Here’s a conundrum for the climate change sceptics:
A report has just come out describing the affects of hot cities on the upper atmosphere. Since very large cities generate a lot of energy, and the energy gives off heat, and the hot air rises, and the winds carry it far, far away. This is not a fairy tale, correct me if any of the above embedded phrases contradicts your understanding of science, or constitutes, in your mind ‘an unsupported assumption’.
Thousands of kilometers away, places are warmer because of the heat generated by huge cities.
If you doubt the heat effect of urban places, you need to visit Las Vegas. That fairly small city generates way above the norm of energy, due to all those flashing neon lights and pseudo baroque fountains. Enough to keep the place warm at night. Down the road, smaller gambling’ villages’ with fewer lights are much colder at night, as one would expect in the dry desert. Is it a stretch to see that mega cities like Shanghai or Mexico City could generate enough heat to alter the air above them?
Now if you are a climate change sceptic AND you accept the above obvious connections, you are in a quandary, because then you have acknowledged that human activities can affect the atmosphere.
(just google ‘city heat effect and upper atmosphere’ and take your pick of the offerings)
Here’s a quote from the author of the study:
“The energy consumption in highly populated areas can cause changes in wind patterns, and that causes climate change far away from the heating source,” said meteorologist and study author Ming Cai of Florida State University.
The study was published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Do you believe this, or is there some reason we should doubt this author?