Global Warming Proven Beyond Shadow of Doubt

[buffycat]

Okay, charter rights,

Are you mistaking ground level O3 with that which is found in the stratosphere (Hint: Way way up)?

I join the group (not usual for me) to ask for some kind of credible link between CO2 emmissions and loss of the Ozone in the Arctic.

Now, wrt to the Ozone itself - one must ask the question if it is really needed at all in the polar regions where the UV penetration is very little. It would make sense that the ozone layer itself would be thinner here to begin with. I'm not saying there wasn't a problem with CFC's, just making an observation. (IMO the worry was that the holes and thin areas WERE expanding to dangerous proportions due to CFC's - but IMO the layer itself is most likely thinner by nature in these regions).

Carry on...

[charter.rights]

Okay, charter rights,

Are you mistaking ground level O3 with that which is found in the stratosphere (Hint: Way way up)?

I join the group (not usual for me) to ask for some kind of credible link between CO2 emmissions and loss of the Ozone in the Arctic.

Now, wrt to the Ozone itself - one must ask the question if it is really needed at all in the polar regions where the UV penetration is very little. It would make sense that the ozone layer itself would be thinner here to begin with. I'm not saying there wasn't a problem with CFC's, just making an observation. (IMO the worry was that the holes and thin areas WERE expanding to dangerous proportions due to CFC's - but IMO the layer itself is most likely thinner by nature in these regions).

Carry on...

* Higher temperatures due to carbon dioxide increased the chemical rate of ozone production in urban areas

* Increased water vapor due to carbon dioxide-induced higher temperatures boosted chemical ozone production even more in urban areas.

Health Study

Figure Q18-1. Climate change from atmospheric gas changes. Human activities since 1750 have caused increases in the abundances of several long-lived gases, changing the radiative balance f Earth’s atmosphere. These gases, known as “greenhouse gases,” result in radiative forcings, which can lead to climate change. The largest radiative forcings come from carbon dioxide, followed by methane, tropospheric ozone, the halogen-containing gases (see Figure Q7-1), and nitrous oxide. Ozone increases in the troposphere result from pollution associated with human activities. All these forcings are positive, which leads to a warming of Earth’s surface. In contrast, stratospheric ozone depletion represents a small negative forcing, which leads to cooling of Earth’s surface. In the coming decades, halogen gas abundances and stratospheric ozone depletion are expected to be reduced along with their associated radiative forcings. The link between these two forcing terms is an important aspect of the radiative forcing of climate change.

Twenty Questions

There is lots of science behind it. These are from just a 3 second Google search.

+"carbon dioxide" +ozone +link

Edited January 24, 2008 by charter.rights

[Riverwind]

There is lots of science behind it. These are from just a 3 second Google search.

If you took the time to investigate the basis for the science you would find that the argument is:

We don't really understand how the sun, clouds or ocean currents affect climate but we do understand how CO2 could theoretically cause some warming. Therefore, we will assume that the current warming is caused only by CO2 and then create some nifty computer models that will use this assumption to predict how much warming will happen in the future.

There is no proof that CO2 will cause enough warming to be concerned. All of the data collected since scientists started looking at the problem suggest that the effect of CO2 on climate has been greatly overestimated. The IPCC itself keeps reducing its estimates because of this.

[charter.rights]

If you took the time to investigate the basis for the science you would find that the argument is:

We don't really understand how the sun, clouds or ocean currents affect climate but we do understand how CO2 could theoretically cause some warming. Therefore, we will assume that the current warming is caused only by CO2 and then create some nifty computer models that will use this assumption to predict how much warming will happen in the future.

There is no proof that CO2 will cause enough warming to be concerned. All of the data collected since scientists started looking at the problem suggest that the effect of CO2 on climate has been greatly overestimated. The IPCC itself keeps reducing its estimates because of this.

The fact of the matter is that ~something~ is happening and doing ~nothing~ about ~something~ is not an intelligent answer. There is lots of anecdotal evidence of global warming. ~Something~ is causing that global climate change and arguing about what that ~something~ is, is irrelevent to our responsibility to do ~something~ about it. Even if our assumptions of that ~something~ are wrong, we will still be much better of than if we did ~nothing~ and that ~something~ was more catastrophic than we first imagined.

If the worse that we do is create econ-friendly cars, put energy efficient light bulbs in our electrical sockets, or create more efficient housing, then what have we got to lose?

[Riverwind]

~Something~ is causing that global climate change and arguing about what that ~something~ is, is irrelevent to our responsibility to do ~something~ about it.

The global temperatures are close to what they were around 1000AD when the Vikings colonized Greenland. We can't tell for certain because the mechanisms used to estimate past temperatures are not precise, however, it is quite possible that the world in 1000AD was hotter than it is today. We don't know what is causing the slight warming observed in the last 20 years and we don't know if there is anything humans can do about it. It is dumb to invest trillions solving a problem that probably being grossly exagerrated by adovocates.

That said, humans do cause local climate changes by building massive concrete jungles and chopping down large areas of forest. These changes are a concern but are being completely ignored because of the this obession with CO2. In fact, this obession with CO2 will likely lead to more forests getting chopped down because biofuel is considered to be 'greener' than coal fire electrical plants.

[buffycat]

charterrights,

You are confusing ground level O3 with stratospheric O3.

You may want to review your links. These are for all intents and purposes two separate issues (in so much as anything within our expanded environment can be considered 'separate').

You are quite right that ground level ozone is considered a pollutant and leads to all sorts of problems, respiratory seeming to be the biggest. Yet, this really has very little to do with the stratospheric ozone layer itself - whose problems began with CFC's (chloroflourocarbons) which forced the breakdown of the O3 molecules in the stratosphere into O2 and yet another free Cl to start the cycle again:

CFCl3 + hv ---> CfCl2 + Cl -

Cl- + O3 ---> ClO + O2

ClO + O3 ---> Cl- + 2 O2

adinfinitum....

This is not the same as ground level ozone. You are mixed up and even stretching your hypothesis (ie link between ozone depletion and artic warming due to AGW) is certainly tenuous - considering so many other factors and variable in atmosphere/ocean/land interactions. It is far to simple to say that CO2 is the nasty cause of everything. It is the worst kind of science since it dismisses other factors which drive climate and weather patterns on this planet.

Anyway, you may want to read up a little on the differences on ground level O3 and stratospheric O3.

[charter.rights]

No. I'm not "confused". I never said that CO2 was the cause. It is a marker for sure, and now many scientists are claiming it is likely a catalyst and accelerant to other ozone depleting pollution in the atmosphere which may contribute to climate changes in ways we didn't expect.

[buffycat]

No. I'm not "confused". I never said that CO2 was the cause. It is a marker for sure, and now many scientists are claiming it is likely a catalyst and accelerant to other ozone depleting pollution in the atmosphere which may contribute to climate changes in ways we didn't expect.

This is NOT what you alluded to here:

"the concentrations of carbon dioxide is damaging the ozone in the Arctic, exposing warming temperatures to the north. As well as temperatures rise, we see increase weather effect in high evaporation and ocean-born storms."

Which is pure malarky on your part.

How then do you explain that for the majority of our planet's history temperatures globally were far higher than what we see in this current 'ice house' world? Hmmmm? You do know that for hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, the poles were ice free? Let's just go back to the time of the Dinos - poles were ice free... hence WARMER. Yet it is quite clear that the ozone was still doing it's job - ie life was abundant on land and in the oceans.

May I ask what kind of scientific training you have? Do you know anything about the climate history of our planet? Do you even know that there were numerous times in the past where CO2 levels exceeded what we experience today?

You might want to look up mid pliocene warming - very interesting stuff. (Which of course cannot be blamed on human created CO2 emmissions).

*shaking head*

[Wild Bill]

The fact of the matter is that ~something~ is happening and doing ~nothing~ about ~something~ is not an intelligent answer. There is lots of anecdotal evidence of global warming. ~Something~ is causing that global climate change and arguing about what that ~something~ is, is irrelevent to our responsibility to do ~something~ about it. Even if our assumptions of that ~something~ are wrong, we will still be much better of than if we did ~nothing~ and that ~something~ was more catastrophic than we first imagined.

If the worse that we do is create econ-friendly cars, put energy efficient light bulbs in our electrical sockets, or create more efficient housing, then what have we got to lose?

Doing anything when you really don't understand the situation or don't know what to do is not a rational approach but rather a "panic' reaction. It's a "lottery ticket" method when you don't know what to do and just about as likely to pay off.

"When in trouble, when in doubt. Run in circles! Scream and shout!"

[noahbody]

"When in trouble, when in doubt. Run in circles! Scream and shout!"

Reminds me of the classic Simpsons' line:

"Is it time to break open people's heads and feast on the goo inside?"

[charter.rights]

Doing anything when you really don't understand the situation or don't know what to do is not a rational approach but rather a "panic' reaction. It's a "lottery ticket" method when you don't know what to do and just about as likely to pay off.

"When in trouble, when in doubt. Run in circles! Scream and shout!"

We'll be shooting craps if we don't take action. The net benefit of ecological conscience is savings in our pockets. The reduced dependence on fossil fuels and the gouging that goes on daily, the energy cost savings, the better quality of life from less air pollution etc, all give us a net benefit.

The cost of doing nothing, whether we understand the phenomenon or not could kill our children. I don't think corporate profits can be held against that, do you?

An no it isn't a panic reaction. It is a response to an overwhelming science expose that suggests the world is in trouble. I prefer to based my support on that science and I reject the use of emotional and political rhetoric (complete with their partisan scientists) over real science.

[Riverwind]

We'll be shooting craps if we don't take action. The net benefit of ecological conscience is savings in our pockets. The reduced dependence on fossil fuels and the gouging that goes on daily, the energy cost savings, the better quality of life from less air pollution etc, all give us a net benefit.

Any measures taken to reduce CO2 will result in higher energy and food prices and a lower standard of living. Most people will be worse off and they won't notice any difference in air pollution because CO2 is not something that people see. Such sacrifices coudl be justified if there was real evidence of a problem. However, the evidence to date is not compelling enough to justify those sacrifices. Edited January 24, 2008 by Riverwind

[noahbody]

The reduced dependence on fossil fuels and the gouging that goes on daily, the energy cost savings, the better quality of life from less air pollution etc, all give us a net benefit.

That's terribly short-sighted. Our economy is largely fossil-fuel based. It employs thousands of Canadians; it pays for health care and social programs.

The cost of doing nothing, whether we understand the phenomenon or not could kill our children.

In Canada, the lives of your children are far more at risk with poor health care.

I reject the use of emotional and political rhetoric (complete with their partisan scientists) over real science.

Gee, didn't you just say "The cost of doing nothing, whether we understand the phenomenon or not could kill our children." That doesn't exactly sound like rejecting emotional rhetoric does it?

[White Doors]

Gee, didn't you just say "The cost of doing nothing, whether we understand the phenomenon or not could kill our children." That doesn't exactly sound like rejecting emotional rhetoric does it?

lol.

The one consistency you will find in the lunatic fringe postings is a complete absence of logic and consistency.

[cybercoma]

[M]any scientists are claiming [carbon dioxide] is likely a catalyst and accelerant to other ozone depleting pollution in the atmosphere...

Source?

[jbg]

Any measures taken to reduce CO2 will result in higher energy and food prices and a lower standard of living. Most people will be worse off and they won't notice any difference in air pollution because CO2 is not something that people see. Such sacrifices coudl be justified if there was real evidence of a problem. However, the evidence to date is not compelling enough to justify those sacrifices.

We'll be shooting craps if we don't take action. The net benefit of ecological conscience is savings in our pockets. The reduced dependence on fossil fuels and the gouging that goes on daily, the energy cost savings, the better quality of life from less air pollution etc, all give us a net benefit.

I'd be surprised if the current difficulties in the financial markets don't take some steam out of the "global warming" BS. People tend to be into silly causes when they're not worrying about where their next paycheck is coming from or how they're going to meet their rent and/or mortgage obligations.

[charter.rights]

We'll be shooting craps if we don't take action. The net benefit of ecological conscience is savings in our pockets. The reduced dependence on fossil fuels and the gouging that goes on daily, the energy cost savings, the better quality of life from less air pollution etc, all give us a net benefit.I'd be surprised if the current difficulties in the financial markets don't take some steam out of the "global warming" BS. People tend to be into silly causes when they're not worrying about where their next paycheck is coming from or how they're going to meet their rent and/or mortgage obligations.

The financial crisis won't hit us nearly has hard as you have been hit. The response by the Bank of Canada here is to lower the interest rates. That will stimulate an already hot housing market. On the other hand it appears that Bush has spent you into the poor house.....

[Leafless]

The financial crisis won't hit us nearly has hard as you have been hit. The response by the Bank of Canada here is to lower the interest rates. That will stimulate an already hot housing market. On the other hand it appears that Bush has spent you into the poor house.....

With 40-year mortgages and low interest Canada is headed the same way as the U.S.

Besides the U.S economy will have a negative effect on the Canadian economy especially with less demand for Canadian products aggravated by a decrease in manufacturing especially in Ontario coupled with Canadian banks losses in the U.S. meltdown.

[Brain Candy]

I hate it when people use loaded terms like "climate change denier" to oversimplify their opponents position, it doesnt do anything to help any debate.

[cybercoma]

I hate it when people use loaded terms like "climate change denier" to oversimplify their opponents position, it doesnt do anything to help any debate.

As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to scientific discussion (such as global warming) being a denier is a good thing. What is there to learn if there are no skeptics?

[jbg]

With 40-year mortgages and low interest Canada is headed the same way as the U.S.

Forty year and interest only mortgages are a very dangerous path to proceed down. They create the unreasonable belief that there is a "free lunch" to be had in terms of housing.

Besides the U.S economy will have a negative effect on the Canadian economy especially with less demand for Canadian products aggravated by a decrease in manufacturing especially in Ontario coupled with Canadian banks losses in the U.S. meltdown.

I think this "meltdown" is exaggerated. There will be an approximately 33% peak to trough drop in real estate values. This does not mean that people will walk from their homes en masse since most people enjoy living in their established homes, there are transaction costs to moving, and costs from danage to credit in walking away from a mortgage obligation. Only those who looked at their home as an investment rather than a place to live, or people living seriously beyond their means, will default.

[jbg]

Some form of decisive, even panicky action on global warming is in order.¹

¹Especially after near-record cool weather for two summer months in a row, June and July.

Edited August 4, 2009 by jbg

[GostHacked]

There are three important modifiers that hurt your argument.

1. the concentrations of carbon dioxide is damaging the ozone in the Arctic, exposing warming temperatures to the north. As well as temperatures rise, we see increase weather effect in high evaporation and ocean-born storms.

I recall it was all those CFCs in styrofoam cups that hurt the ozone layer? If carbon dioxide really does that, we would have been toast a long time ago.

2. forests once covered much of the earth (including many deserts) and could absorb tons of CO2. However, there is an upper limit to the amount of CO2 vegetation can absorb and we are presently producing more CO2 than the existing forests can absorb.

So stop cutting down the damn trees and plant more of them!!

[Guest TrueMetis]

Climate change is happening but we can't know what effect this will have on the world because we have no clue how the climate actaully works, Add to that the fact we don't have a clue how high CO2 levels were in the past and it fucks up the whole thing. Although one thing is for sure because of all the giant dinosaurs walking around millions of years ago there was alot more methane and since methane has 25 times the effect of CO2 it was probably alot hotter.

[Cato]

So stop cutting down the damn trees and plant more of them!!

and build tree houses for people and feed them with leaves.