Azalin Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 long time, no posts everyone. I have almost zero time to join in the fun over here anymore, and the internet policy and firewall at work have long ago muzzled my work-a-day rants. I'm going to do my best to set aside what time I can to be more sociable, if for no other reason that I actually miss a lot of you guys ( no PC correction necessary....that's 'you guys' in the same way that Texans use ' y'all ' .....I am from Buffalo after all). I'll just toss out one bomb at a time, so this post will cover a few tidbits on global warming. first of all, people like Al Gore like to use the word 'concensus' when speaking of the beliefs of a segment of the scientific community. I would point out that there is a concensus of scientists that believe that humans have evolved from apes. maybe we did, maybe not.....the theory of evolution is just that- a theory. once it becomes 'Darwin's Law' the concensus becomes fact, not before. my problem is that there are a lot of things that are continually overlooked or just plain ignored, such as: earth's polar ice caps are shrinking, but they're doing so at the same rate as the polar ice caps on mars. unless there are martians running fossil-fueled power plants and driving SUVs, I would suggest that we hold off a bit and not jump to any conclusions about such activities here on earth. polar bears are not drowning. they can (and do) swim for many miles in arctic waters, up to 100 miles or so. polar ice caps melting will have little to no effect on rising ocean levels. water is the only substance on earth that expands as it solidifies (freezes). that's why you see people putting floats in their swimming pools over the winter months. if they didn't, the ice would break open the sides of the swimming pool. consequently, when ice melts back into a liquid state it loses volume. try this experiment some time: fill a glass full of ice and then pour water into it. pour the water gently all the way to the top of the glass, so that a portion of the ice raises above the glass. then just allow the ice to melt. no water will overflow as the ice melts, because as it liquifies, it loses volume. ice bergs do the same thing.....so will the north pole. ocean levels will rise somewhat, but only due to melting snow and ice found closer to sea level. high altitude snowcaps will need a hell of a lot more of a temperature increase than a few degrees over two hundred years to even turn slushy. there may be some legitimacy to the 'rising oceans' scenario, but not to the extent that is currently being panicked over. CFCs are heavier than air. they will not effect atmospheric ozone, becaue they can't get high enough in the atmosphere to reach the ozone. there is no 'ozone layer'. why is this crap being taught? there is ozone in our atmosphere.....a lot of it. you'll find it primarily from a height of approximately 4km above sea level extending upward to around 40km. ozone is made by the sun. the ultraviolet rays split molecular oxygen (O2) into atomic oxygen (O). each individual 'O' then bonds itself to another oxygen molecule to form ozone (O3). as long as we have both oxygen and the sun, we'll have a healthy ozone-making machine. there has been an increase of around 11% in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the last decade or so. that's 11% of what was already there, not 11% of the atmosphere itself. some may well be due to humanity, some is definitely due to the increased volcanic activity in recent years. the total CO2 content is still a tiny (very tiny) portion of the total atmospheric content. the biggest greenhouse gas by far (accounting for over 90% of all greenhouse gas) is water vaopr. want to do something about reducing the CO2? get off of people's backs for what they drive and put some plants out on your patio....they're 24-hour-a-day CO2 to O2 conversion machines. if everyone was to do that there'd be a significant and positive effect on the atmosphere. most oxygen does not come from 'rain forests' (remember when we called them jungles? 'rain forest sounds so much more delicate, don't you think?). the bulk of our oxygen comes from oceanic algea. keep the oceans clean. I'll have to continue this at a later time, hopefully soon. it's good to stop by and rattle the cage a little bit, and I hope everyone here is doing okay. be good, have fun, and screw socialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 .. be good, have fun, and screw socialism. But communism is ok, right? Welcome back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 most oxygen does not come from 'rain forests' (remember when we called them jungles? 'rain forest sounds so much more delicate, don't you think?). the bulk of our oxygen comes from oceanic algea. keep the oceans clean. Literally, a "jungle" is a clearing in a tropical rain forest. When we called the forest "jungle", we were wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 earth's polar ice caps are shrinking, but they're doing so at the same rate as the polar ice caps on mars. unless there are martians running fossil-fueled power plants and driving SUVs, I would suggest that we hold off a bit and not jump to any conclusions about such activities here on earth. Martian global warming is probably due to the bastard children of an SUV, Spirit and Opportunity, roaming all around over there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Literally, a "jungle" is a clearing in a tropical rain forest. When we called the forest "jungle", we were wrong. Really? A clearing? Isn't jungle in reference to a twisted mass of intertwined stuff? Not trying to sound like a wise arse or doubt you Tom and I take your word for it... It just seems that it would go against the clearing definition? Can you elaborate more? I know it is also slang for a hobo camp.. Which I just verified... What gives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Really? A clearing? Isn't jungle in reference to a twisted mass of intertwined stuff? Not trying to sound like a wise arse or doubt you Tom and I take your word for it... It just seems that it would go against the clearing definition? Can you elaborate more? I know it is also slang for a hobo camp.. Which I just verified... What gives? I could be wrong...it's what I learned in junior high. But what I learned is: a "jungle" is actually a clearing in a rain forest, not the rain forest itself. Colloquially, "jungle" means a tangled mass of biodiversity...but I was taught that scientifically it's just the opposite. Truthfully, I never much cared anyway. I just call it the "rain forest" or such, as it's less ambiguous (technically, the old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest qualify as "jungle"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 I could be wrong...it's what I learned in junior high. But what I learned is: a "jungle" is actually a clearing in a rain forest, not the rain forest itself. Colloquially, "jungle" means a tangled mass of biodiversity...but I was taught that scientifically it's just the opposite. Truthfully, I never much cared anyway. I just call it the "rain forest" or such, as it's less ambiguous (technically, the old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest qualify as "jungle"). Pac NW... Temperate rainforest... I think it is the one climate zone that enables the US to be the only country in the world to have every zone? ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 I could be wrong...it's what I learned in junior high. But what I learned is: a "jungle" is actually a clearing in a rain forest, not the rain forest itself. Colloquially, "jungle" means a tangled mass of biodiversity...but I was taught that scientifically it's just the opposite. Truthfully, I never much cared anyway. I just call it the "rain forest" or such, as it's less ambiguous (technically, the old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest qualify as "jungle"). You seem to be thinking of the original definition of jungle: 1776, from Hindi jangal "desert, forest, wasteland, uncultivated ground," from Skt. jangala-s "arid, sparsely grown with trees," of unknown origin. Specific sense of "land overgrown by vegetation in a wild, tangled mass" is first recorded 1849. But since then, the word has apparently come to have a different meaning. Here's the definition from Encarta: 1. tropical forest: an area of tropical rain forest covered with vegetation so dense that it is largely impenetrable 2. thickly covered area: any area covered with dense vegetation 3. tangle: a tangled or confused mass 4. complex matter: a frustratingly or impenetrably complex system 5. harsh place: a harsh environment characterized by fierce competitiveness or struggle for survival 6. hobo camp: a place where homeless people camp ( dated slang ) I was taught that a jungle is typically a transitional step. If you were to clear away a hot, rainy area, and let things grow, you'd get a jungle. But over time, that jungle will turn into a more standard-issue rain forest. The reason for this is that rain forests have leaf canopies, which prevent most light from reaching the ground. Once that canopy fully grows into place, you won't see very much new undergrowth. The undergrowth in older rain forests is a lot thinner and more manageable than is the case for new rain forests/jungles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 You seem to be thinking of the original definition of jungle: But since then, the word has apparently come to have a different meaning. Here's the definition from Encarta: I was taught that a jungle is typically a transitional step. If you were to clear away a hot, rainy area, and let things grow, you'd get a jungle. But over time, that jungle will turn into a more standard-issue rain forest. The reason for this is that rain forests have leaf canopies, which prevent most light from reaching the ground. Once that canopy fully grows into place, you won't see very much new undergrowth. The undergrowth in older rain forests is a lot thinner and more manageable than is the case for new rain forests/jungles. Do you always let the internet do you thinking for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Do you always let the internet do you thinking for you? Whenever I don't look something up, you accuse me of being lazy. And whenever I do look something up, you accuse me of letting the Internet do my thinking for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Whenever I don't look something up, you accuse me of being lazy. And whenever I do look something up, you accuse me of letting the Internet do my thinking for me. Yeah, it's called a double standard. Perhaps it was unfair of me this time around to criticize. Probably not, being as it is you...but there is a chance, and on that off-chance that it was unfair, I'd like to say that my error in doing so will cause my children to be nicer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 Yeah, it's called a double standard. Perhaps it was unfair of me this time around to criticize. Probably not, being as it is you...but there is a chance, and on that off-chance that it was unfair, I'd like to say that my error in doing so will cause my children to be nicer... ....and better drivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 ....and better drivers. They're already better drivers, not being illiterate brown people and all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 I could be wrong...it's what I learned in junior high. But what I learned is: a "jungle" is actually a clearing in a rain forest, not the rain forest itself. Colloquially, "jungle" means a tangled mass of biodiversity...but I was taught that scientifically it's just the opposite. Truthfully, I never much cared anyway. I just call it the "rain forest" or such, as it's less ambiguous (technically, the old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest qualify as "jungle"). I gave it some thought... No internet here... :D And what you say makes sense... It could be a clearing in a rainforest... Yet, the jungle/"clearing" can be inpenetrable... Where as in a rainforest, it isn't as hard to get through... The word "clearing" hung me up... I just assumed it would be a flat, easy to cross parcel of land... ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 Wow, an intelligent and fact based post about climate change. Where are the ALGORE supporters to rebutt Azilan's post? Joey? Molton? TPS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 Wow, an intelligent and fact based post about climate change. Where are the ALGORE supporters to rebutt Azilan's post? Joey? Molton? TPS? Facts? What are facts?!?! Al Gore told me Global Warming is true, so it MUST be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 I gave it some thought... No internet here... And what you say makes sense... It could be a clearing in a rainforest... Yet, the jungle/"clearing" can be inpenetrable... Where as in a rainforest, it isn't as hard to get through... The word "clearing" hung me up... I just assumed it would be a flat, easy to cross parcel of land... ??? You, on the other hand, SHOULD use the internet. Independent thought ain't exactly your strong suit, what with being a liberal and all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 You, on the other hand, SHOULD use the internet. Independent thought ain't exactly your strong suit, what with being a liberal and all... Ah, the irony of bringing up stereotype with independent thought. Berger and Luckman would be proud. :grin: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts