Talk:A critique of Is a Signature of Socio-economic Impact written on the Climate?

This article states that the higher the population is the higher the surface temperature is, but isn’t that relative? This article does not address the surface area covered by this population. If you look at a variety of industrialized cities, not all of them have a high number of people in a concentrated area, some highly populated cities are not always concentrated in one massive area. Take for example cities that have many bordering hamlets or suburb areas. It’s more about the more concentrated areas with more people, the higher the C02 emissions are, therefore the bigger the increase in the greenhouse effect, ultimately leading to a rise in temperatures.

Hingane's study does not appear to address the issue of global warming per se, but merely argues that a larger occupied surface area will have a higher thermal signature (no doubt due to highly reflective construction materials and reduced vegetation). The study of four cities is also not comprehensive enough to draw any reliable conclusions as it lacks any statistical reliability in terms of contributions towards global warming. This is an interesting study, but it does not appear relevant to the debate at hand.Ixby 02:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There are also other factors that play into an increase in surface temperatures – C02 emissions - greenhouse emissions and global warming. For example how close the highly populated cities are to climates that will absorb the C02 emissions. If a city is closer to the ocean or a densely forested area, the more C02 emissions are going to be absorbed. The further away a city is from these sources, the less likely the same amount of C02 emissions are going to be absorbed.Jrach339 (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)