Climate change

[Bartman10]

There are some reports in the news about 2005 being the warmest year on record.

What’s your opinion on climate change?

Is it a serious threat to humanity, or is it a hoax conjured up by tree hugging hippies?

What is your understanding of the mechanism of climate change?

Is global warming a bigger threat than ozone depletion? Your opinions wanted.

[Colapop]

If it means more chicks in less clothes then bring it on I say!

[SimJen]

Global Warming is a theory, as is "the earth is flat".
As far as we know its has been happening for the last 100+ years, given that the earth is many 100s of millions of years old we have no idea wether it is just a standard weather cycle or not.
Greenies will always harp on about whatever to help their cause and in many ways, they are right to try and get people to better look after the environment.
Its just they often have no scientific evidence to backup their claims.
Scientists the world over are still debating the issue with seemingly no answers.

[Karma]

You suppose all the dinosaurs got together and started shitting themselves about climate change? No.

It's something that happens, you would have thought the greens of all people would understand nature. The Earth will get warmer and warmer and warmer until we all die.

But that's many many years away...

[skelstar]

I think that we have to give the greenies more credit. To make people aware of thier/our plight they must get media coverage. The media need to publish/broadcast things that make the public go 'wow'. They take reasonable quotes/opinions from the greenies and turn them into 'the world is dying/gonna end/turning to sh1t'. Think about the children!!!

All uninformed opinion of course.

[cowpoos]

I think its normal....its a cycle of the earth naturally...there has been ice ages before...and heat ages!!! [what ever its called]
and during these cool down heat up events there has be adverse weather conditions...droughts...freeazing winters,etc
eg: a few million years ago the sahara dessert used to be a jungle!!! tropical rain forest in fact....wheres the trees and water gone...climate change before motorvehicles....Shock horror!!!!

it mates quite well with my theory of the dinosaurs dying out...as reptile eggs for the most part are very heat sensitive to whether or not they are males of females...the warmer it is the more males there will be....so dying out of lack of females...but there is a huge amount of people that will disagree with my theory...its not always the most technical and far out answers that are right sometimes....and maybe because [this isn't a big theory of mine....but more of a ponder] alot of dinosaurs were rumminatry digesters...and they [rumminit's] give off alot of green house gases in the process of breaking down vegtable matter [rotting it in there guts with bacteria]...they could have excellerated the warming effect themselves....

just my apinion.....could be worth ruminating over though...lol :spudbooge

[Colapop]

If we all stop burning fossil fuels and started burning hippies would that make difference?

[Sniper]

They say every year is the hottest or the worst or something just cause they can. Same as saying there is an oil crisis.

In all honesty, I wouldn't believe them.

[SimJen]

It's something that happens, you would have thought the greens of all people would understand nature. The Earth will get warmer and warmer and warmer until we all die.
But that's many many years away...

Actually it will get colder and colder after it gets a little warmer. Then one day the sun will either go out or explode taking everything in the Milky Way with it. It will be a hell of a fireworks show :)

[Karma]

Actually it will get colder and colder after it gets a little warmer. Then one day the sun will either go out or explode taking everything in the Milky Way with it. It will be a hell of a fireworks show :)

But when that happens I won't care, cos I'll be maxing it up in the Klingon Empire!! :woohoo:

[ManDownUnder]

Actually it will get colder and colder after it gets a little warmer. Then one day the sun will either go out or explode taking everything in the Milky Way with it. It will be a hell of a fireworks show :)

wow - where would I sit?

[Bartman10]

Some interesting responses

Consider the following.

1. Every gas phase molecule with a dipole moment will contribute to the heating of the atmosphere by absorbing infrared radiation and transferring some of that radiation into kinetic energy. The kinetic energy of gas phase molecules is proportional the gas temperature. There is no denying this, its simple molecular physics.

2. Therefore every dipole containing molecule released into the atmosphere must cause it to warm by a very small amount.

3. At this point in time more carbon dioxide is being released into the atmosphere then is being converted to the liquid or solid phase, part of it man-made, part of it natural.

4. Conclusion: atmosphere is being warmed, both through man-made and natural dipole containing gas phase molecules, including carbon dioxide.

The big questions are – is the climate change significant? Will it disrupt life on Earth? What should/can we do about it? Do you care, at a personal level if humans (not you), animals or plants are wiped out?

The sun is predicted to run out of fuel in the range 4-6 billion years from now. At that point there will be a massive explosion from the center of the solar system to (approximately) the orbit of Jupiter. It’s gonna be a hell of a show, but it will be insignificant to the operation of the Milky Way.

[skelstar]

You are all here for my benefit so what do I care what happens after Im gone?

naaahh...I cant back that up!

[Colapop]

Just had an interesting discussion about the future of the human race - all stemmed from a book called 'Plague Species' by Reg Morris. Doomed to failure by population implosion.Whether it's global warming, genetic misappropriation or war. Really pleasant outlook on the future. Either way we're f*cked.
Have a nice weekend.

[Jantar]

Some interesting responses

Consider the following.

1. Every gas phase molecule with a dipole moment will contribute to the heating of the atmosphere by absorbing infrared radiation and transferring some of that radiation into kinetic energy. The kinetic energy of gas phase molecules is proportional the gas temperature. There is no denying this, its simple molecular physics.

2. Therefore every dipole containing molecule released into the atmosphere must cause it to warm by a very small amount.

3. At this point in time more carbon dioxide is being released into the atmosphere then is being converted to the liquid or solid phase, part of it man-made, part of it natural.

4. Conclusion: atmosphere is being warmed, both through man-made and natural dipole containing gas phase molecules, including carbon dioxide.


There is no doubt at all that the greenhouse effect does exist. As Bartman shows, its just simple physics.

There is no doubt at all that our climate is changing. In a dynamic system the amazing thing would be if the climate didn't change.

There is no doubt at all that the earth's surface temperature as measured by ground based thermometers has shown a dramatic increase in recent years.

But the big question as to whether or not global warming is occuring is certainly still open to question. The atmospheric temperatures for the lower troposhere, http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2 , show only a very small decadal trend which is consistant with changes in the SOI and Sunspot Cycles, but tend to negate the greenhouse gas: global warming theory that says that the atmosphere should warm before the surface temperatures.

Global warming models, without exception, predict that warming will occur first in the lower atmosphere, then in the polar regions, and finally in the temperate zones. What we are actually seeing is that the greatest increase in temperature is being recorded in the largest cities, and that there is almost no change in temperatures in the polar regions. In Antarctica, for example, we are seeing temperature increases in the Antartic Peninsular and changes to the ice sheet there, but what we are not hearing is that the majority of the continent is actually cooling.

We are also hearing about the active hurricane season in Eastern USA and the Carribean, but if the global warming models are correct then there should be less of a thermal difference between the polar and equatorial regions, and tropical storms should be less frequent and less intense.

[James Deuce]

Another thing to consider is we've only been studying climate and weather as a science within the scientific model framework for a 160 years. What the hell do we know? A planet 4000 years old, or 4000 million years old, 160 years isn't what any scientist could call a decent sample, as the sample most likely falls within a margin of error for the 4000 years let alone 4000 million.

A thought to ponder: most CO2 in our atmosphere comes from tectonic activity. Volcanoes and the Mid-Atlantic trench contribute a far greater tonnage to our atmosphere than man does.

The planet has endured warming and cooling cycles without our apparent "intervention" uncountable times.

[Dadpole]

I know one thing: If, in 50 years time when we are either frozen or being baked, the "experts" will still be producing scientific studies showing that the opposite is happening.

The problem with the warming theory is that by the time it can be clearly demonstrated, it will be to late to mitigate the problem.

[Jantar]

I know one thing: If, in 50 years time when we are either frozen or being baked, the "experts" will still be producing scientific studies showing that the opposite is happening.

The problem with the warming theory is that by the time it can be clearly demonstrated, it will be to late to mitigate the problem.

If warming is happening then its already too late to mitigate. How conceited can we be to imagine that anything we can do can change nature? The amount of additional GH gasses that man is responsible for is less than 6% of what nature puts into the atmosphere each year. To have an effect we would not only have to stop putting any GH gasses into the atmosphere, but we would somehow have to remove an amount equal to what man has put into the atmosphere. Man's contribution in minscule.

But have a look at the effect of CO2 on temperature at the South Pole. http://www.john-daly.com/stations/amundsen.gif Notice anything?

[inlinefour]

tree hugging pot smoking possum kissing hippies.:nya:

[Dadpole]

The trouble with the figures available is that they can be used to show what you want to see.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2004/
Shows rising average temperatures

[Dadpole]

tree hugging pot smoking possum kissing hippies.:nya:

You mean I should stop burning them? The bastards swore they were 100% organic, and would never harm the planet.

[Jantar]

The trouble with the figures available is that they can be used to show what you want to see.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2004/
Shows rising average temperatures

Absolutely correct, and that is the problem with the GISS data. As it is Ground Instrument (the GI part) data it is subject to UHI error. Although some attempt has been made to eliminate this error, the correction is neither universal nor always correct. Heathrow data, for example, is treated as rural with no UHI allowance. This is the very reason that satelite and radio-sonde data is now used rather than GISS data, as it is truly global.

It is also interesting that Mann, Bradley and Hughes have now been shown to have used bad data and poor mathematical methods in developing the hockey stick graph.

[Dadpole]

I can always burn some more tree hugging pot smoking possum kissing hippies (some of them have the nerve to object to me fishing) and monitor the results. Buggered if I am going to reduce my carbon dioxide output too. Breathing comes naturally.

[SPORK]

Well there had to be a warm year before this one. So wtf. It's nice in NZ. Imagine it in someplace like California...

[Skyryder]

For those that think the climate is not changing. Take a look at these. The first is a from 1981 and the second is from 91. The link

http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/

There's plenty of science out there that this is happening. Mind you when Galileo could proove that the earth was not the centre of the Universe but moved around the sun...................

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Squeaky clean fossil fuels

From http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg18624976.500


CAN we continue to burn fossil fuels and still hope to halt global warming? It seems unlikely - and with the cost of generating wind and solar electricity falling, perhaps unnecessary. Despite this, big money and big politics are lining up behind the development of "zero-emission" power plants that burn coal or gas but release no carbon dioxide.

The latest advocates are former fans of renewable energy at the European Union, who say the strategy will be "essential" if the EU is to meet targets for limiting the emissions of the greenhouse gas CO2. This month, at a conference in Brussels, Europe's new commissioner for energy, Andris Piebalgs, said the EU could cut CO2 emissions while continuing to burn its native coal and lignite. And still stay economically competitive.

One way to do this, Piebalgs said, is to embrace clean coal technologies - a move that would chime with the Bush administration's push for clean-coal technology in the US. The other is to store CO2 by capturing it before it leaves power plants and burying it underground. These are now the EU's two top priorities in energy research, something that will anger environmentalists who want the world to abandon fossil fuels as quickly as possible.

One technique to stop power stations producing CO2 is to pass emissions though chemical scrubbers which contain amines that react with and trap CO2. Similar technology is already used to remove CO2 from natural gas, to boost the proportion of hydrogen it contains. "It's just a matter of scaling up," says Julio Friedmann, a former ExxonMobil geologist now at the University of Maryland. In future, the carbon could even be removed from fuel before it is burnt.

To bury the CO2 securely underground, the gas has to be compressed, then injected under pressure down a pipeline into redundant coal seams, old oil or gas wells, or porous rocks filled with salt water.

On a rig in the North Sea, the Norwegian company Statoil already strips a million tonnes of CO2 each year from natural gas at the Sleipner gas field and buries it in a saline aquifer without ever bringing it to land. At the Salah gas field in Algeria, energy giant BP last year began reburying a similar amount of CO2 in sandstone 2 kilometres down. Old oil and gas fields stored hydrocarbons safely for millions of years, raising hopes that the same can be done for CO2 from power stations.

Oil companies like the idea, because injecting CO2 into oil wells can flush out any remaining oil. As the oil dissolves the CO2, its viscosity falls and its volume increases, forcing it out under pressure. This technology too has been shown to work: more than a million tonnes of CO2 a year is being injected into the Weyburn oilfield in Saskatchewan, Canada, to flush out the remaining oil.

In a similar way, the coal industry expects to be able to inject CO2 into coal seams, and recover methane gas into the bargain for use as fuel. An EU trial is under way in Poland.

Most major industrial regions have convenient CO2 burial grounds, Harry Audus of the International Energy Agency told the Brussels meeting. In the US, virtually all the top 500 CO2 emitters are within 150 kilometres of suitable geological formations. And Europe has a large potential burial ground in former oil and gas wells beneath the North Sea.
“Old oil and gas fields stored hydrocarbons safely for millions of years. The same could be done for CO2 from power stations”

Global estimates of the geological space available for the economic burial of CO2 are sketchy. But Audus estimates that around 11,000 billion tonnes of CO2 could be disposed of underground (see Graph), several times the likely emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels in the coming century. This could at least give the world extra time to give up its reliance on fossil fuels.

At an estimated current price of $40 to $60 per tonne of CO2, carbon storage and burial is still not cheap, though its proponents say it could soon compete with renewable energy. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will present a detailed report on carbon capture and storage to signatories of the Kyoto protocol in November. After that, says Audus, "it should become an accepted mitigation option".
From issue 2497 of New Scientist magazine, 30 April 2005, page 26
Printable version Email to a friend RSS Feed

Cover of latest issue of New Scientist magazine

* For exclusive news and expert analysis every week subscribe to New Scientist Print Edition
* For what's in New Scientist magazine this week see contents
* Search all stories
* Contact us about this story
* Sign up for our free newsletter

**********

Skyryder

[James Deuce]

Climate changes all the time, and the stimulus for change is manifold.

How do you make O3? In the upper atmosphere, instense bursts of solar radiation create an environment where some O2 atoms split and others attract the free O atom. We went 27 years without major solar flares, or solar storms, from the late '60s to the early '90s. The depleted Ozone layer was latched onto by the Green movement as a sign that man-made pollutants were breaking the ozone layer down. Rather than it being broken down, it wasn't being built up. As a free molecule CFCs for instance are too heavy to reach the upper atmosphere. Combined with the effects of a non-regenerating Ozone layer was the MT Pinatubo sulfate aerosol effect. The depletion of the Ozone layer accelerated rapidly after that eruption, and I rather suspect that we are still experiencing climate effects generated by it.

On the other hand Chlorine in the lower troposhere is a contributor to creating ground level ozone.

Whole life balance, and a minor blip in climate stats, does not a trend make, human created (unlikely), or otherwise. We've had a couple of big solar storms in the last 10 years, but you don't hear anyone daring to blame the Sun-God for the current increase in tempeature and storm activity in the Atlantic. Bear in mind too, that the 1962 Hurricane/Cyclone storm season in the Atlantic was as destructive as the current year in the Atlantic, and was only exceeded by Katrina. In '62 that was just how things were. Thanks to decades of Greepeace (and others) propaganda it's now our fault. I would suggest that atmospheric Nuclear bomb tests of the '50s and '60s released more carbon into the atmosphere than even the monstrously inefficient automobiles and trucks that passed for road based transport then. Mt Pinatubo certainly released a figure in the millions of tons.

[Dadpole]

Global warming theory has, unfortunately, turned into an ideology. Facts and figures are produced to prove the case for and against, and the people on the extreme ends of each side can only agree on one thing - that their opponents are part of a conspiracy.

[Korumba]

warm undies not required anymore - and this alarming shift occurred in less than a century!

[sels1]

Global warming is a fact not an idea.
I was at a presentation given by some of our countries top meteorologists just a few weeks ago. Temperature records go back several hundred years and despite seasonal variations there has been an overal increase recorded in temps that started around the time of the industrial revolution and has been more rapid in the last 10 years.
So the planet is getting warmer - its an obserserved and recorded fact
Why the planet is getting warmer is where the debate is. Is it a natural cycle or is it due to pollution? Is it a coincindence that temps really started to rise with industrialisation and the burning of fossil fuels etc? is it a coincidence that CO2 levels in the atmoshere have increased over the same time span?
Go figure.

[inlinefour]

You mean I should stop burning them? The bastards swore they were 100% organic, and would never harm the planet.

In fact we all need to burn them more. The world would b a better place without the misinformed twerps.

[froggyfrenchman]

More crap congered up by the great unwashed! Those damn hippies have nothin better to do with their time than dream up this crap. I guess you could call them "smoke dreams"?

[APPLE]

yeh man?its gettn worser everyear.i seen somethin on tele few weeks ago,bout china man,lettn russia dump or there waste in dere rivers and streams man?and they get millions for it?wots up with that..these dudes dont care bout the rest of the world man?

[SPman]

wots up with that..these dudes dont care bout the rest of the world man?
Aaah, but they make squillions of cheap doo-dads, for the world to squander its money on. Who cares about the environment when you're makin squillions!

[Skyryder]

Global warming is a fact not an idea.
I was at a presentation given by some of our countries top meteorologists just a few weeks ago. Temperature records go back several hundred years and despite seasonal variations there has been an overal increase recorded in temps that started around the time of the industrial revolution and has been more rapid in the last 10 years.
So the planet is getting warmer - its an obserserved and recorded fact
Why the planet is getting warmer is where the debate is. Is it a natural cycle or is it due to pollution? Is it a coincindence that temps really started to rise with industrialisation and the burning of fossil fuels etc? is it a coincidence that CO2 levels in the atmoshere have increased over the same time span?
Go figure.

This post just saved me the time and trouble to go and search the data. It is no coincidence that temperture have risen starting from the industrial revolution. Just did quick search and found this

From 1550 to 1850 AD global temperatures were at their coldest since the beginning of the Holocene. Scientists call this period the Little Ice Age. During the Little Ice Age, the average annual temperature of the Northern Hemisphere was about 1.0 degree Celsius lower than today. During the period 1580 to 1600, the western United States experienced one of its longest and most severe droughts in the last 500 years. Cold weather in Iceland from 1753 and 1759 caused 25 % of the population to die from crop failure and famine. Newspapers in New England were calling 1816 the year without a summer.

The period 1850 to present is one of general warming. Figure 7x-1 describes the global temperature trends from 1880 to 1999. This graph shows the yearly temperature anomalies that have occurred from an average global temperature calculated for the period 1951-1980. The graph indicates that the anomolies for the first 60 years of the record were consistently negative. However, beginning in 1935 positive anomolies became more common, and from 1980 to 1999 the anomolies were between 0.2 to 0.4° Celsius higher that the average for the 119 year period of study.

Figure 7x-1: Near-global annual-mean temperature change for the period 1880 to 1999 (deviation from the normal period 1951-1980). (Source: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies - Global Temperature Trends).



In the 1930s and 1950s, the central United States experience two periods of extreme drought. The 1980s and 1990s had ten of the warmest years this century and possibly since the Little Climatic Optimum. Proxy and instrumental data indicate that 1998 was the warmest year globally in 1200 years of Earth history. In the following year, a La Nina developed and global temperatures dropped slightly. Nevertheless, the mean global temperatures recorded for this year was the sixth highest measurement since 1880. Many scientists believe the warmer temperatures of the 20th century are being caused by an enhancement of the Earth's greenhouse effect.

Figure 7x-2: In 1999, most parts of the world were warmer than normal. The illustration above describes the annual temperature deviation (from the base period 1950-1980) in degrees Celsius for the Earth's surface. The illustration indicates that it was particularly warm across most of North America, northern Africa, and most of Eurasia. The tropical Pacific Ocean was cool due to a strong La Nina. (Source: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies - Global Temperature Trends).

This from

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7x.html

I'm still reminded of Galileo

Glileo The earth is not the centre of the Universe

Pope. Yes it is

Galileo No it's not

People Yes it is. O course it is. It has always been.............

Me. Open your eyes..............


Skyryder

[TwoSeven]

Another thing to consider is we've only been studying climate and weather as a science within the scientific model framework for a 160 years. What the hell do we know? A planet 4000 years old, or 4000 million years old, 160 years isn't what any scientist could call a decent sample, as the sample most likely falls within a margin of error for the 4000 years let alone 4000 million.

A thought to ponder: most CO2 in our atmosphere comes from tectonic activity. Volcanoes and the Mid-Atlantic trench contribute a far greater tonnage to our atmosphere than man does.

The planet has endured warming and cooling cycles without our apparent "intervention" uncountable times.

Your point seems to reflect many of the other nay sayer brigade posts and I somewhat disagree with it. There has been a project going on around the planet that has been testing ice core samples. They now have temperature and weather conditions going back a few thousand years, and also methane and C02 levels going back 650k years. In one of the following examples there is a statement that backs your generic cyclic argument (which I notice you cite no references to back up) :)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ice25nov25,0,2141135.story?coll=la-home-headlines
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/monsoon.htm
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051125/NEWS07/511250505/1009/NEWS07
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/thompcon.htm

This one is a good one
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/bulletins/radionz/200511252047/2b86c112

etc.

I do notice the nay sayers seem to either misquote or forget to reference. I wonder why that is ?

[Dammad]

if it is going to be nice and hot then im on my bike more:woohoo: :yeah: :ride:

[What?]

It's all part of a natural cycle that has been turned into a gravy train by a bunch of losers who've realised that they couldn't make a living from the qual's they got at uni unless such a gravy train was built.

[APPLE]

yo?that is HEAVY?skyrider???

[WINJA]

note the government will always back the science that nets the most tax , the cfc levy is pathetic , they taxed r22 with 1/10 the odp of r12 or r11 at the same rate , then they took no initiatives with the money instead throwing most of it into the consolidated fund.
who sponsors the science is also important , ie if dupont funds ozone research , then the scientist find cfcs are ruining the ozone layer dupont then lobbys the governments who sign the montreal protocol all the time dupont has waiting in the wings a new line up of refrigerants which gives them the same stronghold they had in the market that they had when the first introduced cfcs and hcfcs years ago , and they new it was coming so had 5 years of research ahead of allied signal , rhodia and ici etc , what a fucken crock.
the governments scream about the enviroment yet they wont regulate the aircon and refrigeration industries , its all about the mighty dollar.

[Pixie]

If we all stop burning fossil fuels and started burning hippies would that make difference?
No.
The hippies think that everything will be ok if we just live in some idealised iron age society.
The only thing wrong with the environment is 6,000,000,000 Humans.
Nature is in the process of making a few tweaks and adjustments,and eventually will succeed in reducing this imbalance,one way or another.

In the meantime, the greenies can help by commiting suicide.

As for extinction;as far as nature is concerned, big deal.If some stupid whale dies out, Nature just has some other critter evolve into the vacant niche.
Do you cry yourself to sleep because there are no longer any ammonites?

As for me;I plan to be dead in less than 50 years,and don't really give a toss.

And if it is a threat to humanity;Nature will have suceeded and it will be a good thing

[Pixie]

For those that think the climate is not changing. Take a look at these. The first is a from 1981 and the second is from 91. The link

http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/

There's plenty of science out there that this is happening. Mind you when Galileo could proove that the earth was not the centre of the Universe but moved around the sun...................

Skyryder
Once again someone confuses global warming with the ozone hole:angry2:

[Hitcher]

The Government is committed to a whole bunch of stuff because it signed the Kyoto Protocol. Given the uptake of these measures globally -- even by the US, although not a formal signatory -- there is no going back.

Energy use and efficiency measures make good sense, particularly when most fossil fuels are a finite and diminishing resource.

While people moan about carbon taxes, they won't be set high enough to make the differences they should -- like stopping kindy mums using the Pajero to take Finn and Tiffany to school, or popping down the road to the dairy for a bottle of milk, a packet of Holiday and a Woman's Day.

So go and plant some trees. Quickly.

[WINJA]

the government is committed to a whole bunch of stuff because it signed the kyoto protocol. given the uptake of these measures globally -- even by the us, although not a formal signatory -- there is no going back.

energy use and efficiency measures make good sense, particularly when most fossil fuels are a finite and diminishing resource.

while people moan about carbon taxes, they won't be set high enough to make the differences they should -- like stopping kindy mums using the pajero to take finn and tiffany to school, or popping down the road to the dairy for a bottle of milk, a packet of holiday and a woman's day.

so go and plant some trees. quickly.


yeah same ,i hate everyone

[Skyryder]

Once again someone confuses global warming with the ozone hole:angry2:


From http://www.environ.com/Globalwarming/globalwarmingozone.htm


Global Warming Can Increase Ozone Depletion
Scientist's are concerned that continued global warming will accelerate ozone destruction and increase stratospheric ozone depletion. Ozone depletion gets worse when the stratosphere (where the ozone layer is), becomes colder. Because global warming traps heat in the troposphere, less heat reaches the stratosphere which will make it colder. Greenhouse gases act like a blanket for the troposphere and make the stratosphere colder. In other words, global warming can make ozone depletion much worse right when it is supposed to begin its recovery during the next century.

****

Nothing confused with me. :stoogie:


Skyryder

[James Deuce]

Your point seems to reflect many of the other nay sayer brigade posts and I somewhat disagree with it. There has been a project going on around the planet that has been testing ice core samples. They now have temperature and weather conditions going back a few thousand years, and also methane and C02 levels going back 650k years. In one of the following examples there is a statement that backs your generic cyclic argument (which I notice you cite no references to back up) :)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ice25nov25,0,2141135.story?coll=la-home-headlines
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/monsoon.htm
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051125/NEWS07/511250505/1009/NEWS07
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/thompcon.htm

This one is a good one
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/bulletins/radionz/200511252047/2b86c112

etc.

I do notice the nay sayers seem to either misquote or forget to reference. I wonder why that is ?

Oh, I see you want references. Wasn't aware I was required to provide APA referencing an a biker site.

[WINJA]

im not confused at all , note i said montreal protocol not kyoto , i was talking about climate change , do you think the hole in the ozone layer is not relevant , the same people talking shit about the greenhouse effect are the same ones talking shit about the ozone layer

[Skyryder]

note the government will always back the science that nets the most tax , the cfc levy is pathetic , they taxed r22 with 1/10 the odp of r12 or r11 at the same rate , then they took no initiatives with the money instead throwing most of it into the consolidated fund.
who sponsors the science is also important , ie if dupont funds ozone research , then the scientist find cfcs are ruining the ozone layer dupont then lobbys the governments who sign the montreal protocol all the time dupont has waiting in the wings a new line up of refrigerants which gives them the same stronghold they had in the market that they had when the first introduced cfcs and hcfcs years ago , and they new it was coming so had 5 years of research ahead of allied signal , rhodia and ici etc , what a fucken crock.
the governments scream about the enviroment yet they wont regulate the aircon and refrigeration industries , its all about the mighty dollar.

Cynical but can't say I can fault your hypothosis. This from

http://www.ciesin.org/docs/003-077/003-077.html

it's lengthy and seems to backup your claim.

**********

In the end, the negotiators agreed to cap their use of HCFCs in January 1996 at a level equal to the sum of their HCFC use in 1989 and 3.1 percent of the level of their use of CFCs in 1989. This formula acknowledges both the considerable existing uses of HCFCs and their role as transition substitutes for CFCs. Subsequent to that, the parties agreed to reduce their use of HCFCs by 35 percent by 2004, by 65 percent by 2010, by 90 percent by 2015, by 99.5 percent by 2020, and by 100 percent by 2030. (22) The relatively late date of 2030 for the final phase out can be at least partially explained by the political clout of those who were supporting the arguments cited above--namely, industry and the United States. Industry's representatives were out in force in Copenhagen. In fact, there were three times as many industry delegates as delegates of nonindustry nongovernmental organizations. Moreover, by sending seven employees to the preparatory meeting in Copenhagen, DuPont had at least as many representatives (if not more) than all but six of the countries. (23)

The U.S. delegation also had a particular interest in securing this timetable because the country would be particularly hindered by a more imminent phase out of HCFCs. The largest pieces of equipment that use HCFCs are the air conditioners that cool office buildings. The country that makes the most use of these large machines is the United States. Because these air conditioners have economic lifetimes of up to 40 years, business people want to ensure that they will be able to keep them operational throughout this period. (24) The 0.5-percent usage allowed between 2020 and 2030, which the U.S. delegation demanded and received, guarantees these machines' continued utility. Although the history of the ozone layer debate suggests that the phase out dates for HCFCs will be brought forward, it may be that the United States and others will be able to qualify such uses of HCFCs as "essential" in the future. Regardless, U.S. determination prevailed in Copenhagen because resistance by Europe, in particular, was hindered by intra-European Community squabbling during the proceedings. (25)

***********

I've highlighted the relevent section that your post implies.

Skyryder

[WINJA]

i was thinking of starting a business disposing of cfc and hcfc , simply by exporting the stuff to one of our local island nations who did not sign the treaty, paying the local government a nominal fee and just venting it to atmospere .


cfc's are still in production , pharmaceutical manufacturers still use it in asthma inhalers . theres some out there using 134a as a propelent , but this may have a link to cancer , some of these refrigerants are very dangerous , firstly mustard gas was made from burnt r12 , and worse i used a gas in oz that was so dangerous that when i welded in its presence it fucked all the stainless and copper in the area , it also made my skin peel where it was exposed .
whats really funny is some of this gas is being put into highrise a/c not in centralized plant, so in the event of a fire it will kill you before you can make it to the fire exit

[rogson]

I'd vote if I could vote neither.

[Biff]

Climate change is definitely happening. The evidence is overwhelming. As has already been stated, there is also some evidence that the earth's climate changes naturally over a pretty much constant and predictable cycle. However, the alarming fact lies in the fact that not only does the earth's climate appear to be changing much faster than predicted, but that certain nations/people use the fact that the earth's climate changes anyway to say, "fk it. I'll continue polluting and do fk all about it. It's gonna happen anyway etc etc ". Which IMO, is a crock of shite.

Evidence shows that the earth’s climate is changing faster and more severely than predicted. In addition the sea is cooling, which in turn effects winds, currents, weather, sea saline levels etc. Using the, "it's gonna happen anyway" line is narrow minded, selfish, inconsiderate, and bloody dangerous IMO.

Oh yeah - the earth was flat until a few hundred years ago when we thought we were so clever and knew everything. A few hundred years from now, when science advances yet further, our ancestors (should there be any around...) will also be thinking that we were as thick as shite to believe what some people/nations do today.

[Skyryder]

Climate change is definitely happening. The evidence is overwhelming. As has already been stated, there is also some evidence that the earth's climate changes naturally over a pretty much constant and predictable cycle. However, the alarming fact lies in the fact that not only does the earth's climate appear to be changing much faster than predicted, but that certain nations/people use the fact that the earth's climate changes anyway to say, "fk it. I'll continue polluting and do fk all about it. It's gonna happen anyway etc etc ". Which IMO, is a crock of shite.

Evidence shows that the earth’s climate is changing faster and more severely than predicted. In addition the sea is cooling, which in turn effects winds, currents, weather, sea saline levels etc. Using the, "it's gonna happen anyway" line is narrow minded, selfish, inconsiderate, and bloody dangerous IMO.

Oh yeah - the earth was flat until a few hundred years ago when we thought we were so clever and knew everything. A few hundred years from now, when science advances yet further, our ancestors (should there be any around...) will also be thinking that we were as thick as shite to believe what some people/nations do today.

Re your sig.

There is now Biff.:beer: Time for a sig change ol' son.

[crazyxr250rider]

The climate has been changing since earth developed an atmosphere
global warming causes disruption causes ice age ice age gets melted away by
global warming,global warming causes disruption........................................ ................................................. This sequence has been going on for ever...........
Primitive humans survived the last ice age which is a strong confermation that we can survive this one in say 50-200 years
and many companies ALREADY have hydrogen cars ready for when fosil fuel runs out in fact one buisness man in with the UN and so on was going to put 10 billion of his own into bringing out his own hydrogen car and station network before 2007, but went to work one day and was never seen again.
dosn't take a scientist to work out why that eventuality was reached and I am shure a oil company had somting to do with it!

[Biff]

The climate has been changing since earth developed an atmosphere
....

Dude - you're missing a key point. There were no heavy industries, gas guzzling cars and cheap hairspray around in the early days of civilisation. We had an ozone layer that protected us against UVs. Today - now that we've contributed to the significant weaknening of the ozone layer's effectiveness, even putting bloody holes in the thing - we're running the risk of getting to the point where the planet may not be able to heal itself naturally in either our own or our children's generation, or possibly ever.

Don't hide behind the," it's gonna happen anyway" crap. It's not gonna happen anyway - at least not in the way that it's happened in the past. Scientific fact mate. Not idle gossip.


Re your sig.

There is now Biff. Time for a sig change ol' son.

True. Such a shame - but true.

[Colapop]

Those people I left in the lift this morning would've been hoping for a climate change - :Oops: :sick: *Someone open a window....*

[vifferman]

I know one thing: If, in 50 years time when we are either frozen or being baked, the "experts" will still be producing scientific studies showing that the opposite is happening.
That's why they've now switched to calling it "global climatic change".
And as Jim the # 2 says, the period of measurement is too small, and the data pool too tiny to draw any definite conclusions.
And as I say, variations in climate due to 'natural' causes (wobble of the Earth's axis, variations in orbit, volcanic activity, whales farting) are so much greater than other causes (such as variations in CO2 levels etc. due to human influences) as to completely swamp those, making attribution to this cause or that factor totally spurious.

In any case, all it takes is another volcanic eruption the size of Taupo or Mangakino and we're fookd anyway.

Climate change is yet another bandwagon for the media to fuel and drive around, and for 'scientists' to get tickets for in order to achieve funding.

[k14]

Random side step here, but i saw skyrider talking about co2 getting pumped underground to old oil resivoirs, i reckon thats a dam good idea seeing as we have a pretty massive resivoir just off the coast of taranaki that is nearly empty. Coal fired power station anyone?

Another random fact, I work at the place that takes the co2 out of the gas that's mined out of the ground in taranaki. We vent about 10% of the co2 removed from the gas to the atmosphere and the rest gets recovered and sold to other companies for a use that most people will be surprised to know. Green rep to who can guess what its used for.

[WINJA]

random side step here, but i saw skyrider talking about co2 getting pumped underground to old oil resivoirs, i reckon thats a dam good idea seeing as we have a pretty massive resivoir just off the coast of taranaki that is nearly empty. coal fired power station anyone?

another random fact, i work at the place that takes the co2 out of the gas that's mined out of the ground in taranaki. we vent about 10% of the co2 removed from the gas to the atmosphere and the rest gets recovered and sold to other companies for a use that most people will be surprised to know. green rep to who can guess what its used for.


---------------------------------------
coca cola , welding, new refrigerant in a cascade system

[k14]

coca cola , welding, new refrigerant in a cascade system
yeah too easy aye. was quite surprised actually, they've just had to double the capacity of co2 processing to keep up with the demand. who'd have known that beer/fizzy drinks takes up so much co2.

[wendigo]

Climate changes all the time, and the stimulus for change is manifold.

How do you make O3? In the upper atmosphere, instense bursts of solar radiation create an environment where some O2 atoms split and others attract the free O atom. We went 27 years without major solar flares, or solar storms, from the late '60s to the early '90s. The depleted Ozone layer was latched onto by the Green movement as a sign that man-made pollutants were breaking the ozone layer down. Rather than it being broken down, it wasn't being built up. As a free molecule CFCs for instance are too heavy to reach the upper atmosphere. Combined with the effects of a non-regenerating Ozone layer was the MT Pinatubo sulfate aerosol effect. The depletion of the Ozone layer accelerated rapidly after that eruption, and I rather suspect that we are still experiencing climate effects generated by it.

On the other hand Chlorine in the lower troposhere is a contributor to creating ground level ozone.


In the Stratosphere the reactions are approximately:

(1) O₂ + UV (@~254 nm)--> O^. + O^.;
(2) O^. + O₂ -->O₃;
(3) O₃ + UV-B (or UV-A) --> O₂ + O^.;
(4a) O₂ + O^. --> O₃
(4b) O^. + O^. --> O₂

so essentially we have the dynamic reversible reaction:

(5) 3O₂ <--> 2O₃;

which is at equilibrium, and who's fortunate side effect (for us) is that it absorbs solar radiation of wavelengths < ~320nm.

The fun starts when we introduce CFC's, chlorocarbons BrFC's etc . We then get the series of reactions:

(6) (CFC) + UV --> (CFC)^. + Cl^.
(7) Cl^. + O₃ --> ClO^. + O₂
(8) ClO^. + O --> Cl^. + O₂

The net result of reactions (7) & (8) is that ozone and the O^. used to make ozone in reaction (2) is converted to O₂, while the chlorine radical is regenerated to be reused in equation (7). This means that the <u>balance</u> of reaction (5) is moved towards the right, which means there is less ozone & thus higher levels of UV radiation reach ground level.
Painfull as it may be to admit it, the Greens are actually correct if they have stated that man made polutants (speciffically Chloro, Bromo or Fluoro carbon) compounds) have led to the depletion of the Ozone layer. There is no argument over this. The real argument is over how much man made pollutants have shifted the balance of reaction (5), and it is in this that the Greens are a bunch of sensationalist lyin' bastards.

"As a free molecule CFCs for instance are too heavy to reach the upper atmosphere" - You're actually just as bad the Green movement here, this statement is erroneous and misguiding (or 'bullshit' in the vernacular).

" Combined with the effects of a non-regenerating Ozone layer " - see comments above - the ozone layer is continually regenerating - and continually being destroyed.

"On the other hand Chlorine in the lower troposhere is a contributor to creating ground level ozone." - true, but once again man made pollutants, in this case VOC's (Volatile Organic Compounds ) & NOX (Nitrous Oxides), have had a significant impact on this also, once again shifting the balance of low level ozone.


Rgrds

[Milky]

We went over this subject a great deal in 2nd year Sustainability Engineering. It was presented from the point of view of the climate change activists/greenies/whatever you want to label them, but there were some interesting graphs I found during the course:

[Jantar]

The first graph of the pair is the more interesting one. I remember seeing it before but I couldn't find it to post on here. It does show that temperature deviations lead CO2 deviations. Therefore changes to CO2 levels are more likely to be caused by temperature changes than the reverse. However we must remember that while showing a correlation doesn't by necessity show a causation, it can show the opposite.

In this case because CO2 levels follow the temperature changes then CO2 changes cannot of themselves be a cause of temperature change.

[Hitcher]

Check out the graph on www.venganza.org (http://www.venganza.org).

It shows a clear and startling inverse relationship between global warming and the number of pirates.

While you're there, you may wish to be touched by His Noodly Appendage.