UnderGround Forums
 

NatureGround >> global warming obviously fake


1/7/07 6:53 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FastAndBulbous
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 31841
"The Ozone layer blocks UV rays."

And? The ozone layer still exists as it has for millions of years.
1/7/07 6:53 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18354
"So was there an ozone hole before 1985, or was that simply the first year anyone noticed the phenomenon that has existed for millions of years? Do you know?" ""Ozone loss is derived by measuring the area and the depth of the ozone hole. The size of this year's ozone hole is 28 million square km, nearly as large as the record ozone hole extension during 2000" So the ozone hole is getting smaller, that's good." Because it is smaller than it was in 2000? If you're measuring rate of growth, it might be instructive to look at say.... the previous year. Look at the trends described below: The Montreal protocol is a ban on CFC's. This shows legislation to protect the environment was working. HOWEVER, in 2006 this trend is starting to reverse, and this, according to NASA, is because GLOBAL WARMING is outstripping CFC's as a factor in hole size. Lastly, the Ozone hole is a factor in global warming, in that more UV makes the earth warmer, BUT the stuff in an inconvenient truth focuses more on CO2 , methane etc. Really, a different issue.
1/7/07 6:54 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18355
"And? The ozone layer still exists as it has for millions of years." Yes, but if the hole gets bigger then more UV gets through. Holey no blocky.
1/7/07 7:03 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FastAndBulbous
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 31842
But the hole was bigger 6 years ago. You haven't shown any numbers linking the size of the hole to human activity, and you still haven't shown any reason to believe we're at greater risk of skin cancer from UV rays at the South Pole which might be the same as they were 500 years ago.

The hole is caused by natural cycles, as your article states:

"During the southern hemisphere winter, the atmospheric mass above the Antarctic continent is kept cut off from exchanges with mid-latitude air by prevailing winds known as the polar vortex. This leads to very low temperatures, and in the cold and continuous darkness of this season, polar stratospheric clouds are formed that contain chlorine."
1/7/07 7:11 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FastAndBulbous
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 31843
"Certain "popular myths" surrounding possible ocular and skin damage to animal and human populations in the Magallanes region produced by the thinning of the ozone layer were called into question by a study recently completed by Johns Hopkins University. Opthamologists, dermatologists, epidemiologists, physicists and statisticians from the Universities of Johns Hopkins, Chile, and Magallanes, along with professionals from the Regional Health Service, participated in the research, carried out over twelve days in November of 1992. For years prior to the study, locals attributed widespread blindness among sheep, rabbits, and salmon populations in the region to the effects of increased ultra-violet radiation. The study found, however, that blindness in sheep was caused by an infection from grazing grass. Researchers concluded that both blindness and skin problems reported in humans "were not particularly attributable" to the effects of ultraviolet radiation after examining 7,200 patients in regional hospitals and private clinics." http://ssdc.ucsd.edu/news/chip/h95/chip.19950523.html#a4
1/7/07 7:15 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jan-07 07:17 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18356
'But the hole was bigger 6 years ago.' But smaller one year ago. Are you even reading my posts? I already mentioned this. 'You haven't shown any numbers linking the size of the hole to human activity,' Well, now you're adding more stuff to the debate about the man's article. Before you wanted proof anyone was gathering data about the ozone in Antarctica. That has been provided. You wanted proof that the whole in Antarctica lead to increased UV entering the earth. That has been shown as axiomatic based on the notion that the Ozone layer blocks UV. You've pretty much ignored this too. ANYWAY... Look at the graph again. By passing a ban on CFC's in manufacturing, the Ozone hole increase started to reverse. So human activity DEMONSTRABLY AFFECTED THE SIZE OF THE OZONE HOLE. "and you still haven't shown any reason to believe we're at greater risk of skin cancer from UV rays at the South Pole which might be the same as they were 500 years ago." You didn't ask for this before either. Before I go haring off to talk about UV radiation, skin cancer, the Ozone layer and how they interrelate, only to have you ignore this as well, why don't you type out everything you want me to show you, so you won't ignore my answers and make up new questions?
1/7/07 7:21 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18357
"The hole is caused by natural cycles, as your article states:" But the SIZE of the hole is affected by humans, as the graph demonstrates.
1/7/07 7:23 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FastAndBulbous
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jan-07 07:35 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 31844
"It seems there is some serious scientific doubt about whether man-made C02 has any significant effect on global warming.

With some research, I found out there is a huge group of scientists who have signed their name to the Heidelberg Appeal. The Heidleberg Appeal expresses these scientists' concerns with "the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development." Their demand is that "this stock-taking, monitoring and preservation be founded on scientific criteria and not on irrational preconceptions." It warns "the authorities in charge of our planet's destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudoscientific arguments or false and nonrelevant data."

The Heidleberg Appeal has been signed by more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries. The full text of the appeal is not long, about a page, and can be found at http://www.sepp.org/heidelberg_appeal.html


In a related story, Canadian scientists are having trouble getting the Canadian media to let them broadcast their 27 minute documentary arguing against the Kyoto Protocol (that limits C02 production because it is supposed to contribute to global warming). The scientists felt strongly enough about this documentary that they produced it with their own money. The story is at: http://canadafreepress.com/2005/cover050705.htm More information arguing that the Kyoto Protocol is seriously flawed can be found at a website titled Friends of Science. In their own words . . . "Friends of Science is a non-profit organization made up of active and retired geologists, engineers, earth scientists and other professionals, not to mention concerned Canadians, who believe the science behind the Kyoto Protocol is questionable. Friends of Science has assembled a scientific advisory board of esteemed climate scientists from around the world to offer a critical mass of current science on global climate and climate change to policy makers, and any interested parties." Their website can be found at: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3 One section of the website lists the following Myths and Facts: Myth 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate. Fact: Temperatures have increased around urban areas ("heat islands") which distorts the overall picture; whereas accurate satellite, balloon and long-term mountain top measurements have observed no increase at all. Myth 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase. Fact: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average" global temperature has been rising at a rate of 0.6 to 0.8 degrees Celsius per 100 years; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare. The hockey stick not only ignores historical fact, but is also scientifically flawed. Myth 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth. Fact: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. The CO2 increase was only 0.4% over the last 50 years, rather than the 5% per 100 years quoted by Kyoto. However, as measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the result of, not the cause of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this. There is solid evidence that as temperatures rise naturally and cyclically, the earth naturally produces more CO2 as a result. Myth 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas. Fact: Water vapour or clouds, which makes up on average about 3 % of the atmosphere, is the major greenhouse gas. CO2 makes up only about 3% of the greenhouse gases, or about 0.03% of the atmosphere. Moreover, because of its molecular weight and absorptive capacity, water vapour is 3000 times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact. Myth 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming. Fact: Unfortunately, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of including the effects of the sun and the clouds. Further, the main cause of temperature variation is the sun. Its radiation changes all the time, partly in cyclical fashion. The number of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which is CO2. Myth 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming. Fact: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are: 1) "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases." 2) "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to ...........man–made causes" Myth 7: CO2 is a pollutant. Fact: This is absolutely not true. In fact, CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth and its intake causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Myth 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes. Fact: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density and escalating development value.
1/7/07 7:23 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FastAndBulbous
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 31845
Myth 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming. Fact: Glaciers have been receding for hundreds of years; that's because we are still coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It's normal. Myth 10: The earth's poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising. Fact: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, but the eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling." http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=display&webtag=ab-forestry&tid=4184
1/7/07 7:23 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18358
"Jellyman, what kind of stupid attempt at making a point was that?" That's the point coming from NASA, ESA etc. "Do you apply the same brilliant logic to your human influenced climate change theory?" Not mine, but NASA, ESA, NAS etc. I'm not taking credit for other people's work. Hope you're not sore about the TSK thread, btw.
1/7/07 7:26 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jan-07 07:28 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18359
lol FAB, I see instead of listing out what you want to talk about, you have simply decided to drown me in c&p. From about.com instead of ohhh... I don't know, a science journal website or something like that. Here's what the EPA has to say about Ozone and health. http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/effects.html Anyway, since it's obvious you aren't really interested in dialogue, I'll bid you good night.
1/7/07 7:28 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18360
"yea, I am all fucking broken up over it, lol" Riiight, I'll remember politeness is wasted on you.
1/7/07 7:28 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FastAndBulbous
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 31846
"You wanted proof that the whole in Antarctica lead to increased UV entering the earth. That has been shown as axiomatic based on the notion that the Ozone layer blocks UV."

No, the original question was why no one is measuring the actual levels of UV radiation, since that is supposed to be the danger of the ozone hole. You still haven't found any answer to that question.


"You didn't ask for this before either. Before I go haring off to talk about UV radiation, skin cancer, the Ozone layer and how they interrelate, only to have you ignore this as well"

I didn't ask for all your ozone graphs. The issue at hand is whether or not humans are at risk from man-made climate change. You went off on a tangent about the ozone layer which doesn't tell us anything about the dangers to humans.

You say lowered ozone levels indirectly prove a risk to humans, but there are no humans living at the South Pole.

The inconvenient truth is that you have no evidence of any actual harm from these "climate disasters".
1/7/07 7:36 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jan-07 07:38 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18361
The main objective was to assess the influence of the seasonal stratospheric ozone depletion on the UV climate in Antarctica by using a biological test system. This method is based on the UV sensitivity of a DNA repair-deficient strain of Bacillus subtilis (TKJ 6321). In our field experiment, dried layers of B. subtilis spores on quartz discs were exposed in different seasons in an exposure box open to solar radiation at the German Antarctic Georg von Neumayer Station (70°37?S, 8°22?W). The UV-induced loss of the colony-forming ability was chosen as the biological end point and taken as a measure for the absorbed biologically harmful UV radiation. Inactivation constants were calculated from the resulting dose-response curves. The results of field experiments performed in different seasons indicate a strongly season-dependent trend of the daily UV-B level. Exposures performed at extremely depleted ozone concentrations (October 1990) gave higher biologically harmful UV-B levels than expected from the calculated season-dependent trend, which was determined at normal ozone values. These values were similar to values which were measured during the Antarctic summer, indicating that the depleted ozone column thickness has an extreme influence on the biologically harmful UV climate on ground. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=195786 "I didn't ask for all your ozone graphs." You asked for proof that human activity effects ozone levels. The last graph demonstrates that. But you would have to read the graph. And again, the article you posted said nobody was measuring the ozone in antarcticva, which has been proven to be incorrect. Perhaps you are not aware, but graphs are used to present data that has been gathered. Are you asking for the raw numbers from their satellite? And they aren't *MY* graphs. It's kind of dumb to make this a personal issue, when we are talking about the work of other people.
1/7/07 7:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18362
Okay, I'm 99.999999999% sure you're just trolling, but I'll do this with baby steps: UV exposure increases the risk of cancer Agree or disagree?
1/7/07 7:59 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
GaydarBlane
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jan-07
Member Since: 08/13/2003
Posts: 6088
"Myth 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate. Fact: Temperatures have increased around urban areas ("heat islands") which distorts the overall picture; whereas accurate satellite, balloon and long-term mountain top measurements have observed no increase at all." Incorrect. Mean global temperatures have risen. Generally skeptics like to use some satellite data because global warming predicts a warming at ground level and since heat is trapped there via the green house gas process, the upper atmosphere cools. Depending on how the satellite readings are taken, no net temperature change will be shown. As far as temperature rasing, it's spread out over very wide areas. It's not even close to only being around urban areas. This is illustrated easily if you bother to look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_Map.jpg "Myth 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase. Fact: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age..." Incorrect again. Here is a temperature trending from the last 1,000 years which includes the MWP and LIA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image: 1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png "Myth 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth. Fact: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. The CO2 increase was only 0.4% over the last 50 years, rather than the 5% per 100 years quoted by Kyoto." What a surprise! Wrong again. CO2 levels are now at their HIGHEST EVER MEASURED including ice cores that go back 650,000. CO2/ greenhouse gas levels also directly correlate with temperature. Also greenhouse gasses have been proven to warm the earth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg "Myth 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas. Fact: Water vapour or clouds, which makes up on average about 3 % of the atmosphere, is the major greenhouse gas. CO2 makes up only about 3% of the greenhouse gases, or about 0.03% of the atmosphere. Moreover, because of its molecular weight and absorptive capacity, water vapour is 3000 times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact." Maybe because we can't directly control water vapor output. Of course by releasing mass quantities of CO2 and causing the earth to warm, which includes it's lakes and oceans, you are causing more water vapor to be released. Round and round we go. (cont...)
1/7/07 8:02 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jack Carter
544 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/25/2004
Posts: 25123
A hurricane season gone by. Not a single hurricane raping the coast. Yep, global warming is really fucking this planet up
1/7/07 8:07 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
GaydarBlane
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jan-07
Member Since: 08/13/2003
Posts: 6089
"Myth 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming. Fact: Unfortunately, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of including the effects of the sun and the clouds. Further, the main cause of temperature variation is the sun. Its radiation changes all the time, partly in cyclical fashion. The number of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which is CO2." Incorrect. Computer models take into account solar and orbittal variation. Even experts in the field of solar research admit that solar variation could very have been responsible for the bulk of the warming 100 years ago, but the recent warming is undoubedly due to man release greenhouse gasses. Such is press release from the Max Plank Institute for Solar System Research commenting on their finding through scientific (peer reviewed) studies: http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/ documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/ "Myth 6: The UN proved that man?made CO2 causes global warming. Fact: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are: 1) "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases." 2) "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to ...........man?made causes"" Never heard of this argument. I can tell you that NASA, NAS, etc all have released plenty of peer reviewed research supporting this though. "Myth 7: CO2 is a pollutant. Fact: This is absolutely not true. In fact, CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth and its intake causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously." Manure doesn't pollute either since it fertilzes plants and occurs naturally. Want to drink some shit-soaked water? It's not a pollutant from the above criteria, so you have nothing to worry about. "Myth 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes. Fact: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density and escalating development value." LMFAO! First of all, global warming says nothing about more storms; just storm strength. If you don't think warmer water temperatures effects hurricane and typhoon strength, then I don't know what to say about that. (cont...)
1/7/07 8:15 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
GaydarBlane
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jan-07 08:16 PM
Member Since: 08/13/2003
Posts: 6090
"Myth 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming. Fact: Glaciers have been receding for hundreds of years; that's because we are still coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It's normal." Glacier retreat is happening more rapidly than has ever been evidenced. "Myth 10: The earth's poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising. Fact: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, but the eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling."" This must be an old "myth" sheet because global warming predicts these things before warming and melt take off. This has already been evidenced in Greenland where no net loss was seen because of inland glacier build up. As predicted, this has swung around and net losses are now seen yearly. Likewise a similar thing is predicted with Antarctica. Not that you are interested, but here are books put out by the Nationa Academy of Sciences on global warming. Free online: http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10139.html http://dels.nas.edu/globalchange/ (contains many links to studies) http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10136.html http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-HIGH.pdf As usual, no scientific evidence can be found. Merely conjecture through media and an internet page. :/
1/7/07 8:57 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ECWCock
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jan-07
Member Since: 06/24/2002
Posts: 7945
Time to suicide self.
1/7/07 9:01 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FastAndBulbous
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 31847
"UV exposure increases the risk of cancer"

We're all exposed to UV radiation every day. As Mullis points out, there is no data on increased UV exposure. As I pointed out, you haven't shown that UV radiation at the South Pole has any effect on me in North America.


GaydarBlane, I don't see how you call my posts conjecture when the global warming movement is based on wild conjecture about what will happen in the next 50 years.
1/7/07 9:17 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18363
"We're all exposed to UV radiation every day. As Mullis points out, there is no data on increased UV exposure. As I pointed out, you haven't shown that UV radiation at the South Pole has any effect on me in North America." EXPOSURE TO UV RADIATION INCREASES THE RISK OF CANCER AGREE OR DISAGREE
1/7/07 9:27 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FastAndBulbous
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 31849
Increases it compared to what?

Do you know of any population on earth that isn't exposed to UV radiation?
1/7/07 9:30 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jan-07 09:31 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18365
"Increases it compared to what?" Okay, I'll rephrase The more exposure to UV radiation you get, the higher the risk of cancer you will be under. Agree or disagree?
1/7/07 9:33 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Samoanpowr
209 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 07-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 3328

I saw footage on a "craziest moments" type show where amateur videographers caught a blue glacier breaking apart.  The commentator said that experts estimate the age of the glacier to be a MILLION years old.  A friggin MILLION years old.  I don't know about the global warming thing (I think it's real, but don't know enough about it to form a hard opinion) but that was amazing to me.

Samoa.

 


Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.