"Bill McKee" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 03:51:10 GMT, "Bill McKee"

wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
news:2kt7n1toi3s26cqhch32gkr0tsm2ajvgcc@4ax. com...


Here is a site that shows average annual temps various places in
the
world.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

Pick out an area and see what the average annual temps have been.
Note
that the
temps of high population areas rises at a higher rate than does
that
for
urban
areas. In most places that I looked, if the area was urban, and
the
data
went
back a 100 years or so, there was very little change.

--
John H.

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and
necessary to
resolve it."
Rene Descartes

There are hypothesis that the Urban areas are measured incorrectly.
Most
readings are from ground based thermometers, and over the years the
areas
around the thermometers have been built up a lot. And the extra
buildings
add an error to the reading. Spaced based readings have not changed
much
over the years. Lots less than the ground based readings.


Yes, the temp rise in urban areas would seem to be related to the
quantity of
concrete in urban areas. This would indicate that a return to wooden
buildings
with straw roofs would be in order. Asphalt and concrete roads also
retain heat
much better than dirt roads, so we should go back to dirt roads.

You're such a visionary. How about requiring that companies use
existing
empty commercial real estate, rather than mowing down green space
until
there's nothing left but a few weeds poking out of the cracks?


Why does a company move to a new area and build a new building?
Because
they want to spend lots of bucks? Because of the city tax laws?
Because
there are no qualified workers in the old area? Because of crime in
the
older areas? Why?


More to the point: Why do they build a new building when, two blocks
away,
there's five year old facility which falls under all the same laws as
the
one they intend to build? This is NOT at all uncommon. You've seen it.


Because they want to waste money?

Nope........it is usually cheaper to build new rather than renovate.
Material cost is secondary to labor cost, you usually eat up and saving in
materials quite quickly when you try to renovate because of the high cost of
labor and disposal of old material. There is also the liability factor. In
brown field sites, if you are the new owner, you become liable for any
contamination on the site. Building green field, you have no such liability.