>> URI: only with air... with oil it is the extreme thinness of the surface film that causes the optical interference. That’s an excellent book on the subject. I have been getting lots of National Academy of Science material for years. People in the underdeveloped world get the material free. One of many “privileges” of being underdeveloped. Well, I still remember my lesson on optics and they said that when one beam or light (or any radiation for that matter) passes from one medium to another of different density, it diffracts in an angle that is a function of the respective densities of each media and the wavelength of the radiation. The familiar example is the apparently broken stick we see when a stick is immersed in water. We have the impression that the stick has broken forward. It is also the physical phenomenon that rules the properties of lenses to “curve” light beams and make them converge onto one focus. You see, when a light beam coming from above hits the oily surface, the first thing that happens is “reflection”, that is, it bounces from the surface at the same angle it fell on the surface. As the oily surface is not a pure mirror surface, only a small part of the incoming light is reflected. The rest keeps going, but when entering the microscopic oily layer it is refracted to a new angle. When this newly refracted light beam hits the water layer, it is refracted again but, this time part of the beam is reflected with the same angle (as before) and re-enters the oily surface in his way up suffering a new refraction. Remember that refraction occurs when there is a passage from layers of different density, as air-water, air-crystal, air-diamond, diamond-water, oil-water, cold air-warm air, crystals of different densities and properties (as in photo lenses), etc. So, this reflected-refracted light beam exits the oily layer and is then refracted again when entering the air layer. The sequence is this: the incoming beam is refracted-reflected-refracted—refracted. What complicates the whole thing is that when the light beam is reflected from the water it is again reflected by the underside of the oily layer and sent back to the water –that reflects it again. This process is repeated until the light is completely absorbed by the water and the oil. All these beams that are refracted and reflected and re-refracted and re-reflected in such microscopic distances interfere with each other and the optical interference is formed, creating those beautiful iridescent effects. The same principle is applied in crystallography and metallurgy for microscopic analyses for structural strength. No rocket science. Just optics, but a tricky part of optics. ------------- Valich: no one denies there has been a warming trend since 1880. It is the continuation of a warming trend resulting from the recovery of the Little ice Age. We are returning to the warmer days of the medieval Warm period. The increase since 1880 has been measured as 0,6º C. No big deal. During the Darnsgaard-Oeschger warming events of not so long ago (11,000 years ago, 22,000 ybp, etc) warming happened in just a few DECADES, and the warming was of several degress, not tenths of degrees. And then the temperature went down abruptly, as during the Older and Younger Dryas events, that also were Abrupt Climatic Changes. Of course, they were natural events. So, why do you find so strange that the temperature went up 0.6º C in 130 years? Tell me now, what's so strange about a climate change. Don't tell me you believe that the climate must (or should) be stable. Tell me when in Earth's climatic history there has been a stable period? Can you?
Yes, we had a very relatively stable cold period between 350 mya to 250 mya (100 million years) compared to tday. During this period there was an extensive diversification of reptiles, amphibians, insects and fern forests: a large diversity of terrestrial animals with no mass extinctions. Today we (humans) are accelerating the climate change to the max extremes and killing off an unprecedented amounts of species in the process. It is said that the tropical rain forests of South America harbor 50% of the Earth's terrestrial animals and we are burning them all down for short term agricultural production: murdering them all off in the process, solely by our own means. No "natural" climate change involved. We are solely responsible for the extinction of passsengor pigeons, Mastodons, the Dodo bird, and at least 50 other popularized species, let alone those that were not published to the public. We have caused the extinction of about 200 species of animals since 1500. There are about 45,000 vertebrate species and over 1 million "named" species of insect on earth. This means that when we burn down all the tropical rainforests in the Amazon, we will have murdered over 500,000 species of "known" animals. It is estimated that a much larger number of species are still not even known yet. We can prevent this!
the climate has changed for ions. We have not been here that long so what are you talking about! We don't produce ice ages, the sun does. It melts the polar ice caps and then they thicken whereby it screws up the North American Oscillation and North american current which warms the water and the effect starts all over again. google "little ice age" for more info. If anything, global warming has held the ice age off a bit. And global warming has been going on forever (planets existance) due to the sun. The sun has everything to do with it!
ions are charged atoms: you mean eons or aeons, right? Spelling? Education? An Eon is a geologic time period containing two or more eras. The sun does not produce ice ages. Be scientific. Cite your sources please? The current trend in Global Warming started 15,000 years ago after the last glacier period during the Holocene. It HAS NOT "been going on forever." "Ice Age" is an ambiguous term. It can refer to the glacier periods 15,000 year ago, or it can refer to the more major colding eras 2.7 to 2.3 billion years ago. Either be scientific, cite your sources and not just your impulsive uneducated opinions, or please stay off the forum so that we can allow it to productively progress.
A major colding period. Oh, get you! What is a colding period then vallich? Not content with inventing your own facts you now have your own language. Try to get your own grammar in some semblance of acceptability before critcising others. Protostar may have been loose in his (her) terminology, but then he may not have your thirty year educational advantage and five degrees. Why don't you cut a little slack? The sun's output varies as a consequence of its nature as a star . The incident solar radiation on the Earth varies as a consequence of orbital and rotational characteristics of the Earth. Together with terrestrial issues such as land distribution and cloud cover it can be seen that the sun does 'cause' ice ages. Protostar said nothing about the current trend in global warming. Solar output has been increasing slowly over time, creating a tendency for global warming.
Ophiolite: Always so quick to criticize without adding content. What's your problem. You obviously have a vendetta against me. Why? Have I hurt you in some way? Be productive - without the immature insulting comments and belittlement. You call yourself a "geologist." Just because you have a degree in geology? And you just assume that I don't? Should I call myself a geologist too? Grow up! What's the purpose? Protostar: When you talk about the "little ice age," are you referring to the one a few hundred years ago? This is why the term "ice age" is ambiguous. The last minor glacier period was 15,000 years ago, but we have had much more colder periods millions of years ago that we normally refer to as "ice ages."
Quick to criticise the weasel vallich. Content added: 1. The sun's output varies as a consequence of its nature as a star . 2. The incident solar radiation on the Earth varies as a consequence of orbital and rotational characteristics of the Earth. 3. Together with terrestrial issues such as land distribution and cloud cover it can be seen that the sun does 'cause' ice ages. 4. Solar output has been increasing slowly over time. You. I have told you ad nauseam exactly what my problem with you is. Here is a further brief summary. Read it this time and understand it you moron. 1. You repeatedly post erroneous information. 2. You give it a veneer of authenticity by using relevant terminology and quoting or citing research that is in the same field as the matter under discussion. 3. When corrected you do not accept your error, but try to wriggle out in an unseemly fashion by posting unrelated detail and denying your original claim. 4. In short, you misinterpret, misunderstand and misrepresent basic scientific facts, then deny it 5. Such intellectual dishonesty is not only harming yourself, but more importantly could mislead other into scientific misunderstandings based upon you nonsensical claims. 6. Consequently I shall continue to correct as many of your errors as I run across, when I run across them. My repeated requests to the moderators that you be banned have fallen on deaf ears, so I shall police your lies until either you cease them, you get banned or I get banned. Is that clear enough for you yet. The insulting comments are a direct product of the frustration of dealing with a serial liar. It gives me a measure of satisfaction to call you a fucking retard in print. As for the belitteling - you are doing such a fine job of that for yourself I don't need to lend a hand. Well, it's one definition weasel. You are the one who is hung up on degrees and qualifications. Just exactly what are your five degrees in vallich? Lying? If you have studied geology to degree level, which you evidently have not, by all means call yourself a geologist. I prefer you call yourself a liar. Much more accurate. Now piss off and leave the forum to people with some integrity.
Sorry for the spelling errors. I am human and guess what, I make mistakes. As for Valich, if you were to try to use common sense instead of such scientific fact I think you would get along much better in the world with us humans. It is OK TO MAKE MISTAKES. As for ice ages, I don't have a degree in geology astronomy or astrophysics, I use common sense when I say that we will have another one. IT IS HISTORY.And history repeats itself. Try not to disease other people's brains with your meanness. Nobody wants negativity. and allow others to make mistakes, (to err is human) And I was refering to the little ice age. You bet. And I bet were going into another one. So, lay some odd's on me. What does everyone think???
tell me more how. Brazil may qualify. Rest of your optics is correct, but this is wrong. Approximately 4% is reflected at the first air / oil interface. For the wavelength that has constructive phase with this at the second internal oil to air interface, at least 4% more of the remaining will be transmited into the air. I don't know the net results, but I am sure that the constructive wave length has at least 10%, perhaps much more, reflected. This is the way multi-layer dielectric mirrors can be very efficient reflectors (better than silver films) at specific wavelenghs, even though each interface is reflectiong less than 4%.
>> IT IS HISTORY.And history repeats itself. Thi is the point, past history has been Nature made Now humans have added wild cards..... the old history can no longer be used as a guide, IMO.
Vallich to avoid the resentment of Ophiolite it might be a good idea to discontinue copy and paste from your sources with a hint of an hidden agenda about great knowlegde. Give gredit to your sources instead An example, suppose I would think that the Younger Dryas period of the last Ice age was a good illustration in this thread about World's ice caps are melting, then I would go to Wikipedia (for instance) and give the following ref: Now, if this was boulderdash then it's not your fault. Messengers are not shot in general. BTW Don't tell any further, but it is boulderdash despite the excellent research of Severinghaus (Science 1998 and 2005) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Obviously Ophiolite above is posting "diseases to other people's brain with meanness." This cannot be more extremely clear. Please point out how I am doing this? I post the facts as I research them and cite my sources as a true scientist should. This is a scientific forum.
I have long been disturbed by a practice amongst those who are not full time research scientists to use the term research rather casually. I see this with students - high school and University- ; with those who are University educated, but are now holding down 'real' jobs; and among those who post on forums such as this. Library research involves a study of the literature on a subject area. It is a vital part of research proper and a valuable process on its own for self education. It is, however, very definitely not scientific research as that term is properly used within science. This may just be an academic objection about semantics: how do all of you feel? Would this merit a separate thread. If you think not, just ignoring this post will let it die.
Yes yes yes! I agree completely. Precision of language is a hallmark (and indeed, a necessity) of science. Clearly, the word “research” means different things in different areas of endeavor. In the areas of law, accounting, history and many more, the word means something very different to its meaning in scientific fields. In such areas it is commonplace to state that, having looked up records and details and read about something, that you “researched” a topic. I would argue that in scientific fields the word specifically applies to work that is peer-reviewed (and that is part of a larger ongoing body of work performed by other people). The peer review occurs within the lab/group, then within the institution as a whole, then by reviewers/editors of journals should the work be submitted for publication. It seems logical (indeed, scientific) to apply the same use of the word “research” to science forums. However, it appears to me that 9 out of 10 posters to science forums use the word “research” to refer to casual reading and/or Google searches on topics of interest that they are not primarily involved with on a day to day basis. Pedantic? Semantic? Probably yes. But I would argue that science is all about specifics and detail.<P>
>> science is all about specifics and detail. Indeed that is part of it...... but 'science' invokes many more dimensions than 'specifics and detail'......there is a process called innovation (imagination) which forums such as this discount totally, but from which however, all science has flowed. Such futuristic discussions appear to attract the limitations of the rote learned workers, who en mass trash all attempts at discussion expansion.... oh well, that is life on the net. On a forum, a lit (re)search is all you can quote. If you have done private unpublished investigation, the forum will not accept your work. Their loss, IMO. It seems to me, that not many people understand the process of scientific investigation....... rather they try to strangle it into a 'peer reviewed' box..... which will be found to be ultimately, 'not quite correct' in the future. The good intentioned, but illusional posters who hold science to 'specifics and detail' are only as good as the last book they read. No scientific mind there, just a photocopier.
You're sounding like an illusionary crack-pot. As you state, "science is all about specifics and detail." Then you contradict yourself by using personal science fiction imagination. I've not read one post of your's that cites a scientific source. You're just what you say you are: an "illusional poster." No credibility. No facts. No sense. Lot's of unsubstantiated nonsense. You don't even bother to read the rational scientific explanations given. All you want to do is post something. Anything. Even if it's utter nonsense. Why are you wasting everyone's time. Just to be argumentive? You've got a psychological problem.
>> You've got a psychological problem indeed, I am a scientist... I can tell BS from truth...and I can show apparent truth is BS if the deeper levels of understanding are not met. Valich, I thought you were a reason driven poster...... I retract my thought. I will not post to you, please put me on your ignore list.... your abuse is boring and wastes my time. Thanks
How many forum members does that make whom you think have a psychological problem? Just curious. Do you actually think they have such problems, or is it just a debating trick? You do know words can kill, don't you?
http://www.livescience.com/environment/ap_051207_hot_stormy.html >> MONTREAL (AP) -- This year is likely to go down as the hottest, stormiest and driest ever, making a strong case for the urgent need to combat global warming, a report released Tuesday at the U.N. Climate Change Conference said. The year 2005, the World Wildlife Fund said, is shaping up as the worst for extreme weather, with the hottest temperatures, most Arctic melting, worst Atlantic hurricane season and warmest Caribbean waters. It's also been the driest year in decades in the Amazon, where a drought may surpass anything in the past century, said the report by international environmental group. >>> and still the world does not know what is causing it all. I really wonder why ? >> Waters in the Caribbean were also hotter for longer, causing extensive bleaching from Colombia to the Florida Keys, she said. In the north, the smallest area of Arctic sea ice ever was recorded in September -- 500,000 square miles smaller than the historic average -- and a 9.8 percent decline, per decade, of perennial sea ice cover, the report said.>>> CO2 heating, LOL... >> The United States, which produces one-fourth of the world's pollution, >>> Oiled, the world over.....even dumb animals try not to shite in there own nest. too late my friends.... nothing can be done Like the ozone hole >> Since the discovery of the ozone hole over the South Pole in the 1980s, satellites and ground stations have been monitoring it. Current computer models suggest the ozone hole should recover globally by 2040 or 2050, but Tuesday's analysis suggests the hole won't heal until about 2065..... If scientists are right, that means longer-term exposure to harmful ultraviolet radiation, which raises the risk of skin cancer and cataracts for people. Long-term UV exposure is bad for the biodiversity of the planet too. >>> http://www.livescience.com/environment/ap_051207_ozone_hole.html How many years can the world's population "live in peace" with the environment baking, waters a'drying, and the lands a'frying.... The answer my friends, is blowing in the wind..........
