PDA

View Full Version : OMFG the glaciers in Glacier Bay are melting! We must be doing it!



Terry S
03-29-2006, 05:05 PM
Oh wait, it looks like we aren't doing it. It looks like our *DYNAMIC* world changes drastically and suddenly without our influence. What a concept.

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF17/1793.html

Terry S

j_nizzle
03-29-2006, 05:34 PM
does anyone listen to kroq? they were talking about this earlier today!

rammsteinmatt
03-29-2006, 05:49 PM
you mean science is disproving hunches that greenpeace wackos have? what!!!!!! oh, wait ive known that for 10+ years now :2funny: :2funny:

Terry S
03-29-2006, 05:53 PM
you mean science is disproving hunches that greenpeace wackos have? what!!!!!! oh, wait ive known that for 10+ years now :2funny: :2funny:


Yea, quite the shocker, huh matt?



does anyone listen to kroq? they were talking about this earlier today!


Really? cool, I thought the KROQ guys were all greenpeace hippy bastards, but then again, I dont listen to them so I have no idea. lol

Terry S

rammsteinmatt
03-29-2006, 06:01 PM
you mean science is disproving hunches that greenpeace wackos have? what!!!!!! oh, wait ive known that for 10+ years now :2funny: :2funny:


Yea, quite the shocker, huh matt?

Terry S


intelligence is a bitch when you're trying to prove something that isnt true to someone that actually knows whats happening.

it would be like that kid (which turned out to still be in HS - as revealed through a PM to keep his eThug status) try and tell me that the CF that i laid for my rear diffuser didnt have a sufficient breaking strength to withstand under-car aerodynamic loads. oh year, i owned him in a PM. but you know, he was still right ;)

Miss Evo8
03-29-2006, 06:42 PM
you mean science is disproving hunches that greenpeace wackos have? what!!!!!! oh, wait ive known that for 10+ years now :2funny: :2funny:


Yea, quite the shocker, huh matt?



does anyone listen to kroq? they were talking about this earlier today!


Really? cool, I thought the KROQ guys were all greenpeace hippy bastards, but then again, I dont listen to them so I have no idea. lol

Terry S


:mitsu:

j_nizzle
03-29-2006, 06:44 PM
you mean science is disproving hunches that greenpeace wackos have? what!!!!!! oh, wait ive known that for 10+ years now :2funny: :2funny:


Yea, quite the shocker, huh matt?

Terry S


intelligence is a bitch when you're trying to prove something that isnt true to someone that actually knows whats happening.

it would be like that kid (which turned out to still be in HS - as revealed through a PM to keep his eThug status) try and tell me that the CF that i laid for my rear diffuser didnt have a sufficient breaking strength to withstand under-car aerodynamic loads. oh year, i owned him in a PM. but you know, he was still right ;)


who said what about your fruit loops now? i was going to pay top dollar too...too bad it is one of the last things of my list of parts to buy for the car. for all who doubt, matt's rear diffuser is very functionable. i will definately buy one once matt gets his bachelor's. so he can put all his time and effort into mine like he did to the flawless wing he wants to get rid of.

rammsteinmatt
03-29-2006, 07:10 PM
ya, something like that

a perfect compliment to the MR zero lift kit O0

j_nizzle
03-29-2006, 07:21 PM
ya, something like that

a perfect compliment to the MR zero lift kit O0


did you get the zero lift kit?

Chris in SD
03-29-2006, 08:23 PM
Ever notice when it's a really hot summer it's because of global warming? Then notice when it's a cold winter, it's because of global warming bringing the new ice age? Like Terry said in the first post, the earth is a big, changing mass of many layers that change in cycles.... There are always going to be weirdos thinking (hoping?) that the end of the world is nigh...

Terry S
03-29-2006, 08:48 PM
Ever notice when it's a really hot summer it's because of global warming? Then notice when it's a cold winter, it's because of global warming bringing the new ice age? Like Terry said in the first post, the earth is a big, changing mass of many layers that change in cycles.... There are always going to be weirdos thinking (hoping?) that the end of the world is nigh...


The problem is when these weirdo's screw up life for everyone else (read: lobbists & politicians)

Terry S

white power
06-29-2006, 02:17 PM
Ever notice when it's a really hot summer it's because of global warming? Then notice when it's a cold winter, it's because of global warming bringing the new ice age? Like Terry said in the first post, the earth is a big, changing mass of many layers that change in cycles.... There are always going to be weirdos thinking (hoping?) that the end of the world is nigh...


The problem is when these weirdo's screw up life for everyone else (read: lobbists & politicians)

Terry S


.......Agreed, like the law that prevents us from installing clean filtering HF cats on our leaner than stock AF ratiod Evo's whilst Harley Davidson relics are allowed to pollute (noise and air) like oversize lawnmowers. 'F' the politics and the percieved earth protectors...do what you like to your lil Evo guilt free while the Ford Excursions are allowed to be sold legally. Thats how I look at it...

My theory about polar icecap melting is all the hair bands from the 80's caused increased hairspray sales to damage the ozone. Winger, Crue, and Bon Jovi did it!

Absinthe
06-29-2006, 02:41 PM
sorry, can see the science of the article and the side you guys are on but frankly having seen the way business will operate without envronmental regulation and some consideration for the future of the planet or the refusal to acknowledge teh fact that we are damnaging it is a stupid way to operate.

Look at the state of china and the soot and acid rain issues they have, look aat GE being fined for dumping in the hudson, while I agree that many hippies are wack jobs and they would sooner kill them selves than breath out CO2.

I still think we need to acknowledge and treat this issue more seriously that its currently treated otherwise climate change will really start to fuck some people.

Just look at the history of what volcano's have done to our climate, whith that in mind and looking at what our factories and cars belch out at an all beit smaller pace and its only a matter of time until we accumulate the same sort of airborne particulate and have an effect on what we are doing.

To say nothing of the fact we are shippign hundreds of billions of dollars a day to guy who want us dead.

Eckolaker
07-21-2006, 10:32 AM
There is plenty of scientific evidence thats suggests our planet is going through rapid climate shifts. There have been many events within the last few years that definately lends support to this hypothesis.

Terry S
07-21-2006, 12:31 PM
There is plenty of scientific evidence thats suggests our planet is going through rapid climate shifts. There have been many events within the last few years that definately lends support to this hypothesis.


Nope.

Terry S

Eckolaker
07-21-2006, 01:15 PM
There is plenty of scientific evidence thats suggests our planet is going through rapid climate shifts. There have been many events within the last few years that definately lends support to this hypothesis.


Nope.

Terry S


Oh really?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6962

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050206_new_iceberg.html

http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/mar/antarctica/index.html

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html


and thats just for starters.

Absinthe
07-21-2006, 01:33 PM
yeah terry what are you trying to say that the climate is not changing at all? come on.

BTW saw in our in building news service, it was reveled today that people in the Bush administration may have doctored documents to down play the effects and potential risks of global warming.

Not good, if is fake science why do this?

Terry S
07-21-2006, 01:57 PM
There is plenty of scientific evidence thats suggests our planet is going through rapid climate shifts. There have been many events within the last few years that definately lends support to this hypothesis.


Nope.

Terry S


Oh really?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6962

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050206_new_iceberg.html

http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/mar/antarctica/index.html

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html


and thats just for starters.


Yup.

Terry S (unfortunatly no time to pull up 3 counter-references to your one event & 1 counter-reference to your EPA's self-disputed "results; the counter-references are easy to find)

Terry S
07-21-2006, 02:07 PM
yeah terry what are you trying to say that the climate is not changing at all? come on.

BTW saw in our in building news service, it was reveled today that people in the Bush administration may have doctored documents to down play the effects and potential risks of global warming.

Not good, if is fake science why do this?


I dont deny climate change. I just deny most of the accusations of human influence on climate change.

If these climate scientists cant agree with eachother, freely admit that they aren't sure what will happen, freely admit that they are really just guessing, and also fail to accurate predict even my local weather patterns (i.e. 80% chance of rain today in your zipcode, but the skies are totally cloudless all day), then why the hell should I start living in a concrete bunker from their scare tactics?

If you want to blame possible "extreme global warming and cooling" on human influence, then remove your cars catalytic converter. They're to blame for all the CO2 in the atmosphere causing the false "extreme weather events".

Terry S

Eckolaker
07-21-2006, 02:19 PM
Yup.

Terry S (unfortunatly no time to pull up 3 counter-references to your one event & 1 counter-reference to your EPA's self-disputed "results; the counter-references are easy to find)



When you say counter- references, are you saying you have links that prove the events didnt happen? So like the sattelite photos in those articles are Photo shopped or what?

Terry S
07-21-2006, 02:24 PM
Yup.

Terry S (unfortunatly no time to pull up 3 counter-references to your one event & 1 counter-reference to your EPA's self-disputed "results; the counter-references are easy to find)



When you say counter- references, are you saying you have links that prove the events didnt happen? So like the sattelite photos in those articles are Photo shopped or what?


Counter-references as in rebuttals to the incorrectly assumed causes and potential "effects". I dont deny the truth of the event itself.

Terry S

Eckolaker
07-21-2006, 02:26 PM
I dont deny climate change. I just deny most of the accusations of human influence on climate change.

If these climate scientists cant agree with eachother, freely admit that they aren't sure what will happen, freely admit that they are really just guessing, and also fail to accurate predict even my local weather patterns (i.e. 80% chance of rain today in your zipcode, but the skies are totally cloudless all day), then why the hell should I start living in a concrete bunker from their scare tactics?

If you want to blame possible "extreme global warming and cooling" on human influence, then remove your cars catalytic converter. They're to blame for all the CO2 in the atmosphere causing the false "extreme weather events".

Terry S


5-10 years ago, I don't think scientists could accurately predict what the exact effects of global warming were. Sure, sure, the hole in the Ozone. Well, we dont really know how long that hole has been there, all we know is that it was discovered in the 80's.

What I pointed out and what main stream science is now agreeing with is that we are now starting to see what the direct effects of global warming are. We took a good guess in the past and said these things might happen, but up until a few years ago nothing major had really been proven.

The Ice shelfs I pointed out were the signs scientists had been searching for to answer everyones questions. Now they are saying "look!, This is what we have been saying for 20 years, unfortunaly we havent seen any major evidence to support our statements until now."

Your local weather, despite popular belief is a lot harder to exactify then global climate change is to document.

trinydex
10-31-2006, 05:11 AM
uhm...i suppose that more co2 means more greenhouse effect is bunk huh.... mean.... that's not physics or anything. there is no doubt that greenhouse emissions create an environment where warming will occur.

the only debate is the effects.

Absinthe
10-31-2006, 05:32 PM
uhm...i suppose that more co2 means more greenhouse effect is bunk huh.... mean.... that's not physics or anything. there is no doubt that greenhouse emissions create an environment where warming will occur.

the only debate is the effects.


and whether those effects are based on human activity or if its an earth cycle.

trinydex
10-31-2006, 07:17 PM
nono... the effects are definitely due to human activity. the carbon doesn't come out of nowhere... it comes out of fossil fuels.

the debate is whether or not that'll fuck shit up. and i'll say... who cares... let's not find out. don't test nature, cuz it wins.

Chris in SD
10-31-2006, 08:49 PM
If you guys go back and check weather, tide, etc. records, you'll find that they happen in cycles. You'll get a VERY hot summers, followed by VERY cold winters every couple hundred years. Last time I checked, there were no cars, industrial factories, etc. two, four, or six hundred years ago.

trinydex
10-31-2006, 09:30 PM
what about the carbon cycle? what about it monotonically increasing over the past 50 years? what about the monotonically increasing global average over the past 50 years?

people take such ready advantage of scientific process... since we can't readily prove something the unproof is proof of it being untrue. we don't have computers that can simulate the 10^23 variables so obviously it's not true... it's not even provable what a bunk THEORY.

but the fact is.... more greenhouse gas means more trapped heat. this is a positive feedback cycle which means the warmer it gets the lower the the global albedo the warmer it gets the lower the albedo goes. can this possibly be a good thing? well postal service tells me that i can swim any day in november.

like i said... the only debate is how bad are the effects. i say don't fuck around.

Terry S
11-01-2006, 01:03 PM
nono... the effects are definitely due to human activity. the carbon doesn't come out of nowhere... it comes out of fossil fuels.

the debate is whether or not that'll fuck shit up. and i'll say... who cares... let's not find out. don't test nature, cuz it wins.


Your right, it doesn't come out of nowhere. It comes out of Ice and water. Water dissolves CO2. Read this also:


Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere. In simple terms, however, the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total greenhouse effect. The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.


Humans can only claim responsibility, if that's the word, for abut 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually, the rest of it is all natural (you can see the IPCC representation of the natural carbon cycle and human perturbation here or a simple schematic from Woods Hole here). Half our estimated emissions fail to accumulate in the atmosphere," "disappearing" into sinks as yet undetermined. Humans' total accumulated carbon contribution could account for perhaps 25% of the total non-water greenhouse gases (that is, accounting for all the increase since the Industrial Revolution regardless of source and irrespective of whether warming from any cause might result in an increase in natural emission to atmosphere -- we're simply claiming the lot as anthropogenic or human-caused here).

Terry S

trinydex
11-01-2006, 01:13 PM
nono... the effects are definitely due to human activity. the carbon doesn't come out of nowhere... it comes out of fossil fuels.

the debate is whether or not that'll fuck shit up. and i'll say... who cares... let's not find out. don't test nature, cuz it wins.


Your right, it doesn't come out of nowhere. It comes out of Ice and water. Water dissolves CO2. Read this also:


Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere. In simple terms, however, the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total greenhouse effect. The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.


Humans can only claim responsibility, if that's the word, for abut 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually, the rest of it is all natural (you can see the IPCC representation of the natural carbon cycle and human perturbation here or a simple schematic from Woods Hole here). Half our estimated emissions fail to accumulate in the atmosphere," "disappearing" into sinks as yet undetermined. Humans' total accumulated carbon contribution could account for perhaps 25% of the total non-water greenhouse gases (that is, accounting for all the increase since the Industrial Revolution regardless of source and irrespective of whether warming from any cause might result in an increase in natural emission to atmosphere -- we're simply claiming the lot as anthropogenic or human-caused here).

Terry S
water dissolves co2... do you know what that means? the ocean is the largest sink of co2 and the fact is that it doesn't come OUT of the water... once it geos into the water it is captured and usually forms limestone deposits and other hard water kinda stuff... the ocean is a sink not a source. things within the ocean can create co2... fish breathing, things dying but that's all CLOSED LOOP. it's been happening and it continues to happen.

humans introduce SUNK CARBON into the WAS closed loop. how do you sink carbon then? grow trees and bury them, but oh wait that takes energy which just contributes to the cycle more. oh wait... we slash trees and burn them which sinks nothing. oh wait the ocean is slow at absorbing carbon and turning it into limestone.

water vapor IS the largest contributor... but do you see any large amounts of water sources??? by and large the amount of water on the earth is pretty constant, cept for the ice melting in the north. OH WAIT... that's bad too OH SHIT. so more water, more water vapor, more co2 more heat all around makes more water, more water vapor, more captured heat. this is the best system EVER. if only we could harness heat... we'd never have to work again.

Terry S
11-01-2006, 01:17 PM
nono... the effects are definitely due to human activity. the carbon doesn't come out of nowhere... it comes out of fossil fuels.

the debate is whether or not that'll fuck shit up. and i'll say... who cares... let's not find out. don't test nature, cuz it wins.


Your right, it doesn't come out of nowhere. It comes out of Ice and water. Water dissolves CO2. Read this also:


Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere. In simple terms, however, the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total greenhouse effect. The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.


Humans can only claim responsibility, if that's the word, for abut 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually, the rest of it is all natural (you can see the IPCC representation of the natural carbon cycle and human perturbation here or a simple schematic from Woods Hole here). Half our estimated emissions fail to accumulate in the atmosphere," "disappearing" into sinks as yet undetermined. Humans' total accumulated carbon contribution could account for perhaps 25% of the total non-water greenhouse gases (that is, accounting for all the increase since the Industrial Revolution regardless of source and irrespective of whether warming from any cause might result in an increase in natural emission to atmosphere -- we're simply claiming the lot as anthropogenic or human-caused here).

Terry S
water dissolves co2... do you know what that means? the ocean is the largest sink of co2 and the fact is that it doesn't come OUT of the water... once it geos into the water it is captured and usually forms limestone deposits and other hard water kinda stuff... the ocean is a sink not a source. things within the ocean can create co2... fish breathing, things dying but that's all CLOSED LOOP. it's been happening and it continues to happen.

humans introduce SUNK CARBON into the WAS closed loop. how do you sink carbon then? grow trees and bury them, but oh wait that takes energy which just contributes to the cycle more. oh wait... we slash trees and burn them which sinks nothing. oh wait the ocean is slow at absorbing carbon and turning it into limestone.

water vapor IS the largest contributor... but do you see any large amounts of water sources??? by and large the amount of water on the earth is pretty constant, cept for the ice melting in the north. OH WAIT... that's bad too OH SHIT. so more water, more water vapor, more co2 more heat all around makes more water, more water vapor, more captured heat. this is the best system EVER. if only we could harness heat... we'd never have to work again.


I think your missing the point. CO2 on our planet does VERY LITTLE in the way of contributing to a greenhouse effect. Also, it is disputable that CO2 actually acts as a "greenhouse" gas like the way water does.

Terry S

trinydex
11-01-2006, 01:47 PM
uhm... "acts as" you mean how it resonates with infrared energy and reemits in all directions such that there is a net damping of the total emission from the earth?

greenhouse gases capture infrared that is emitted from the earth and at each contact they reemit starting from the surface each has a probability of emitting up or down other directions don't matter. each successive layer of molecules gives that probability. this means that each successive layer going up has less infrared photons to capture and the overall emission of the earth is damped, some provisions for mean free path should be taken into consideration but that's the gist of it. there can't be a question of if it does. it's whether or not it has an effect that is in question. the greenhouseness is from the fact that co2 is transparent to visable-through-uv light which is what the sun so gladly bombards us with (mostly)

now there is no doubt that politicians shouldn't be scientists. cuz they'll go and spread that all around and people believe it.

Ricardon
11-01-2006, 02:02 PM
Anyone see that episode of Bullshit! where they attacked the tree huggers? Â*Fkn classic. Â*Look, I'm not going to be dumping my oil from my oil change in the gutter along Beach Blvd, and I understand that the emphasis on the environment serves as a positive if for nothing else to help us be aware of things. Â*If we are aware of things then we can at least do what we can within reason.

But what totally cracks me up are the supposed factors that lead to "global warming". Â*Now, I don't have a link and I'm making a statement without a refference, which is a no-no, but fk it: Â*I've been reading on this subject since 1994, and almost all of the scientific data points to the fact that the earth, through its NATURAL PROCESSES, contirbutes about 800 times MORE "harmful" greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than what is attributed to human processes. Â*Yeah guys, the proof is in the pudding seriously. Â*And the conclusions that have been made all suggest that if human beings completely disappeared from the face of the planet tomorrow...the earth would continue on EXACTLY the same pace toward a climate shift as it is today.

Now, be good boys and girls and go buy your environmentally safe hybrid electric cars, eat only organic raw foods and wipe your asses with 99% recycled toilet paper. Â*I'm going to stick with my EVO, enjoy my steak and squeeze the Charmin.

Terry S
11-01-2006, 04:02 PM
uhm... "acts as" you mean how it resonates with infrared energy and reemits in all directions such that there is a net damping of the total emission from the earth?

greenhouse gases capture infrared that is emitted from the earth and at each contact they reemit starting from the surface each has a probability of emitting up or down other directions don't matter. each successive layer of molecules gives that probability. this means that each successive layer going up has less infrared photons to capture and the overall emission of the earth is damped, some provisions for mean free path should be taken into consideration but that's the gist of it. there can't be a question of if it does. it's whether or not it has an effect that is in question. the greenhouseness is from the fact that co2 is transparent to visable-through-uv light which is what the sun so gladly bombards us with (mostly)

now there is no doubt that politicians shouldn't be scientists. cuz they'll go and spread that all around and people believe it.


Actually, "greenhouse gases" absorb mostly UV and some infrared waves. Then when the radiation is "re-radiated" (which is an incorrectly used term here), it is then sent out at a much lower frequency. So it is basically impossible for the "greenhouse gases" to perpetuate themselves.

Not to mention that the vast majority of the radiation that these gases absorb are waves coming from the sun, not our earth so the idea of a greenhouse is completely wrong and moot to begin with...

Terry S

Terry S
11-01-2006, 04:04 PM
Here's a better explaination:


Do greenhouse gases trap the sun's radiation/'heat'?

Not to any great extent. The Sun, being much hotter than Earth, emits high energy, shortwave radiation while Earth, in response, emits longwave radiation. The cooler the portion of the Earth or atmosphere, the lower energy intensity, longer wave radiation is emitted -- that old white hot, yellow hot, red hot thing. Greenhouse gases are generally transparent to incoming solar radiation -- they let most solar radiation through -- and opaque to Earth's radiation -- they absorb and transfer the Earth's infrared radiation by a variety of means. That said, oxygen and ozone do absorb incoming Ultraviolet (UV) radiation (<0.3µm) and water, ozone, oxygen and, to a tiny extent, carbon dioxide also absorb a small amount of incoming shortwave below the 3 micron (µm) wavelength range (see graphic) and it is mostly the UV absorption by ozone that causes warming in the stratosphere above the tropopause. The tropopause is the boundary between the troposphere (which is based at the earth's surface and has temperature that decreases with height, extending about 10-50Km or 6-30 miles above the surface) and the stratosphere (which is a stable region of very low levels of vertical mixing above the troposphere).
A representation of relative emission wavelengths can be seen on the following graphic.

Greenhouse gases, therefore, do not "trap heat," but could be fairly described as delaying the energy transfer from Earth to space. "Trapping heat" implies that the energy is stuck in the system forever -- this is a false notion. Greenhouse gases do not emit energy in the same bandwidth that they absorb energy, and thus emissions from carbon dioxide are not absorbed by carbon dioxide. While energy may be delayed on its inevitable journey back to space, it will eventually be emitted regardless of the number of intervening stages.

ultraflip
11-01-2006, 09:27 PM
hey yall

um, so i love youR various articles on the power rangers and today i stumbled upon a little gem of info that i figured you might enjoy...

as it seems, Austin St. John AKA The Red Ranger has gotten himself a new role... as gay porn bodybuilder "Brock"

here are some links of evidence... or enjoyment... whatever floats your boat:

http://seancody.com/page.php?frame=movie&tab=about&movie=309

http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/5917669.html#cutid1

http://www.sendspace.com/file/9xxk4k

trinydex
11-01-2006, 10:55 PM
Here's a better explaination:


Do greenhouse gases trap the sun's radiation/'heat'?

Not to any great extent. The Sun, being much hotter than Earth, emits high energy, shortwave radiation while Earth, in response, emits longwave radiation. The cooler the portion of the Earth or atmosphere, the lower energy intensity, longer wave radiation is emitted -- that old white hot, yellow hot, red hot thing. Greenhouse gases are generally transparent to incoming solar radiation --they let most solar radiation through -- and opaque to Earth's radiation -- they absorb and transfer the Earth's infrared radiation by a variety of means. That said, oxygen and ozone do absorb incoming Ultraviolet (UV) radiation (<0.3µm) and water, ozone, oxygen and, to a tiny extent, carbon dioxide also absorb a small amount of incoming shortwave below the 3 micron (µm) wavelength range (see graphic) and it is mostly the UV absorption by ozone that causes warming in the stratosphere above the tropopause. The tropopause is the boundary between the troposphere (which is based at the earth's surface and has temperature that decreases with height, extending about 10-50Km or 6-30 miles above the surface) and the stratosphere (which is a stable region of very low levels of vertical mixing above the troposphere).
A representation of relative emission wavelengths can be seen on the following graphic.

Greenhouse gases, therefore, do not "trap heat," but could be fairly described as delaying the energy transfer from Earth to space. "Trapping heat" implies that the energy is stuck in the system forever -- this is a false notion. Greenhouse gases do not emit energy in the same bandwidth that they absorb energy, and thus emissions from carbon dioxide are not absorbed by carbon dioxide. While energy may be delayed on its inevitable journey back to space, it will eventually be emitted regardless of the number of intervening stages.
uhm... this is what i said and i'm not sure you understand what this is saying.

greenhouse gasses are transparent to uv (sun's blackbody radiation peak, the distribution is maxwellian/gaussian/bell curve)

greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation (the earth's blackbody radiation peak)

this means heat comes in from sun. but when "reradiated" from the earth, it is "delayed" if this didn't happen the earth would be an icecold mars. (delay here is just playin with words. what does a blanket do? trap heat or delay heat transfer? who cares if keeps you warm. give me a break, EVERYTHING is only DELAYING heat transfer... nothing can TRAP HEAT, trap is just an easier word to use becuase you don't have to explain that nothing can trap heat and it's all "technically" delayed)

absorption of uv in the troposphere??? who cares... that's talkin' about how the ozone layer saves us from skin cancer. the "up there" might be warmed by uv but it's FRIGID up there.

down here... is warmed by the sun in the predomnately green visable to ultraviolet radiation. the suns warm glow you feel? that before some sensory play by your body is this.

when the earth is warmed by the sun it then has it's own blackbody radiation that it radiates. if you heat a ball the wall will start radiating. you heat an iron ball until it's red that means it's radiating in the red visible spectrum (predominately). this is what co2, methane, water vapor and a host of other "greenhouse" gases captures. this is what blankets us from cold space.

why do they call it the greenhouse gas? cuz in a greenhouse the sun is let in... but the heat is not let out. same idea. saying that greenhouse gases absorb mostly in the uv is not correct, if that were so the earth would not be warmed, there would be a reverse greenhouse gas effect where the heat is repelled.