134a Refrigerant
#1951
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Think a little harder, the sun is responsible for your wind and
everything on this earth including the ozone, that Stevie is so vain as
to think we may have any part in.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
jeff wrote:
>
> I know someone who lives in suburbia has a difficult time understanding
> the natural world, but from my perspective, environmentalism is not a
> liberal/conservative pivot point. It is about conserving the environment
> so that my children and grandchildren can hunt, fish, hike, camp and
> perhaps through this, gain some measure of their place in the universe.
> I grew up in western Pennsylvania at a time when strip mining was
> destroying all the deer habitat and the acid run off from them destroyed
> most of the trout streams. Indiscriminant use of DDT wiped out most of
> the native large birds to the point where hunting turkey and duck were
> not worth the effort. From the top of a hill it was easy to mark the
> direction to Pittsburgh from the sooty gray plume. Now 35 years later,
> due in large measure to laws such as the clean air act and clean water
> act I see a marked change for the better. The deer herd has come back,
> as have the fisheries. This morning I saw over a dozen turkeys in my
> back yard and I have ducks living in my pond. For these reasons I have
> no problem with some portion of my tax dollars going to fund the EPA.
> Without them we would have one continuous Love Canal from coast to coast.
>
> BTW, to answer your question in a manner that even the common layman can
> understand: Wind is responsible for atmospheric mixing. Think about it
> like a bottle of Italian salad dressing: In the cool quiet isolation of
> your refrigerator it separates. The heavy chunky bits settle to the
> bottom and the oil rises to the top. Shake it and it becomes a uniform
> mixture. This act of shaking is akin to the normal atmospheric
> turbulence called wind. Thermal kinetic energy imparts Brownian motion.
>
> --
> jeff
everything on this earth including the ozone, that Stevie is so vain as
to think we may have any part in.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
jeff wrote:
>
> I know someone who lives in suburbia has a difficult time understanding
> the natural world, but from my perspective, environmentalism is not a
> liberal/conservative pivot point. It is about conserving the environment
> so that my children and grandchildren can hunt, fish, hike, camp and
> perhaps through this, gain some measure of their place in the universe.
> I grew up in western Pennsylvania at a time when strip mining was
> destroying all the deer habitat and the acid run off from them destroyed
> most of the trout streams. Indiscriminant use of DDT wiped out most of
> the native large birds to the point where hunting turkey and duck were
> not worth the effort. From the top of a hill it was easy to mark the
> direction to Pittsburgh from the sooty gray plume. Now 35 years later,
> due in large measure to laws such as the clean air act and clean water
> act I see a marked change for the better. The deer herd has come back,
> as have the fisheries. This morning I saw over a dozen turkeys in my
> back yard and I have ducks living in my pond. For these reasons I have
> no problem with some portion of my tax dollars going to fund the EPA.
> Without them we would have one continuous Love Canal from coast to coast.
>
> BTW, to answer your question in a manner that even the common layman can
> understand: Wind is responsible for atmospheric mixing. Think about it
> like a bottle of Italian salad dressing: In the cool quiet isolation of
> your refrigerator it separates. The heavy chunky bits settle to the
> bottom and the oil rises to the top. Shake it and it becomes a uniform
> mixture. This act of shaking is akin to the normal atmospheric
> turbulence called wind. Thermal kinetic energy imparts Brownian motion.
>
> --
> jeff
#1952
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Think a little harder, the sun is responsible for your wind and
everything on this earth including the ozone, that Stevie is so vain as
to think we may have any part in.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
jeff wrote:
>
> I know someone who lives in suburbia has a difficult time understanding
> the natural world, but from my perspective, environmentalism is not a
> liberal/conservative pivot point. It is about conserving the environment
> so that my children and grandchildren can hunt, fish, hike, camp and
> perhaps through this, gain some measure of their place in the universe.
> I grew up in western Pennsylvania at a time when strip mining was
> destroying all the deer habitat and the acid run off from them destroyed
> most of the trout streams. Indiscriminant use of DDT wiped out most of
> the native large birds to the point where hunting turkey and duck were
> not worth the effort. From the top of a hill it was easy to mark the
> direction to Pittsburgh from the sooty gray plume. Now 35 years later,
> due in large measure to laws such as the clean air act and clean water
> act I see a marked change for the better. The deer herd has come back,
> as have the fisheries. This morning I saw over a dozen turkeys in my
> back yard and I have ducks living in my pond. For these reasons I have
> no problem with some portion of my tax dollars going to fund the EPA.
> Without them we would have one continuous Love Canal from coast to coast.
>
> BTW, to answer your question in a manner that even the common layman can
> understand: Wind is responsible for atmospheric mixing. Think about it
> like a bottle of Italian salad dressing: In the cool quiet isolation of
> your refrigerator it separates. The heavy chunky bits settle to the
> bottom and the oil rises to the top. Shake it and it becomes a uniform
> mixture. This act of shaking is akin to the normal atmospheric
> turbulence called wind. Thermal kinetic energy imparts Brownian motion.
>
> --
> jeff
everything on this earth including the ozone, that Stevie is so vain as
to think we may have any part in.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
jeff wrote:
>
> I know someone who lives in suburbia has a difficult time understanding
> the natural world, but from my perspective, environmentalism is not a
> liberal/conservative pivot point. It is about conserving the environment
> so that my children and grandchildren can hunt, fish, hike, camp and
> perhaps through this, gain some measure of their place in the universe.
> I grew up in western Pennsylvania at a time when strip mining was
> destroying all the deer habitat and the acid run off from them destroyed
> most of the trout streams. Indiscriminant use of DDT wiped out most of
> the native large birds to the point where hunting turkey and duck were
> not worth the effort. From the top of a hill it was easy to mark the
> direction to Pittsburgh from the sooty gray plume. Now 35 years later,
> due in large measure to laws such as the clean air act and clean water
> act I see a marked change for the better. The deer herd has come back,
> as have the fisheries. This morning I saw over a dozen turkeys in my
> back yard and I have ducks living in my pond. For these reasons I have
> no problem with some portion of my tax dollars going to fund the EPA.
> Without them we would have one continuous Love Canal from coast to coast.
>
> BTW, to answer your question in a manner that even the common layman can
> understand: Wind is responsible for atmospheric mixing. Think about it
> like a bottle of Italian salad dressing: In the cool quiet isolation of
> your refrigerator it separates. The heavy chunky bits settle to the
> bottom and the oil rises to the top. Shake it and it becomes a uniform
> mixture. This act of shaking is akin to the normal atmospheric
> turbulence called wind. Thermal kinetic energy imparts Brownian motion.
>
> --
> jeff
#1953
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Think a little harder, the sun is responsible for your wind and
everything on this earth including the ozone, that Stevie is so vain as
to think we may have any part in.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
jeff wrote:
>
> I know someone who lives in suburbia has a difficult time understanding
> the natural world, but from my perspective, environmentalism is not a
> liberal/conservative pivot point. It is about conserving the environment
> so that my children and grandchildren can hunt, fish, hike, camp and
> perhaps through this, gain some measure of their place in the universe.
> I grew up in western Pennsylvania at a time when strip mining was
> destroying all the deer habitat and the acid run off from them destroyed
> most of the trout streams. Indiscriminant use of DDT wiped out most of
> the native large birds to the point where hunting turkey and duck were
> not worth the effort. From the top of a hill it was easy to mark the
> direction to Pittsburgh from the sooty gray plume. Now 35 years later,
> due in large measure to laws such as the clean air act and clean water
> act I see a marked change for the better. The deer herd has come back,
> as have the fisheries. This morning I saw over a dozen turkeys in my
> back yard and I have ducks living in my pond. For these reasons I have
> no problem with some portion of my tax dollars going to fund the EPA.
> Without them we would have one continuous Love Canal from coast to coast.
>
> BTW, to answer your question in a manner that even the common layman can
> understand: Wind is responsible for atmospheric mixing. Think about it
> like a bottle of Italian salad dressing: In the cool quiet isolation of
> your refrigerator it separates. The heavy chunky bits settle to the
> bottom and the oil rises to the top. Shake it and it becomes a uniform
> mixture. This act of shaking is akin to the normal atmospheric
> turbulence called wind. Thermal kinetic energy imparts Brownian motion.
>
> --
> jeff
everything on this earth including the ozone, that Stevie is so vain as
to think we may have any part in.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
jeff wrote:
>
> I know someone who lives in suburbia has a difficult time understanding
> the natural world, but from my perspective, environmentalism is not a
> liberal/conservative pivot point. It is about conserving the environment
> so that my children and grandchildren can hunt, fish, hike, camp and
> perhaps through this, gain some measure of their place in the universe.
> I grew up in western Pennsylvania at a time when strip mining was
> destroying all the deer habitat and the acid run off from them destroyed
> most of the trout streams. Indiscriminant use of DDT wiped out most of
> the native large birds to the point where hunting turkey and duck were
> not worth the effort. From the top of a hill it was easy to mark the
> direction to Pittsburgh from the sooty gray plume. Now 35 years later,
> due in large measure to laws such as the clean air act and clean water
> act I see a marked change for the better. The deer herd has come back,
> as have the fisheries. This morning I saw over a dozen turkeys in my
> back yard and I have ducks living in my pond. For these reasons I have
> no problem with some portion of my tax dollars going to fund the EPA.
> Without them we would have one continuous Love Canal from coast to coast.
>
> BTW, to answer your question in a manner that even the common layman can
> understand: Wind is responsible for atmospheric mixing. Think about it
> like a bottle of Italian salad dressing: In the cool quiet isolation of
> your refrigerator it separates. The heavy chunky bits settle to the
> bottom and the oil rises to the top. Shake it and it becomes a uniform
> mixture. This act of shaking is akin to the normal atmospheric
> turbulence called wind. Thermal kinetic energy imparts Brownian motion.
>
> --
> jeff
#1954
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Pity, Stevie you're so clueless, I doubt that you have any common
sense, at all.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Stephen Cowell wrote:
><snip bullsh*t>
sense, at all.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Stephen Cowell wrote:
><snip bullsh*t>
#1955
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Pity, Stevie you're so clueless, I doubt that you have any common
sense, at all.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Stephen Cowell wrote:
><snip bullsh*t>
sense, at all.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Stephen Cowell wrote:
><snip bullsh*t>
#1956
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Pity, Stevie you're so clueless, I doubt that you have any common
sense, at all.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Stephen Cowell wrote:
><snip bullsh*t>
sense, at all.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Stephen Cowell wrote:
><snip bullsh*t>
#1957
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Pity, Stevie you're so clueless, I doubt that you have any common
sense, at all.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Stephen Cowell wrote:
><snip bullsh*t>
sense, at all.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Stephen Cowell wrote:
><snip bullsh*t>
#1958
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Here are some measurements. CFC-11 at 20 miles altitude:
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/airborne/lace/lace10.html
Any more nits to pick or can you agree that this does show the presence
of CFCs in the stratosphere?
--
jeff
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Stevie, your links make no mention of Chlorine or Fluorine which is what
> we were arguing about in Chlorofluorocarbons and only confirm their
> absents, even in the parts per million. Fortunately the atmosphere has
> carbon, because that's what every living thing is made of. You can snow
> a Snowbird, but you can't sh*t a Shitbird.
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/airborne/lace/lace10.html
Any more nits to pick or can you agree that this does show the presence
of CFCs in the stratosphere?
--
jeff
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Stevie, your links make no mention of Chlorine or Fluorine which is what
> we were arguing about in Chlorofluorocarbons and only confirm their
> absents, even in the parts per million. Fortunately the atmosphere has
> carbon, because that's what every living thing is made of. You can snow
> a Snowbird, but you can't sh*t a Shitbird.
#1959
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Here are some measurements. CFC-11 at 20 miles altitude:
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/airborne/lace/lace10.html
Any more nits to pick or can you agree that this does show the presence
of CFCs in the stratosphere?
--
jeff
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Stevie, your links make no mention of Chlorine or Fluorine which is what
> we were arguing about in Chlorofluorocarbons and only confirm their
> absents, even in the parts per million. Fortunately the atmosphere has
> carbon, because that's what every living thing is made of. You can snow
> a Snowbird, but you can't sh*t a Shitbird.
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/airborne/lace/lace10.html
Any more nits to pick or can you agree that this does show the presence
of CFCs in the stratosphere?
--
jeff
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Stevie, your links make no mention of Chlorine or Fluorine which is what
> we were arguing about in Chlorofluorocarbons and only confirm their
> absents, even in the parts per million. Fortunately the atmosphere has
> carbon, because that's what every living thing is made of. You can snow
> a Snowbird, but you can't sh*t a Shitbird.
#1960
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 134a Refrigerant
Here are some measurements. CFC-11 at 20 miles altitude:
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/airborne/lace/lace10.html
Any more nits to pick or can you agree that this does show the presence
of CFCs in the stratosphere?
--
jeff
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Stevie, your links make no mention of Chlorine or Fluorine which is what
> we were arguing about in Chlorofluorocarbons and only confirm their
> absents, even in the parts per million. Fortunately the atmosphere has
> carbon, because that's what every living thing is made of. You can snow
> a Snowbird, but you can't sh*t a Shitbird.
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/airborne/lace/lace10.html
Any more nits to pick or can you agree that this does show the presence
of CFCs in the stratosphere?
--
jeff
L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Stevie, your links make no mention of Chlorine or Fluorine which is what
> we were arguing about in Chlorofluorocarbons and only confirm their
> absents, even in the parts per million. Fortunately the atmosphere has
> carbon, because that's what every living thing is made of. You can snow
> a Snowbird, but you can't sh*t a Shitbird.