Antarctic ice shelf showing signs of breaking away

[Old Rocks]

Hole in the ozone? There isn't a hole in the ozone. There is a temporary cyclical thinning of the ozone. The Earth's ozone layer is created by . . . wait for it . . . the sun! At certain times, in certain places, there is much less sunlight, owing to a phenomenon we call "winter", causing the ozone layer in those areas to thin. And then it's not winter any more, and the ozone layer replenishes itself.

No, Ceclilie, there is an unnatural thinning of the ozone from CFCs.
CFCs and Ozone Depletion

Chlorofluorocarbons and Ozone Depletion
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), along with other chlorine- and bromine-containing compounds, have been implicated in the accelerated depletion of ozone in the Earth's stratosphere. CFCs were developed in the early 1930s and are used in a variety of industrial, commercial, and household applications. These substances are non-toxic, non-flammable, and non-reactive with other chemical compounds. These desirable safety characteristics, along with their stable thermodynamic properties, make them ideal for many applications--as coolants for commercial and home refrigeration units, aerosol propellants, electronic cleaning solvents, and blowing agents. Production and Use of Chlorofluorocarbons experienced nearly uninterrupted growth as demand for products requiring their use continued to rise.
Not until 1973 was chlorine found to be a catalytic agent in ozone destruction. Catalytic destruction of ozone removes the odd oxygen species [atomic oxygen (O) and ozone (O3)] while leaving chlorine unaffected. This process was known to be potentially damaging to the ozone layer, but conclusive evidence of stratospheric ozone loss was not discovered until 1984. Announcement of polar ozone depletion over Antarctica in March 1985 prompted scientific initiatives to discover the Ozone Depletion Processes, along with calls to freeze or diminish production of chlorinated fluorocarbons. A complex scenario of atmospheric dynamics, solar radiation, and chemical reactions was found to explain the anomalously low levels of ozone during the polar springtime. Recent expeditions to the Arctic regions show that similar processes can occur in the northern hemisphere, but to a somewhat lesser degree due to warmer temperatures and erratic dynamic patterns.

A primary objective for researchers in addressing this issue has been analysis of Measurements and Trends in Ozone and Chlorofluorocarbon Levels. Global monitoring of ozone levels from space by the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) instrument has shown statistically significant downward trends in ozone at all latitudes outside the tropics. Measurements at several ground-based stations have shown corresponding upward trends in CFCs in both the northern and southern hemisphere. Despite rapid phaseout of CFCs, ozone levels are expected to be lower than pre-depletion levels for several decades due to the long tropospheric lifetimes of CFCs. These compounds are carried into the stratosphere, where they can undergo hundreds of catalytic cycles involving ozone before being scavenged by other chemical species.

Replacement compounds for CFCs have also been evaluated for their Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP). Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) still contain chlorine atoms, but the presence of hydrogen makes them reactive with chemical species in the troposphere. This greatly reduces the prospects of the chlorine reaching the stratosphere, as chlorine will be removed by chemical processes in the lower atmosphere. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), potential replacements for CFCs that contain no chlorine, have been evaluated for potential effects of fluorine compounds on ozone destruction. McFarland and Kaye give an overview of the CFC-ozone issue in the 1992 paper "Chlorofluorocarbons and Ozone."

 

[Old Rocks]

Last I heard, there was evidence of people actually living and farming in Greenland. There IS a reason it's called "GREENland".

It was called Greenland by Eric the Red to get people to migrate there. It was a sales ploy. At the best of times, Greenland was barely habitable, and when the climate changed just slightly, the colony perished. In his book, 'Collapse', Jared Diamond covered the climate, the people, and the reasons for the death of the colony quite well.

 

[Old Rocks]

YOU can actually observe the movement of glaciers? Can you also watch continental drift? Is there anything else you can personally witness that no one else can see with the naked eye, Oh Mighty One?

I have spent most of my life in Washington and Oregon. I have seen, over period longer than 60 years, the retreat of glaciers on all the major peaks. In areas of the Blues where there were once year arround snowfields, there is now bare ground two months of the year. Washington state contains more glacier area than the other lower 47 combined. It is hardly difficult to see and walk to and on glaciers in that state.

North Cascade Glaciers

 

[Missourian]

We can quibble about to what extent our CO2 is changing our environment, but nobody who is reality based is going to deny that it's changing rather quickly.

Respectfully, we don't know. I'm not a scientist. No one has time to be an expert on everything. I only apply common sense to the things I think* I know.



Here's an example. During the Ice Ages, the reflective nature of the ice should have diverted a large amount of the solar radiation back out into space, causing terrestial temperatures to continue to drop until the earth was nothing but a frozen sphere. Why didn't that happen? And keep in mind it happen four times. Does this imply a large and somewhat rapid surge in solar radiation (temperatures)? How else could the earth recover(?) from those Ice Ages?





*Meaning "there are times that what I think I know ain't so" (Reagan).

 

[Chris]

Respectfully, we don't know. I'm not a scientist. No one has time to be an expert on everything. I only apply common sense to the things I think* I know.



Here's an example. During the Ice Ages, the reflective nature of the ice should have diverted a large amount of the solar radiation back out into space, causing terrestial temperatures to continue to drop until the earth was nothing but a frozen sphere. Why didn't that happen? And keep in mind it happen four times. Does this imply a large and somewhat rapid surge in solar radiation (temperatures)? How else could the earth recover(?) from those Ice Ages?





*Meaning "there are times that what I think I know ain't so" (Reagan).

The sun is the major cause of climate changes on the earth, but the solar scientists say that the sun's radiation has not changed enough to account for the changes we are seeing.

 

[Steerpike]

The sun is the major cause of climate changes on the earth, but the solar scientists say that the sun's radiation has not changed enough to account for the changes we are seeing.

That's not necessarily true. I think we're heading into a cold period, such as scientists were predicting back in the 1970s. Already even the scientists who favor the anthropogenic model for warming are saying we're in a 'temporary' cooling period. That made news a while back. I think the cooling period is going to be more protracted.

Right now, the solar cycle is in a period of extremely low activity. A similar period of low activity correlated with the Little Ice Age, which ran about 450-500 years. I think we're likely heading that way again.

Also, warming events do precede cooling events, because the warming causes an influx of cold water into the oceans when you get land and floating ice starting to melt.

Based on the scientific literature, I think that's the most likely scenario.

However, one main point that should be taken from climate science is that we don't understand nearly as much as some people (namely, politicians) like to claim we do. We can speculate and try to predict, but anyone who tells you we know for certain one way or another is selling something.

 

[Chris]

That's not necessarily true. I think we're heading into a cold period, such as scientists were predicting back in the 1970s. Already even the scientists who favor the anthropogenic model for warming are saying we're in a 'temporary' cooling period. That made news a while back. I think the cooling period is going to be more protracted.

Right now, the solar cycle is in a period of extremely low activity. A similar period of low activity correlated with the Little Ice Age, which ran about 450-500 years. I think we're likely heading that way again.

Also, warming events do precede cooling events, because the warming causes an influx of cold water into the oceans when you get land and floating ice starting to melt.

Based on the scientific literature, I think that's the most likely scenario.

However, one main point that should be taken from climate science is that we don't understand nearly as much as some people (namely, politicians) like to claim we do. We can speculate and try to predict, but anyone who tells you we know for certain one way or another is selling something.

The North Polar Ice Cap is melting.

That we know for certain.

 

[Steerpike]

The North Polar Ice Cap is melting.

That we know for certain.

Yes. What we don't know for certain is why and what the climate ramifications will be. Seems to me the evidence points toward warming from the earth's crust as a primary factor, and I suspect that human activity can contribute to this. I also suspect that as more ice melts into the ocean we'll continue to move into a colder phase as we seem to have been doing.

But we're not sure what all is at work.

 

[KittenKoder]

Oh well, it only means humans will become extinct sooner.

 

[Cecilie1200]

As I suspected, no facts, only bluster.

You suspected that about yourself as well? Well, then, I don't feel so bad about ignoring you for being a lying sack.

Come back when you have the testicular fortitude to debate for real. FLUSH!

 

[KittenKoder]

Bottom line:

Gore is an attention hound and no more, he only started this craze to get that attention.

The planet can handle pollution in small amounts, it's not the pollution that's bad because that is a natural cycle of things, it's that we are so over populated now that the levels have exceeded the natural amounts too much.

The planet will live on, life will continue to exist even if drastically different than what we know now, just humans will not, and good riddance at this rate anyway.

Global warming/cooling is really over simplifying the effects, it's a tag line and nothing more, one which is used to rally those who want to tell everyone what is right and wrong behind one side or the other. Global chaos is a better term but even that is still too simplistic.

The effects of our excess pollution is not fully realized with any one term or scientific theory, needless to say, even if we did clean up our pollution our population itself still poses a bigger problem. Those who do not want to stop breeding of course will continue to use the pollution arguments for or against instead of facing the real issue.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Change in the alleles that control our genetic heritage is evolution, period. Be the results major or minor.

Wrong, Spanky. Changes inside a species are NOT changes from one species to another, and do NOT constitute proof that change between species happens. Trying to conflate the two is disingenuous.

Since every scientific society on earth, every National Academy of Science, and every major university states that the warming is occuring, that it is dangerous, and that the primary cause of the warming is the actions of mankind, why should I give the slightest credance to someone posting their obvious ignorance on a message board?

Since you're too ignorant to know that science isn't decided by majority vote - the truth isn't a democracy, Einstein - AND you're dumb enough to believe that there even IS a settled consensus on the subject, why should I give any "credance" to someone posting a buttload of quotes they don't understand AND their ignorance on a message board?

 

[Old Rocks]

That's not necessarily true. I think we're heading into a cold period, such as scientists were predicting back in the 1970s. Already even the scientists who favor the anthropogenic model for warming are saying we're in a 'temporary' cooling period. That made news a while back. I think the cooling period is going to be more protracted.

Right now, the solar cycle is in a period of extremely low activity. A similar period of low activity correlated with the Little Ice Age, which ran about 450-500 years. I think we're likely heading that way again.

Also, warming events do precede cooling events, because the warming causes an influx of cold water into the oceans when you get land and floating ice starting to melt.

Based on the scientific literature, I think that's the most likely scenario.

However, one main point that should be taken from climate science is that we don't understand nearly as much as some people (namely, politicians) like to claim we do. We can speculate and try to predict, but anyone who tells you we know for certain one way or another is selling something.

Please, the scientists were not saying that we were heading into a cooling period in the 1970s. This myth was started by an article that the National Acacemies of Science produced in 1975. It was severly misinterpreted and misread by a Newsweek science writer. Here is a complete report on that issue;
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html

 

[Old Rocks]

Respectfully, we don't know. I'm not a scientist. No one has time to be an expert on everything. I only apply common sense to the things I think* I know.

SIZE="1"]*Meaning "there are times that what I think I know ain't so" (Reagan).[/SIZE]

Here's an example. During the Ice Ages, the reflective nature of the ice should have diverted a large amount of the solar radiation back out into space, causing terrestial temperatures to continue to drop until the earth was nothing but a frozen sphere. Why didn't that happen? And keep in mind it happen four times. Does this imply a large and somewhat rapid surge in solar radiation (temperatures)? How else could the earth recover(?) from those Ice Ages?

You are correct, no one has time to know everything. Here is some information on the Milankovic Cycles, you can follow the links for a more complete understanding of the ice age cycles. It is the fact that we are now quite far from where we should be on the global tempretures by these cycles that is indictutive that we have changed how things are working.


Milankovitch Cycles

 

[Cecilie1200]

Don't you people ever research anything?

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

Since your definition of "research" would be "reading blogs and propaganda sites that confirm my Chicken Little view of the world", the answer to that would be no. I never waste my time begging people to lie to me.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wrong, Spanky. Changes inside a species are NOT changes from one species to another, and do NOT constitute proof that change between species happens. Trying to conflate the two is disingenuous.



Since you're too ignorant to know that science isn't decided by majority vote - the truth isn't a democracy, Einstein - AND you're dumb enough to believe that there even IS a settled consensus on the subject, why should I give any "credance" to someone posting a buttload of quotes they don't understand AND their ignorance on a message board?

Well, Cecilie, evolution has been observed, speciation events have been documented, and your refusal to accept reality hardly changes that reality. Scientific consensus is how we decide what we accept as reality. You may want to believe diamond is soft, but after thousands of tests, the scientific consensus is that diamonds are hard, your belief affected the tests not one whit. Scientific consensus is that the earth orbits the sun. That masses attract each other. That micro-organisms can cause disease. And, based on all the current evidence, that the burning of fossil fuels, and nearly 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 that has resulted, is causing the current global warming.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, Ceclilie, there is an unnatural thinning of the ozone from CFCs.
CFCs and Ozone Depletion

Chlorofluorocarbons and Ozone Depletion
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), along with other chlorine- and bromine-containing compounds, have been implicated in the accelerated depletion of ozone in the Earth's stratosphere. CFCs were developed in the early 1930s and are used in a variety of industrial, commercial, and household applications. These substances are non-toxic, non-flammable, and non-reactive with other chemical compounds. These desirable safety characteristics, along with their stable thermodynamic properties, make them ideal for many applications--as coolants for commercial and home refrigeration units, aerosol propellants, electronic cleaning solvents, and blowing agents. Production and Use of Chlorofluorocarbons experienced nearly uninterrupted growth as demand for products requiring their use continued to rise.
Not until 1973 was chlorine found to be a catalytic agent in ozone destruction. Catalytic destruction of ozone removes the odd oxygen species [atomic oxygen (O) and ozone (O3)] while leaving chlorine unaffected. This process was known to be potentially damaging to the ozone layer, but conclusive evidence of stratospheric ozone loss was not discovered until 1984. Announcement of polar ozone depletion over Antarctica in March 1985 prompted scientific initiatives to discover the Ozone Depletion Processes, along with calls to freeze or diminish production of chlorinated fluorocarbons. A complex scenario of atmospheric dynamics, solar radiation, and chemical reactions was found to explain the anomalously low levels of ozone during the polar springtime. Recent expeditions to the Arctic regions show that similar processes can occur in the northern hemisphere, but to a somewhat lesser degree due to warmer temperatures and erratic dynamic patterns.

A primary objective for researchers in addressing this issue has been analysis of Measurements and Trends in Ozone and Chlorofluorocarbon Levels. Global monitoring of ozone levels from space by the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) instrument has shown statistically significant downward trends in ozone at all latitudes outside the tropics. Measurements at several ground-based stations have shown corresponding upward trends in CFCs in both the northern and southern hemisphere. Despite rapid phaseout of CFCs, ozone levels are expected to be lower than pre-depletion levels for several decades due to the long tropospheric lifetimes of CFCs. These compounds are carried into the stratosphere, where they can undergo hundreds of catalytic cycles involving ozone before being scavenged by other chemical species.

Replacement compounds for CFCs have also been evaluated for their Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP). Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) still contain chlorine atoms, but the presence of hydrogen makes them reactive with chemical species in the troposphere. This greatly reduces the prospects of the chlorine reaching the stratosphere, as chlorine will be removed by chemical processes in the lower atmosphere. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), potential replacements for CFCs that contain no chlorine, have been evaluated for potential effects of fluorine compounds on ozone destruction. McFarland and Kaye give an overview of the CFC-ozone issue in the 1992 paper "Chlorofluorocarbons and Ozone."

Should I feel like having someone lie to me in order to scare me into authorizing ever-bigger grants from tax money for them, rest assured that I am more than capable of going, finding their propaganda, and reading it for myself. Since you and I both know that you never understand a damned word of the articles that you regurgitate wholecloth here in place of posting any original thoughts of your own, you might as well not even bother. "He has a PhD and it's SOOOO SCARY!" works on you, not me.

By the way, if I don't start seeing some posts from you that contain something you've written other than "No, see, this guy says this!" before you blurt out some huge cut-and-paste article that has impressed you with its scads of technical terms, you're going to go join Chris in the Chicken Little Losers Limbo. This is supposed to be debate, which means you are actually required to occasionally think for yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It was called Greenland by Eric the Red to get people to migrate there. It was a sales ploy. At the best of times, Greenland was barely habitable, and when the climate changed just slightly, the colony perished. In his book, 'Collapse', Jared Diamond covered the climate, the people, and the reasons for the death of the colony quite well.

The key phrase in there is "when the climate changed". So basically, you wasted a post trying to contradict my statement that Greenland was NOT always as it is now, only to confirm it.

By the way, how was it that the climate changed to make Greenland what it is now? Those Vikings driving a lot of SUVs, were they?

 

[Old Rocks]

Should I feel like having someone lie to me in order to scare me into authorizing ever-bigger grants from tax money for them, rest assured that I am more than capable of going, finding their propaganda, and reading it for myself. Since you and I both know that you never understand a damned word of the articles that you regurgitate wholecloth here in place of posting any original thoughts of your own, you might as well not even bother. "He has a PhD and it's SOOOO SCARY!" works on you, not me.

By the way, if I don't start seeing some posts from you that contain something you've written other than "No, see, this guy says this!" before you blurt out some huge cut-and-paste article that has impressed you with its scads of technical terms, you're going to go join Chris in the Chicken Little Losers Limbo. This is supposed to be debate, which means you are actually required to occasionally think for yourself.

I have yet to see any evidence that you have done any thinking for yourself. Just regurgitated talking points without any evidence to back them up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have spent most of my life in Washington and Oregon. I have seen, over period longer than 60 years, the retreat of glaciers on all the major peaks. In areas of the Blues where there were once year arround snowfields, there is now bare ground two months of the year. Washington state contains more glacier area than the other lower 47 combined. It is hardly difficult to see and walk to and on glaciers in that state.

North Cascade Glaciers

Seeing a glacier and being told that it has retreated is not "seeing it retreat", Brain Trust.