View Full Version : Long haul flights and global dimming
Tony Blair is expected to cut the number of his long haul flights to help the environment. Does anybody actually know if this will help? I saw the program on TV some time ago regarding scientists in America who were recording daily average temperatures for a long time before, and the days immediately following the twin towers collapse. In the following few days, air travel was almost non existant, and the average temperature climbed by a few degrees very quickly. Does this mean that global warming is worse than we all thought, and the vapour produced by planes actually masks us from the full effects of the sun now? I can't see any other reason why the ambient temperature would rise when there are no aircraft flying. A worrying thought.
And, what is the future for Scotland's weather if the gulf stream slows down, or stops due to de-salination? (Apologies, I know this is mentioned in another thread - but it seemed relevant here - mods, please don't close this thread!)
What info do you have on the above?
I always have a feeling that the film ' Day After Tomorrow' is very accurate about what is happening although the timescale is greatly exaggerated.
Strange weather patterns
Animals and plants not knowing what season it is.
Large amount of storms
Other countries with strange weather - Alps with no snow
just to say a few of the strange things happening around the planet.
As for global dimming - it is actually now stopping the earth from turning into a desert then Iceage, because if you remove all of the carbon emissions in the atmosphere suddenly, you will have the full force of the sun getting through drying up the landscape, then as more moister than before evaporates from the oceans, more clouds will be created blocking the sun hence bringing the temperature right back down to Ice age conditions.
I maybe not accurate in what I say, but at the end of the day, we the human race have gotten ourselves into a 'catch22' with mother nature. We will be damned if we don't do anything about the atmosphere but we will also be damned if we do anything to quickly to rectify it.
j4bberw0ck
10-Jan-07, 16:24
if you remove all of the carbon emissions in the atmosphere suddenly, you will have the full force of the sun getting through drying up the landscape, then as more moister than before evaporates from the oceans, more clouds will be created blocking the sun hence bringing the temperature right back down to Ice age conditions.
It's an interesting thought, but I wasn't aware that CO2 stopped the sun's energy getting through the atmosphere. On the contrary, it's transparent to the sun's rays at the frequency they have as they enter the atmosphere, but opaque to the frequencies the energy is reflected back at. That's why the "greenhouse effect" works.
Methane does the same but it's hugely more efficient, so if you can figure a way to stop all those herbivores farting you may be on to something (in fact I read in the paper a day or two ago that "scientists" - that well known grab-bag term for everyone in a white coat - are working on genetically engineering cows that aren't as flatulent. Are they going to change the cow's biochemistry to break down and digest cellulose in some completely different way? Maybe nuclear cows? :eek: That should produce some excitement in the Dozerboy and Fred camps - "Nuclear Cows Bred - Sinister Motives Suspected!" Puts whole new spin on the thought of a "dirty bomb" :lol: ).
But I digress.
It's an interesting thought, but I wasn't aware that CO2 stopped the sun's energy getting through the atmosphere.
It actually does. Certainly, carbon dioxide will have a greenhouse effect in the troposphere, however in the stratosphere, carbon dioxide attenuates dangerous UV radiation to infra red radiation which can then escape to space.
I saw the program on TV some time ago regarding scientists in America who were recording daily average temperatures for a long time before, and the days immediately following the twin towers collapse. In the following few days, air travel was almost non existant, and the average temperature climbed by a few degrees very quickly.
You are considering the work of an unbiased american scientist with no agenda??? Do you believe in Santa and the tooth fairy as well? What kind of good science uses one measurement. ppppppppppfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
Alice in Blunderland
10-Jan-07, 19:35
Tony Blair is expected to cut the number of his long haul flights to help the environment.
My first thought when I read this bit was ....of course, shortly he will be cutting his long haul flights as he wont be Prime minister for much longer and will be having to pay for more of them himself :Razz not able to blag so many freebies. :lol:
j4bberw0ck
10-Jan-07, 19:43
It actually does. Certainly, carbon dioxide will have a greenhouse effect in the troposphere, however in the stratosphere, carbon dioxide attenuates dangerous UV radiation to infra red radiation which can then escape to space.
Well, pardon the heck right out of me....... thanks for that, Rheggers. It's information I'll treasure when the perceived threat shifts from the troposhere (which we live in and is getting warmer) to the stratosphere (the bit about 2 miles above our Prime Minister's long haul holiday jet).
I'll get a crumb of comfort from recalling that global warming is an effect in the troposphere, where we all live :lol: . But a question; if CO2 in the stratosphere radiates IR wavelengths to space (or at least allows them to escape, as you put it), why does CO2 in the troposphere absorb the IR wavelengths?
It seems very inconvenient; is one of these collections of CO2 an impostor? :eek:
j4bberw0ck
10-Jan-07, 20:04
I saw the program on TV some time ago regarding scientists in America who were recording daily average temperatures for a long time before, and the days immediately following the twin towers collapse. In the following few days, air travel was almost non existant, and the average temperature climbed by a few degrees very quickly.
Dozerboy, now you've truly surprised me. You just haven't got it, have you? It just hasn't clicked that the average daily temperatures fell precisely because of what happened to the Twin Towers.
The evil American Government, aided and abetted by those capitalist lackeys and running-dogs, the CIA - not to mention the Poodle Blair - planned it all. In a laboratory deep in the Rocky Mountains, where it's cold and little evidence of use would be detected, they perfected a Cold Ray which they used from a satellite after the Twin Towers.
Then they conned this brilliant scientist and made a complete monkey out of him by massaging his observations to prove that less air travel offsets global warming. The Twin Towers were attacked by planes (flown by ultra-Right wing Air Force pilots prepared to sacrifice themselves for their country) solely to reinforce the negative impression of aircraft with the public.
Now you and I might ask how a Government could be so evil as to murder thousands, just to discredit aircraft. The answer is simple. They're American, George Bush is American, that makes them evil and stupid and wanting world domination. Oh yes, and it's about oil too. They want all of that. And gas. Oh yes, and the remaining fish stocks in the North Sea - watch out Spain! The beady Eye of Bush is upon you! In fact, who was it who exploded bombs in Madrid? OMG.....
What puzzles me in all this is that you haven't seen it for yourself, when as arch-cynic and conspiracy theorist you'd seen so clearly that nuclear power stations were only ever intended as nuclear bomb-making installations!
Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice said. Next time, I'd try the blue pill. :lol::lol:
It's an interesting thought, but I wasn't aware that CO2 stopped the sun's energy getting through the atmosphere.
.
Sorry dude, I said carbon emissions not co2, as in all this dirty pollution belched out by your big factories and the like, not farting cows although they don't help either.
We have apparently had the hottest year since the 16 hundreds.If it was so hot then, what was causing it?Certainly not all those nasty things we put into the atmosphere.Perhaps they had more sheep and cowshttp://forum.caithness.org/images/icons/icon7.gif. Personally I think we should be more concerned about the rotation of the terrestrial axis,for many years now it has been wobbling further away from the magnetic pole and when it finally disconnects the earth will turn turtle.But can anything be done about it ?I don't think so.So live, drink and be happy for tomorrow may never come.
Well, pardon the heck right out of me....... thanks for that, Rheggers. It's information I'll treasure when the perceived threat shifts from the troposhere (which we live in and is getting warmer) to the stratosphere (the bit about 2 miles above our Prime Minister's long haul holiday jet).
I'll get a crumb of comfort from recalling that global warming is an effect in the troposphere, where we all live :lol: . But a question; if CO2 in the stratosphere radiates IR wavelengths to space (or at least allows them to escape, as you put it), why does CO2 in the troposphere absorb the IR wavelengths?
It seems very inconvenient; is one of these collections of CO2 an impostor?
As with all triatomic molecules, CO2 can absorb energy from a range of frequencies and reradiate them mainly in the infrared region. It is just that the stratosphere is nearer space that CO2 there has a more balanced benefical effect there for entirely diiferent reasons. However, we can't have one without the other so it is perceived by most scientists on balance that higher CO2 levels is not a good thing.:Razz
j4bberw0ck
11-Jan-07, 01:49
Hmmmm.... OK. Now you've got that off your chest, can you answer my question, please, Rheggers?
Sorry dude, I said carbon emissions not co2, as in all this dirty pollution belched out by your big factories and the like, not farting cows although they don't help either.
What carbon emissions did you have in mind, if not CO2?
Hmmmm.... OK. Now you've got that off your chest, can you answer my question, please, Rheggers?
Which one?
The reason for the rapid rise in Global Temperatures in the last 50 years coincides with the introduction of the Clean Air Acts.
Throughout Roman and Medieval Times the climate was warm enough for vines to be easily grown in Britain. Then, during the 17th and 18th Centuries there was a Mini-Ice Age when Britain went through a period of having a very cold climate.
After that period, as temperatures started to rise, we started to enter the Industrial Revolution. During that period Industrial Pollution commenced and the numbers of Industrial Sites pumping out Smoke. Added to that the introduction and rapid increase in Coal Fired Power Stations to feed the publics ever rising demand for Electricity along with the use of Coal Fires, which were almost universally used to heat homes, all pumping out thick smoke which blocked much of the Suns heat helped hold back the rising temperatures after the Mini-Ice Age.
About 50 years ago the visible pollution became so bad that it was decided that something must be done about it. As a result the Clean Air Acts were introduced which succeeded in solving the problem of all the thick black smoke belching from chimneys everywhere.
Once the atmosphere had been cleaned up and the visible thick black smoke removed from it the Suns heat could finally penetrate through the atmosphere and reach the surface of the Earth.
As a result, the rising temperatures, which had been held back by all the black smoke, started rapidly to increase to what they would have been under normal circumstances without man's interference.
The reason for the increase in CO2 is simply as a result of the industrial scale destruction of forests, without which CO2 cannot be cleansed from the atmosphere.
We should be making more use of plastics, steel and other such manufactured products to wean us of our massive love affair with the use of timber products. Every wooden product we use means we lose another means of reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which would have occurred under normal circumstances.
The best solution to slow Global Warming is to abolish the Clean Air Acts and to recreate the massive introduction of chimneys belching out thick black smoke to reduce the amount of hot sunlight reaching the earths surface!
I wonder how many of the people twittering about Blair and his holiday have never taken a holiday abroad themselves or been on a plane and never intend to do either?
Keep the Home Fires Burning - Save the Earth - Stoke up Now!
j4bberw0ck
11-Jan-07, 09:14
Which one?
Now, now, Rheggers, let's not be truculent :D
The one that starts with the words
But a question
and carries on to ask:
if CO2 in the stratosphere radiates IR wavelengths to space (or at least allows them to escape, as you put it), why does CO2 in the troposphere absorb the IR wavelengths?
and then terminates with
It seems very inconvenient; is one of these collections of CO2 an impostor? :eek:
Dozerboy, now you've truly surprised me. You just haven't got it, have you? It just hasn't clicked that the average daily temperatures fell precisely because of what happened to the Twin Towers.
What puzzles me in all this is that you haven't seen it for yourself, when as arch-cynic and conspiracy theorist you'd seen so clearly that nuclear power stations were only ever intended as nuclear bomb-making installations!
Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice said. Next time, I'd try the blue pill. :lol::lol:
You've got it bad!!
I didn't say the temperature fell, I said it rose!
You think my statement about the real purpose of a nuclear power plant is not true then? I am not a cynic at all. It's a FACT - get over it mannie!! They are not nuclear bomb factories, but they provide the depleated uranium required for nuclear warheads.
I think you are the cynical one, going by the statement above, "I'm surprised you haven't seen it for yourself...."
j4bberw0ck
12-Jan-07, 15:01
You've got it bad!!
I've got all sorts of things bad, as a number of people on here will testify :lol:
I didn't say the temperature fell, I said it rose!
Well, I stand corrected, yet amazed by your dogged ability completely and utterly to miss the humorously intended point of the nonsense tale I wrote.
You think my statement about the real purpose of a nuclear power plant is not true then? I am not a cynic at all. It's a FACT - get over it mannie!! They are not nuclear bomb factories, but they provide the depleated uranium required for nuclear warheads.
I think you need to go back to basics here. Do you mean depleted uranium, or weapons-grade uranium? Or perhaps plutonium? Depends on the type of reactor..... Depleted uranium may be used as part of the structure of some tactical nuclear weapons as well as in large calibre bullets, artillery rounds and conventional bombs, but it certainly isn't the dangerous bit without which a nuclear bomb can't be built. So, I'd feel more inclined to "get over" your FACTS, mannie, if you appeared to be a little better informed.
My dear chum Saxo01 was giving me grief the other day for Googling for information. Why on earth that would upset him I have no idea; but if he'll ever forgive you for using it, Google will give all kinds of useful information about nuclear weapons, reactors and synthesis of weapons-grade fuels. More than a sprinkling of conspiracy theories, too! :lol:
Don't worry everybody,Gordon Brown is going to save us.I've just had to pay an extra twenty pounds on a rise in airport taxes for return flights for two adults from Inverness to Bristol.All that extra money will surely be put to good use and turn the tide.I've just thought,it doesn't come in until February the first,I've been done.http://forum.caithness.org/images/icons/icon9.gif
But a question; if CO2 in the stratosphere radiates IR wavelengths to space (or at least allows them to escape, as you put it), why does CO2 in the troposphere absorb the IR wavelengths?
It seems very inconvenient; is one of these collections of CO2 an impostor? :eek:
There is no imposter, it is just that CO2 in the stratosphere by virtue of its position contributes little to climate change. CO2 whereever it is., CO2 absorbs radiation and reradiates it thus creating a greenhouse effect and not allowing heat to escape but more so in the troposphere.
j4bberw0ck
12-Jan-07, 22:58
TCO2 in the stratosphere by virtue of its position contributes little to climate change. CO2 whereever it is., CO2 absorbs radiation and reradiates it thus creating a greenhouse effect and not allowing heat to escape but more so in the troposphere.
Thanks, Rheggers, but in principle at least I understand that. You were very definite - completely definite - about CO2 in the stratosphere radiating or otherwise losing energy into space. My question still stands; let me re-state it: What is so special about the stratosphere that CO2 behaves differently there?
Cedric Farthsbottom III
12-Jan-07, 23:12
I love history.Seen pictures during the industrial revolution that was happening not in Britain but all over the world.Hundreds of large chimneys using coal in factories pumping out all this smoke.Producing all the goods that were making the world a more advanced place.
Mass production allowing everybody to get their hands on things that were new and improved.Using every resource they could get their hands on.The damage has been done over the past hundred years,its not a new thing,its not the past 20 thats done it,its the past 100.
Cow farts....someone who is paid a hell of a lot more than me suggested this.Cows have been fartin for centuries and had no effect.
How do we change it?I personally think we can all do oor wee bit,switch off any leccy thats no needed.If Tony wants to give up his flights,fair enough.I think its too late.Naw,I'm no wearing a placard with "We're doomed!!!!"I think we're all doing oor bit for the environment now,but the past has caught up wi us!!Hopfully oor new ways of today will slow it down a bit.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.