i got that from the definition of smog

I know you did. I can read. That's actually the definition of photochemical smog, which is still incorrect, since it does not have to contain ground level ozone or certain VOCs to be considered smog.

There is also good ozone in some smog, does that mean smog is a good thing?

and this type of smog is the worst and most prevalent

http://are.berkeley.edu/courses/EEP101/spr...tSmog/back.html

I like how it says 90%... I wonder where they got their data, SoCal? I mean, since that was '03, I bet those people are breathing nothing but ozone now. Hey, with evolution, this will all work out!

90% is a large majority and Houston rivals LA with levels of air pollution

are you saying you dont believe that study because 90% seems too high?

They rival each other but in different ways. Houston is due to the heat and the downtown layout as well as the ship channel. Los Angeles is due to the hills and Mountains and the sheer amount traffic.

I can definitely see 90% in places like Beijing, but not anywhere in the U.S.

Also, what was the point of bringing up smog? Do you think it contributes to global warming even though it sits low on the ground and can actually cool the area under it?

no i dont know how smog was brought up. i think it just came up in the discussion of ozone and someone saying scientists are saying theres more ozone now

which is tricky - they could be saying more ozone YAY but because they want to put a spin on it they dont mention that its ground ozone which is POO!
but yes the ozone layer is repairing itself but its going to take 50-100 years for it to be back the way it should be. and this is due to the fact nearly the entire world shut off CFC use completely in the timespan of a few years.

I'm studying those, along with whole bunch of other atmo stuff

except geology, no geology

This post has been edited by moebary: Nov 29 2007, 11:31 PM

Dr. Leary?

she's teaching my mesometeorology class this semester

yeah

are you in graduate school?


i have a theory shes drunk all the time. shes really nice, but somethings a little off

It's SO much easier to refute an argument when it's the 'talking head' opinion.

i still dont get what that means

What exactly are your qualifications on commenting on the issue of global warming?

Agreeing with Dogmeat.

That I understand math and the engineering thought process well enough to ask questions about study instead of the typical "emotional response" everyone else gives and blindly jumping on the "global warming" bandwagon because it happens to fit my personal political views.

If I had the money to do it, I'd go back to grad school right now and go for a PhD in environmental engineering just for the sole purpose of refuting the pop culture science crowd....