/wwwthreads_images/icons/smile.gif Hi, Doug.... BTW, do you know why Global Warming and the Abominable Snowman are similar?/wwwthreads_images/icons/crazy.gif

CJDave
I never believe any statistics unless my moonguys /wwwthreads_images/icons/crazy.gif/wwwthreads_images/icons/wink.gif made 'em up themselves.

 

I do Dave. They're both fictional. ( Read BULL$H!T )

Gary

 

/wwwthreads_images/icons/laugh.gif Yep....there's no real evidence of either one!/wwwthreads_images/icons/laugh.gif

CJDave
I never believe any statistics unless my moonguys /wwwthreads_images/icons/crazy.gif/wwwthreads_images/icons/wink.gif made 'em up themselves.

 

If you recall, the planned meeting was to revolve around the "fact" that Antartica's ice cap was shrinking - yet another "proof" of global warming. Here's some real scientific facts that the big 3 failed to report.

Excerpts from "Beneath Its Frozen Cover Antarctica is in Constant Motion" by Amanda Onion of Fox News, New York on 10 Dec 1999; markup is mine.:

Imagery recently released by a Canadian satellite reveals that at least six active volcanoes percolate beneath the surface, a 140-mile-long liquid lake sloshes under insulating layers of snow and ice and sprawling streams of ice weave their way for hundreds of miles to surrounding seas.

"There's a lot going on that was completely unknown before we had this data," said Kenneth Jezek, a glaciologist at the Byrd Polar Research Center of Ohio State University who is interpreting the radar imagery taken by RADARSAT, a NASA and Canadian-owned satellite.

A drastically retreating ice shelf at the Antarctic Peninsula has some worried that global warming may be shrinking the continent's ice stores. But Jezek says it's hard to know what's behind the ice's retreat since ice streams tend to be erratic anyway. Years worth of data show that ice streams turn on and off over time.

"The RADARSAT data shows the ice sheet is advancing in other places like the Ross Ice Shelf and Fimbul Ice Shelf," he said. "The continent is so gigantic that you wouldn't expect the climatology to be consistent at different places."

The complete article is available at [url]http://foxnews.com/science/antarctica/geology.sml [/url]

Don't get me started on the molecular weight of Freon .vs the molecular weight of "air."

 

Jay , it does make you wonder how "lead" "floats" to the top does'nt it?
I wonder if the eco fr**ks(oh I mean people) can theorize water to float to the top ouf my gas so I can "skim" it off to prevent fuel line freeze-up?/wwwthreads_images/icons/smile.gif

Wider is better but taller is cooler!

 

I am taking this Effects of Science and technology on society class at school right now and we have been talking about global warming alot lately...turns out a large chunk of the global warming is from some volcanoe that erupted and spewed its contents into the jet stream at just the right time causing the largest hole in the ozone ever seen, I have a pic of it but no scanner, it is a pretty huge hole over antarctica.....just a interesting bit of info.

absolutjeep
http://members.tripod.com/iluvjeeps

 

Now you did it. You got me started:

Ahhh yes, it was February 3, 1992: NASA announced that record high levels of ozone depleting chlorine monoxide (a gas in Chlorofluorocarbons or CFC's) were in the stratosphere above the North Pole. The liberal mouthpiece, The Washington Post, announced that this would cause a hole in the ozone layer that was going to be the largest the world had ever seen - a hole extending even to the lower 48 states! This would cause, as I am sure you remember, over a million more cases of cataracts and hundreds of thousands of new cases of skin cancer.

The Senator from Tennessee, the Honorable Mr. Albert Gore Jr, immediately made several appearances on the big 3 and then on February 6, 1992, only three days after NASA's announcement, submitted the Senate bill that called for the ban on all CFC's by 1995. Former president, the Honorable Mr. George H. W. Bush, under extreme political and public pressure to quell this catastrophic hysteria MANDATED the ban only 5 days later on February 11, 1992. That my friends is some real scary power. We came close to signing even more damnable treaties at the Earth Summit in Rio that year too!

The truth? "Mother Nature," or as the environmentalists call her, the goddess "Gaia," appeared to have a case of irritable bowel syndrome and had to relieve herself in a major way:

November 1990: Mt. Unzen, Japan, erupts.
July 1991: Mt. Pinatubo, Philippines erupts - the largest volcanic eruption in the last 100 years.
August 1991: Mt. Hudson, Chile, erupts.

The net result of what "Gaia" the "goddess" of all things good did? She spewed over 20 million tons of chlorine monoxide gas (one of the major causes of ozone depletion) directly into the atmosphere just from these three eruptions alone! Where did this go? Well due to the laws of physics, the majority of these gasses went directly to the North Pole since two of these three volcanoes are in the northern hemisphere. NASA KNEW it was there and wanted to see how much! It had nothing to do with the level of CFC's!

The results? Well first, when these ozone eating gasses were at their record high in 1992 after these eruptions, it was the COLDEST year on record last century! Second, THE KILLER HOLE IN THE OZONE LAYER ABOVE THE NORTH POLE NEVER APPEARED!!!! This of course was because the Senator from Tennessee got the necessary legislation passed to stop this atrocity before it happened (even though it would take man several hundred centuries of polluting the atmosphere, at what was then the present rate of 7,500 tons of CFC's, to equal what "Gaia" did in just ONE year.) This also takes for granted that the CFC's we emit through leaks in our air-conditioner systems, aerosol cans, and such, even make it to the atmosphere! CFC's such as Freon are EIGHT TIMES heavier than air - so where do they go? When they absorb into the soil, microorganisms use it as a food source and break it down into decomposed matter in a few days. So much for true scientific data.

How about the ozone hole above the South Pole? The most "destructive" nations of the earth are in the northern hemisphere, where there is no ozone hole! Well if somebody will get a world atlas and find the McMurdo Sound, they will see exactly where ozone readings for this hole are taken every day. If they look less than 10 miles from this sound, they will find Mt. Erebus. Mt. Erebus has been the "Old Faithful" of volcanoes, erupting on a continuous cycle since 1972 - spewing over 1000 tons of chlorine EACH DAY into the atmosphere. In one week, Mt. Erebus releases more chlorine into the atmosphere than man did at his worst in one whole year! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the ozone will be the thinnest at this point in the atmosphere! The more violent the eruptions, the more chlorine, bromine, and florine (all ozone eating gasses) enter the atmosphere. The more of these gasses in the atmosphere, the larger the hole will be in the ozone.

Your future has already been radically altered by the lies of these "scientists" and the political machine they oil. Look at the cost of servicing an air conditioning unit alone! We could also discuss the absolute lies of emissions standards that have now permanently changed our way of life; and the noose is only going to get tighter. We have seen their powerful agenda materialize into bans, regulations, and fines again and again and again.

You WILL continue to lose your individual freedoms and constitutional rights unless YOU get out and vote, write, call, and lobby, as well as financially support political organizations that support your cause. You MUST "discuss politics and religion" with your friends. That is what these ecowarriors do on a daily basis. Their politics have become intertwined with their religion, and every one of them preach it non-stop. I am not an alarmist, I am a realist. These are powerful men with powerful plans, and they have a powerful political machine behind them with unlimited resources at their disposal.

You "political pacifists" with your "pocketbook politics" had better wake up fast if you want to continue to enjoy your favorite past times.

Here are a few quotes to ponder:

"The agendas of the environmental movement and the democracy movement must become intertwined."

-The Honorable Mr. Albert Gore Jr, Earth in Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, page 180.

"Standing against this new juggernaut, a new kind of resistance fighter has appeared: . . . They fight against the odds, with little hope of prevailing in the larger war but with a surprising record of success in skirmashes that slow the onslaught and sometimes save the particular corner of the ecological system they have been moved to defend."

- The Honorable Mr. Albert Gore Jr, Earth in Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, page 282.

"We must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization. . . [This calls for] embarking on an all-out effort to use every law and institution, every treaty and alliance, every tactic and strategy, every plan and course of action - to use, in short, every means to halt the destruction of the envrionment - and to preserve and nurture our ecological system. Minor shifts in policy, marginal adjustments in ongoing programs, moderate improvements in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public's desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle, and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary."

-The Honorable Mr. Albert Gore Jr, Earth in Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, page 274.

"What we needed most was the conviction that first of all the whole attention of the nation had to be concentrated upon this terrible danger, so that every single individual could become inwardly conscious of the importance of this stuggle. True incisive and sometimes almost unbearable obligations and burdens can only be made generally effective if, in addition to compulsion, the realization of necessity is transmitted to the individual. But this requires a tremendous enlightenment, excluding all other problems of the day which might have a distracting effect."
"In all cases where the fulfillment of apparently impossible demands or tasks is involved, the whole attention of a people must be focused and concentrated on this one question, as though life and death actually depended on its solution. Only in this way will a people be made willing and able to perform great tasks and exertions."

-Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf

 

/wwwthreads_images/icons/smile.gif Good post, Jay Anger. We need a LOT more like you in this war we are fighting for control of our very existence. The Algore has plans....oh has HE got plans.../wwwthreads_images/icons/frown.gif

CJDave
I never believe any statistics unless my moonguys /wwwthreads_images/icons/crazy.gif/wwwthreads_images/icons/wink.gif made 'em up themselves.

 

Bad Science

Jay,

Please don't be offended by this response. Here in the South, it is considered very bad etiquette to interupt someone in public conversation and point out that he is incorrect, however, when that person is ambling down a road that may comprise his integrity, it is time to intercede.

First, please don't confuse global warming and stratospheric ozone depletion, there is a link, however indirect. The difference is between gross speculation and fairly well supported scientific information. If you are going to argue your position you had better be right, or less find yourself with little regard. I'll start with the gas Freon, of course it is heavier than air, but then oxygen, found bound to itself to form O2 is heavier than nitrogen, the main component of the atmosphere. Both of these gases are heavier hydrogen and helium. Argon is heavier that all of the above. Then why is our troposphere not stratophied? This is explained in high school chemistry as gas mixing, a basic theorem of gas behavior. Chlorofluorocarbons, CFCs, area very unique group of compounds. They are among the most stable compounds know to man, that is why they are so widely used. They can persist in the atmosphere for easily 100 years, that is, until the intense ultraviolet radiation in the stratosphere (the location of the ozone layer)breaks them down. This releases chlorine, of which a single atom can destroy about 100,000 chlorine molecules. By the way 1 lb of CFC can destroy 70,000 lbs of ozone. THEY DO NOT ABSORB INTO THE SOIL TO BE BROKEN DOWN BY MICRO-ORGANISMS. That's beyond funny, that would KILL THEM. Chlorine monoxide is not "a gas in CFCs" and is not "a major cause of ozone depletion." Chlorine monoxide cannot even exist for a short time in the atmosphere before combining with other oxygen molecules, or whatever else is available. Chlorine is expelled by volcanic eruptions, and eruptions are a very efficient means of imparting gasses high into the atmosphere, but chlorine, and in any form associated with oxygen, is extreamly soluble and washes out very quickly from the atmosphere, usually in a matter of few days. It cannot persist in the atmosphere by itself long enought to reach the polar regions, it often takes up to 20 years for a gaseous compound to find its way to the stratosphere. Chlorine has to be bound in a stable form to make the journey to the stratosphere. Volcanoes pump out a lot of chlorine, but it just doesn't last. Look at it this way, What is more effective for irrigaton, a rainstorm that dumps 10 inches of water in 24 hours and washes away, or a trickle system that delivers metered amounts of water directly to the plant over time. This is the same analogy that can be applied to comparing volcanic chorine and that of CFC bound chlorine. And 20 million tons of any gas is not much. A single large utility boiler can produce 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide in just 10 days. By the way, that coldest year on record after those eruptions was due to the high level of particulate matter (ash) from the eruptions in the atmosphere, particulate matter is also heavier than air, yet somehow manages to persist in the atmosphere and block sunlight. Go back to the nuclear winter concept. And again, ozone depletion is not the same as global warming. Your argument about carbon monoxide (heavier than air) reaching the Arctic lattitudes completly contradicts your argument about Freon being heavier than air. Why does this work for heavier than air CO and not Freon? As for holes, the hole in the Arctic has just started to grow, this is not disputable, and as for why the hole in the Antartic more substancial with the industrial countries being located in the northern hemisphere, that is a phenomenon well know to atmospheric scientists, and if you want an explanation, I will be more than glad to waste the bandwidth and provide the bibliometrics.

An interesting note on CFC regulation, which is Title IV of the Clean Air Act (initiated by US Senate Bill 1630) Amendments of 1990 signed by President Bush. If you follow the legislative processes resulting from the initial Montreal Protocol, you may be surprised to find that US industry was the biggest supporter (and lobby effort) of CFC regulation. Only American industry has the ability to produce the subsitutes for CFC, which provides a huge economic advantage of Americal chemical corporations over all the other nations bound to the Montreal Protocol. US industry was fiercly opposed to regulation until 1986 when a combined effort of chemical companies formed a massive lobby, led by DuPont to, convinced the State Department, and President Reagan, to pick up the ball and push for and international ban. You see, there is minimal profit margin in producing CFC's since they are so widely produced throughout the world, but a substitute, cha-ching$$$

Jay please don't take this as a slam, but you are not going to win many arguments with your "data." I am also a follower of "High Anxiety," which provides some thought provoking concepts, but be forewarned, you will not win many arguments with some of those "facts" as well. Scratch and dig for yourself when you read "new data reveals." Remember, believe none of what you hear (or read) and half of what you see.

Steep

 

Nope - Bad Proof-reading

Wow! Look what happens when you pull duty! I almost didn't catch this one since it is already on the third page of posts on my setup! Well, I apologize to the readers that I have started this - because these posts are destined to become longer and longer to adequately discuss - and will triple in length when we begin to document all of this stuff. I will not waste bandwidth with repetition in this post and will only repeat the first line of the section of the previous post that I am referring to. The readers will please scroll up to see the full quote. Also, these are very complex theories with even more complex arguments and issues. It will be interesting to see how large the posts concerning this issue get.

> Please don't be offended by this response.

I am not - in fact I thoroughly enjoy debate, especially that of a scientific and/or political nature. Likewise in the South, when you publicly imply that you question someone's integrity and imply that they are "leisurely" pursuing the truth, you must also be willing to publicly "take one on the jaw" so to speak if this person is speaking with probity and has substantial evidence to back his claim. We call that "defendin' ya onna!" Also in the South, we do not shout these things while we hide like children throwing stones from behind trees at passers-by. As anyone who has lived any amount of time in the South can tell you, when we claim that we have the vestige of truth on a matter, we not only identify ourselves boldly, we stand toe to toe and eye to eye discussing the matter, then sit down and sip lemonade and talk about fishing after words. This is called Southern Hospitality.

> First, please don't confuse global warming and stratospheric ozone

No problem! I completely understand the difference. However, if you recall the environmental movement continues to promote that stratospheric ozone depletion = global warming. This is how it is marketed to the average citizen. I.e., Ozone depletion is causing more UV light to strike the earth's surface causing severe climatic changes ultimately leading to global warming. This is how it is marketed to cause the apocalyptic hysteria in the media and general public. This is indeed convoluted thinking, and while the CFC depletion THEORY is a workable THEORY , it remains just that - a THEORY. Furthermore, the evidence of global warming is next to nonexistent anyway. I'm sorry, your right . . . I lied . . . we actually did heat up FORTY FIVE ONE HUNDRETHS OF A DEGREE CELCIUS over the last century!

> If you are going to argue your position you had better be right, or less find yourself with little regard.

I have been told that as a Marine, I have enough regard for myself to make up for those who do not have any for me. (~~Very sly grin~~ CJDave - why don't we have a moonguy for this?)

> I'll start with the gas Freon, of course it is heavier than air, but then oxygen,

While the diffusion and atmospheric principle works well in discussions of perfume and the formulas for the breakdown of CFC's work well in the lab and on paper, there is still no CONCLUSIVE scientific evidence that this is actually what is happening in the real world! As you have admitted yourself, it is "gross speculation" at worst, "fairly well supported" at best. As for the CFC's staying in our atmosphere for 100 yrs (400 yrs according to some) why then is there such an even dispersion of CFC's in the strata already? And why is there an ozone hole already? I didn't know they had Freon in every home, business, car, fire extinguisher, etc in 1857 (1957 being the earliest date I can find for the "hole in the ozone discovery") As to the intense UV radiation, if the hole causes MORE UV to come through, then the chemical process will accelerate (especially when combined with the catalytic destruction process!) We are talking about an uncontrollable "nuclear-type" explosion of chlorine to eat the ozone! Then why is this not the case? Why then were there two record levels of ozone in the atmosphere in 1968 then again in 1978, then again in the very late 1980's or very early 1990's? (I forget the year off the top of my head - I will have to look for it again) Why then with all of these CFC's in the atmosphere does the ozone hole completely disappear from time to time?

> By the way 1 lb of CFC can destroy 70,000 lbs of ozone.

But of that 1lb of CFC, very liberal estimates put only 1/10 of that amount ever reaching the ozone layer! Where then does all of these CFC's go? . . . . .

> THEY DO NOT ABSORB INTO THE SOIL TO BE
> BROKEN DOWN BY MICROORGANISMS. That's beyond funny, that would
> KILL THEM.

Is that so? Do you actually have conclusive evidence that supports this claim, or do you assume that because these gasses are toxic to vertebrates they are also toxic to invertebrates? Before you respond you had best do your homework!

> Chlorine monoxide is not "a gas in CFC's" and is not "a

Okay, you got me here. When I first read this response, I didn't know what the heck you were talking about! I didn't realize that I put "monoxide" after it in the original post. This I assure you was due to hastily putting this together, and deleting, cutting, and pasting trying to keep an extremely complex and voluminous interdisciplinary issue brief and easy to digest in a BBS forum. For the record, I was not going to draw this out due to the fact that most people are not interested in chemical formulas, but since you insist that my integrity is at stake, lets break down the formula of "CFC ozone depletion" so that you know that I am not trying to just "get off the hook" with my "leisurely" pursuit of the truth through "bad science."

CCl2F2 + UV => Cl + CClF2

Cl + O3 => ClO + O2

(And then for the catalytic destruction principle)

ClO + O => Cl + O2

You will see by this chemical formula that when CFC's are broken down by UV, they produce Cl "chlorine" which adheres to O3 "ozone" to from ClO "chlorine monoxide." When cutting and pasting several paragraphs of text, this is an easy mistake to make. This is what I meant by the statement "a gas in CFC's," and it should have read "chlorine" and not "chlorine monoxide" which is the initial RESULT of the depletion process. But what you have so articulately put in your rebuttal about CFC's actually supports my "claim!" How? The chlorine produced by volcanic eruptions is vaulted DIRECTLY into the upper atmosphere and even into the ozone layer itself in many cases! There is no more efficient delivery into a highly reactive equation! The "ash" as you have noted, as well as the gasses, remain for long periods due to the fact that they are above the level in which they efficiently washed out! Some is washed out at the lower levels (ash as well as gasses,) but even heavy ash concentrations as high as 30,000 feet have remained for long periods and have played havoc on aircraft flying through it. Cl cannot exist even for a short time in this system? Precisely! See the formula! Chlorine monoxide cannot exist even for a short time? Precisely! Another product in this level of atmosphere is atomic oxygen! Bang! You have another chemical reaction and end up with your atomic chlorine again and the reaction repeats itself! Pump chlorine, bromine, or fluorine (all ozone depleting gasses) directly into this mix from volcanic eruptions, and you end up with the same results - ozone depletion - and with even greater efficiency!

> By the way, that coldest year on record after

Bingo! Yet another interesting phenomena quite overlooked be these with doomsday agendas. In fact we have also had a 2% increase in cloud cover in the northern hemisphere. It has been substantially shown that a 4% increase in cloud cover will totally negate and even have a cooling effect on a !!!50%!!!! increase in carbon dioxide gasses (another really really REAL cause of global warming.)

> And again, ozone depletion is not the same as global

Simply put: I do not shoot concentrated chlorine, bromine, and fluorine DIRECTLY into the upper atmosphere! You have said it yourself that it can take up to 20yrs for these gasses to reach this level, then they still have to be broken down. This is not the "most efficient means" to get these gasses up there!

> As for holes, the hole in the Arctic has just started to

What is disputable is this reasoning and the explanation of this phenomenon! There is a NATURAL 50% thinning of the ozone from seasonal changes, as well as a NATURAL 2% thinning from the ozone thickness above my house here in the D.C. area to the Kevin the "Boston Mangler's" house! These holes grow and then totally disappear on regular cycles! Could it be that our climatology is just too complex to nail down this depletion to just one gas? We have treated this as a LAW instead of a THEORY and it has cost taxpayers and consumers billions. Let's get this depletion thing into perspective!

> An interesting note on CFC regulation, which is Title IV of the

This is correct, and I did not want to mention it because of WHO the DuPont's are and WHAT they control! Now you got the conspiracy theorists going, and I'm not going to entertain this any more than it already has been. You have not addressed the actions and words of the Honorable Mr. Albert Gore, Jr, and that is what is VERY interesting to note here.

Actually since we are on the subject of global warming: the greatest result of global warming appeared from 1917-1921, and at such a small amount that it was not noticed until the mid 1980's! Of the sum of warming, all but 10% of the warming trend occurred PRIOR to 1940! How can the greatest increase in global warming take place before the greatest amount of "greenhouse gasses" (the "really really really REAL cause global warming" by the way) were produced AFTER 1950! I thought we were headed for another ice age in the 60's and 70's according to the apocalyptic sciences anyway?!?!?! In fact, JUST THIS WEEK the big 3 released the news that a new study shows we may be headed to a cold weather trend across all northern states with more el ninos and la ninas over the next 20 years! What the heck? Could it be that all of this regulating is fueling panic to cause people to put more money in the pockets of the environmentalists and big business like DuPont? You watch. Our next big catastrophe will be caused by private land ownership and how we rape our lands with our small farms, ranches, and lumber harvests for our fireplaces and how when we drive our 4x4s out and take wildlife for "blood sport" we are permanently destroying microsystems! What did you say Arizona? . . .Maine? . . .California? What? You mean that these same men with these same agendas have already done this to you? You uneducated-right-wing-red-neck-alarmists! How dare you imply this!

> Jay please don't take this as a slam, but you are not going to win

You are right because I have already lost! But this wasn't because of "my data," it was because these decisions were made before the ALL the data was available for me to read and make an intelligent decision and make my voice known in the democratic process. These decisions were made hastily! As for your closing statement? Wow! Now that is scientific! With this approach I can be comfortable with the fact that the world is flat! Let me say here (and to the offence of many) that I do not necessarily endorse nor do I follow "High Anxiety" or other such groups. I have visited their site once in curiosity since a post made reference to it. I am however, an avid reader - and not just an avid reader of liberal newspapers reflecting pop culture. I love to scratch and dig. I would also advise that you, sir, practice what you preach. Just because something is very popular among the scientific community, it does not mean it is necessarily factual. (It is most likely very popular because these are the areas that the post Cold War research grants are being funneled, and to keep these grants coming - ESPECIALLY FROM ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS . . . cha-ching$$$) Please note most of our high school and college textbooks published in the early 1990's STILL taught "why" you see color according to the "classic color vision theory." This was the result primarily of the works of Isaac Newton (1642-1727), John Dalton (1766-1844), Thomas Young (1773-1829), Hermann von Helmholtz (1821-1894), and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879). Wow! These are icons in the scientific community! Though this was never a "law" it had always been taught as though it were one, much like Darwin's evolution of man - yet both of these are merely "theories" and not "laws" of science. I would bet that the vast majority of the viewing audience would be shocked to find out that this theory has been severely challenged by the color vision experiments of Edwin Land in his Retonex Theory of Color Vision in 1958! Why didn't we hear about it? It was not the popular science of the day!

"A hypothesis is always more believable than the truth, for it has been tailored to resemble our ideas of truth, whereas the truth is just its own clumsy self. Ergo, never discover the truth when a hypothesis will do."
- Niccolo Machiavelli

"The most extraordinary aspect of the treaty was its imposition of short-term economic costs to protect human health and the environment against unproved future dangers . . .dangers that rested on scientific theories, rather than on firm data. At the time negotiations and signing, no measurable evidence of damage existed . . . By their action, the signatory countries sounded the death knell for an important part of the international chemical industry, with implications for billions of dollars in investment and hundreds of thousands of jobs in related sectors."
-Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and U.S. Negotiator in the Montreal Protocol, Richard Benedick, "Ozone Diplomacy" page 190.

"It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, ownership of motor vehicles and small electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmental damaging consumption patterns."
-Secretary General of the United Nation's Conference of Environment (UNCED) Earth Summit, Co-founder/creater of the United Nations Environmental Programme, Former Co-chair of the World Economic Forum, Maurice Strong quoted in Michael McCoy's article "Trekking to the Summit," Earth Summit in Focus 2, 1991 UNCED, 2.

 

Re: Nope - Bad Proof-reading

my head hurts. /wwwthreads_images/icons/crazy.gif

GREAT post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not only did I learn how to install a kitchen faucet today (thanks to an old leaky one), I learned the breakdown of freon! /wwwthreads_images/icons/smile.gif

Seriously, great post. Thanks!

Jon-YJ94
I'd rather be...
jeepski23@hotmail.com

 

Re: Nope - Bad Proof-reading

Again -
Outstanding!
sln

 

Re: Bad Science

Steep -
Your statement about the 20 millions tons of sulphur dioxide in 10 days from one utility boiler is a case in point for the point Mr. Anger made about generallly accepted scientific evidence. Sulphur is a very small constituent of natural gas and coal and petroleum and the idea of 20 million TONS probably exceeds the amount of coal being consumed by utility boilers in one year in this country. I said probably because I'm not trying to get statistical. But hey - do the numbers of the chemical reaction. The resulting inflow of air to make up that 10 day "burn" (viewable from Saturn with a pair of 7X50 binos) would flatten several surrounding counties and the thermal sig would set off all of the launch detectors and warhead detectors on all of the space vehicles ...... THINK about it. Using statistics from generally accepted "evidence" without thinking results in a serious credibility gap, to say the least.
'Nother point:
"....would KILL them...." You may be right. It may. And is statistically and scientifically and socially insignificant if even measurable on a macro scale or beyound the laboratory. And as for the explanation that gases are all mixed in the atmosphere, after all it would be 'stratophied' if they weren't mixed, I thought it was called the stratosphere for the reason that it is stratophied. Let me tell you what I know from several personal first hand experiences about gas movement: a) hydrogen sulphide gas from "poison well" will flow out of the well and down off of the rig platform and down to the creek and down along the creek the animals will all die. So will the insects and the humans if they happen to be there. All of this will occur until the gas is absorbed by the plant life in the area or the soil or the UV breaks it down; b) when you are on a construction site and you use the types of coating that have a heavier than air VOC content that is flammable, you take precautions to MAKE it dissipate into the atmosphere (stratosphere) because if you don't it will concentrate in the low places and a spark (they weld things in construction and gravity works on sparks) will create another "burn" (not the size of the previous one, though) and people will get hurt.
These are all well known to one and all and one of the descriptors of these phenomena is "stratified". I could go on but the point is made.
One more for you: Where does the ozone come from up there in the near top of the 'stratosphere'? This is not a trick question, I'm serious.
Enough for now.
If our resident active duty MARINE, US, one each, green, ever gets on a soapbox, we'll all find out what the limits of a post really are. My mind is still sucking wind. Gotta go do something more (much more) intellectual to exercise the ole noggin.
sln

 

Nope - just not pop-culture science

SLN -

I must disagree with your statement, "And is statistically and scientifically and socially insignificant if even measurable on a macro scale or beyound the laboratory." Even though this is true to an extent - due to the fact that the CFC coffin has already been sealed and encased in concrete, this whole debate on CFC's is in practical terms a moot issue. However, if indeed these gasses ARE being absorbed into the soil and broken down in a matter of days AND NOT 100 - 400 YEARS, it will demonstrate the repugnant political agenda and anti-scientific approach that the environmental movement has been using for years. Fortunately, in cases like the spotted owl farce, this information was exposed BEFORE permanent action was taken!

In your post you bring the example of the poison gas from the wells. This is a perfect example of the way CFC's flow down to low lying areas until they are, in fact, absorbed in the soil. Two Australian scientists found this out by "accident" when they were using CFC as their control gas in an experiment since it so stable. The problem was, that the CFC kept disappearing. This led to different research to find out where the CFC was going. What did they find? They found that the CFC's were absorbing in the soil and were being broken down by microbes and changed into waste matter. These microbes were actually flourishing from their steady food source. Documentation? Okay here it is: See Aslam Khalil's and R.A. Rasmussen's, "The Potential of Soils as a Sink of Chlorofluorocarbons and Other Manmade Chlorocarbons" in the Geophysical Research Letters 16, No. 7, July 1989, pages 679-682. You can also read their article on the original research they were doing when they "accidentally" discovered this phenomenon in "The Influence of Termites on Atmospheric Trace Gasses" in the Journal of Geophysical Research 95, D-4, March 20, 1990, pages 3619-3634. It would be interesting to find if the hydrogen sulfide in your example is used as a food source by some microbes also. Isn't it amazing the stuff you find when you scratch and dig?

 

I knew I always liked the Marines.

Mark

 

Einstein would'nt have touched this post/wwwthreads_images/icons/crazy.gif
I'm sure he'd of walked away mumbling somthing about....( all I wanted to know was brakeline length on a SOA CJ7) shaking his head.
Great post , but next time I'm waiting for the movie./wwwthreads_images/icons/smile.gif

Wider is better but taller is cooler!