Re: Cold, hard facts defy the doomsayers


"Al Zenner" <azen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns977BBEDC6F67Dzsp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"George" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
1W3Of.833843$xm3.741773@attbi_s21:">news:1W3Of.833843$xm3.741773@attbi_s21:

Al Zenner wrote:

I've snipped a lot out for brevity, and it is still too long.

People didn't believe for many years that the ozone was being affected
by manmade chemicals (some still refuse to believe it), yet NASA's
satellite data has essentially put that argument to rest. So let me ask
you, what level of data would convince you that what we are doing to
this planet is having a detrimental effect on it? How long must we
collect data before we act? And once the data is to your satisfaction,
will it be too late to do anything about it? Is it too late already?

That ozone is affected by chemicals has always been clear. How much of
the effect comesfrom manmade chemicals vs. how much is from natural
effects is what has been questioned.

No reputable scientist I am aware of questions the detrimental effect of
chlorofluorocarbons on the ozone layer, Al. They have been detected within
the layer itself.

To take the next step (spread out someplace down below) the chemicals
aren't simply refrigerant class stuff. Ordinary chlorine used as
laundry bleach does it'sparton massive scales as well, along with
many other ozone gobbling chemicals we never think or hear about.

Yes, Chlorine does have that effect, and the vast bulk of that chlorine is
derived from manmade products. Having said that, Chlorofluorocarbons have
the most detrimental effect on the ozone layer simply because it is less
reactive with other chemicals, and remains in the atmosphere for a much
longer period of time.

I for one don't think it is too late, but I also believe that we have
little time to argue the point. I suspect that our grandchildren and
great grandchildren will look back at all the resources that we've
squandered, and all the filth we are leaving behind for them to clean
up, and think that we were not very intelligent at all.

We're already doing that, no?

Doing what? Which sentence are you responding to?

On a cosmic time scale, that may have some truth to it. On a human time
scale, it makes a big difference, IMHO. Our children and their children
still have to live on this earth. We owe it to them to leave it in at
least as good a shape as it was in when we had lived in it. Of course,
that is just a goal, and possibly an unrealistic goal. And yet, in a
world where there are now 6.5 billion people and ever dwindling
resourses, we owe it to future generations to do all we can to curtail
our incessant appetites, and our nasty habits.

That's not in tune with freedom and democracy ideals, unfortunately.

Umm, since when does freedom and democracy demand that we wreck the planet?
Perhaps you have those concepts confused with capitalism.

The Sahel is expanding rapidly as we speak. So is the Gobi desert. The
American Southwest has been in a prolonged drought with no end in sight.
The arctic and subarctic permafrost is melting in large regions of the
north. The glaciers in Greenland and in Antarctica are showing
significant melting. I think we have less time that you think we do.

Could be that we do. It is possible we've already passed the point of
no return. Then what?

I have a problem with the idea that we are past a point of no return.
First of all, you have to define what that means. Does that mean that
we've past the point where doing anything will have no effect? There are
always consequences to what we do, Al. I think what that means is that if
we've crossed some threshhold, it would be one where no matter what we do
in the short run, the planet will warm to the point where the polar ice
caps will completely melt, causing massive coastal flooding, among other
very detrimental effects. I'm not so sure that is the case, but I'm more
certain that if we don't do anything at all, the likelihood that that will
occur increases exponentially over time.

You really believe global warming is going to happen that suddenly?

I think global warming is already here. I live in the Midwest. The
seasons are already out of whack here, and have been for a number of
years. Spring has been at least four weeks early for the last ten years.
Flowers that I wouldn't normally see bloom until mid-March I've been
seeing in full bloom by no later than mid-February, and last year, some
were in bloom at the end of January - something I've never seen before.
Likewise, the winter has seemed to come earlier and be shorter than it
used to be. Our growing season is far longer than it was when I was
growing up. I grew tomatoes in the open air from mid-April until
mid-Novermber last year - the longest I've ever been able to grow them.
More than a month longer.

How can you be certain that your longer summers are anything beyond
variation within the norm? Is there any way to tell that this isn't
just a reversion to the mean?

Because we've kept daily temperature records here since the mid-1800s.
Those records indicate that we are out of the norm for our region for
nearly every month out of the year, and have been for quite some time. For
instance, January's average temperature this year was a record high. Last
January's average was the previous record high. When I was a child, we
used to see huge snow falls, and weeks of below freezing temperatures in
the winter. I haven't seen a winter like that here since 1977.

We are even
less prepared for what will undoubtedly be a global loss of coastal
habitat.

I don't believe "we" are going to experience that.

"We" are already experiencing it. Coastal erosion is prevalant all
along the eastern seaboard, and it is even worse along the northern
coast of the Gulf of Mexico. The Maldives, in the Indian Ocean has
also seen continuous loss of their coastline. Those Islands average
about 8 feet above sea level but may some day relatively soon be
inundated.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/photogalleries/global_war
ming/photo5.html

Erosion? How does that correlate to global warming? What's the causality?

Rising sea level, Al. I thought that would be obvious.

I for one don't see the point in risking so many lives just to
have the luxury of watching reruns of "Friends" on the television
24/7, or the luxury of 3 ton SUVs that get 10 mpg and get a soccer mom
from her home to her child's school 2 miles away.

These things may be contributory to an extent that actually makes a
difference, or they might not. Do you, or does anyone else, actually
have any math based proofs? So far all anyone has provided is a bunch
of arm waving.

The math is not as important as the chemistry and physics of the
situation. Just as it can be shown in the laboratory that
chlorofluorocarbons destroy ozone, it has been shown that an increase in
CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases is warming the planet.

You didn't understand what I wrote as intended. I'm discussing applied
math, not pure math.

The EPA report contains quite a bit of applied math. You should read it.

Here is a global map of methane emissions:

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/map_methane_emissions.html

Here is a chart of the rise in global temperatures:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/Climate.html

Here is an EPA report on Greenhouse gases and Global Warming Potential
Values

http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BUM9T
/
$File/ghg_gwp.pdf


Chart 2, below, shows CO2 concentrations projected into the future for
various scenarios. All show an increase:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/projections-of-climate-
chang
e.html

You should look at this report carefully.

I will. But it all lacks long term baseline information. Usually nature
bumps along with changes coming in spurts. I agree the general trends
look a lot like we're headed into global warming, but OTOH nothing we
have is definitive in describing anything falling outside some long term
norms which we don't know as well as we wish to know.

The average global temperature being higher now than at any time in the
last 400,000 years (according to measurements taken from Antarctic and
Greenland ice cores) is pretty definitive.

They certainly won't happen at all if we buried our collective heads in
the sand and ignore that there is a problem.

If causality and solutions were clear cut then there would be no foot
dragging about taking countermeasures against global warming. In the
last 20 million years,what's the warmest the earth has been? Are we
apt to exceed that?

The footdragging is political in nature, and is being propagates by
indutries who would be directly affected by measures taken to reduce
greenhouse emissions.

You keep completely ignoring the Milankovitch theory of climate change
which most climatologists agree is the controlling factor. If it is
correct, as I believe it to be, no amount of hand wringing or change in
human behavior is going to have any effect whatever. Yes, humanity is
selfish, and some believe we're evil, but does that have any actual
effect on the outcome? That has yet to be shown.

Milankovitch's theory is but one piece of the climate change puzzle. Don't
be lulled into thinking that that climate is so one dimensional that it can
be predicted by a single parameter. If there were no human effects on
climate, it would likely be much easier to verify that theory. The problem
is that our emissions have changed the experiment, which is likely changing
the outcome. For instance, we are currently in a interglacial period.
Since industrial emissions didn't occur during any of the previous
interglacial periods, the likely reason why we have a much higher global
average temperature now than at any time during the past 400,000 years is
due to those emissions. The standard Milankovitch theory does not account
for the terminations of the ice ages.

http://muller.lbl.gov/papers/Causality.pdf

George


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Antarctic ozone depleted naturally, researchers say
    ... depleting chemicals in Antarctica. ... capacity of the atmosphere to remove certain chemical compounds. ... analyzed the levels of chemicals in the reflected light. ... by humans are behind the disappearance of ozone over the continent. ...
    (sci.chem)
  • Antarctic ozone depleted naturally, researchers say
    ... depleting chemicals in Antarctica. ... Halogens deplete the ozone above the ice surface, ... analyzed the levels of chemicals in the reflected light. ...
    (sci.chem)
  • Researchers question cause of ozone hole
    ... Researchers question cause of ozone hole ... chemicals are mainly responsible for the "ozone hole" that forms over ... New Zealand scientists track the Antarctic ozone `hole' each winter ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Cold, hard facts defy the doomsayers
    ... by manmade chemicals, ... That ozone is affected by chemicals has always been clear. ... How does that correlate to global warming? ... math, not pure math. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Origins and Mental Activity
    ... reactions occur regardless of the composition, pressure and temperature. ... All the above refers to reactions under equilibrium conditions. ... the set of chemicals you have depends not only on the elemental ... at other times a collision will break up an existing molecule, ...
    (talk.origins)