It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Smog. Carbon Pollution and Global Warming. A Few Observations and Questions.

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 11:58 PM
link   
I live in Las Vegas, Nevada. I believe there lives over 5 million people in and around its suburbs. We also get close to 3.5 million visitors each month. There are thousands of taxis running around constantly and jumbo jets never stop entering and leaving McCarren International. Lets not forget the military vehicles and jets that perform tests or the tens of thousands of commercial trucks that run through here at a constant pace. And just to mention the factories and energy producing plants. Needless to say there is quite a bit of smog (although really not much if you have ever lived near or around L.A. but assuming a normal amount for other large cities).

I have a job that requires me to drive around constantly. I go to higher elevations that allow me to see some pretty cool views of Vegas and all of the spectacular lights. Then there is the wonderful brown
haze that hovers right over the heart of the city.


Kinda a killjoy eh? OK. Getting to the point. Global warming. Im no expert on the subject, but from what I understand the light from the sun gets trapped within the atmosphere because of the smog or carbon pollution (from everything I mentioned in the first paragraph) causing the heat (transmitted through the light) from the sun to be trapped and not released back into space.

OK. Now, Las Vegas on a rough estimate is 25 miles in diameter. The heart of the city would only be a few miles long. Lets say 10-12 miles in circumfrence. Lets say that is where the brunt of the smog lies in the atmosphere (its hard to tell exactly where). From the edge of the city where you can easily see where the smog lies you can see the edge of both sides of the smog cloud and the top where "cleaner"air meets the smog cloud. Alot of smog. Sure. But in comparison to the city, small in scale.

Certainly, I would say the smog easily generates a few degrees hotter weather during the summer, but normally (like today) it is as cold as ever meaning the smog had no affect.

First Question: Why?

Also, the nearest big city is at least a few hundred miles away. So taking in the fact those few hundred miles surrounding Las Vegas (in my estimation) dont add up to even 1/100th of the smog that is created in Vegas then...


Second question: Is the current explanation of global warming only applicable in small condensed areas such as the heart of downtown Vegas? If so, then couldnt we combat it in region specific ways?. If not, then why do areas outside of the heart of Vegas seem un-affected (cooler)?

Third Question: Why can I see the "top" of the smog cloud"? Shouldnt it reach at least to the altitude of wher the jets fly?

Fourth Question: If the light/ heat traveled "through" the clouds on the way to earth and not deflected back into space, then why cant the heat travel "through" the clouds back out into space?

If any of these are valid questions I would love to have answers for when my government starts taxing me on my carbon output. Thanks.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by open_eyeballs]



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 


Thanks for any replies
and if this seems like a worthwhile topic then please flag...Thanks!!



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Persnoally, I think the whole global warming topic has been taken WAY out of proportion.

The planet is way too big for us to have made any impact on it. Our planet is just going through a natural process which we have no control over.

People need to pull thier heads out of the ground and do a little Astro-study.



At the most, that's what I have chosen to believe.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Cio88
 


I understand that. I know the earth goes through her cycles. I also believe smog and carbon aint good for it either. So Im down for reducing or eliminating that as well. But when our government starts talking about carbon "taxes" and what not I want to make sure they the information we are fed is on the up and up.

And they aren't blowing it out of proportion like you mentioned. Reduce/ eliminate. Good deal. Carbon Tax...No deal. Or if you are gunna tax me over it you best explain it so us laymen can understand. And it better be because there is some real danger or threat. So far it has not been explained to me in a logical sensical way.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Third Question: Why can I see the "top" of the smog cloud"? Shouldnt it reach at least to the altitude of wher the jets fly?


The reason why the smog doesnt reach out to higher altitudes and disperse is, unlike, the greenhouse houses, which are light, the vehicle emission tend to include more heavier particles like lead and mercury(both rare), and some oxides of nitrogen and as these are heavy these tend to stay nearer to the ground, thus causing a blanket over the city.


Certainly, I would say the smog easily generates a few degrees hotter weather during the summer, but normally (like today) it is as cold as ever meaning the smog had no affect.


Vegas as you can realize is in the middle of the desert and as in desert climate, the summers are too hot and the winters are cold, due to the lack of sea nearby to moderate the effects, and so, currently as it is winter and the region is cold, you wont feel the extra temperature, but in summer, it gets really hot, and the few degrees rise in temperature is clearly noticable.



Fourth Question: If the light/ heat traveled "through" the clouds on the way to earth and not deflected back into space, then why cant the heat travel "through" the clouds back out into space?


There is generally convection between the earth and space and heat does reflect back into space, but as you can see due to the smog blanket and the CO2 cover over the city, the heat is trapped, because CO2 is transparent to light and heat entering the atmosphere, but opaque to heat leaving the atmosphere.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 12:29 AM
link   
so the smog blanket does or does not affect the 1000's of square mileage surrounding area with no smog blanket?

sounds like it is region/area specific and should be handled as such...



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by open_eyeballs
so the smog blanket does or does not affect the 1000's of square mileage surrounding area with no smog blanket?

sounds like it is region/area specific and should be handled as such...



Firstly, understand that the blanket formed is so heavy and it stays so close to the ground and unless there is winds to move it around, it disperses near the ground level over a large area. Does that clarify.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 12:42 AM
link   
no. sorry. im prob a little thick


it seems the rise in temperatures are directly related to where the concentrated smog lies.

so, if it is so close to the ground wouldnt that mean it would be over a smaller area (which would coincide with how it looks from a distance) than if it were dispersed at a higher altitude?

meaning less warming for areas surrounding the inner cities or denser smog?

ultimately, meaningit it is not necessarily a 'global' warming, but an inner city "heating"?



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by open_eyeballs
ultimately, meaningit it is not necessarily a 'global' warming, but an inner city "heating"?


This heating all over the world over the major cities is spread due to the winds(if any,but surely in most regions definetely in cities near the sea) and cause global warming



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by peacejet
 


so the winds spread global warming? hhhmmm.. i havent heard that before...doesnt make a whole lot of sense...

I can see how each city could have its own little warming...especially the big cities with lots of pollution. but I dont see how it affects the surrounding areas.

I dont think it is the wind. no offence.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by peacejet
 



oh and one more thing. you have to remember even the biggest cities are small compared to the regions surrounding them...



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by open_eyeballs
reply to post by peacejet
 


so the winds spread global warming? hhhmmm.. i havent heard that before...doesnt make a whole lot of sense...

I can see how each city could have its own little warming...especially the big cities with lots of pollution. but I dont see how it affects the surrounding areas.

I dont think it is the wind. no offence.


Ok, if as you say winds dont help spread glbal warming, can you explain how the ice is melting in the arctic and the antarctic though there is no big city or industry in the region sending smoke into the atmosphere.

Its simple, basically, the onshore winds drive the pollutants from the land to the sea and in the east coast of the US for example, once the pollutant enters the sea from the NY or Washington or any other city, the gulf stream wind carries it over the sea to the arctic, where it settles and causes heating.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by open_eyeballs
 


If you think that the cities are small and the contribution is less, think again you are wrong.

Take a look at this image of the night time view of the countries in earth, this is based on satellite imagery, all merged together.



Only half of the image is visible, please excuse, to see the full image,

shadow.eas.gatech.edu...

As you can see, though the major cities cover only a small area, there are still smaller cities and towns and various industries which do contribute to the pollution.


[edit on 9/12/08 by peacejet]



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:09 AM
link   
2% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are carbon dioxide.
2% of that 2% carbon dioxide total is caused by man.

98% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are water vapor.
just about 0% of that 98% water vapor total is caused by man.

We are insignificant.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by bronco73
98% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are water vapor.
just about 0% of that 98% water vapor total is caused by man.

We are insignificant.


For your information, water vapour is not a green house gas, it is a natural component and not man made.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by peacejet

Originally posted by bronco73
98% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are water vapor.
just about 0% of that 98% water vapor total is caused by man.

We are insignificant.


For your information, water vapour is not a green house gas, it is a natural component and not man made.


That would be irrelivent, since Greenhouse gases are not necessarily man made. Greenhouse gases are simply gases that assist in the amplification of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor is a gas. Water vapor assists in the amplification of the greenhouse effect. If you'd like, I'd be more than happy to supply you with several links to prove my point. Here's one to get you started:
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by peacejet
 



Ok, if as you say winds dont help spread glbal warming, can you explain how the ice is melting in the arctic and the antarctic though there is no big city or industry in the region sending smoke into the atmosphere.


from what i understand it would be the same way ice is melting throughout the solar system.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Excuse me for the mistake, I do accept that water vapour causes global warming, but read this for the article,

Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66%. Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales (for example, near irrigated fields).


Human activities, does not change the concentration of the vapour and it is natural. That was the one that kept the earth from freezing in the past, causing an even heating of the earth, but this CO2 by humans merely accelerates the normal heating of the earth. hope you get the point that I am trying to convey.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by open_eyeballs
reply to post by peacejet
 

from what i understand it would be the same way ice is melting throughout the solar system.


The mechanism of ice meting on the moons of various planets are very different, since there is a lack of atmosphere, the sun light directly falls on the surface and heats it. But since the moons are far away, the heating is not that great to cause the ice to melt. But with the sun reaching its solar maximum in 2011, more activity is occuring in the sun and more heat is released.(no nibiru connection here). And this might have a sufficient temperature to cause the ice to melt, or as in the case of Europa and Encleadus it could be due to the internal heating of the moons, driven by their planets Jupiter and Saturn on account of the gravity interactions.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by peacejet
 


im not saying cities dont pollute the atmosphere and cause their own subsequent warming. im saying it doesnt cause warming in other places, or on a global scale.

what you outlined there really didnt make any sense...if you think about it, you are saying pollutants created thousands of miles away somehow collect at the poles and melt the ice..never mind the logistics, i dont think u could provide one shred of evidence to back up that statment.

another question..trees.

beenaround for millions and millions of years...long before cars. yet they are and have been the most populated life on earth.

what do they eat? carbon dioxide... now where did all that carbon come from?...dinasaur farts?...


[edit on 9-12-2008 by open_eyeballs]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join