Cliff wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 03:54:41 -0400, JohnM wrote:
Cliff wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:21:59 -0400, JohnM wrote:
Cliff wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 22:11:19 -0400, JohnM wrote:
Besides, if you read into it a bit you'd find that the effort to tie
global warming to the ozone thing is taking place.
Ummm ..... in what way, exactly, are they the same thing?
Cliff, work with me here. I didn't say they are the same thing, I said
that the effort to tie them together is being made.
Was that Gunner again?
I can't speak for anyone else, I can only say what I've read on pages
from, for instance, NASA where the two were mentioned together, as I
said before, below.
Oak trees and rocks.
There. I've mentioned two things together.
If I plant rocks do I get oak trees?
I suppose that depends on your reasoning. I'm not saying that the ozone
thing and the global warming thing are interconnected, I'm simply
stating that some apparently responsible people are saying that it's at
least possible. If those two issues are rocks and oak trees to you then
you're going to have trouble getting me to dispute the issue with you. I
have been known to take any side on an issue, just to dispute it, but
I'm not going to on this one.
I feel that this
means that someone mentioning them both in the same sentence isn't
something to be confused with confusing them. The "and such" on the end
of the quote is what I'm referring to, he's presenting the CFC thing as
equal hogwash to the global warming hogwash.
Or one of his close kin?
I find that I'm still not convinced on either issue,
Both are very real and have very sound and known scientific basis.
Quibbles are about some of the finer details of the future but
the wingers don't know that, not evengrasping what the subjects
are about.
Careful, you're starting to sound like a religous zealot..
Not I. Like I said, small quibbles about real effects (or rather,
their long term effects in some of the finer details).
No, the "wingers don't know that" statement was what I was referring to.
It's as much a matter of belief as knowlege, and it's also a matter of
whether or not one finds it to be important.. I'm curious- what label do
you assign to yourself to distinguish yourself from "wingers"?
I blame the educational system.
although some
googling I've been doing indicates that NASA is certainly convinced on
the CFC thing;
You can get sunburned a lot faster too.
And a better tan sooner too- just one of the advances of modern society..
Many don't have sunscreen. It impacts cancer rates, animal
populations, plants, building degradation, rubber, Ozone, smog, etc.
I guess you have to pick your issues.. here's one I came across on
another group:
Did you know that:
"Trace quantities of uranium in coal range from less than 1 part per million
(ppm) in some samples to around 10 ppm in others. Generally, the amount of
thorium contained in coal is about 2.5 times greater than the amount of
uranium."
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/...t/colmain.html
Did you know that:
"total world consumption of coal in 2001, at 5.26 billion short tons"
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/coal.pdf
Doing the math shows that between 5.26 thousand and 52.6 thousand *TONS* or
uranium were dumped into the environment in just that single YEAR, as
by-products of coal-burning. Multiply by 2.5 for thorium...
There's one assumption in there that I don't believe is perfect, but
it's a very interesting issue.. among many.
they present it not as a theory but as a demonstrated
fact. Strange that they only consider R12 and R11 in that issue though,
Those were the major things being produced and released that
were making matters worse the fastest. Some of the other
Freons and allied chemicals are less stable in the atmosphere and
break down faster IIRC. And/or contain less Chlorine to begin with.
chlorine released to the atmosphere got no consideration whatsoever,
It rapidly dissolves in any moisture & comes down again in
the rain & snow. It does not get to the upper atmosphere
as almost inert Freons do to be broken down there by the UV.
This is possible.
Fact. It's why salt from sea spray is no problem, as an example.
although I did manage to find one page where they did admit that
volcanoes *are* a goodly source of what bothers them.
Sometimes. Not much that can be done. And, IIRC, they send the
stuff high at times .... but a bit later it all comes back down ....
Where the two are being tied together is in "atmospheric waves",
allegedly a product of global warming and, supposedly, a factor in the
temperature of the stratosphere during the polar winters. You'll have to
look it up for a better explanation..
I seem to recall something but ... ? Memory fades ...
I'm gonna remember that..
What? No essay?
No. No essay. Hope I didn't disappoint.. I'm sure there's one building
up somewhere though, watch for it.
Re; global warming.. I read some thoughts on the issue and the one that
stuck with is was "If the climate is changing, we better hope it's
warming and not cooling, 'cause warming is something we can do something
about". I think that makes sense- do you?
We can cut CO2. Hard to get more heat for crops if it's too
cold .....
Indeed.. is there something on which we agree?
Off & on, probably.
Strange, ain't it..
John
John