Jump to content

Recommended Posts

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No those greenhouse gasses are what have allowed

> the earth to have the range of temperatures

> necessary for life. Without them too cold, too

> much of them too hot. It's called the 'Goldilocks

> Principle' and is why we are the only planet on

> our solar system with life. The main gases are

> water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous

> oxide and they trap sufficent solar energy to

> create the right temperature ranges.


Sorry have I missed something? If that response above is to my post, it doesn't answer any of the questions I asked and seems quite unrelated.


I am struggling to see where anyone (ok, me) said that gases did not contribute towards life on the planet either. Your response does not seem to follow, perhaps I am being dim.


PS. Its also a bit too late for a science lesson for me I'm afraid.

waynetta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Maybe you should pose your question about life to

> your dinner party guests so that they could then

> get your full attention


Good Lord no...they were waaaaaay too pissed! They've all left now...think they had a good time.

Oxygen is not a greenhouse gas. It's two atoms are too tightly bound together to vibrate and therefore don't absord heat. Nitrogen is the same. Greenhouse gases are only those gasses with molecules composed of more than two atoms that are loose enough to vibrate with the absorbtion of heat :)

PS. I can recommend a good read on the *iconic* global warming graph if you like. You know, the old hockey stick. Distorted science and misrepresentation of data. All gripping stuff.


PPS. yes, the Great Oxidation Event was very fortunate for us...


*wonders if there's any cider left?*

Ladymuck Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> katie1997 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > *wonders if there's any cider left?*

>

> ...it's in all probability in the process of being

> converted into methane at the mo! :))


Yeah....there seems to be a lot of it about ;-)


*save the moles*

LOL...the thought of LM and methane............mmmmmm


*tries not to inhale*


You are not dim katie lol. In answer to your question, greenhouse gases and their emission have been part of planet earth's composition since the early days of it's formation (the required icy elements thought to have arrived in metors and comets from outer solar systems). So in that respect is has always had a greehouse effect going on. When the planet was extremely hot (and forming it's tectonic plates), volcanic activity would have emitted massive amounts of carbon dioxide for example (but too much for the right temperature for life). Only when the planet struck a balance with it's gasses did life become possible (along with water). The earth is unique in it's atmosphere and there are other factors obviously that allows those gasses to work they way they do, but they've always been there.


So in that respect the planet has always had a greenhouse atmosphere. But the balance of that greenhouse effect needed for life has only been around in the more recent evolution of the planet.

katie1997 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'd like to know what you consider to be the

> 'modern lifespan of the planet'. The trouble

> is.....this often varies from person to person.

> Makes it very difficult to accurately demonstrate

> scientific facts. So your earlier comment about

> the Earth's atmosphere having always being a

> greenhouse environment is completely inaccurate,

> to put it politely.

>

> When do you think the 'greenhouse atmosphere that

> gave us the ecosystems we have' came into

> existence?


Those were my two questions. When I came on and said that your earlier comment about the Earth's atmosphere ALWAYS having a greenhouse atmosphere was wrong, you later acknowledged "thats true....".


I have honestly got no idea what question you seem to think I was asking when you posted your response above either.


Again, I think you are incorrect about greenhouse environments during early planetary accretion.


Plate tectonics is a constant process btw so its still happening...its not something that formed many millions of years ago and stayed the same.


Yes, volcanoes and volcanic activity does indeed produce many gases, including CO2.


PS. how much is LM paying you to keep me up? ;-)

lol..not guilty for LM.


I stand by that view greenhouse gases (which after all are just a gases whose molocules can absord heat) have always been part of the earth's atmophere..but the point you made is that the level of individual gases has been different at times during the planet's formation and evolution...that is what I agree is true. It doesn't change that the process by which the earth's atmospheric temperature rises and falls is a greenhouse one (made possible by the presence of greenhouse gases).


Also in my original point to LM, I don't say that the earth has always had it's atmosphere either, just that since it formed it has always been a greenhouse one. The theory is that the atmosphere is approx half the planet's current age at 4.5 billion years.

Probably because we only know the function of approx 2% of DNA. The other 98% has been referred to as 'junk' DNA. Probably all the differences are in there as it is now thought that the 98% so called non-coding DNA has an important impact on the coding DNA.

Ladymuck Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> waynetta Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Maybe you should pose your question about life

> to

> > your dinner party guests so that they could

> then

> > get your full attention

>

> Good Lord no...they were waaaaaay too pissed!

> They've all left now...think they had a good time.


Edited because expats post makes it irrelevant.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
    • Another recommendation for Silvano. I echo everything the above post states. I passed first time this week with 3 minors despite not starting to learn until my mid-30s. Given the costs for lessons I have heard, he's also excellent value.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...