US: thanks for destroying our world!

Originally posted by DrZERO
So what you are saying is that the energy absorbed in the troposphere would warm that area of the atmosphere first, then the warming would spread to surrounding areas including the surface of the Earth?

In a way, yes. It sort of 'traps' it, but, again, not an ideal way to view it. It's more a slowing of radiative transfer.

GHGs can be viewed as 'floppy' molecules. They like to absorb energy which enables them to bend their bonds. So they absorb energy, and vibrate and move faster.

All temperature is is the average rate of movement of molecules. Apply energy, molecules move faster. GHGs actually pass energy on by colliding with other molecules (thus, the ball analogy is less than ideal).

Didn't the title of this thread say something about thanking Americans for destroying the world?? Well I haven't heard any thanks yet. For what it's worth I work for a solar contractor and for the past 4 or 5 years we've been booked solid with new installs..So apparently not all Americans are bent on destroying the world...

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by DrZERO
So what you are saying is that the energy absorbed in the troposphere would warm that area of the atmosphere first, then the warming would spread to surrounding areas including the surface of the Earth?

In a way, yes. It sort of 'traps' it, but, again, not an ideal way to view it. It's more a slowing of radiative transfer.

GHGs can be viewed as 'floppy' molecules. They like to absorb energy which enables them to bend their bonds. So they absorb energy, and vibrate and move faster.

All temperature is is the average rate of movement of molecules. Apply energy, molecules move faster. GHGs actually pass energy on by colliding with other molecules (thus, the ball analogy is less than ideal).

Because the data suggests that upper-atmospheric temperatures have remained constant as the surface temperatures of some areas of the Earth have slightly risen over the past 100 years. Can you explain how this fits into your analogy?

Originally posted by DrZERO
Because the data suggests that upper-atmospheric temperatures have remained constant as the surface temperatures of some areas of the Earth have slightly risen over the past 100 years. Can you explain how this fits into your analogy?

Again, you'd have to be more precise. Do you mean say, mid troposphere? Stratosphere?

The atmosphere contains numerous layers, so saying the upper atmosphere is fairly ambiguous. You could mean the mesosphere for all I can tell...

I'll have to hit the sack soon, but just clarify it for me, and I'll answer manana.

reply to post by melatonin


Troposhphere.

Originally posted by DrZERO
Troposhphere.

It is warming.

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of humaninduced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.

linky

Early data was contaminated by infusion of stratosphere effects.

USA the cause of it all. That's funny! Generalizing us as the SUV drivers. SUV's burn just as much emissions as a regular small compact car. Most nowdays are only 4-6 cylinders. Who makes most of the SUV's? Toyota, honda, kia, etc mmk. Sure there has to be large vehicles such as v8 trucks and dump trucks to haul away your garbage. Everytime you go to the store to buy produce all that was flown in or trucked in by large gas guzzling trucks. So think about what your saying. If you want to point figures point it right at yourself. It's everyones fault and it's everyones problem.

[edit on 15-12-2007 by sean]

It will be interesting to see if anybody gets back on this post to slam the USA some more since the USA just agreed to go along with a vote in Bali, about meeting the emissions request that was proposed by the council.

Once again I just love it. These conversations get so hasty about what America does not and will not agree to because of their economic and political agendas.

Now that they have taken the step I am sure that just might have some conspiracy agenda too. Or it must just be a lie.

I am more inclined to believe that everyone else will move on to some other post because this one did not accomplish their agenda.

LETS HEAR IT! Talk hard!

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by DrZERO
Troposhphere.

It is warming.

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of humaninduced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.

linky

Early data was contaminated by infusion of stratosphere effects.

Some other interesting excerpts from your link:

Many new model simulations of the climate of the 20th century have been carried out . . .

Models and simulations are not data.

For observations during the satellite era (1979 onwards), the most recent versions of all available data sets show that both the low and mid troposphere have warmed. The majority of these data sets show warming at the surface that is greater than in the troposphere.

. . . hmmmm . . .

. . . the majority of observational data sets show more warming at the surface than in the troposphere . . .

What I take from this article is that the data sets do show higher warming trends on the surface until they are subjected to "new and improved" computer modeling SIMULATIONS. Computer models are subject to the bias of people and their agendas, and a SIMULATION is just that : NOT REAL.


[edit on 15-12-2007 by DrZERO]

i notice a lot of miss information on this thread.

1 cars from Europe are cleaner then cars in the US
many cars made in Europe will not pass California smog laws and can not be sold new here.
all of the diesel cars except a few mercedes cars
most gas powered cars have to be redesigned to meet Calif smog laws.
who's cars are cleaner.

2 hydrogen fuel cell cars.
this will be a disaster.
the infrastructure is not there. it is unneeded.
most people do not know about the other fuel cell designs like ethanol fuel cells, multi-fuel fuel cells, methane fuel cells and natural gas fuel cells,
most can be brought on line with out a major change in infrastructure.
some without any.
hydrogen will require generation plants, fuel stations, transport.
the other fuel cell types can use existing equipment.
hydrogen will take solar or nuke plants to make the amount needed.
for every 1000,000 cars it will take 21sq mile of solar panels.
where will they be built.
some people say the desert southwest. think again.
if Al Gore will not let them build wind generators where HE lives.
we that live in the desert sw will not allow solar panel farms to take over..
if he will not allow nuke plants where he lives nether will we allow them where we live.
if they really want to built them here we will want a LARGE energy severance tax.

3 cars designed for Europe do not sell good here.
it has more to do with the size of our country.
try to put a familiy of 5 in one of the Europe's little cars and drive 500 to a 1000 miles. hell my luggage will not fit with 2 people.

4 i live in a town of 30,000 people plus a large navy base and there is not any public transportation in or out of town. no bus ,no trains
if you have to go out of town for a doctor you have to drive a car.
the doctors that treat the disorder (castleman's disease) i have are 150 miles away. my VA doctors are 150 miles away.
where in most of the european union does that exist.
it happens in most of the desert southwest.

Originally posted by melatonin

CO2 levels don't appear to have been this high for at least 650,000 years.

There is that word...appears.....that like saying...it could, it might not.

We don't expect models to be perfect, just good enough to give an insight into future scenarios.

or just good enough to give insight into a predetermined end point. As long a study shows the desired result, its a good study.

I'm sure those who might suffer drought (e.g., africa) and floods (e.g., bangladesh) won't be so chuffed.

Drought in Africa???? Floods in Bangledesh???? Haven't events like this been going on for eons???? Is there really anything new here?????

Aye, but we can all make mistakes with maths, I guess. Indeed, we can also be wrong about many things, some even might suggest that CO2 levels were greater than now, 2000 years ago...

And how did you know I was going to suggest that????



[edit on 15-12-2007 by traderonwallst]

reply to post by traderonwallst


TraderOW, you hit the nail on the head. All this supposed climate info is generated from MODELS and SIMULATIONS that are suppose to predict the "climate" 100+ years from now. Why is it then that we can only predict the weather 10 days out? And even those predictions are wrong half the time. Why not run a "simulation" so I know when to plan that weekend at the beach next summer??

The whole concept of man-made global warming is egotistical at best, but to blame it all on one country is beyond comprehension.


[edit on 16-12-2007 by DrZERO]

If there ever is a carbon tax where will the money go and what will it be used for? I don't know why some of you foreigners bash America, aren't you still free because of us, haven't we helped you after some disasters, haven’t we fed you, don't we still protect you, don't we donate the most money when a natural disaster strikes you country even though you don't like us. All I have to say to you is YOUR WELCOME. And I'm sure we will help you again when you need it.

The Americans
[edit on 16-12-2007 by UScitizen]

[edit on 16-12-2007 by UScitizen]

yes, we have destroyed the world and I can only speak for myself. I was not those people that helped destroy it. I drive a hyundai, and I have always driven fuel efficient vehicles. but you are right and I apologize for the rest of the americans that have no education and simply don't care for the rest of the world.

I care.

Originally posted by UScitizen
If there ever is a carbon tax where will the money go and what will it be used for? . . .

What is any tax used for? For lining the pockets of the elite and funding a NWO, in this case it will be the North American Union.

This is no joke, this tax has already been proposed to congress by Mr. Al Gore :

www.taxfoundation.org...


[edit on 16-12-2007 by DrZERO]

Like, I totally hate my mom and dad and my sisters, the world is so unfair, like do you know what I mean?

As long as I got my internet I can talk this old world to death about dying.

Welcome to Planet Earth, the capitalist whorehouse where the only things that matter in life are money & power. Unfortunately at the expense of humanity and this beautiful planet we inhabit and I can't see things changing any time soon. So basically we are all screwed. Sod the global warming argument. What this planet really needs is a clean, efficient alternative power source. Unfortunately those elitists would lose money and it would probably screw up too many economies, so it'll never happen.

It's about time all of humanity took responsibility for the state of this planet. Instead all we do is pass the buck, but hey what's new. Let's continue to argue and bicker amongst ourselves about whose right and whose wrong and at the end of the day, the only thing we'll have to show for it, will be a footnote in some galactic archive and I very much doubt it will be very flattering. (Good riddance humanity, the universe won't miss you).

Maybe it's time to call it a day and put the planet up for sale on ebay and move somewhere else. It's just dawned on me, maybe that's the reason why the rest of the universe is accelerating away from us. To get as far as possible from humanity. Or maybe they heard we are building a Nuclear fusion powerplant. Personally I think it should be built in Japan, simply because I don't want to be anywhere near it when things go tits up. With all the advances in technology and the amount of money and resources available, it's just unbelievable that today we are still so reliant on fossil fuels. Oh well, Sigh!!!!!

news.bbc.co.uk...



[edit on 16-12-2007 by kindred]

this is why huyndai is the leader in innovation when it comes to vehicle emmisions. they have the best out there. there should be a law against SUV's and trucks. and if you have to drive one it better be for a cause like bvanpool or recycle.

Originally posted by DrZERO
TraderOW, you hit the nail on the head. All this supposed climate info is generated from MODELS and SIMULATIONS that are suppose to predict the "climate" 100+ years from now.

The quotes you used above showed that they were also talking about observational data.

There is satellite and radiosonde data that both show warming in the troposphere. Again, from the summary:

Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of humaninduced global warming.

So, there were incongruencies between observations and what the models predicted. But reassessment of the data showed contamination from stratospheric influences.

You were interested in whether the troposphere was warming, you said it wasn't (I think), but the observations show it is.

[edit on 16-12-2007 by melatonin]