|
So I remember reading a story awhile back asking a question that doesn't get asked very often...what happened to the last great climate scare, the hole in the ozone layer? Apparently our efforts to repair the ozone layer were not in vain...it has started to close back up. What does that have to do with global warming, one might ask? Apparently there is a group of scientists that believe that, by "saving" the ozone layer and allowing it to rebuild, we have hastened the onset of global warming.
In a way it makes sense. Our insulation had a hole in it that was allowing heat to escape. We have since closed that hole and now the heat doesn't have a place to go.
Now, I'm not a huge environmentalist, but I don't think that global warming is a lie like some do. I just find it odd that, no matter what we do, we seem to be screwed. Maybe we should implement a rotational plan wherein we use ozone depleters for X number of years, then stop and allow the ozone layer to repair itself, and do this cyclically (sp?) so we can control our temperature swings.
Oh well, what do I care? The world's ending in 2012 anyways. I wonder how many times the line "you don't want to die a virgin, do you?" will be used on the evening of December 20, 2012?
Actually, there are multiple holes on the ozone layer. IIRC, the ones in the Northern hemisphere are all seasonal in nature, opening and closing every year. I think the one over Antarctica persists but shrinks and grows, but it's been a while since I read any of the literature on that.
Also, while the ozone in that layer traps heat, water vapor, CO2, methane, and other gases are bigger problems. We're kinda stuck with water vapor, but the rest have been influenced by human beings.
The two have connections (go figure, atmospheric phenomena) but aren't intertwined to the point where they're giving strong feedbacks to each other. After all, we had an ozone layer during the ice age glacial periods; it's been up there since not long after oxygen started forming up in the atmosphere.
Current levels 2010 It is not as "fixed" as one might think. Just has been forgotten about by the media.
Current levels 2010 It is not as "fixed" as one might think. Just has been forgotten about by the media.
Thanks for the link. I guess the penguins are now importing some heavy-duty sunblock!
I don't buy that greenhouse gases are the primary cause for global warming. The math doesn't quite add up. I personally think that heat islands (also cause urbanization) are having a bigger impact on global climate change than is given credit.
I read blog post not to long ago about acid rain. The original study of acid rain scientificly proved it was not the threat environmentalist claimed. The study was sound scientificly, but not politically.
Global climate change has become the same kind of political issue. Too many people have a political or monetary interest in it for bias not to creep in.
Edit: I am for the reduction in greehouse gases and moving toward a more friendly environment (such as adding more green spaces in cities), but I think ignoring focusing on greenhouse gases and ignoring other possible influences is stupid and bad science.
Current levels 2010 It is not as "fixed" as one might think. Just has been forgotten about by the media.
I think the point is its not really growing and it no longer looks as if it'll encompass southern Australia. My understanding is its actually viewed as something of an international success story. Most of the stuff that was believed to contribute was banned and the problem should resolve itself given a few hundred years.
|
|
I don't buy that greenhouse gases are the primary cause for global warming. The math doesn't quite add up. I personally think that heat islands (also cause urbanization) are having a bigger impact on global climate change than is given credit.
I read blog post not to long ago about acid rain. The original study of acid rain scientificly proved it was not the threat environmentalist claimed. The study was sound scientificly, but not politically.
Global climate change has become the same kind of political issue. Too many people have a political or monetary interest in it for bias not to creep in.
Edit: I am for the reduction in greehouse gases and moving toward a more friendly environment (such as adding more green spaces in cities), but I think ignoring focusing on greenhouse gases and ignoring other possible influences is stupid and bad science.
What other influences were you thinking of?
Solar activity? Investigated. Found not to match the data.Natural climate variation? Investigated. Found not to match the data.
Don't know whether heat islands havwe been investigated. But other reasons have not been ignored, they've just been found to not actually be right. That's bloody good science.
Greenhouse gases are, so far, the only thing that even comes close to matching the data. Doesn't mean they are the reason (almost certainly they aren't the only reason), but they are the best reason we've so far found. If you find a better one, great, you'll probably win a Nobel Prize for it.
[EDIT] Edited to remove unproductive snark. Productive snark has been kept
I don't buy that greenhouse gases are the primary cause for global warming. The math doesn't quite add up. I personally think that heat islands (also cause urbanization) are having a bigger impact on global climate change than is given credit.
I read blog post not to long ago about acid rain. The original study of acid rain scientificly proved it was not the threat environmentalist claimed. The study was sound scientificly, but not politically.
Global climate change has become the same kind of political issue. Too many people have a political or monetary interest in it for bias not to creep in.
Edit: I am for the reduction in greehouse gases and moving toward a more friendly environment (such as adding more green spaces in cities), but I think ignoring focusing on greenhouse gases and ignoring other possible influences is stupid and bad science.
One big difference between the Acid Rain scare and Climate Change is that in the Acid Rain scare it was the scientists themselves that came to the conclusion that Acid Rain was not as big a problem as had been feared. That is not the case with Climate Change. In Climate Change the vast majority of scientists keep telling us that there is a real and present danger.
That list keeps growing aw well. I recall reading something recently where journalists tracked down many of the big name scientific skeptics that where being quoted in the early 2000's and something like half of them have since changed their mind. A common refrain being 'I felt the evidence was just not strong enough to really call this science at the time - but the evidence just keeps growing'.
Even the Acid Rain issue was probably for the best. The Coal industry claimed that doing anything along these lines of the proposed regulation would ruin them and put millions of American out of work. It just was not true and the reduction in pollution was pretty notable. All in all even if it was more politics then science the benefits to society have so far significantly outweighed the costs.
I don't buy that greenhouse gases are the primary cause for global warming. The math doesn't quite add up. I personally think that heat islands (also cause urbanization) are having a bigger impact on global climate change than is given credit.
I read blog post not to long ago about acid rain. The original study of acid rain scientificly proved it was not the threat environmentalist claimed. The study was sound scientificly, but not politically.
Global climate change has become the same kind of political issue. Too many people have a political or monetary interest in it for bias not to creep in.
Edit: I am for the reduction in greehouse gases and moving toward a more friendly environment (such as adding more green spaces in cities), but I think ignoring focusing on greenhouse gases and ignoring other possible influences is stupid and bad science.
Urban heat islands are several degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside typically. But the actual amount of urban land area vs. the nonurban land area is small. Also, those are localized hot spots; GHGs are spread throughout the atmosphere. But there are others that think as you do and may be right. Of course, urban areas can be great sources of GHGs too, which is a key correlation.
You're also correct about the bias in global climate change. So many people have spent time trying to discredit or downplay the IPCC findings that it makes me sick. Are the IPCC findings incontrovertible proof? No. But they're the results of the studies of the best scientists globally. They're as good as we can make them. Are they flawed? Yes. But me, I'm a cautious man. Even though the climate models don't yet agree on how bad things will be, since climate science isn't advanced enough yet to give us precise, accurate predictions all the time, I feel that it's better to be safe than sorry.
Oh, and as for acid rain: there are plenty of damaged forests up in the Adirondacks and other parts of the NE U.S. Another grad student I know did her work up there and saw some of the results. The calcium leaching alone worries me. I think Europe's had its share of trouble with that stuff too.
With science, one must always understand that the results of today's study might well be found to be in error next year. Many studies and many years are required before something becomes scientific law (among other things). But we work with what we've got. If one wants absolute, undeniable proof, come back in a few centuries and you'll likely have it.
Also, to be fair, there's an American trend (habit? behavior?) to bash the experts on a topic, to nitpick their work until something can be found to attack them. That's sometimes a factor as well and has come up in global climate change discussions.
Finally, it's sometimes hard for people to believe that human beings can have an effect of any sort on something the size of the earth. What people don't necessarily realize is that the problem of global climate change isn't the work of one person. It's the work of millions, spread over multiple centuries, accumulating every day. But because a given person might not be able to wrap their mind around that kind of scale, it's easier sometimes to disbelieve it than to look it in the face and acknowledge the possibility.
Thraxus, the above comments are not an attack on you. If I stepped over the line anywhere, I apologize. This is a topic I spent a fair bit of time dealing with as a graduate student, including actually reading a good bit (maybe even all, I no longer remember for sure) of the last IPCC report. So it's still pretty fresh in my mind and near to my heart.
I read blog post not to long ago about acid rain. The original study of acid rain scientificly proved it was not the threat environmentalist claimed. The study was sound scientificly, but not politically.
Sorry but even if that article is somewhat true it is far too laced with a 'i've got an axe to grind' rhetoric to consider it with any measure of credibility. This piece isn't presenting a debate or discourse its just ranting and insinuation. Ah but that does seem to the standard today, making it virtually impossible to research most contentious topics.
I read blog post not to long ago about acid rain. The original study of acid rain scientificly proved it was not the threat environmentalist claimed. The study was sound scientificly, but not politically.Sorry but even if that article is somewhat true it is far too laced with a 'i've got an axe to grind' rhetoric to consider it with any measure of credibility. This piece isn't presenting a debate or discourse its just ranting and insinuation. Ah but that does seem to the standard today, making it virtually impossible to research most contentious topics.
That's why scientists go to the peer-reviewed literature. Things like blog posts are good for getting a feel of what the outsiders think, but if I'd used one in my graduate thesis I'd better have been prepared for a whole log of flak.
That's why scientists go to the peer-reviewed literature. Things like blog posts are good for getting a feel of what the outsiders think, but if I'd used one in my graduate thesis I'd better have been prepared for a whole log of flak.
I read blog post not to long ago about acid rain. The original study of acid rain scientificly proved it was not the threat environmentalist claimed. The study was sound scientificly, but not politically.Sorry but even if that article is somewhat true it is far too laced with a 'i've got an axe to grind' rhetoric to consider it with any measure of credibility. This piece isn't presenting a debate or discourse its just ranting and insinuation. Ah but that does seem to the standard today, making it virtually impossible to research most contentious topics.
I'm back.
Freedom lost.