You still have the same basic formula. Solar gain + earth generated heat - heat loss through reradiation = net thermal energy. No matter what you use for a surface the heat is still in the atmosphere. Things do change the equation such as the higher the temperature the greater the heat loss and the greater the cloud cover the lower the heat gain from solar radiation but the equation remains the same one.
2007-01-23 14:56:28
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Disagree that SuzyP's answer makes most sense. Just a few quotes from the page she referenced: "the ECO conference demonstrated inability to distinguish between what we actually know and what they choose to believe." "All that we actually know there is that the world has got a few tenths of degree warmer in the last 100 years and that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased over the last 60 years. We also know that the world has not got warmer since 1998 ..." And one from the Washington Post: By Juliet Eilperin Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, October 13, 2005; Page A01 New international climate data show that 2005 is on track to be the hottest year on record, continuing a 25-year trend of rising global temperatures. Climatologists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies calculated the record-breaking global average temperature, which now surpasses 1998's record by a tenth of a degree Fahrenheit, from readings taken at 7,200 weather stations scattered around the world.
2016-03-28 23:41:47
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
yes it would and probably ,to some degree, already has....conctrete is a fairly reflective surface (like snow and ice) and I've read that those do affect the climate globally. During an ice age, huge sheets of ice reflect the sun back out in to the /watmosphere instead of allowing the heat to be absorbed like it would on non-glaciated land. THAT'S one of the things directly affecting us globally right now...we're losing huge amounts of ice sheets that would normally be reflecting the sun's heat back out into space thus maintaining an equilibrium somewhat down here. Now, that much more surface area is absorbing the sun's energy (heat). We lost a several mile sheet last year within 500 miles of the north pole.....not good. It was FINALLY reported on by media 2-3 weeks ago...ok I just found some sites.
This page states that concrete is 35-40%reflective..scroll down to the "what are some examples of cool pavement applications" paragraph here: http://www.terry.ubc.ca/index.php/2006/02/08/climate-change-in-urban-areas-faq-moccia-mix/
And this article refers to concrete toward the bottom under "Human Factors"
http://www.ec.gc.ca/climate/overview_factors-e.html
and this article refers to concerte as a "heat sponge"
http://starryskies.com/articles/2003/12/cities.climate.html
I googled "concerte, asphalt, global warming"
Some of the articles also mentioned it affecting water runoff and evaporation, also. And this seems to be a cool site I just found, also:http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/Fingerprints.html
2007-01-23 15:29:14
·
answer #3
·
answered by Kimberly A 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I've wondered this about asphalt more than concrete, given that black asphalt absorbs more heat than gray concrete does. That being said, the percentage of the earth's surface covered by concrete is probably around 0.01% and is not a contributing factor to global warming.
2007-01-23 14:56:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by trentrockport 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree with Bob G to a point. All energy absorbed into the surface is now captured in our environment. However, given two surfaces with different albedo's, the one with the highest albedo will reflect more back into the atmosphere. If all of this heat from both bodies were then captured by the atmosphere, then he's correct. However, since a portion of this heat will make it out of the atmosphere, then the one with the greater albedo will contribute less heat to the environment.
2007-01-23 15:31:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by bkc99xx 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I doubt the coverage of the concrete (or asphalt) has an appreciable effect, but the MANUFACTURE of the stuff does. The chemistry of concrete and asphalt production releases humongous quantities of Co2 into the atmosphere... way more than vehicles...(shhhh, another secret)
2007-01-24 02:09:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by Gunny T 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
no it doesn't .People are pronged to point fingers at what they don't understand.The science communities have done a good job in promoting money and activities to support their work.The global warming would happen with or without us.Mother nature does this ever so often as it has for billions of years with or without our help it would happen.If you are worried about pollutants .Mt St Helen's and Mt Pinatubo sent more pollutants into our atmosphere than all the ones that humankind have ever.Believe me ..the global warming it not our fault..its mother natures way to continued change of the earth.. no more or less
2007-01-23 14:57:46
·
answer #7
·
answered by J M 2
·
0⤊
0⤋