Greenhouse effect ???
- Thread starter tposts
- Start date
- Views: 6957
CT_Tree_Guy
Platinum Member
<font color="blue"> Two things: Could it be that thickness of the ozone layer is a naturally varying quantity regardless of man's influence ....
I'm not sure that he link between CFC's and ozone depletion has been concretely established.
</font>
To me, the link between CFC's and ozone depletion has been very conclusively explained and demonstrated, to the point that I would call it a fact. This is the view held by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.
As for:
<font color="blue"> (The formation of the Antarctic ozone hole requires abundant reactive halogen gases ... )
Where did they come from? </font>
This passage from the same source as the quote in my previous post explains it pretty well.
<font color="blue"> Halogen source gases. An indirect link between ozone depletion and climate change is the radiative forcing from halogen source gases. These gases, which include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and halons, <font color="red"> are radiatively active in the atmosphere </font> before they are chemically converted in the stratosphere. As a group, they represent a significant positive radiative forcing. Once converted, they form reactive halogen gases, which chemically destroy ozone. In the coming decades, halogen gas abundances and their associated positive radiative forcings are expected to decrease [due to reduced emissions of man-made CFC's]. With reduced halogen gases, stratospheric ozone depletion and its associated negative radiative forcing will also be reduced. This link between these two forcing terms is an important aspect of the radiative forcing of climate change. </font>
I believe the term "radiatively active in the atmosphere" means that they get blown all over the globe by wind currents. The presence of ozone-depleting chemicals over Antarctica has nothing to do with eskimos, since they are indigenous to the northern hemisphere, and certainly little or nothing to do with penguins, who are indigenous to the southern hemisphere.
Here's a link to the website the quotes come from: U.S. EPA - The Science of Ozone Depletion
Lastly, I just wanted to comment on what I see as a pattern of defensiveness and denial when it comes to the possibility (though likelihood is probably more appropriate) that the actions of 6.5 billion people can indeed have an impact on the earth's atmosphere, climate, oceans, groundwater and other geo-systems. We're not perfect, we're operating under certain economic constraints, and sometimes we do things that harm the planet. I don't see the need to deny apparent truths; maybe it's best that we just forgive ourselves and do our best to change our ways when doing so has been shown to be in the best interest of the planet and ourselves.
I'm not sure that he link between CFC's and ozone depletion has been concretely established.
</font>
To me, the link between CFC's and ozone depletion has been very conclusively explained and demonstrated, to the point that I would call it a fact. This is the view held by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.
As for:
<font color="blue"> (The formation of the Antarctic ozone hole requires abundant reactive halogen gases ... )
Where did they come from? </font>
This passage from the same source as the quote in my previous post explains it pretty well.
<font color="blue"> Halogen source gases. An indirect link between ozone depletion and climate change is the radiative forcing from halogen source gases. These gases, which include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and halons, <font color="red"> are radiatively active in the atmosphere </font> before they are chemically converted in the stratosphere. As a group, they represent a significant positive radiative forcing. Once converted, they form reactive halogen gases, which chemically destroy ozone. In the coming decades, halogen gas abundances and their associated positive radiative forcings are expected to decrease [due to reduced emissions of man-made CFC's]. With reduced halogen gases, stratospheric ozone depletion and its associated negative radiative forcing will also be reduced. This link between these two forcing terms is an important aspect of the radiative forcing of climate change. </font>
I believe the term "radiatively active in the atmosphere" means that they get blown all over the globe by wind currents. The presence of ozone-depleting chemicals over Antarctica has nothing to do with eskimos, since they are indigenous to the northern hemisphere, and certainly little or nothing to do with penguins, who are indigenous to the southern hemisphere.
Here's a link to the website the quotes come from: U.S. EPA - The Science of Ozone Depletion
Lastly, I just wanted to comment on what I see as a pattern of defensiveness and denial when it comes to the possibility (though likelihood is probably more appropriate) that the actions of 6.5 billion people can indeed have an impact on the earth's atmosphere, climate, oceans, groundwater and other geo-systems. We're not perfect, we're operating under certain economic constraints, and sometimes we do things that harm the planet. I don't see the need to deny apparent truths; maybe it's best that we just forgive ourselves and do our best to change our ways when doing so has been shown to be in the best interest of the planet and ourselves.
JimR
Elite Member
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I don't think so............ Cold weather )</font>
Come to MA. and tell me there isn't something going on with the weather. It should be zero or close to it at this time of year. We have had more 40-50 degree days this year than I can ever remember in living here the last 30 years. Today it is in the 50's. Yesterday it was 55 in the afternoon. This is so far off from being normal it's crazy.
Come to MA. and tell me there isn't something going on with the weather. It should be zero or close to it at this time of year. We have had more 40-50 degree days this year than I can ever remember in living here the last 30 years. Today it is in the 50's. Yesterday it was 55 in the afternoon. This is so far off from being normal it's crazy.
AKfish
Super Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
- Messages
- 5,419
- Location
- Alaska
- Tractor
- JD 5115M; JD 110 TLB; JD 4720; Ford 9N; JD X300R
Great exchange of information!! Observations, opinions, scientific, peer-reviewed reports. All right here on TBN. Just goes to show that there's a pretty impressive gene pool ridin' around on tractors! There were some areas of discussion that seemed everyone recognized --- the "climate is changing" and we're all taking note of what's different for all of us --- from Hurricanes to lost glaciers. "Human activities" (forest clearing, CFC's, oil consumption, etc.) have presented conditions that are dramatically influencing the normal, long-term average weather patterns around the globe. Energy conflicts and the economic and political disruptions that are generated from that circumstance offers us a clear incentive to move the country (and the world) towards more diversified (and sustainable) sources of energy.
The older I get, the more resistant I am to embrace changes and the disruptions that may occur in my life as a result of those changes --- puts me in denial -- at times. Lazy, grumpy, cheap, leave me alone, aaarrrggghhhh! Then I take note of my youngest son as he chases his cherished Rhode Island reds away from the bee hives and I am reminded ---
AKfish
The older I get, the more resistant I am to embrace changes and the disruptions that may occur in my life as a result of those changes --- puts me in denial -- at times. Lazy, grumpy, cheap, leave me alone, aaarrrggghhhh! Then I take note of my youngest son as he chases his cherished Rhode Island reds away from the bee hives and I am reminded ---
AKfish
MikePA
Super Moderator
<font color="blue"> that I would call it a fact </font>
No offense meant, CT, but people have the right to their own opinions, but not to their own facts. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Whenever global warming is discussed, I always ponder the following questions.
1. Who wrote the article?
2. What's their motivation?
3. What organizations are they affiliated with?
4. What do they propose be done about it?
5. Who do they propose pay for it?
6. Are the devices used to measure temperatures taken 25, 50, 100 years ago as accurate as the ones taken today? If we assume the ones taken today are accurate, did the devices years ago read artificially low? Artificially high?
7. What assumptions go into the calculations that determine the average temperatures 100, 200 or 300 years ago?
Scientists do a good job of determining cause and effect on small scales, e.g., the cause of a disease, but not so good on a macro scale where the potential contributing factors are legion. We simply do not have the knowledge to determine them all and even if we did, we can't simulate all the ways they interact.
I believe (opinion) that it's the height of human arrogance to believe we are the cause of global warming. I also think it's the height of human arrogance to think we can do anything about it (which assumes it is a problem thus requiring something be done about it). It's also human nature to believe that history started the day we were born. While it's been warm on the east coast, we have not set records every day. Therefore, it's been at least this warm, or warmer, in the past. When I see when the records were set, I wonder, "What did the people who were living at the time think? Did they think about global warming?". If the record was set before global warming concerns became all the rage, what did those people believe was the cause? Did they wonder about the cause at all? Or did they simply get on with life and be glad they didn't have any snow to shovel? I also believe that some people in the 'developed' countries have (1) Too much time on their hands and (2) Not enough to worry about which results in the manufacturing of something to worry about.
Having said all that...I believe in global warming. However, I do not believe it's abnormal and I do not think anything needs to be done about it. Academic discussions can be fun and informative. It's a whole 'nuther ball game when it turns into an economic discussion which global warming invariably does. The discussion turn to 'fixing' the problem and who is going to pay to fix it, which brings me right back to question number 2, what are the motivations of the people who believe global warming is a problem that needs fixing. Returning to human arrogance, scientists once believed that the sun revolved around the earth just as deeply as today's scientists believe that global warming is a problem that needs fixing. Human arrogance looks back hundreds of years and thinks, "How could they have been so stupid?". What scientific 'facts' do we believe today, that, in the future will be looked upon as naive and misguided? Will scientists of the future look back and think, "How could they have spent so much money to change a natural cycle of the solar system?"
No offense meant, CT, but people have the right to their own opinions, but not to their own facts. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Whenever global warming is discussed, I always ponder the following questions.
1. Who wrote the article?
2. What's their motivation?
3. What organizations are they affiliated with?
4. What do they propose be done about it?
5. Who do they propose pay for it?
6. Are the devices used to measure temperatures taken 25, 50, 100 years ago as accurate as the ones taken today? If we assume the ones taken today are accurate, did the devices years ago read artificially low? Artificially high?
7. What assumptions go into the calculations that determine the average temperatures 100, 200 or 300 years ago?
Scientists do a good job of determining cause and effect on small scales, e.g., the cause of a disease, but not so good on a macro scale where the potential contributing factors are legion. We simply do not have the knowledge to determine them all and even if we did, we can't simulate all the ways they interact.
I believe (opinion) that it's the height of human arrogance to believe we are the cause of global warming. I also think it's the height of human arrogance to think we can do anything about it (which assumes it is a problem thus requiring something be done about it). It's also human nature to believe that history started the day we were born. While it's been warm on the east coast, we have not set records every day. Therefore, it's been at least this warm, or warmer, in the past. When I see when the records were set, I wonder, "What did the people who were living at the time think? Did they think about global warming?". If the record was set before global warming concerns became all the rage, what did those people believe was the cause? Did they wonder about the cause at all? Or did they simply get on with life and be glad they didn't have any snow to shovel? I also believe that some people in the 'developed' countries have (1) Too much time on their hands and (2) Not enough to worry about which results in the manufacturing of something to worry about.
Having said all that...I believe in global warming. However, I do not believe it's abnormal and I do not think anything needs to be done about it. Academic discussions can be fun and informative. It's a whole 'nuther ball game when it turns into an economic discussion which global warming invariably does. The discussion turn to 'fixing' the problem and who is going to pay to fix it, which brings me right back to question number 2, what are the motivations of the people who believe global warming is a problem that needs fixing. Returning to human arrogance, scientists once believed that the sun revolved around the earth just as deeply as today's scientists believe that global warming is a problem that needs fixing. Human arrogance looks back hundreds of years and thinks, "How could they have been so stupid?". What scientific 'facts' do we believe today, that, in the future will be looked upon as naive and misguided? Will scientists of the future look back and think, "How could they have spent so much money to change a natural cycle of the solar system?"
beenthere
Super Star Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2001
- Messages
- 18,566
- Location
- Southern Wisconsin, USA
- Tractor
- JD_4x2_Gator, JD_4300, JD_425, JD_455 AWS, added JD_455, JD_110, JD_X485(sold)
And go to Europe or Asia and try to tell them there is global warming. They are getting their tails frozen. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
CT_Tree_Guy
Platinum Member
Mike -
I'll take you at your word that there was no offense meant, but in all honesty, there was some taken.
I do believe that certain things can be determined to be factual. (The earth is somewhere between 3.5 and 4 billion years old, the "universe" is between 13 and 14 billion years old, the earth is about 93 million miles from the sun). And I believe that I have the right to state that I believe something to be a fact without being taken to task for it. I stand by statement that I believe it to be a fact that man-made CFC's and other "halogens" do indeed interact with ozone in the atmosphere and cause, to a significant extent, its destruction. To believe otherwise flies in the face of science.
The mechanism by which ozone destruction occurs is very well understood, and the case for it is so compelling that very concrete steps have been taken that are actually turning the problem around. Substituting R-134 refrigerants for R-12 might well be the single most important step taken in the reversal of the destruction of stratospheric ozone, and I am very glad that the scientific community was able to figure out what was going on and convince whoever needed convincing that their findings were important and correct and that action needed to be taken. I do not see it as arrogant to believe what the scientific community has determined to be fact, and again, I stand by my opinion that their findings on the role of certain man-made chemicals in the destruction of ozone deserve to be considered "fact".
On global warming: I've made the following distinction before, and I'd like to make it again: namely, the distinction between "naturally-occurring global warming", and "accelerated global warming" due to man's activities. The models for calculating the rate of what I'd call "overall global warming" (the net total of "natural" global warming plus warming that seems to be the result of man's activities) are admittedly extremely complex, but that is not to say that (in my opinion) it cannot be determined that man's activities are indeed playing at least some role in an accelerated rate of warming that is greater than that which might be expected to occur from "natural" causes. I don't think arrogance has anything to do with it. Rather, I believe it has more to do with science.
My Volkswagen Jetta puts out around 8-9,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per year. Multiply that by all the cars in the world, and add in all the coal-fired power plants and every other source of man-made "greenhouse gases", and I think the equation moves from arrogance right back to denial.
As for this mild winter: I'm not convinced that it has very much to do with the accelerated global warming that I believe is occurring, although it remains a possibility. The earth's mean temperature rose "just" 1 degree C. in the 20th century. Is that enough to cause the extremely mild January we've been experiencing, at least here in the Northeast? Very hard to say, and I would never state that as a fact. But again, the earth's climate is extremely complex, and a seemingly small change just might have a larger impact than might be expected, at least regionally.
What I do find alarming are the predictions that the earth's mean temperature could rise by as much as 4.5 degrees C. by the end of this century. I don't believe that man's role in that rate of warming can be entirely discounted, nor do I believe it should be. Nor do I believe that it is "arrogant" to believe that putting billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere might have an impact on the earth's rate of warming.
My opinions on the relationship of ozone destruction and man-made chemicals in the atmosphere were based on a wide variety of sources, but as for the particular quotes I used, in relation to the questions you posed in your post:
<font color="blue"> 1. Who wrote the article? </font> Scientists working for, or on behalf of, the US Environmental Protection Agency.
<font color="blue">2. What's their motivation? </font> They seek to avoid further destruction of the earth's fragile ozone layer.
<font color="blue">3. What organizations are they affiliated with? </font> See above.
<font color="blue"> 4. What do they propose be done about it? </font> Reduce emissions of man-made compounds that have been proven to be harmful to the ozone layer.
<font color="blue"> 5. Who do they propose pay for it? </font> You and me; I shelled out about 75 bucks to convert my car to R-134 at an authorized repair facility, and was happy to do it. Similarly, I have no problem paying a little extra for appliances that have been redesigned to operate using less harmful chemicals.
<font color="blue">6. Are the devices used to measure temperatures taken 25, 50, 100 years ago as accurate as the ones taken today? If we assume the ones taken today are accurate, did the devices years ago read artificially low? Artificially high? </font>
I have full confidence that through a wide variety of scientific methods, historical temperatures can be very accurately determined for virtually any period of time in the earth's history, rendering largely irrelevant the accuracy of recording instruments.
<font color="blue"> 7. What assumptions go into the calculations that determine the average temperatures 100, 200 or 300 years ago? </font>
In my opinion, very few. I believe them to be based on empirical data.
Lastly ... just because someone holds a particular view, particularly one based on scientific evidence, and one shared by the majority of the industrialized nations of the world, that does not necessarily mean that they are arrogant. They might just be realistic, objective, open-minded and responsible. But that's just my opinion.
My goal in saying this is not to antagonize you, or turn you into an adversary. Rather, my intent is to try to arrive at the truth. Since I believe the truth to be that man's activities are very likely leading to a rate of climate change that will cause major problems for the human race, my ultimate goal is to attempt to make you an ally in the search for facts and solutions. I believe that a large part of the solution lies in increased use of solar, wind, but mainly nuclear power to generate electricity and create hydrogen for fuel (and fresh water for agriculture, and industrial and domestic use), and in the process greatly reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that is put into the atmosphere, thereby reducing the "greenhouse effect" that science tells us they are likely causing.
John
I'll take you at your word that there was no offense meant, but in all honesty, there was some taken.
I do believe that certain things can be determined to be factual. (The earth is somewhere between 3.5 and 4 billion years old, the "universe" is between 13 and 14 billion years old, the earth is about 93 million miles from the sun). And I believe that I have the right to state that I believe something to be a fact without being taken to task for it. I stand by statement that I believe it to be a fact that man-made CFC's and other "halogens" do indeed interact with ozone in the atmosphere and cause, to a significant extent, its destruction. To believe otherwise flies in the face of science.
The mechanism by which ozone destruction occurs is very well understood, and the case for it is so compelling that very concrete steps have been taken that are actually turning the problem around. Substituting R-134 refrigerants for R-12 might well be the single most important step taken in the reversal of the destruction of stratospheric ozone, and I am very glad that the scientific community was able to figure out what was going on and convince whoever needed convincing that their findings were important and correct and that action needed to be taken. I do not see it as arrogant to believe what the scientific community has determined to be fact, and again, I stand by my opinion that their findings on the role of certain man-made chemicals in the destruction of ozone deserve to be considered "fact".
On global warming: I've made the following distinction before, and I'd like to make it again: namely, the distinction between "naturally-occurring global warming", and "accelerated global warming" due to man's activities. The models for calculating the rate of what I'd call "overall global warming" (the net total of "natural" global warming plus warming that seems to be the result of man's activities) are admittedly extremely complex, but that is not to say that (in my opinion) it cannot be determined that man's activities are indeed playing at least some role in an accelerated rate of warming that is greater than that which might be expected to occur from "natural" causes. I don't think arrogance has anything to do with it. Rather, I believe it has more to do with science.
My Volkswagen Jetta puts out around 8-9,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per year. Multiply that by all the cars in the world, and add in all the coal-fired power plants and every other source of man-made "greenhouse gases", and I think the equation moves from arrogance right back to denial.
As for this mild winter: I'm not convinced that it has very much to do with the accelerated global warming that I believe is occurring, although it remains a possibility. The earth's mean temperature rose "just" 1 degree C. in the 20th century. Is that enough to cause the extremely mild January we've been experiencing, at least here in the Northeast? Very hard to say, and I would never state that as a fact. But again, the earth's climate is extremely complex, and a seemingly small change just might have a larger impact than might be expected, at least regionally.
What I do find alarming are the predictions that the earth's mean temperature could rise by as much as 4.5 degrees C. by the end of this century. I don't believe that man's role in that rate of warming can be entirely discounted, nor do I believe it should be. Nor do I believe that it is "arrogant" to believe that putting billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere might have an impact on the earth's rate of warming.
My opinions on the relationship of ozone destruction and man-made chemicals in the atmosphere were based on a wide variety of sources, but as for the particular quotes I used, in relation to the questions you posed in your post:
<font color="blue"> 1. Who wrote the article? </font> Scientists working for, or on behalf of, the US Environmental Protection Agency.
<font color="blue">2. What's their motivation? </font> They seek to avoid further destruction of the earth's fragile ozone layer.
<font color="blue">3. What organizations are they affiliated with? </font> See above.
<font color="blue"> 4. What do they propose be done about it? </font> Reduce emissions of man-made compounds that have been proven to be harmful to the ozone layer.
<font color="blue"> 5. Who do they propose pay for it? </font> You and me; I shelled out about 75 bucks to convert my car to R-134 at an authorized repair facility, and was happy to do it. Similarly, I have no problem paying a little extra for appliances that have been redesigned to operate using less harmful chemicals.
<font color="blue">6. Are the devices used to measure temperatures taken 25, 50, 100 years ago as accurate as the ones taken today? If we assume the ones taken today are accurate, did the devices years ago read artificially low? Artificially high? </font>
I have full confidence that through a wide variety of scientific methods, historical temperatures can be very accurately determined for virtually any period of time in the earth's history, rendering largely irrelevant the accuracy of recording instruments.
<font color="blue"> 7. What assumptions go into the calculations that determine the average temperatures 100, 200 or 300 years ago? </font>
In my opinion, very few. I believe them to be based on empirical data.
Lastly ... just because someone holds a particular view, particularly one based on scientific evidence, and one shared by the majority of the industrialized nations of the world, that does not necessarily mean that they are arrogant. They might just be realistic, objective, open-minded and responsible. But that's just my opinion.
My goal in saying this is not to antagonize you, or turn you into an adversary. Rather, my intent is to try to arrive at the truth. Since I believe the truth to be that man's activities are very likely leading to a rate of climate change that will cause major problems for the human race, my ultimate goal is to attempt to make you an ally in the search for facts and solutions. I believe that a large part of the solution lies in increased use of solar, wind, but mainly nuclear power to generate electricity and create hydrogen for fuel (and fresh water for agriculture, and industrial and domestic use), and in the process greatly reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that is put into the atmosphere, thereby reducing the "greenhouse effect" that science tells us they are likely causing.
John
I believe the climate is changing dramatically in our lifetime. I believe global warming is very real. I believe you have to be arrogant to think you can burn 85,000,000 barrels of oil per day and not expect some dramatic changes. Just MY beliefs.
John
John
MikePA
Super Moderator
<font color="blue"> I'll take you at your word that there was no offense meant, but in all honesty, there was some taken. </font>
If you were offended I apologize. However, facts are true or false, not something each of us can decide to accept or reject. Theories, opinions and conclusions drawn from those facts are a different matter. People can look at the same facts and come to different conclusions. The ones who predict gloom and doom are the ones who get the headlines, the grants and bigger budgets.
You and I will have to agree to disagree.
If you were offended I apologize. However, facts are true or false, not something each of us can decide to accept or reject. Theories, opinions and conclusions drawn from those facts are a different matter. People can look at the same facts and come to different conclusions. The ones who predict gloom and doom are the ones who get the headlines, the grants and bigger budgets.
You and I will have to agree to disagree.