IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
The mammoth global warming scam

Omega892R09
post Mar 27 2008, 01:21 PM
Post #81





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 25 2008, 03:26 AM) *
In other words, the aether, exists.


Is this a Monty Python moment?

Walks around shouting aether, aether, aether. whistle.gif

QUOTE
Sort of makes the mammoth global warming scam look like a little
white lie by comparison.


The original message on global warming was no scam it just took the greedy and politicians to turn honest scientific research into a scam.

This continued conflation of purpose is begining to grate.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 27 2008, 03:12 PM
Post #82



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Mar 27 2008, 10:21 AM) *
Is this a Monty Python moment?

Walks around shouting aether, aether, aether. whistle.gif


Ever heard of dark matter?
That's the PC word for aether.

Sorry, if I'm not always politically correct.

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Mar 27 2008, 04:21 PM
Post #83





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 25 2008, 05:12 PM) *
Ever heard of dark matter?
That's the PC word for aether.

Sorry, if I'm not always politically correct.

imo, lunk

No worries.

Yes I have heard of dark matter, have a number of astronomy/cosmology books that mention it.

But I don't think that something like dark matter was in the minds of those who used the term aether over a century ago. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 27 2008, 04:29 PM
Post #84



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



I can think of a lot of words that have changed from the last century.
"Eugenics", for instance now is "family planning."

That doesn't necessarily mean the meaning has.

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Mar 27 2008, 10:23 PM
Post #85



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Hi O892,

I think you may have missed the "Short of a ... mass density increase" part of my post above (I've often heard that I have a predilection to smuggle excessive meaning in my too-often-Faulkneresque writing). I contend that an increase (in either mass or radius), however small, remains an increase nonetheless. This is a very useful fact when making "sweat" or friction "welds" on things like flywheel drive gears. wink.gif

I also am not so certain that meteoric Earth mass increases (and other space-wandering "compounds") are entirely "insignificant," as the [often water] vapor generated by "burning" meteors/meteoroids/meteorites/comets SHOULD be captured by Earth's gravitational field, no? At least one NASA astrobiologist seems to think that is how earth got its water.

http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/news/expandnews.cfm?id=597

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/jul/breakwater (article is now off-server though)

I'm just pondering Lunk's proposal in a "what if" fashion, and I don't have the luxury of having lived 70 million years to know for certain what size Earth once was. A lot can happen in 7E07 years though... wink.gif

As to escaping atmospheric gases, I haven't seen much evidence yet of Earth "depleting" there. Earth is rumored to have taken Mars' (and very remotely possibly) the Moon's atmospheres, but I wasn't there to witness it, so who knows. If Earth's atmospheric gases went anywhere, I'd expect them to be headed for our Sun (due to the much higher gravitational field). Maybe these "escapee" gas atoms and molecules would eventually be sent back to Earth in a "solar wind cycle." dunno.gif

Lunk did bring up an interesting point about CO2. If we assume that atmospheric gases "distill" based upon their molecular mass (living much of my life at "high altitude" and observing the plant distributions, I'm reasonably certain that at least oxygen behaves this way), it is interesting to compare the masses of "common" Earth gases.

Nitrogen ( N2 ) ~78.1%, ~28.0133991241 amu

Oxygen ( O2 ) ~20.9%, ~31.9988002777 amu

Argon ( Ar ) ~0.9%, ~39.9480018616 amu

Carbon dioxide, Methane, Rare (inert) gases, ~0.1% (see relevant masses below)

http://ess.geology.ufl.edu/HTMLpages/ESS/G...s/lecture1.html

Ozone (O3 ), ~47.9982004166 amu
-----
Hey, this is much easier:
http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topi...ch4/1frame.html

Common Gases at Room Temperature

Element or Compound Atomic or Molecular Weight [amu]
H2 (hydrogen) 2.02
He (helium) 4.00
CH4 (methane) 16.04
NH3 (ammonia) 17.03

Ne (neon) 20.18

HCN (hydrogen cyanide) 27.03
CO (carbon monoxide) 28.01
N2 (nitrogen) 28.01
NO (nitrogen oxide) 30.01

C2H6 (ethane) 30.07

O2 (oxygen) 32.00
PH3 (phosphine) 34.00
H2S (hydrogen sulfide) 34.08
HCl (hydrogen chloride) 36.46
F2 (fluorine) 38.00

Ar (argon) 39.95
CO2 (carbon dioxide) 44.01
N2O (dinitrogen oxide) 44.01
C3H8 (propane) 44.10
NO2 (nitrogen dioxide) 46.01

O3 (ozone) 48.00

C4H10 (butane) 58.12
SO2 (sulfur dioxide) 64.06
BF3 (boron trifluoride) 67.80
Cl2 (chlorine) 70.91

Kr (krypton) 83.80
CF2Cl2 (dichlorodifluoromethane) 120.91
SF6 (sulfur hexafluoride) 146.05
Xe (xenon) 131.30
-----
OK, let's "normalize" on Nitrogen gas, as it is the most abundant, at 28.01 amu (just like Carbon Monoxide, which is quite a good fuel for combustion engines and furnaces by the way, especially when combined with hydrogen/hydroxy gas in a "biomass gasifier"- http://www.green-trust.org/woodgas.htm ).

Nitrogen [defined as] 1.000
Oxygen = 32.00/28.01 = 1.1424491253
Argon = 39.95/28.01 = 1.4262763299
Carbon dioxide ( CO2 ) = 44.01/28.01 = 1.5712245627 (also just like N2O 'greenhouse' "laughing"/racing gas)

Now for the interesting one,
Ozone ( O3 ) = 48.00/28.01 = 1.713673688

Ummm, so why is the "ozone layer" up in the cold stratosphere 20-40 km high, if it is "heavier" than "air" (78% Nitrogen/21% Oxygen)? The likely answer might not lie where one expects though.

Lunk is correct that the dreaded CO2 is "heavier than air," hanging out below the nefarious carbon monoxide, or oxygen for that matter.

EDIT: The "heavier than air" is why carbon dioxide fire extinguishers work- they displace the oxygen from the fire, yes? Then off to feed some carbon-based plants (I think I read that opinion around here somewhere thumbsup.gif ).

We also need to remember that air density is a function of pressure and temperature, but we have discussed air density and the speed of sound at some length elsewhere. If we assume the same temperature and pressure, the gases should tend to organize themselves as above (from nitrogen on down). This page actually looked reasonably good at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air

OK, now for the crux of my question- where exactly are all those "global warming" CO2 sensors located? At sea level? Next to an arboretum or busy freeway (which will likely change CO2 levels considerably)? Over a green lawn or lush produce field? Inside a greenhouse perhaps? whistle.gif

My point here being that statistics (even if actual valid data correctly taken by properly-calibrated equipment) can be used to skew "studies" in several ways. I believe that O892 alluded to this "political hijacking" above, and I've seen it firsthand in NSF-funded academic setting(s) in various sciences. Don't even get me started on the military-industrial "science-" I think most of you here can guess how that works.

My final point being that we should look critically at any "scientific study," regardless of the level of trust we elect to donate to our respective "experts." After all- we just might have "agendas" in our own minds that we are still unaware of (like Gore spending Daddy's petroleum mining money perhaps, but I personally believe that Al is smarter and more duplicitous than that).
-----
P.S. We may want to take a closer look at that gasifier thing- that is "sequestered" carbon fuel produced by biomass NOT in the Middle East, and it ran tens of thousands of automobiles, trucks, and tractors during WW2. Woodgas is reported to be the cleanest "carbon" combustion reaction known in a gasifier. I've got a little gasifier campstove that runs on pine cones, grass, twigs, etc. and 2AA batteries to drive the fan, and I haven't bought fuel for it once. thumbsup.gif

http://www.tpub.com/content/altfuels01/0276/index.htm

Large PDF of above is at:
http://devafdc.nrel.gov/pdfs/0276.pdf

http://members.fortunecity.com/woodgas/

Ironically, FEMA has a manual you can download:
http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/g...-generator.html

http://members.fortunecity.com/biopilze/usa/fema/index.htm

Then again, hydrogen actually cleans the intake air when burned in a combustion engine, and releases ONLY water vapor (no carbon invited to or released by the reaction, but carbon monoxide will get converted to carbon dioxide very efficiently- HINT: small hydrogen "boosters" are a quick, easy way to clean up engine emissions considerably, since hydrogen burns at around 10x the flame velocity of gasoline vapor whistle.gif ).

This post has been edited by dMole: Mar 28 2008, 01:47 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 28 2008, 01:47 AM
Post #86



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (dMole @ Mar 27 2008, 07:23 PM) *
Ummm, so why is the "ozone layer" up in the cold stratosphere 20-40 km high, if it is "heavier" than "air (78% Nitrogen/21% Oxygen). The likely answer might not lie where one expects though.

whistle.gif ).


How can one make Ozone?
High voltage electricity through oxygen, is one way,
UV light is another.

What are the Northern (and Southern) lights made from?
At what altitude in the atmosphere do they occur?
At what altitude in the atmosphere do you find the Ozone layer?

My theory is that atmospheric oxygen is transformed at high altitude by electricity (and UV rays) in place.
It is formed up there.

Ozone (O3) is highly reactive and will combine with other gasses in the atmosphere, more so, than normal oxygen (O2).

Remember air is a mixture of gasses,
percentages will very, in different locations.

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill
post Apr 3 2008, 07:42 PM
Post #87





Group: Guest
Posts: 1,922
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 147



My theory is that atmospheric oxygen is transformed at high altitude by electricity (and UV rays) in place.
It is formed up there.

Ozone (O3) is highly reactive and will combine with other gasses in the atmosphere, more so, than normal oxygen (O2).

Remember air is a mixture of gasses,
percentages will very, in different locations.



This right on target

O3 is produced in the upper atmosphere mainly due to UV light acting on O2

It is an equilibruim reaction meaning it goes both ways

O2 to O3 with UV light (the energy absorbed by this reaction is how the earth is protected from UV light)

O3 to O2 without UV

Ozone is indeed very reactive and decomposes rather quickly to O2

The famous 'ozone hole' is created in this manner every winterbecause there is very little UV light at the poles since they are in darkness.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Apr 3 2008, 11:54 PM
Post #88



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (bill @ Apr 3 2008, 04:42 PM) *
My theory is that atmospheric oxygen is transformed at high altitude by electricity (and UV rays) in place.
It is formed up there.

Ozone (O3) is highly reactive and will combine with other gasses in the atmosphere, more so, than normal oxygen (O2).

Remember air is a mixture of gasses,
percentages will very, in different locations.



This right on target

O3 is produced in the upper atmosphere mainly due to UV light acting on O2

It is an equilibruim reaction meaning it goes both ways

O2 to O3 with UV light (the energy absorbed by this reaction is how the earth is protected from UV light)

O3 to O2 without UV

Ozone is indeed very reactive and decomposes rather quickly to O2

The famous 'ozone hole' is created in this manner every winterbecause there is very little UV light at the poles since they are in darkness.


Thanks bill,
you are the very first person anywhere to agree with this theory!

I thought about this out years ago, in the 80's, but could find no official or unofficial source to even bounce this idea off of.

I sure hope that I wasn't the first to figure this out,
as it seems so blatantly obvious.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Apr 4 2008, 04:47 PM
Post #89





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (bill @ Apr 1 2008, 09:42 PM) *
My theory is that atmospheric oxygen is transformed at high altitude by electricity (and UV rays) in place.
It is formed up there.

Ozone (O3) is highly reactive and will combine with other gasses in the atmosphere, more so, than normal oxygen (O2).

Remember air is a mixture of gasses,
percentages will very, in different locations.



This right on target

O3 is produced in the upper atmosphere mainly due to UV light acting on O2

It is an equilibruim reaction meaning it goes both ways

O2 to O3 with UV light (the energy absorbed by this reaction is how the earth is protected from UV light)

O3 to O2 without UV

Ozone is indeed very reactive and decomposes rather quickly to O2

The famous 'ozone hole' is created in this manner every winterbecause there is very little UV light at the poles since they are in darkness.

Most of that is nothing new.

UV light breaks down O3 into O2 + O which can recombine as O2 releasing heat energy.

Increase in ozone depletion has been caused by CFCs in the atmosphere which have a long life and are a catalyst for the breaking down of O3 like this, using Freon 12 as the example:

CF2Cl2 <UV radiation ---> ClO + O2 ------------ 1
ClO + O ---> Cl + O2 ----------------------------- 2

Cl reacts in 1 and is a product in 2

Cl in otherwords has a double strike and twice as 2 Cl radicals are produced at 2.

With an extra hole in the ozone layer appearing over the arctic and thining at middle lattitudes the effects of increased UV exposure on DNA is sure to have effects and some of these are being detected in the fauna of some reqions.

Methane also has an effect on the ozone layer.

Increased levels of ozone at lower levels are, of course, toxic.

Are you trying to say that ozone depletion has nothing to do with us and is a non problem?

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Apr 4 2008, 04:48 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Apr 4 2008, 04:50 PM
Post #90





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 26 2008, 03:47 AM) *
How can one make Ozone?.

imo, lunk

Use the photocopier. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Apr 5 2008, 02:53 PM
Post #91



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Apr 4 2008, 01:47 PM) *
Are you trying to say that ozone depletion has nothing to do with us and is a non problem?


No, The ozone layer protects the surface of the Earth from deadly UV radiation, an increase of UV radiation is detrimental to crops and life in general. A great deal of information is out there about what causes its' depletion, but there is very little information, in fact I have not been able to find any at all, about how it got up there in the first place or how it is created in the upper atmosphere.
This indicates, to me, that we are being given only half the truth, about the ozone layer.

Why, are we only given one side of this story?
(the causes of its' depletion and not how it is created, as well.)

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Apr 6 2008, 03:08 PM
Post #92





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 3 2008, 05:53 PM) *
No, The ozone layer protects the surface of the Earth from deadly UV radiation, an increase of UV radiation is detrimental to crops and life in general. A great deal of information is out there about what causes its' depletion, but there is very little information, in fact I have not been able to find any at all, about how it got up there in the first place or how it is created in the upper atmosphere.
This indicates, to me, that we are being given only half the truth, about the ozone layer.

Why, are we only given one side of this story?
(the causes of its' depletion and not how it is created, as well.)

imo, lunk

We are not only given one side of the story.

Ozone is produced when molecular oxygen O2 is broken down by UV radiation into two atomic oxygen atoms O. These are reactive and can combine with two O2 molecules to form two O3 molecules. See:

http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/1z1.html

Another source of ozone is provided by electrical discharges, lightning, in a similar way as electrical discharges from electrical equipment can form ozone which is the source of the acrid smell around such.

Kid's playing with electric train sets are familiar with this smell and its cause even though they may not know what it is that smells.

There is a slow migration of gaseous molecules from the lower to upper atmosphere. That is how CFCs get up there to cause trouble for instance.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Apr 6 2008, 03:10 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Apr 6 2008, 03:45 PM
Post #93


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



I am cross posting the below from another thread as I believe it fits here as well as the other:

---

My position on all this is that what matters most to the Powers That Be (a small but powerful minority, an elite) is control of the energy market(s). Centralized energy markets are easier for them to control. If you have an advanced technological civilization whose primary source of energy is a single commodity that can be controlled by a relatively few corporations and individuals, then you in essence have a monopoly and a means of creating extraordinary wealth for those who own and manage these corporations and who through them develop and manage the distribution of this commodity.

If we take that position and posit it as the central aim of the PTB -- if we understand that the valuation of a currency, for example, is tied to the centralized control of that commodity, which the US dollar has been for quite some time -- then you understand that the centralized control of this commodity is the foundation upon which the entire US Imperialist agenda is based. Through it, so to speak, it has post-industrial civilization by the balls.

For this market monopoly to work the commodity in question has to be plentiful enough to meet the demand of an expanding global market while, at the same time, sufficiently difficult to discover, extract, refine and bring to market to warrant a sufficient price in the market place that will provide a profit on investment.

For those engaged in this market control, profit on investment is the bottom line. All other considerations such as resource depletion and/or environmental degradation of any type as a consequence of commodity development and deployment are secondary at best. Resource depletion can even be factored in as a positive over time as it increases the value of the commodity, especially if the expanding global market for energy is kept tied to this primary energy source. Alternative energy sources would be viewed as potential competitors in the energy market and, therefore, their technological patents should be acquired and kept shelved, under developed, and out of the market place.

This is my understanding of what has happened.

Now, of course, if the commodity in question is a limited global resource, at some point the expanding global demand for product is going to be greater than the ability to meet that demand. As this occurs the costs of acquiring this resource invariably increase because the value of the resource in the market has increased. So long as the resource remains under your geopolitical control, scarcity is a 'good' thing for the profit margin. However, any resource that is outside of your geopolitical control can be viewed as a potentially competitive market threat. It is therefore necessary to acquire geopolitical control of these resource areas and it is preferable if the cost of this acquisition not be borne by the monopoly directly. The Iraq war is an example of how this is done -- the corporations profits continue to increase while the cost of waging a resource war is borne by a subject population through blood and taxes and increased cost of energy product in the market. Since this is government/military in service of a corporate elite, the very definition of fascism, such market manipulation for control are cast as something they are not -- a 'war on terror', for example, in need of a "catalyzing event" to intrench public opinion.

Meanwhile, if the commodity in question is a limited global resource, even with expanded geopolitical control over resource acquisition, at some point demand will actually outstrip product supply at any price. For this reason, at this point, it might be necessary to bring off-shelf patents for alternative energy production and bring them into the market. In order to maintain energy market control, however, some method needs to be found to both fund development and implementation of these alternative energy resources while defraying costs to corporate while simultaneously keeping these alternative energy sources under energy monopoly control.

In other words, it is a market balancing act -- all regardless of environmental impact from acquisition, development, distribution and consumption of product -- where profit is the primary, if not the only, concern. Alternative energy sources are fine so long as they can be brought on-line within the energy monopoly framework, and preferably if the cost of their development can be defrayed to the subject population, aka "consumer" through direct and indirect taxation.

What I'm getting at here, folks, is that, environmental degradation is not a concern for the energy market monopoly -- any more than "national security" is a concern for them except in how it effects their profit margins. To them, "national security" means "security of profit margin" and "continued monopoly control of the energy market," and "sustained wealth creation through time."

Whether or not it contributes to global climate change, we know that the acquisition, production, refinement, distribution and consumption of hydrocarbon energy contributes to environmental degredation. This is especially underscored if we understand by "environment" not only the atmosphere of the planet, weather and its direct effect on ecosystems but include in that term the social environment, i.e., everything from the individual heath of consumers who have to breath the air containing hydrocarbon emissions to the degradation of entire societies who are both the beneficiaries and the victims of a monopoly market that taxes them through their consumption and/or employs and or destroys them in fascist wars of acquisition.

The point is that monopoly market control of energy resources is unhealthy for individuals, for societies and for ecosystems alike. Abundant, clean energy is a real possibility and has been for almost half a century and could have been developed and brought online to the point where we would not be facing either significant environmental degradation of any type much less global resource acquisition wars that threaten nuclear holocaust. That these energy sources were deliberately not developed and implemented shines a very harsh light on the monopoly capitalist system -- and it is that system, including the global banking system behind it, that must be named and tamed if we are to see our way to a future absent abject, tyrannical, fascist control.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Apr 6 2008, 10:50 PM
Post #94



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Apr 6 2008, 12:08 PM) *
There is a slow migration of gaseous molecules from the lower to upper atmosphere. That is how CFCs get up there to cause trouble for instance.


I'm still having difficulty understanding how something, like ozone, that is heavier than air, rises.

Maybe it's the same reason that brasil nuts rise to the top of a jar of mixed nuts.

The Northern lights are an electrical discharge through air, too.
They tend to be greater than the Southern lights...
I wonder if that is why the "hole" in the Ozone layer is found over the South pole.

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Apr 7 2008, 12:26 PM
Post #95





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 5 2008, 12:50 AM) *
I'm still having difficulty understanding how something, like ozone, that is heavier than air, rises.

Maybe it's the same reason that brasil nuts rise to the top of a jar of mixed nuts.

The Northern lights are an electrical discharge through air, too.
They tend to be greater than the Southern lights...
I wonder if that is why the "hole" in the Ozone layer is found over the South pole.

imo, lunk

An interesting possibility.

That is that the ozone hole over the south pole develops because less ozone is produced there.

On the other hand it could be because the larger land mass, different albedo, in the northern hemisphere encourages a more vigorous convection through to the upper atmosphere.

As for ozone rising though heavier than air - what is air?

Air is a mixture of molecules, including ozone, so if the mechanism of rising was gravity alone then air would not exist as is but be separated out into layers, stratified, by molecular type. This does not happen - why?

Because of energy in the atmospheric system including the sprites that form during thunderstorms. See this article on Sprites, elves and gnomes:

http://geology.about.com/od/sprites/a/sprites.htm

thunderstorms can also be triggered by industrial exhaust plumes, in particular of nitrogen oxide.

also volcanic eruptions may have a role here:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/...000004/00009007
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill
post Apr 8 2008, 02:24 PM
Post #96





Group: Guest
Posts: 1,922
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 147



"Are you trying to say that ozone depletion has nothing to do with us and is a non problem?"



I am not just trying to say it, That is exactly what I am saying.

The basic equation was taught to me in High School Chemistry in 1968 as an example of an equilibrium reaction, this is not a new concept. Quite small amounts of O3 are produced and it rapidly decomposes back to O2

3 O2 --->(UV light)---> 2 O3

3 O2 <------(no UV light)------------ 2 O3

So yes there is very little ozone at the poles during a polar winter and therefore no UV protection at the poles either-- but then I would be willing to bet that no one has ever gotten sunburned in the 24 hour per day darkness of a polar winter

CFC's are rapidly biodegraded in the soils

CFC's are so heavy compared to air that very little could possibly get to the upper atmosphere

Try this

Fill up a balloon with the gas from a 'dust off' can (1,1,1,2 Tetrafluoroethane MW about 100-- not nearly as heavy as Chlorinated HC's)and watch how fast it falls to the floor, like the proverbial lead balloon

CFC's depleting the ozone layer --- another hoax

BTW this meme was floated out there just before DuPont's patents ran out on its refridgerants

DuPont had 'new' refridgerants waiting to make sure that money just keeps on rolling in

and no body could profit from making their 'outlawed' ones either

Meanwhile we bitch and moan that the cost of freezers and air conditioning gets higher and they don't last as long either

but then people in second and third world countries don't bitch and moan --they go without refridgeration when the old one wears out

and a few more useless eaters, stop eating
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill
post Apr 9 2008, 08:39 AM
Post #97





Group: Guest
Posts: 1,922
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 147





snip from

http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.a...ame=NBR+Comment
(emphasis mine)


Hard to explain

Similarly, the climate sceptics have had to explain why the hotspots are not where they should be - not just challenge the theory with their observations.

This is why I felt so lucky to be in the right place at the right time when I heard Roy Spencer speak at the New York conference on climate change in March. At first I thought this was just another paper setting out observations against the forecasts, further confirming Evans' earlier work.

But as the argument unfolded I realised Spencer was drawing on observations and measurements from the new Aqua satellites to explain the mechanism behind this anomaly between model forecasts and observation. You may have heard that the IPCC models cannot predict clouds and rain with any accuracy. Their models assume water vapour goes up to the troposphere and hangs around to cook us all in a greenhouse future.However, there is a mechanism at work that "washes out" the water vapour and returns it to the oceans along with the extra CO2 and thus turns the added water vapour into a NEGATIVE feedback mechanism.

The newly discovered mechanism is a combination of clouds and rain (Spencer's mechanism adds to the mechanism earlier identified by Professor Richard Lindzen called the Iris effect).

The IPCC models assumed water vapour formed clouds at high altitudes that lead to further warming. The Aqua satellite observations and Spencer's analysis show water vapour actually forms clouds at low altitudes that lead to cooling.

Furthermore, Spencer shows the extra rain that falls from these clouds cools the underlying oceans, providing a second negative feedback to negate the CO2 warming.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Apr 9 2008, 11:09 AM
Post #98





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (bill @ Apr 6 2008, 05:24 PM) *
Try this

Fill up a balloon with the gas from a 'dust off' can (1,1,1,2 Tetrafluoroethane MW about 100-- not nearly as heavy as Chlorinated HC's)and watch how fast it falls to the floor, like the proverbial lead balloon

CFC's depleting the ozone layer --- another hoax

That is nonsense.

That simplistic example has no simularity to the behaviour of free molecules in the atmosphere which are not contained within a heavier than air container.

Besides, as I asked in another thread, what is air?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill
post Apr 9 2008, 02:04 PM
Post #99





Group: Guest
Posts: 1,922
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 147



http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0370-1301/64/10/301


"height distribution of the atmosphere depends on the temperature and the mean molecular weight of the air; recent progress in our knowledge of these two quantities will be reviewed, the main sources of information being outlined. The motions (winds and tides) in the upper atmosphere will similarly be considered."


That means lighter gases like Hydrogen and Helium are more abundant in the upper atmosphere

conversly heavier gases and more abundant at lower altitudes


Seems gases behave largely like they do when enclosed in a balloon (Helium balloons for example)



Still think it is non-sense ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Apr 11 2008, 09:18 PM
Post #100



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



I guess my analogy of, Brazil nuts (the biggest ones) rising to the top of a jar of mixed nuts, may be better applicable to something other than the atmospheric distribution of various gasses?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th July 2014 - 04:16 AM