Climate is a complex thing. I doubt anyone would debate that. Still, it appears that those scientists advancing the idea of global warming, are pushing an overly simplified view of climate. In my last few posts on the subject, I have looked at the Sun's influence on the Earth, and the idea held by some dissident scientists that it, and not carbon emissions, is responsible for global warming. Yesterday, Vincas pointed me at an article that presents yet another possible cause.
In a study released Wednesday, scientists are not debating that the average temperature rose some in California between 1950 and 2000. In that they agree with global warming activists. They claim that the cause of that warming is not greenhouse gasses, but urbanization itself.[1]
It appears that cities do not cool as much during the night as farm or wild land does, and that suburban areas fall somewhere in the middle. As California has grown more urban, it has thus cooled less each night, leading to a higher average temperature.
Even given a constant input of energy, this would lead to significant warming, fewer cold days and more warm/hot days. It would, in effect, act much like an oven, because each day's warming would be building on that of the day before rather than starting from scratch.
I wonder how this would work out in practice then. We do not want cars, they cause greenhouse gases. We also do not want people living close together, because that causes warming also. I suspect that most people would realize that mass transit breaks down as your population density is reduced. The only alternative is for us all to become Amish.