namelesstavern.net

You seem to forget which website you're on. So how about YOU fuck off lolz

here you go Arlos http://www.debatepolitics.com/ now GTFO.

I do not have the indepth knowledge you have about a multitude of subjects. I know a losing battle when I see one so I backed down. I only know generalities about the subject. Yes I could take more time to look up the information but you failed to recognize what I was trying to accomplish with my post:

Griever wrote:This is an attempt to shift this thread onto a scientific and geological debate as opposed to a political one.

Mission accomplished.

Anyone ever notice that people do nothing BUT quote the "99% to 1% of scientists" statistic about global warming, but never actually bother to give any actual rationale behind their reasons anymore? It has seemingly become an article of faith that needs no justification...

I would be interested to hear - WHAT scientists does this statistic consist of? Biologists? Zoologists? Physicists? Evolutionary scientists? Chemists? Are their understandings of a field not in their speciality informed enough to make a strong conclusion? How many of the vocal advocates are on government payroll? (Politicians - European ones at least - LOVE the idea of carbon taxes).

What amount of those 1% includes environmental scientists and meteorologists - the two that have the most clear idea of what global temperatures could be caused by?

This board has a bad habit of rehashing the same arguments repeatedly.

Yamori has the best post in this thread.

the proof you need for global warming is in the poles. it's right there in front of everyone's face. polar bears can't even migrate to their usual hunting areas after coming out of hibernation anymore because the ice is too thin now. they start falling through into the water and as that happens over and over before they reach any area with food, they die from exhaustion. this didn't happen a decade or two ago. polar bears are going to become extinct because of this and people are still debating if global warming is even happening at all?

i don't know what's causing it. it could be completely because of us, but it's at least affected by us. the earth changes its temperature naturally from century to century like griever said but it's just happening at an alarming rate now. and with our knowledge of things like holes in the ozone layer, how can we not deny that we're partially at fault? i can't point a finger at anything that's happening right now because we all contribute in our own way, but if i could put the blame on anything i'd put it on the industrial revolution. people are too prolific for nature to keep its balance now

FUCK YOU ALL FOR RUINING MY THREAD, FUCK YOU VERY MUCH


p.s. ASSHOLES

Why is it so hard for right-minded people to understand this?

Let me break down as simple as possible…

Big Business loves money. Republicans love both money AND big business. Ok, with me so far?

To admit global warming is real, or to at the very least admit that is likely to be real, is to accept responsibility for having to take corrective action. Taking corrective action costs money. Asking a greedy republican (more or less all of them) or a big corporation to part with their money is like asking a fat kid to part with his piece of chocolate cake. Aint gonna happen without a fight. So what do they do? Ignore the science and deny deny deny.

As far as I am concerned the irresponsible, greed driven corporations of the US (that are contributing to the problem) are JUST AS BAD as the tobacco industry saying their products “aren’t addictive.”

What the hell is wrong with some of you? Are you that dense you simply get simplicity through your skulls?

For crying out loud these same companies are sending our jobs overseas to the lowest bidder so they can increase their bottom lines. They’re artificially inflating their prices at the pumps to gouge the shit out of you and I (earning billion dollar record profits every QUARTER).

What? You think they’re going to actually accept that a problem exists? A problem that will end up forcing them to part with the very money they’ve screwed from us over the years? Please tell me you have more common sense than that?

You can bet your blind, narrow minded, red state ass that if a profit could be made from global warming – the republican talking heads would be swimming in the data screaming for something to be done. And you KNOW it. That’s what’s sad. That fat, pill popping, closet pedophile otherwise known as Rush Limbaugh would be leading the charge to take action – IF ONLY a profit could be made from it. But, as long as dealing with global warming costs companies money – you can bet your ass they’ll deny and attack it every chance they get.

My God the very fact that we’ve discussed acid rain and other issues in the very thread should be a wake up call.

Corporate America is more dangerous to the health and welfare of this country than ANY terrorist organization. American Corporations ARE terrorists as far as I am concerned. And if you think for a single second that they wouldn’t sell this country out for huge profits, then you’re even more blind and sheepish than I thought. You can rest assured if they could make financial gains from it, they’re be a Chinese flag hanging over the White House.

I know republicans aren’t the sharpest tools in the shed, so let me recap a little.

These companies CAN afford to pay you a decent wage, but they’d rather sell you out and send you job overseas to make more money for themselves.

These companies are consistently caught in corruption and scandals dealing with the pillaging of money, brides and everything else (Enron ring a bell?)

These companies consistently gouge the shit out of us, unnecessarily, to increase their profits.

These companies are the very reason we had to implement the Clean Air Act and are the very reason the EPA has to continuously monitor them to ensure they aren’t dumping their waste in our water supplies and oceans (which they’ve done in the past without a single care as the damage they caused).

Do you honestly think they’re going to NOT fight global warming? Do you honestly think they’re going to step and admit there’s a problem for which they are the cause?

Come on – grow a fucking brain.

What really shocks me is that most of the people who spout off trying to invalidate global warming have little to zero understanding of it, or the science behind it. They just know that Rush and Sean tell them it’s not real – and that’s good enough for them.

A stupid populace leads to a weak country and as stupid as the average American truly is, we’re completely fucked.

Diekan wrote:Why is it so hard for right-minded people to understand this?

Let me break down as simple as possible…

Big Business loves money. Republicans love both money AND big business. Ok, with me so far?

To admit global warming is real, or to at the very least admit that is likely to be real, is to accept responsibility for having to take corrective action. Taking corrective action costs money. Asking a greedy republican (more or less all of them) or a big corporation to part with their money is like asking a fat kid to part with his piece of chocolate cake. Aint gonna happen without a fight. So what do they do? Ignore the science and deny deny deny.

As far as I am concerned the irresponsible, greed driven corporations of the US (that are contributing to the problem) are JUST AS BAD as the tobacco industry saying their products “aren’t addictive.”

What the hell is wrong with some of you? Are you that dense you simply get simplicity through your skulls?

For crying out loud these same companies are sending our jobs overseas to the lowest bidder so they can increase their bottom lines. They’re artificially inflating their prices at the pumps to gouge the shit out of you and I (earning billion dollar record profits every QUARTER).

What? You think they’re going to actually accept that a problem exists? A problem that will end up forcing them to part with the very money they’ve screwed from us over the years? Please tell me you have more common sense than that?

You can bet your blind, narrow minded, red state ass that if a profit could be made from global warming – the republican talking heads would be swimming in the data screaming for something to be done. And you KNOW it. That’s what’s sad. That fat, pill popping, closet pedophile otherwise known as Rush Limbaugh would be leading the charge to take action – IF ONLY a profit could be made from it. But, as long as dealing with global warming costs companies money – you can bet your ass they’ll deny and attack it every chance they get.

My God the very fact that we’ve discussed acid rain and other issues in the very thread should be a wake up call.

Corporate America is more dangerous to the health and welfare of this country than ANY terrorist organization. American Corporations ARE terrorists as far as I am concerned. And if you think for a single second that they wouldn’t sell this country out for huge profits, then you’re even more blind and sheepish than I thought. You can rest assured if they could make financial gains from it, they’re be a Chinese flag hanging over the White House.

I know republicans aren’t the sharpest tools in the shed, so let me recap a little.

These companies CAN afford to pay you a decent wage, but they’d rather sell you out and send you job overseas to make more money for themselves.

These companies are consistently caught in corruption and scandals dealing with the pillaging of money, brides and everything else (Enron ring a bell?)

These companies consistently gouge the shit out of us, unnecessarily, to increase their profits.

These companies are the very reason we had to implement the Clean Air Act and are the very reason the EPA has to continuously monitor them to ensure they aren’t dumping their waste in our water supplies and oceans (which they’ve done in the past without a single care as the damage they caused).

Do you honestly think they’re going to NOT fight global warming? Do you honestly think they’re going to step and admit there’s a problem for which they are the cause?

Come on – grow a fucking brain.

What really shocks me is that most of the people who spout off trying to invalidate global warming have little to zero understanding of it, or the science behind it. They just know that Rush and Sean tell them it’s not real – and that’s good enough for them.

A stupid populace leads to a weak country and as stupid as the average American truly is, we’re completely fucked.

So in other words, climate change is caused by pollution because:

1) You are REALLY MORALLY INDIGNANT ABOUT IT!
2) It's self evident - reasoning and rationale isn't required.



This pretty much sums up 90% of leftist rhetoric on the subject.

I want one of you rightwingnuts to tell me that big business and the GOP whom they put in office don't have an agenda to fighting the reality of global warming.

I want you to tell me that they have no financial gain by denying it.

I want to you show me... show me that companies have no financial interest in invalidating global warming.

You can't. Instead you'll just come back with the typical "you dumb liberals just can't see the planet is ours to destroy muhahahaha!" "Now let's go bomb some brown people!!!!"

Yamori, did you not read what I posted? Obviously not.

Let me repeat the relevant section:

The evidence on atmospheric concentrations comes from an Antarctic region called Dome Concordia (Dome C).

Over a five year period commencing in 1999, scientists working with the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (Epica) have drilled 3,270m into the Dome C ice, which equates to drilling nearly 900,000 years back in time.

Gas bubbles trapped as the ice formed yield important evidence of the mixture of gases present in the atmosphere at that time, and of temperature.

"One of the most important things is we can put current levels of carbon dioxide and methane into a long-term context," said project leader Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern, Switzerland.

"We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years."

Stable relationship

Last year, the Epica team released its first data. The latest two papers analyse gas composition and temperature dating back 650,000 years.

This extends the picture drawn by another Antarctic ice core taken near Lake Vostok which looked 440,000 years into the past.

The extra data is crucial because around 420,000 years there appears to have been a significant shift in the Earth's long-term climate patterns.

Before and after this date, the planet went through 100,000 year cycles of alternating cold glacial and warm interglacial periods.

But around the 420,000 year mark, the precise pattern changed, with the contrast between warm and cold conditions becoming much more marked.

The Dome C core gives data from six cycles of glaciation and warming; two from before this change, four from after.

"We found a very tight relationship between CO2 and temperature even before 420,000 years," said Professor Stocker.

"The fact that the relationship holds across the transition between climatic regimes is a very strong indication of the important role of CO2 in climate regulation."

You get it now? We have preserved climate records going back nearly 1 million years. Through that time the earth has had multiple natural cycles, yes. Throughout those cycles, they found a very tight correlation between the temperature and the CO2 levels. With me so far?

Now, look at the recent data: The CO2 levels are not only the highest levels seen IN A MILLION GODDAMN YEARS, but their levels have increased 200 TIMES faster than at ANY time during those same million years.

Now, it's not Vulcanism causing this, we're at one of the most geologically stable and least-active periods for vulcanism ever right now. The ONLY new aspect introduced to the equation that wasn't there 600k, 450k, 100k, or even 50k years ago is man and his modern machines. So, it's pretty obvious what caused those CO2 levels, yes? And, since we know from a million years of data that when CO2 levels go up, so does the temperature.

So, given the facts: 1) CO2 levels are the highest ever, 2) The CO2 levels are rising over 200 times faster than at any point in history, and 3) Temperature and CO2 are tightly linked, what would YOU conclude the temperature is going to do in the future? Hmmm?

-Arlos

Arlos when the "hole" in the ozone layer is discussed does it refer to an area where there is a complete absence of ozone, or an area where the ozone layer is thinner then it normally is elsewhere?

For some reason this thread makes me think of this...

<img src="http://namelesstavern.net/album_pic.php?pic_id=1786"/>

Lueyen wrote:Arlos when the "hole" in the ozone layer is discussed does it refer to an area where there is a complete absence of ozone, or an area where the ozone layer is thinner then it normally is elsewhere?

i'll answer for him

it's a sudden and almost total loss of ozone over the Antarctic. it's a much smaller loss but still credible over northern latitudes 30-60N. the southern hole covers a little more area than Antarctica itself and stretches 10km high into the lower stratosphere

the way it happens is: during the polar winter when there's no sunlight, winds in the stratosphere start circulating and it's called the polar vortex, which basically isolates all the air in the south pole. polar stratospheric clouds form at -80c (not like moisture droplets of normal clouds) and strange reactions of bromine and chlorine compounds occur heterogeneously on the clouds that turn the inactive chlorine and bromine to more active forms. no ozone loss actually occurs until the sun hits in the spring and it splits the molecular chlorine into atomic chlorine which is what destroys the ozone.

there's two catalytic cycles for the destruction of ozone. one of them is thermally unstable and requires a low temp. this cycle is chlorine-related and is responsible for 70% of the ozone loss around the south pole. the other cycle is with chlorine and its counterpart bromine and it's responsible for ozone loss in the warmer Arctic area.

the most important thing to keep in mind is that chlorine and bromine breakdowns like ClONO2 (not things like HCl that are there anyway) in the stratosphere can only be there because of CFCs that we produce. that's about all the science i can give on it. this has been proven before, during, and after polar winters. the rate of loss of the ozone is alarming, too. this all happened over the last century or so and it's only been monitored for about 20 years. there's still a lot to be discovered

Basically, how it works is this: CFC stands for Chlorinated Fluorocarbon. Down here at livable levels, they are incredibly stable compounds, and no one worried about them.

However, as was found out long after they were introduced, there is actually a major problem with those compounds, that no one had realized. As they rise into the atmosphere and reach the Ozone layer, the molecules of the gas get more and more subject to being struck by energetic particles from the sun, etc. What this does is it breaks the Chlorine off of the rest of the substance, leaving free Chlorine running around.

Now, Ozone, as I am sure you know, is a relatively unstable molecule, O3. The normal binding for Oxygen is O2. The issue is that the binding strength of Chlorine to Oxygen is higher than the strength of bonds holding the Ozone molecule together. So, when Cl hits O3, it strips off 1 O, and you end up with Cl-O and O2. However, Cl-O isn't exactly a strong bond either, and it is itself far weaker than O2. So, if the Cl-O molecule encounters another Cl-O, or a free oxygen atom, the O gets stripped off the Cl to form an O2, and now you have a free Chlorine atom again, that can then run into an O3, repeating the process ad nauseum.

-Arlos

that's pretty generalised but that's kind of what happens. if you're only talking about ClO then you're talking about the Antarctic and it takes a lot of circumstances and a lot of unusual reactions.

CFCs themselves aren't harmful, like you said, it's the breakdown products ClONO2, and HCl. also other chemicals like N2O5 and especially HNO3 are important in the recipe for destroying ozone. nitric acid is the reason large amounts of active chlorine can be sustained at all because inside the polar stratospheric clouds it reduces nitrogen oxides in gas phase and slows the rate of removal of ClO which would normally occur during ClO + NO2 + M -> ClONO2 + M (M is any particle of air)

another point is it doesn't become "more and more subject" to anything. it plain out requires sunlight to photodissociate Cl2. someone's probably thinking "ok, there's sunlight everyday, why do we still have ozone?" because active chlorine doesn't come atomically or molecularly by itself under any normal circumstance atmospherically and is only turned into such by heterogenous reactions (HCl + ClONO2 -> HNO3 + Cl2 is one. i think there's about 5 or 6) that i talked about in my last post.

the two catalystic cycles that destroy the ozone are these:

(I) ClO + ClO + M -> Cl2O2 + M
Cl2O2 + hv -> Cl + ClO2
ClO2 + M -> Cl + O2 + M
so 2 x (Cl + O3) -> 2 x (ClO + O2)


so for every 2 O3 molecules that were there when the sun went down, you'll get 3 O2 molecules when the sun rises in spring. it's extremely rapid and that's why it took scientists by surprise


the reaction for more common ozone depletion is


(II) ClO + BrO -> Br + Cl + O2
Cl + O3 -> ClO + O2
Br + O3 -> BrO + O2

gives you the same net result. 2 O3 into 3 O2


arlos basically said it right but there are a lot of requirements for ending up with atomic chlorine and almost all of the chlorine in the atmosphere is because of us, whereas we're only responsible for about half of the bromine. bromine is most likely the original ozone-eater and is the cause of global temperature changes over centuries past.

politics aside there's a lot of proof about global warming and a lot of research and statistics (lyion's favorite thing!!!!) to back it up

Thanks for the added detail, Drem. A chem major, I am not, and I'd only heard it in the simplified format that I'd given it. Nice to know the guts of how it happens.


-Arlos

So I would be correct in stating that we have never observed an area where is there is a complete and utter lack of ozone in the earths atmosphere, and that describing an area of ozone depeltion as a "hole" would therefore be a misnomer?

By the way while we are on the subject, how's the "hole" doing since we've drastically reduced CFCs, you don't hear much about it in the news anymore:


http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17436

[2006], the average area of the ozone hole was the largest ever observed

balloon-based instruments recorded the lowest concentrations of ozone ever observed over Antarctica, making the ozone hole the deepest it had ever been.

It must be global warming!!!

Colder-than-average temperatures result in larger and deeper ozone holes, while warmer temperatures lead to smaller ones. In 2006, as the graph shows, temperatures plunged well below average, hovering near or dipping below record-lows.

/shrug
must be that NASA scientists are on the joint GOP/Big Business payroll.

considering it takes cold temperature to create a hole int he ozone layer, i would hope it's getting colder as the hole gets bigger.

you know all you people ask us to explain to you why we think what we think about what we post and when we actually do post it? you don't even read it. i post that polar bears are dying off and no one says anything. you just made two statements directly related to what i said and even in accordance with what i said and you're still trying to make it look like you're making fun of us.

re-tards

Are you really that dense?

5 minutes of research would have given you the answer to both of your questions.

1) CFCs take a long time to filter up into the upper atmosphere where the problems occur. We're talking on the order of 40-50 YEARS to work their way up there. They've been banned for what, 15? And legacy systems still exist that leak more into the air? (old car air conditioners, for example). As I recall reading, the peak of the problem isn't even going to hit until 2015 or later. The atmosphere won't finish flushing itself til 2050 or later.

2) Global warming means the AVERAGE temperature of the planet rises. This changes weather patterns all over the world. This can mean that some locations get colder, because of the shift in winds, etc. Other parts will warm up much more than the average temperature increase. (especially in the tropics). There's also potential secondary effects, like the Gulf Stream shutting off, which would turn northern Europe into an area that more resembles Siberia. Think about it. Ireland, for example, is actually NORTH of Minnesota. The main reason it doesn't get as cold is because of the gulf stream going by it with warm waters brought up from the Carribean. Gulf stream goes away, and Ireland will look a lot more like Iceland.


Seriously Leuyen, 5 year olds with internet-connected Speak & Spells could've found that information. You being ignorant of it and arguing as if it didn't exist indicates truly willful ignorance on your part, and a disdain for the facts.

-Arlos

seriously there's this phrase that goes: a true skeptic tries to prove himself wrong.

open google if you have to and do some research yourself before you start asking us to teach you shit

you also have mt. erebus contributing

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993GeoRL..20.1959Z

The emission rates of HF and HCl have increased twofold since 1986 reaching 6 and 13.3 Gg/yr, respectively, in 1991, making Erebus an important contributor of halogens to the Antarctic atmosphere.

i have no idea what the ratio of organic HCl and inorganic HCl is for winds processed by PSCs like Erebus would affect but in the rest of the world's air..

...total inorganic chlorine measured by ATMOS balances with total organic chlorine measured by ATMOS over the altitude range 16 to 50 km, resulting in a constant value for the sum of inorganic and organic chlorine

http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bits ... 6-0137.pdf

Scientists have expressed disappointment over the effect CFC reduction has had on ozone thus far, because they expected more quantitative at this point. Yes complete repair is projected to take a long time (50 years or so), but there was expected to better results by now. Perhaps estimates are wrong, and it will take many times that number of years to completely recover and we may not see significant results for a very long time. Of course it could also be that there are other things that come into play that have yet to be determined and CFCs don't have the importance of impact that we think.

The second half was indeed the 9 year old smart ass in me coming out. I'm quite well aware that even things that would seem contrary to GWT are actually the results of it :P.... oh shit there it was again.

In all seriousness though, for all that is known about these issues there seems to be an awful lot we don't know when you consider the accuracy of predictions of the effects of these problems or the impact of implemented resolutions. While I don't advocate the ostrich approach to issues like ozone depletion or global warming I do advocate a look before you leap approach. Refuting contrary ideas or findings based in reasons given of political or economic motivation isn't science it's politics.

Approaches such as mislabeling depletion as a hole or dismissing valid possibilities based on supposed or even real political or economic motivations are not scientific method, they are political maneuvers that cloud the picture just as much as biased inaccurate or downright false "studies and findings".

Again I come to the conclusion that knee jerk responses based in only a partial understanding of the situation are just as bad as a head in the sand approach. I do come off often times as skeptical, not because of a want to ignore a problem or refuse to believe it but because I am well aware that there are people and groups who use environmental concerns to push a political agenda, not an agenda born out of environmental concern, but an agenda that uses environmental concerns to validate its self.

If one refuses to admit that there exists political bias injected into these issues on both sides, then one is truly blinding themselves.

give up the "hole" arguement and i'll call it even. that's just stupid. it's nearly depleted in an area the size of the continent of antarctica. and yeah, there's still ozone in the air there. it's not a literal hole, but you need a certain amount of ozone to protect the troposphere from UV. it doesn't keep absorbing UV until every O3 molecule is destroyed...

the ozone over antarctica went from about 330DU in 1950 down to roughly 125DU in averages for the month of october. the tropics have a DU of ~260. that's fucked up IMO that the place with the most ozone became the place with the lowest over just 50 years

i'm really trying nto to bring politics into this debate and i think it's unfortunate that you have to, since they have little to do with eachother. if anything, politics is helping because of things like the montreal protocol. europe cracked down on CFCs even harder than we did. sounds like the human race made a mistake out of ignorance and now we're trying to fix it and we probably will because we're determined. the problem is on too grand of a scale to lock it down to one cause. stop trying to center it around politics or shit that people are doing. we're not that important in the scheme of things. the planet could just be giving out after 4 billion years

Why Antartica? Logically, wouldn't it be over the US since we've supposedly the cause of it or even the North Pole since it's closer?