Whatever you come up with, you have to begin by conceding the atmosphere cannot be colder than outerspace. By what method was it cooled??
Of course it is impossible. But then it is impossible to have a gas that doesn't absorb or emit energy. If it were possible then it would be at absolute zero. Outerspace is at 4K because the few molecules that are out there have absorbed photons.
There is some heat transfer between the earth and the atmosphere by conduction at the boundary. But it is minor heat transfer mechanism compared to convection, radiation and exchange of water vapour. And a gas that could not absorb a photon could not absorb a phonon either.
But getting back to the real world, the mechanism by which increasing the concentration in the atmosphere of "greenhouse" gases increases the temperature at the Earth's surface is pretty uncontroversial and backed by the physics. Given that the increase in these gases is mostly anthropogenic, finding out that there was no AGW would be a very surprising result indeed.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off. --Gloria Steinem AREPS™
Of course it is impossible. But then it is impossible to have a gas that doesn't absorb or emit energy. If it were possible then it would be at absolute zero. Outerspace is at 4K because the few molecules that are out there have absorbed photons.
There is some heat transfer between the earth and the atmosphere by conduction at the boundary. But it is minor heat transfer mechanism compared to convection, radiation and exchange of water vapour. And a gas that could not absorb a photon could not absorb a phonon either.
But getting back to the real world, the mechanism by which increasing the concentration in the atmosphere of "greenhouse" gases increases the temperature at the Earth's surface is pretty uncontroversial and backed by the physics. Given that the increase in these gases is mostly anthropogenic, finding out that there was no AGW would be a very surprising result indeed.
So you are still claiming the atmosphere of a radiatively warmed planet would be at absolute zero if it had a non-absorbing/emitting atmosphere. For starters it would be frozen solid while being attached to the warm surface thus defying the laws of physics once more.
Since you are requiring a realistic example, just assume the atmosphere is made of nitrogen oxygen and argon
Do you really believe a cold dry wind cannot cool a hot desert surface and transfer heat to the air? You cannot believe that. Convection obviously does not only happen by the air being warmed by radiation from the surface. A super dry warm desert air still gets hotter when the sun shines on the surface and the colder wind obviously cools the hotter surface by the action of the wind acting to move more molecules across the surface to disrupt the super thin insulating air boundary layer which is already hot, where air itself is a poor conductor from air to air..
>>And a gas that could not absorb a photon could not absorb a phonon either.
Why are you so determined to believe that conduction from the earth to the air is more or less impossible??? How on earth can you believe the air would be at absolute zero if it could neither absorb or emit radiation and it was in contact with the warm earth???
So you are still claiming the atmosphere of a radiatively warmed planet would be at absolute zero if it had a non-absorbing/emitting atmosphere. For starters it would be frozen solid while being attached to the warm surface thus defying the laws of physics once more.
Since you are requiring a realistic example, just assume the atmosphere is made of nitrogen oxygen and argon
Do you really believe a cold dry wind cannot cool a hot desert surface and transfer heat to the air? You cannot believe that. Convection obviously does not only happen by the air being warmed by radiation from the surface. A super dry warm desert air still gets hotter when the sun shines on the surface and the colder wind obviously cools the hotter surface by the action of the wind acting to move more molecules across the surface to disrupt the super thin insulating air boundary layer which is already hot, where air itself is a poor conductor from air to air..
>>And a gas that could not absorb a photon could not absorb a phonon either.
Why are you so determined to believe that conduction from the earth to the air is more or less impossible??? How on earth can you believe the air would be at absolute zero if it could neither absorb or emit radiation and it was in contact with the warm earth???
Of course it would be at absolute zero. It is incapable of absorbing energy, remember? If there were such a thing as a gas that could not absorb energy it would be very interesting stuff.
Quote:
Since you are requiring a realistic example, just assume the atmosphere is made of nitrogen oxygen and argon
Oxygen and Nitrogen do absorb an emit radiation in the ultraviolet and far ultraviolet respectively. Oxygen also has a small fingerprint in the near-IR wavelengths. If you had an atmosphere consisting purely of Oxygen and Nitrogen you would probably have an inversion layer because they would absorb more energy at higher altitudes than they absorb at lower altitudes.
If you could invent an atmosphere that was able to be heated by contact with the earth but was somehow not able to absorb or emit radiation, you would have a lowering of temperature off to infinity, but the gas would get hotter and hotter because it could never lose energy once it got it. Not exactly a realistic situation.
Edit: I guess you could use Helium which as far as I know has very little radiative coupling but can be heated by conduction. The answer is that you would get a temperature gradient with the hottest gas at the Earth's surface, and the boundary condition would be the surface of the earth which would be at about 253K. If you were somehow to heat the upper atmosphere, convection would not be able to restore thermal equilibrium, and it would also not cool by radiation, so it would stay hot up there for a long time, until the gas had boiled off into space or conduction restored equilibrium.
Quote:
Why are you so determined to believe that conduction from the earth to the air is more or less impossible??? How on earth can you believe the air would be at absolute zero if it could neither absorb or emit radiation and it was in contact with the warm earth???
Of course not. But it was you who introduced some mythical beast of a gas which indeed cannot be heated or cooled (except by conduction?). You are free to make up whatever properties for it you like, I suppose.
No doubt you are talking unicorns and fairies because it distracts away from the reality that we have an atmosphere that absorbs and emits strongly in the IR spectrum. Since the heating comes from the bottom, (by conduction or radiation - it does not matter) convection maintains a lapse rate of 6-10 degrees/km depending on relative humidity.
The existence of a radiative skin in the atmosphere means that the boundary condition is not at the Earth's surface but somewhere up in the atmosphere. Shift that skin higher, and the lapse rate ensures that the temperature at the surface will rise. Increasing the quantity of "greenhouse" gases raises the altitude of this skin. I note that you have not said anything to refute this basic hypothesis. Rather you have concentrated on side issues like the proportion of coupling between the surface which is radiative vs. conductive (it doesn't matter as long as the coupling exists) and invented some fictitious gases with mythical properties.
Of course it would be at absolute zero. It is incapable of absorbing energy, remember? If there were such a thing as a gas that could not absorb energy it would be very interesting stuff.
Oxygen and Nitrogen do absorb an emit radiation in the ultraviolet and far ultraviolet respectively. Oxygen also has a small fingerprint in the near-IR wavelengths. If you had an atmosphere consisting purely of Oxygen and Nitrogen you would probably have an inversion layer because they would absorb more energy at higher altitudes than they absorb at lower altitudes.
If you could invent an atmosphere that was able to be heated by contact with the earth but was somehow not able to absorb or emit radiation, you would have a lowering of temperature off to infinity, but the gas would get hotter and hotter because it could never lose energy once it got it. Not exactly a realistic situation.
Edit: I guess you could use Helium which as far as I know has very little radiative coupling but can be heated by conduction. The answer is that you would get a temperature gradient with the hottest gas at the Earth's surface, and the boundary condition would be the surface of the earth which would be at about 253K. If you were somehow to heat the upper atmosphere, convection would not be able to restore thermal equilibrium, and it would also not cool by radiation, so it would stay hot up there for a long time, until the gas had boiled off into space or conduction restored equilibrium.
Of course not. But it was you who introduced some mythical beast of a gas which indeed cannot be heated or cooled (except by conduction?). You are free to make up whatever properties for it you like, I suppose.
No doubt you are talking unicorns and fairies because it distracts away from the reality that we have an atmosphere that absorbs and emits strongly in the IR spectrum. Since the heating comes from the bottom, (by conduction or radiation - it does not matter) convection maintains a lapse rate of 6-10 degrees/km depending on relative humidity.
The existence of a radiative skin in the atmosphere means that the boundary condition is not at the Earth's surface but somewhere up in the atmosphere. Shift that skin higher, and the lapse rate ensures that the temperature at the surface will rise. Increasing the quantity of "greenhouse" gases raises the altitude of this skin. I note that you have not said anything to refute this basic hypothesis. Rather you have concentrated on side issues like the proportion of coupling between the surface which is radiative vs. conductive (it doesn't matter as long as the coupling exists) and invented some fictitious gases with mythical properties.
The gas is only a non-absorber of electromagnetic energy but it can still become warmer by having energetic atomic movement transferred to it by other energetic particles
The gas is in contact with the earth at -18C average temperature. The gas cannot cool to less than the lowest temperature on earth which is certainly not absolute zero.
Oxygen and nitrogen are insignificant absorber/emitters at ordinary temperatures and pressures. The top of the atmosphere is not at ordinary temperatures - it is very hot up there. The green of oxygen at 700C is clearly visible on the horizon from the space station
>>If you could invent an atmosphere that was able to be heated by contact with the earth but was somehow not able to absorb or emit radiation, you would have a lowering of temperature off to infinity, but the gas would get hotter and hotter because it could never lose energy once it got it.
What is 'a lowering of temperature off to infinity'??
>>it was you who introduced some mythical beast of a gas which indeed cannot be heated or cooled (except by conduction?). You are free to make up whatever properties for it you like, I suppose.
Why are you being so obnoxious about this topic? An Oxygen nitrogen and Argon atmosphere will suffice for the purposes of this conversation. The atmosphere will be heated by the surface of the earth and have almost no ability to be cooled until it is very hot and begins emitting significantly apart from if the warm air comes back to the cold night time surface, when its tendency will be to rise strongly when hot. Obviously this atmosphere is going to be far hotter than our present atmosphere.
You are confusing
1. The conductivity of gases which is generally very low, and
2. The ability of a gas to be easily heated by contact with a hot solid.
Air is used as an insulator but is ineffective as an insulator when the air is moving. Convection in double glazing lowers the performance which is why Argon is used because it is denser and slows down the rate of convection.
Why are you being so obnoxious about this topic? An Oxygen nitrogen and Argon atmosphere will suffice for the purposes of this conversation. The atmosphere will be heated by the surface of the earth and have almost no ability to be cooled until it is very hot and begins emitting significantly apart from if the warm air comes back to the cold night time surface, when its tendency will be to rise strongly when hot. Obviously this atmosphere is going to be far hotter than our present atmosphere.
I thought you were talking about an atmosphere that did *not* emit/absorb electromagnetic radiation. If it was an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere with no "greenhouse" gases, you would get an inversion layer in the upper atmosphere (just like the Stratosphere in the real atmosphere) as the oxygen absorbs and emits in the UV spectrum very high in the atmosphere. This is *caused* by absorption/emission. The inversion layer would be stable because convection only works when you have heating at the bottom and cooling at the top, and it would be fed by absorption of UV radiation. If you don't believe me, just look up the reason for the inverted temperature profile in the stratosphere which is, BTW, well above the radiative "skin" which sets the temperature of the Earth's surface.
Most IR radiation would pass straight through the atmosphere in both directions, and hence the temperature of the surface of the earth would be about 253K, warmed up a little by some weak interaction of O2 with emitted IR near the surface.
If, on the other hand the atmosphere were helium, which does not interact in any significant way with ER because it is monatomic, the temperature at the surface would be 253K and the temperature would drop from there as you went upwards. How is the gas going to be heated above 253K? The temperature of the surface is 253k and the only way energy gets into the atmosphere is by conduction from the surface. If the temperature were to somehow rise above 253k it would be conducted back to the surface and emitted as IR which would pass straight through the atmosphere. Any energetic atoms that reach the top of the atmosphere disappear into space, taking their energy with them and giving you your second boundary condition of 4K.
But getting back to the real world, the mechanism by which increasing the concentration in the atmosphere of "greenhouse" gases increases the temperature at the Earth's surface is pretty uncontroversial and backed by the physics. Given that the increase in these gases is mostly anthropogenic, finding out that there was *no* AGW would be a very surprising result indeed.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off. --Gloria Steinem AREPS™
I thought you were talking about an atmosphere that did *not* emit/absorb electromagnetic radiation. If it was an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere with no "greenhouse" gases, you would get an inversion layer in the upper atmosphere (just like the Stratosphere in the real atmosphere) as the oxygen absorbs and emits in the UV spectrum very high in the atmosphere. This is *caused* by absorption/emission. The inversion layer would be stable because convection only works when you have heating at the bottom and cooling at the top, and it would be fed by absorption of UV radiation. If you don't believe me, just look up the reason for the inverted temperature profile in the stratosphere which is, BTW, well above the radiative "skin" which sets the temperature of the Earth's surface.
Most IR radiation would pass straight through the atmosphere in both directions, and hence the temperature of the surface of the earth would be about 253K, warmed up a little by some weak interaction of O2 with emitted IR near the surface.
If, on the other hand the atmosphere were helium, which does not interact in any significant way with ER because it is monatomic, the temperature at the surface would be 253K and the temperature would drop from there as you went upwards. How is the gas going to be heated above 253K? The temperature of the surface is 253k and the only way energy gets into the atmosphere is by conduction from the surface. If the temperature were to somehow rise above 253k it would be conducted back to the surface and emitted as IR which would pass straight through the atmosphere. Any energetic atoms that reach the top of the atmosphere disappear into space, taking their energy with them and giving you your second boundary condition of 4K.
But getting back to the real world, the mechanism by which increasing the concentration in the atmosphere of "greenhouse" gases increases the temperature at the Earth's surface is pretty uncontroversial and backed by the physics. Given that the increase in these gases is mostly anthropogenic, finding out that there was *no* AGW would be a very surprising result indeed.
It does not matter if i am talking about nitrogen or some mythical gas that is only different because it is not an absorber/emitter
these gases will be warmed by the earths warm surface
And only with difficulty will the warmed upper air mix with the colder air created at night.
By what mechanism are you claiming that a gas cannot be warmed by a warm solid just because it has zero absorption/emission???
What is the basis of you believing that???
miw
30 Nov 2012, 04:50 AM
How is the gas going to be heated above 253K? The temperature of the surface is 253k and the only way energy gets into the atmosphere is by conduction from the surface.
Sigh. It is very hot by day and very cold by night for an average temperature of 253
It is today 1500 degrees at the top of the atmosphere and only the very lightest of the gases are lost to space where in the highest levels of the atmosphere the atmosphere becomes layered by its components density and the top of the atmosphere is only limited by statistical probability of finding lighter particles rather than a finite boundary
It does not matter if i am talking about nitrogen or some mythical gas that is only different because it is not an absorber/emitter
It is today 1500 degrees at the top of the atmosphere and only the very lightest of the gases are lost to space where in the highest levels of the atmosphere the atmosphere becomes layered by its components density and the top of the atmosphere is only limited by statistical probability of finding lighter particles rather than a finite boundary
Nitrogen is an absorber/emitter, as is Oxygen. It emits and absorbs in the far UV and X-ray. That's why the Nitrogen (and Oxygen, which emits in the UV and IR ranges) are so hot in the very upper atmosphere. The reason why these molecules don't all just disappear into space is because they re-emit photons and lose their energy rather than escape. In other words, the radiative lapse rate drops to the point where the potential temperature is rising with height and convection shuts down. Note that for all intents and purposes this is outside the atmosphere. There are satellites and a space station in stable orbits in the thermosphere.
It is only 1500 degrees up there in the most theoretical sense. All that is saying that the very few molecules in the near space have a high average kinetic energy - as you would expect, because if they are up there it means they have absorbed a high-energy photon or two.
Quote:
these gases will be warmed by the earths warm surface
And only with difficulty will the warmed upper air mix with the colder air created at night.
So now we are back to an ideal gas that does not interact with EM, right? And now we have an approximately sinusoidal diurnal temperature variation. Your argument is that when the surface temperature drops below the temperature of the atmosphere, it will be taking heat out of the atmosphere and hence convection stops and we get an inversion layer. In the daytime, the surface of the earth heats up, somehow now heating the cold air until it is *hotter* than the air above it and that air gets sent up in a puff of convection, and since we have a gas that cannot cool off by emitting a photon, gradually the temperature of the upper atmosphere trends to infinity. A convection heat pump.
This is an interesting problem, because for a dry ideal gas, the potential temperature is constant with height and there is no radiative lapse rate - i.e. no tropopause. Either you will have convection out to infinity or you will have no convection at all.
In either case, you will still not get massive heating in the upper atmosphere.
a) In the case where convection happens to infinity, once you set a parcel of atmosphere to rising, it keeps rising forever - i.e. it leaves the atmosphere, wherever you want to put the edge of the atmosphere at - I guess where you reach a point where the attraction of the sun or the moon is greater than that of the Earth. Your atmosphere boils off, taking all that energy with it.
b) In the case where convection just shuts down, the energy gets trapped near the surface, and conducts back and forth between the surface in exactly equal amounts across the diurnal cycle.
My guess is that it is case (a) but it's just a guess.
Quote:
By what mechanism are you claiming that a gas cannot be warmed by a warm solid just because it has zero absorption/emission???
I'm not.
When you are finished posing interesting theoretical problems, maybe you could return to the planet we are on and stop avoiding the substantive issue:
But getting back to the real world, the mechanism by which increasing the concentration in the atmosphere of "greenhouse" gases increases the temperature at the Earth's surface is pretty uncontroversial and backed by the physics. Given that the increase in these gases is mostly anthropogenic, finding out that there was *no* AGW would be a very surprising result indeed.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off. --Gloria Steinem AREPS™
Nitrogen is an absorber/emitter, as is Oxygen. It emits and absorbs in the far UV and X-ray. That's why the Nitrogen (and Oxygen, which emits in the UV and IR ranges) are so hot in the very upper atmosphere. The reason why these molecules don't all just disappear into space is because they re-emit photons and lose their energy rather than escape. In other words, the radiative lapse rate drops to the point where the potential temperature is rising with height and convection shuts down. Note that for all intents and purposes this is outside the atmosphere. There are satellites and a space station in stable orbits in the thermosphere.
It is only 1500 degrees up there in the most theoretical sense. All that is saying that the very few molecules in the near space have a high average kinetic energy - as you would expect, because if they are up there it means they have absorbed a high-energy photon or two.
So now we are back to an ideal gas that does not interact with EM, right? And now we have an approximately sinusoidal diurnal temperature variation. Your argument is that when the surface temperature drops below the temperature of the atmosphere, it will be taking heat out of the atmosphere and hence convection stops and we get an inversion layer. In the daytime, the surface of the earth heats up, somehow now heating the cold air until it is *hotter* than the air above it and that air gets sent up in a puff of convection, and since we have a gas that cannot cool off by emitting a photon, gradually the temperature of the upper atmosphere trends to infinity. A convection heat pump.
This is an interesting problem, because for a dry ideal gas, the potential temperature is constant with height and there is no radiative lapse rate - i.e. no tropopause. Either you will have convection out to infinity or you will have no convection at all.
In either case, you will still not get massive heating in the upper atmosphere.
a) In the case where convection happens to infinity, once you set a parcel of atmosphere to rising, it keeps rising forever - i.e. it leaves the atmosphere, wherever you want to put the edge of the atmosphere at - I guess where you reach a point where the attraction of the sun or the moon is greater than that of the Earth. Your atmosphere boils off, taking all that energy with it.
b) In the case where convection just shuts down, the energy gets trapped near the surface, and conducts back and forth between the surface in exactly equal amounts across the diurnal cycle.
My guess is that it is case (a) but it's just a guess.
I'm not.
When you are finished posing interesting theoretical problems, maybe you could return to the planet we are on and stop avoiding the substantive issue:
But getting back to the real world, the mechanism by which increasing the concentration in the atmosphere of "greenhouse" gases increases the temperature at the Earth's surface is pretty uncontroversial and backed by the physics. Given that the increase in these gases is mostly anthropogenic, finding out that there was *no* AGW would be a very surprising result indeed.
So we seem to me making progress
1. You are agreeing that the mythical gas will not be at absolute zero?
2. You agree it will be cold by night and hot by day at the surface. Nasa says the equatorial moon is 134C by day and -153C by night
Therefore the atmosphere at altitudes of say 10 miles high is going to be much hotter than we have today where it is say -50C
However there is a chaotic turbulant process happening nearer the surface where hot and cold air are going to be mixing and convection is going to tend to prevent hot air descending to the very cold night time surface. It must be colder near the surface.
As far as i can see this part seems pretty straight forwards
The harder part is to work out to what degree the upper air can rise above 134C when the source of heating is at 5,500C.
I agree that convection cannot work if ordinary diffusion is moving the molecules about faster than small amounts of convection so it seems it could be boiling hot but not much hotter. This part though is not easy to work out (for me) because 134C is an average temperature where temperature represents an average measure of atomic excitation.
3. Returning to a regular mixture of oxygen nitrogen and argon you seem to want it all ways to your advantage. These gases are not in the ordinary sense of the word absorber emitters of any consequence. At the altitudes where oxygen molecules break down to oxygen atoms the density of the atmosphere is about 0.0001%. You agree there is bugger all up there. Molecular oxygen does produce a feint blue light but this is in the thermosphere where we do not have ordinary temperatures and there is bugger all up there.
Therefore a mixture of ordinary atmospheric gases is not going to be able to be significantly cooled (untill we add in the so called green house gases), unless the mixture rises to very high temperatures of say 300C when it begins more significantly emitting.
If we run the thought experiment using a regular mixture of gases it is a more interesting thought experiment than one that is mythical .
4. Your comments about the atmosphere boiling off have some validity because if the atmosphere was much hotter it would extend much further out and experience a much weaker gravitational field. However the fact is the gravitational field is still immensely strong at a distance of 240,000 miles where the moon orbits. It therefore becomes hard for particles to reach escape velocity but it is known the lighter elements do escape earths gravity where, as i said before, very high in the atmosphere where particles are not in touch with each other to cause random mixing, the elements are layered by atomic weight. Oxygen is one of the lower layers.
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy
