Fluid Dynamics and Global Warming

[BigDumDum]

Almost 90% of all humanity lives in the Northern hemisphere. Due to colonization, expansion, growth, war, water sources, etc. we have amassed our populations in specific areas around the Northern hemisphere. We continue to build at an unprecedented rate. Our buildings are growing wider, taller and less aerodynamic. There is a disproportionate amount of buildings in the Northern hemisphere versus the Southern hemisphere.

Is it possible that building and human expansion is to blame for global warming?

I'm referring ofcoarse to fluid dynamics. Wind resistance in particular. Could the Earth be trying to adjust its axis due to this increase in wind resistance? And maybe in turn this is effecting Earth's magnetosphere?

Another scenario for those of you that specialize in fluid dynamics. If you installed 100,000,000,000 parachutes (attached to the ground) on the Northern hemisphere, and none in the Southern hemisphere, what would happen? Assuming ofcoarse that there was no pattern of their placement and they were sporadic. Would the sphere want to change axis? Rip apart (if the sphere had an Earth like crust)? What would be the result of all that wind resistance on the top of the sphere?

Is it possible that buildings could be responsible for global warming?

I realize this is a radical concept. Thank you for taking the time to chip in on the discussion.

 

[russ_watters]

Our buildings are growing wider, taller and less aerodynamic. There is a disproportionate amount of buildings in the Northern hemisphere versus the Southern hemisphere.

Is it possible that building and human expansion is to blame for global warming?

I'm referring ofcoarse to fluid dynamics. Wind resistance in particular. Could the Earth be trying to adjust its axis due to this increase in wind resistance?

No. The atmosphere is a thermodynamic cycle, with all of the input from the sun eventually being converted to heat either way.

 

[BigDumDum]

So the sun gets hot and the Earth gets hot as a result? Is that seriously your answer?

You talk about energy conversion and say "no" without thinking about energy conversion. You cannot destroy energy. Wind is a conversion of the suns energy. So I'm sorry but I respectfully decline your answer.

 

[Vanadium 50]

So I'm sorry but I respectfully decline your answer.

Then I respectfully decline your question, as you have shown it is not a question so much as a position you are advocating. Without evidence, I might add.

 

[ZapperZ]

Summary: About 90% of the worlds population lives in the Northern Hemisphere. Could our expansion be the cause of global warming?

Almost 90% of all humanity lives in the Northern hemisphere. Due to colonization, expansion, growth, war, water sources, etc. we have amassed our populations in specific areas around the Northern hemisphere. We continue to build at an unprecedented rate. Our buildings are growing wider, taller and less aerodynamic. There is a disproportionate amount of buildings in the Northern hemisphere versus the Southern hemisphere.

Is it possible that building and human expansion is to blame for global warming?

I'm referring ofcoarse to fluid dynamics. Wind resistance in particular. Could the Earth be trying to adjust its axis due to this increase in wind resistance? And maybe in turn this is effecting Earth's magnetosphere?

Another scenario for those of you that specialize in fluid dynamics. If you installed 100,000,000,000 parachutes (attached to the ground) on the Northern hemisphere, and none in the Southern hemisphere, what would happen? Assuming ofcoarse that there was no pattern of their placement and they were sporadic. Would the sphere want to change axis? Rip apart (if the sphere had an Earth like crust)? What would be the result of all that wind resistance on the top of the sphere?

Is it possible that buildings could be responsible for global warming?

I realize this is a radical concept. Thank you for taking the time to chip in on the discussion.

Please re-read your post here. All you have done, whether you realize it or not, is make a speculation without any kind of justification. You're making guesses and expect US to either debunk or verify it.

This is not how a science discussion should be.

Science, and physics, just doesn't say what goes up must come down. It must also say WHEN and WHERE it comes down. If you think A causes B, then you need to make a QUANTITATIVE estimate that such a thing has a reasonable and measurable effect to be detected. This is what we call a "back of the envelope" calculation, where you figure out order-of-magnitude numbers.

Otherwise, all you are doing is to argue that such-and-such a thing isn't zero and thus, it should be considered. That is irrational, because I can also equally say that the gravitational effects from Alpha Centauri should be considered when we design buildings and bridges. I'll be laughed at by structural engineers.

So do a bit more work than speculate. Make a reasonable model to calculate how much do you think the moment of inertia of the Earth has actually been affected by all these human activities that you described. Then, compare that to the NATURAL changes in the Earth's physiology and see to what extent does that compare to those human activities.

To be taken seriously, you need to put in the same level of serious effort.

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

So the sun gets hot and the Earth gets hot as a result? Is that seriously your answer?

You talk about energy conversion and say "no" without thinking about energy conversion. You cannot destroy energy. Wind is a conversion of the suns energy. So I'm sorry but I respectfully decline your answer.

So I'll cop to missing your point (though in my defense, it is...out there).

What you are really asking is if the Earth's rotation axis is changing due to wind resistance on buildings? Well, even setting aside trying to calculate the effect, if there was any at all, astronomers - even amateurs - would notice.

 

[256bits]

So the sun gets hot and the Earth gets hot as a result? Is that seriously your answer?

You talk about energy conversion and say "no" without thinking about energy conversion. You cannot destroy energy. Wind is a conversion of the suns energy. So I'm sorry but I respectfully decline your answer.

You shouldn't.
Question is: In simple terms, at the surface of the Earth there is a boundary layer, perhaps a mile thick, or less depending upon which aspect one is contemplating, where the surface of the Earth has a more direct interaction with the atmosphere.
Convention flow from the radiative heating or cooling of the surface during the day or night, brings about vertical flow of the atmosphere, which in turn will have an affect on horizontal flow of the atmosphere, where at the air/surface interface there is a shear element involved, surface roughness and all that, which is what you are asking about.
The question is, which flow has the most predominant affect for atmospheric mixing and energy exchange, and when. ( daytime, nighttime, cloudy days, .. )
Which is a where you might want to do some research.

I would expect buildings add to the local topography and have similar effects such as trees and terrain to weather patterns. As for a global affect, natural mountains most likely overwhelm the buildings for example.

As a starter, look up Earth's atmospheric boundary layer.
for example,
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~cushman/books/EFM/chap12.pdf
It is not necessarily all that bad of a question to ask, but just throwing it out there to see what sticks.. well you want to get a feel on how the atmosphere works so you have some ammunition behind your proposal.