What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy Employees Turn Carolers For A Day view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - Go behind the scenes to see real employees croon their way to star in Best Buy's holiday campaign.
101 Comments
- PBMainiac3, on 06/02/2009, -2/+26needs more ozone
- anotherjack, on 06/03/2009, -2/+25CFCs are actually way, way, worse than I thought. They are ridiculously destructive of the ozone layer. it's some ratio like one part CFC removes 70,000 parts of ozone. And it's very very good that we banned it when we did, because it lasts for about a century, gnawing away at that layer all the while. Sadly, we did not fully ban CFC's. They are still being produced and used by certain factories and manufacturers.
The same guy who invented CFC's invented leaded gasoline - which caused lead to cover the fricking earth until that was banned too. - tardigrade, on 06/03/2009, -0/+18So what does it actually look like today?
- RogerStrong, on 06/03/2009, -1/+18It's almost funny how the tinfoil hat crowd attributes EVERYTHING to an antenna in Alaska.
Ozone hole? HAARP.
Earthquake in China or Italy? HAARP.
Hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico? HAARP.
Mind Control? HAARP.
They never mention where the energy - similar to many nuclear weapons going off at once - comes from for HAARP to create earthquakes and hurricanes.
Nor do they explain how the ozone hole was created by HAARP, let alone how HAARP created it more than a decade before HAARP was constructed. - DiscoUnderpants, on 06/03/2009, -2/+18Climate != Weather.
- mechnoch, on 06/03/2009, -0/+16http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
- inactive, on 06/03/2009, -1/+15Actually, it was cased by the timecube surrounding the earth only having 4 sides. It all leaked out the top and bottom.
- chard, on 06/03/2009, -1/+11Except we would all die of skin cancer, making humanity's carbon footprint 0 (no humans you see from being dead and all) and so the planet is healthy again.
So actually destroying the ozone layer is the best thing we can do for Earth. - CressCrowbits, on 06/03/2009, -1/+11Thomas Midgley Jr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley,_Jr.
The most unfortunate scientist ever.
Died when accidentally strangled by equipment he devised to help him with his crippling polio. - MacEnvy, on 06/03/2009, -0/+9I guess you haven't spent much time doing soil sampling on old highway beds. I have, back when I got my Geology degree. The lead concentrations on roadbeds that were there during leaded gas use are WAY higher than in newer roads, even if they've gotten the same amount of total driving use.
We measured lead concentrations on old roadbeds that were actually higher than some of the samples we tested at *shooting ranges*.
Yes, leaded gas had implications for catalytic converters, but that doesn't mean it wasn't causing other (more important) problems. - burningplants, on 06/03/2009, -4/+13How do YOU know this? How many years have you spent collecting data oh CFC emissions and ozone levels? Personally, I'd side with a group of scientist with a proven track record of success and a vested interest in our survival as a species, over a naysayer on the internet who offers no proof of his own.
If you really doubt them, call them up and ask for their research. I'm sure they'd be glad to clue you in. - mechnoch, on 06/03/2009, -3/+11You do know that stratospheric ozone levels have nothing at all to with global warming, right?
- Suricou, on 06/03/2009, -1/+8"Midgley himself was careful to avoid mentioning to the press that he subsequently required nearly a year to recover from the lead poisoning brought on by his deceitful demonstration."
Agreeing with the above commenter: Definate *****. - mechnoch, on 06/03/2009, -1/+8If red is high ozone concentration and blue is low ozone concentration, less ozone causes increased ultraviolet radiation to reach Earth's surface and has absolutely nothing to do with temperature!
- mechnoch, on 06/03/2009, -1/+8Seriously. I hate that people don't get this.
- inactive, on 06/03/2009, -1/+8Serves him right... Geez what an *****. I mean, he personally ended up suffering from lead poisoning because of his invention, but he continued to promote the ***** and worked hard to hide its dangers.
- lettruthout, on 06/03/2009, -6/+13We did it for CFCs, so we can also save ourselves from going over the edge with CO2!
- inactive, on 06/03/2009, -1/+7Carbon dioxide that we exhale is easily handled by the carbon cycle. The question is over excess carbon dioxide we produce through artificial means at a rate too high for plants to efficiently process. I hate when people talk about our breathing, as if no amount of carbon dioxide is automatically recaptured by the environment.
Think of it like the water cycle. Most areas can handle a certain amount of rain with no major side effects with flooding, because the water is either soaked into the soil or exits via runoff and evaporates. However, if you get too much rain at one time, it overloads the system, which can't get rid of the water fast enough, and you get flooding. - roddack, on 06/03/2009, -0/+6Snowmen for everyone!
- mechnoch, on 06/03/2009, -2/+8Upon reflection, I may have been overly harsh in my response. The insinuation that you are a mouth-breather was actually unintentional. Please continue breathing. My comments toward Glenn Beck stand, however.
- the8thbit, on 06/03/2009, -2/+7I've never heard of this specific flavor of stupidity. Tastes kind of like chicken.
- evilregis, on 06/03/2009, -3/+8...says FoxFaction. Shocking!
- hydroplane, on 06/03/2009, -1/+6Protecting the planet is great and all but is the price really worth giving up all that spray on deodorant and hairspray. Won't somebody think of the Guidos.
- techdever, on 06/03/2009, -0/+5Things that don't include comment spamming
- inactive, on 06/03/2009, -3/+7Nope, another scientifically illiterate buffoon babbling on about things he can't understand because he doesn't like the government telling him that some products are dangerous.
- mechnoch, on 06/03/2009, -0/+4Cars don't emit CFCs, fyi.
- dafragsta, on 06/03/2009, -0/+4Well, maybe not about the projections, but the ozone did heal itself, so they were right about CFCs.
- IneffablePolk, on 06/03/2009, -0/+4Marketing gimmic? Big yes. Myth? Not so sure.
- inactive, on 06/03/2009, -1/+4@pileopooh
No, the "global warming kooks" have not. I don't even know what the ***** you're babbling about. You can't just make up random, baseless accusations and present them as a legitimate argument. - woodrow8292, on 06/03/2009, -0/+3So blue is bad in these pictures?
- captainchris, on 06/03/2009, -4/+7thankfully there were few weirdos claiming this was all a liberal scheme like there are today with climate change.
- mechnoch, on 06/03/2009, -0/+3touché
- OrangeTide, on 06/03/2009, -1/+4In California we call the cops when we see cars like that, and they are cited and forced to cease operation until the vehicle is repaired properly and recertified.
- ozydingo, on 06/03/2009, -0/+3Maybe they think != means "is REALLY(!) equal to"
- Suricou, on 06/03/2009, -1/+4Carbon dioxide produced by life doesn't count: The carbon dioxide going out is *exactly* balanced by the carbon dioxide taken up by plants to feed the organism.
- Suricou, on 06/03/2009, -0/+3Confusingly, the color scales don't match.
- kevintootill, on 06/03/2009, -0/+3kiss my spam burying fist
- grantmoore3d, on 06/03/2009, -2/+4Wow, I remember doing a science report on CFCs when I was in grade 4.
- RogerStrong, on 06/03/2009, -0/+2A possible connection between impending earthquakes and strange fogs, lights and electrical activity is nothing new. But it would be the immense energy built up in the rock causing these low-energy effects, not the other way round.
As your first link states: "For centuries people have reported seeing fogs before earthquakes strike, or electrical flashes and strange lights."
Is this another time-traveling HAARP effect, like the ozone hole that appeared long before HAARP was created?
And how do radio waves cause an earthquake? Especially one well-over the horizon?
btw, HAARP is 3.6 million watts, not "a billion watts". That's still a lot, but a drop in the bucket along-side all the other transmitters out there. - RogerStrong, on 06/03/2009, -1/+3@MrFunStuff:
Set off a multi-megaton thermonuke in a hurricane, and it doesn't disrupt the hurricane. (You get a slightly radioactive hurricane.) The amount of energy involved is HUGE.
HAARP simply doesn't have anything even remotely like the kind of power required to influence a hurricane. Not 1% of the power, and not .001% of the power. You can verify this: You can detect how much power it radiates, or look for power lines leading to it that could handle that much power, or a source for that power. No such power lines or power source exists - anywhere on the planet.
Nor does it have anyway of sending that power WAY OVER THE HORIZON to the Gulf of Mexico. Or any way, once there, to focus and manipulate it to create a hurricane.
It's the same story with earthquakes. Nothing even remotely like the power needed. No way to send that power over the horizon to China or Italy. And no way to create an earthquake with radio waves.
As for ozone depletion, think of all the transmitters on the planet. All the vast numbers of TV and radio stations, weather radars and air traffic control radars, etc. HAARP is just one of them. It's more powerful than most, though not the most powerful. Its addition is like adding one grain of sand to a beach. - mechnoch, on 06/03/2009, -0/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn2UCqL5qyo
- anotherjack, on 06/04/2009, -0/+2American corporations still make CFC's - overseas. Except it effects us exactly the same amount as if we did produce it at home. It's time to stop using poor countries to do things we know are unethical at home. CFC's will be banned in 3rd world countries in 2010. Anything we do to halt or slow production before then...would be good. I'm not talking about chaining yourself to a factory, being a radical, ***** the WTO, etc. I'm talking about staying informed and making sure your friends and local politician or whoever knows that this is not happening in some distant ignorable Mexican bubble. We are all in one bubble.
- OrangeTide, on 06/03/2009, -0/+2Methane is much worse, and we'll likely want to solve that one first.
- inactive, on 06/03/2009, -0/+2Are you sure that's what it would look like?
- anotherjack, on 06/04/2009, -0/+2Well, I like watermelon, and I also like scientific facts, so that's why I know we banned lead as part of the "Clean Air Act" because of high levels of atmospheric lead, and also the act provided that catalytic converters were required to recycle unburnt fuel and toxic fumes as part of cleaning the air.
Back in the dawn of the 1920's, the corporations General Motors, Standard Oil and Dupont together started the Ethyl corporation, to put lead in gasoline to make it easier to use and sell. They knew from the start that lead was an utter poison so they renamed the ***** Ethyl because "lead" was something people knew to avoid. They also funded all studies on lead toxicity from then on, which somehow found no toxic effects from ingesting lead? Funny how that isn't at all true, and yet the studies all said it was fine?
There was no lead in the atmosphere before 1923, and since that year, soil and ice samples are contaminated with lead, a nice thin coating, especially all over American soil. The lead count rises sharply over most of the world, from the 1920's until 1970, and with an ice core sample you can actually tell what happened each year, it's like the rings on a tree. In 1970 they banned lead in gasoline in America and then the lead levels dipped rapidly and steadily until 1986 when they diminish to a steady low level. The low level is because there's still lead in the atmosphere, that'll take forever to settle. There was none in 1920. Lead accumulates in the bones and blood. Your mother's blood level of lead is 600+ times that of your great grandmother. If you were born in 1970 or later, you are a fortunate critter indeed.
Whether we banned it for the reason that it was poisoning us, or because it was plugging coverters, it's bloody lucky we did. We were going to go the way of Ancient Rome. Virtually all other stories are false and made up by my lead-addled corporation hugging elders ;) - Zaxcomp, on 06/03/2009, -1/+3Except we know the exact chemical process that causes CFCs to destroy ozone.
Also, people take it all too seriously. The earth is a burning house. - kevintootill, on 06/03/2009, -0/+2bury bury bury spam, and block user
- jvnane, on 06/03/2009, -1/+3I wasn't being sarcastic... people completely over hype global warming. I didn't mean that it doesn't exist at all when I called it a myth... but it's been built up to mean something much more catastrophic than it actually is... also we have very little control over it
- mechnoch, on 06/03/2009, -0/+2uh no, you're wrong.
the scale is 'dobson units' measuring stratospheric ozone concentration. just because you associate blue with 'cold' and red with 'hot' does not mean that the graphic is trying to tell you *anything* about temperature.
It is true that trophospheric ozone is a greenhouse gas, but we're talking about stratospheric ozone here, which quite effectively serves to filter harmful ultraviolet radiation from reaching Earth's surface, and has little to do with climate. - Suricou, on 06/03/2009, -0/+2Only per unit volume.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is