
- Time
- Post link
no problem.
no problem.
Web design is stupid.
Keep Circulating the Tapes.
END OF LINE
(It hasn’t happened yet)
DrCrowTStarwars said:
Still the tests they take have an in built bias put there by the people who made them up. Not to mention the teachers have their own bias so the students know the easiest way to pass is to think like the teachers.
Wow, you just insulted a whole lot of people who worked very, very hard.
Nobody said you should "lose your rights" and all the other nonsense you are attributing to us. Only that dismissal of science is a step backwards.
It's obvious that you have some issues you're working through, so I won't continue our discussion further. Best of luck.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
DrCrowTStarwars said:
It's a very long story but I have several conditions some of which are linked to stress and my autisum. they give me movement disorders and cause things like headaches,and words to become jumbled in my head,along with confused mood swings I was on meds for them but then my doctor retired and I haven't found another in my area that takes medicaid so I am off my meds.
Really, sorry about that dude. Come over and live in the UK and we'll all club together and pay for your meds for you, no hassle, we're nice like that ;-)
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
Tyrphanax said:
Web design is stupid.
Boy don't I know it. Has it gotten any easier since the last time I worked on a website in the late 90s. I swore I'd never help anyone build a website again after that.
Tyrphanax said:
Web design is stupid.
Boy don't I know it. Has it gotten any easier since the last time I worked on a website in the late 90s. I swore I'd never help anyone build a website again after that.
I think the forum is self aware. Why else would it double post when someone's bitching about web design? ;)
I wrote pretty lengthy review for two movies on the last movie seen thread and as I went to post them I must have done something wrong because the text was replaced with the text for increasingly pointless abortion thread.
GGGGGGGrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
That is why I always save my longer posts in open office before posting here.
I should I suppose.
All I want is easy action.
Reminding me of Hot Fuzz,always a good move:)
If people took a big deep breath and thought about it for more than, say one second, then they'd realise that when they typed "...at best", they actually meant "...at worst".
I'm not against hyperbole (It's my all time favorite thing!) but somehow when it's deployed in conjunction with the words "...at best", it tends to be hyperbole of an almost alarming magnitude.
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
TV's Frink said:
RicOlie_2 said:
I can say for sure that there are many scientists who have completely bizarre ideas about global warming. I was listening to a scientist on the radio talking about how the ice cap over the North Pole is going to disappear in a year! One, freaking year! That's so incredible it almost causes me to reject everything scientists say on global warming entirely, but I do recognize that there is some truth in it.
Some of it is political though. Look at what happened with the banning of CFCs. CFCs were banned by politicians who didn't know their facts. The ozone hole cannot spread away from Antarctica, and cannot occur outside of the months of August to November (I think it's those months), because it's creation is dependent on the Polar Vortex which only occurs in that place during those months. CFCs are responsible for only a minute amount of the damage caused to the ozone hole, which has been occurring since long before humans were able to affect it at all.
Many, though not all, scientists think the ozone hole is a serious problem, but they don't seem to have any evidence for it and it was an initial misinterpretation of the data that led to the misconceptions about the ozone hole.
I think the same goes for global warming.
Citation needed!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100505-science-environment-ozone-hole-25-years/
I'll get back to you on this tonight. I didn't think the science textbook in which I learned all that would be the best source, but I've contacted the author of the textbook and he's explained himself further. I'll post some illustrative charts later along with a link or two supporting the bit about the Polar Vortex.
Here we go, Frink:
The Ozone "hole" is caused by the Polar Vortices which occur at the poles, obviously. The one at the North Pole isn't strong enough to carry CFCs and other chlorine atoms up to the stratosphere. The South Polar Vortex is far stronger, and longer lasting, but still only occurs between the months of August and November, in normal cases.
Source (specifically the second and third sections):
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/vortex_NH.html
Here is a source that describes the ideal situation for ozone destruction created by the Polar Vortex (particularly the section called "The Ozone Hole"):
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Kinetics/Case_Studies%3A_Kinetics/Depletion_of_the_Ozone_Layer
The following graph charts ozone depletion throughout the year. As you can see, it occurs from August to November before stabilizing again, rather than continuing to drop over the years.
The Polar Vortex pushes ozone away from it, as well as carrying chlorine particles into the stratosphere. This decreases the concentration of ozone over the South Pole even more than chlorine atoms do, as well as creating a greater concentration of ozone outside the Polar Vortex:
So the ozone hole is limited to Antarctica, and to a far lesser extent, the Arctic.
From the same NASA site:
Increased levels of human-produced gases such as CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) have led to increased rates of ozone destruction, upsetting the natural balance of ozone and leading to reduced stratospheric ozone levels. These reduced ozone levels have increased the amount of harmful ultraviolet radiation reaching the Earth’s surface.
You said:
CFCs are responsible for only a minute amount of the damage caused to the ozone hole, which has been occurring since long before humans were able to affect it at all.
So who do I believe, you or NASA?
Yes, but the ozone hole can only spread so far. The ozone depletion is indeed greater, but it is almost entirely contained to the area in which the Polar Vortices occur.
Yeah, so who cares about the poles? I'm sure that won't have any effect on the rest of the planet.
What effect will it have? Oh...wait...it will cool down the world and counteract Global Warming! That can't be that bad, can it?
TV's Frink said:
Yeah, so who cares about the poles? I'm sure that won't have any effect on the rest of the planet.
Funny thing is, I recall some old tv show from the late 70's or early 80's, where your typical meglomaniac wanted to blow a hole in the ozone with a rocket or something. I don't know if the writers were implying people under the ozone hole would fry like bacon or get skin cancer 10 years later.
Given how many areosol sprays made me wheeze in the '70's, I think we are better off without CFC's anyway.
Where were you in '77?
RicOlie_2 said:
What effect will it have? Oh...wait...it will cool down the world and counteract Global Warming! That can't be that bad, can it?
I can't tell if you're kidding.
At any rate, who said the natural occurring holes at the poles (that'd make a good lurker name) are the only places we have to worry about?
http://www.ozonelayer.noaa.gov/science/basics.htm
There is also widespread scientific and public interest and concern about losses of ozone in the stratosphere. Ground-based and satellite instruments have measured decreases in the amount of stratospheric ozone in our atmosphere. Over some parts of Antarctica, up to 60% of the total overhead amount of ozone (known as the column ozone) is depleted during Antarctic spring (September-November). This phenomenon is known as the Antarctic ozone hole. In the Arctic polar regions, similar processes occur that have also led to significant chemical depletion of the column ozone during late winter and spring in 7 out of the last 11 years. The ozone loss from January through late March has been typically 20-25%, and shorter-period losses have been higher, depending on the meteorological conditions encountered in the Arctic stratosphere. Smaller, but still significant, stratospheric decreases have been seen at other, more-populated regions of the Earth. Increases in surface UV-B radiation have been observed in association with local decreases in stratospheric ozone, from both ground-based and satellite-borne instruments.
(emphasis mine)
And the effects...
Stratospheric ozone (sometimes referred to as "good ozone") plays a beneficial role by absorbing most of the biologically damaging ultraviolet sunlight (called UV-B), allowing only a small amount to reach the Earth's surface. The absorption of ultraviolet radiation by ozone creates a source of heat, which actually forms the stratosphere itself (a region in which the temperature rises as one goes to higher altitudes). Ozone thus plays a key role in the temperature structure of the Earth's atmosphere. Without the filtering action of the ozone layer, more of the Sun's UV-B radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would reach the Earth's surface. Many experimental studies of plants and animals and clinical studies of humans have shown the harmful effects of excessive exposure to UV-B radiation.
I have yet to see any evidence that the small depletion away from the poles is any cause for concern. I'll believe it if you can give me the actual evidence (graphs and whatnot) rather than a vague statement about it. I did indirectly acknowledge that there is ozone depletion away from the poles in writing that "almost all" and "most" of it happens over the poles.
There are links all over that site to data sets, I'm sure you can find it there.
Robert Paterson has been cast as Indiana Jones in Disney's reboot of the franchise. Well that does it,everything good George Lucas has ever worked on had been ruined.
If you will excuse me I am off to drink a bottle of bleach.
Yikes.
So.. that's still a rumor.
Also, I'd like to see him in something I'd actually enjoy. He seems like a cool guy, all things considered.
A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em