Jump to content

Recommended Posts

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No those greenhouse gasses are what have allowed

> the earth to have the range of temperatures

> necessary for life. Without them too cold, too

> much of them too hot. It's called the 'Goldilocks

> Principle' and is why we are the only planet on

> our solar system with life. The main gases are

> water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous

> oxide and they trap sufficent solar energy to

> create the right temperature ranges.


Sorry have I missed something? If that response above is to my post, it doesn't answer any of the questions I asked and seems quite unrelated.


I am struggling to see where anyone (ok, me) said that gases did not contribute towards life on the planet either. Your response does not seem to follow, perhaps I am being dim.


PS. Its also a bit too late for a science lesson for me I'm afraid.

waynetta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Maybe you should pose your question about life to

> your dinner party guests so that they could then

> get your full attention


Good Lord no...they were waaaaaay too pissed! They've all left now...think they had a good time.

Oxygen is not a greenhouse gas. It's two atoms are too tightly bound together to vibrate and therefore don't absord heat. Nitrogen is the same. Greenhouse gases are only those gasses with molecules composed of more than two atoms that are loose enough to vibrate with the absorbtion of heat :)

PS. I can recommend a good read on the *iconic* global warming graph if you like. You know, the old hockey stick. Distorted science and misrepresentation of data. All gripping stuff.


PPS. yes, the Great Oxidation Event was very fortunate for us...


*wonders if there's any cider left?*

Ladymuck Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> katie1997 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > *wonders if there's any cider left?*

>

> ...it's in all probability in the process of being

> converted into methane at the mo! :))


Yeah....there seems to be a lot of it about ;-)


*save the moles*

LOL...the thought of LM and methane............mmmmmm


*tries not to inhale*


You are not dim katie lol. In answer to your question, greenhouse gases and their emission have been part of planet earth's composition since the early days of it's formation (the required icy elements thought to have arrived in metors and comets from outer solar systems). So in that respect is has always had a greehouse effect going on. When the planet was extremely hot (and forming it's tectonic plates), volcanic activity would have emitted massive amounts of carbon dioxide for example (but too much for the right temperature for life). Only when the planet struck a balance with it's gasses did life become possible (along with water). The earth is unique in it's atmosphere and there are other factors obviously that allows those gasses to work they way they do, but they've always been there.


So in that respect the planet has always had a greenhouse atmosphere. But the balance of that greenhouse effect needed for life has only been around in the more recent evolution of the planet.

katie1997 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'd like to know what you consider to be the

> 'modern lifespan of the planet'. The trouble

> is.....this often varies from person to person.

> Makes it very difficult to accurately demonstrate

> scientific facts. So your earlier comment about

> the Earth's atmosphere having always being a

> greenhouse environment is completely inaccurate,

> to put it politely.

>

> When do you think the 'greenhouse atmosphere that

> gave us the ecosystems we have' came into

> existence?


Those were my two questions. When I came on and said that your earlier comment about the Earth's atmosphere ALWAYS having a greenhouse atmosphere was wrong, you later acknowledged "thats true....".


I have honestly got no idea what question you seem to think I was asking when you posted your response above either.


Again, I think you are incorrect about greenhouse environments during early planetary accretion.


Plate tectonics is a constant process btw so its still happening...its not something that formed many millions of years ago and stayed the same.


Yes, volcanoes and volcanic activity does indeed produce many gases, including CO2.


PS. how much is LM paying you to keep me up? ;-)

lol..not guilty for LM.


I stand by that view greenhouse gases (which after all are just a gases whose molocules can absord heat) have always been part of the earth's atmophere..but the point you made is that the level of individual gases has been different at times during the planet's formation and evolution...that is what I agree is true. It doesn't change that the process by which the earth's atmospheric temperature rises and falls is a greenhouse one (made possible by the presence of greenhouse gases).


Also in my original point to LM, I don't say that the earth has always had it's atmosphere either, just that since it formed it has always been a greenhouse one. The theory is that the atmosphere is approx half the planet's current age at 4.5 billion years.

Probably because we only know the function of approx 2% of DNA. The other 98% has been referred to as 'junk' DNA. Probably all the differences are in there as it is now thought that the 98% so called non-coding DNA has an important impact on the coding DNA.

Ladymuck Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> waynetta Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Maybe you should pose your question about life

> to

> > your dinner party guests so that they could

> then

> > get your full attention

>

> Good Lord no...they were waaaaaay too pissed!

> They've all left now...think they had a good time.


Edited because expats post makes it irrelevant.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Here is another article from the excellent Special Needs Jungle (SNJ) with tips for responses to the SEND conversation survey. Including shoe horning in EHCPs which they "forget" to ask a question about in the conversation. And living as we do in Southwark with the huge misfortune of 100% academy secondary schools, some thoughts on this and how unlikely inclusion in mainstream is within the current education landscape. Closing date 14 Jan 2026. And please consider a donation to the excellent entirely run by volunteers SNJ. In my view the government could save money by creating some smaller mainstream secondary schools for kids who can cope in primary school but not  with the scale of secondary, and need a calmer less busy setting. The funding would have to be different - it is currently on a per pupil basis which favours larger schools. But it would undoubtedly be cheaper than specialist provision, and the huge cost to individual children and families (emotional and financial) and to society. https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/tips-help-complete-governments-send-conversation-survey-law/ If anyone wants to take a radical step to help their struggling child, my tip is to move far away: these are the best two schools I have ever visited and in a beautiful part of the country. I only wish we'd moved there before it was too late for my son who had to suffer multiple failings at Charter North and then at the hands of Southwark SEND, out of education from February to October in year 10-11, having already suffered the enduring trauma of a very difficult early life, which in combination with ADHD made his time at schools which just don't care so very unbearable for all of us. https://www.cartmelprioryschool.co.uk/ https://settlebeck.org/ As an add on, I would say to anybody considering adoption, please take into account the education battles that you are very much more likely to face than the average parent. First you have schools to deal with, already terrible; then being passed from pillar to post within Southwark Education, SEND, Education Inclusion Team, round and round as they all do their best to explain why they are not responsible and you need someone different, let's hold another multi-agency meeting, never for one minute considering that if they put the child at the centre and used common sense they would achieve a lot more in much less time without loads of Southwark employees sitting in endless meetings with long suffering parents. It is hard to fully imagine this at the start of your adoption journey, full of hope as you are, but truly education is not for the faint hearted, and should be factored into your decision. You'll never hear from people who are really struggling and continue to do so, only from those who've had challenges but overcome them and it's all lovely. And education, the very people who should be there to help, are the ones who make your lives the most hellish out of everything your child and you face.
    • It’s a big problem all over London. I’ve seen it happen in Kennington and Bloomsbury in the last year. I think there has been some progress recently with some key arrests, but you do need to be very careful when walking around with your phone out, especially, as you say, if wearing noise cancelling headphones. Sorry you experienced this 
    • Luke Johnson (prominent director and co-owner), supported Brexit and backed the Vote Leave campaign. He also described the response to Covid as ‘a campaign of fear’ and 2020 funded a media consultant for the ‘Covid-recovery group’ of anti-lockdown MPs.
    • I'm a bit of an architecture geek and I must confess I find it one of the most gimmicky ugly redesigns I've seen in a while. I'm always open to quirky but this is just not nice in any way shape or form.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...