Less than half of all published scientists agree with global warming Options

[Testm0nkey]

i got that from the definition of smog

[Hartmann]

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?

[Testm0nkey]

Unfortunately, the starting threshold level for ground level ozone is determined to be approximately 82 parts per billion ("Smog"). Considering this with the fact that ground level ozone constitutes 90% of all smog found in urban areas, it could be seen where the heart of the concern regarding photochemical smog lies

and this type of smog is the worst and most prevalent

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

[Hartmann]

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!

[Testm0nkey]

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?

[Hartmann]

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?

[Testm0nkey]

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.

[moebary]

atmospheric fluid dynamics, atmospheric chemistry, geology and climate

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

[moebary]

she did research about weather change from a big old boat! then they got that information and presented it to the government and stuff! and then the government ended up not doing anything with it but paid a bunch of economic professors to tell the world their opinions on global warming!

something like that
(i said climate change - volcanoes for one. they block solar radiation thus cooling)
seriously if a person doesnt believe in global warming they dont have reputable opinions. it is just that obvious

Dr. Leary?

she's teaching my mesometeorology class this semester

[Testm0nkey]

yeah

are you in graduate school?


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

[pebkac]

Did I ever say I don't believe in global warming?

I merely said that I do not subscribe to the 'talking head' opinion that we are speeding up the process to the point of self-destruction and that the ice caps are melting because I drive a car that doesn't get enough mpgs.

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

[Testm0nkey]

i still dont get what that means

[Oasis]

I just love how psychologists, journalists, interior designers, IE people who are essentially scientifically illiterate somehow magically know enough about atmospheric fluid dynamics, atmospheric chemistry, geology and climate because of what the popular opinion of the US mainstream media is

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

[Psykopath]

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

Agreeing with Dogmeat.

[Dogmeat]

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

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....