quote:

Originally posted by ampmaster:
I'm really worried that the may have to end the trail race before I have a chance to run it

North America had a mild winter this year. I wouldn't fret too much. We'll see though.

I'm really worried that the may have to end the trail race before I have a chance to run it

quote:

Originally posted by ampmaster:
I also am seeing evidence they are having trouble with the Iditarod Trail and Yukon Quest Sled Dog races (two of the oldest and largest world wide) because of lack of snow and this is in ALASKA!

This is interesting, since that sled race was created when we were still in the Little Ice Age.

quote:

On a side note, it has been hotter in my country than usual...even in winters it has been warmer, but I don't know about this.

The waters of the Carribean were warmer than usual this year. It's probably contributing to a much milder year. It's also the reason the US got hit by so many heavy hurricanes. It, however, is not caused by global warming but rather ocean currents and whatnot.

I've recently seen a maintstream news story claiming that "scientists have determined that the devestating hurricanes are a definite result of global warming". Bullshit. The hurricanes were a result of local conditions, which may have been minutely effected by warming but not to an extent that it's the sole cause. Rather it's a very, very minor contributor.

I also am seeing evidence they are having trouble with the Iditarod Trail and Yukon Quest Sled Dog races (two of the oldest and largest world wide) because of lack of snow and this is in ALASKA!

This is one of the best debates I've read on YouthNOISE. Doc, totally informative. I don't know anything on this...considering most of what I've taken in school classes has been biology.

On a side note, it has been hotter in my country than usual...even in winters it has been warmer, but I don't know about this.

quote:

I read scientific American and National geographic.

quote:

you are never going to prove global warming is true to me

I sense a contradiction. I seem to recall that National Geographic did a really good piece a while back proving how global warming was real. Something about CO2 and whatnot...

quote:

I am never going to prove what I am saying to you and you are never going to prove global warming is true to me, or make me believe that what I am saying is wrong. But do not call me an idiot who THINKS they know what they are talking about. I know damn well when I don't understand how something works, and I know damn well to not say anything.

Come on, you're giving up after two posts? This wasn't very fun.

quote:

If you listen to what economists are saying, they can explain how it would econmically irresponsible to act to stop global warmings, but for some reason, everyone is listening to scientists who, while they know science, do not think about impacts that their proposals might have on the rest of the country.

Actually Blue, it's not so much the scientists as it is the environmental lobbies and certain politicians. There's a pretty large body of scientists who think exactly like you do. Some of my profs included.

Now that I think about it, all the actual SCIENTISTS in the environment department here take the "it's happening, we're not sure exactly why, and it's probably way too costly to fix it." It's all the POLICY people, the ones concerned with the politics and law, that are the militant global warming "END OF THE WOLRD" people.

Saturnmoth, surely you must agree that the world is getting warmer? There is hard data to back that up.

While I agree that global warming exists, it is very difficult to combat. In order to actaully, make a difference, the United States and the rest of the world would have to cut CO2 emissions by huge margins...to the point where our economies would suffer. Realistically, it just isn't worth it. Kyoto, for example, isn't going make any impact at all...the cuts are minimal at best...so why should we hurt our economy if we aren't even going to make an impact on the problem? Doesn't sound right to me.

I don't think that the Bush administration denies the existence of global warmings, but they understand there isn't anything we can do.

If you listen to what economists are saying, they can explain how it would econmically irresponsible to act to stop global warmings, but for some reason, everyone is listening to scientists who, while they know science, do not think about impacts that their proposals might have on the rest of the country.

You're right. I must be a stupid child whom is a fount of wrong information. All I do is spout out science facts I heard my high school chemistry teacher say. I read scientific American and National geographic.

I am never going to prove what I am saying to you and you are never going to prove global warming is true to me, or make me believe that what I am saying is wrong. But do not call me an idiot who THINKS they know what they are talking about. I know damn well when I don't understand how something works, and I know damn well to not say anything.

ouch two points to the good doctor

quote:

You have the right to say whatever you'd like about my thought on the matter, but do not question my knowledge of science or my sources.

I will question whatever I like. Your profile says you're 16. You've probably taken some science classes and maybe read some articles in Discover or Scientific American. There's a slim chance you've actually read some true journal articles, but I doubt that. In contrast, I'm one class short of a Bachelors in Geosciences from the best undergraduate geology program on the east coast. I don't mean to flaunt that, but welcome to reality where people will assume you don't know what you're talking about when you make over-simplisitc statements.

And as for sources, I can't question what you haven't posted.

quote:

The pole-shift theory is not highly questionable. It has been proven true to have happened every 500,000 years or so. THAT IS TRUE. To say it would not happen again is wrong since it has happened at roughly even intervals.

I did not dispute pole reversals, I said that claiming that one is about to happen is 99.9% speculation. There is no "regular" intervals, at least not on a human timescale. A "regular" interval could end tomorrow or it could end in 100,000 years. The fluctuations we have observed thus far mean nothing since we really don't understand the mechanism that creates the field, or the reversals.

quote:

To say that magnetic fields do not is laughable. Magnetic fields protect us from MOST of the sun's radiation. They keep out MOST of the harmful rays

Science Fact: There's a difference between RAYS and PARTICLES. The magnetic field deflects particles, solar wind and whatnot. It does NOT deflect a signifgant amount of rays. The ozone layer and the rest of the atmopsphere absorbs rays. Likewise it's impossible for the magnetic field to polarize light. Sunlight is NOT polarized, you seem to be confused about the definition. Polarization has to do with light's vibrational direction, not a polar charge.

quote:

CO2's molecular structure is linear, nonpolar: a carbon central atom double-bonded to two oxygen atoms. It has extremely WEAK intermolecular forces. The energy required to break apart these intermolecular attractions therefore is very little.

CO2 DOES have a dipole moment however. It's this property that allows it to absorb certain wavelengths in the IR spectrum and vibrate, storing heat energy in the atmosphere that would otherwise radiate into space. The molecule breaking apart (which is NOT easy in the atmosphere, it's a very stable molecule relative to other trace gases) has nothing to do with it.

quote:

Yes, I realize that visible light is not heat. I simply was too lazy to explain specifically what passes through CO2 (which apparently i need to write a doctoral thesis on freakin youthnoise to satisfy my argument. if i must i will).

Lets hear it then. Because it sounds to me like you're fudging it. CO2 allows visible light to pass, but absorbs a signifigant portion of the IR spectrum. You claimed that light passes through, and now say that by "light" you meant "Infrared". That's just simply wrong.

quote:

I apologize for saying one proton and one antiproton. I was writing in a childish matter to get my point across to the childish minds on this website.

Dumbing things down is alright. Making outright lies like "one proton-antiproton collsion will eradicate half the Earth" is just stupid and doesn't educate anyone.

quote:

I get my information from either books, scientific journals, or scientific magazines. but do not assume that I am "playing scientist."

If that's true then you don't understand what you're reading. You've made several critically flawed statements.

quote:

If I did not know what I am talking about I am smart enough to know to keep my mouth shut. I can see that you do know what you are talking about, but please do not use insults out of respect.

It's possible that you THINK you know what you're talking about and therefore don't keep your mouth shut. You go off spouting "facts" that are misinformed, and then say "I get all my sources from scientific journals/magazines! They must be true!" If that's not playing scientist, I don't know what is.

quote:

To say that magnetic fields do not is laughable. Magnetic fields protect us from MOST of the sun's radiation. They keep out MOST of the harmful rays

That's weird. I thought the Atomosphere did that.

You have the right to say whatever you'd like about my thought on the matter, but do not question my knowledge of science or my sources.

quote:

First off, your whole pole-shift thing is highly questionable. The fields are weakening SLIGHTLY but to say "they're about to shift" is just plain WRONG. We know very little about this phenomena.

The pole-shift theory is not highly questionable. It has been proven true to have happened every 500,000 years or so. THAT IS TRUE. To say it would not happen again is wrong since it has happened at roughly even intervals.

quote:

First off, saying the magnetic fields "polarize" light in any way that make a difference is laughable.

To say that magnetic fields do not is laughable. Magnetic fields protect us from MOST of the sun's radiation. They keep out MOST of the harmful rays

quote:

Secondly, it doesn't matter whether CO2 blocks visible light, because it's not visible light we're worried about. When visible light strikes a surface, some of that energy is tranferred into the infrared spectrum. Ie. HEAT. CO2, because of it's molecular structure, MOST DEFINETLY traps heat. Water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and CFCs also do this. You totally just blew over the whole concept of reflectivity and albedo.

Yes, I realize that visible light is not heat. I simply was too lazy to explain specifically what passes through CO2 (which apparently i need to write a doctoral thesis on freakin youthnoise to satisfy my argument. if i must i will). CO2's molecular structure is linear, nonpolar: a carbon central atom double-bonded to two oxygen atoms. It has extremely WEAK intermolecular forces. The energy required to break apart these intermolecular attractions therefore is very little.

quote:

We've had many experimental anti-matter - matter annihilations in physics labs

Yes we have. Electron - positron collisions during PET scans are an example. But we have never been able to perform a collision of the magnitude I specified. We do not have the capabilities of containing such a reaction. I apologize for saying one proton and one antiproton. I was writing in a childish matter to get my point across to the childish minds on this website. In reality a collision of a sample of protons the size of a dime and and an equal mass of its antimatter counterpart would yield an energy output sufficient enough to eradicate half the Earth.

quote:

Stop trying to play scientist by copy-pasting a bunch of stuff you found on the net somewhere

I find it insulting that you suggest that. I NEVER get any of my scientific information off of the Internet because any moron with typing capabilities can post their idiotic beliefs. I get my information from either books, scientific journals, or scientific magazines. but do not assume that I am "playing scientist." If I did not know what I am talking about I am smart enough to know to keep my mouth shut. I can see that you do know what you are talking about, but please do not use insults out of respect.

quote:

In England, Global Warming it taught as a genuine fact, not as a theory

Global warming is not a universally accepted theory. I was taught it here in AMerica too in Earth Science and biology as fact. The idea that the world was flat was accepted as fact until the idea that the world was elliptical was suggested.

In England, Global Warming it taught as a genuine fact, not as a theory.

GGAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Thank God I'm here to set things straight, holy shit.

First off, your whole pole-shift thing is highly questionable. The fields are weakening SLIGHTLY but to say "they're about to shift" is just plain WRONG. We know very little about this phenomena.

quote:

The magnetic force lines align themselves in a girdlike pattern. Waves that can fit through the grid will enter. They strike the Earth somewhere, and some of the energy is aborbed into the earth: the energy that all of us NEED to live. Some of the wave is reflected back up into the Earth's atmosphere. Excessive CO2 does not hinder the path of the light waves. the light is simply refracted through the layer of CO2 back into space.

First off, saying the magnetic fields "polarize" light in any way that make a difference is laughable.

Secondly, it doesn't matter whether CO2 blocks visible light, because it's not visible light we're worried about. When visible light strikes a surface, some of that energy is tranferred into the infrared spectrum. Ie. HEAT. CO2, because of it's molecular structure, MOST DEFINETLY traps heat. Water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and CFCs also do this. You totally just blew over the whole concept of reflectivity and albedo.

quote:

However, a successful antimatter-matter collision (one little proton and antiproton) creates an explosion that could eradicate half the Earth

We've had many experimental anti-matter - matter annihilations in physics labs.

Stop trying to play scientist by copy-pasting a bunch of stuff you found on the net somewhere.

GLOBAL WARMING HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN TRUE.

where have you heard that the THEORY of global warming has been written into sceintific law?

I'm sick and tired of people crying that excessive CO2 is causing global temperature shifts.

Yes, we are experiencing shifts in global temperatures. But doesn't it strike you odd that the earth has experienced these 10 degree fluctuations in temperature periodically? This evidence comes from geological studies of rock layers and sediment deposits over time.

Based on the positioning of particle domains within layers of once-ferramagnetic materials such as iron containing igneuos and metamorphic rock, scientists have determined that at several points throughout the Earth's history, there have been periods in which the Earth's axis has shifted. Since the Earth is essentially one big magnet, which creates a magnetic field, ferramagnetic materials such as molten rock spewed from a volcano, and particles of other types of sediment, will align themselves in Earth's magnetic field. When the lava and or sediment cools, the particle domains will align with each other forming slightly magnetic rock. The north poles of these domains will shift towards the south pole of the Earth (which today is Earth's geographic North Pole), and the south poles of the ferramagnetic rock will shift towards the magnetic north pole of the rock. (this is why the north pole of a compass will point north, because the needle aligns itslef in the magnetic field created by the earth). After the rock cools and over time the rock's domains lose their ability to magnetize and harden. Scientists have mapped geologic time scales of igneus rock deposits showing the rock shifting back and forth over long periods of time (including rock samples from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge), meaning one layer of rock pointing north will abruptly shift and point south. Those southern aligned rocks will then abruptly shift north again. The abrupt shifts in the time scales are the periods of earth's history characterized by slight shifts in temperature over about 100 years. Earth hasnt experienced one of these shifts in some time and iis due for another according to geological surveys.The Earth's axis will literally change in its tilt and shift to the other side, meaning that the poles will shift. IT HAS HAPPENED MANY TIMES IN EARTHS HISTORY.

The shift in temperature most likely occurs because of the earth's magnetic fields. The Earth is covered by a magnetic layer of force that deflects MOST of the Sun's UV radiation and waves of other harmful frequencies (NOT OZONE!!! Ozone is another layer which protects from UV rays which happen to pentrate the magnetic field). At each of the poles the Magnetic lines of force converge at the North and SOuth poles. Above the poles, the Earth's atmosphere is exposed to the radiation from the sun (this is why we see the aurora borealis. it is the result of different velocities of light waves being refracted through gases at different indices of refraction in the Earth's upper atmosphere). WE do not see phenomenon like the Northern Lights at the Equator or over NEw York because the Earth's MAGNETIC FIELD KEEPS HARMFUL RAYS OUT. But I digress. As the Earth's axis shifts during those periods of about 100 years, the magnetic field around Earth is disturbed as the field turns around, allowing more incident light rays to enter Earth's atmosphere. They do not allow all that many more rays to enter. if they did, we would burned to death.

The magnetic field of Earth polarizes light, similar to how polarized sunglasses keep light out. Heat from the sun is the result of an energy transfer from the sun. Like any wave, light waves from the sun transfer energy to the Earth. However, when it comes in contact with the Earth's magnetic field, some of the light is reflected back into space. The magnetic force lines align themselves in a girdlike pattern. Waves that can fit through the grid will enter. They strike the Earth somewhere, and some of the energy is aborbed into the earth: the energy that all of us NEED to live. Some of the wave is reflected back up into the Earth's atmosphere. Excessive CO2 does not hinder the path of the light waves. the light is simply refracted through the layer of CO2 back into space.

I do not believe in the concept of global warming and greenhouses gases obviously. This is my theory, and the theory of numerous other scietists, geologists, and biologists. Believe it if you want to. Nonetheless, global warming has not been proven true.

We have far greater pollutants in our world to worry about quite honestly. SO2 (acid rain), garbage, nuclear waste, etc. Those are problems that truly affect us now.

The burning of fossil fuels, although probably not contributing to a global warming still create problems. CO2 is not a healthy chemical for us to inhale. Also, cars and other fuel powered engines create smog and noxious chemicals like CO (which can kill you quite easily).
The only possible fuel sources that are remotely safe are electricity, solar power, and most definitely energy produced during fusion. Electricity and solar power may be expensive and inconvenient, and nuclear power produces nuclear waste. However, if we could attain a sustainable fusion reaction, you would find this one of the most efficient ways of producing energy and usable power. A high percentage of the matter used in fusion (the collsion of a He nucleus) is converted into usable energy.

Another suggested power source could be the use of antimatter. Antimatter is almost exactly like matter in our universe except it contains the opposite charge. For example, a positvely charged proton would have the negatively charged antiproton as its antimatter counterpart. It is the same mass (an electron has an oppositely charged antielectron or positron). A collision between a particle of matter and its antimatter counterpart produces 100% energy output! There's no waste whatsoever. However, a successful antimatter-matter collision (one little proton and antiproton) creates an explosion that could eradicate half the Earth, so we would need to create some sort of source to control the reaction. A suggested method is the use of magnets interestingly enough. They are the only materials capable of creating a force strong enough to contain an explosion of that magnitude. FYI the use of antimatter is a suggested fuel source to propel space shuttles.

We haven't had good enough tools long enough, let alone been on this planet long enough to really know if the slight temperature change in the past 150 years is even significant. It is all theories, which can often be driven by other political agendas.

It's ridiculous what you'll find out if you learn the actualy science of some things, instead of simply reading a few articles on global warming on the internet, etc.

This isn't to say it isn't a problem, but we truly don't have any way of knowing right now.

all I know is that it's called "Gun Gas" and that the team had a huge argument over what gas type to use. Also our gear dies tend to be cheaper than some we are all teens and do not have a large amount of free change