Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Ever heard of moisture wicking clothing ? Through one simple blend of materials, Humans have created the ability to send one's sweat outward, yet prevent it from traveling back inward. That, and I believe a little process called transpiration. I was just a simple Arts and Sciences grad back then, and I've done a bit of mostly National Geographic reading on the topic of Global Warming since. But I believe you are greatly oversimplifying the physics and chemistry of it all at best. Different layers of the atmosphere are different densities and have different chemistry. The most immediate layer closest to the earth holds a great deal of humidity, thus our weather. Humidity traps and carries particulates. Pollutants can be particulates. The more particulates trapped within the our atmosphere, the more the most immediate layer reflects back at us.
By your theory, greenhouses would be the same temperature as the outside air in the summertime. And in case you've never been in one, that just ain't the case.
Red, seriously think about what u are saying. Using that reasoning, than I can walk through my glass door if I am entering my house but I cannot walk through it if I am trying to leave my house. The same action that is holding heat in is also reflecting it away. More is being reflected away than is being held in
And just because I'm a stickler prick for usage error and wanna take us all higher, your use of the word than in the above situation is incorrect. When making a conditional statement, or "if x, then y", the word then is used. The word "than" is reserved for situations of comparison such as "Holier than Thou" ...
Moisture wicking simply absorbs the sweat and pulls it away from your body where it can evaporate off over a larger area.
A Greenhouse works because you are preventing natural convection from taking place due to it being a house.
Yes, there are many layers in the atmosphere and all of them have different index's of refraction but regardless of all of that it still works in both directions. We are not receiving as much solar energy as we used to.
Ha, I stay away for a week because the thread is getting too hostile, and I find that someone who doesn't know me at all has launched a personal attack against me for discussing current events in the current issues thread. Real clASSy. Of course, it's the same person who knows the "human restraint is the next step in evolution". Well, damn! I'm sure glad somebody has it all figured out. I mean that is really quite the outrageous claim there, darlin. Bless your heart
Ha, I stay away for a week because the thread is getting too hostile, and I find that someone who doesn't know me at all has launched a personal attack against me for discussing current events in the current issues thread. Real clASSy. Of course, it's the same person who knows the "human restraint is the next step in evolution". Well, damn! I'm sure glad somebody has it all figured out. I mean that is really quite the outrageous claim there, darlin. Bless your heart
It is not really a personal attack to question your views on a subject. As far as what these two above me are talking about I have no idea. They neither one seem to have a very good grasp of the basic facts of climate change.
Back to my evil warehouse of hate where I plot to make rich people pay their fair share and concoct schemes to bleed the greedy of their stolen money by using the farce that is global warming.
I must feel horrible about myself for wanting EVERYBODY to have access to healthcare, and for giving physics, grammar, and philosophy 101 classes.
You both want to deny global warming for your own entitlement and comfort, and Lelie wants people to die so her parents' taxes don't go up. And I am urging greater accountability on ALL our behalf so that more people can share in how good we've got it.
And Lelie, let's not poop our own pants here. You stay away because Rush Limbaugh hasn't told you how to respond when people answer your/his propaganda with fact.
Last Edit: Oct 14, 2009 8:32:49 GMT -5 by red - Back to Top
Didn't take the time to type it out to be superior or a dick. It is a common error and I figured I'd lay out a way to remember how to not make the mistake again. You'll see me do it with "their, there, and they're" as well as others. Wasn't aimed at you at all in a derogatory fashion.
But go ahead and ignore. You have clearly done so in science class as well. The glass in the greenhouse is a higher density than air. It allows sunlight through and traps the heat in, much like the atmosphere that we keep increasing the density of with our pollutants.
Ha, I stay away for a week because the thread is getting too hostile, and I find that someone who doesn't know me at all has launched a personal attack against me for discussing current events in the current issues thread. Real clASSy. Of course, it's the same person who knows the "human restraint is the next step in evolution". Well, damn! I'm sure glad somebody has it all figured out. I mean that is really quite the outrageous claim there, darlin. Bless your heart
It is not really a personal attack to question your views on a subject. As far as what these two above me are talking about I have no idea. They neither one seem to have a very good grasp of the basic facts of climate change.
I was trying to give a very admittedly layman's description of why heat energy gets trapped in and is not free to go out as it entered. Perhaps you care to help if I am doing such a bad job ?
...and sorry to all for my triple post. just trying to keep on top of things here as I will be gone for awhile moving. Enjoy.
Last Edit: Oct 14, 2009 8:34:36 GMT -5 by red - Back to Top
[/quote] But go ahead and ignore. You have clearly done so in science class as well. The glass in the greenhouse is a higher density than air. It allows sunlight through and traps the heat in, much like the atmosphere that we keep increasing the density of with our pollutants.
Man I feel classy today...
Oh yeah.....Obama ![/quote]
Yes, you have correctly acknowledged that glass has a higher index of refraction than air. That makes absolute no connection to global warming. The only reason a greenhouse gets hot is because you do not allow the hot air to rise as it would naturally. Any building will do this, you do not need glass. Sit in your own home during summer without the AC on and eventually your home will warm up to a temperature higher than the ambient temperature outside. This action has nothing to do with indexes of refraction. We are not talking about the direct heating of air by light, that heat is with us, and it is less than what it used to be. The only energy you should focus on is light reflecting off the surface of the earth (especially the oceans) and the radiative emissions being given off from the earth. Either way less of that is reaching the earth in the first place...
[/quote]Back to my evil warehouse of hate where I plot to make rich people pay their fair share and concoct schemes to bleed the greedy of their stolen money by using the farce that is global warming.
I must feel horrible about myself for wanting EVERYBODY to have access to healthcare, and for giving physics, grammar, and philosophy 101 classes.[/quote]
This is the problem with everyone in this debate. NO ONE is being OBJECTIVE about this. Stop having feelings about the people involved, this isn't about whether or not you care about anyone, or feel sorry for the less fortunate. The only question that should be asked is, Are we staying within the boundaries of what our country is about? Is this socialist?
The only energy you should focus on is light reflecting off the surface of the earth (especially the oceans) and the radiative emissions being given off from the earth.
You also have to account for the heat that the atmosphere radiates. Atmospheric particles absorb radiation -- some of it directly from the sun, and some reflected from the earth -- and then those particles radiate heat in all directions, most of it back toward the earth's surface.
The result is that the earth gets about twice as much heat from its atmosphere as it gets from the sun. If the atmosphere didn't radiate heat (the greenhouse effect), it would get so cold at night when the sun doesn't hit your part of earth that most life on earth would die.
The only question that should be asked is, Are we staying within the boundaries of what our country is about? Is this socialist?
The answer is No. And than a very loud Yes
What exactly is our country about, then? That seems to be the core of the debate.
Are public schools, roads, libraries, parks, police and fire depts, etc socialist?
Edit: Quotes work if you know how to use them. [/quote] is only used at the end of a quote. Drop the / at the beginning. Or just hit "quote" in the top right hand corner of the person's post.
Last Edit: Oct 14, 2009 12:40:50 GMT -5 by MrKC - Back to Top
I'll give you the fact that the Earth cycles through temp changes, and could be doing so now. But, that doesn't change the fact that our presence is increasing that cycle. And therefore, if that cycle is increasing, you can make the leap that it will not return to the same place it did before. Conclusion: each cycle will get worse if we don't change some of our practices. Whatever is causing it (God, man, the universe, etc.), it is happening, and for the sake of the folks who live on a shore line, we probably ought to do something about it.
Whatever is causing it (God, man, the universe, etc.), it is happening, and for the sake of the folks who live on a shore line, we probably ought to do something about it.
Okay, lets pretend for a minute that I agree with you...it seems to me that the world's biggest polluters--China and India with about 1/3 of the human population--have shown no interest in things like reducing emissions or being environmentally friendly in any way. I agree w/FM about taking care of the Earth (I bring my own bags to the grocery store and don't litter), but I'm in no way convinced that telling people they can't drive trucks or fly planes will have any significant effect. There is also some argument to be made that the building of hybrid/electric cars as well as the way certain components of the vehicles decay is harmful or toxic to the earth.
And nitetime....you asked awhile back how can I not be a republican, but at the same time looking forward to 2010/12. Well, on the one hand I so dislike the current democrat agenda that taking away their majority (by voting in reps) would prevent what I believe could be further damage. On the other hand, the number one change I would like to see is to shrink the government, both in terms of size and power. Both major parties are guilty of perpetuating the problem. I think they get to DC and are just taken over with greed for money and power and they lose sight of everyday reality of our nation's citizens. I also don't like that republicans love to be the morality police. This applies to a broad spectrum of issues including gay marriage, drug reform, capital punishment, censorship, and the always-aggravating no sunday booze sales in GA (I can drive to the bar, get drunk and drive home, but I can't drive to Kroger for some beer). I hate the Patriot Act. I acknowledge that many reps (although to be fair, the same is likely true for dems) really are, in fact a bunch of greedy old white guys....and I hate that they are the face of the party.
I really would love to see change....new faces, new names, new ideas, all of it sounds great. I just don't like the way Obama and most liberals want to execute the change.
Lelie first off I want to say that an oil based economy is going to be doomed to failure at some point we will run out the question is only when. To get there we will have to go to nuclear based electrical powered economy, and the sooner the better. I am not, and I dont think anyone has advocated not flying or driving. One of the reasons I like cap and trade is that it will strongly reward, and even subsidize nuclear power, since most new reactors are emission free. It is not socialist it is actually a capitalist plan that will reward people who upgrade their plants, and let companies without the necessary capitol still continue to exist. I still think the credits should be allocated and then handed out for free, but without the stick of a cap there is no incentive at all to reduce your pollution. Cars are different matter, but really I would say the majority of vehicles will be electric in about 10-15 years.
As to China and India, it is very hard to mandate to another country something that you are unwilling to do yourself. I think strict penalties and tariffs, along with mandates for plants with American ownership will eventually bring them on board. After all if they can not sell to America at a competitive price there is no reason to have the plants.
Finally as I said before climate change is pretty much a fact there is a global consensus where 90% of scientific groups have said as much. As I said above in less than 10 years we will have an open Northwest passage, something that has not been the case in all of recorded history. You can say that it is a fraud to make people want a bigger gov't, but scientists don't really have a dog in that fight. They report facts, and unless the ratio of believers to skeptics in the field changes I am going to have to go with the majority on this one.
What exactly is our country about, then? That seems to be the core of the debate.
Are public schools, roads, libraries, parks, police and fire depts, etc socialist?
None of those operate under a free trade type of economy. There is no business in privately owning and operating a park or road (longshot if u want to argue in favor of toll roads). Libraries and education are considered neccesary to advance ourselves as a country. Police and Fire are required to protect citizens from other citizens. I will agree that we have some socialist agendas in our government, and I hate seeing it. But do we argue in favor of the practice because others before us have failed to do things correctly? We can't just follow blindly...
And to avoid confusion since my previous post deviated from the original arguement. This is in reference to health care, not global warming
What exactly is our country about, then? That seems to be the core of the debate.
Are public schools, roads, libraries, parks, police and fire depts, etc socialist?
None of those operate under a free trade type of economy. There is no business in privately owning and operating a park or road (longshot if u want to argue in favor of toll roads). Libraries and education are considered neccesary to advance ourselves as a country. Police and Fire are required to protect citizens from other citizens. I will agree that we have some socialist agendas in our government, and I hate seeing it. But do we argue in favor of the practice because others before us have failed to do things correctly? We can't just follow blindly...
And to avoid confusion since my previous post deviated from the original arguement. This is in reference to health care, not global warming
In all fairness can you not say, keeping all our citizens healthy, and making sure they have access to good healthcare is also in our necessary to advance ourselves as a country, and we owe everyone equal protection from diseases?
Just because everyone else has done it wrong, does not mean that we will. In fact I cant think of a country with socialized medicine that has anything like the proposed mix we are talking about.
When I say others have done it wrong, I am not referring to how other countries conduct their business. I am saying others before us have implemented government programs in THIS country that are wrong (socialistic). No, I do not believe keeping all citizens healthy is vital to our country growing. Everyone has equal opportunity to get medical attention and they will receive it, whether or not they prepared themselves for the costs is up to them.
Everyone has equal opportunity to get medical attention and they will receive it, whether or not they prepared themselves for the costs is up to them.
So this argument applies to you as well? Say you lose your job, or your business goes belly up, whatever, and you have no insurance or cash. You catch a major disease or something. Are the doctors supposed to say "Sorry, theville, tough luck." That wouldn't upset you in the least? You'd just crawl off somewhere to die, another american who wasn't productive enough to take care of himself?
Try taking a walk in someone else's shoes for a change.
And leliebomb, so you're still saying Global Warming isnt happening at all? I just can't comprehend how you can ignore that fact.
Get ready to cozy up to your neighbors. When we lose our coastal cities to the non-existent falacy happening all around you, things will get a little tight further inland.
-When I Hear My Name -Dead Leaves and the Dirty Ground -Blue Orchid -Passive Manipulation -Red Rain -Death Letter -My Doorbell -Hotel Yorba -Same Boy You've Always Known -Lovesick -Little Ghost -We're Going to Be Friends -The Hardest Button to Button -Black Math -The Nurse -I Just Don't Know What to Do With Myself
Encore: -Ball and Biscuit -Seven Nation Army -Screwdriver
Oh, how nice, another clASS act who has to resort to name callling even though you don't know me at all. So damn rude. Obviously nobody ever loved you enough to teach you the proper way to speak to other people, particularly the ladies.
And bigjohn...Of course our climate is always changing. We have a dynamic earth. But I think in the grand scheme of things we are nothing more that insignificant little specks of dust. I mean you can't compare the power of the sun or our planet to our own human power. That is a truly crazy idea. We aren't powerful enough to have caused it, and we certainly are not in any position to stop it. I realize it's an unpleasant thought, but things are going to end eventually, whether we like it or not. I personally don't think that bad weather will mark the end of the world, but who knows? If it does, it's not our job or purpose to stop it. Despite the arrogance of many, we are not God.
Last Edit: Oct 16, 2009 7:48:36 GMT -5 by red - Back to Top
Oh, how nice, another clASS act who has to resort to name callling even though you don't know me at all. So damn rude. Obviously nobody ever loved you enough to teach you the proper way to speak to other people, particularly the ladies.
And bigjohn...Of course our climate is always changing. We have a dynamic earth. But I think in the grand scheme of things we are nothing more that insignificant little specks of dust. I mean you can't compare the power of the sun or our planet to our own human power. That is a truly crazy idea. We aren't powerful enough to have caused it, and we certainly are not in any position to stop it. I realize it's an unpleasant thought, but things are going to end eventually, whether we like it or not. I personally don't think that bad weather will mark the end of the world, but who knows? If it does, it's not our job or purpose to stop it. Despite the arrogance of many, we are not God.
And finally we have fatalism. Well give up if you want I say we go ahead and give it a try. I am not going to roll over and play dead for a higher power I do not believe in. If you ever have kids Leleli what kind of world do you want to leave them? I am not going to argue with you about this anymore though anyone who starts bringing up God as a reason to not put controls on pollution has put themselves in a inarguable position as far as they are concerned.
I will say this though, there is no reason for personal attacks in any of this, if nothing else it lets people ignore the facts they are presented with and only focus on the attacks.
Last Edit: Oct 16, 2009 7:58:30 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
I wasn't bringing God to the argument, I was saying we can't play God. I hate arguing about this topic, believe it or not, because I know it sounds like I don't care. I'm all for taking care of what we have while we are here and keeping it beautiful and encouraging others to do the same. I also know that we can't control everything no matter how much we want to.
I wasn't bringing God to the argument, I was saying we can't play God. I hate arguing about this topic, believe it or not, because I know it sounds like I don't care. I'm all for taking care of what we have while we are here and keeping it beautiful and encouraging others to do the same. I also know that we can't control everything no matter how much we want to.
The reverse of that is though that we should try to control what we can. My biggest problem with your position is that you are taking something that is science and can be worked on, and then saying that it is all a gov't scare tactic. The only point I have been trying to make is that it is not, it is a real event, and that we should try and do something about it.
The only question that should be asked is, Are we staying within the boundaries of what our country is about? Is this socialist?
The answer is No. And than a very loud Yes
What exactly is our country about, then? That seems to be the core of the debate.
This has been glossed over and is an excellent point.
Like everything, our country has changed over time. It seems to me that we use the constitution and bill of rights to justify certain things and condemn others. Yet something as fundamental as healthcare (which we certainly need to advance our nation) is deemed socialist and unconstitutional.
Yet we have Medicare and healthcare for the armed services.
Lelle - your position is confusing to me. on the one hand, you seem to have an almost existential viewpoint, on the other, you invoke god and fatalistic viewpoints that we are powerless to do anything.
what's wrong with trying? just because china isnt on board, we should just stick our heads in the sand and go "LALALALALA"? we are supposed to be a dominate world power that sets the tone - we should be leaders in this effort, not giving up because china wont play ball.
it's all a matter of greed and money. if you hold them dearly, then you play reckless odds of denying medical coverage and denying the human element of climate change.
The reverse of that is though that we should try to control what we can. My biggest problem with your position is that you are taking something that is science and can be worked on, and then saying that it is all a gov't scare tactic. The only point I have been trying to make is that it is not, it is a real event, and that we should try and do something about it.
Post by SouthGA_Festival Machine on Oct 16, 2009 12:26:59 GMT -5
I haven't been keeping up with this thread. Actually, I've been avoiding it. But I can't help catching bits and pieces from the "most recent 50" and I've just gotta say that it's pretty obvious that global warming is a myth, just like a round earth revolving around the sun, evolution, the moon landing, etc.