UnderGround Forums
 

NatureGround >> global warming obviously fake


1/7/07 10:59 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: 31861
"Not MY picture."

You posted the cartoon and asked if I accepted it as proof. Come on.
1/7/07 11:02 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: 31862
"First, do you accept that the ozone layer blocks UV radiation from solar rays?"

I don't know why you're trying to set such a slow pace to this debate, I'm several steps ahead of you and you are trying to move backwards.

Just post an ozone map for the U.S. that matches the UV map I posted.
1/7/07 11:05 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: 31863
"on occasion the measured DNA-damaging radiation at Palmer Station, Antarctica (648S) has been found to exceed maximum summer values at San Diego, USA"


On occasion?

So a huge hole in the ozone layer doesn't always mean more radiation than a place with no ozone hole.
1/8/07 9:59 AM
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: 08-Jan-07 10:02 AM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18381
"I don't know why you're trying to set such a slow pace to this debate, I'm several steps ahead of you and you are trying to move backwards" No, I'm going slowly so you can't backtrack later and say you don't believe the funementals. In other words (sorry Haole for the edit, I guess this means whatever I type doesn't count), I'm tying you to a very specific position, making sure you have no wiggle room. I'm going to assume you agree that people are measuring UV in the antarctic, which means the Nobel Laureate was incorrect on that point also. Now then - do you believe ozone blocks UV rays, yes or no?
1/8/07 10:01 AM
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: 08-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18382
"LMFAO @ the cartoon proof and the multiple edited posts..." yeah Haole, editing posts is a sign you're losing the argument, and nothing has been posted but a cartoon...
1/8/07 11:00 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
GaydarBlane
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 08-Jan-07
Member Since: 08/13/2003
Posts: 6095
Are we talking about UVB or UVA rays? The Ozone doesn't block UVA's, so if measurements are taken with those levels alone or UVA, UVB, and UVC all together then either no difference will be seen between Antarctica and San Diego or little difference will be seen. If the measurements were solely UVB rays, then that would be an interesting peice of evidence.
1/8/07 11:29 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
GaydarBlane
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 08-Jan-07
Member Since: 08/13/2003
Posts: 6096
"For instance, I couldn't find any ozone maps of the U.S. to match this UV index map. Can you please show me an ozone level map that matches these UV areas?" Just looking at that map... UV comes from the sun. That chart is likely depicting all UV. Would it be logical to asertain that the closer you get to the equator (ie where the suns rays are strongest and closest), the more UV will be measured? I'd think so. So basically that chart is saying the closer you get to the equator, the stronger the sun's effects. Wow! Ground breaking. Again, any measurements of strictly UVB in places in contrast to Antarctica to call into question that the Ozone layer blocks UVB rays? Also, are you contending that UVB doesn't cause cancer?
1/8/07 11:31 AM
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: 08-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18383
I'm pretty sure it was UV-B's, but I'm at work now so I'll have to read later to doublecheck. iirc UV-B's are harmful and UV-Cs are more so, but U-C's are more completely blocked by ozone. BTW FAB, the reason the Ozone hole is a concern isn't that UV-B's will fall on you through there. But first things first. Do you agree that ozone blocks UV rays?
1/8/07 11:33 AM
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: 08-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18384
"Also, are you contending that UVB doesn't cause cancer? " He already agreed after waffling for a couple posts that it's "generally acepted" that cancer risk increases with increased UV ray exposure. It's on record so he can't renege now.
1/8/07 11:52 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FastAndBulbous
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 08-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 31866
You still haven't reneged your claim of a cartoon as factual evidence.
1/8/07 6:13 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: 08-Jan-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18385
"You still haven't reneged your claim of a cartoon as factual evidence." I don't care about the cartoon. And I didn't claim anything as evidence, I ASKED you if it was acceptable. My argument doesn't rest on a cartoon, I am trying to build a list of facts that you have agreed are true.

Reply Post

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