[W: #839] Bad news: possible 10 foot sea rise within a decade

[osinneins]

You clearly do not know anything about ozone if you think the ozone holes were caused by human activities.

In order to create ozone you need molecular oxygen and ultraviolet radiation. When the sun is not shinning there is no ozone production. Guess where the sun does not shine for 90 days at a time? Over the poles during their respective Winters. Which is why there are always ozone holes over the Antarctic in September, and over the Arctic in February. The sun will not start shinning again over the Arctic Circle until January 22, 2022. So you can certainly expect to find no ozone production until that time.

It has absolutely nothing to do with human activity. Those ozone holes existed for millions of years before humans even appeared on the scene, and they will continue to appear long after humans are a distant memory.

You better get on the phone to NOAA right this second!

https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2010/twentyquestions/Q10.pdf

 

[Glitch]

It is a fair point in a regular conversation among non-scientists. Real scientists usually understand that ppmv is a concentration term and not a rate term. Certainly not a time rate term.

The ppmV is merely a unit of measurement, nothing more. I could have said 0.00415% and it would have been the exact same thing.

Not really. That's because ppmv is NOT limited in any way to single year.

Thanks for demonstrating that you are being deliberately obtuse. Everyone on the planet, except for you, understands it to be an annual unit of measurement.

It is a CONCENTRATION term. In fact if one were to drop any explicit mention of time it would be wholly irrational and incredibly wrong to simply assume there is a time component to a concentration term.

It is not a concentration term, it is a unit a measurement. Like a teaspoon, or a mile, or a pound, or a percentage. It does not concentrate anything, you are simply trolling now because you cannot refute anything I've posted.

 

[Glitch]

You better get on the phone to NOAA right this second!

https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2010/twentyquestions/Q10.pdf

Both NOAA and NASA are already aware of those facts. It is you who is clearly ignorant here.

 

[osinneins]

The ppmV is merely a unit of measurement, nothing more.

a measurement of CONCENTRATION.

I could have said 0.00415% and it would have been the exact same thing.

And, again, that's not a time rate in the present discussion. It is a concentration.

Thanks for demonstrating that you are being deliberately obtuse. Everyone on the planet, except for you, understands it to be an annual unit of measurement.

Nope, I tried googling something like "How much Ar is in the atmosphere" and the first hit, THE FIRST ONE gave me the value in ppmv.

Not a rate. Not a time term at all.

CO2 concentration in the atmosphere can also be expressed in terms of ppmv. And that can EASILY mean the concentration and not the annual flux.

It is not a concentration term, it is a unit a measurement.

Are you joking? ppmv is a measurement of CONCENTRATION.

Like a teaspoon, or a mile, or a pound, or a percentage.

Yeah, and "teaspoon, mile, pound" are NOT time-based terms.

It does not concentrate anything, you are simply trolling now because you cannot refute anything I've posted.

You're surely joking now. (Please do not call people "Trolls" on here, it is against the rules)

 

[osinneins]

Both NOAA and NASA are already aware of those facts. It is you who is clearly ignorant here.

Is that why the article I posted explicitly says:

" The severe depletion of stratospheric ozone in late winter and early spring in the Antarctic is known as the “ozone hole” (see Q11). The ozone hole first appeared over Antarctica because atmospheric and chemical conditions unique to this region increase the effectiveness of ozone destruction by reactive halogen gases (see Q8). In addition to an abundance of these reactive gases, the formation of the Antarctic ozone hole requires temperatures low enough to form polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs), isolation from air in other stratospheric regions, and sunlight."

Now, note, I'm not saying that there are no halogenated naturally occuring chemicals but this points to a very human-dominated thing.

I'd be glad to look at any references you have on the topic, though.

 

[Glitch]

Natural CO2, yes to some extent. The problem is we are releasing CO2 that nature has sequestered long ago. At a far faster rate than it took to sequester it.

So? How does that make it unnatural?

Do not volcanoes also release large quantities of CO2 that nature has sequestered long ago? How are we any less "natural" than volcanoes when we both originate from the same planet? Or are you one those arrogant people who think humans are somehow above nature?

The sinks are real close to the sources, before we started burning the CO2 sequestered in oil.

The carbon sinks are everywhere, but primarily the oceans. Which is also the largest contributor to atmospheric CO2. Since we are talking about atmospheric gases, proximity to a carbon sink has nothing to do with anything. Last time I checked the atmosphere moves. We call it "wind."

I understand that you don't fully understand the frailty of the balance.

I understand the carbon cycle. What I don't understand is the arrogance people have to think that their molecules are somehow special and immune to the natural process.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Is that why the article I posted explicitly says:

" The severe depletion of stratospheric ozone in late winter and early spring in the Antarctic is known as the “ozone hole” (see Q11). The ozone hole first appeared over Antarctica because atmospheric and chemical conditions unique to this region increase the effectiveness of ozone destruction by reactive halogen gases (see Q8). In addition to an abundance of these reactive gases, the formation of the Antarctic ozone hole requires temperatures low enough to form polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs), isolation from air in other stratospheric regions, and sunlight."

Now, note, I'm not saying that there are no halogenated naturally occuring chemicals but this points to a very human-dominated thing.

I'd be glad to look at any references you have on the topic, though.

Doesn't the magnetic polarity also play a part?

I forget, but I think it does.

 

[osinneins]

Doesn't the magnetic polarity also play a part?

I forget, but I think it does.

There are obviously natural things which affect this. But the key is that it appears to be a combination unique to this part of the globe that allows man-made chemicals like CFC's to be extremely effective in ozone depletion.

Like I said, I'm sure there are natural sources for fluorinated hydrocarbons which may affect things like this, but I'm pretty sure that humans are among the leading (or were) emitters of the ozone-destroying chemicals. I don't know where @Glitch got the information about it always happening naturally or some such. I was hoping he'd provide some data to support that claim. I'd be interested in reading it.

 

[osinneins]

Do not volcanoes also release large quantities of CO2 that nature has sequestered long ago?

Humans currently emit 90X the amount of CO2 annually as volcanoes do.

How are we any less "natural" than volcanoes when we both originate from the same planet? Or are you one those arrogant people who think humans are somehow above nature?

At 90X the amount of volcanoes we seem to be putting nature in the backseat.

I understand the carbon cycle. What I don't understand is the arrogance people have to think that their molecules are somehow special and immune to the natural process.

Then you aren't understanding what is being said to you.

 

[Glitch]

Doesn't the magnetic polarity also play a part?

I forget, but I think it does.

Just to be clear for the trolls out there, we are talking about the ozone layer in the atmosphere that essentially separates the troposphere from the stratosphere. Not the ozone produced at the ground layer that is commonly referred to as "smog."

There is nothing magnetic about oxygen or ozone. It is part of the oxygen-ozone cycle, in which ultraviolet light plays a key component.

O2 + UV -> 2 O
O + O2 <-> O3

When the sun is not shining there can be no molecular oxygen to bond with oxygen, and therefore no ozone can be produced. It also explains, along with a rotating planet, why the ozone layer is the thickest at the equator and thinnest at both poles. The ozone holes at either pole never last very long. When the sun starts shinning again and ozone production begins again the ozone holes are filled in rather quickly.

 

[Craig234]

Except you are assuming they have checked the other parts, they have not!

Yes, they have. That's exactly the info in the two articles I posted. "Giant fractures in the floating ice of Antarctica’s massive Thwaites Glacier — a fast-melting formation that has become an icon of climate change — could shatter part of the shelf within five years, research suggests."

 

[Craig234]

There are obviously natural things which affect this.

Arguing with climate deniers is like saying, "there's a guy with a gun shooting people we should take action on", and they say "hey, nature has lightning hit people all the time, that's the bigger threat".

 

[longview]

Yes, they have. That's exactly the info in the two articles I posted. "Giant fractures in the floating ice of Antarctica’s massive Thwaites Glacier — a fast-melting formation that has become an icon of climate change — could shatter part of the shelf within five years, research suggests."

So you have a citation of more boreholes and inspections?

 

[Craig234]

So you have a citation of more boreholes and inspections?

Yes, I have one more than yours. The side with a leak, the one with the cracks disappearing that can lead to a ten foot sea rise. If you find one part of the ship's deck that will lead to the ship sinking, you don't say "ya, but are there more?"

 

[osinneins]

O2 + UV -> 2 O
O + O2 <-> O3

I'm impressed. Good find! Where did you google this set of equations? It reads like a real homolytic bond cleavage scheme.

If you want to look REALLY science-y try replacing the "UV" with "h*nu". That's how scientists reference a photon of energy in a chemical reaction. Also don't forget to include the unpaired electrons from the homolytic bond cleave as well. That will get more points. Pro-tip FYI.

When the sun is not shining there can be no molecular oxygen to bond with oxygen, and therefore no ozone can be produced. It also explains, along with a rotating planet, why the ozone layer is the thickest at the equator and thinnest at both poles. The ozone holes at either pole never last very long. When the sun starts shinning again and ozone production begins again the ozone holes are filled in rather quickly.

Well, you got where and how ozone is formed. But you seem to act like the ozone hole is somehow a common occurrence throughout geologic history. Do you have any evidence for that?

 

[Havana Moon]

More climate hysteria, it never ends!!

'Doomsday Glacier' may be more stable than initially feared

The world's largest ice sheets may be in less danger of sudden collapse than previously predicted, according to new findings led by the University of Michigan.

phys.org

 

[Havana Moon]

More climate hysteria, it never ends!!

'Doomsday Glacier' may be more stable than initially feared

The world's largest ice sheets may be in less danger of sudden collapse than previously predicted, according to new findings led by the University of Michigan.

phys.org

 

[longview]

Yes, I have one more than yours. The side with a leak, the one with the cracks disappearing that can lead to a ten foot sea rise. If you find one part of the ship's deck that will lead to the ship sinking, you don't say "ya, but are there more?"

So where is the citation?

 

[Craig234]

So where is the citation?

I linked two articles, are you trolling?

 

[psikeyhackr]

What is climate hysteria?

Is it something you catch after your house burns down in a wildfire, or you have to stop growing crops because there is not enough water in Lake Mead.

It is uncertain how bad things will get how fast. But millions if not billions of lives and livelihoods can depend on this.

What disturbs me is scientists making a big deal about CO2 for the last 25 years but not saying squat about planned obsolescence now or for the last 50 years. But now economic policies are supposed to be developed to handle climate change.

 

[longview]

I linked two articles, are you trolling?

What post number, did you link to two articles related to freezing or melting conditions observed on the underside of ice shelves?

 

[osinneins]

That discounts the IPCC et. al.

What examples do you have of the IPCC misusing language?

 

[psikeyhackr]

More climate hysteria, it never ends!!

'Doomsday Glacier' may be more stable than initially feared

The world's largest ice sheets may be in less danger of sudden collapse than previously predicted, according to new findings led by the University of Michigan.

phys.org

For those wondering about hysteria try this at 8 minutes:



Of course scientists have no idea what they are talking about.

So the Frying Twenties should settle the issue, after it is too late of course.

 

[longview]

I linked two articles, are you trolling?

If you had, it would be easy for you to say which post number your supposed citations happened!

 

[Craig234]

What disturbs me is scientists making a big deal about CO2 for the last 25 years but not saying squat about planned obsolescence now or for the last 50 years. But now economic policies are supposed to be developed to handle climate change.

I'm not quite sure what your point is about planned obsolescence and economic policies.