Vapour trails

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 04:59:41 GMT, Jose
wrote in ::

Now, how big is the White House?


Hot air weighs a lot less. :-)

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:48:10 -0700, Newps wrote:

Yes, but today we know what the temp is every hour of every day.
Looking at rocks we only have generalities. It was hot during this
period of years, cold during this period, etc. Now we're trying to say
that because the temp has gone up 1 degree in the last 50 years we have
a problem.

You don't think we have a problem?

Corky Scott

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

Air is pretty heavy, which is why we can fly. It weighs .078
lb/cubic foot at standard sea level pressure and temperature.
What's
that, about 13 cubic feet for a pound? The air in a room can easily
outweigh the occupants.

Dan

I seem to recall .002378 #m/ft3 as air density at STP.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/24_600.html lists it at 60
degrees F. as 7.636 x 10-2 lbs/cu.ft., or .07636 lbs, a bit less than I
had quoted. STP is at 59 degrees, but the one degree difference doesn't
change the density much.

Dan

"Newps" wrote

It's a guess. We only have maybe 150 years of temp data and much less
years of other data. In the history of the planet that is zip.


Not really. By drilling into the glacial ice, they measure the air coming
from the teeny little bubbles trapped in the ice, and are very good at
measuring the makeup of the atmosphere, for a LONG way back.
--
Jim in NC

Corky Scott wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:48:10 -0700, Newps wrote:


Yes, but today we know what the temp is every hour of every day.
Looking at rocks we only have generalities. It was hot during this
period of years, cold during this period, etc. Now we're trying to say
that because the temp has gone up 1 degree in the last 50 years we have
a problem.


You don't think we have a problem?

Of course not. Why would you think we do? Why would you think that we
could change it one way or another?

Morgans wrote:

"Newps" wrote

It's a guess. We only have maybe 150 years of temp data and much less
years of other data. In the history of the planet that is zip.



Not really. By drilling into the glacial ice, they measure the air coming
from the teeny little bubbles trapped in the ice, and are very good at
measuring the makeup of the atmosphere, for a LONG way back.

That doesn't tell us hardly anything. You can't even nail down within a
100 year period when that air was trapped, much less what the temp was
on July 24th that year. Or the year before. Or after.

Newps wrote:
Morgans wrote:

"Newps" wrote

It's a guess. We only have maybe 150 years of temp data and much
less
years of other data. In the history of the planet that is zip.



Not really. By drilling into the glacial ice, they measure the air
coming
from the teeny little bubbles trapped in the ice, and are very good
at
measuring the makeup of the atmosphere, for a LONG way back.

That doesn't tell us hardly anything. You can't even nail down
within a
100 year period when that air was trapped, much less what the temp
was
on July 24th that year. Or the year before. Or after.

Actually, they can tell exactly which year the bubbles were trapped...
it doesn't tell you the temperature, but it does tell you how much CO2
was present.

How do they know the year? Because the ice in Antarctica builds up a
new layer ever year as the snow falls. The layers look like the rings
in a tree. I saw a good documentary recently where a climbing party
was digging down into the snow pack in Antarctica to measure the annual
snowfall. The snowpack gets compressed into ice layers as more falls
on top. I have also seen programs showing the core samples, and the
scientists pointing out each layer and noting which year it was formed.

Global warming is alarmist bunk. Even if the earth's average
temperature goes up, the earth will still be OK. It will simply mean
that climates may shift around a bit, but life will not be
extinguished. In fact, the Gaia theory asserts that the temperature
range of the earth is not an accident, it is controlled by the presence
of life. Without life, the earth would have become overheated a long
time ago by all the CO2 coming out of volcanoes. Life regulates the
balance of atmospheric CO2, O2, and H20 which controls the temperature.
The oceanic lifeforms are primarily responsible for this and provide a
natural feedback loop that keeps the earth's climate balanced...

Dean

On 16 Dec 2004 21:00:13 -0800, wrote in
.com::

Even if the earth's average
temperature goes up, the earth will still be OK.

It's apparent you don't own any ocean front property.

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:02:55 -0700, Newps wrote:

You don't think we have a problem?

Of course not. Why would you think we do? Why would you think that we
could change it one way or another?

I didn't say we could change it, but that doesn't mean we don't have a
problem.

In another message, Dean says:

On 16 Dec 2004 21:00:13 -0800, wrote:

Global warming is alarmist bunk. Even if the earth's average
temperature goes up, the earth will still be OK. It will simply mean
that climates may shift around a bit, but life will not be
extinguished. In fact, the Gaia theory asserts that the temperature
range of the earth is not an accident, it is controlled by the presence
of life. Without life, the earth would have become overheated a long
time ago by all the CO2 coming out of volcanoes. Life regulates the
balance of atmospheric CO2, O2, and H20 which controls the temperature.
The oceanic lifeforms are primarily responsible for this and provide a
natural feedback loop that keeps the earth's climate balanced...

Dean

The fact that the world is getting warmer, and that the polar icecaps
are shrinking isn't bunk, it's scientific fact, something that can be
measured and has been for some time now.

Some things are not difficult to predict: Since the polar ice caps and
glaciers are melting, the water being added to the oceans is causing
them to rise, this is really not difficult to measure and compare to
years past. If the warming continues, more water will be added to the
oceans, and they will rise higher yet. That should be obvious to
anyone. Many of the worlds cities are located along coastlines, if
the oceans continue to rise, these cities will be at considerable
risk. Again, blindingly obvious.

It's the intangibles that are difficult to foresee. For instance,
it's been noticed that there is a huge reduction in the population of
Krill in the Antarctic. Scientists aren't absolutely positive, but it
appears this is a direct correlation with the reduction of the ice
shelf. The ice shelf is shrinking of course due to the slightly
higher global temperatures. There are a lot of creatures that depend
on Krill for their food. Obviously, a diminishing food source will
cause a reduction in the population of the animals that feed on it.
What will the world be like if the sea animal population is reduced is
another intangible.

The predictions of super storms, created by warming oceans are yet to
be scientifically verified, it's basically an educated guess.

There is one lone positive regarding global warming that I heard on
"the Daily Show" with John Stewart. They showed a clip of some VIP,
who's name I did not catch, who was pontificating on how global
warming would open up northern shipping routes to Russia because the
Arctic icecap is shrinking, something they've desired for hundreds of
years. Stewarts' reaction to this news was to quip: "Great, now we
can have unlimited access to Russian nesting dolls."

That the world is getting warmer is not the question, what's causing
it is the question and can it, should it be stopped.

Corky Scott

Larry Dighera wrote:
On 16 Dec 2004 21:00:13 -0800, wrote in
.com::


Even if the earth's average
temperature goes up, the earth will still be OK.


It's apparent you don't own any ocean front property.

He said the earth will be OK. The fact that your life may be slightly
inconvenienced is irrelavant.