• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why Global Warming and Ozone depletion is not human caused.

FreeMason

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Where to begin? I suppose the utmost basics would suffice.

What is the Sun? Most of us would step into the light of summer and feel the heat and say, the Sun is hot, well, surprise, it's not. The Sun, like any other black body radiator, is defined to the rules that the hotter temperature the body, the shorter wavelength it emmits in the electromagnetic spectrum. To eliminate some of the confusion, basically the Sun emmits visible to gamma radiation. (Analogous to iron, which is also a black body radiator ... as is the Earth ... which as it heats up it goes from red, to orange, to yellow, to intense blue light which is often confused as white light).

The light that penetrates the atmosphere (which will later explain why Ozone depletion is a fabrication) is only intense (extremely intense) visible light, and about 5% of the actual gamma radiation that actually bombards the earth and etc.

Mostly, just very intense visible light (you know its intense because people go blind from looking at the Sun).

Intensity is merely the amplitude, but not the actual wavelength of the light.

Thermal radiation (that radiation longer than near-infrared) is not emmitted by the Sun.

Thermal radiation is the stuff that comes from ... well ... the Earth, and ovens, and microwaves, and etc.

Ok, not convinced enough that the Earth is not heated-up by thermal radiation?

Let's look at the Seasons.

When the Northern Hemisphere is in Summer, that portion of the world is receiving more direct visible light, and the Southern Hemisphere is receiving less visibile light as the light strikes that area more obliquely.

This is evidenced by the temperature changes...

Why does this happen?

Because the Earth is "fluorescent" to steal the word...which best explains the actions taking place. (A fluorescent object absorbs the energy of visible light or UVs especially, changing the orbits of an electron and that change in orbit emmits radiation, usually thermal or visible in light. This is not the complete definition but for the purposes here this is how it acts). The Earth absorbs the visible energy, so does numerous other things, plants, water, atmospheric gases, people and the things they make. The Earth then re-emmits the energy as thermal energy. Heat.

This is why when you face the Sun, the side facing it feels warm, that side of your body is hit by direct light and releasing that absorbed energy as thermal energy, heating itself up. This is why you do not feel the heat on the other side of your body. If you were to step into an oven, would you feel the heat only on the side of the elements? No. It does not matter which way your roast is oriented in an oven or microwave.

Frost, for instance, forms in shadows, because it does not absorb the visible light to then release it as heat energy.

Now, it should make sense that the seasons occur because of exposure to the Sun's visible and shorter wave-lengthed radiation.

Mostly visible because so little of the shorter wave-lengths reach the Earth's lower atmosphere.

Here's where the Global Warming theory falls apart. The theory predicts that human caused CO2 emissions are heating the Earth. This is easily refuted by another known fact, which comes from the observation of the Sun since 1600s.

Sunspots.

In 1957, more Sunspots were recorded than any other time prior or after.

Why is this significant? It is known that the intensity of solar radiation is proportional to the number of Sunspots. The more Sunspots, the more intense the radiation, the less, the less intense. In 1957, more Sunspots were recorded...than ever before or after, but afterwards, there are still a high number of Sunspots. That means that since 1957 the Earth has been receiving a greater amount of Solar Energy which it then releases as thermal energy, cooking itself. More visible light...more thermal energy. Global warming.

Some supportive evidence comes from back in the 1600s, when there were very few Sunspots being recorded, and some years there were none, and the 1600s-1700s saw a "mini-ice age" in which the River Thymes froze over solid, crops were ruined, and famine hit Europe.

This suggests that in fact, the commonsesnse interpretation, is correct. Solar activity affects Global temperature, and right now we have a hightend activity of the Sun...thus Global Warming.

Now, how does this affect Ozone?

Ozone is created and destroyed by Solar Radiation, specifically, UV but also shorter wave lengths. Oxygen is the source of creation of Ozone. When UV light strikes Oxygen, it is converted into 2O instead of O2 (that is 2 single atoms of Oxygen instead of the elemental binary it naturally forms because of energy efficiency). It is converted into 2O with about 90% efficiency. These single Oxygens are joined to a regular O2 and form O3 (Ozone). That process of formation absorbes UV light (protecting us from that spectrum of the Sun).

O3 is then bombarded by UV and is broken into a single Oxygen and O2. The process is reversed, and is about 95% efficient. This process absorbes the UV energy of the Sun.

When there is little sunlight (because the light is striking the Earth obliquely in the Winter) then there is Ozone depletion.

This is because O3 naturally decays and other elements produced naturally (by either volcanoes or other processes) decay O3.

So the long winters of the North and Southern poles allow for significant Ozone depletion (hence Ozone Holes).

The question may arise, "why then is the most significant hole in the Southern Pole so much more depleted than the Northern hole"?

The answer is not well understood, but the differences between the Northern and Southern poles (a huge landmass and lack there-of) is thought to hold the answer.

Certainly human produced CFCs are not all congregating at the South Pole.

Hopefully this lengthy explaination will have now awakend you to the reality.

Some unscrupulous Scientists push the idea of human caused Global Warming and Ozone holes, merely to get Grant money...or maybe because they actually believe in information contradictory to the evidence. Afterall, people used to deny the theory that the Earth revolved around the Sun.
 

Runar

New member
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Are you willing to bet your childrens and this planets future on that the warmer climate, storms hitting harder and more often, rising sea leves, melting of polar ice and glaciers have nothing at all to do with human interferance?

Wouldnt it be the smart thing to stop and think.."Hmm.. I dont think this is our fault,.. but what if it is.. what if all those thousands of scientists who claim it is, are correct... and the scientists and oil-companies I listen to are mistaken in our claims that we have our hands completely clean.."..

Someone famous has once said that is might be smart to think ahead and keep different paths open, just in case....What If.. in 5-10-15 years comes up solid evidence that you are mistaken in your claim.. but then it is too late to do anything.. wouldnt that suck big time?

If we cut down on polutions abit, choose to be abit cautious.. its never to late to change that path.. If in 5-10-15 years everyone agrees that human interferance has nothing to do with the warmer climate, then feel free to do whatever you want.. build more coal-powerplants, bigger and more fuel-hungry engines, dont recycle anything and let all Ozone-destroying gasses go straight out into the atmosphere..

Until then, I for one dont want us to risk wrecking everything, ruining our childrens lives and this planet.. Not when there are so much insecurity and different opinions on the matter.. and it really wont cost enormous amount of money to change to a more carefull path..
 
Last edited:

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Welcome to Debate Politics to both FreeMason & Runar!:2wave:

I am not privy to the details that stem from both sides of the issue and I
don't have a strong position...

But as far as "first posts" go, both are an excellent starting point "for" & "against" Global Warming...

I hope this thread encourages more people who know about the issue to speak their mind, and, hopefully, politics will not "rear its ugly head"...too much...

Welcome again...and enjoy your stay at Debate Politics!:2wave:

cnredd
Debate Politics Moderator
 

Runar

New member
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
cnredd, thanks for the welcome.:)

FreeMason, a couple of questions.

Do you denie that alot of manmade gasses like chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, and other ozone depleting substances (used in coolants, foaming agents, fire extinguishers, and solvents) does have a very negative effect on ozone?

Do you denie or dont belive that when these gasses when released in the atmosphere, may rise(they are lighter than air) up to the ozone-layer and interact(destroy) ozone? Many of these gasses act as catalysts, they arent destroyed in the process, but keep going and going and going..

It can be debated if the changes we have seen these past years are manmade or not, they are most deifinitively not all manmade, but can you firmly refuse to belive that we have had an impact on the ozone? There are always natural changes, but with the increase of use of these ozon-hostile gasses, we have seen a ozone-layer which has decreased alot.. You can also debate that proper numbers and measuring of the ozone-layer is something which hasnt been done more than for the past decade, and we really dont know what it was like 40-50-60 years ago.. and that is correct.. we dont know! Do you like to gamble?:)

Again my point, will you firmly stick to you belife that manmade gasses has nothing to do with it and let everyone release what they want into the air.. or shouldnt we rather be carefull and reduce/restrict/recycle just to be on the safe side...? Where is the harm in that?


What if the past days storm have been increased instrength due to manmade pollution during the last 50-100 years...would it have happened at all if we had reduced co2 and other gasses which can cause a wamer climate? Most likely, as these changes happen over time, a reduction the past years will take alot longer to kick in effect.. and we dont know, wont know for sure for ages.. I dont like to gamble, and I firmly belive the victims of late want either.. Noone knows for sure what the future will bring..at the moment everything is educated guesses..
 
Last edited:

Runar

New member
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
(forgot to put in the last sentence)

..why not play it safe?
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
306
Location
Geelong, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The world's climate does change. We know that because we are no longer in an ice age.

Our production of Carbon Dioxide wouldn't be so much of an issue, is we weren't cutting down the very organisms that act as a negative feedback.

Trees.

We are cutting down tropical hardwood forests at a fairly large rate. We are therefore reducing the ability of the planet to deal with the CO2 in the atmosphere. Secondly, eventhough photosyntheitic organisms can fix CO2 in our oceans, this plankton is sensitive to changes in the ocean's pH. Which in theory can change as CO2 is dissolved into carbonate.

If we are producing large amounts of CO2, then we need to have the ability to fix that in the form of biomass.
 

Runar

New member
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
An important point, just the release of more co2 isnt a problem in it self, a long as the buffer is intact...

I just have to put in a few comments to FreeMason.. Your so-called facts are facts yes, well known functions of the nature and universe, but the conclusion is...:roll:


In your previous post you list up alot of very good science on how the sun works.. good! But then you say..

"...so little of the shorter wave-lengths reach the Earth's lower atmosphere.

Here's where the Global Warming theory falls apart. The theory predicts that human caused CO2 emissions are heating the Earth."


Yes, you are correct that not much of the suns heat reaches earth, which is a very good thing. Without atmosphere and ozone, we would be fried crispy..

But then you say something which is not correct.. No one claims that CO2 heats the earth directly.. CO2 is a gas without any heat-emission..... CO2 however act as a greenhouse-gas, and prevents some of the heat from the sun to leave the atmosphere.. You do know that a greenhouse is warmer than outside, this is due to the glass that prevent some of the sunheat from radiating away..The same thing happens when the atmosphere get an increase % with co2. Without CO2 in the atmosphere, the world would have been ice-cold..the first co2 emissions from the beginning of life was what started the heating of the world and made it liveable... and with to much co2we get a hotter world...There has to be a balance to everything, and with the Industrial revolution the consumtion of fossile fuels exploded and so did co2 emisson. It takes a long time to change the heat of a world, and after 1-200 years we are starting to notice the changes.(possible changes, nothing confrimed 100%).. It will be just a hard and take as long time to slow down though..!!

Back to your stuff..:roll:

And then you come with more good facts, nothing however which deny the fact that co2 and other manmade greenhouse gasses take part in the global warming.. and then you claim this is a evidence correct in this, but noone I know or have heard about claims this either)

"This is easily refuted by another known fact, which comes from the observation of the Sun since 1600s.

Sunspots.

In 1957, more Sunspots were recorded than any other time prior or after.

Why is this significant? It is known that the intensity of solar radiation is proportional to the number of Sunspots. The more Sunspots, the more intense the radiation, the less, the less intense. In 1957, more Sunspots were recorded...than ever before or after, but afterwards, there are still a high number of Sunspots. That means that since 1957 the Earth has been receiving a greater amount of Solar Energy which it then releases as thermal energy, cooking itself. More visible light...more thermal energy. Global warming.

Some supportive evidence comes from back in the 1600s, when there were very few Sunspots being recorded, and some years there were none, and the 1600s-1700s saw a "mini-ice age" in which the River Thymes froze over solid, crops were ruined, and famine hit Europe."

......................................................

Lets take a closer look at what you are saying.. The started registering a lot of solar activity in 1957.. OK.. and then you say that "some" supportive evidence from back in 1600 state that very few sunspots were observed.. And this is supposed to be evidence that there were none?

Do you have any historical knowledge at all? In the 1600 most people were farmers, and those living in cities has none or very little knowledge about such things..People still believed one could cure inflammations by draining blood..

Noone claims that there are no changes in sun-flares.. but you cant conclude that the warmer climate is due to sun-flares.. What equipment do you think they had back around year 1600 compared to 1957? comparing both equipment and numbers form 1600 with those from 1957 is like comparing night and day.. Its worthless..

And.. the industrail revolution started around 1750, so there were no big emmissions of CO2 back then.. Sun-flares, or the lack of thos might have somethign to do with frozen rivers etc. during the 1600. This is no evidence against human-made global warming.:)

It was only after 1800 that the consumption of fossile fuel exploded for real.. and that means 200 years of an enourmous steady increase in CO2 release..


But, we cannot disregarded your point completely.. the lack of evidence/numbers is not any proof in itself.. Once again, we don't know for sure.. Everything is educated guesses..

...just don't come up with fake "evidence" and misinformation like this please..:) If you want to look at facts, pick the correc tones and dont make up the ones you "need".

If we have a global warming situation, which it may seem like, it has taken atleast 200 years to come to a point where it is noticeable..(alot due to lack of measuering and interest in this).. It will be just as hard to stop this.. You may argue as much as you want.. we still have no 100% conclusive proof.. are you willing to gamble on your childrens/grandchildren and the planets future that you are correct? and if so, What/who gives you the right to do so?
 
Last edited:

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Where are your sun temperature figures for the last century or two ?
The watts per square metre hitting the earth will approximately be proportional to the cube of this figure.
It's easy to demonstrate CO2 & Methane absorb more IR than N2 or O2 by shining a beam of IR through them in a lab, so how can there possibly not be global warming due to the greenhouse effect from the rising levels of these gasses since the start of the industrial revolution ?

Ironically if what you say is true about the sun's temperature warming, then two warming effects are worse than one, it's so all the more important that we minimise warming from the warming effect we have some control over !

Besides... where the stakes are so incredibly high, we best err on the side of caution. If we get runaway global warming then that's our lot.
We won't even be around to have the privilege of considering it !
 
Last edited:

Stu Ghatze

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
FreeMason said:
Where to begin? I suppose the utmost basics would suffice.

What is the Sun? Most of us would step into the light of summer and feel the heat and say, the Sun is hot, well, surprise, it's not. The Sun, like any other black body radiator, is defined to the rules that the hotter temperature the body, the shorter wavelength it emmits in the electromagnetic spectrum. To eliminate some of the confusion, basically the Sun emmits visible to gamma radiation. (Analogous to iron, which is also a black body radiator ... as is the Earth ... which as it heats up it goes from red, to orange, to yellow, to intense blue light which is often confused as white light).

The light that penetrates the atmosphere (which will later explain why Ozone depletion is a fabrication) is only intense (extremely intense) visible light, and about 5% of the actual gamma radiation that actually bombards the earth and etc.

Mostly, just very intense visible light (you know its intense because people go blind from looking at the Sun).

Intensity is merely the amplitude, but not the actual wavelength of the light.

Thermal radiation (that radiation longer than near-infrared) is not emmitted by the Sun.

Thermal radiation is the stuff that comes from ... well ... the Earth, and ovens, and microwaves, and etc.

Ok, not convinced enough that the Earth is not heated-up by thermal radiation?

Let's look at the Seasons.

When the Northern Hemisphere is in Summer, that portion of the world is receiving more direct visible light, and the Southern Hemisphere is receiving less visibile light as the light strikes that area more obliquely.

This is evidenced by the temperature changes...

Why does this happen?

Because the Earth is "fluorescent" to steal the word...which best explains the actions taking place. (A fluorescent object absorbs the energy of visible light or UVs especially, changing the orbits of an electron and that change in orbit emmits radiation, usually thermal or visible in light. This is not the complete definition but for the purposes here this is how it acts). The Earth absorbs the visible energy, so does numerous other things, plants, water, atmospheric gases, people and the things they make. The Earth then re-emmits the energy as thermal energy. Heat.

This is why when you face the Sun, the side facing it feels warm, that side of your body is hit by direct light and releasing that absorbed energy as thermal energy, heating itself up. This is why you do not feel the heat on the other side of your body. If you were to step into an oven, would you feel the heat only on the side of the elements? No. It does not matter which way your roast is oriented in an oven or microwave.

Frost, for instance, forms in shadows, because it does not absorb the visible light to then release it as heat energy.

Now, it should make sense that the seasons occur because of exposure to the Sun's visible and shorter wave-lengthed radiation.

Mostly visible because so little of the shorter wave-lengths reach the Earth's lower atmosphere.

Here's where the Global Warming theory falls apart. The theory predicts that human caused CO2 emissions are heating the Earth. This is easily refuted by another known fact, which comes from the observation of the Sun since 1600s.

Sunspots.

In 1957, more Sunspots were recorded than any other time prior or after.

Why is this significant? It is known that the intensity of solar radiation is proportional to the number of Sunspots. The more Sunspots, the more intense the radiation, the less, the less intense. In 1957, more Sunspots were recorded...than ever before or after, but afterwards, there are still a high number of Sunspots. That means that since 1957 the Earth has been receiving a greater amount of Solar Energy which it then releases as thermal energy, cooking itself. More visible light...more thermal energy. Global warming.

Some supportive evidence comes from back in the 1600s, when there were very few Sunspots being recorded, and some years there were none, and the 1600s-1700s saw a "mini-ice age" in which the River Thymes froze over solid, crops were ruined, and famine hit Europe.

This suggests that in fact, the commonsesnse interpretation, is correct. Solar activity affects Global temperature, and right now we have a hightend activity of the Sun...thus Global Warming.

Now, how does this affect Ozone?

Ozone is created and destroyed by Solar Radiation, specifically, UV but also shorter wave lengths. Oxygen is the source of creation of Ozone. When UV light strikes Oxygen, it is converted into 2O instead of O2 (that is 2 single atoms of Oxygen instead of the elemental binary it naturally forms because of energy efficiency). It is converted into 2O with about 90% efficiency. These single Oxygens are joined to a regular O2 and form O3 (Ozone). That process of formation absorbes UV light (protecting us from that spectrum of the Sun).

O3 is then bombarded by UV and is broken into a single Oxygen and O2. The process is reversed, and is about 95% efficient. This process absorbes the UV energy of the Sun.

When there is little sunlight (because the light is striking the Earth obliquely in the Winter) then there is Ozone depletion.

This is because O3 naturally decays and other elements produced naturally (by either volcanoes or other processes) decay O3.

So the long winters of the North and Southern poles allow for significant Ozone depletion (hence Ozone Holes).

The question may arise, "why then is the most significant hole in the Southern Pole so much more depleted than the Northern hole"?

The answer is not well understood, but the differences between the Northern and Southern poles (a huge landmass and lack there-of) is thought to hold the answer.

Certainly human produced CFCs are not all congregating at the South Pole.

Hopefully this lengthy explaination will have now awakend you to the reality.

Some unscrupulous Scientists push the idea of human caused Global Warming and Ozone holes, merely to get Grant money...or maybe because they actually believe in information contradictory to the evidence. Afterall, people used to deny the theory that the Earth revolved around the Sun.




Excellent post! I wonder how much fossil fuels early cro-magnon man was guilty of polluting that "must" have created the ice ages with such a small human population..?;) And then afterwards the climate became warmer?

Not to mention that 1-serious volcano eruption pollutes the atmosphere more than all the pollution created by automobiles!

Mankind is very capable of polluting waterways & air etc; ..but to the extent of changing the climate is very debateable, as the earth is always in constant change.

Amazing as to how America gets most of the blame, ..yet it is america that knows how, & does make the corrections of filtering water that was once bad, & recycling it & even exporting our technology on how to clean up, & improve the environment, ..yet the developing nations were exempted from much of the same demands that were made upon America of the Kyoto agreement.
 

Runar

New member
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stu Ghatze said:
Excellent post! I wonder how much fossil fuels early cro-magnon man was guilty of polluting that "must" have created the ice ages with such a small human population..?;) And then afterwards the climate became warmer?

Not to mention that 1-serious volcano eruption pollutes the atmosphere more than all the pollution created by automobiles!

Mankind is very capable of polluting waterways & air etc; ..but to the extent of changing the climate is very debateable, as the earth is always in constant change.

Amazing as to how America gets most of the blame, ..yet it is america that knows how, & does make the corrections of filtering water that was once bad, & recycling it & even exporting our technology on how to clean up, & improve the environment, ..yet the developing nations were exempted from much of the same demands that were made upon America of the Kyoto agreement.


You have a good point with the previous ice-age.. of course there are natural changes, and we are likely to experience a new ice-age also..that is if there are no globalman made warming...

Noone claims that there are no naturmade changes.. it is the speed of this current one which draws attention, the past 10-20 years there have been a rise in temperature on several degrees many places.... None of the previous changes with ice-age etc. have happened this quickly as far as we know..

There are enormous quantities of oil and coal which are beeing used every day, and the volume is increasing steadily... a large volcano eruption will send out more on a one-time blow.. but that doesnt happen very often(50-100 years between) so on the grand scheme.. manmade co2 during the past 200 years should outweight volcanos by a good margine.:)

America is by far the largest consumer of oil in the world..and have been for a long time.. and the ones with the most arrogant attitude towards global attempts to come to an agreement.. Bush is in complete denial that global warming this even might be a slight possibility..

Fair enough that Usa might be good at technology in cleaning up polution...but this is local easy to see/clean polution.. Can you mention one effort Usa has made to better the climate on a global scale?
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The population of primitive man was a few million compared to 6 billion now.
Just becuase there may be another cause to global warming in the form of sun warming, it wouldn't mean greenhouse warming isn't also taking place.
Proving something can be caused by one thing doesn't proof there are not also other simultaneous causes.
It's flawed logic to assume one cause negates all others.
Where is your evidence to show CFC's don't destroy ozone ?
 
Last edited:

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
cutting down on pollution could potentially solve one thing and solves another.

It could potentially solve global warming (if, indeed, we are causing it)

but it will stop the hydroxl collapse.
 

ILikeDubyah

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
Location
Phx
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I've read/seen on TV documentaries that there is only a difference of 7 degrees between what the present temperatures on earth are and a full on ice age. Also, I think it was within the next 10 billion years the sun is going to explode into a supernova and engulf the earth, but before that, since we're on an eliptical orbit with the sun & not a circular one, within the next few tens of thousands of years the temp on the earth will naturally gradualy keep rising..eventually hot enough to kill everything on the planet...But.If we get to a point where it's only consistantly 7 degrees hotter, we're in another ice age. Also, Also, every morning when you wake up, there's a 1 on 20,000 chance that the earth will be hit by an asteroid large enough to end at least 60 % of all life on the planet.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
ILikeDubyah said:
I've read/seen on TV documentaries that there is only a difference of 7 degrees between what the present temperatures on earth are and a full on ice age. Also, I think it was within the next 10 billion years the sun is going to explode into a supernova and engulf the earth, but before that, since we're on an eliptical orbit with the sun & not a circular one, within the next few tens of thousands of years the temp on the earth will naturally gradualy keep rising..eventually hot enough to kill everything on the planet...But.If we get to a point where it's only consistantly 7 degrees hotter, we're in another ice age. Also, Also, every morning when you wake up, there's a 1 on 20,000 chance that the earth will be hit by an asteroid large enough to end at least 60 % of all life on the planet.
1 in 20,000? You wanna rethink that number? What that means is that there is almost a 100% chance of a major asteroid hit every 55 years....
 

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
its 1 in 25,000 chance that an asteriod large enough to wipe out a city the size of london...

Not wipe out 60 percent of the world...
 

ILikeDubyah

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
Location
Phx
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
128shot said:
its 1 in 25,000 chance that an asteriod large enough to wipe out a city the size of london...

Not wipe out 60 percent of the world...

aaah...my mistake...still pretty impressive.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Astrogeologists have determined that during the last 600 million years, the Earth has been struck by 60 objects of a diameter of five kilometers or more. So that's one large, city flattening asteroid ever 10 million years, right? The chance that another one happens this year is one in 10 million. I don't even want to figure out what it is each day...
 

ILikeDubyah

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
Location
Phx
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kelzie said:
Astrogeologists have determined that during the last 600 million years, the Earth has been struck by 60 objects of a diameter of five kilometers or more. So that's one large, city flattening asteroid ever 10 million years, right? The chance that another one happens this year is one in 10 million. I don't even want to figure out what it is each day...
It's statistics, not facts. Based on the # of asteroids soaring through the universe, the chances they have of knocking into something, or each other, and being put on a course to collide with the Earth. There are millions of asteroids between Mars & Jupiter alone...each one of those has a chance, just as the possibly billions of asteroids throughout the rest of the universe.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
ILikeDubyah said:
It's statistics, not facts. Based on the # of asteroids soaring through the universe, the chances they have of knocking into something, or each other, and being put on a course to collide with the Earth. There are millions of asteroids between Mars & Jupiter alone...each one of those has a chance, just as the possibly billions of asteroids throughout the rest of the universe.
Huh. I think my number's more accurate. Based on probablity instead.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sorry, but pseudoscience is not a substitute for real science. You talk about going back to the basics, but then bob and weave around them. Here are the hard facts, which you can glean from almost any college level textbook on chemistry:

The key to ozone depletion is the photolysis, or light-induced rupture, of a chlorine-carbon valence bond. Although CFC's are very stable compounds at the Earth's surface, at high altitudes they are broken down by light in the 190-225nm range to form a fragment plus a free chlorine atom.
1) CFxCl4-x + hv —> CFx Cl3-x + Cl
The fragment may be broken down further to form still more free chlorine atoms. Since chlorine is very reactive, it readily combines with ozone to form chlorine monoxide and diatomic oxygen.
2) Cl + O3 —> ClO + O2
Chlorine monoxide then combines with a single atom of oxygen to form diatomic oxygen and, in doing so, once again frees the chlorine atom to do it's dirty work all over again.
3) ClO + O —> Cl + O2
Repeat 2) Repeat 3)
Repeat 2) Repeat 3) ...etc, etc, etc.
Because the atom of chlorine is unchanged in the above reactions, we say that it is acting as a catalyst. In this way, one atom of chlorine is capable of destroying between 100,000 and 700,000 molecules of ozone!
The link is from part of an article that I put up on my company's website. The facts I got for the article were from the textbook "Foundations in Chemistry". It pays to keep your old books after you graduate. :)
 

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think the real issue I have with pollution is hydroxl collapse.

If you want a better summary google it, but here is mine.

The hydroxl collapse is this. You know those things that clean up smog and other pollutants before they come down in the ocean and as acid rain? Those little things are called hydroxls. Now, when these little babys come in contact with certain pollutants, they, disappear, and never come back. Without enough hydroxls, we'd have the mother of all smog on our hands...

You know what the funny thing is though?

In order to replenish hydroxls, you need to deplete the ozone layer, which is currently closing back up.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
128shot said:
I think the real issue I have with pollution is hydroxl collapse.

If you want a better summary google it, but here is mine.

The hydroxl collapse is this. You know those things that clean up smog and other pollutants before they come down in the ocean and as acid rain? Those little things are called hydroxls. Now, when these little babys come in contact with certain pollutants, they, disappear, and never come back. Without enough hydroxls, we'd have the mother of all smog on our hands...

You know what the funny thing is though?

In order to replenish hydroxls, you need to deplete the ozone layer, which is currently closing back up.
I would like to see a link on that. Meanwhile, I will give you a link to a mainstream scientific article which states that its relation to troposperic ozone levels and global warming are still a mystery.

However, ozone depletion is not a mystery. It is proven science.

Also, hydroxyl radicals do not eat pollution. They combine "with things like sulfur dioxide and dimethylsulfide to form compounds like sulfuric acid and methanesulfonic acid, These have been the most likely candidates to either form new particles or to grow preexisting particles into larger particles that eventually become condensation nuclei in clouds."

hydroxyl radicals help to produce raindrops, and as we all know, it is rain that cleanses the atmosphere.

Still, there is no hard evidence yet to suggest that ozone production rids the atmosphere of hydroxyl radicals in significant numbers, but to the contrary, the evidence suggests that 2 factors are likely to contribute to their diminishing amounts.

1) Pollution itself - Since hydroxyl radicals combine with sulfer dioxide and other man-made pollutants, too much pollution can overwhelm them.

2) Lack of sunlight - Hydroxyl radicals are formed by sunlight. More clouds mean fewer Hydroxyls, and global warming itself ultimately contributes to more clouds, since more water vapor is in the atmosphere as a whole, although there are regional differences to consider too.

Finally, global warming and ozone depletion are not that tightly correlated. CFC's and other chlorine containing substances contribute to the breakdown of the ozone layer, whereas emissions containing carbon and/or sulphur contribute to global warming. If you got rid of all CFC's in the world in an instant, you would still have global warming, as a result of emissions. If emissions are high enough, they could easily overwhelm Hydroxyl radical production in the atmosphere. The result would be fewer clouds, which in itself would contribute to more Hydroxyl radical production (more sunlight), but to what extent would production be completely overwhelmed to the point at which the benefit of more sunlight ceases to be a benefit? Scientists dont know this yet, but should have an answer in the not too distant future.
 
Last edited:

128shot

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
1,258
Reaction score
31
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
He explained it way better than I did.


Seeing as I didn't have all my information togethor..
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
robin said:
Nice description there of how CFC's do deplete upper atmosphere ozone levels
AS regards global warming... even if the sun is warming.. that doesn't mean greenhouse warming is not also taking place !
The Bushneviks can spin it all they want, but the facts on greenhouse warming will never go away. The correlation between greenhouse gasses and global warming has been established for decades, by virtue of the nature of carbon itself. Carbon gasses allow uv rays to pass but block infrared. uv rays pass through the atmosphere and infrared is created when the uv rays hit the earth. Its a very simple mechanism. Simply put, if more carbon gasses are emitted into the air, the air will trap more heat. Man-made activity is creating billions of tons of carbon based gasses. Doesnt take a rocket scientist to connect the dots. Bush's pseudoscientists can talk around this fact all they want, but the fact will always remain.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom