Why Global Warming and Ozone depletion is not human caused.

[AlbqOwl]

The National Academy of Sciences along with 10 other leading world bodies, a group that is about as unbiased as one could get, released a report that stated the following:

“There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring" and that "It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities".

I will take the National Academy of Sciences over some politicians, Limbaugh, and The Hertitage Institute any day.

That is as clear as science generally gets on anything. Nothing is an absolute certainty, but I find it very hard to believe that the vast majority of the scientific community is wrong about this. There is a great deal of misinformation circulating around by some on the extreme right and industry funded groups.

You can read the release here:

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Moreover, I don’t think we are talking about huge changes to ones life. Anytime that we have mandated changes for environmental, safety, or national security purposes, innovation has always paved the way for society to adapt and the economy has always continued to prosper. The problem is without government intervention, there is no real incentive for industries to innovate in this area.

People have to understand that while there have been climatic changes on our planet before, the natural causes for those changes are well understood. In the case of Global Warming, there is no way to accuratly model the warming on natural causes alone.

There are many factors at work; that's for sure. And it is for that reason, I want solid evidence that it is necessary to make those sweeping changes you mention. As to the 'unbiased' part. No, I don't agree that all those opinion are from unbiased perspectives nor pure motives.

You really ought to look to other than Rush Limbaugh for your sources.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

There are many factors at work; that's for sure. And it is for that reason, I want solid evidence that it is necessary to make those sweeping changes you mention. As to the 'unbiased' part. No, I don't agree that all those opinion are from unbiased perspectives nor pure motives.

You really ought to look to other than Rush Limbaugh for your sources.

I dont look to Limbaugh, I mean, I was mocking him by saying that the opinions of actual scientists outweigh his. In fact, I cant stand Limbaugh.

There will never be "Solid Evidence". There is no solid evidence for most scientific theories. However, there is concensus, and that is usually as good as it gets.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I dont look to Limbaugh, I mean, I was mocking him by saying that the opinions of actual scientists outweigh his. In fact, I cant stand Limbaugh.

There will never be "Solid Evidence". There is no solid evidence for most scientific theories. However, there is concensus, and that is usually as good as it gets.

I just figured since you brought up Limbaugh, you must listen to him a lot. I didn't bring up Limbaugh.

Consensus based on bad science is no better than consensus based on fuzzy thinking or consensus based on prejudice. Again, there have been precious few studies done and the 'consensus' can just as easily be concurrence out of political or social or economic expediency rather than a reasoned conclusion. Both scientistic types and media hacks employ that technique a lot.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I just figured since you brought up Limbaugh, you must listen to him a lot. I didn't bring up Limbaugh.

Consensus based on bad science is no better than consensus based on fuzzy thinking or consensus based on prejudice. Again, there have been precious few studies done and the 'consensus' can just as easily be concurrence out of political or social or economic expediency rather than a reasoned conclusion. Both scientistic types and media hacks employ that technique a lot.

Not just a few studies, Global Warming has been studied to death. In fact, for almost 20 years Climatologists have been saying the same thing. Moreover, every prediction they have made so far has happened. Concensus is all that you can have. For example, it is the scientific concensus that the earth is several billion years old. There are however, a few "scientists" who claim the earth is only 12,000 years old. If we were to use your logic, one could easily cast out the scientific concensus there as well.

If this was bad science, considering the shear number of studies that have been done, you would think that the majority of scientists would have dismissed it by now. However, just the opposite is occuring.

 

[teacher]

Where to begin? I suppose the utmost basics would suffice.

Nicely done. But the real question is: Why do "scientists" ignore this when they issue their BS? Do they hope enough of us will just say "see, the scientists said so" and further their agenda? I'd like to get one of these "scientists" alone in a room and let it get to the point where he admits he's lying or keeps lying to the inevitable ass beating commences. I haven't read this thread yet. Should be interesting the replies to irrefutable facts as you have nicely laid out.

Does not lightning also produce O3?


Or maybe Bush increases sunspots......

 

[SKILMATIC]

Again I cant say without a doubt that it is or is not human caused. I simply dont know for sure but there is stingeant support either way.

 

[teacher]

These threads should be merged.

I'll drop this here too. Posted 7-28-05

Since no one has put this out there yet. Consider the greatest influencer of the Earths temperature. The sun. And we have no control over that.

For the question of how many cycles of cooling/warming in the Earths history. Might want to go search the boys in Greenland taking core samples of the ice. Goes back like hundreds of thousands of years.

For the ozone question that will surely pop up. With the cry, "The hole in the ozone is growing". Consider this (it's been a while). Artic animals have a very high tolerance to UV light. Indicating that the ozone at the poles is variable given that evolution has taken that into account.

The greatest particle polluter yearly on Earth? Volcanoes. Mount Pinatubo put out more matter in it's eruption than three years worth of what we do.

To the hacks a while back that said that because of the measured decrease in atmospheric particulate matter would end in the increased temperature of the earth due to more sunlight striking the ground. Consider whether that matter is on the ground or in the air the sunlight is still hitting something. No change. Again the deciding factor is how much energy from the sun hits us.

Earths water has been rising and falling due to the amount of ice for millenia. At one time the whole of United states was covered in an ice sheet. Many times. And now we think the change in weather is because of our emissions over the last one hundred years? Please.

The greatest producer (Beside the Earth her self I think) of Methane? Cow flatulence.

Consider that China has more than 1.25 billion people. The majority of whom use the dirty burning coal to heat and cook. And the tree-huggers what you to worry about you Expedition's emissions? With cleaner gas than ever, EGR valves and smog pumps and cars that stay tuned up for a hundred thousand miles? Next time someone tries to make you feel bad about driving. Just punch them in the friggin face.


Hydrogen gas can be made using electricity to separate the Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules in water. Products=Hydrogen gas and Oxygen. When you burn Hydrogen gas the products are heat and water. The problem is we use electricity to separate the molecules. We produce electricity mostly from fossil fuels. Zero sum gain in the overall scheme of things. Every building in America should be using solar power to produce Hydrogen gas stored in tanks much the same as Propane. The problem? The big oil companies lose profits. So you say why doesn't our government mandate it? Democrats and Republicans alike are beholden to their money. And we dicker between the two parties like one or the other has our interest in mind. They've for the most part just chosen their particular path to power, and money. It's all about the money.

 

[teacher]

Not just a few studies, Global Warming has been studied to death. In fact, for almost 20 years Climatologists have been saying the same thing. Moreover, every prediction they have made so far has happened.

Earth is always coming out of an ice age or going into one. Ice age a few tens of thousands of years ago. It's getting warmer. No great prediction there.

If this was bad science, considering the shear number of studies that have been done, you would think that the majority of scientists would have dismissed it by now. However, just the opposite is occuring.

Taking data from the naturally cyclical warming of the earth and applying it to man is easy to do. The Earth IS warming. The sea WILL rise. There is hardly anything we can do to stop or speed it. Saw a show on the science channel yesterday that said the suns output increases 10% every billion years. It's just math folks. Freemason in post #1 explains the ozone thing so even Billo can understand it. And he barely grasps Ohms Law. You don't have to be a scientist to get this. Having paid attention in 9th grade Earth science would help but, don't trust anyone, figure it out for yourself.

We are just lucky a solar flare of the sun greatest potential hasn't hit us dead on.

 

[teacher]

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).

Allow me Freemason.

Sunlight makes ozone.

At poles in winter it's dark. No sunlight.

No sunlight means no makee ozone.

Get it?

Now get out your finger paints.

Billo, stop eating the paste.



You people probably believe what your auto mechanic tells you too.


That check engine light?

Often the O2 sensor.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Taking data from the naturally cyclical warming of the earth and applying it to man is easy to do. The Earth IS warming. The sea WILL rise. There is hardly anything we can do to stop or speed it. Saw a show on the science channel yesterday that said the suns output increases 10% every billion years. It's just math folks. Freemason in post #1 explains the ozone thing so even Billo can understand it. And he barely grasps Ohms Law. You don't have to be a scientist to get this. Having paid attention in 9th grade Earth science would help but, don't trust anyone, figure it out for yourself.

We are just lucky a solar flare of the sun greatest potential hasn't hit us dead on.

I think my point was that you are ignoring the concensus of the vast majority of climatologists (who all have more than a "9th grade Earth science education) to say that human activities don't have some role in Global Warming.

I mean dont you think that they have pretty much taken into account anything that you could think of?

Why is it that some, not all, but some of those on the right are completely hostile to science? It is as though they would rather trust people who work for Exxon, Politicians, and conservative pundits over the vast majority of scientists in a given field.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Two things on global warming:

A FACT:
The mid-Holocene altithermal period showed temperatures 5 degrees warmer than today. That was about 4000 years ago.

Ouch. That's gotta hurt.

A QUESTION:
Why do people say global warming is a bad thing?

This should be good for some laughs.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Why is it that some, not all, but some of those on the right are completely hostile to science? It is as though they would rather trust people who work for Exxon, Politicians, and conservative pundits over the vast majority of scientists in a given field.

I think the large majority on the Right are not at all hostile to science. At least some on the Right actually accept a probability of human created C02 as a source of global warming. Many on the Right are in fact scientists.

I do think the Right is probably more given to wanting evidence for theories, however, and less given to kneejerk reaction with enormous social, political, cultural, and economic consequences.

Why are so many on the Left so opposed to looking at any science that doesn't agree with the current theories of manmade causes of global warming?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Why are so many on the Left so opposed to looking at any science that doesn't agree with the current theories of manmade causes of global warming?

Because theories that don't blame the United States first are flat out wrong.

Becuase theories that don't blame people can't be used to impose socialist dictatorships on people.

 

[C.J.]

I think the large majority on the Right are not at all hostile to science. At least some on the Right actually accept a probability of human created C02 as a source of global warming. Many on the Right are in fact scientists.

I do think the Right is probably more given to wanting evidence for theories, however, and less given to kneejerk reaction with enormous social, political, cultural, and economic consequences.

Exactly!! Remember only about 25 years ago many of the same proponants of global warming were screaming global cooling.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Two things on global warming:

A FACT:
The mid-Holocene altithermal period showed temperatures 5 degrees warmer than today. That was about 4000 years ago.

Ouch. That's gotta hurt.

A QUESTION:
Why do people say global warming is a bad thing?

This should be good for some laughs.

Because global warming could melt the polar regions and the ocean would rise.

Also I prefer cold weather.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Because global warming could melt the polar regions and the ocean would rise.

Also I prefer cold weather.

Fill a plastic glass with water and stick it in the freezer. The bulk of the ice formed will somewhat exceed the bulk of the water and may extend over the lip of the glass. Take the glass out of the freezer and let the ice melt. It doesn't overflow. Many scientist think that ice masses on land that melt and run into the oceans could raise levels a bit, but not at the catastrophic levels that we see in the movies. Ice already in the water won't raise the levels at all; in fact the reduced bulk could actually lower the levels a bit.

Significant climate shifts occur on this planet every 10,000 to 20,000 years or so and sometimes these have been dramatic. New Mexico is now the driest state in terms of surface water and pretty close in terms of rain and snowfall of all 50 states. It hasn't been all that long ago that it was all rainforest. And there are sea fossils imbedded in the rock at the top of the 10,600+ foot mountain that forms the eastern boundary of Albuquerque.

That we humans have much, if any, significant power over climatic changes on this planet is pretty dubious I think. The best we can do is to educate ourselves and adapt to them as they occur.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Fill a plastic glass with water and stick it in the freezer. The bulk of the ice formed will somewhat exceed the bulk of the water and may extend over the lip of the glass. Take the glass out of the freezer and let the ice melt. It doesn't overflow. Many scientist think that ice masses on land that melt and run into the oceans could raise levels a bit, but not at the catastrophic levels that we see in the movies. Ice already in the water won't raise the levels at all; in fact the reduced bulk could actually lower the levels a bit.

Significant climate shifts occur on this planet every 10,000 to 20,000 years or so and sometimes these have been dramatic. New Mexico is now the driest state in terms of surface water and pretty close in terms of rain and snowfall of all 50 states. It hasn't been all that long ago that it was all rainforest. And there are sea fossils imbedded in the rock at the top of the 10,600+ foot mountain that forms the eastern boundary of Albuquerque.

That we humans have much, if any, significant power over climatic changes on this planet is pretty dubious I think. The best we can do is to educate ourselves and adapt to them as they occur.

Your mixing up geology, plate techtonics, and climate change with your examples.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Your mixing up geology, plate techtonics, and climate change with your examples.

No I am not. I am stating that we humans have little power to change the course of what this planet has been doing naturally long before we came along whether it is geological changes, climate shifts or upheavals in the earth's crust. Like every other creature on earth, we will most likely have to adapt to change or die. It's as simple as that.

 

[robin]

Ice already in the water won't raise the levels at all; in fact the reduced bulk could actually lower the levels a bit.

Icebergs displace their own mass of water. When an iceberg melts it merges into the sea. As the water that comprised the iceberg warms up it expands but cannot take up volume above the level of the sea as it's obviously a fluid. So that water will slightly increase the volume of the as it & the sea warm.
So it's not just the melting of land based ice that will make sea level rise. Melting icebergs also increase sea levels albeit to a lesser degree when the water from them warms up.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Icebergs displace their own mass of water. When an iceberg melts it merges into the sea. As the water that comprised the iceberg warms up it expands but cannot take up volume above the level of the sea as it's obviously a fluid. So that water will slightly increase the volume of the as it & the sea warm.
So it's not just the melting of land based ice that will make sea level rise. Melting icebergs also increase sea levels albeit to a lesser degree when the water from them warms up.

Icebergs are not the issue. The issue is frozen seas that are melting as well as frozen rivers and ice layered on land mass such as Anartica. The volume of water of course increases from melting glaciers and runoff from land ice, but melting seas will lower water levels. Fill that glass with ice cubes and fill the water to the lip of the glass, allow the ice cubes to melt, and the level of the water will have dropped significantly. And a melted block of ice will have less bulk than it was in frozen form.

 

[robin]

Icebergs are not the issue. The issue is frozen seas that are melting as well as frozen rivers and ice layered on land mass such as Anartica. The volume of water of course increases from melting glaciers and runoff from land ice, but melting seas will lower water levels. Fill that glass with ice cubes and fill the water to the lip of the glass, allow the ice cubes to melt, and the level of the water will have dropped significantly. And a melted block of ice will have less bulk than it was in frozen form.

Yes I know icebergs are only a minor part of the problem compared to land ice.
I was trying to explain some physics of the issue with icebergs. They displace their own weight of water regardless of the fact they are less dense than liquid water in other words 'bulkier' than their own mass of water. Try this.... put some ice cubes in a glass of water. Note the water level. I think you will find the level doesn't change when the cubes have melted.
However the water will expand slightly as it is heated. So there is more water if it to expands due to heat once the cubes have melted.
Same in the sea, if icebergs melt, the sea volume is greater so any thermal expansion means more sea to increase in volume with rising temperatures.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Yes I know icebergs are only a minor part of the problem compared to land ice.
I was trying to explain some physics of the issue with icebergs. They displace their own weight of water regardless of the fact they are less dense than liquid water in other words 'bulkier' than their own mass of water. Try this.... put some ice cubes in a glass of water. Note the water level. I think you will find the level doesn't change when the cubes have melted.
However the water will expand slightly as it is heated. So there is more water if it to expands due to heat once the cubes have melted.
Same in the sea, if icebergs melt, the sea volume is greater so any thermal expansion means more sea to increase in volume with rising temperatures.

No quarrel with that here. But weight and volume are different things, and even though there is the same weight, there will be less volume to expand. Now if there is significantly more land ice in Anartica, for instance, than there is sea ice in the Artic, it is probable that the volume of water would increase somewhat and, as you pointed out, will increase again in volume as it warms. But the offsets will also significantly affect the aggregate rise in water levels; thus most scientists believe that if all the ice caps melt, it won't have the catastrophic effect on land masses as some predict even if we do eventually lose some of our lowest level coastlands.

 

[robin]

No quarrel with that here. But weight and volume are different things, and even though there is the same weight, there will be less volume to expand. Now if there is significantly more land ice in Anartica, for instance, than there is sea ice in the Artic, it is probable that the volume of water would increase somewhat and, as you pointed out, will increase again in volume as it warms. But the offsets will also significantly affect the aggregate rise in water levels; thus most scientists believe that if all the ice caps melt, it won't have the catastrophic effect on land masses as some predict even if we do eventually lose some of our lowest level coastlands.

Icebergs expand slightly as they warm up & approach their melting point. However they displace their own mass of water, not their own volume, so they do not displace anymore water even when they expand.
However... once they have melted into the sea, any expansion of the water that comprised them, due to further warming, will contribute to greater sea volume.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Icebergs expand slightly as they warm up & approach their melting point. However they displace their own mass of water, not their own volume, so they do not displace anymore water even when they expand.
However... once they have melted into the sea, any expansion of the water that comprised them, due to further warming, will contribute to greater sea volume.

You are saying then that a pound of ice has the same volume as a pound of water?

Your observation, however, is backed up by the following from the University of Arizona:

Buoyancy - Melting Ice in Water

Question: Does melting ice cause a rise in the water level?

Findings: The water level remains the same as the ice melts.
Reason: the volume of water displaced by the ice equals the weight of it. The volume of water displaced by the melted ice equals the weight of it. These will both be the same volumes so the water level does not change when the ice melts.
A large iceberg will not change the level of the water when it melts. The melting of icebergs will not cause the water to rise from buoyancy effects as in this experiment. There can be a rise in water level over the earth if the polar ice cap melted from global heating but that is mainly due to the average water temperature increasing slightly and the water expanding slightly resulting in an increase in water level. Even if the polar ice did not melt but the average temperature of the earth increased then the average ocean water level will rise due to expansion of the slightly warmed ocean waters. This is one of the worries about global warming.
http://www.grow.arizona.edu/Grow--GrowResources.php?ResourceId=202

So that does leave us not with catastrophic flooding due to melting of the ice caps, but rather with flooding caused by expansion of warming water. Most scientists do see that as a possibility, yes, but not at the catastrophic levels portrayed in the movies, etc.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

You are saying then that a pound of ice has the same volume as a pound of water?

No. A pound of ice displaces a pound of liquid water. That part of the iceberg that isn't under water is the difference in volume between a pound of ice and pound of water.

Since it's apparent that the evil white man has destroyed the ecology and global warming is in a runaway mode, is there any point to rebuilding New Orleans?:mrgreen: