| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Uncle Clover" |
| Date: |
29 Mar 2007 05:44:51 PM |
| Object: |
OT: Atmospheric question |
With all this air travel occurring today, does that "stir the air", so
to speak, to any significant degree? I mean it's enough to
significantly raise the threat of a pandemic, but that's less due to
air distribution than people distribution. Is it enough to cause a
noticeably more even redistribution of air in any significant sense?
If so, would that have even a miniscule impact on global air
temperatures one way or the other - maybe not as in global averages,
but heat distribution?
Just curious.
.
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Atmospheric question |
30 Mar 2007 12:35:02 AM |
|
|
In article <a5go03dn6bmi75atrdirs4h1a57voilp11@4ax.com>,
Uncle Clover <UncleClover@NowhereNow.com> wrote:
With all this air travel occurring today, does that "stir the air", so
to speak, to any significant degree? I mean it's enough to
significantly raise the threat of a pandemic, but that's less due to
air distribution than people distribution. Is it enough to cause a
noticeably more even redistribution of air in any significant sense?
If so, would that have even a miniscule impact on global air
temperatures one way or the other - maybe not as in global averages,
but heat distribution?
Just curious.
I doubt if the turbulence would affect the atmosphere very much.
However, of more concern would be the exhaust gases of the plane at high
altitudes.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AZ Nomad" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Atmospheric question |
29 Mar 2007 05:56:44 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:44:51 -0400, Uncle Clover <UncleClover@NowhereNow.com> wrote:
With all this air travel occurring today, does that "stir the air", so
to speak, to any significant degree? I mean it's enough to
significantly raise the threat of a pandemic, but that's less due to
air distribution than people distribution. Is it enough to cause a
No. An airplane turbulance is insignificant compared to the region it
travels.
Normal weather patterns are a trillion times more consequential.
Of more imporance is the cumulative dumping of hydrocarbons into the
atmosphere and this is pretty small compared to auto transportation,
home heating, and power generation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gospel Bretts" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Atmospheric question |
29 Mar 2007 09:37:37 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:56:44 GMT, AZ Nomad
<aznomad.2@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:44:51 -0400, Uncle Clover <UncleClover@NowhereNow.com> wrote:
With all this air travel occurring today, does that "stir the air", so
to speak, to any significant degree? I mean it's enough to
significantly raise the threat of a pandemic, but that's less due to
air distribution than people distribution. Is it enough to cause a
No. An airplane turbulance is insignificant compared to the region it
travels.
Normal weather patterns are a trillion times more consequential.
Of more imporance is the cumulative dumping of hydrocarbons into the
atmosphere and this is pretty small compared to auto transportation,
home heating, and power generation.
Hi AZ. Okay, so the turbulence is insignificant, but what about the
pollutants from the jet engine exhaust?
___________________
Gospel Bretts
a.a. atheist #2262
Fundy Xian Atheist
.
|
|
|
| User: "AZ Nomad" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Atmospheric question |
29 Mar 2007 10:17:06 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 02:37:37 GMT, Gospel Bretts <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:56:44 GMT, AZ Nomad
<aznomad.2@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:44:51 -0400, Uncle Clover <UncleClover@NowhereNow.com> wrote:
With all this air travel occurring today, does that "stir the air", so
to speak, to any significant degree? I mean it's enough to
significantly raise the threat of a pandemic, but that's less due to
air distribution than people distribution. Is it enough to cause a
No. An airplane turbulance is insignificant compared to the region it
travels.
Normal weather patterns are a trillion times more consequential.
Of more imporance is the cumulative dumping of hydrocarbons into the
atmosphere and this is pretty small compared to auto transportation,
home heating, and power generation.
Hi AZ. Okay, so the turbulence is insignificant, but what about the
pollutants from the jet engine exhaust?
Vehicular traffic and power stations produce far more pollutants.
I've heard really bad things about the space shuttle with it's use of
2.3million pounds of solid propellant and 1.2 million pounds of LH/LOX, but
even that is nothing compared to other pollution: one launch is equal to about
two minutes gasoline consumption in the U.S.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Clover" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Atmospheric question |
30 Mar 2007 05:35:58 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:17:06 GMT, AZ Nomad
<aznomad.2@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 02:37:37 GMT, Gospel Bretts <bretts1967@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:56:44 GMT, AZ Nomad
<aznomad.2@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:44:51 -0400, Uncle Clover <UncleClover@NowhereNow.com> wrote:
With all this air travel occurring today, does that "stir the air", so
to speak, to any significant degree? I mean it's enough to
significantly raise the threat of a pandemic, but that's less due to
air distribution than people distribution. Is it enough to cause a
No. An airplane turbulance is insignificant compared to the region it
travels.
Normal weather patterns are a trillion times more consequential.
Of more imporance is the cumulative dumping of hydrocarbons into the
atmosphere and this is pretty small compared to auto transportation,
home heating, and power generation.
Hi AZ. Okay, so the turbulence is insignificant, but what about the
pollutants from the jet engine exhaust?
Vehicular traffic and power stations produce far more pollutants.
That may be true, but they don't release them miles above ground
level. I don't know what difference that might make, but given all
the oddball factors that -do- make a difference, I could easily
believe it either way - whether it makes some significant difference
or none at all.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Atheist Militia" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Atmospheric question |
29 Mar 2007 05:57:24 PM |
|
|
The short answer is "not really."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Atmospheric question |
29 Mar 2007 08:09:20 PM |
|
|
Uncle Clover <UncleClover@NowhereNow.com> wrote in
news:a5go03dn6bmi75atrdirs4h1a57voilp11@4ax.com:
With all this air travel occurring today, does that "stir the air", so
to speak, to any significant degree? I mean it's enough to
significantly raise the threat of a pandemic, but that's less due to
air distribution than people distribution. Is it enough to cause a
noticeably more even redistribution of air in any significant sense?
If so, would that have even a miniscule impact on global air
temperatures one way or the other - maybe not as in global averages,
but heat distribution?
Just curious.
A related topic:
Weather hots up under wind farms
New Scientist
10:34 04 November 2004
Kate Ravilious
Wind farms can change the weather, according to a model of how these
forests of giant turbines interact with the local atmosphere. And the
idea is backed up by observations from real wind farms.
Somnath Baidya Roy from Princeton University, and his colleagues modelled
a hypothetical wind farm consisting of a 100 by 100 array of wind
turbines, each 100 metres tall and set 1 kilometre apart.
They placed the virtual farm in the Great Plains region of the US, an
area suitable for large wind farms, and modelled the climate using data
from Oklahoma.
During the day, the model suggests that wind farms have very little
effect on the climate because the warmth of the sun mixes the lower
layers of the atmosphere. But at night, when the atmosphere is stiller,
the wind turbines have a significant effect.
“At hub height the turbine gives an extra input of turbulence to the
wind, which increases the vertical mixing,” explains Baidya Roy. This
brings down to ground level the warm night air and higher wind speeds
that are normally found at 100 metres.
At 3 am the average wind speed in Oklahoma is 3.5 metres per second, but
it increased to around 5 m/s in the model wind farm. The model also
suggested that the temperature would increase by around 2°C underneath
the 10,000 turbines. Over the course of a day this averages out to an
increase in ground-level wind speed of around 0.6 m/s and a rise in
temperature of around 0.7°C.
Heat of the night
How such a change might affect local wildlife and agriculture is not
clear.
The findings are backed by real observations. Neil Kelley, a
meteorologist at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden,
Colorado, has gathered data from a wind farm in California.
“Although the wind farm was more dense and the turbines smaller we still
found that the turbines tended to pull down heat and momentum from above,
particularly during the night-time hours,” he says.
Meanwhile, Gustave Corten from the Energy Research Centre in Petten in
the Netherlands is carrying out experiments with a model wind farm inside
a wind tunnel. “I think the study is of much interest and I can confirm
that large wind farms will affect the microclimate,” says Corten.
Baidya Roy says it may be possible to modify the wind turbines so that
their effect on the weather is not so extreme. “If engineers can reduce
turbulence then the turbine would become more efficient and the
environmental impact would be reduced,” he says.
But no amount of engineering will change the fact that energy is being
removed from the wind. “People tend to think that renewable energy is for
free, but it isn’t. There is a price to pay for all kinds of consumption,
including renewable energy,” says Baidya Roy.
Journal reference: Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres (DOI:
10.1029/2004 JD004763).
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
I do not believe in God because I do not believe in Mother Goose."
Clarence Darrow (1857-1938)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: OT: Atmospheric question |
29 Mar 2007 06:33:12 PM |
|
|
Uncle Clover <UncleClover@NowhereNow.com> wrote in
news:a5go03dn6bmi75atrdirs4h1a57voilp11@4ax.com:
With all this air travel occurring today, does that "stir the air", so
to speak, to any significant degree? I mean it's enough to
significantly raise the threat of a pandemic, but that's less due to
air distribution than people distribution. Is it enough to cause a
noticeably more even redistribution of air in any significant sense?
If so, would that have even a miniscule impact on global air
temperatures one way or the other - maybe not as in global averages,
but heat distribution?
Just curious.
No. Of course in such a chaotic system as the Earth's atmosphere a
butterfly flapping its' wings in my garden could make a profound difference
to the path of a tornado a few years down the track ;-).
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Theological question...
No Longer Question of What But WHERE??
An odd question
The Big Question
Survey Question
Re: Important question.
A Question About Christians Claiming Historical and Archaeological Evidence.
OT: CD writing question.
| OT: Forte Agent users - question.
OT: Internet Explorer question
OT: Question about the group of stars including Maia, Merope, Alcyone, Electra, Taygeta, Atlas, Pleione, Celaeno, etc...
I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason some
OT: Theoretical physics question
Revolutionary War mystery still unsettled DNA results fail to resolve question about hero’s fate
A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION
|
|
|
