Katrina
Want to say something off topic? Something that has nothing to do with Trek? Post it here.
posted on September 27th, 2005, 1:06 pm
what will it take for proof? duss a cadogory 11 have to swolo the usa be for you beleave it?
global worming is nuthing new and that has ben provin over and overgin naw sintests have linked golbal worming to hericans.
1) lets look at it like this golbal woring is heating the earth ok trow.
2) the worlds seas are becoming wormer be cuss of global worming trow.
3) hericans are fuled by worm water trow.
whats so hard to get?
global worming is nuthing new and that has ben provin over and overgin naw sintests have linked golbal worming to hericans.
1) lets look at it like this golbal woring is heating the earth ok trow.
2) the worlds seas are becoming wormer be cuss of global worming trow.
3) hericans are fuled by worm water trow.
whats so hard to get?
posted on September 27th, 2005, 1:09 pm
Heh you have yet to prove like any of that, hence stop trying to blame the hurricane on companies, and for some reason companies that supported Bush through the election.
I blame the hurricanes on the weather machine you said Bush made.
I blame the hurricanes on the weather machine you said Bush made.
posted on September 27th, 2005, 1:19 pm
Last edited by ewm90 on September 27th, 2005, 1:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
you if you dont wont to get it thare noth i can do. for the 40,000 time i am not tring to blam hericans on eny one.
dont lie i nevery sed such a thing, you sed that over and over agin.
dont lie i nevery sed such a thing, you sed that over and over agin.
posted on September 27th, 2005, 2:23 pm
Last edited by [TD]Roach on September 27th, 2005, 2:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
uhmm one thing you are forgetting, the oceans aren't getting warmer because of melting icecaps. if all the ice melts then the atlantic sea belt that pushes the warm water current from the carribean to spain and backwards will stop and there will be an iceage, so no hurrican ethere just alot of snow.
but i am getting alot of deja vu's here. but ewm you are very go in putting politics in alot of your topics, so i guess you like to talk about it abit tooo much or you you are feeling lonely and use this topic to get attention or something. i mean alot of people don't even bother replying to the politics topics and huricane thing because it is all about your vision and no-one else it because you push them away. but it all leads to one thing getting very annoying and one sided
but i am getting alot of deja vu's here. but ewm you are very go in putting politics in alot of your topics, so i guess you like to talk about it abit tooo much or you you are feeling lonely and use this topic to get attention or something. i mean alot of people don't even bother replying to the politics topics and huricane thing because it is all about your vision and no-one else it because you push them away. but it all leads to one thing getting very annoying and one sided
posted on September 27th, 2005, 2:38 pm
thare are so meny veribal you are over looking one caled the sun and anuther called thing ozon layer roach. i whood think the same thing if i did not know beter. you need to get more infomation about pulson glombal worming ozone and meny uther varibals.
if you dont have eny thing perdusctive to add to this tread roach please dont post. if you realy dont like this tread posting it it is counter perductive.
if you dont have eny thing perdusctive to add to this tread roach please dont post. if you realy dont like this tread posting it it is counter perductive.
posted on September 27th, 2005, 6:11 pm
well what kind of pollution warms water then? an oilspill on fire? and the main thing pollution does is destroying the ozon
posted on September 28th, 2005, 4:07 am
Last edited by ewm90 on September 28th, 2005, 4:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
when the air is worm the water will be come worm.
think of it as if you had a cold glas of water and left it siting in the heat what whood hapin to it? evin if you drop a ice cube in it it mite cose the water to cool a bit for a short time than it worms agin very quicly.
i know its a very simal exsmapal but i think it will gave you a very basic ruff idea sorta of how it works.
a nuther scary fact is resontly sintintest have fawnd when the earth is wormed and the sea it realeses exstra grean house gass traped under the serfics that costes the air to worm evin faster. this is realy alrming be cuss it meens that global worming will hapin alot sooner than meny think.
think of it as if you had a cold glas of water and left it siting in the heat what whood hapin to it? evin if you drop a ice cube in it it mite cose the water to cool a bit for a short time than it worms agin very quicly.
i know its a very simal exsmapal but i think it will gave you a very basic ruff idea sorta of how it works.
a nuther scary fact is resontly sintintest have fawnd when the earth is wormed and the sea it realeses exstra grean house gass traped under the serfics that costes the air to worm evin faster. this is realy alrming be cuss it meens that global worming will hapin alot sooner than meny think.
posted on September 28th, 2005, 6:44 am
yes but what kind of pollution do you need to warm it up? green house gasses don't warm up water not even the air if they just reach it. they need to do it with teh sun and to warm only the gulf of mexico up you need to put a dam around it, then put as heat sorce and then you heat it up. otherwise the heat will be transported somewhere else aswell and the water will cool down.
now let mee see agout those ozon destroying chemicals. let's say freon ( but i can also use nitrate or other NO compounds
CFCL3 + shortwave radiation in the atmosphere ---> CFCl2 radical + Cl Radical
CL radical + O3 (ozon) ----> ClO radical + O2
CLO radical + O -----> Cl radical + O2
it is a never ending proces and produces O2 out of the Ozon. the same reaction with the NO
Also it shows that above the 30 KM amounts of Ozon decreases but under the 30 km the Ozon is being formed by methane, CO2 and N2O
And about the heat balance. CO2 and H2O are big absorbers of radiation and heat . this increases glabal temperature and thuse increases the rate of the melting of the gletsjers and the poles. But there is a big uncertainty about it.
On the other side there is a temperature decrease due to atmospheric dust concentration whereby radiation reflection increases. This is measured by vulcano eruptions. The fine dust in the air forms a reaction with the gasios greenhous gasses ans stays in the atmosphere for dacades. also exhaust fumes without filters emit dust particles. All in all the particles keeps the earth cool. So you should say thanks for airplianes.
This is what i know from my Bachelors degree. i can send you a copy of my book if you can read dutch. but there is alot more about the subject in that book.
Roach puts off his geeky glasses and grins nerdishly
now let mee see agout those ozon destroying chemicals. let's say freon ( but i can also use nitrate or other NO compounds
CFCL3 + shortwave radiation in the atmosphere ---> CFCl2 radical + Cl Radical
CL radical + O3 (ozon) ----> ClO radical + O2
CLO radical + O -----> Cl radical + O2
it is a never ending proces and produces O2 out of the Ozon. the same reaction with the NO
Also it shows that above the 30 KM amounts of Ozon decreases but under the 30 km the Ozon is being formed by methane, CO2 and N2O
And about the heat balance. CO2 and H2O are big absorbers of radiation and heat . this increases glabal temperature and thuse increases the rate of the melting of the gletsjers and the poles. But there is a big uncertainty about it.
On the other side there is a temperature decrease due to atmospheric dust concentration whereby radiation reflection increases. This is measured by vulcano eruptions. The fine dust in the air forms a reaction with the gasios greenhous gasses ans stays in the atmosphere for dacades. also exhaust fumes without filters emit dust particles. All in all the particles keeps the earth cool. So you should say thanks for airplianes.
This is what i know from my Bachelors degree. i can send you a copy of my book if you can read dutch. but there is alot more about the subject in that book.
Roach puts off his geeky glasses and grins nerdishly
posted on September 28th, 2005, 11:27 am
but are you cawnting in the warming efect on the grawnd and sea. and the fact of thares a huge hole in the ozone that is not geting eny smaller?
posted on September 28th, 2005, 1:11 pm
then you haven't read my translation propperly, maybe due to my quick translation. there are alot of spelling mistakes in it
posted on September 28th, 2005, 4:40 pm
Yes tornados...formed when hot air near the earth finds a break in the cold air above it and basically drains upwards causing a funnel cloud and wreaks havoc on anything near it. I actually haven't heard of many of those happening lately.
posted on September 28th, 2005, 4:50 pm
yeah the formation of tornado's are quite a sight only saw a formation of a dust devil once
posted on September 28th, 2005, 11:44 pm
Last edited by ewm90 on September 29th, 2005, 1:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4290340.stm
ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT -
SEPTEMBER TREND, 1978-2005

Arctic ice 'disappearing fast'
By Richard Black
Environment Correspondent, BBC News website
The area covered by sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk for a fourth consecutive year, according to new data released by US scientists.
They say that this month sees the lowest extent of ice cover for more than a century.
The Arctic climate varies naturally, but the researchers conclude that human-induced global warming is at least partially responsible.
They warn the shrinkage could lead to even faster melting in coming years.
"September 2005 will set a new record minimum in the amount of Arctic sea ice cover," said Mark Serreze, of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Boulder, Colorado.
"It's the least sea ice we've seen in the satellite record, and continues a pattern of extreme low extents of sea ice which we've now seen for the last four years," he told BBC News.
September lows
September is the month when the Arctic ice usually reaches a minimum.
The new data shows that on 19 September, the area covered by ice fell to 5.35 million sq km (2.01 million sq miles), the lowest recorded since 1978, when satellite records became available; it is now 20% less than the 1978-2000 average.
The current rate of shrinkage they calculate at 8% per decade; at this rate there may be no ice at all during the summer of 2060.
An NSIDC analysis of historical records also suggests that ice cover is less this year than during the low periods of the 1930s and 40s.
Mark Serreze believes that the findings are evidence of climate change induced by human activities.
"It's still a controversial issue, and there's always going to be some uncertainty because the climate system does have a lot of natural variability, especially in the Arctic," he said.
"But I think the evidence is growing very, very strong that part of what we're seeing now is the increased greenhouse effect. If you asked me, I'd bet the mortgage that that's just what's happening."
Confusing movement
One of the limitations of these records is that they measure only the area of ice, rather than the volume.
"One other factor could be movements of sea ice," said Liz Morris, of the British Antarctic Survey, currently working at the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge, UK.
"If it all piles up in one place, you might have the same total amount of ice," she told the BBC News website, "and there is some evidence that ice is piling up along the north Canadian coast, driven by changes in the pattern of winds and perhaps ocean currents."
Most data on sea ice thickness comes from records of military submarines, which regularly explored passages under the Arctic ice cap during the Cold War years.
Submarines can cross the Arctic Ocean along tracks taken decades before, and note differences in the ice thickness above; but that may mean little if the ice itself has moved.
Professor Morris is involved in a new European satellite, Cryosat, which should be able to give definitive measurements of ice thickness as well as extent; its launch is scheduled for 8 October.
But she also believes that the NSIDC data suggests an impact from the human-enhanced greenhouse effect.
"All data goes through cycles, and so you have to be careful," she said, "but it's also true to say that we wouldn't expect to have four years in a row of shrinkage.
"That, combined with rising temperatures in the Arctic, suggests a human impact; and I would also bet my mortgage on it, because if you change the radiation absorption process of the atmosphere (through increased production of greenhouse gases) so there is more heating of the lower atmosphere, sooner or later you are going to melt ice."
Arctic warming fast
Though there are significant variations across the region, on average the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet, according to a major report released last year.
The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a four-year study involving hundreds of scientists, projected an additional temperature rise of 4-7C by 2100.
If the current trend can be ascribed in part to human-induced climate change, Mark Serreze sees major reasons for concern.
"What we're seeing is a process in which we start to lose ice cover during the summer," he said, "so areas which formerly had ice are now open water, which is dark.
"These dark areas absorb a lot of the Sun's energy, much more than the ice; and what happens then is that the oceans start to warm up, and it becomes very difficult for ice to form during the following autumn and winter.
"It looks like this is exactly what we're seeing - a positive feedback effect, a 'tipping-point'."
The idea behind tipping-points is that at some stage the rate of global warming would accelerate, as rising temperatures break down natural restraints or trigger environmental changes which release further amounts of greenhouse gases.
Possible tipping-points include
the disappearance of sea ice leading to greater absorption of solar radiation
a switch from forests being net absorbers of carbon dioxide to net producers
melting permafrost, releasing trapped methane
This study is the latest to indicate that such positive feedback mechanisms may be in operation, though definitive proof of their influence on the Earth's climatic future remains elusive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i hered this on the bbc tv news. on the show thay sed in 80 years if we dont make shift to new tecnolagys to reduse pultion we mite be looking at a posabule woerst case sunaro agin.
think of it like this ether we make the chage or dont bother rebiling new orleens.
ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT -
SEPTEMBER TREND, 1978-2005

Arctic ice 'disappearing fast'
By Richard Black
Environment Correspondent, BBC News website
The area covered by sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk for a fourth consecutive year, according to new data released by US scientists.
They say that this month sees the lowest extent of ice cover for more than a century.
The Arctic climate varies naturally, but the researchers conclude that human-induced global warming is at least partially responsible.
They warn the shrinkage could lead to even faster melting in coming years.
"September 2005 will set a new record minimum in the amount of Arctic sea ice cover," said Mark Serreze, of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Boulder, Colorado.
"It's the least sea ice we've seen in the satellite record, and continues a pattern of extreme low extents of sea ice which we've now seen for the last four years," he told BBC News.
September lows
September is the month when the Arctic ice usually reaches a minimum.
The new data shows that on 19 September, the area covered by ice fell to 5.35 million sq km (2.01 million sq miles), the lowest recorded since 1978, when satellite records became available; it is now 20% less than the 1978-2000 average.
The current rate of shrinkage they calculate at 8% per decade; at this rate there may be no ice at all during the summer of 2060.
An NSIDC analysis of historical records also suggests that ice cover is less this year than during the low periods of the 1930s and 40s.
Mark Serreze believes that the findings are evidence of climate change induced by human activities.
"It's still a controversial issue, and there's always going to be some uncertainty because the climate system does have a lot of natural variability, especially in the Arctic," he said.
"But I think the evidence is growing very, very strong that part of what we're seeing now is the increased greenhouse effect. If you asked me, I'd bet the mortgage that that's just what's happening."
Confusing movement
One of the limitations of these records is that they measure only the area of ice, rather than the volume.
"One other factor could be movements of sea ice," said Liz Morris, of the British Antarctic Survey, currently working at the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge, UK.
"If it all piles up in one place, you might have the same total amount of ice," she told the BBC News website, "and there is some evidence that ice is piling up along the north Canadian coast, driven by changes in the pattern of winds and perhaps ocean currents."
Most data on sea ice thickness comes from records of military submarines, which regularly explored passages under the Arctic ice cap during the Cold War years.
Submarines can cross the Arctic Ocean along tracks taken decades before, and note differences in the ice thickness above; but that may mean little if the ice itself has moved.
Professor Morris is involved in a new European satellite, Cryosat, which should be able to give definitive measurements of ice thickness as well as extent; its launch is scheduled for 8 October.
But she also believes that the NSIDC data suggests an impact from the human-enhanced greenhouse effect.
"All data goes through cycles, and so you have to be careful," she said, "but it's also true to say that we wouldn't expect to have four years in a row of shrinkage.
"That, combined with rising temperatures in the Arctic, suggests a human impact; and I would also bet my mortgage on it, because if you change the radiation absorption process of the atmosphere (through increased production of greenhouse gases) so there is more heating of the lower atmosphere, sooner or later you are going to melt ice."
Arctic warming fast
Though there are significant variations across the region, on average the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet, according to a major report released last year.
The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, a four-year study involving hundreds of scientists, projected an additional temperature rise of 4-7C by 2100.
If the current trend can be ascribed in part to human-induced climate change, Mark Serreze sees major reasons for concern.
"What we're seeing is a process in which we start to lose ice cover during the summer," he said, "so areas which formerly had ice are now open water, which is dark.
"These dark areas absorb a lot of the Sun's energy, much more than the ice; and what happens then is that the oceans start to warm up, and it becomes very difficult for ice to form during the following autumn and winter.
"It looks like this is exactly what we're seeing - a positive feedback effect, a 'tipping-point'."
The idea behind tipping-points is that at some stage the rate of global warming would accelerate, as rising temperatures break down natural restraints or trigger environmental changes which release further amounts of greenhouse gases.
Possible tipping-points include
the disappearance of sea ice leading to greater absorption of solar radiation
a switch from forests being net absorbers of carbon dioxide to net producers
melting permafrost, releasing trapped methane
This study is the latest to indicate that such positive feedback mechanisms may be in operation, though definitive proof of their influence on the Earth's climatic future remains elusive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i hered this on the bbc tv news. on the show thay sed in 80 years if we dont make shift to new tecnolagys to reduse pultion we mite be looking at a posabule woerst case sunaro agin.
think of it like this ether we make the chage or dont bother rebiling new orleens.
posted on September 29th, 2005, 6:47 am
you are just a sucker for negative news. like you want it to happen. you can apnick all the time about it but i bet that it is just exaggerated a bit that over 80 years apocalypse will be here. newer sources and technologies are being made and besides isn't it you that said that oil is allmost dry and stuff so if that happens we swich over on hydrgen cars or something or solar power cars because the dutch won the solar power race and drove 140 km/h with it.
but it might be safe not to search on the web for certain pollution doom scenarios because there are millions about it. otherwise i should actually believe all the US conspiracy theories and aliens kidnapping humans
but it might be safe not to search on the web for certain pollution doom scenarios because there are millions about it. otherwise i should actually believe all the US conspiracy theories and aliens kidnapping humans
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests