Presidential Vote

[Freenhult]

OK, Freen, A) If what you are saying was true, the atmospheric composition should vary greatly over the earth's surface. Not just CO2 level, but O2 levels and nitrogen levels. They don't, the relative concentrations of all gases over the earth's surface are pretty much stable relative to each other, all over the globe. O2 levels in the atmosphere don't spike very much over areas of high plant activity, and they don't sink much over areas of low plant activity.

Greatly vary? No, but vary yes. And it does. Atmospheric pressure for a given area changes day to day. Therefore, the mass and most likely the number of particles change. Since we don't actively measure the atmosphere day to day, we can't get an exact figure. But its not the same.

Oh, and B ) Areas of high pressure and low pressure do get filled, what the hell do you think wind is? It's the movement of air from high to low pressure.

Wind is result of air advection across a gradient. And it doesn't get filled in. Thats a common mistake. The low pressure and High pressure refer to the shape of the atmosphere too. A low pressure on the surface has a high on top. Divergence at the top with convergence at the surface. Hights are the opposite. They don't "Fill in". Thats why you always have the sub-tropical highs and the polar lows. While you have large scale convergence/divergence you never fill anything in. Its more of a mixing mechanism than anything...

Because unlike all the other atmospheric gases, the amount of water vapor air can hold varies with temperature, and thus it can be transported around and then dropped by the various small and large scale movements of the earth's atmosphere, that occur on short timescales of days and weeks. The residency time of water vapor in the atmosphere is very short, the residency time for all the other atmospheric gases is much much longer.

Is short? How? Even if the same atoms are not in the air constantly, they most likely will find their way back up there. The only difference is that oxygen doesn't rain down every now and then. Under the logic you're saying, then that explains why the equator is humid, and as you get more north, its gets progressively dryer. But thats not the case, you still get moisture transport all over. But still, you can't single it out because it happens to rain. Thunderstorms are essentially trucks carrying water. You can see water move, and how it does move. CO2 would work nearly the same way essentially. Just without the raining part.

[Gen. Volkov]

Greatly vary? No, but vary yes. And it does. Atmospheric pressure for a given area changes day to day. Therefore, the mass and most likely the number of particles change. Since we don't actively measure the atmosphere day to day, we can't get an exact figure. But its not the same.

If you were correct, it should vary to a much greater extent than it does. The mixture of gases in our atmosphere is nearly constant across the whole globe. I can go basically anywhere in the world, and take an air sample, and get the same mixture of gases, down to the ten-thousandths of a percent. The volume or mass of air in a specific area has absolutely no bearing on the mixture of gases in the air. The mixture is going to stay the same, no matter what the pressure, that's a basic law of chemistry.

Wind is result of air advection across a gradient. And it doesn't get filled in. Thats a common mistake. The low pressure and High pressure refer to the shape of the atmosphere too. A low pressure on the surface has a high on top. Divergence at the top with convergence at the surface. Hights are the opposite. They don't "Fill in". Thats why you always have the sub-tropical highs and the polar lows. While you have large scale convergence/divergence you never fill anything in. Its more of a mixing mechanism than anything...

Freen, advection means the transport of flow of something from one region to another. Avection across a gradient means the flow of something down a pressure or concentration gradient. So what you said at the beginning there is exactly what I said, wind is the flow of air from high to low pressure. Also, if nothing ever got filled in, then regions of high and low pressure should never dissipate, or move. But they do.

Is short? How? Even if the same atoms are not in the air constantly, they most likely will find their way back up there.

That's the point Freen. Residence time is the average amount of time a water molecule will spend in a reservoir. Reservoirs include things like lakes and rivers, the oceans, groundwater, and the atmosphere. The residence time of water in the atmosphere is about 9 days. Water is constantly moving in and out of the atmosphere, it never gets the chance to mix to an even level. Unlike all the other gases, which have residence times in the atmosphere of many years.

The only difference is that oxygen doesn't rain down every now and then. Under the logic you're saying, then that explains why the equator is humid, and as you get more north, its gets progressively dryer. But thats not the case, you still get moisture transport all over.

There is a big difference between the way water vapor moves through the atmosphere and they way all the other gases do. The residence time of oxygen for example is about 10,000 years. The amount of O2 the air can hold doesn't vary with temperature, like it does with water. Water vapor is the only atmospheric gas that behaves the way it does. Also, what you said about humid at the equator makes zero sense. The planet is 70% water. The oceans stretch from pole to pole. You're going to get evaporation from them all over the planet. However, the evaporation and transport of water is affected by the large scale movements of the earth's atmosphere. Are you familiar with Hadley cells, mid-latitude cells, and polar cells? They explain the large scale climate patterns we observe on earth's surface.

But still, you can't single it out because it happens to rain. Thunderstorms are essentially trucks carrying water. You can see water move, and how it does move. CO2 would work nearly the same way essentially. Just without the raining part.

If CO2 worked like water vapor, and didn't have residency times of many years, then yes, it would work essentially the same way. But it doesn't, CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time, and thus mixes to about even, all over the earth.

[Freenhult]

Whatever Volk. You're not seeing the point so I'm stopping. Lets just agree to disagree here.

[Gen. Volkov]

Whatever Volk. You're not seeing the point so I'm stopping. Lets just agree to disagree here.

No, you seem to lack a basic understanding here. This isn't about opinions, this is about scientific fact. We can't "agree to disagree". I get your point, you're just wrong is all.

[Kraken]

As I said before, mulattos and blacks were often treated the same. I can't speak for what Obama's motivations are, just as how I and my friends perceive the election.

mulattos...omg...
what were they before? watery-mudo's?
mwa hahahahaaa! sorry man, but that is what drives me crazy about liberals...the freakin PC...
lol

How should I know? Did John McCain write any of the legislation he introduced? It's typically the case that yes, but we have no real way of knowing.

how should you know? find out at the governments website. and yes McCain has written and Co-written legislation and wrong, we do have a way of knowing.

I didn't say it mattered what they thought. I don't give a toss what you think, and equally you probably don't give a toss what I or any of my friends think.

but! you fail to see that it doesnt matter what you and your friends think because you arent Americans nor from here nor pay taxes here.
i am unable to find one person who could tell you a freaking thing about the current Prime Minister or who controls what you all call a government over in England, UK...etc.
why? because WE DONT CARE.

* EDIT * I just had to add this in here: Gordon Brown has broken with British convention and made clear that he favours Barack Obama as the next US President. http://waugh.standard.co.uk/2008/09/brown-backs-oba.html



why do you care so much about who is President here and the policies of the Country both economically and Civil Rights and the like?
what little i do know about Euro living tells me all i wish to know and sure, i can close up in my little bubble of America: but thats my right to do so as an American who doesnt give three farts and a taco that the Euro's will be controlled by Muslims one day.

Bully for Condoleezza Rice. It's good stuff. Does that mean we can consider the question resolved? No.

you failed to respond to my accusation that Europe and other countries have had Slavery and no one says anything ever about it.
plus! the fact that women got the right to Vote after blacks!
Plus! Women's sufferage is now out of the brains of all Liberals because it doesnt matter that a woman is stuck on the VP ticket of the GOP instead of thier own!
Face it, Condolezza doesnt matter in your book because she is Republican.
if she was running for president, you would turn your nose and your buddies would too just because of her political standings.
Just the same if Barak was a Republican, you would turn your nose.
but hey! im bias as well.

I don't see that at all. His voting record is that of a moderate conservative, which is still quite radical for US politics. True radicals are people like Kucinich (pity he's a nutjob), Nader, Eugene Debs, various Kennedys, etc. etc. FDR was far to the left of Obama. Rest assured that if Obama were truly very liberal, he would have no electoral chances.

agian, if you can get over the NV (not voting) and look at all the votes that he did do (which werent as many as the NV's) then you would see that he overwhelminly voted with the Democrats (not suprising as he is one) but the Socialistic pieces of legislation.
FDR was far left to Obama? lol!
the radical changes that FDR made were radical indeed! but the issues of today were not the issues of then my friend!
he is very much liberal! and why should he be ashamed of that?
you make it sound as if it is a bad thing.
in my book, it is, but to other liberals (and there are plenty) its a good thing.
and there is the hook of it all!
a liberal must fool the masses to get into power and only then can he/she exert such power?
surely not!
travesty!


third party votes are not wasted votes.
in my book: every vote matters no matter which way it goes.
what is important is that people take thier Democracy very serious and participate in the democratic process.
hopefully, its an informed decision they make and not one based on the lights, buzz and rock star appeal of a canadate, nor on how much can the gain in thier pockets by empty promises.
one must vote on principle and values.

I would leave, and obviously you'd find a great drop in immigration rates

.


lol
i know Beatles, we've had that discussion about your school a thousand times.
i just like to razz you on it.
but! if the last comment you said would really happen....oh the joy........


and finally...
you havent addresed my pointing out the fact that i have called your quick study of Palins record BS.
here is someone that has came on the political radar for about 3 weeks now and you claim you know all there is to know about her and her "record" but you fail to point out one signifigant thing Barak Hussien Obama has done that shows he would know WTF he would be doing in the White House.
AND the fact that i DO NOT HAVE CABLE TV AND THUSLY AM NOT INFLUNCED BY MAJOR MEDIA OUTLETS BUT ONLY WHAT I INVESTIGATE AND HEAR ON SUCH THINGS LIKE NPR AND TALK RADIO.

now, i must go rinse.

[bjornredtail]

I'm expressing disappointment at your intellectual dishonesty bjorn. You presented an opinion that scientific inquiry into the subject has been tainted by politics. When in fact, the verdict had already been in for years before Gore ever made his stupid movie. You're trying to make the case that everything we know about global warming has been found out since Gore's movie, but even a cursory look at research into global warming shows that the majority of the data is substantially older than 2005. I remember reading about global warming in Discover magazine over 10 years ago. Nearly all the real serious debates about global warming was over and done with in the scientific community by the end of the 1990's, and certainly by 2005. So once again bjorn, BS!

I choose Al Gore not because his movie was the root cause of this scientific 'group think' but the greatest sign thereof. Sure this effect tainted research back in to 1990's... Which makes it all that much more difficult to break now.

why do you care so much about who is President here and the policies of the Country both economically and Civil Rights and the like?
what little i do know about Euro living tells me all i wish to know and sure, i can close up in my little bubble of America: but thats my right to do so as an American who doesnt give three farts and a taco that the Euro's will be controlled by Muslims one day.

Maybe you could have said that... Sixty years ago. Our oceans cannot protect us from long-range bombers, ICBM's, and these days the sudden loss of our international trading partners (mostly, I personally think we'd be better off without trade with China..).

Face it, Condolezza doesnt matter in your book because she is Republican.
if she was running for president, you would turn your nose and your buddies would too just because of her political standings.
Just the same if Barak was a Republican, you would turn your nose.
but hey! im bias as well. tongue.gif

And that's a bad thing? If anything, that means that sex and race DON'T matter, since I personally find ideology a perfectly good criteria to pick a President by.

If you were correct, it should vary to a much greater extent than it does. The mixture of gases in our atmosphere is nearly constant across the whole globe. I can go basically anywhere in the world, and take an air sample, and get the same mixture of gases, down to the ten-thousandths of a percent. The volume or mass of air in a specific area has absolutely no bearing on the mixture of gases in the air. The mixture is going to stay the same, no matter what the pressure, that's a basic law of chemistry.

I thought some molecules in the air were heavier than the others. In this case, why don't we have settling, like with oil and watter?

[windhound]

mulattos...omg...
what were they before? watery-mudo's?
mwa hahahahaaa! sorry man, but that is what drives me crazy about liberals...the freakin PC...
lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto#Etymology
mulatto is so old its out of fashion Kraken... the new PC term is biracial

third party votes are not wasted votes.
in my book: every vote matters no matter which way it goes.
what is important is that people take thier Democracy very serious and participate in the democratic process.
hopefully, its an informed decision they make and not one based on the lights, buzz and rock star appeal of a canadate, nor on how much can the gain in thier pockets by empty promises.
one must vote on principle and values.

Third party votes are wasted
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+wasted&btnG=Search
If the gasses flowed perfectly, shouldnt the warming be even all over? Instead its pocketed.
If gasses flowed perfectly, why is there a hole in the ozone?
"...As warm, ozone-rich air flows in from lower latitudes, the PSCs are destroyed, the ozone depletion process shuts down, and the ozone hole heals."
Oh look. Flowing air. O3 acts as a greenhouse gas, and its concentrations are not the same world-wide. Infact, it flows.

[bjornredtail]

Volky... You would have been one of the guys with torch in hand when Copernicus said the Earth was not the center of the universe.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globa...ar4-fig-3-9.gif
If the gasses flowed perfectly, shouldnt the warming be even all over? Instead its pocketed.
If gasses flowed perfectly, why is there a hole in the ozone?

Point 1: Simple, different areas of the planet absorb and dissipate heat differently. Rock has a LOT more thermal mass than plant life, and dark materials will absorb and dissipate more heat than light ones. Thus, regardless of the 'greenhouse gases,' different parts of the planet will different temperatures, even with roughly the same amount of solar input and green house gases above.

Point 2: Because there are external forces working on the atmosphere. Solar radiation isn't spread evenly over the globe (that's why we have seasons) and the earth is turning, moving some, but not all of it's atmosphere with the rotation (that's why we have the jetstream).

Third party votes are wasted
define: wasted -
# otiose: serving no useful purpose; having no excuse for being;
# squandered: not used to good advantage;
Votes for a third party with the current system in the US are wasted. They serve no real purpose. The reason to vote is to get the person you want elected, the third party is unelectable

The goal isn't so much being elected: it's influencing policy. A significant number of 3rd party votes still have this effect, even it it's all but impossible for them to elect their candidate to do it directly. The major parties will know if they loose an election due to 'spoilers' and will change their policies to capture those who went towards the 3rd party candidates, thus indirectly influencing policy.

[Kraken]

Maybe you could have said that... Sixty years ago. Our oceans cannot protect us from long-range bombers, ICBM's, and these days the sudden loss of our international trading partners (mostly, I personally think we'd be better off without trade with China..).

your right! however, when it comes to the idividual countries who elect thier leaders, i think that the voices from others in the world should have no say.
i understand your point, but relations come and go regardless.
Sarkosy is a great example of this.

And that's a bad thing? If anything, that means that sex and race DON'T matter, since I personally find ideology a perfectly good criteria to pick a President by.

its not a bad thing and if you read my whole post, then you will see that i agree with your statement. ideology, beliefs, morals, values....
vote on em.

Third party votes are wasted
define: wasted -
# otiose: serving no useful purpose; having no excuse for being;
# squandered: not used to good advantage;
Votes for a third party with the current system in the US are wasted. They serve no real purpose. The reason to vote is to get the person you want elected, the third party is unelectable

with that mindset: then there will never be a third or fourth party.
its language and thoughts like that that prevent it from coming to fruition.
just like Beatles saying that Libertarians should vote Democrat.
i tell you, if you told a Libertarian that, they would laugh in your face and walk away.
so! as long as that is the current way of thinking, that will be the current way of having.

I dont have Cable either. I do get FOX, CBS, WB, PBS, NBC and a spanish channel or two overtheair (And its digital, so its clearer than standard cable!)
All of those channels have news, and all of them have some degree of bias in their reporting... PBS tends to be near centerline, FOX right leaning.
NPR leans Left. They say they're unbias, but it depends on the program

*ahem.
i dont watch that much television.
also, with shows like Democracy Now on PBS.....centerline my a$$
your assesment (and lord, let this not evolve into an argument about this) that Fox is "right leaning"....good grief.
what you see in the hit pieces agianst Fox is the snippets of announced Conservatives giving commentary. what you dont see is the Liberals that are very much in Legion on the channel giving thiers. nor do you get the see the Independents. so whatever. its still the highest rated news and Liberals cant stand it because they tell the truth.
do yourself a favor: watch it yourself.
as for NPR...agian, they have Democracy Now on thier airwaves and offer no Conservative radio show. do the math yourself when you add other shows into it as you have mentioned.
My favourite show on the station is Car Talk.

[Freenhult]

Point 1: Simple, different areas of the planet absorb and dissipate heat differently. Rock has a LOT more thermal mass than plant life, and dark materials will absorb and dissipate more heat than light ones. Thus, regardless of the 'greenhouse gases,' different parts of the planet will different temperatures, even with roughly the same amount of solar input and green house gases above.

Negligable. Think in terms of albedo. When you deforest an area, the albedo goes down. Plants reflect more radiation than the ground does. And if we had a blanket, the regions would heat up proportinally to distance from the equator and also from radiation received.

Point 2: Because there are external forces working on the atmosphere. Solar radiation isn't spread evenly over the globe (that's why we have seasons) and the earth is turning, moving some, but not all of it's atmosphere with the rotation (that's why we have the jetstream).

Of course. Confluence/Difluence, Coriolis just to name a few. However, solar radation over a latitude is equal. So then heating should be the same per latitude, but it isn't. The jet stream isn't a result of the wind moving, its just that way because of Coriolis. The speed is so high because you have almost no frictional forces that high and its the lower density lets air move faster.

[windhound]

with that mindset: then there will never be a third or fourth party.
its language and thoughts like that that prevent it from coming to fruition.
just like Beatles saying that Libertarians should vote Democrat.
i tell you, if you told a Libertarian that, they would laugh in your face and walk away.
so! as long as that is the current way of thinking, that will be the current way of having.

Its more being realistic than anything.
Ron Paul had incredible internet support... but it didnt really matter.
I mean, if you hate both candidates then cheers. Go vote your third party or write-in Homer Simpson.
However, if you prefer third party, but wouldn't mind one of the main two you really should vote for the main party. Otherwise the guy you didnt like at all might get in.
I would hope a Libertarian would laugh at that way of thinking. Its their party and they need to have some faith in it... otherwise how could they expect anyone else to.

I'm happy 3rd parties exist, and they do have their place
I just dont see voting for one being productive.

*ahem.
i dont watch that much television.
also, with shows like Democracy Now on PBS.....centerline my a$$
your assesment (and lord, let this not evolve into an argument about this) that Fox is "right leaning"....good grief.
what you see in the hit pieces agianst Fox is the snippets of announced Conservatives giving commentary. what you dont see is the Liberals that are very much in Legion on the channel giving thiers. nor do you get the see the Independents. so whatever. its still the highest rated news and Liberals cant stand it because they tell the truth.
do yourself a favor: watch it yourself.
as for NPR...agian, they have Democracy Now on thier airwaves and offer no Conservative radio show. do the math yourself when you add other shows into it as you have mentioned.
My favourite show on the station is Car Talk.

I have watched Fox News. It certainly slanted right.
The local news on the OTA stations isnt really slanted because there's not much to slant... weather, local news, a bit of national and international news, and sports all within 30 odd min. so my bad.
You stated NPR as one of your informants, but list CarTalk as your favorite show? Dont get me wrong, I <3 CarTalk. But they dont touch polyticks.
All Things Considered is a decent NPR program. I enjoy Wait Wait Dont Tell Me as well... they enjoy their potshots, but eh.
I havnt watched PBS in ages, last I did they were pretty unbias.
I generally only watch House, maybe Bones, New Amsterdam wasnt too bad so if its back I might watch it. Occasionally I'll try and catch the local news, but I dont go out of my way to watch TV. I am pleased with my pretty digital picture though.

[The Beatles]

but! you fail to see that it doesnt matter what you and your friends think because you arent Americans nor from here nor pay taxes here.
i am unable to find one person who could tell you a freaking thing about the current Prime Minister or who controls what you all call a government over in England, UK...etc.
why? because WE DONT CARE.

Whenever you get around to reading the lines you quote, that's exactly what I said.
Obviously that won't shut me up.

I care about this country's politics for several reasons. Most obviously I live here at the moment so policies very much affect me. So I take an interest in WA state politics and federal politics. Second, as Bjorn said, it's a global world. Third and most importantly, the US's staggering economic, military, scientific, espionage and soft power means that its politics indirectly or directly affect mine, wherever I should live on the globe (as the current economic debacle shows). So I will naturally take a lively interest in its politics while it is a first-rate power.

Yes, I wouldn't vote for Condoleezza, and if Obama was Republican, I wouldn't vote for him. It's still great that Condoleezza is in her post, and it would equally be great if Obama was president, for both politics and race relations.

Yes, I consider FDR's policies great; when I said far to the left of Obama, I meant that as a compliment. He did a lot of things right, although he didn't manage the war quite as well as could be hoped. But he did do it competently enough, which is all that matters, and Truman afterward made post-War conditions a raging success for America, at the cost of pissing off has-been Europe.

you havent addresed my pointing out the fact that i have called your quick study of Palins record BS.
here is someone that has came on the political radar for about 3 weeks now and you claim you know all there is to know about her and her "record" but you fail to point out one signifigant thing Barak Hussien Obama has done that shows he would know WTF he would be doing in the White House.

It's pretty simple. The tension between what Palin claims and her voting record is great. Combine that with her stated positions; I think she'd wreck the country.

The tension between what Obama claims and how he has voted also exists but is not great. Combine that with his stated positions; I think he'd do the country good.

I don't talk much to Libertarians these days because I have rarely met one I could rationally talk to, much less discuss the Democratic Party with 'em. There's quite a large number of them here around Seattle, by the way. I know some libertarian communists (also called anarcho-communists) who are also set in their ways but would certainly vote Democrat.

[bjornredtail]

Yes, I wouldn't vote for Condoleezza, and if Obama was Republican, I wouldn't vote for him. It's still great that Condoleezza is in her post, and it would equally be great if Obama was president, for both politics and race relations.

Do you mean Republican as in member of the GOP or Republican as being on the right-of-center wing of American Politics? To rephrase that, would you automatically disqualify a candidate by his or her party affiliation regardless of his or her ideology?

[Tetigustas shadowson]

holy crud...................................................



this was about voting and its turned global

just to clarifie a few things
1: Co2 travels in rain, it is a vital part of the planetary life cycle
2: gases are at different levels throughout the atmosphere, if not then explain ozone hot spots!
3: volcanic ash travels for years in the atmosphere
4: one eruption makes more Co2 than all of mankind
5: its thought that increased global warmth heightens the volcanic activity
6: if you farted all day every day you wouldn't make the slightest dent in the condition of the atmosphere.
7: Who are you voting for?

I am voting for McCain and Palin,
not because they are the answer to all of Americas problems,
but because I think they are the least of the evils.

we all hate politicians so whats the big deal.........Wasn't FDR a xross dresser

[Gen. Volkov]

I choose Al Gore not because his movie was the root cause of this scientific 'group think' but the greatest sign thereof. Sure this effect tainted research back in to 1990's... Which makes it all that much more difficult to break now.

Do have any proof for this assertion? Or is it just your opinion?

I thought some molecules in the air were heavier than the others. In this case, why don't we have settling, like with oil and watter?

Because the gases in our atmosphere are 100% soluble in each other at all earth temperatures and pressures, excepting water vapor. Fluids only settle out when they are insoluble in each other, otherwise they remain in solution, the same is true with our atmosphere.

Volky... You would have been one of the guys with torch in hand when Copernicus said the Earth was not the center of the universe.

*Blink* You guys are the reactionaries. I'm embracing the idea, you guys are rejecting it. So you would have been one of the ones with torch in hand, and I'd have been a Copernicus supporter.

If the gasses flowed perfectly, shouldnt the warming be even all over? Instead its pocketed.

Actually it's on a gradient, least warming around the equator, most warming around the poles. As for why that is, it has to do with heat transfer over the earth. On our planet, the heat moves from the hot tropics to the cold poles. So the net effect is that the tropics stay more stable, while the more northerly latitudes get hotter. There are independent effects on a more local scale, caused by local topography and climates.

If gasses flowed perfectly, why is there a hole in the ozone?
"...As warm, ozone-rich air flows in from lower latitudes, the PSCs are destroyed, the ozone depletion process shuts down, and the ozone hole heals."
Oh look. Flowing air. O3 acts as a greenhouse gas, and its concentrations are not the same world-wide. Infact, it flows.

No, the correct question is, why is there a whole in ozone at the poles? The answer is the PSC's, which you never bothered to define. The Polar Stratospheric Clouds, which form during the long polar winter, catalyze the reaction of CFC's and O3. It happens in the gas phase, but much more slowly. Before the introduction of CFC's, O3 was spread pretty much equally over the earth. CFC's began thinning the layer, especially at the poles, due to the PSCs. But when the PSC's dissipate, the O3 flows back, and closes the hole. Doing exactly what I was talking about all the other gases in the atmosphere do! Flow down the pressure and concentration gradient until levels are equal! It happens pretty rapidly too, the polar holes close soon after the PSCs dissipate. Thanks for proving my point windy.