Global Warming Cause: People or Planetary Mechanics?

[Zythryn]

One has to separate science from politics.

 

Separate yes, but don't discount scientific indicators because of a political position.

 

For example, the chloro-fluro carbons, such as freon, carbon tetrachloride, percloroehtylene, etc., were widely believed to be responsible for the hole in the ozone layer. All kinds of sciences supported this claim. This was big science/politics several years ago. The social result was the drastic reduction of these products because of the political-science. The result of this change should have been the sealing of the ozone hole, but it didn't pan out that way.

 

Am I missing something? Last I heard the ozone hole was 'healing' and was due to be completely repaired about 2056?

Yes, there are other factors involved, but the science was very a very simple chemical reaction. The chemical compounds of CFCs were destroying the ozone. We stopped making so many and the ozone depletion slowed down and is now repairing itself. Just like temperatures, some years it is better or worse than others, but the trend is pointing towards the hole in the ozone being repaired in a few decades.

 

I believe global warming is oversimplified due to politics and the future will point this out. Maybe we need accountablity. If it turns out to be only a fraction of the affect, those scientist, who claimed to be experts, should volunteer for an old fashion tar and feathering.

 

Accountability is needed on both sides. I would suggest that if we bring back 'tar and feathering' we bring it back for the companies and politicians that end up being wrong as well. Of course, that will do us little good when humanity is suffering the consequences of not being careful.:shrug:

 

We don't understand everything about our climate and what affects it.

What we do understand, points towards potential disaster.

We do understand what we need to do to limit our impact on the global climate.

Doing these things, even if it has zero affect on GW will not adversely affect us, and will imrove life for many anyways.

So, why not?

[Michaelangelica]

We stopped making so many and the ozone depletion slowed down and is now repairing itself.

Did all countries, including China, immediately stop making them?

are some still being made?

 

I seem to be hearing contradictory reports on the size of the hole.

 

So we dont trust scientists.

We don't trust politicians.

Who do we trust religious preachers?

[Zythryn]

No, they were phased out over a number of years.

A number of countries signed the 'Montreal' aggrement. I am not sure which countries were a part of the agreement and wouldn't be surprised if some non-signers still produce a small amount of CFC's.

 

Part of the problem is that the CFC stick around for a number of years in the atmosphere (12 I believe).

 

Perhaps once people see that the Montreal agreement did actually acomplish something (when the ozone hole has obviously recovered) people will realize that we CAN actually do other things on that scale (such as reducing industrial CO2:))

[CraigD]

Am I missing something? Last I heard the ozone hole was 'healing' and was due to be completely repaired about 2056?

The result of this change [reduction in CFCs] should have been the sealing of the ozone hole, but it didn't pan out that way.

HydrogenBond is correct - the Antarctic ozone hole continues to increase, both in the area covered by a significantly reduced ozone column, and the ozone density in the most depleted areas (sources: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/hole/size.html, http://jwocky.gsfc.nasa.gov/multi/min_ozone.gif).

 

Zythryn, I’ve never before seen an estimate given for the complete reversal of ozone depletion. What’s its source?

Yes, there are other factors involved, but the science was very a very simple chemical reaction. The chemical compounds of CFCs were destroying the ozone. We stopped making so many and the ozone depletion slowed down and is now repairing itself. Just like temperatures, some years it is better or worse than others, but the trend is pointing towards the hole in the ozone being repaired in a few decades.

Although the ozone hole is not yet shrinking, I believe this conclusion is the one best supported by scientific theory and data. As Zythryn notes, the chemistry of ozone depletion is well understood, as are the dynamics that allow heavier than air, normally non-reactive CFCs to reach the ozone layer 10+ km above ground level.

It turns out other factors were involved, which were ignorred at the time due to politics. I believe global warming is oversimplified due to politics and the future will point this out.

Certainly current atmospheric modeling is complicated and imperfect. Equally certain, this science has been both oversimplified and bogusly criticized by various political factions. However, not taking reasonably inexpensive actions that one’s less-than-complete understanding provides high confidence will improve a dangerous condition, and with very high confidence will not worsen the condition, because one cannot with confidence predict precisely how much or how it will be improved, is poor risk assessment.

[Michaelangelica]

HydrogenBond is correct - the Antarctic ozone hole continues to increase,.

Reports are contradictory

The seasonal hole above the South Pole and Antarctica is now shrinking after falling short of the record years of 2003 and 2000, says the UN's World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in its latest bulletin.

 

 

It peaked at 26.9 million square kilometers on 19 September, it says, against 29 million square kilometers in September 2003, which most scientists say was the record.

 

"It is the third largest ever, more or less as one would expect from present levels of chlorine and bromine in the atmosphere," says Dr Geir Braathen, WMO's top ozone expert.

 

"It doesn't look as if the ozone hole is going to get any bigger [in coming years]. It seems like we have reached a plateau," he adds.

 

http://abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_1485579.htm

[Zythryn]

Zythryn, I’ve never before seen an estimate given for the complete reversal of ozone depletion. What’s its source?

 

I recalled seeing a report over the summer. I looked up the information on Wikipedia. The article was at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_hole

 

The source for the date of repair was:

 

Newman, P. A., Kawa, S. R. and Nash, E. R. (2004), On the size of the Antarctic ozone hole. Geophysical Research Letters, 31, L21104, doi:10.1029/2004GL020596.

Newman, P. A., Nash, E. R., Kawa, S. R., Montzka, S. A. and Schauffler, S. M. (2006), When will the Antarctic ozone hole recover? Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L12814, doi:10.1029/2005GL025232.

[HydrogenBond]

Early this year the prediciton was a heavier than average hurricane season. Other factors appeared that didn't cooperate with this predition. The point I am trying to make is that Atlantic hurricanes are better characterized than the entire globe. Yet everyone assumes global predictions are going to be more accurate than the hurricane predicitons. In other words, if the easy stuff (relatively speaking) is difficult the hard stuff should be even harder to get right.

[Zythryn]

In other words, if the easy stuff (relatively speaking) is difficult the hard stuff should be even harder to get right.

 

They should be able to get the easier stuff right more often. The question is, what is the easier stuff?

 

I would argue it is far easier to predict the global average temperature next year, than the local temperature 3 days in advance.

The hurricane seasons are affected by a number of things. Last year, the prediction was far too low. This year it was too high. I am curious if in the full prediction if allowances were made for events such as El Nino and such?

 

Climate and weather are very difficult to predict, that is true. But the best of our understanding points towards CO2 as warming the earth. The affects of this are not known with absolute certainty, but we have educated guesses and models which indicate it isn't good.

[Eilizsia]

They should be able to get the easier stuff right more often. The question is, what is the easier stuff?

 

I would argue it is far easier to predict the global average temperature next year, than the local temperature 3 days in advance.

The hurricane seasons are affected by a number of things. Last year, the prediction was far too low. This year it was too high. I am curious if in the full prediction if allowances were made for events such as El Nino and such?

 

Climate and weather are very difficult to predict, that is true. But the best of our understanding points towards CO2 as warming the earth. The affects of this are not known with absolute certainty, but we have educated guesses and models which indicate it isn't good.

 

 

The weather it self is also different because of the spatial atmophere, our planets core, and the Ozone. from time to time the planet can fix, one climate like summer or winter. and other times its a mix and match issue. Winter may well hit its peak in february more than summer in september.

 

after all there have been worst issues conserning earth quakes conected to the souce, which is the core of the planet. never underestimate one issue from the other. many things larger than a car causes CO2, Even the Spacial Climate, where other things get through, like the sun's radiation. together with the planets core. These effects cause bad weather also. If cars never existed to begin, there may have been similar effects anyway. Grvaity is also an issue. but we dont see how it can be do we. well not yet that is.

[Southtown]

Then we have the news that apparently the atmosphere is warming little, but the Earth's surface is!?

 

 

http://americandaily.com/article/16013

 

:sun: :cup:

This reminds me of a documentary I watched. It had to do with the moon causing earthquakes.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0523_050523_moonquake_2.html

 

And the moon could possibly cause volcanos for the same reason that astronomers think Europa has a liquid ocean beneath its frozen surface.

 

http://www.resa.net/nasa/europa_life.htm#tidal

[Turtle]

This reminds me of a documentary I watched. It had to do with the moon causing earthquakes.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0523_050523_moonquake_2.html

 

And the moon could possibly cause volcanos for the same reason that astronomers think Europa has a liquid ocean beneath its frozen surface.

 

http://www.resa.net/nasa/europa_life.htm#tidal

 

Good call South. :cup: The guy mentioned in the first link, Jim Berklund, is one of the few geologists who dare to make regular earthquake predictions. He uses Moon phases as you mention, but he also tracks missing pet reports in daily newspapers as this correlates to quakes; more pets go missing a week or two before a large quake. Here's his site with his predictions, explanantions, and track record. :sun:

http://www.syzygyjob.com/

[CraigD]

And the moon could possibly cause volcanos for the same reason that astronomers think Europa has a liquid ocean beneath its frozen surface.

Very interesting and sensible-sounding speculation!

 

It’s worth noting, however, that the gravitational kneading that causes several of the large moons of Jupiter to be so warm is due to much greater variations in gravitational force than that that causes tides – and perhaps earthquakes – on Earth.

 

Here are a few relevant numbers. Units are kg, m, and s, distances are closest pass, gravity is in acceleration in m/s^2

Pri/Sec          Pri Mass  Distance  Gravity   Sec radius  Grav Gradient
Sun/Earth        1.988e30  1.471e11  6.133e-3  6.378e6     1.064e-6
Moon/Earth       7.348e22  3.631e8   3.719e-5  6.378e6     2.615e-6

Jupiter/Europa   1.899e27  6.710e8   2.814e-1  1.561e6     2.619e-3
Io/Europa        8.9e22    2.5e8     9.504e-5  1.561e6     2.374e-6
Ganymede/Europa  1.48e23   3.3e8     9.070e-5  1.561e6     1.716e-6

Note that the gravitation gradient – the difference in gravitational acceleration on the near side of the secondary vs. the far side, which determines tide height (if the secondary as water) – is not only about 1000 times greater for Jupiter/Europa than for Moon/Earth (note that, for these purposes, Moon is the primary body, Earth the secondary), but that the gradient from its nearest neighbor moons, Io and Ganymede, are also about the same as the Moon’s on Earth. Not only that, these added gradients change extremely as the moons pass one another’s orbits.

 

So gravitational conditions on Europa are rather like they’d be on Earth if it were closer to the Sun than Mercury, had 2 moons, and every few days, a giant hand snatched each moon away, allowing to stay only a few hours every few days. It’s no wonder Europa and Io are such hot little worlds!

[Turtle]

Just a note on Berklund's work to say that in my view the Moon's tidal effect on earthquakes & volcanoes is but one of many inputs.

 

Now on to discounting the idea people cause global warming and we're all gonna die if we don't jerk our knees and stop it. :hihi:

 

To whit:

 

 

This week, I'll show how the UN undervalued the sun's effects on historical and contemporary climate, slashed the natural greenhouse effect, overstated the past century's temperature increase, repealed a fundamental law of physics and tripled the man-made greenhouse effect.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

 

Proposition Conclusion

1. That the debate is over and all credible climate scientists are agreed. False

2. That temperature has risen above millennial variability and is exceptional. Very unlikely

3. That changes in solar irradiance are an insignificant forcing mechanism. False

4. That the last century’s increases in temperature are correctly measured.Unlikely

5. That greenhouse-gas increase is the main forcing agent of temperature.Not proven

6. That temperature will rise far enough to do more harm than good. Very unlikely

7. That continuing greenhouse-gas emissions will be very harmful to life.Unlikely

8. That proposed carbon-emission limits would make a definite difference. Very unlikely

9. That the environmental benefits of remediation will be cost-effective. Very unlikely

10. That taking precautions, just in case, would be the responsible course. False

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf;jsessionid=2IIVREEBZZ4FTQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0

 

Lock n' load.:Guns:

[Zythryn]

I find this a very interesting position:

 

"5. That greenhouse-gas increase is the main forcing agent of temperature.Not proven"

 

It is a very sensible position if you want to disbelieve global warming as it is very difficult to argue that there is not more CO2 in the air now than a few years ago.

 

I am interested in any alternate theories about how CO2 affects the climate.

 

I do find the first statement:

"1. That the debate is over and all credible climate scientists are agreed. False", to be logically in error.

I don't know of any article or paper that has claimed this. I have seen many that state that the majority, or vast majority, or most scientists agree. Or that there is a consensus (but not unanimous concsensus). But not any that have said 'all credible climate scientists are agreed'.

 

Thanks for the links though, I look forward to reading them more in depth in the near future.

[Turtle]

I do find the first statement:

"1. That the debate is over and all credible climate scientists are agreed. False", to be logically in error.

I don't know of any article or paper that has claimed this.

 

I think this is the claim of pundits rather than any particular scientist or scientific study. As such it is what seems to drive our ongoing heated debates. :Guns:

[Cedars]

Just a note on Berklund's work to say that in my view the Moon's tidal effect on earthquakes & volcanoes is but one of many inputs.

 

Now on to discounting the idea people cause global warming and we're all gonna die if we don't jerk our knees and stop it. ;)

 

To whit:

 

 

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

 

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf;jsessionid=2IIVREEBZZ4FTQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0

 

Lock n' load.:shrug:

 

Nice link.... Another reason to wonder what we need the UN for anyways... I am still waiting for an answer on why the ozone hole is so much larger over the s. pole when the majority of cfs was released in the northern hemisphere, if the cause of the hole is really cfs.

[Zythryn]

I am still waiting for an answer on why the ozone hole is so much larger over the s. pole when the majority of cfs was released in the northern hemisphere, if the cause of the hole is really cfs.

 

Sorry Cedars, I missed that one.

From Wikipedia:

"Reactions that take place on polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) play an important role in enhancing ozone depletion[3]. PSCs form more readily in the extreme cold of Antarctic stratosphere. This is why ozone holes first formed, and are deeper, over Antarctica. Early models failed to take PSCs into account and predicted a gradual global depletion, which is why the sudden Antarctic ozone hole was such a surprise to many scientists.

 

In middle latitudes it is preferable to speak of ozone depletion rather than holes. Declines are about 3% below pre-1980 values for 35–60N and about 6% for 35–60S. In the tropics, there are no significant trends."

 

The reference (3) at Wiki points to http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/hole/whyant.html#psc.

 

It appears that cold temperatures are a factor in the depletion of ozone. The ozone layer has been depleted over much of the globe, but it is most apparent over the antarctic.