’t be further from the truth. Nobody I have ever met or talked to denies the fact climate change itself exists in natural form. Climate has been in a state of constant change for 4.5 billion years, and it will continue to do so in the future. Even those who have openly stated that global warming is the biggest scam and hoax ever, such as Donald Trump (Figure 3),⁵ don’t really deny climate change – they’re usually just referring to anthropogenic climate change.
Misleading Information From the MSM and Politicians
Mother Jones, a generally left-leaning news website apparently had nothing better to do with their website’s bandwidth, than compile a list of every single one of President Trump’s Tweets mentioning “global warming” or “climate change,” calling them “insane” (Figure 4).⁵
In all fairness, Mother Jones should have also done an op-ed on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘tornado rant’ on Instagram last Thursday, May 23. What she said on her story made her “end of the world”⁶ claim believable… (just a joke, don’t take me seriously).
https://youtu.be/oHk8nn0nw18
1. AOC Has A Tornado Rant About Tornadoes
Last week, Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez took to her Instagram story (Figure 5) stating that tornadoes are getting worse due to climate change; “The climate crisis is real y’all… guess we’re at casual tornadoes in growing regions of the country?”⁷ ⁸
First and foremost, tornadoes are not casual. Most tornadoes are spawned from highly organized thunderstorms known as supercells, and as a matter of fact, most thunderstorms don’t even produce them (see the tropics for instance).⁹ ¹⁰ As Dr. Roy Spencer of UAH and Joe Bastardi of Weather Bell Analytics have been saying for years,¹⁰ ¹¹ one of the key components of tornado outbreaks are the ‘clashing’ of warm and cool air masses. When there is a lack of ‘clashing’ – as such has been the case in recent decades¹² (Figure 6) due to predominately warmer springs – tornado outbreaks and thus violent tornadoes (EF4-EF5) become more infrequent.
Because of the lack of clashing, wind shear is inhibited, which would otherwise be vital for tornadogenesis.¹⁰ The end result of this setup is a decrease in violent tornadoes, which has indeed been observed over the past 69 years.¹³ In fact, last year was the first year on record with no violent tornadoes (Figure 7). This totally destroys AOC’s theory.
2. The New York Times Ignores Weather History
Two summers ago, The New York Times stated¹⁴ (Figure 8) that extremely hot summers are becoming increasingly common, and that it’s not our “imaginations.” They say, “Extraordinary hot summers – the kind that were virtually unheard-of in the 1950s – have become commonplace. Had the authors of that piece done any actual research, then they would have known that summertime temperatures used to be much hotter in the U.S. prior to the 1980s. Raw NOAA data¹⁵ shows that the percent of days above 90, 95, and 100°F have been plummeting for over 100 years, and the 1920s, 1930s, and 1950s, without a doubt, had the worst summers on record in the U.S.
3. The Des Moines Register and Elizabeth Warren Fail to Address Iowa Flooding Seriously
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a Democrat running for President in 2020, visited Iowa this past spring to address the flooding that was widespread across the state.¹⁶ She stated, “I’m very worried about seeing the floods again. Climate change is real, the problem is urgent and we are running out of time.”¹⁶
The entire problem with her statement is that recent flooding in Iowa had nothing to do with climate change. In fact, it was ‘just the weather.’
February, March, and April of this year were among the coldest on record across the western 2/3 of the U.S., especially the Northern Plains.¹⁷ Temperature departures from normal were a good three to six degrees below average in Iowa, which meant that the ground was frozen from both the winter and first half of spring.¹⁸ With the two large storm systems that rolled through the region in March and April dropping a nice, solid snowfall and rain, the combination of a frozen ground and melting snow meant that the water had nowhere to run off to, thus creating the flooding.¹⁸
In Summary…
In each scenario shown above, it is clearly evident that both journalists at media outlets and politicians alike have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to climate science, simply because they are too ignorant to look back at the past and look at statistical data that derails their train. And perhaps they purposefully don’t look at the data in order to gain power and control over the American people.
These politicians are trying to implement policies that would put intense regulations on fossil fuel companies and the American people. If they can implement these policies, then that’s one more thing they can control. While I’m all for renewable energy (if it were to be sustainable and effective), fossil fuels are our ‘way of life.’ Without them, we’d suffer consequences far greater than has ever been known to man.
It’s important we educate the youth about the non-mainstream view of climate change, because our weather history and actual statistics are important for not only setting the record straight, but for our country’s well being.
REFERENCES
[1] Sullivan, Kate. “Bernie Sanders says climate change is an ‘existential crisis.'” CNN. February 25, 2019. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/politics/bernie-sanders-climate-change-existential-crisis/index.html.
[2] Mencken, H.L. “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” BrainyQuote. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/h_l_mencken_143263.
[3] Steele, Jim. “Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. Patrick Moore demolish Michael Mann in climate debate!” A Walk on the Natural Side. June 12, 2019. Accessed May 30, 2019. http://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2018/06/dr-judith-currys-debates-climate-change.html.
[4] “UAH Version 6.0 with Trendline.” Wood for Trees. Accessed May 30, 2019. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/trend.
[5] Schulman, Jeremy. “Every Insane Thing Donald Trump Has Said About Global Warming.” Mother Jones. December 12, 2018. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/12/trump-climate-timeline/.
[6] Shorts, TheDC. YouTube. January 22, 2019. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHk8nn0nw18.
[7] Fredericks, Bob. “Meteorologist takes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to task about climate change message.” The New York Post. May 24, 2019. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://nypost.com/2019/05/24/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-chided-by-dc-meteorologist-about-climate-change-message/.
[8] Bastasch, Michael. “‘It’s Just the Weather’: Meteorologist Fact-Checks Ocasio-Cortez on Climate Change.” The Daily Caller. May 23, 2019. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/23/ocasio-cortez-weather-fact-check/.
[9] “Thunderstorm Hazards – Tornadoes.” National Weather Service – JetStream. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/tornado.
[10] Bastardi, Joe. “Some cold hard facts on tornado activity.” CFACT. May 23, 2019. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://www.cfact.org/2019/05/23/some-cold-hard-facts-on-tornado-activity/.
[11] Spencer, Roy. “Roy Spencer: Why so many tornadoes this year? It’s not what AOC, Bernie Sanders (or maybe even you) think.” FOX News. May 29, 2019. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/roy-spencer-tornadoes-ohio-ocasio-cortez-sanders.
[12] ERSL : PSD : US Climate Division Maps. March to May 2008-2018. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/usclimdivs/climdiv.pl?variab=Temperature&type=1&base=8&mon1=3&mon2=5&iy%5B1%5D=&iy%5B2%5D=&iy%5B3%5D=&iy%5B4%5D=&iy%5B5%5D=&iy%5B6%5D=&iy%5B7%5D=&iy%5B8%5D=&iy%5B9%5D=&iy%5B10%5D=&iy%5B11%5D=&iy%5B12%5D=&iy%5B13%5D=&iy%5B14%5D=&iy%5B15%5D=&iy%5B16%5D=&iy%5B17%5D=&iy%5B18%5D=&iy%5B19%5D=&iy%5B20%5D=&irange1=2008&irange2=2018&xlow=&xhi=&xint=&iunits=1&scale=100&iwhite=1&iswitch=0&Submit=Create+Plot.
[13] Livingston, Ian. “2018 will be the first year with no violent tornadoes in the United States.” The Washington Post. December 26, 2018. May 30, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2018/12/26/will-be-first-year-with-no-violent-tornadoes-united-states/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8eb032ca52a1.
[14] Popovich, Nadja and Pearce, Adam. “It’s Not Your Imagination. Summers Are Getting Hotter.” The New York Times. July 28, 2017. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/28/climate/more-frequent-extreme-summer-heat.html.
[15] Heller, Tony. “UNHIDING THE DECLINE FOR WINDOWS.” The Deplorable Climate Science Blog. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://realclimatescience.com/unhiding-the-decline-for-windows/.
[16] Norvell, Kim. “Farmers should be part of the solution to climate change, Elizabeth Warren says in Iowa.” Des Moines Register. May 3, 2019. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2019/05/03/iowa-caucus-election-2020-elizabeth-warren-climate-change-farmers-flooding-missouri-river/1094532001/.
[17] ACIS Climate Maps. High Plains Regional Climate Center. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://hprcc.unl.edu/maps.php?map=ACISClimateMaps.
[18] Hassan, Adeel. “Why Is There Flooding in Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa and Wisconsin?” The New York Times. May 18, 2019. Accessed May 30, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/us/nebraska-flooding-facts.html.
Posted by Chris Martz Weather at
4:41 AM
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Inconvenient math: No + $ = Yes
Sometimes it’s above normal. While other times it’s below average. It’s always a political climate that follows prevailing winds, which are often uncorrelated with science and people, and dependent on special and peculiar interests.
I have tried to read the paper that we have delivered at our house lately(why we are doing is due to the wife and I do like some of the comics) Almost everything I read is full of opinion and short on facts. You can pick almost any article read it and [learn] almost nothing other than an event happen, the how and why are all gone. I looks to me that the people that now work for newspaper only have a seventh grade intellect level, their sentence structure is mostly right but the underlying knowledge is not there.
The seems to be a persistent conflation of Climate Change with Global Warming.
The two are only related by simulation results from broken computer models.
Talking of climate crisis, have there been catastrophic climate changes in:
1) Atacama desert
2) Bergen, Norway
3) Archangel, Siberia
But sometimes the media get it correct (or more or less!).
As a for instance, on the “Outsiders” show (broadcast on Sky News Sunday morning), Rowan Dean referred to the “Al Gore Effect”. Apparently every recent time Al Gore has visited Australia the temperature has suddenly dropped. True to form, Mr Gore is to visit in the next week or so to speechify at some sort of climate conference, and we have suddenly gone into Winter!
From the Brisbane Courier-Mail (photos deleted):
https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/taxpayers-cough-up-for-climate-crusader-al-gore-lecture-on-pollution/news-story/af3cca287f7ebe211d11d1948eb4e868
Taxpayers cough up for climate crusader Al Gore lecture on pollution
State taxpayers will fork out more than $320,000 to help fund a conference by former US Vice President Al Gore to lecture Queenslanders on climate crisis amid the Government’s own Adani mine debacle.
Renee Viellaris, The Courier-Mail
Subscriber only
|
May 25, 2019 6:30am
GREEN warrior and former US Vice President Al Gore’s vision to train “climate leaders” to “communicate the urgency of the climate crisis” will be subsidised by Queensland taxpayers under a plan that was to dovetail with a new Shorten government.
The multi-millionaire and an outspoken opponent of the Adani coal mine will run the three-day session in Brisbane from June 5-7, as Queensland students as young as eight are encouraged to join a “Minister’s Climate Challenge” to help solve climate problems.
The State Government announced last year the former US Vice President would host the Climate Reality Project. It was before last weekend’s crushing election defeat, which weaponised the delay on Adani.
HOW MANY ABC JOURNALISTS DOES IT TAKE TO WORSHIP AL GORE?
It is believed the project was to be bolstered and leveraged by an expected prime minister Bill Shorten, who fought the election on Labor’s twin policies of a 50 per cent renewable energy target and reducing pollution by 45 per cent.
Al Gore giving his updated presentation in Houston, TX in An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth To Power from Paramount Pictures and Participant Media.
The event, which would likely have drawn Mr Shorten to Brisbane for the event if he won office, is to be run during Queensland’s first Climate Week from June 2—8 June.
And by the time Mr Gore arrived in Australia, it is believed Adani’s approvals would still be on hiatus if Federal Labor won.
The Courier-Mail can reveal taxpayers will stump up and least $142,000 to hire the Brisbane Convention Centre and one project co-ordinator for the project. The total cost is unknown because the Office of Environment Minister Leeanne will only reveal what it has forked out in “project milestones”.
Ironically, a week after former US President personally trains volunteers, the state’s Co-ordinator-General must finalise Adani’s groundwater approvals after the Premier said she was “fed-up” by delays.
Resources Minister Matt Canavan yesterday labelled the “hypocrisy” a “sequel to the Bob Brown (anti-Adani) convoy”.
“I welcome Al Gore to our great state,’’ Senator Canavan said.
“I hope he can hear the message of how our state’s fantastic coal creates jobs, powers the world and produces a better environment because it is cleaner.
“This sequel to the Bob Brown convoy ramps up the hypocrisy: fewer electric cars, more private jets. When Bob Brown brought a convoy to Queensland, he got the Adani mine going within weeks.
“We Queenslanders should think about what major dam or power station we want Al Gore to target so he can help us get that going too”
In a statement, Ms Enoch said, “The Queensland Government is supporting the climate leadership training by providing funding for the venue and a Brisbane-based Climate Reality Project manager. Al Gore is not being paid by the Queensland Government.
“The Palaszczuk Government is a strong supporter for action on climate change and we are proud that Queensland is hosting this international event.
“The Government is not deciding who attends the Climate Reality Leadership Training, that is a matter for the Climate Reality Project organisers.
“Climate Reality Leadership Training has been held all over the world, including in Melbourne and Sydney.”
In 2017, Mr Gore told Guardian Australia editor Lenore Taylor, “The Adani mine doesn’t have its financing, I hope it never gets its financing,” he said. “It’s not my place to meddle with your politics, but truly, this is nuts.”
“Disagreement is actually good for science because it opens the door to new ideas, debate, and research. Without debate, advances in science would simply not occur.”
Nailed it. None of this “the science is settled because 97% blah blah” malarkey.
I’m just glad I’ve held onto my gas-fired stove that I can light with kitchen matches (if the power goes out) and my great-grandma’s oil lamps, instead of counting on any politician to really, really, really care about whether or not my votes live or die. I may have to get a couple more, plus a wood-burning stove for winter.
On the main issues where there is supposedly agreement. “Global average temperatures are warmer than they were 100 years ago”.
How accurate and reliable is the global average temperature? At each meteorological station, the temperature is determined at a certain place and at a certain time, and this value refers to a certain surface area. It is obvious that the temperature can not be the same in different places of this area, and, therefore, each measurement result already represents a certain conditional averaged value with a certain error. Naturally, the temperature varies with time during the day, and averaging over time also requires taking into account the average deviation.
In other words, the calculation of the average global temperature is a statistical procedure, and according to the rules of statistics, the calculation of the average value makes no sense without an estimate of the standard deviation value and the error in determining average value. So far, there are no sufficient grounds to believe that the announced increase in the average global temperature over the past 100 years differs significantly from the measurement error and the calculation of this value.
«Greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide and water vapor should cause some warming” .
Probably, I belong to the “minority of skeptics”, because it seems to me that the theory of the greenhouse effect still has no scientific justification. First, there is not a single reliable laboratory experiment confirming this effect. Secondly, the fact that the molecules of “greenhouse gases” absorb infrared radiation does not prove that it is these gases that determine the temperature of the atmosphere. In physics, infrared and thermal radiation are not identical. In fact, the main components of the atmosphere are nitrogen and oxygen that are transparent to IR radiation, but, nevertheless, they absorb heat in accordance with their heat capacity. At the same time, the contribution of the heat capacity of “greenhouse gases” to the total heat capacity of air due to their low concentration and relatively small difference from the heat capacity of the main components is negligible.
“2. Man-made fossil fuel combustion has contributed more or less to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.”
——————
This, the above, simply clarifies the condition;
That the alarmists, lukewarmers and “skepticts”, are still in more or less the same page…as for this given point.
God forbid this kind of proclaimed “guess” or proclaimed “knowledge” be wrong or false in consideration of reality as per natural proposition of reality..
.as per means of nature;
…all I can or could say…
far too much gone in “rebelling” against the natural order there, in the means of concept and principals of nature!
From my point of view and understanding, this happens to accommodate clearly, the clause of the out most arrogance and that of the “holier than nature” megalomania…of humanity as per such proposition!
Still, only the time has the ultimate right of telling…in the End!… regardless of whatever beliefs or silly convictions of mortals…like any one of us can hold!!!
Sorry for the straight forward expression given!
cheers
Wait…what?
Jim Steele’s blog post (link in footnote 3) is well worth reading, especially for anyone who is not into the technicalities of the science. One nit to be picked: the footnote gives that date for that post as 2019; actually it was last year, 2018.
“Disclaimer: Both of us appreciate the fact that the media exists to spread useful information around to people on a daily basis.”
Got you fooled then.
The media exists to sell people things they think they need to know, either directly via subscriptions, paywalls or purchased print media, or indirectly via advertisement. In many ways they are entertainment but at the end of the day they are an industry and process and sell information to those who are willing to pay for it.
Private media is a business. They are under little obligation to tell the truth. They are under obligation to turn a profit. The myth that media is somehow a moral guardian of truth is a promoted by media themselves.
“Both of us appreciate the fact that the media exists to spread useful information around to people on a daily basis. ”
Naivety noted.
The naivety may be that the question of useful to whom? has not been asked.
“it is clearly evident that both journalists at media outlets and politicians alike have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to climate science, simply because they are too ignorant…”
Omit the phrase “when it comes to climate science”.
A friend who should know better posted something directed at “doubters.” It was a recent article featuring the incomparable Gavin Schmidt claiming how wonderful NASA’s data sets were in agreement, meaning they could make predictions with greater confidence. But then they just couldn’t help themselves, including in the article how “the AIRS data suggests it is warming even faster than we thought.” I make this observation for two reasons. One is the use of the term “doubters.” This either is peculiar to my friend or may indicate a softening of the rhetoric of the climate change crowd. The second reason is that when I pointed out the incongruity of claiming how accurate one’s data sets are and then stating that it is warming even faster than we thought, I got no response. Facts and logic are like poison to the ACC/AOC crowd.
In summary: it’s a cult, like scientology only pretending to be based on science.
> Both of us appreciate the fact that the media exists to spread useful information around to people on a daily basis.
Useful to whom?
H.L. Mencken>> a false front for the urge to rule.
So why do you think they don’t know what they are doing? “Gimme more power” is not a very complicated concept.
Thoughts that might untwist knickers:
1. The current issue with name calling is a long held tradition in newsprint journalism. It probably started in caves with pieces of charred wood combined with some kind of tribal argument.
2. We are in a warm period and will be for quite some time going forward. The current alarm will eventually die away because, well, it will get boring after about 100 years or so.
3. When the kiddies are alarmed over trivial events, this mother recommends parents ignore the kiddies and go on about their business being adults. Besides, fighting among children makes them tired and more easily put to sleep at bed time.
Only three? The NYT alone is a laughingstock with thousands of cases.
It must be a sizable component of their finances via pay-to-play news.
I always think the concession that many / most sceptics make that man causes some warming by burning fossil fuels ( but not dangerously ) is a concesssion that should not be made. I know that theory tells you it should be the case but I believe that if it hadn’t been brought up as a subject no one wouldve looked to it as a natural correlation. No normal human being would think “ I wonder why the world is warming ( if indeeed it is , when one has government sanctioned adjustments) . It must be carbon dioxide which is necesssary for life but is released from fossil fuels. You couldn’t really think of that unless you actually had an agenda. There are so many other natural factors that must ( instinctively) influence climate that the influence of increasing a trace gas to becoming slightly less trace is such a small influence that it would have zero correlation. To believe this would turn the climate system into a manic pathway of global self destruction is a pretty crazy narrative.It just doesn’t make sense. If there is a correlation ( and I dispute there is ) the correlation is so weak as to eliminate the suggestion there is a causal link.
The only way that warming / climate change is man made is that it is man made up ( in someone’s imagination. We are talking about a non- fiction fantasy fairy tale that unless we can change the story somehow will have a pretty sad ending.
As a sceptic I think we shouldn’t concede the co 2 link at all. Man has no direct influence over global temperatures and climate.
At least some of the people willing to concede that humans have caused at least some change in the conditions of the atmosphere, is related to such factors as land use changes, with associated effects such as UHI warming and direct addition of heat energy.
Not everyone who thinks people have effected the statistics that are overly simplistically referred to as “climate” (global averages are not climate, because climate is a local thing which refers to long term averages of the weather conditions. And isolated or temporary effects are not global, although when surface stations are used to determine global averages and these stations are concentrated in built up and expanding urban areas, these local effects can skew the averages and imply a global effect when none may in fact be present) are doing so out of belief that CO2 has an inevitable and quantifiable effect on the overall temperature of the entire planet.
And allowing that CO2 may have some small effect on temperature does not imply conceding that CO2 concentration is the (or a) atmospheric thermostatic mechanism. Several possibilities exist and several arguments have been made to this effect, such as that other factors overwhelm this effect, or that it is counteracted by negative feedbacks (which can be virtually instantaneous or have some slight delay or may have some temporal or spatial smoothing), via mechanisms related to the hydrological cycle, convection, and the overall circulation patterns of the atmosphere.
Etc.
“Man has no direct influence over global temperatures and climate.”
While I generally think you have made an excellent comment here, Zigmaster, I also think that this final sentence is not supportable by a strictly scientific thought process.
I am not sure what you mean by “direct”, or how this modifier alters the assertion (does man indirect influence?), but I am sure than speaking in declarative absolutes regarding matters under debate or disagreement short circuits the mental process necessary to arrive at objective conclusions about what is true and what is not.
Questions remain.
My best guess would be that our influence on the atmosphere is somewhere in between “humans caused changes are now controlling completely” and “humans have no effect or influence” the atmosphere and temperatures and climate regimes of the planet.
At a minimum, there are drastic local and micro climate effects caused by land use changes, direct additions of energy, redistribution of water, and alterations to the atmosphere.
People that live in cities experience greater Summer temps that adjacent rural areas, but also are somewhat less cold in Winter and cold nights. Less water infiltrates into the ground when it rains or snows, but impermeable surfaces that allow rapid runoff prevent standing water which may cause flooding, although channelization and poor planning may flood downstream areas MORE frequently.
Few things in life are all bad or all good.
It’s great we have over 100 comments on this topic but… meanwhile the green new deal has passed in New Mexico and Various EU countries are pushing for 0 emissions. I would be more interested in seeing reports on the environmental Pros vs. the economic Cons of the many green new deals being forced on us while we laugh about AOC’s idiocy. I just don’t see us doing enough watching of the what they’re doing while we’re focusing way too much on what they’re saying.