Global Warming Causes Stronger Hurricanests

[Nabeshin]

Your exasperation is palpable. Be cool.

Note the studies quoted in the article I linked. If you're near or enrolled in a university, you should have access to them, as do I. That's what's important. Also, that article was most certainly not written by an "expert" in the field of environmentalism.

I want to know what damage CFCs cause, "regardless," and why they should be regulated. I know of nothing beyond ozone depletion, which I clearly don't think is an actual problem.

I do not know how to address your concern that weather patterns which don't occur might one day occur. You might as well prepare yourself for the second coming of Christ while you're at it.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

I sure hope you're not referring to this article: Invalid Link Removed because there are absolutely no references in there. So, if that's your measure of importance, I suggest you own up to it as well.

And let me clarify this now, I'm not saying this is a 1D problem. I know there is more to ozone depletion than CFCs.

We're not arguing anything aside from ozone depletion, so those are irrelevant factors. I'm not even arguing that we should regulate CFC's (although we already have). I'm simply stating an obvious fact. CFC's pose a real danger to O3. And, considering human-born chlorides in the ozone layer are 50% of the total composition, its safe to assume we've already doubled the original concentration. And, its well established that Cl CAN AND WILL destroy O3 given the opportunity, and you're relying on the fact that during our recorded history we have not seen a clearly defined vortex in the arctic region to say that CFCs are not a problem, and that frankly it doesn't matter how many CFC's make it into the poles. If there is a working vortex in the first place, there is a significant chance that it can put itself together.

Based on your logic, Invalid Link Removed. I hope you're a god-fearing man if your logic is correct.

I can guarantee the probability of the arctic vortex gathering itself is much more reasonable than the 1/10^340,000,000 chance of the simplest living life form coming to be. Law of probability states anything beyond 1/10^50 won't happen, btw.

Now, back to the probability of the occurance in question:

The severe depletion of ozone in the Antarctic polar vortex (a.k.a. "The Ozone Hole") is due to coupled effects of chemistry, dynamics, and radiation. Some of the conditions for severe polar ozone depletion (e.g., strong, long-lived vortex and very low temperatures) are not the norm for the Artic region. Therefore the Arctic vortex generally experiences less ozone depletion than the Antarctic vortex. However, increases in greenhouse gases will influence the meteorology of the stratosphere. These greenhouse induced changes could increase the probability for severe Arctic ozone depletion. Record low ozone readings in March 1997 may be an indicator of things to come. Predicting long-term Arctic ozone changes, however, will prove to be an extremely difficult task due to many complicating factors and feedbacks.

http://physics.valpo.edu/colloquia/colloq_032699.html

And, I still jsut can't believe you're relying on consistent weather patterns to keep ozone depletion in a safe/normal range.

Enhanced rates of ozone depletion can occur over the Arctic during the winter and spring if the conditions of stratospheric wind and temperature are correct. The stratospheric winds in the northern hemisphere tend to be dominated by two features - the Arctic Vortex and the Aleutian high. The Arctic vortex is commonly pushed to the European-Canadian-Greenland side of the north pole by the Aleutian high. The vortex forms in late autumn and early winter and is broken up by the return of sunlight and forcing from weather systems during spring.

http://www.metoffice.com/research/stratosphere/ozone/

All it will take is a cold winter in the arctic

During the Antarctic winter, the total or partial lack of sunlight causes air to drop to very low temperatures. Clouds of ice crystals called "polar stratospheric clouds" form in the upper atmosphere. These ice crystals are bad news for ozone. The crystals provide a surface for a chemical reaction that changes chlorine in molecules that do not affect ozone (such as hydrogen chloride) into more active forms that do destroy ozone.

"That's the accelerator," McPeters said. "If you didn't have the ice crystals, you would not be seeing the kind of ozone destruction that you see every year."

A colder winter will result in more extensive polar stratospheric clouds, greater destruction of ozone, and a larger ozone hole......A similar vortex forms around the Arctic, but "atmospheric waves" caused by landmasses with high mountain ranges in the Northern Hemisphere frequently push the vortex off the pole, allowing warmer air into the Arctic.

The relative warmth of the Arctic is the main reason why a similar ozone hole doesn't form over the North Pole.

"The weather systems (in the Northern Hemisphere) are a lot less stable than they are in the South," McPeters said. "You just don't get temperatures as cold; you don't get a vortex that will last as long."

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast02oct_1.htm


So, your ridiculous idea that we should rely on consistent weather patterns and let CFC's and all other forms of ozone depleting man-made chemicals run rampant is not amusing.

 

[Nabeshin]

I sure hope you're not referring to this article: Invalid Link Removed because there are absolutely no references in there. So, if that's your measure of importance, I suggest you own up to it as well.

Nyet.

Dr. Linwood Callis of NASA led an agency investigation of the causes of ozone fluctuations during the 1980s. As he told me: "The overwhelming portion of the ozone depletion in the 1980s was due to natural causes," and the effect of CFCs "was really quite small -- less than one-half of one percent." (His paper "Ozone Depletion in the High Latitude Lower Stratosphere: 1979-1990" appeared in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 96, No. D2, Feb. 20, 1991, pp. 2921-2937.) Callis went on to say that he thought that scientists blaming CFCs for ozone depletion were being "less than honest."

This is the most important paragraph in that article from the perspective of disproving anthropogenic causation of ozone depletion. The source details the meteorlogical peculiarities of the antartic which make said depletion possible. The rest of the article is low on sources, and that does bother me. The rest of the article also criticizes other reactionary skeptics, and reiterates the facts that they deny --- I do not why this bothers you.

I can guarantee the probability of the arctic vortex gathering itself is much more reasonable than the 1/10^340,000,000 chance of the simplest living life form coming to be. Law of probability states anything beyond 1/10^50 won't happen, btw.

Note the part at the bottom where it says "references to be added soon." There isn't really a "law of probability." There is probability theory, which contains stuff like "the law of probability of errors by a curve." But this thing was pulled out of somebody's ass.

Just because something is unlikely to happen, doesn't mean that it won't. And just because something is likely to happen, doesn't mean that it will.

There is a possiblity that the Artic could behave like the Antartic and get it's own ozone "hole." How likely that is I do not know. Nobody does. We can only extrapolate, and based on past data, a rough estimate of probability would be "low."

But it doesn't matter. The ozone "hole" over the antartic --- overwhelmingly caused by non-anthropogenic forces --- is self balancing. And the negative effects on UV levels expected from that hole never manifested.

********

Not only are we witnessing that debate on global warming which doesn't exist, we are witnessing that debate on ozone depletion which doesn't exist. Today is a good day to be a paranormal investigator.

 

[Sir Foxx]

If Global Warming is happening, then look to the Sun. That is the main, overwhelmingly so, cause of it. Mars is heating up too and not even the enviro's can blame that on us.

 

[Matthew D]

Hey Foxx.. thanks for the nice bit of great posting on this thread..

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Nyet.

Dr. Linwood Callis of NASA led an agency investigation of the causes of ozone fluctuations during the 1980s. As he told me: "The overwhelming portion of the ozone depletion in the 1980s was due to natural causes," and the effect of CFCs "was really quite small -- less than one-half of one percent." (His paper "Ozone Depletion in the High Latitude Lower Stratosphere: 1979-1990" appeared in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 96, No. D2, Feb. 20, 1991, pp. 2921-2937.) Callis went on to say that he thought that scientists blaming CFCs for ozone depletion were being "less than honest."

This is the most important paragraph in that article from the perspective of disproving anthropogenic causation of ozone depletion. The source details the meteorlogical peculiarities of the antartic which make said depletion possible. The rest of the article is low on sources, and that does bother me. The rest of the article also criticizes other reactionary skeptics, and reiterates the facts that they deny --- I do not why this bothers you.

My bad, I missed that part. As you pointed out yourself, the article was low on references, so forgive me for skipping those two.

it doesn't bother me that during the 1980s the "majority" of ozone depletion was naturally caused. I have no difficulty believing that, and I'm sure there are plenty more references to that fact.

My problem is not with 20 years ago...its with the event we're possibly creating. And, based off of the logic you have provided, we won't know its possible until it has taken place--I don't agree with that line of thinking.

Note the part at the bottom where it says "references to be added soon." There isn't really a "law of probability." There is probability theory, which contains stuff like "the law of probability of errors by a curve." But this thing was pulled out of somebody's ass.

My bad, here are many of the numbers int that article, with references: Invalid Link Removed

Definitely not pulled out of someones ass, however.

Just because something is unlikely to happen, doesn't mean that it won't. And just because something is likely to happen, doesn't mean that it will.

There is a possiblity that the Artic could behave like the Antartic and get it's own ozone "hole." How likely that is I do not know. Nobody does. We can only extrapolate, and based on past data, a rough estimate of probability would be "low."

You're missing the piont here. I've already stated that our "current condition" is not my concern. Only that CFCs can and will destroy O3 given the opportunity and there is a good enough chance for this to happen to be very concerned and not let CFC and other ozone depleting molecules get out of hand!

But it doesn't matter. The ozone "hole" over the antartic --- overwhelmingly caused by non-anthropogenic forces --- is self balancing. And the negative effects on UV levels expected from that hole never manifested.

********

Not only are we witnessing that debate on global warming which doesn't exist, we are witnessing that debate on ozone depletion which doesn't exist. Today is a good day to be a paranormal investigator.

Sure, if you're delusional to anything but your own line of thinking.

You see, i can understand where you're coming from. I even agree with many of your assertions and understand our current situation is being extremely overblown. But, you can't see past you own nose. You refuse to address the issue of prevention and rely on the fact that "it hasn't happened yet" although its a reasonably probable scenario and we can make it much worse. This is what we need to prevent!

We don't need to pack the ozone layer full of CFCs and other O3 damaging molecules assuming a probable event won't happen because it hasn't in the short period of time we've been keeping track of weather patterns. (definitely probable considering recent data showing some of the coldest arctic winters and strongest arctic vortexes on record).

We are producing O3 depleting substances. Those substances make up 1/2 of the total O3 depleting substances in the atmosphere, and given the right (and probable) conditions, we can possible create a nasty situation. Why do you refuse to see this?

 

[Nabeshin]

You see, i can understand where you're coming from. I even agree with many of your assertions and understand our current situation is being extremely overblown. But, you can't see past you own nose. You refuse to address the issue of prevention and rely on the fact that "it hasn't happened yet" although its a reasonably probable scenario and we can make it much worse. This is what we need to prevent!

As I said before, nobody can quantify the probability that the conditions needed for mass ozone depletion to occur may arise. The best we can do --- and by that, I mean the most scientifically honest thing we can do --- is extrapolate. To do otherwise is to guess, and to guess is to do nothing more than express bias.

Extrapolated probability leads me to believe that the scenario in question is sufficiently unlikely to occur as to warrant not getting one's undies in a bunch about it. Coupled with the fact that, as I mentioned previously, peak antartic ozone depletion did not coincide with any increase in UV on the ground whatsoever, and you have the foundation on which my lethargy on the matter rests.

To top it all of, I like CFCs. Mmmm... chlorofluorocarbons. CFC-12 is soooo cold. I'm just not inclined to give it up without what I consider to be good reason to do so. I'm not so daft as to choose the demise of humanity over decreased performance in the AC systems of my old cars. It's simply that, based on the available data, I conclude that I am not faced with that dilemma.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

Fair enough.

 

[CDB]

Probably not even that high, and earth will reach some sort of homeostasis at any given level. BUT the concern is the weather conditions and the living conditions we will have to endure as a result of changing our atmosphere.

I'm not a dinosaur and I"m not sure if I can live in the same conditions as dinosaurs.

Those animals are all dead now, many animals have come and gone, and many of them as a result of radical changes in the earths climate.

Yes, there will be changes again, but do we really want to accelarate the process? <-- its that simple.

Good points all, though I don't think you would have trouble living in a similar climate to the dinosaurs as many mammals did so. I wouldn't want to mess with the Earth at all if it could be avoided, and I'm not against reducing harmfull emissions into the atmosphere, by legislation if necessary. However, I always want to see proof first of either harm or iminent harm. I also take the economic perspective into account which I don't think most people do. Pollution is the result of industry. It should not be an externality, but it's also a fact of life and there is an optimum level of pollution that the market could determine if pollution rights had to be paid for on the market. And if a certain type of pollution started to be harmful, you'd see the price for rights go up and a subsequent shift away from the processes that causes that type of pollution.

 

[hypo]

disclaimer: I skipped over this thread, but just want to give my opinion.

Can the felling of forests and CO2 production industry have any effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere? Sure it can, but enough to dramatically change the earth? No, not in my opinion. Look at the bigger picture. Humans will be done with fossil fuels way before we have a chance to f*ck up the planet. Think about it, we've only been contaminating the atmosphere and planet as a whole for the past 200-300 years. Even if we end up using fossil fuel as a primary power source for 1000 more years (highly unlikely), that is still a tiny, tiny blip in the timeline of the Earth. Our planet is a big place, and always finds homeostatsis somehow. This is just like the people who say we are running out of oil. We have not even begun to tap the world's oil supply. Think of how many generations have been using oil with any real frequency (only 10 generations, tops) versus how many generations of animals and plants that died adding to the oil supply (millions if not 100s of millions). I know that one generation of humans does not necessarily use one generation of fossil fuel, but you should get the point.

If the ice caps suddenly melt, America ends up underwater, and all hell breaks loose, I will officially retract my statement :b

 

[davisville64]

I read the article, but I guess my IQ isnt high enough to quite grasp the concept.

My understanding of hurricanes and twisters and what not is that they are causes by the DIFFERENCE in temps. If the whole earth is a little bit warmer, how will this cause anything?

 

[CDB]

Because a net increase in energy doesn't mean a consistent, all over increase. It allows for greater extremes, more energy, more fuel for storms in essence. I think Nabeshin hit the nail on the head with his last statement. I'm not against the idea we can destroy the world, I just don't see it as a risk right now based on all I've read. Not in the least of which is the fact that most if not all of the predictions by the environmentalists have not come true. And, they're answer is always the same: let the government solve the problem. Ignoring more often than not that, granting there is a problem, it's likely been created or aggravated by that same government when it's done something it shouldn't have (like buying up tons of forrests in the name of conservation and then letting them rot and dry out and become nice fule for fires) or not done something it should have (like protect people's property rights when their land was polluted instead of taking it upon itself to decide whether or not the level of pollution was acceptable).

 

[kwyckemynd00]

I'm not against the idea we can destroy the world, I just don't see it as a risk right now based on all I've read. Not in the least of which is the fact that most if not all of the predictions by the environmentalists have not come true. And, they're answer is always the same: let the government solve the problem.

And this is something I'm in agreement with. I just think we need to take a look at what we're doing and change what we can afford to. Everything has a cost/benifit ratio to it, I just think we should pay attention to it.

 

[poopypants]

whoa a whole lot of opinions in here, i dont see how they all officially apply to the total subject but i think that they are all interesting points. but considering that this increase in co2 has been gradual then how come the hurricane frequency/intensity hasnt been equally gradual? it seems to me they have been appearing asof late along with many other natural dissasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis, fires and the like.... i think you guys can reason it all day long but when you show me the missing link in the increase along with the evolutionary missing link then ill start listening, until then im sticking with an ACT OF GOD stance.

 

[kwyckemynd00]

CO2 increase hasn't been gradual over the past 50-100 years, there are a few graphs here about that. Although,they are WELL WITHIN the historical average. However, this is probably the most radical shift that I'm aware of.

Often, natural disasters are cyclical, as are weather patterns and almost everything else in the universe. What goes around comes around is so very true so often

I don't think anything we've put into our atmosphere "so far" has changed anything, and there is no information to support that there is any correlation. "My" point, although I agree with many of the people I argued with on this thread, was that we simply need to be careful with what we're doing and to the best of our ability do something about it. I mean, if we do something that damages the global economy to the extent WWIII breaks out and 7/8 of the world dies due to nuclear war because we regulated too much to protect the planet from global warming, and only 1/2 the world would die if we just ignored and adapted to our new environment, then our choice should be obvious. I just hope we don't get into that type of predicament--and honestly, I doubt we will.

 

[CDB]

I mean, if we do something that damages the global economy to the extent WWIII breaks out and 7/8 of the world dies due to nuclear war because we regulated too much to protect the planet from global warming, and only 1/2 the world would die if we just ignored and adapted to our new environment, then our choice should be obvious. I just hope we don't get into that type of predicament--and honestly, I doubt we will.

That's where we disagree. I never underestimate the human capacity for stupidity, which is actually why I believed most global warming warnings for a while. I figured if any animal could and would destroy its own environment through complete complacency it would be us. To my mind our destructive nature towards the environment through industry has yet to be proven, but our destructiveness toward the environment and our fellow man through the use of the force of government is well beyond proven.

 

[julius kelp]

complacency is a STRONG human tendency. what's a hurricanest anyways?

 

[kwyckemynd00]

That's where we disagree. I never underestimate the human capacity for stupidity, which is actually why I believed most global warming warnings for a while. I figured if any animal could and would destroy its own environment through complete complacency it would be us. To my mind our destructive nature towards the environment through industry has yet to be proven, but our destructiveness toward the environment and our fellow man through the use of the force of government is well beyond proven.

Well, you may be right People are pretty stupid... :blink:

 

[CDB]

Well, you may be right People are pretty stupid... :blink:

A person can and often is smart. Something happens when you get a whole bunch of them together though, especially if they staret voting on things.

 

[poopypants]

A person can and often is smart. Something happens when you get a whole bunch of them together though, especially if they staret voting on things.

haha like presidents hahahaha:lol: :rofl: :icon_lol: :toofunny:
​

 

[hypo]

My fav. Stephen Hawking quote:

"It is not yet clear that intelligence has any long term survival value."