Shared publicly  - 
949
219
Piergiorgio vico's profile photoDawn Hardin's profile photofrancis chethalan's profile photoGorgor Gor's profile photo
176 comments
 
Um, white paint? If we use enough maybe it could increase the albedo
just sayin
 
Why is NASA reporting temperatures in °F instead of °C?
 
so the non-techie/science people can have an idea. Curse you Jimmy Carter!!!
 
+Adam Tyler Because it's an American agency communicating (primarily) with the American public.  Their scientists use metric measurements in scientific papers.

(Oh, and by the way, Celsius doesn't need a degree symbol.  It's just Celsius.)
 
Because this is the glorious United States of America.  We don't truck with that new-fangled Celsius scale. 
 
+Adam Tyler Press release primarily for US consumption.

Internally most of the work is done in metric, because scientists work in metric.
 
About albedo, I heard about a project done in South America in Chile (not sure while writing) that helped saving water ! It means Lifes ! Why don't WE generalize this white painting all around the World ? Big Blue could become Big White :) Nice PIC again ... & Again ... Bob, You gat it !
 
Adam Tyler NASA wants to continue loosing space probes for confusion between metric and imperial units... ;-)
Translate
Translate
Translate
Adam Tyler
+
19
20
19
 
It was a slightly rhetorical question.  I know why °F is used in public communications, I just don't agree with it.  If NASA doesn't participate in educating the public about the advantages of SI units, who will?  There's that old cliche; if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.  I don't always rely on cliches for wisdom, but in this case I think it applies.
 
I don think the point of this was to spark a debate on what measurement +NASA uses. I think it was to illustrate that black top buildings absorb more heat. 
If the building tops were painted white, they would reflect more heat back into space, lowering surface temps and lowering energy consumption as well as power bills. 
 
We have to many oeople for that?
None even cares to see it?
Cell phones must have a way of shutting off the brains resoning center of the mind to reason that is right that is wrong?
 
Also +NASA is followed from all over the world - I would suggest they start using Celsius, but still add Fahrenheit in parenthesis. This way everybody wins:
a) they point out that SI units are to be preferred (70s you know)
b) people might get used to seeing C over time
c) common folks in the US can still read it
d) the rest of the world won't have to google for 180F in C
 
+Bob Decker White paint is a common idea. It would help lower cooling costs as well. The problem is that it takes a while for that to make up the costs of paint and labor.

+Adam Tyler Because you communicate in the language you have, not the language you want. That goes for units as well, and if you're trying to convince people they're cooking the Earth, trying to convince them they've been using the "wrong" temperature units as well makes you sound like an ivory-tower prick with too much ego. Keep the message focused.

I'm perfectly happy with the current world of imperial units being based on Metric. We have ways to get all the advantages of Metric and still communicate in units familiar to the audience. And Metric wouldn't have saved the Mars orbiter; I have seen plenty of cases where people screwed up units using nothing but the Metric system (e.g. one assumed MKS and the other CGS, or one assumed kHz and the other Hz). Metric doesn't free you from the requirement to declare your data set's units!

(IMHO using degrees anything for temperature is BS. Kelvins FTW!)
 
I've often wondered how much of the global warming is due to the miles and miles of asphalt out there.
Part of me would like to see someone invent a device which would insert a mat of small plastic tubing into the asphalt when it's poured. Then you could pump water though the tubing, and have a Stirling engine every mile or so to run a small generator and convert it to electric power.  The Stirling would be hooked to a pair of drilled wells , to bring up cool water, run it through the tubes , and then send it back underground... or to irrigate plants.
 
How about urban gardens or just some sort of greenery on the roofs in? Along with white roofs and solar panels as well. Imagine turning all the roofs in Manhattan into spaces where people could spend time comfortably.
 
white roofs are not economical because they absorb all of the rays instead of reflecting them and this causes them to degrade faster.  You then have to replace them more often, so people don't tend to want to buy them.  Green Roofs, however, offer many advantages but older buildings usually have to reinforce the roof in order to support the extra weight and that a disincentive.  
Translate
 
I googled that temperature (because 180 Fahrenheit means nothing to me) and it's 82 C. Holy Cow. Surely that's instant death to anything that walks on it?
 
Wonder if the measurements of weather stations in cities are corrected for the "city effect"?
 
Black tar gets too hot to walk on here in the sun in Ireland. Get over it.
 
+Bob Adams warmer temperatures = more oceanic evaporation = more precipitation. 
 
+Adam Tyler NASA (unlike the rest of the US Government) wisely uses the metric system exclusively.  Really helps out when your designing and flying spacecraft with other nations already using the metric system!
 
+Jacek Jarmulak Here at least, they take measurements 2 metres above ground, and it's a grassy ground. And usually far away from city centre. So we always have to recalculate. One gets used to it after some years of experience :P
Translate
 
+Andrew Peterson Sorry, my brain must have been switched off for a moment.  I was actually referring to rubber roofs not painted.  A contractor told me that a white rubber roof doesn't last as long as a black rubber roof so they don't use the white as much.  It may be that rubber absorbs more of the damaging rays such as UV or IR which cause it to photodegrade faster than the black rubber roofs.  Now, this is second hand information so it could still be wrong but the guy was trustworthy so I tend to believe him. 
 
No God people are monsters?
Here take a pill or is it crating a Dr.Jeckle & Mr.Hyde person and violence = violence!
 
I had a white roof put on a building where I used to work. It had a 75 year warranty, and cut out inside temps by 10-20 degrees in the summer.
 
center of some big city parking lots exceed 110 deg f.in summer
 
The comparison is "made for shock" consumption but it otherwise silly.

And to echo - C is generally used internally, F released publicly as that is what many in the US are still accustomed to.
 
I wonder when America gets rid of this bl**dy outdated metric °F that nobody else in the world really understands. Except for probably Cayman Islands, Palau, Bahamas and Belize.
Mark P.
+
3
4
3
 
+Beni Ellenberger It's not that Americans are too stupid to understand the metric system, it's that the US government is too incompetent to pull off the change in a way that will stick.
 
Hi everyone over de Pond! The reason we in Urope have de SI system is becos we didn't grow up with it and that makes scientist engineers and computer peoples special. Well they think they are- and only scientists use it to confuse the plebians. That's Roman for 'us'! The common herd. That's why in distances the 'Beagle' lander plowed into the Martian surface cos it was measuring distance on its altimeter in metres which are equal to 39 UK inches but across the pond your feet and inches are shorter cos you still live in de King James, Pilgrim Fathers dark ages. Get a life you people, take bigger strides, leave yards and inches and join the modern world. That's why the US sniper guy who claimed to have taken the longest kill shot probably didn't if he measured it in US feet! Remember smaller measurements increase Capitalist wealth because you get less for you buck thing than we do in Uk. Peace and Love. Hope Woodstock happens again before I meet Jimmy in Heaven. He was ten feet tall that man. That's uk feet! 
 
Logical fallacy of the leftist alarmist: "Carbon is bad so we need to give regulation monopoly to the largest offender."
Giving more power to large governments might perpetuate the epidemic of corporatism (crony capitalism), inflation, stealing from the poor to enrich the politically well-connected.
A libertarian society allows the highest standards of living for the impoverished and most rapid technological advancement. 
No one wants to continue burning fossil fuels which release PCBs, lead and mercury into our environment. 
Stop preventing technological advancement!
#NASAisafailure   #NASAiscorporatism   #PrivatizeNASA  
Mark P.
 
I've heard of plans to actually scrub excess CO₂ from the atmosphere. We need to start funding that plan.
Mark P.
+
1
2
1
 
+Louis Minati I hope you're being sarcastic, but some people actually believe what you're saying so it's hard to tell.
 
I'm becoming a lot more distrusting of NASA lately. So are they saying that a NYC roof is the hottest surface temperature recorded on the planet in the last decade? Hmm. That's what a simple deduction of the message would lead to. But what about a black tar roof in a city in Iran? Wouldn't that be even higher? Like 200, 210F?

The biggest problem with their statement is that they don't relate it to anything. It's just left out there, without context, for people to make assumptions about. That's aiding and abeding propaganda in my book.
 
co2 makes up 0.035 of the atmospheric gases.
 
Plants breathe in CO2 and exhale O2 its called Photosynthesis.  However with the deforestation of our planets jungles and rainforests (which happen to be the primary sources of O2 since they never lose their leaves like trees to the North and the south do) the balance between CO2 and O2 could easily be upset.  No CO2 is not bad unless there is too much just like to much O2 could kill a person.  The balance has to be maintained, if humans didn't exist then nature would maintain the balance on its own, however we do and we use wood for alot of things like construction, paper, furniture, and so on.  Which is fine if our use doesn't exceed what nature can keep up with.
 
I remember reading an old science book as a kid where that was 0.023%.

+Louis Minati Plants actually take damage from higher-than-normal concentrations of CO2 and close their stoma in response.
 
if everyone planted a little 40 square ft.garden temps would drop in summer,and youwould have some fresh vegetables to eat with dinner.
 
I think he is full of shit.  There are millions of scientists that are now saying that Global Warming is a hoax made by certain politicians to get more tax money from us.
 
O money can do wonder !
 
+Joseph Lavergne Really?  Please provide a source.  The only scientists saying global warming is a hoax are the ones paid by the energy companies to protect their assets.
 
The planet isn't warming anything considerable but we are indeed getting these heat islands. Solar panels should be all over these buildings.
 
+Joseph Lavergne I don't suppose you'd have a list of those "millions of scientists" that think global warming is a hoax?
 
I don't know what they are smoking at Columbia University, but that image with its captions is absurd.  The science is NOT suggesting that the climate is warming, or has warmed, by 80 degrees.
 
Any population is: 99% useful idiots, 0,9% impotents concieous people and 0,1% stupid rulers. What is the percentage of americans eating at McDonalds ? The same as the belivers in global warming !
 
A brief trip to the New York City page at weather.com produced, "The highest recorded temperature was 106°F in 1936."
 
I always taught use the SI system of measurement when reporting anything. Then again it is an interesting point to make about the temperatures and look better in F then C.
 
"The inside of my car gets really hot on a sunny day.  But it's much cooler outside of the car."  That is about as useful as these pictures and quote.
 
When the economy is going down, when 40% of US population is on cuppons, when the only solution is another WW, global warming is the best "keek your mind away" posible !
 
+Crews Giles That highest recorded temperature was at the official weather station, not on a black tar roof.
 
I seen some projects around Vancouver BC that grass the roofs. I see this as a way to reduce the temps and simply a nice place to sit. Not sure what the pit falls are however. I have some ideas, but not sure they are valid
 
Has NASA become nothing more than left-wing propaganda since Obama took over?
 
10 killer questions for climate extremists

1. CO2 concentration has risen by 10% in the past 23 years, but the RSS satellite global lower-troposphere temperature-anomaly record shows warming over that period that is statistically indistinguishable from zero. How come?

2. Aristotle, 2350 years ago, demonstrated that to argue from “consensus” is a logical fallacy – the headcount fallacy. Some 95% of all published arguments for alarm about our influence on the climate say we must believe the “consensus”. Why was Aristotle wrong?

3. Aristotle, 2350 years ago, demonstrated that to argue that the “consensus” is a “consensus” of experts is a logical fallacy – the fallacy of appeal to authority. What has changed since 2350 years ago to make argument from appeal to authority acceptable rather than fallacious?

4. There has been 0.6 Celsius global warming since 1950. There are 5-7 times more polar bears today than there were in 1950. In what meaningful sense, then, are polar bears a species at imminent threat of extinction caused by global warming?

5. A recent paper shows that a naturally-occurring reduction in cloud cover has had four and a half times more warming effect than man-made increases in CO2 concentrations. Why are you so certain that the recently-published paper is wrong?

6. In the past 247 years – almost a quarter of a millennium – the trend in rainfall over England and Wales shows an increase of just 2 inches/year, or 5%. Why do you regard so insignificant an increase over so long a period as being beyond the natural variability of the climate?

7. Australia’s carbon tax, a typical measure intended to make global warming go away, will cost $150 billion over ten years. In that time, the tax is intended to abate 5% of Australia’s CO2 emissions, which represent 1.2% of global emissions. Do you agree, therefore, that at a cost of $150 billion the Australian scheme, if it succeeds, will abate just 0.06% of global CO2 emissions over ten years, at a cost of $150 billion?

8. The IPCC’s own climate-sensitivity equations show that abating 0.06% of global carbon emissions would reduce CO2 concentration from a predicted business-as-usual 410 microatmospheres to 409.988 microatmospheres, and that this would reduce global mean surface temperature by just 0.0006 Celsius degrees – if the carbon tax succeeded every bit as fully as its framers had intended. Do you consider that spending $150 billion to cut surface temperature by 0.00006 Celsius degrees is a sensible, proportionate, cost-effective use of other people’s money?

9. If Australia’s carbon tax were adopted worldwide, and if it worked every bit as well as its inventors had intended, it would cost $317 trillion to abate the one-sixth of a Celsius degree of warming that is predicted for the current decade. That is $45,000 per head of the global population over the period, or 59% of global GDP? Compared with the 1.23%-of-GDP cost of paying to abate the damage from 1/6 C of warming the day after tomorrow, is it worth spending 59% of GDP today?

10. In 2005 the UN said there would be 50 million climate refugees because of rising sea levels and other effects of global warming by 2010. Where are they?
#CFACT  

$150 billion used over 10 years by a libertarian society would result in interstellar travel. Alternatively give that amount to the AU or USA govt; and perpetuate obsolescence for a few hours.
 
+Robert Soyars No, NASA is what it always has been.  You have become a victim of right-wing conspiracy theorists and the carbon-energy companies.
 
+Crews Giles There's nothing in this caption that makes me think they're suggesting temperatures have increased by 80 degrees. It makes me think that black tar rooftops can get really hot, kind of like deserts do. I imagine I think that mostly because that's exactly what the caption says.
 
calm down grizzly adams
 
+Jim McMaster Right!  If I turn my oven on, I can beat that roof tar temperature right here in Texas in the middle of winter.  I could take an image of a thermometer showing that it is over 500 degrees in my oven, and so we can all shout, "The end is near!"
 
To all stupid people, to all stupis global warming activists: Earth is in an "Ice age" and an "interglacial period" !
Meaning, any time from now on, we will have galciaers till midele of EUROPE  and over NY !
Interglacial periods lasts from 10.000 to 20.000 years, check the gological institutes sites !
Our interglacial period can finish tomorow !!!!!
 
+Matt Ellsworth I think you are pulling my leg, if you do not interpret the image "NASA Climate 360, 'I see temperatures in the city routinely exceed what you might find in the desert'" as having an alarmist intention.
 
Black stuff absorbs heat and gets hot, near-white stuff (sand) reflects it and gets not so hot. News at 11.
 
+jeff swanson If we're going to trot out philosophers in this scientific discussion, then it's worth noting that In the early 20th century, Bertrand Russel demonstrated that Aristotle's logic was "wholly false". Why would one be inclined to cite thinking that was 2000+ years old but that had been proven incorrect in more recent times?
 
Obama has washed your brains ! When "arab spring" transformed into islamic extremist gouvernments, he scared you with the global warming ! :)
 
+Crews Giles I view it as a potential cause for concern, think we should examine the risks it could present, and suggest that we explore options to mitigate any such risks. That doesn't strike me as particularly alarmist.
 
True, why not use white roofs? In fact, FIRESTONE, one of the leading commercial roofing companies, has seen a dramatic shift from their normal black tar to a whiter rubber membrane to reduce cooling load costs during the summer. And , and, Black roofs really dont help that much in winter (at least not the typical flat commercial roofs) because of the angle of the sun.In that case, it would be better to go with solar wall on the southern face. 
 
+John McNamara Perhaps the news at 11 should be an examination of the potential effects of large concentrations of "black stuff" in a densely populated area?
 
+Matt Ellsworth Appeal to majority is a logical fallacy. Namely when IPCC conspires to manipulate temperature data and Al Gore subsidizes their manipulative algorithm which creates a hockey stick warming scenario out of random data. 
When the premise of the majority is incorrect. Or when the majority subscribe to another logical fallacy: The Pretense of Knowledge. There can be no objectivity, thus no science, thus no respect. 
 
+Matt Ellsworth It is disingenuous.  The words across the image say what they say.  The caption, not the image, mentions tar roofs.  The context is "Climate" via that NASA "Climate 360" logo. 

Climate change is a real concern, and I expect science-- not absurd propaganda-- to drive the discussion. 

If I have to spell it out, I will:

Below the image, we are given statistics dealing with black tar roof temperatures in the city of New York and comparing that to the highest recorded temperature on Earth-- but this is clearly NOT a post intended to caution people that tar gets hot in the summer.

I grew up in Texas, and went barefoot most summers. By age three I knew that walking on asphalt was hotter than walking on concrete.  Are you suggesting the National Aeronatics and Space Administration intended that picture with the words printed across it to warn children that tar is hot in the summer?

If so, it is not the image which is disingenuous, but you.
 
Thats why our company installs Durolast Roofing Products ,a white membrane that reflects the suns rays and is cool to the touch no matter what temperature...

 
+Crews Giles So your position is that temperatures on roof tops have no correlation with air temperatures and are therefore not a part of potential climate concerns?
 
all this picture is saying is that surface tempterature in the city can exceed surface temps in the desert. We all have expierenced walking on hot beach sand right? 
Well to help keep the climate cooler (and slow global waring if you believe in such) is to reduce the number of hot tar roofs. 
The green roofs (where the building owners put trees and gardens on the roofs of their buildings) is a great way to do so. Not only will it rudece the heat radiating from rooftops, it provides much cleaner air in the city by reducing smog.
 
hello and what are you doing
 
hmmmm....hard to imagine trees on top of the empire state building. it would be cool though
 
NASA, you missed the stone. Over looked, why?
I'm curious if your equipment is on.
Is the union backed?
 
+Matt Ellsworth I think you are rivaling Virtuq on the troll score.  You have an agenda, and threw reasoning out the window.

So, Yes (to answer you question) I think that the hotter it is the hotter the tar on a roof is likely to be-- but why use an indirect measurement?  You mean to tell me you believe that we are going to use historical roof tar temperatures as statistics now?

Stop being obtuse.
 
+Crews Giles Ah, resorting to personal attacks, how classy.

My "agenda" is to point out that hotter roofs may mean hotter air and that maybe it's worth doing something about those hotter roofs.

Maintaining that it is better to look only at historical street-level temperature records and ignore any measurements that might point to possible causes of those temperatures is what strikes me as obtuse.
 
Sounds like a great place for a solar water heater
 
Gee ... two different materials when exposed to the sun show different thermal responses. Imagine that ...
 
+Matt Ellsworth It was YOU who brought up trolls, not me.  When you referred to another person as a "troll," you forfeited your right to whine about it when I made mention of your tactic as if it was my making a "personal attack" on you.  See how that works?  You have become the very thing you hate.  You can stop that, but I can't stop it for you.  Don't call others a troll, and don't make personal attacks on others-- and I wont be looking so hard for your inconsistencies.

As for your interpretation about the reference to roof tar heat, does it not seem odd that nothing is mentioned about "heat domes?"  I know why, and I bet you know why, but I also bet you won't mention it for the same reason.

For those of you following at home...

Some early and BAD figures in the climate change discussion were quite alarming.  What happened, was that data from weather stations that had once been on the outskirts of cities were now within the city itself--  mostly airports.

The problem was that urban encroachment drove the temperatures up, because of the heat-retaining properties of concrete, asphalt, and other materials.  This effect of material over an urban area is sometimes called a "heat dome."  Meanwhile, on the outskirts of the cities, the grass and tree-covered landscape showed no corresponding rise in temperatures.

The concept of a "heat dome" over urban areas is well known, but was not factored in to some of the numbers published a few years ago.  It was embarrassing, viewed by many as "alarmist," as bad science, and possibly contributed to the suspicion that climate change is a "made up" concern. 

None the less, urbanization rises temperature significantly, but locally.  Covering roof tar with a reflective material will not significantly impact climate change-- except locally-- that is, within the urban environment.

Global warming is taking place, but when we have posts such as this one from NASA 365, it gives the deny-ers more ammunition-- and it needs to stop.
 
+Crews Giles be that as it may calling someone a troll is a pretty stupid thing to argue about. 
 
Well hello +Ashley Allen. What is your deal? I was merely pointing out to someone that they hadn't fully realized the point of the post, yet they were mocking it. What did I post that concerns yourself?
 
you bitch at me and i'll bitch right back at you.
 
+Milo Vious I do apologize. Misread your post, I assumed, and condescended. +Ashley Allen on the other hand, are you just arguing with everybody that comments on purpose? Or did I offend you by being on the internet?
 
+Erik Knudsen no and no i just get pissed when someone joins a conversation and they have no idea what is going on or who is talking to who.
 
+Crews Giles If my suggestion that considering the effects of hot roofs strikes you as being equivalent in value to +C. T. Virtuquest 's supernatural apocalyptic delusions, then it's pretty clear we're not going to find any common ground.
 
+Ashley Allen Can you think of ANYTHING new being discussed? 

NASA 365 posts have the same polarized discussion, every time.  We are to be subjected to this, as followers of NASA, for all of 2013-- and if there was something new, they would post it. 

Since there is not anything new, and yet NASA 365 is commissioned to bring these before our eyes all this year, they are already scraping the bottom of the barrel and have resorted to alarmist methods.  I resent that.  It is cheap, it is easy, and (above all) it is not science. 

I want science.  I want theories,  I want workable solutions.  I'm getting tripe mixed with extremists on both ends of the spectrum.  I make a point to try to engage the discussion and get trolled.  We have ten and a half months to go, and I would rather not be subjected to this for that time just because I want to follow space-related technology and science.

So, I am going to express my views, and when I get trolled, I'll keep expressing my views.  The post itself is drama.  The post itself is sensational. If I take opportunity to make use of the same tactics, who is to complain?
 
I agree +Ashley Allen. I wasn't involved with your conversation, I didn't mention you, I didn't direct anything your way. So again, what's your deal (regarding attacking me)?

My comment very clearly mentioned the individual it was meant for. You however, just jumped at a chance to attack.
 
it is very hot on a flat rooftop. been there, but you will get used to it.
 
This in an interesting and pertinent article. However, the albedo of city rooftops is not as significant a contributor to atmospheric temperature increase as that of the desert.
City rooftops are disconnected therefore providing less area to contribute to any temperature change outside of the local effects that occur in and around cities. A desert, on the other hand, is relatively continuous thereby transferring heat over it's entire range. The greater volume of heat that a desert produces actually drives weather patterns over an area much greater than the desert where as heat from a city is more localized.
A good explanation for this is to consider a stove top. Measure the heat flow above and around a typical four burner stove top (analog for rooftops). You will find that the heat plume rises sharply above each burner diminishing around the periphery of each burner, and that the dimensions of each heat plume will depend on the size of the particular burner. Then, consider a stove top that has a continuous heat pad (analog for a desert). The continuous pad heat plume will form and rise just like one does around an individual burner, but the volume of heat produced will be considerably more over the area of the desert. 
For instance; if the heat above an unconfined, i.e. in an area which allows the heat plume to rise to apex, four burner stove top measuring 28"x32" with burners measuring 1 at 7.5" and 3 at 5.5" then the heated area of that stove top is about 461.8"sq'd, and a like surface of 28"x32" that is a continuous heat pad has a heated area of 896"sq'd. 
Now, when you consider heat dissipation into the unheated air surrounding each burner and the heat dissipation into the unheated air around the stove top you will find that the heat plume from the continuous stove top will drive heat into the surrounding area of the stove top quicker than the four burners consequentially producing a greater volume of heat available for the system. This analogy is made allowing for thermal conductance to be approximately the same for the roof tops and the desert. This is not necessarily valid given varying base line climate conditions at varying latitudes. 
Simply said, heat flow over multiple relatively small areas, (roof tops), within a larger area, will produce less heat than an area equal to the large area (desert). 
 
Easy fix.  It is called paint.
 
"Under the cities lies, a heart made of ground,
But the humans will give no love."
 
paint wont work in new york.  it would be cooler in the summer and colder in the winter not to mention the snow would take longer to melt on the roves which would increase the amount of weight on said roof.  you would need a roof that changes hue throughout the year depending on the temperature  
 
This is why green roofs and surfaces are so important! Reduce cooling costs and heat pollution.
 
+Crews Giles thats 106°F was ambient air temperature. They are talking about roof surface temperature its a different thing.
 
Is anyone else tired of preachy, inflammatory emotional appeals from NASA? Stick to the cool facts about space, guys.
 
+J.R. Moore , I think this is a cool fact (gathered from) space.  (Not that it had to be gathered from space, but the point is that NASA does loads more than just space, the help us understand our own planet and it's role relative to space.)
 
I've never perceived NASA as preachy or emotional.  They do science and that's all I've ever seen them do.  Perhaps you're just a little overly sensitive.
 
Interesting ...fun fact of the day
 
there are no facts here, this is all liberal propaganda 
 
its not NASA's Fault 
 
Wow! How are we going to survive during our summer in central and southern Africa?
 
Cape Town has been brutal these last few weeks...
 
One word: Albedo.
Of course dark surfaces are hotter than light ones.
 
That's because, despite the fact that we know better, we still design those buildings and blacktop to poorly function within our ecosystem?
 
Why the focus on building roofs? Since the article talks about skyscrapers, the roof receives a small percent of the solar heating. The walls get far more, being so tall. (And New York is pretty far north, as well)
 
It doesn't help the global condition to paint the roof white because it simply reflects the light and heat back to the clouds that in turn reflect it right back... That heat and energy is meant to be absorbed by the ground, used for underground processes and is also released at night to offset the low temperature.  We end up with greater temperature swings because we essentially eat the heat capacitance of the Earth by not creating architecture that works with the ecosystem.
 
Just curious as to how many people commenting on whether roofs should be white or black are either architects, building science professionals, roofing professionals, or mechanical engineers.
 
180f.......................thats hot
Add a comment...