W3526602 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Hi again, Sorry, I forgot..... Everybody seems to be trying to prevent Global Warming. Surely it is too late to stop it. What are they doing to reduce the effects? Me? When the time comes I'm heading for the hills. How about canallising the rivers to provide fresh water reservoirs and transport links? How about breeding draft horses? Got to be a lot more mundane things we should be doing? Where can I find a map showing contours in 1 metre steps? I think I'm only interested in the first 10m above sea level. 602 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Brian Kirby - 2007-02-05 11:09 PM/p>Olley If the CO2 rises, the air temperature increases, atmospheric moisture vapour increases, and that, being the largest greenhouse constituent, causes further temperature rise, moisture, etc. That, you would expect to run away as you suggest. However, it appears from the ice record that it does not. This is one of the concerning factors to me. If you look up the air temperature records, in particular the NASA satellite measurements, considered by most to be accurate, there has not been the rise in air temperature as would be expected with Greenhouse Gas as a theory. The temperature increases have been at ground level and in the sea. This is another of the reasons things are not seeming right to me.Bas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 olley - 2007-02-06 1:13 PM Hi Bill just because it can be done, doesn't mean it will be. every ton used to keep an aircraft in the air is a ton less earning potential. Can't see military using it, less weight for bombs. :-D Olley The tanks don't need to be any heavier than a conventional fuel tank - as I said, the liquid oxygen tank on an Atlas missile is thinner than a sheet of newspaper. In fact it is so thin that it buckles unless a moderate pressure is maintained to keep it rigid (like a balloon). Basically they just cool the cryogen to below the temperature at which it remains liquid at normal atmospheric pressure, and as it warms up allow it to boil off. This does mean that the aircraft (or rocket) has to fly fairly shortly after it is fuelled, whch is why later missiles, such as the Titan, used a non-cryogenic oxidiser. Incidentally methane (which is the gas that comes through the main and fuels your central heating) is MUCH cheaper than jet fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 W3526602 - 2007-02-06 5:59 PM breeding draft horses? And what are you going to feed them on? We humans have bred to the extent that all the land that used to be used for growing fodder for draft animals is now required for human food. Britain has one of the best records in this area; even so there are now three times as many of us as there were when my father was born, exactly 100 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olley Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Hi Bill yes I realised that the tanks on rockets were paper thin, but all the refrigeration plant is on the ground, they only fly for a short time so thats no problem. But airliners fly for 8-15 hours at a time (just a guess) so I would imagine they would have to carry their own refrigeration plant, and more than one as a failsafe. All extra weight. Olley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Basil - 2007-02-07 5:37 PM Brian Kirby - 2007-02-05 11:09 PM /p>OlleyIf the CO2 rises, the air temperature increases, atmospheric moisture vapour increases, and that, being the largest greenhouse constituent, causes further temperature rise, moisture, etc. That, you would expect to run away as you suggest. However, it appears from the ice record that it does not. This is one of the concerning factors to me. If you look up the air temperature records, in particular the NASA satellite measurements, considered by most to be accurate, there has not been the rise in air temperature as would be expected with Greenhouse Gas as a theory. The temperature increases have been at ground level and in the sea. This is another of the reasons things are not seeming right to me. Bas BasilLogically, if the ground and the seas are warmer, it follows the air in their vicinity must also be warmer, whether that can/has been measured or not.Basic physics requires heat transfer from a warm body to a cooler one, whether the cooler body is gaseous or no. That warmer air at the land/sea interface must affect the average air temperature, irrespective of whether the difference can be measured on a planetary scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Sorry but that is the question because the mean temperature has increased, the ground level temperature has increased as has the sea temperature but according to the data the air temperature hasn't and upper atmospheric has shown a decrease, check out NASA's figures. I find that strange. Bas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.