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

    • Bit nerdy. But the traditional form of England/Wales local government was based on committees with themehmbers in proportion to the respective political parties numbers.  Blair government introduced for councils that chose it cabinet structure where the majority hold roles covering each of  former committee would decide/confirm. Additionally a Blair option for a super council leader Mayoral role such as Lewisham rather than ceremonial mayoral role who chairs council Council Assemblies of all councils. A number of councils have since moved from exec Mayoral role to cabinet basis.  Without Councillors being elected via a Proportional Voting system I personally would prefer to see a return to committee decision making structure. It ensures all Councillors have to know what they're doing rather than the ruling party leaving it to a few cabinet members and the rest just voting at Council Assemblies how they/re told. Just a personal view. 
    • With the elections coming up soon, it's interesting to note that residents over the boundary in Lewisham have a different system of local government than Southwark. Lewisham has a directly elected Executive Mayor while Southwark has kept a traditional local authority structure. Nothing is perfect, but I think Lewisham made a mistake with the Executive Mayor in that it blurs the legislative branch and executive branch of governance, and makes serious scrutiny of decisions less likely to happen - especially in a Borough like Lewisham which is essentially a one-party state. None of the political parties are offering any major reforms of local government for London, which is very disappointing since it seems obvious that having 33 local authorities - all with their own internal administrations - is not a good way to run things, when most of them are struggling even to maintain basic services.
    • My  understanding is that all developments whatever size, have to have an element of social housing…affordable housing… council housing..No longer sure of percentage but clearly less than years ago.. The point is house builders clearly make a profit or they simply would not  continue building what I refer to as modern  boxes!  Putting housing condensed or what originally was one house with land attached.  Huge development going on in Beckenham - 200 social housing and rest open market.. sited over several houses now demolished… up the road from the park on way into town centre.. might even be completed by now.. haven’t been that way in last year… certainly can’t miss it.. So, for example, let’s say a developer builds houses and flats on a site… social housing I assume would be in a separate block to other flats and I assume house as well. Ie to put it bluntly, away from main site.. Nothing wrong in that at all.  Many years ago, near Borough a developer built flats divided into blocks. . Price range £300/400,000. Social housing was in a different block…. Can’t remember how many… so families , couples etc got a brand new flat with modern kitchen and bathrooms, flooring etc  and could not even keep common parts clean.. trash thrown out and left including out of windows etc..total disregard for community and certainly not  grateful for brand new property and a home.. I hasten to add, not every flat in the social housing sector but certainly a fair few behaved that way.      
    • Please name all of the shops.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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