• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Los Angeles keeps setting record summer temperatures... but no global warming!

Zalatix

Zalatix

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
3,228
Reaction score
662
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
1, Hottest for 130 years. What happened 130 years ago?

2, If you build lots of concrete buildings and remove the trees and stuff it will get hotter. No surprise there.

3, Who says that the climate does not change? Obviously the climate changes. So?
 
Zalatix said:
https://la.curbed.com/2017/7/6/15929518/forecast-temperatures-heat-wave-record-downtown

And now at the start of September they're in the middle of yet another ugly heat wave in the hundreds+ degrees.

For those who were not aware, there are places that you can go in Los Angeles to cool down, in case your air conditioning isn't working or there's an outage.

https://laparks.org/frontpage-emergency-page

Best wishes to everyone out there... hope you all stay cool!
Click to expand...

I thought people live in LA for the heat.
 
Weather =/= climate. This applies both ways.

Climate change is happening (and always has), the scale and scope of human interference in those processes remains an open question. On it's own, one city recording a particularly hot summer is largely irrelevant.
 
Zalatix said:
https://la.curbed.com/2017/7/6/15929518/forecast-temperatures-heat-wave-record-downtown

And now at the start of September they're in the middle of yet another ugly heat wave in the hundreds+ degrees.

For those who were not aware, there are places that you can go in Los Angeles to cool down, in case your air conditioning isn't working or there's an outage.

https://laparks.org/frontpage-emergency-page

Best wishes to everyone out there... hope you all stay cool!
Click to expand...

If anything, that is evidence that greenhouse gasses are far weaker than expected.

What is the average rainfall for LA?

If we assumed 80% of that water used to be absorbed by the natural surface, and then cool the area as it evaporated, and that changes to under 20%, since it is now diverted to storm sewers...

More than a 60% loss of evaporative cooling...

It must not rain much in LA, because 3 degrees F is a small loss of evaporation cooling.
 

[h=1]Green California suffers from lack of urban trees – lowest per capita in US [/h]From the USDA FOREST SERVICE – PACIFIC SOUTHWEST RESEARCH STATION Despite city tree benefits, California urban canopy cover per capita lowest in US Trees in California communities are working overtime. From removing carbon dioxide and pollutants from the air, intercepting rainfall and increasing property values, California’s 173.2 million city trees provide ecosystem services valued at $8.3…
Continue reading →
 
Lord of Planar said:
If anything, that is evidence that greenhouse gasses are far weaker than expected.
Click to expand...
Or, as noted above, weather != climate change. Even the article doesn't suggest that this is specifically due to climate change.


What is the average rainfall for LA?
Click to expand...
The average is 14.75". As a point of comparison, NYC is around 50".

Los Angeles is actually in a desert. We don't always think of it that way because it's also been a city with lawns for over a decade, but yep, it's a desert.
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
If anything, that is evidence that greenhouse gasses are far weaker than expected.

What is the average rainfall for LA?

If we assumed 80% of that water used to be absorbed by the natural surface, and then cool the area as it evaporated, and that changes to under 20%, since it is now diverted to storm sewers...

More than a 60% loss of evaporative cooling...

It must not rain much in LA, because 3 degrees F is a small loss of evaporation cooling.
Click to expand...

O.K... so if L.A. gets about 15 inches of rain per year and covers 469 square miles and if we convert that to gallons, if my calculations are correct, we get about 130 million gallons of rain per year.

Now I found an article about a recently released study of the amount of water that L.A. lost to evapotranspiration in 2010. And what do you know.... the amount was 70 billion gallons!

So... even if we assumed every drop of rain went down the sewers the loss of that evaporation doesn't even come close to the added evaporation that comes from irrigation.

I think it is time for Lord to admit that just looking at the amount of evaporation lost to rain going down the sewers without also looking at all the other factors that can artificially heat or cool urban areas is either willful dishonesty or willful ignorance. And I say it is willful because I have pointed out this flaw in his reasoning to him before.
 
Buzz said:
I think it is time for Lord to admit that just looking at the amount of evaporation lost to rain going down the sewers without also looking at all the other factors that can artificially heat or cool urban areas is either willful dishonesty or willful ignorance. And I say it is willful because I have pointed out this flaw in his reasoning to him before.
Click to expand...

Please show me any quote that would support your idiotic contention.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Please show me any quote that would support your idiotic contention.
Click to expand...

There is nothing idiotic about what I am saying. Here are a couple of quotes for you since it is obvious you are too lazy to even read the article I linked to:

LA lawns lose lots of water: 70B gallons a year
Click to expand...

For Los Angeles, the greatest evapotranspiration was due to turf grass and seed-producing trees; palm trees made very small contributions. Both provide an alleviation of the heat island effect and reduce the need for air conditioning.
Click to expand...
 
Buzz said:
There is nothing idiotic about what I am saying. Here are a couple of quotes for you since it is obvious you are too lazy to even read the article I linked to:
Click to expand...
My God man...

Think!

That is nothing like what I have been saying about the losses of evapotranspiration, when they have drained the Colorado River for more water. You are unnaturally adding water to the system while unnaturally depleting natural water storage.

You should just surrender to the fact you don't understand these things well at all.
 
Lord of Planar said:
That is nothing like what I have been saying about the losses of evapotranspiration, when they have drained the Colorado River for more water.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It is exactly like what you have been saying except that the net effect is cooling instead of warming. Don't lie.

Lord of Planar said:
You are unnaturally adding water to the system while unnaturally depleting natural water storage.
Click to expand...

Yes.... unnatural irrigation of land is cooling it while unnatural drainage of rainwater can warm it. And it the case of L.A. the irrigation is many times more than the drainage of rainwater. So, lots more cooling than heating. Are you really going to pretend this isn't true?

Lord of Planar said:
You should just surrender to the fact you don't understand these things well at all.
Click to expand...

:lamo
 
Buzz said:
Wrong. It is exactly like what you have been saying except that the net effect is cooling instead of warming. Don't lie.



Yes.... unnatural irrigation of land is cooling it while unnatural drainage of rainwater can warm it. And it the case of L.A. the irrigation is many times more than the drainage of rainwater. So, lots more cooling than heating. Are you really going to pretend this isn't true?



:lamo
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting this is the only variable?

Grow up.

I don't know the net effect. I never looked at the numbers. I never said there could not be a net cooling. You are finding fault in me where there is none, showing you don't understand.

Why do you keep bringing up failing arguments?

Do you just like attacking people for no sound reasons?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Are you suggesting this is the only variable?
Click to expand...

Of course not. But that is essentially what you do every time you bring up the loss of evapotranspiration and ignore any possible gain in evapotranspiration. And in the case of L.A. that gain far outweighs the loss.

Lord of Planar said:
I don't know the net effect. I never looked at the numbers.
Click to expand...

Never looked at the numbers as well as never read the article or the study. How in the hell do you know I am wrong? You don't. Or maybe you know I'm right but are just playing stupid.

Lord of Planar said:
I never said there could not be a net cooling.
Click to expand...

Then why do you always ignore that possible cooling? I have been trying to get you to consider the cooling from irrigation for months now. And except for that one time you erroneously thought that GISS adjusted the temp records for irrigation you just repeatedly act as if it is a non-factor.

Lord of Planar said:
You are finding fault in me where there is none, showing you don't understand.

Why do you keep bringing up failing arguments?

Do you just like attacking people for no sound reasons?
Click to expand...

Yeah... I know Lord. It must really suck to have one of your most favorite denialist talking points shot down.
 
Buzz said:
Then why do you always ignore that possible cooling? I have been trying to get you to consider the cooling from irrigation for months now. And except for that one time you erroneously thought that GISS adjusted the temp records for irrigation you just repeatedly act as if it is a non-factor.
Click to expand...

I have acknowledges cooling from irrigation.

Why are you so blind to the truth? Do you use confirmation bias in all your reasoning?

I think you are just building strawmen to tear down, because you can't win with facts.
 
Does anybody believe the earth is not warming?
Maybe a few kooks .
 
Zalatix said:
https://la.curbed.com/2017/7/6/15929518/forecast-temperatures-heat-wave-record-downtown

And now at the start of September they're in the middle of yet another ugly heat wave in the hundreds+ degrees.

For those who were not aware, there are places that you can go in Los Angeles to cool down, in case your air conditioning isn't working or there's an outage.

https://laparks.org/frontpage-emergency-page

Best wishes to everyone out there... hope you all stay cool!
Click to expand...

Meanwhile it's 14 degrees here this morning. See, that proves that global warming is a hoax. All I had to do is find the one piece of data that supports my perspective and focus on it and ONLY it so that I'm right.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I have acknowledges cooling from irrigation.
Click to expand...

Really? When did you do that? When you were whining about NASA correcting for irrigation when they do no such thing? Fact of the matter is that you consistently ignore cooling from irrigation because it is evidence that refutes one of your favorite denialist talking points.

Lord of Planar said:
Why are you so blind to the truth? Do you use confirmation bias in all your reasoning?

I think you are just building strawmen to tear down, because you can't win with facts.
Click to expand...

Oh please... you haven't provided one single concrete fact in this whole thread. Remember what you said in response to the OP:

Lord of Planar said:
If anything, that is evidence that greenhouse gasses are far weaker than expected.
Click to expand...

Let's be perfectly clear about this statement. You are saying that record high temps in L.A. are evidence against AGW.

You then proceded to rationalize this idiotic statement by bringing up your loss of evapotranspiration fallacy and by pulling a number straight out of your butt as to how much of L.A.'s rainwater goes down the drain. And since then you can't even address any of the facts I have presented in a logical manner or even provide any more of your own. All you can do is insult me and tell me I am wrong.
 
You cannot take any single variable. Are you really that shallow?
 
Buzz said:
Yes.... and that is exactly what you do.
Click to expand...

If you believe that, you understand even less than I thought. Thanks for enlightening me on your intelligence level.

Just because I usually only explain one variable in a post... That's why you believe such things?

Think about what you are saying about your lack of comprehension...

What I generally do is explain a variable that shows cause not to believe the dogma. I have repeatedly explained that there are too many variables at work at any give time.

Are you really that ignorant of my posts, or being intellectually deceptive?

No doing a very good job if you are trying to be deceptive... We see right through you!
 
Lord of Planar said:
Just because I usually only explain one variable in a post...

What I generally do is explain a variable that shows cause not to believe the dogma. I have repeatedly explained that there are too many variables at work at any give time.
Click to expand...

Oh... cut the crap Lord! What you do is cherrypick the variables to push your biased opinions. When it comes to urban heat island effect it is almost always just your loss of evapotranspiration fallacy. Just like when the topic is about the Arctic, it is nothing but the reduction in surface albedo due to soot.

Don't even pretend that you consider all the other variables involved because you almost never do.
 
Buzz said:
Oh... cut the crap Lord! What you do is cherrypick the variables to push your biased opinions. When it comes to urban heat island effect it is almost always just your loss of evapotranspiration fallacy. Just like when the topic is about the Arctic, it is nothing but the reduction in surface albedo due to soot.

Don't even pretend that you consider all the other variables involved because you almost never do.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you lack the comprehension.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom