Stupid Gobal Warming Alarmists - Page 25

**Parihaka** · 10-20-2006, 20:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

My question for the "hole in the ozone layer" cult is how do they know that hole hasn't always been there? Did they send up a balloon or a weather satellite in the year 738 to find it was much smaller than present day?

Ohh, missed this one.
I'll give you the same answer that I give all those others safe away from it's ravages. Some forty odd years ago I could play on a beach (I tan easily) for 6 hours without bad sunburn, I'd be pink, but a day or two latter just be darker brown.
My sisters, both redheads, (the milkman changed) could manage 2 hours without sunscreen.
I now humbly and politely invite you to come lie near naked upon our beaches without sunscreen for a period of two hours. (hint: burn time was 8 minutes yesterday) Ozone is a truely wonderful thing, and believe me, you miss it when it goes.

ArmchairGeneral · 10-20-2006, 21:08 PM

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/uv/
Interesting link I found regarding ozone depletion and UV light. One thing I read that kind of surprised me: tropospheric ozone (the pollution kind) may actually be more effective at stopping UV than stratospheric ozone. Granted, this is at the cost of us breathing a nasty poisonous gas.

dalem · 10-20-2006, 22:12 PM

None of it matters to me, Old Pale Face. I burned easily and nastily when I was a kid, I burn easily and nastily now.

-dale

**Parihaka** · 10-21-2006, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/uv/
Interesting link I found regarding ozone depletion and UV light. One thing I read that kind of surprised me: tropospheric ozone (the pollution kind) may actually be more effective at stopping UV than stratospheric ozone. Granted, this is at the cost of us breathing a nasty poisonous gas.

It is. It's why Canadians don't get fried the way we do, courtesy of Uncle Sam.

gunnut · 10-21-2006, 18:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parihaka

Ohh, missed this one.
I'll give you the same answer that I give all those others safe away from it's ravages. Some forty odd years ago I could play on a beach (I tan easily) for 6 hours without bad sunburn, I'd be pink, but a day or two latter just be darker brown.
My sisters, both redheads, (the milkman changed) could manage 2 hours without sunscreen.
I now humbly and politely invite you to come lie near naked upon our beaches without sunscreen for a period of two hours. (hint: burn time was 8 minutes yesterday) Ozone is a truely wonderful thing, and believe me, you miss it when it goes.

I don't doubt you burn easily, now than before. But who's to say this hole is as big as it ever was in history? You weren't around 600 years ago to test the burn time on the beach. No one was around 42,000 years ago to test the burn time.

That's all I'm trying to say. Everything in nature goes in cycles. The hole in the ozone layer will reduce in size eventually. When that happens, no amount of CFC in the air can stop it.

FOG3 · 10-21-2006, 21:33 PM

Just what are the actual Transmissivity, Reflectivity, and Absorbtivity values for the relevant gases in the IR band anyway? Are they basing all the green house business on actual tested properties or just correlations?

Defcon 6 · 10-21-2006, 22:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parihaka

It is. It's why Canadians don't get fried the way we do, courtesy of Uncle Sam.

yeah but it doesn't do anything to help global warming. just makes it worse.

ArmchairGeneral · 10-21-2006, 23:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

yeah but it doesn't do anything to help global warming. just makes it worse.

Uhh, last time I checked, ozone was not a greenhouse gas. Of course it will make you choke, burn your lungs and probably gives you cancer, but that's a different matter altogether.

Personally, I'm still resentful at those dang prehistoric microbes that supposedly started this whole oxygen business. Couldn't leave well enough alone, just had to try new stuff out. Now our entire lives depend on breathing highly corrosive gas.

ArmchairGeneral · 10-21-2006, 23:30 PM

My last post started me thinking. We've got this wonderful ozone layer that blocks all of the most harmful UV and most of the rest. But before the development of photosynthesis, there was virtually no oxygen present, correct? So, no oxygen, no ozone. No ozone, and UV-B and C come through in full strength. So how did organisms survive this radiation onslaught? Especially the ones that started up photosynthesis. They would have to be right out in the sunlight, so they would need some pretty potent defenses, I would think.

(edit) Just noticed, this is my 999th post. Cool.

**astralis** · 10-22-2006, 02:19 AM

armchair general,

Quote:

My last post started me thinking. We've got this wonderful ozone layer that blocks all of the most harmful UV and most of the rest. But before the development of photosynthesis, there was virtually no oxygen present, correct? So, no oxygen, no ozone. No ozone, and UV-B and C come through in full strength. So how did organisms survive this radiation onslaught? Especially the ones that started up photosynthesis. They would have to be right out in the sunlight, so they would need some pretty potent defenses, I would think.

(edit) Just noticed, this is my 999th post. Cool.

simpler organisms are rather more resistant to radiation than complex ones (wow, that was way too much alliteration there.

).

in fact, there's one organism- a bacteria- that can survive 1.5 million rads of radiation, which is over 3,000x what humans can handle.

**astralis** · 10-22-2006, 02:25 AM

gunnut,

Quote:

I don't doubt you burn easily, now than before. But who's to say this hole is as big as it ever was in history? You weren't around 600 years ago to test the burn time on the beach. No one was around 42,000 years ago to test the burn time.

That's all I'm trying to say. Everything in nature goes in cycles. The hole in the ozone layer will reduce in size eventually. When that happens, no amount of CFC in the air can stop it.

well, considering that the atmospheric content of our planet has been roughly the same after ~500-600 million years ago (also when the ozone layer is believed to have formed), i'd say that the amount of ozone has been kept at a similar rough equilibrium for that whole time. chemistry is chemistry, after all.

dalem · 10-22-2006, 14:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astralis

gunnut,

well, considering that the atmospheric content of our planet has been roughly the same after ~500-600 million years ago (also when the ozone layer is believed to have formed), i'd say that the amount of ozone has been kept at a similar rough equilibrium for that whole time. chemistry is chemistry, after all.

But "roughly the same" is not "the same". We know the 02 content, and probably general pressure, was higher in the late Devonian and early Carboniferous period (around 350 million years ago), for instance. As well as the temp (the temp is almost always higher than what we've had the last few million years). 'What do those factors do to the Ozone layer and holes therein', I think is the point being made.

-dale

ArmchairGeneral · 10-22-2006, 18:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astralis

armchair general,

simpler organisms are rather more resistant to radiation than complex ones (wow, that was way too much alliteration there.

).

in fact, there's one organism- a bacteria- that can survive 1.5 million rads of radiation, which is over 3,000x what humans can handle.

Yeah, I read about some microbe -I believe it was an Archaean- that was found on the walls of nuclear reactor cores; not just living, but thriving.

However, I was referring specifically to UV-C, which has annoying affinity for DNA. I haven't heard of any microorganisms that are resistant to this type of radiation, in fact, I believe it is sometimes referred to as "germicidal radiation." Of course, knowing the versatility and adaptability of living organisms, I wouldn't be too surprised if such an organism existed today or at one time in the past.

Sombra · 10-23-2006, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

My last post started me thinking. We've got this wonderful ozone layer that blocks all of the most harmful UV and most of the rest. But before the development of photosynthesis, there was virtually no oxygen present, correct? So, no oxygen, no ozone. No ozone, and UV-B and C come through in full strength. So how did organisms survive this radiation onslaught? Especially the ones that started up photosynthesis. They would have to be right out in the sunlight, so they would need some pretty potent defenses, I would think.

(edit) Just noticed, this is my 999th post. Cool.

Simple, plants and life developed in the water first. Water blocks UV radiation.

Quote:

That's all I'm trying to say. Everything in nature goes in cycles. The hole in the ozone layer will reduce in size eventually. When that happens, no amount of CFC in the air can stop it.

If you have a certain amount of FCKW in the ozonelayers you will simply shift the chemical balance to a lesser amount of ozone present in atmosphere.

To give you an example of everydays life. Take a hot bath with bubbles. While you bath you will see that the bubbles disappear . What happens is that your small amounts of fat from your skin are responsible at first destroying the bubbles and later on preventing the creation of new bubbles. Even if you drain the tube and refill it it with hot water you wont be able to create as much bubbles as before. You have to clean the tube before you can take again a good bubble bath.

In some way its same in the atmosphere.

Problem with certain chemicals is that they act like a catalysator.

Sombra · 11-28-2006, 18:14 PM

Quote:

Report says CO2 emissions have doubled By MERAIAH FOLEY, Associated Press Writer
Tue Nov 28, 8:52 AM ET

SYDNEY, Australia - The rate at which humans are pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere has more than doubled since the 1990s, according to Australian research, the latest report warning about the high rate of emissions accumulating in the atmosphere.

ADVERTISEMENT

Findings published by Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization also showed that 2005 marked the fourth-consecutive year of increased carbon dioxide emissions.

"To have four years in a row of above-average carbon dioxide growth is unprecedented," Paul Fraser, a scientist with the CSIRO's center for marine and atmospheric research, said in a statement.

The study analyzed a 30-year record of air samples collected at an Australian Bureau of Meteorology observation station on the southern island state of Tasmania.

Mike Raupach, a scientist with the organization, said from 2000 to 2005 the growth rate of carbon dioxide emissions was more than 2.5 percent per year, whereas in the 1990s it was less than 1 percent per year.

Raupach, who is also co-chairman of the Global Carbon Project, said 7.85 billion tons of carbon passed into the atmosphere last year, compared to 6.67 billion tons in 2000.

About half of all carbon dioxide emissions remain trapped in the atmosphere, and the rest are absorbed by the land and oceans, Raupach said. As emissions rise, so does the amount of carbon in the air.

Earlier this month, the World Meteorological Organization reported the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached 379.1 parts per million in 2005, more than 35 percent higher than in the late 18th century.

Raupach and Fraser presented their findings last week at an annual science meeting at Tasmania's Cape Grim Baseline Air Pollution Station.

Email Story IM Story Discuss Printable View

Just to keep this alive

10-20-2006, 21:08 PM	#362 (permalink)
ArmchairGeneral Devil's Advocate *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 05-03-06 Location: The boonies of NC, USA. Posts: 2,746 Country:	http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/uv/ Interesting link I found regarding ozone depletion and UV light. One thing I read that kind of surprised me: tropospheric ozone (the pollution kind) may actually be more effective at stopping UV than stratospheric ozone. Granted, this is at the cost of us breathing a nasty poisonous gas. __________________ "Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable." -Theodore Dalrymple

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Global Warming, A Good Thing?	brokensickle	Science & Tech	388	06-30-2007 04:33 AM
The Great Global Warming Swindle	Canmoore	Science & Tech	86	06-30-2007 04:32 AM
Antarctic air is warming faster than rest of world	Parihaka	Science & Tech	13	04-01-2006 12:20 PM
The Basic Laws of Human Stupidty	sparten	World Affairs Board Pub	0	03-08-2006 08:44 AM
10 Most Stupid questions (courtsey PDF)	sparten	World Affairs Board Pub	2	07-24-2005 23:28 PM

10-20-2006, 22:12 PM	#363 (permalink)
dalem Lord High Hullabalooster *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 11-23-04 Location: Columbia Heights, MN Posts: 8,323 Country:	None of it matters to me, Old Pale Face. I burned easily and nastily when I was a kid, I burn easily and nastily now. -dale

10-21-2006, 21:33 PM	#366 (permalink)
FOG3 Patron Join Date: 05-04-06 Posts: 193	Just what are the actual Transmissivity, Reflectivity, and Absorbtivity values for the relevant gases in the IR band anyway? Are they basing all the green house business on actual tested properties or just correlations?

10-21-2006, 23:30 PM	#369 (permalink)
ArmchairGeneral Devil's Advocate *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 05-03-06 Location: The boonies of NC, USA. Posts: 2,746 Country:	My last post started me thinking. We've got this wonderful ozone layer that blocks all of the most harmful UV and most of the rest. But before the development of photosynthesis, there was virtually no oxygen present, correct? So, no oxygen, no ozone. No ozone, and UV-B and C come through in full strength. So how did organisms survive this radiation onslaught? Especially the ones that started up photosynthesis. They would have to be right out in the sunlight, so they would need some pretty potent defenses, I would think. (edit) Just noticed, this is my 999th post. Cool.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)