Re: Global "Warming" or "Thawing" ??? Let's make something perfectly clear: Ozone depletion and the greenhouse-effect are two different things entirely. Ozone depletion is caused by CFC's and such. Thanks to the worldwide ban on these CFC's, the ozone-layer is steadily regenerating. The greenhouse effect is another word for a rise in the average temperature caused by CO, CO2, NOx and dust in the atmosphere. The earth's temperature has always been fluctuating but seems to be steadily growing because of the greenhouse-effect. No real action has been taken to counter this phenomenon, yet...
Re: Global "Warming" or "Thawing" ??? Because we cannot counter somenthing that is not proven. Dust is not causing temperature to rise (at least not allways)!! Anyway it would be nice to stop producing all so called greenhouse gases and other pollutions.
Re: Global "Warming" or "Thawing" ??? Sebbo, would you be so king as to observe spectral atmosphere analysis in my reference above (several posts). Ozone layer DOES NOT change at all everywhere except Antarctica. It has changed from some 350 DU average to some 250 DU from 1962 till now. Once more: absolutely no change everywhere except Antartica, where is depletes gradually with absolutely no signs of improvement. There is no single fucking ozone decomposing factor in Antarctica. Why is it depleting -- knows noone. Perhaps, this is some kind of natural long term oscilation, hell knows.
Re: Global "Warming" or "Thawing" ??? Just a mind: plants, algae very beautifully suffocate without CO2, cause it is the only fuel for their photosynthesis...
Re: Global "Warming" or "Thawing" ??? The part of the electromagnetic spectrum called "IR" is very wide and the thermal radiation from the earth is included within it. The bulk of the thermal radiation from the earth is around 10 um. And most of the IR-cameras we make are sensitive to radiation around 10 um since most object of interest are at abound 300K. 10 um radiation is also good for looking through smoke and dust. This part of the spectrum is sometimes called "long wave IR" Our ?best-seller? has a specified spectral range 7.5 um to 13 um. Check http://www.flirthermography.com/media/P65 Datasheet.pdf Also check this: http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/1998/sbirs-brochure/fig-02.jpg
Re: Global "Warming" or "Thawing" ??? A gas will always try to fill the entire room it is located in. No matter the weight of gas, it gets dissolved in the surrounding air, getting more diluted all along. Easy way to prove this, go into a room, go to the end FURTHEST away from the door. Put a guy with a lit cigarrette in the doorway. Wait. -see? It's easy. Please try this at home. I can't remember which of the "laws of gases" that is, and actually I don't care which it is either.
Re: Global "Warming" or "Thawing" ??? it was early in the morning when I wrote that. It`s my only excuse
Re: Global "Warming" or "Thawing" ??? I am not sure about that. I remember graph showing ozone concentration dropping almost to 0. I think that was around Svalbard, not Antarctica (but I might be wrong again), therefore it DOES change elsewhere.
Re: Global "Warming" or "Thawing" ??? Sure, in the newspapers You know, I tend to believe special equipment invented exclusively for ozone layer metering and doing so from 1962. Anything else reminds me the panic linked to UFO attack
Re: Global "Warming" or "Thawing" ??? Actualy it was on lectures with guy that is working for NILU (norwegian meteorology something), Nowegian Polarinstitute (not sure if he`s working there now) and is chief of station that is measuring pollutions. But, yeah it is as reliable as newspapers, sure....
Re: Global "Warming" or "Thawing" ??? http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/03/20/north.pole/index.html Not the 1st time a pole goes to Siberia, i bet lolololololololoololololol!!!!!!!!
Re: Global "Warming" or "Thawing" ??? If a gas would try to fill the entire room it is located in, our Earth would look like the Moon, i.e. without atmosphere.
Re: Global "Warming" or "Thawing" ??? Taking into account that magnetic field of our planet exists due to melted magma currents, no wonder it has not only precession, but flips upside-down from time to time.
Re: Global "Warming" or "Thawing" ??? My opponent wanted to say, that gases do not a subject of gravity forces In reality -- they are, and havier gases tend to move down. So, CO2 has no chance to reach 15-30 km altitudes unless we start to explode 50 Megaton bombs every day. He wrote that gases tend to take the whole room available. Universe IS the room, but our atmosphere does not evaporate
Re: Global "Warming" or "Thawing" ??? i guess he is talking about the gas goes out to the space, and it s true, some of gasses of the planet go to space, but the gravity acts in against of that by that reason mars hasn t atmosphere right now (it has really, but very weak )
Re: Global "Warming" or "Thawing" ??? If gases have ever tried to fill up entire universe, it would have happen a long time ago. "havier gases tend to move down", true, but only in static situation. When was the last time earth didn't have any wind anywhere? Never? Also the rotation of earth moves gases too.
Re: Global "Warming" or "Thawing" ??? What the hell are you saying? The universe IS gas. Gravity concentrates gas, puts it under great pressure, pressures so great gasses can turn to liquids or even solids. But in space, gas is everywhere. It is not dense.
Re: Global "Warming" or "Thawing" ??? this reminds me one thing i read some days ago http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap051208.html "It shows remarkable details of x-ray emission from the monster galaxy and surrounding hot (30-70 million degrees C) cluster gas" huhuuu what heat do you know how much is that? the core of our sun is 15 millions C!!!!
Re: Global "Warming" or "Thawing" ??? I stick to the fact. Gases try to fill the room where they are. Maybe I could have gotten deeper into the explanation, but wth. I do not feel like and adversary, by the way Also winds, gravity and shit play parts in this. The gases that are bound to the earth get mixed together as good as they can. Those gases that mix worse will of course take longer to get diluted. f.e. : Ammonia, the gas. Its a natural gas, the cows make it in abundance. Have you smelled it? I grant you that an amount of ammonia that (in liquid form) would fit in a teaspoon is more than enough to make you get queasy and your eyes will get sore, full of tears, if that small amount is let free in a room that is perhaps 15-20m2 floorspace. Ammonia is quite a heavy gas, but it is uneasily solved "in air", ie mixing into the surrounding gases. IE it dilutes slowly. If you get a leakage, it will smell bad a long time before its dissolved into such small amounts per amount of surrounding air that it's nice to be near. The refrigerating systems that use ammonia (mainly big ass systems, like hockey rinks and slaughterhouses (NO, they are NOT the same ) ) always smell of ammonia, even if the systems are "airtight". If you would need to evacuate an ammonia system, and let the gas out in the open, you'd have to eveacute the surroundings as well... UNLESS you attach a hose to the system, and put the end into water before opening the tap. Water dilutes ammonia very good. When gases gets diluted, they still keep their atomicbindings or wth its called. So, a heavy gas will, eventually reach the outmost layer of earths atmosphere. Maybe that it is not "that gas" anymore, because it's so much diluted, but the molecules are still there. The Chlorine uses an "O" from every O3 molecule, thus "killing" the ozone. O3+Cl = ClO+O2 usw... http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/0,55a304092d09/2__Ozone_hole/-_ozone_hole___CFC_s_1z2.html Lotsa mumbojumbo, but also the schematic about chlorine's effect on ozone. BUT, the chlorine is not (AFAIK) responsible for ozonelayer fluctuance ALONE. Historically the O3 layer has had fluctuations before, but it seems to have been accelerating the last XX years. We do not have long enough in a historical perspective to have reliable data OVER THE AGES. Which is a part of this discuccion that allows "both sides" to be right. Or wrong, if you want to see the facts the other way round. I only entered the discussion when Vadim, I think it was, said that gases are too heavy to reach out o the O3 layer. Which, sorry, is a load of bull. So, Vadim, I dont want to fight you (in the forum anyway) but you were wrong about that. [edit] sorry for being a pain in the rear [/edit]