The mammoth global warming scam Options

[dMz]

Admins:

Could you move this tread over to Global Perspectives please?

This post has been edited by dMole: Apr 27 2008, 10:47 PM

[painter]

Admins:

Could you move this tread over to Global Perspectives please?

Thanks, dMole, will do.

[THE_DECIDER]

sorry if this was mentioned already. al gore is a SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPER

[bill]

Omega says"

"UV light breaks down O3 into O2 + O which can recombine as O2 releasing heat energy".

This us simply incorrect.
Ozone or O3 is created using the energy from UV light

Then Omega contradicts himself:

"Ozone is produced when molecular oxygen O2 is broken down by UV radiation into two atomic oxygen atoms O. These are reactive and can combine with two O2 molecules to form two O3 molecules."

This is fairly close to what happens. However singlet Oxygen (O) is a very short lived species. Most scientists simply write the balanced equation

3 O2 -----> UV light ------> 2 O3

This post has been edited by bill: Apr 30 2008, 09:33 AM

[dMz]

Air is a mixture of molecules, including ozone, so if the mechanism of rising was gravity alone then air would not exist as is but be separated out into layers, stratified, by molecular type. This does not happen - why?

OK- my quick synopsis of Maxwell-Boltzmann gas mechanics and Brownian motion- ANY gas IN ABSENCE OF an external field (such as gravity or electromagnetic) will try to expand to [nearly- I saw a link for that on mrodway's clouds page IIRC] fill its container, using diffusion "laws," I believe. After quite some time, there will be a "steady state" in which the average Brownian "drift" velocities of individual gas molecules will sum very close to zero, with about as many going left as going right, and up as down, etc. There will be rotational and vibrational modes of molecule "internal energy" and that's some multiple of 1/2k_b*T, and DoF, etc., but that's not really what I'm interested in here. Feel free to disagree with me here- my Ph.D physical chemist supervisor once did strongly (and it took him 2 weeks of review/research to eventually agree- and later apologize (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blush.gif) ). Granted there will be a few ill-behaved molecules but what will 95% of them do in a normally-distributed gas (+/- 2 sigma IIRC)?

OK- now let's apply a gravitational field. Potential Energy PE=mgh or delta_PE=mg*delta_h (or for mass-differing gas molecules at the same height delta_PE=delta_m*gh). If you are talking about a very "short" container, then you won't obsverve much change in PE, or much "stratification." Earth's atmosphere is not a very "short" [or a very small] container however.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/gpot.html

Absent some wondrous invisible force continuously doing work, holding gas molecules aloft, shouldn't that potential energy gravitationally-continuously tend to lower itself by becoming Brownian "drift" Kinetic Energy velocity? I contend here that it is a mechanism of lowering, not a "mechanism of rising" that the gravitational field causes, else we wouldn't even have an atmosphere IMH[s]O. I also contend again that "air" DOES stratify by molecular weight (with things like CO₂ and N₂O at 44.01 amu having about 1.57 times the gravitational potential energy of N2 [or 80% of what we call "air"] ).

Evidence of "stratified" air:
1. Oxygen delivery systems installed on aircraft.
2. Carbon dioxide fire extinguishers seem to work quite well (by locally causing "lighter" oxygen to rise away from the fire).
3. Hypoxia/mountain sickness/altitude sickness- I've felt this one myself many times- to the point of blindness and effective paralegis once. http://www.mountainflying.com/hypoxia.htm
4. We can't seem to get propane engines, stoves, and lanterns to ignite/combust above 8000 feet [~2430 m] without additional "primer" fuels.
5. Helium (and hydrogen) balloons and "lighter than air" craft.
6. Carbon dioxide "fog" in music videos and near homemade root beer at summer picnics from "dry ice" (mmmm... homemade root beer is some yummy stuff, by the way)

OK, so if oxygen appears to stratify, why wouldn't CO₂, being 44.01/32.00 = 1.3753125 times "heavier" than oxygen, or 1.57 times heavier than nitrogen (and I've now considered ~99% of Earth's atmosphere with just those 2 gases). Nitrogen, argon, and CO₂ are relatively "inert" gases as I recall- that's why they are used for packaging and/or welding, yes? Now oxygen (or ozone- yikes!) in an electromagnetic field is a different matter (that lunk, bill, and O892 have all alluded to above). Ever made/seen a solid oxygen "compass" before? That's a pretty neat (albeit expensive, superconducting) experiment. Ohm's "Law" isn't one, by the way. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

As for thunderstorms, funnel clouds, and other meteorologic phenomena- how common are they? Can we be certain how much CO₂ or CFC's are "pumped" how high in the atmosphere? How well do these mechanisms keep up with never-sleeping, never-resting gravity? What is the long-term net effect? My belief is that thunderstorms are more notable for the ozone "tubes" and winds that they generate. I also recall that the majority of wind "layer" fields tend to move west>east (in the Northern Hemispere at least), not down>up, and that several wind "layers" do exist in the atmosphere, but I'm no meteorologist. I'll also freely admit to having a strong preference for quantitative logic over [often subjective IMHO] qualitative logic, but I was raised and trained to do so. Qualitative logic and selective statistics often border on rhetoric, or are even perverted into propaganda in the MSM from my observations (but some here have made far more laps around the Sun than I have (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ).

Again, I'm all for abandoning the corporate-controlled petrochemical teat ASAP though- James Watt made a bad call decades ago IMHO, and we carry on that legacy/curse to this day. Why don't more people want to talk about the solution (or even become informed about existing alternate energy sources) for that matter?

This may not be a popular statement here, but I consider the energy issue to have greater social/world (I'm leery of the word "global" lately) significance than 9/11 Truth- [control of] the energy issue may well have been an underlying cause of what happened on that sunny September day (and in the Middle East) since. Perhaps that is why US troops are still killing and dying in those now-DU-poisoned lands to this day... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/nonono.gif)

[Omega892R09]

Omega says"

"UV light breaks down O3 into O2 + O which can recombine as O2 releasing heat energy".

This us simply incorrect.


Ozone or O3 is created using the energy from UV light

Then Omega contradicts himself:

"Ozone is produced when molecular oxygen O2 is broken down by UV radiation into two atomic oxygen atoms O. These are reactive and can combine with two O2 molecules to form two O3 molecules."

This is fairly close to what happens. However singlet Oxygen (O) is a very short lived species. Most scientists simply write the balanced equation

3 O2 -----> UV light ------> 2 O3

I think you will find that O3 is both formed and destroyed by processes involving UV radiation in the upper atmosphere.

"UV light breaks down O3 into O2 + O which can recombine as O2 releasing heat energy"

Is correct and I refer you to e.g. ‘Organic Chemistry’, Robert J Ouellette and J David Rawn pp.210 under the heading ‘Freon, Radicals, and the Ozone Layer.

[Omega892R09]

A well thought out response, as ever, dMole. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

Evidence of "stratified" air:
1. Oxygen delivery systems installed on aircraft.
2. Carbon dioxide fire extinguishers seem to work quite well (by locally causing "lighter" oxygen to rise away from the fire).
3. Hypoxia/mountain sickness/altitude sickness- I've felt this one myself many times- to the point of blindness and effective paralegis once. http://www.mountainflying.com/hypoxia.htm
4. We can't seem to get propane engines, stoves, and lanterns to ignite/combust above 8000 feet [~2430 m] without additional "primer" fuels.
5. Helium (and hydrogen) balloons and "lighter than air" craft.
6. Carbon dioxide "fog" in music videos and near homemade root beer at summer picnics from "dry ice" (mmmm... homemade root beer is some yummy stuff, by the way)

However are these phenomena evidence for stratification or for a lowered density?

If the density is lower, which it indisputably is at higher altitude, then the quantity of any ‘stuff’ in a given volume is lower hence the amount of oxygen in a given volume of air at 15000 ft is less than at sea level and continues to drop with increase in altitude.

Thus 1, 3 and 4 are due to a drop in the level of available oxygen from lowered density upsetting the air/fuel, or more accurately oxygen/fuel ratio. Here classing breathing as a means of supplying oxygen for oxidation in the human body, especially the brain, so that it continues to function.

WRT 2 and 6 temperature plays a part here in keeping the CO2 near the ground or source of the fire. CO2 extinguishers work better in confined spaces as it is too easily dispersed as it is warmed by the fire and any breeze present. This is why the first choice of extinguisher for fuel fires in the open is foam with a non corrosive dry-powder being an alternative.

WRT 5 then once again we have a container to keep the lighter than air gases in bounds and thus I am not too sure how this particular example has relevance. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

[dMz]

However are these phenomena evidence for stratification or for a lowered density?

Either way, I contend the net result is the same- less usable oxygen at high altitude than at MSL (or Death Valley or the Dead Sea). If CO₂ is correspondingly "less dense" at very high altitude "thin air", then doesn't it follow that there is less CO₂ to react and/or absorb IR (counter to the GW "experts" claims')? It is a bit like the argument that in skydiving accidents, the fall doesn't hurt you a bit- the sudden stop does (with a correspondingly messy net effect). Why don't trees grow above those alpine "tree lines" then? Wikipedia said "inappropriate environmental conditions," but the "insufficient moisture" part was blatant BS in most of the mountains that I've seen... Now as to the "insufficient air pressure" part- I'm not sold. I'll predict that lunk would say "insufficient carbon dioxide" for high-altitude tree growth, and I'd tend to agree.

EDIT:-----
Encyclopedia Britannica seems to support my gravitational stratification assertion (my books aren't at my internet location, so I must find online sources). You also might want to remember my work experience with [very] upper "atmosphere" effects (monoatomic oxygen and hydrogen, etc.).

http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-278523/hydrogen

"In the heterosphere, the concentrations of the heavier constituents, such as nitrogen or oxygen, decrease more rapidly with increasing altitude than do the concentrations of lighter gases, such as hydrogen or helium; and eventually the atmosphere is dominated by the lighter gases. Under mean daytime conditions, helium and its ion become dominant around 1,000 km (620 miles) and hydrogen and..."

Perhaps carbon dioxide doesn't behave like nitrogen and oxygen though. I'd like to know the exact mechanism of that "anti-gravitic" inconsistency, however...
-----
I'm fairly certain that gravitational fractional distillation is used to collect atmospheric gases in a distillation tower by Praxair (a close friend of mine works there) and in the petrochemical and alcohol-production industries, but I've ummm... seen a still before. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif) I've heard that high altitude is favored for helium distillation (higher relative concentration of He, despite the "thin air").

WRT 5 then once again we have a container to keep the lighter than air gases in bounds and thus I am not too sure how this particular example has relevance. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

Aside from the fact that "lighter than air" craft have enough "lift" to lift both the [much heavier than air] airframe, crew, passengers, and the helium/hydrogen molecules inside? Bounded or unbounded, those tiny, fast molecules do like to rise. I've seen a hydrogen "leak" demonstration firsthand to prove its safety- it doesn't "puddle" like CO₂ has demonstrated to my satisfaction and dissipates beyond the ignition source very quickly. Hydrogen is one of those subjects that those "pimping" the GW, carbon footprint/tax issues seem to like to demonize (including the ill-informed biologist Mr. Flannery), I have noticed. You are correct that "hot air" balloons also rise due to thermal/density differences (but that is generally combusted propane, not air per se), but which type of balloon generates more lift??? Temperature plays a lesser role than molecular weight does from my observations (to include TIG and MIG welding experience with "cold" shielding gases that were also "heavier than air" to include carbon dioxide).

What's the quickest way to cut carbon dioxide and methane emissions to zero? Simply don't burn carbon "fuels"- burn H₂. If we could economically fill dirigibles/zeppelins with hydrogen way back when, why is the "hydrogen economy" so impossible as the GW/CC "experts" like to claim? I've found about 100 hydrogen production patents in my research (but some authors don't seem to believe in research). Those altrusitic corporations and the US Government wouldn't really suppress technology from us would they? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

If Earth doesn't have a "container," then what exactly keeps those atmospheric gases available for our respiration? Perhaps we have bigger worries than GW/CC then? (the sky is rising! the sky is rising!) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Here's a cheap experiment- tie or weight a "floating" helium balloon in a moving automobile and apply the brakes firmly, observing which direction the balloon "drifts." You might be surprised at the effect and its cause...

This post has been edited by dMole: May 2 2008, 02:44 AM

[Omega892R09]

Either way, I contend the net result is the same- less usable oxygen at high altitude than at MSL (or Death Valley or the Dead Sea).

But you were not explicitly considering density in your original post but seemed bent on implying that stratification was the only factor to be considered.

Sure there would be a tendency for stratification due to differential density of the various components of 'air', but this is attenuated by other atmospheric processes including convection currents and interaction of winds with terrain causing uplift. Have you never experienced heavy water droplets coming up at you from below when on a ridge? I sure have.

Volcanoes chuck plumes of dust into the atmosphere which can remain suspended for years, example - Krakatoa.

In 1908 when, probably, a meteor exploded over Tunguska in Siberia light nights persisted for months allowing people as far away as in England to read newspapers at night and even take photographs at midnight as of a houseboat in Gloucester, which happens to be my old home town, a city really. The dust in the atmosphere was acting as a mirror reflecting sunlight below long after sunset.

Then there are such fluids as milk where the water and fats remain separated but do not stratify readily - unless subjected to mechanical and chemical processes for doing so as in the manufacture of cheese.

If CO₂ is correspondingly "less dense" at very high altitude "thin air", then doesn't it follow that there is less CO₂ to react and/or absorb IR

Well yes and no. For reasons explained above. Less does not mean nothing and if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere now is much greater than it was 150 years ago then there will be correspondingly more carried up to high enough altitudes, by the various mechanisms, to act as an IR block.

(counter to the GW "experts" claims')? It is a bit like the argument that in skydiving accidents, the fall doesn't hurt you a bit- the sudden stop does (with a correspondingly messy net effect).

That is a strange analogy.

Why don't trees grow above those alpine "tree lines" then? Wikipedia said "inappropriate environmental conditions," but the "insufficient moisture" part was blatant BS in most of the mountains that I've seen... Now as to the "insufficient air pressure" part- I'm not sold. I'll predict that lunk would say "insufficient carbon dioxide" for high-altitude tree growth, and I'd tend to agree.

I agree - to a point.
Does not temperature play a role in the rate of growth, and eventual size, of plants?
There are also other factors such as the availability of other required nutrients in a form of utility to a plant's growth processes. Some of which you have indicated below:

"In the heterosphere, the concentrations of the heavier constituents, such as nitrogen or oxygen, decrease more rapidly with increasing altitude than do the concentrations of lighter gases, such as hydrogen or helium; and eventually the atmosphere is dominated by the lighter gases. Under mean daytime conditions, helium and its ion become dominant around 1,000 km (620 miles) and hydrogen and..."

Perhaps carbon dioxide doesn't behave like nitrogen and oxygen though. I'd like to know the exact mechanism of that "anti-gravitic" inconsistency, however...

I have alluded to some above and others are provided by various meteorological phenomena.

One of which has recently been responsible for the temperature turn down from the prevailing average as commented on elsewhere around here.

The presently strong La Nina has set in motion a rising air current from the area off the eastern seaboard of Australasia. This convection of hot air has been picked up by jet streams and conveyed northwards towards the NW of the North American continent where it has then trekked east over North America, the north Atlantic and northern Europe cooling at these northern latitudes as it goes leading to increased wintry precipitation and lowered temperatures.

Similarly currents in the oceans can create strange stratifications with cool dense water overlaying warmer layers. This creates sonar anomalies exploited by those engaged in submarine warfare. The layering can be extremely complex in both the depth and azimuth vectors.

I'm fairly certain that gravitational fractional distillation is used to collect atmospheric gases in a distillation tower by Praxair (a close friend of mine works there) and in the petrochemical and alcohol-production industries, but I've ummm... seen a still before. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif) I've heard that high altitude is favored for helium distillation (higher relative concentration of He, despite the "thin air").

Yes. I am not disputing that sort of thing, but these are controlled processes taking place in containers of some form.

Neither am I disputing the fact that hydrogen and helium readily drift upwards to escape the earth's gravity it is just that these elements molecular weights are considerably lower than CO2 and one would expect this. This does not mean though that either element is totally absent from air samples at lower level.

[dMz]

But you were not explicitly considering density in your original post but seemed bent on implying that stratification was the only factor to be considered.

Sure there would be a tendency for stratification due to differential density of the various components of 'air', but this is attenuated by other atmospheric processes including convection currents and interaction of winds with terrain causing uplift.

I was implying and am now explicitly stating that gravitational stratification is the main factor to be considered. Can you tell me which percentage of hypoxia is caused by gravity and which portion is caused by "less density?" That is what I was obliquely hinting at with the strange skydiving analogy. What causes this lower density exactly?

OK- looking at air density (equation 4), I see it being directly proportional to pressure and inversely proportional to absolute temperature of the dry air and the water vapor terms. Please conspicuously note the implied exponents of 1 on those pressures and temperatures- that will soon become important.

http://wahiduddin.net/calc/density_altitude.htm

http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/math/al...ialResource.htm

OK- looking at air pressure, it exponentially decays with altitude. Not latitude, not longitude, not atomic number, not obscure local weather effects. There could be minor corrections for local temperature and weather effects, but what is the net effect in the main worldwide? What else varies with altitude? Gravitational potential energy immediately comes to my mind, at least. You probably have a different terminology in the UK, but we looked for the "dominant term" in an equation or relation for taking limits, analyzing change effects, and such. That exp -(h/h_0) is the dominant term in either the air pressure or consequently, the air density equations above. I'll side with Isaac Newton and William of Occam here, as in delta_PE=delta_m*gh. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I'm fairly convinced that Earth's gravitational field causes a stratification based upon molecular weight bias and causes the air pressure (and thus) air density to exponentially decay. Since they are both apparently caused by gravitation, I'm not certain that air density is all that relevant as a causation- more of a "middle man" or "parallel effect" IMHO.

As for homogenized, pasteurized milk not separating- please O892, as an ex-farm kid I can tell you that the cream (milkfat) most certainly does stratify readily from raw, unprocessed milk (cows, sheep, goats- I've milked plenty of them). Curds 'n whey aren't half-bad, either.

I think you avoided my question about what exactly keeps our atmosphere readily accessible for animal and plant respiration (albeit exponentially decaying with height). Methinks you might be selling gravity a bit short. It's not nice to fool Mother Nature or Sir Isaac Newton, either. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I don't believe that I suggested that hydrogen and helium escape the Earth's gravitational field either, but I think I have read some suggest such things around here. Rather, I contend they "stratify" very high in the atmosphere and/or ionosphere as applicable.

EDIT: Yes temperature is a player in plant growth (but in our "dry" temperate alpine climes they can be extreme to say the least). As I recall, temperature falls 3 deg_F for every 1000 feet of increased altitude (don't quote me here- that's going off memory). That is a fairly [linear] continuous temperature change. For some strange reason, the "tree lines" that I've seen across the Western US "stratify" like a wavy stage curtain- trees on one side and none a few feet away (where the temperature is indistinguishable from what I've been able to tell).

This post has been edited by dMole: May 2 2008, 03:36 PM

[Omega892R09]

I think you avoided my question about what exactly keeps our atmosphere readily accessible for animal and plant respiration (albeit exponentially decaying with height). Methinks you might be selling gravity a bit short. It's not nice to fool Mother Nature or Sir Isaac Newton, either. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I don't think that I was avoiding any 'question', unless it was implied.

I had considered the effects of gravity but also noted mechanisms whereby gravity is overcome.

You are quite correct in that fooling mother nature is not on, so why therefore do you continue to ignore my argument that many processes cause a mixing which allows heavier molecules to be driven to higher altitudes? Then temperature variations at various altitudes come into play as with the ocean currents which you neatly avoided.

Whilst I mention water, just how do heavier than 'the other molecules in the air' water droplets, liquid, ice or in between, manage to stay aloft in clouds? By your logic, i.e. ignoring such mechanisms as I have indicated one would expect all water to quickly fall to earth.

Sure much of it does, we all know that, but how come it stays aloft long enough to move from A to B.

I don't believe that I suggested that hydrogen and helium escape the Earth's gravitational field either, but I think I have read some suggest such things around here. Rather, I contend they "stratify" very high in the atmosphere and/or ionosphere as applicable.

As I understand it molecules of many gases are stripped off and move off into space - most probably joining up with the solar wind.

Why do I get a feeling I am being toyed with here?

Did I upset you all that much?

I am truly sorry if you felt it that deeply.

[dMz]

Having spent considerable time in the desert Southwest US, I have seen cloudless days or even weeks with few/no clouds aloft. There was considerable low-density dust (or sometimes brushfire smoke) aloft that contributed to spectacular sunsets and sunrises. There are likely several factors at work there, with particle density and air drag being but two.

I attempted to inquire how well/how efficiently or how reliably the various meterologic explanations being fielded competed with Earth's ever-vigilant gravitational field. As you are well aware, we apparently find ourselves in a probabilistically indeterminate universe. That is why I strongly emphasized the words cause, field, and net effect- I am looking for evidence of reliable, long-term (hopefully predictable and repeatable) effects and results. Short-term events and effects can be unpredictable and myriad, so I tend to not worry as much about those (in the interests of thought economy).

Why do I get a feeling I am being toyed with here?

Did I upset you all that much?

I am truly sorry if you felt it that deeply.

No toying intended, rather a quantitative scientific inquiry (or perhaps disagreement, but we each are entitled there, I believe).

I'm also not upset, but curious (and rather critical of all evidence from most/all camps). My humor has been missed or mis-interpreted often before- I've grown used to that, and there might be a touch of that "common language barrier" thing.

Carry on good sir. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

[Omega892R09]

OK. Here is my attempt at organizing information from various sources into one coherent diagram. The movement of atmospheric region boundaries means that no particular boundary should be considered as an abrupt line, although a matching temperature curve would see changes in slope direction at most of these boundaries. I could add such at the side in a Mk2 version.

Dotted area denotes Homosphere

Exosphere denoted by diamond hatching where lower boundary varies between 500 and 1000 km and can extend out to 10000 km.
Ionosphere region not demarcated.

Concorde, typical scientific balloon, Shuttle and scientific satellites not indicated in interests of clarity. Could also add in a Mk2 version. Aurora 80-150 km. Meteor band about the140 km to 80 km altitude range. Manned space capsule e.g. Gemini at around 170km, Could add these later in a Mk2 version.

I may notice minor anomalies or lack of clarity so once again I may update, and I have not gone overboard with precise alignment of labels although they are reasonably accurate. The height scale is roughly logarithmic – done in a graphics software not a spreadsheet.

(IMG:http://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/Graphics/ATMOSL.GIF)

Note the altitude region for the breaking down of O2 into O+O – wavy hatching.

Ozone is formed mainly between 30 and 60 km (hatched) where collisions between O and O2 are more likely. Ozone is unstable being destroyed by collisions with monatomic oxygen or radiation. Constant metamorphosis in each direction by photochemical processes does produce equilibrium at about 40 km. Maximum density of ozone occurs between 20 and 25km.

Note the altitude of the Turbopause, below which the atmospheric gases, and particulates, are subjected to large scale turbulent mixing which ensures a mechanical mixture of gases with consistent proportions up to about 80 km - well above the lower ozone layer. This is why I asked some around here, 'What is air?' A question neither of those asked answered. It was a none trivial question as the exchange between myself and dMole showed. Note that the tree line is well below the tropopause and thus well within the area of turbulent mixing.

I have in my met' collection around here a book particularly aimed at pilots 'Meterology and Flight: A Pilots Guide to Weather', which explains in some detail some of the turbulent mechanism likely to be met below the stratosphere.

Note that the world glider altitude record is held by Steve Fosset and Einar Enevoldson and stands at 50699ft. If a heavier than air glider can make it that far up then certainly CO2 and CH4 can.

Edit: 'The M in the O3 equation represents the energy and momentum balance provided by collision with a third atom or molecule.' (Barry and Chorley 1982)

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: May 5 2008, 04:47 PM

[Timothy Osman]

Nasa's Six Degrees of Warming

Check out the Never a Straight Answer temperature graphs.

(IMG:http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i295/sedman/nasa_2007_version_small.jpg)

The new improved don't panic the sky is falling model.

(IMG:http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i295/sedman/nasa-1999-version.jpg)

The old Al Gore who? model.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_...o_thermometers/

[Omega892R09]

Nasa's Six Degrees of Warming

Check out the Never a Straight Answer temperature graphs.

The new improved don't panic the sky is falling model.

The old Al Gore who? model.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_...o_thermometers/

There is some info around somewhere (I just don't have time right now to track it down) that describes the need to re-calibrate findings because of differences in the mechanisms used for measuring temperature and the error bars used with recording from different devices. Such alterations need not signify underhand attempts at rewriting history.

I note the hand of well known industry funded contrarian Steve McIntyre here. See:

http://stopexxon.unfortu.net/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36

No bias there then eh?

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: May 7 2008, 06:20 AM

[Omega892R09]

On treelines, altitude and atmospheric molecular stratification, the latter of which does not happen below 80Km.

This article may enlighten:

Plants and Altitude — Revisited
J. Gale*
Department of Plant Sciences, Institute of Life Sciences, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91904, Israel

* For correspondence. E-mail galej@vms.huji.ac.il

Received: 24 November 2003 Returned for revision: 3 March 2004 Accepted: 28 April 2004 Published electronically: 30 June 2004


ABSTRACT


The importance of modelling and the integration of all environmental factors as they change with time is emphasized in relation to the evaluation of plant response to altitude.


Key words: Altitude, carbon dioxide, oxygen, photosynthesis, transpiration

http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/90/4/537

transpiration being a term that was eluding me whilst engaging with dMole. My STM (short term memory) is not what it was after my repeated NDE (near death experience) a few years back after two MI (myocardial infarction) events within days.

[bill]

"Here is my attempt at organizing information from various sources into one coherent diagram."

care to list your 'various sources'

[dMz]

On treelines, altitude and atmospheric molecular stratification, the latter of which does not happen below 80Km.

This article may enlighten:

Ummm, not to be impolite, but I'm not so convinced here... I recently saw a program on the engineering "challenges" that required oxygen concentrators, piping oxygen down into the workspaces, etc.

http://www.studentsforafreetibet.org/article.php?id=915

"Their engineers created cars with an oxygen-enriched air supply to compensate for the 40 percent decrease in oxygen content at Tibet's highest altitudes.

The cars come equipped with emergency breathing masks, windows that shield passengers from ultraviolet rays and lightning protection equipment." [EDIT: Damn! Sounds like my mid/late childhood!]

The program that I saw claimed a 50% decrease in available O₂ due to the 5000m [(approx. 16,404.19948 ft] elevation.

Granted, this all happened WELL below 80km, but I'm reasonably certain that the Chinese/"Tibetan????" engineers were forced to take rather drastic and EXPENSIVE measures to ensure the health and safety of the workers on this little "stretch of track."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qinghai-Tibet_Railway

Ummm,???

...

This post has been edited by dMole: May 12 2008, 08:04 PM

[dMz]

"Espert Transpiration Article" above sez:

"It is not surprising that the correlation with air temperature is only a weak one, as the temperature of plant tissues, in the shoots, stems and roots, is unlikely to be the same as air temperature."
...

"Currently, there is much interest in the rate at which the tree line may advance in response to environmental change, especially global warming. There are at least three aspects of environmental change to which plants are generally thought to respond: increasing temperature, rising concentration of carbon dioxide, and increasing deposition of nitrogen. There may be other contributing factors which are poorly understood: for example, the decrease in solar radiation as a result of increases in cloudiness or aerosols may be especially important at the tree line

EDIT: There is a saying about everything looking like a nail when you only have a hammer in your toolbox...

EDIT2: I purchased Tim Flannery's book The Weather Makers as it was highly recommended by a [non-scientist] person that I know. I found it to be alarmist and factually inaccurate (to the point that I quit reading his book and wished for a refund-I'd rather read about non-petrochemical solutions). I have never read most/any of these "contrarians" listed though.

This post has been edited by dMole: May 12 2008, 07:59 PM

[dMz]

No bias there then eh?

Hi O892,

And this from Tim's link above?

"Looking at the NASA website, we can see that the person in charge of the temperature data is the eminent Dr. James Hansen - Al Gore's science advisor and the world's leading long-term advocate of global warming."

[Ed: note the emotionally-charged language used in the paper titles below]
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
"Responsible NASA Official: James E. Hansen"

A NASA "data audit"- hmmm... And people wonder why I don't trust the "experts" on either side of this issue...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10734647

Slippery slope indeed... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

Extra credit points will be given for the esoteric meaning of "columbia"- painter perhaps?

This post has been edited by dMole: May 14 2008, 06:34 AM