Do you agree that the Earth is warming?

[Aussie]

Do you agree that the average temperature of Earth has increased in recent decades? Please refrain from derailing this thread by arguing whether global warming is man-made.

Reasons for your points of view are welcomed.

[markus3622]

I voted yes. I base this on the temperature records and the satellite data of the surface and lower troposphere.

[Rhino]

Yes, naturally. Not from the activities of man.

[sunsettommy]

Yes.

Markus answered for all of us why we say yes.

[Rhino]

Markus answered for all of us why we say yes.Not necesarily. He based his response on the temperature records and the satellite data of the surface and lower troposphere. I based my response on my increasing Coppertone budget.

[sunsettommy]

Not necesarily. He based his response on the temperature records and the satellite data of the surface and lower troposphere. I based my response on my increasing Coppertone budget.

Oh I thought that was the Ozone layer we worried over about easy tans of the future.

[Rhino]

Well, my Coppertone is CFC-Free.

[MSGT]

Yes, at least where I live. It's called summer.

[Eagle1]

give me a break, i have been freezing my ass off here and it snowed and hailed this past weekend. havent even had a whole spring day yet

[Charity]

I think we are just going through cycles.

[Aussie]

give me a break, i have been freezing my ass off here and it snowed and hailed this past weekend. havent even had a whole spring day yetThe global warming predicts that the average global temperature is rising. So if global warming is true, many areas will still remain very cold, windy and wet and some areas will get even colder.

I think we are just going through cycles.Earth has always gone through minor cooling and heating cycles. Most of the dramatic climatic shifts happen gradually over many thousands of years. However, what's unusual now is that the Earth is warming much faster than the norm. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png)

The above is agreed on by most climatologists. What is being tossed up in politics and the general public are the causes for this increase in temp. In the scientific community, most climatologists agree that this recent warming trend is directly connected to humans and our byproducts. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)

Keep on polling people!

[DesertFox]

No doubt the earth is warming now, but it has nothing to do with man. In the eons of earth's existence, warming and cooling cycles have occurred both gradually and suddenly -- very gradually (millions of years) and very suddenly (a few weeks), and all gradations in between.

I see no reason to think this warming is unusual in any way. To think that man at present can affect the whole earth's climate is the height of hubris.

[uncommon1]

No doubt the earth is warming now, but it has nothing to do with man. In the eons of earth's existence, warming and cooling cycles have occurred both gradually and suddenly -- [i]very[

I wholeheartedly agree. Otherwise, how could you explain the numerous ice ages over the centuries.

[Aussie]

and very suddenly (a few weeks),As far as I am aware, serious changes to the global climate like the present rise in temperatures (or none at all, depending on your opinion) do not take a few weeks. Unless you're talking about an asteroid impact and still the effects take years to take hold. I would be very interested to see research about this.

[Taylor]

I think "global warming" is just a term generated by liberals as an excuse for a reason why sometimes winter is warmer than other times.

[bannerman]

who here remembers GLOBAL COOLING,..and the nuclear winter?

more FADISH presumptions from the stinking marzist frauds

OMG did i forrget to STATE whether i "BELIEVE" in global warming?

YES I DID

i believe its cause my algores burrito consumption

[dPrasse]

I think it is moderating ... in IL , we have warmer winters , but , the summers are not as hot ....

[Eagle1]

The global warming predicts that the average global temperature is rising. So if global warming is true, many areas will still remain very cold, windy and wet and some areas will get even colder.

give me some of that average warming here then

fossil fuels, burn on!!!

should we pass a law against volcano eruptions?? they pollute more than we ever could

[MSGT]

You really should have another option on the poll for 'don't care'.

[Popperite]

who here remembers GLOBAL COOLING,..and the nuclear winter?

Nuclear winter? I missed that?

Darn...

[sunsettommy]

Nuclear winter? I missed that?

Darn...

Yeah Sagan did after his idea was shown to be poorly researched.

He must have said Damn!

:grin:

[sunsettommy]

It looks like a majority sees current warming.

So what is next Aussie?

[ANI]

There is not enough information to support all of this "panic"..to begin with we have only been capable of fairly accurate temperature measurement for about 100 years..which is not long enough to accurately judge the natural cycles of climate...then there is the fact that something caused the end of the last ice age (I wonder what SUV's looked like then)...now there was a mini ice age that lasted from the mid 1300's to the mid 1800's and about 30 years ago these same "experts" were warning us about global cooling and the coming ice age...geez...

[Popperite]

Yeah Sagan did after his idea was shown to be poorly researched.

He must have said Damn!

:grin:

I suppose an experiment was out of the question.

[Popperite]

There is not enough information to support all of this "panic"..to begin with we have only been capable of fairly accurate temperature measurement for about 100 years..which is not long enough to accurately judge the natural cycles of climate...then there is the fact that something caused the end of the last ice age (I wonder what SUV's looked like then)...now there was a mini ice age that lasted from the mid 1300's to the mid 1800's and about 30 years ago these same "experts" were warning us about global cooling and the coming ice age...geez...

Back in the seventees there was a lot of talk in the press about global cooling but that didn't come from any experts.
Temperature measurements that were less precise than we are capable of today can still tell something if you have enough of them and if the inaccuracies are small enough. The Gauss method will still give you a fair average. Still I suppose you can't go back much more than two or threehunderd years at most purely on the basis of thermometers.

[sunsettommy]

I suppose an experiment was out of the question.

Well actually it was indirectly tested and that is why he may have said damn.

The 1991 Iraqi oil well fires produced a whopping smoke cloud and he made predictions based on his past Nuclear winter research on it.

It was exposed as being worthless.

[Gonzo67]

Yes, Because:

See people rocking. Hear people chanting. Feeling hot hot hot!
Keep up this spirit. Come on let's do it. Feeling hot hot hot!

[Johnnybegood]

I think we are just going through cycles.It could be warming but for lots of reasons .When a volcano shoots lots of ash into the air i believe there is a lot more stuff put into the atmostphere then all of the cars could do .......I guess you could call that a cycle only because no one knows when the next one will erupt around the world.......

[Aussie]

t looks like a majority sees current warming.

So what is next Aussie?The next logical step would be to ask whether you think this warming is caused partly by man. And your reasons why.

I'm actually quite surprised at how many people voted yes, the Earth is warming now. I myself hold this view, but I'm wondering how many people actually know about the evidence behind it.

You really should have another option on the poll for 'don't care'.If global warming is true, then every facet of your life will be affected. As well as the wider-world. You should care.

.to begin with we have only been capable of fairly accurate temperature measurement for about 100 years..which is not long enough to accurately judge the natural cycles of climate Of course recording the temperatures for 100 years isn't enough. You can't extrapolate anything from that.

What we can do is look through ice cores. As each layer of snow is layed down, gasses are trapped between the ice. Analysis of the trapped gasses in these ice samples can tell us how much carbon dioxide was present in the atmosphere in the past. Climatologists have drilled down about 3 kilometres, meaning we have data about carbon dioxide levels going back 900,000 years.

[Rhino]

I'm actually quite surprised at how many people voted yes, the Earth is warming now.
If you had included the 'caused by man' qualifier, the results would have been even more pronounced. Many who answered 'no' undoubtedly did so in the context of 'it's caused by man'. I would have included a third option of "Yes, but it's not caused by man". That probably would have gotten a near unanimous response.

[Rhino]

Or even a response of "Yes, but it's a natural cycle".

[Lubbock]

The earth warms. The earth cools.

The earth warms. The earth cools.

The earth warms. The earth cools.

The earth warms. The earth cools.

The earth warms. The earth cools.

The earth warms. The earth cools.

The earth warms. The earth cools.

The earth warms. The earth cools.

The earth warms. The earth cools.

The earth . . . well, you get the picture.

[Teenager]

Heck yes it warming! Especially when summertime nears... I usually have to go out AND ACTUALLY BUY SUNSREEN!! Dagburnit! I think we should be worried!


Edit: I didn't vote on the poll. I wasn't complete...

[Opje]

It could be warming but for lots of reasons .When a volcano shoots lots of ash into the air i believe there is a lot more stuff put into the atmostphere then all of the cars could do .......I guess you could call that a cycle only because no one knows when the next one will erupt around the world.......

"Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons/year, whereas other sources contribute about 10 billion tons/year. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), described below, greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced."

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html


"The major climatic affect that volcanoes have is due to the aerosol particles that are exploded into the troposphere by large eruptions. Even though there are many more small eruptions, unless the aerosols (and ash) makes it out of the troposphere to the stratosphere, it will be rained or snowed out in a short time.
The aerosols that do reach the stratosphere can have two affects. If they are larger than about 2 microns, they allow incoming solar radiation to reach the Earth's surface but block outgoing heat radiation--this will contribute to global warming. On the other hand, if the aerosols are smaller than about 2 microns, they tend to block the incomming solar radiation--leading to global cooling. Pinatubo, for example, caused about a 1/2 degree C cooling of the Earth for the year or so following its big 1991 eruption."
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp13/question994.html

"Volcanic eruptions can alter the climate of the earth for both short and long periods of time. For example, average global temperatures dropped about a degree Fahrenheit for about two years after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, and very cold temperatures caused crop failures and famine in North America and Europe for two years following the eruption of Tambora in 1815. Volcanologists believe that the balance of the earth's mild climate over periods of millions of years is maintained by ongoing volcanism. Volcanoes affect the climate through the gases and dust particles thrown into the atmosphere during eruptions. The effect of the volcanic gases and dust may warm or cool the earth's surface, depending on how sunlight interacts with the volcanic material."

http://www.cet.edu/ete/modules/volcanoes/vclimate.html

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/climate.html

http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/VolcWeather/description_volcanoes_and_weather.html

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/volcano.htm

A look at these links will show that volcanoes have a negligible impact on heating the earth, and actually cool the globe with the creation of a dust shield in the atmosphere. Yet, the earth's average temperature is still rising. Thus it would appear that volcanoes have little, if any permanent impact on global weather, and none on global warming.

[Rhino]

CO2. Remember when it was CFCs? I wonder what the next buzzword will be once CO2 becomes passe.

[Timberwolf]

CO<SUB>2</SUB> is already passè...it is a well known fact that temperatures spike before it does...therefore CO<SUB>2</SUB> cannot be the cause of global warming.

[sunsettommy]

CO<SUB>2</SUB> is already passè...it is a well known fact that temperatures spike before it does...therefore CO<SUB>2</SUB> cannot be the cause of global warming.

The role of CO2 on global warming has been reduced this year by some PEER REVIEWED papers.Climate Science website shows it is at the most 28%.Probably much less.

[Aussie]

CO2. Remember when it was CFCs? I wonder what the next buzzword will be once CO2 becomes passe.CFCs are still scary SOBs. They last from 65-160 years in the atmosphere. CFCs break down in the atmosphere, releasing chlorine atoms. Just one of these chlorine molecules can literally destroy thousands of ozone molecules. They do this every hour, every day, every night for 60-160 years.

The ozone layer itself is very thin and spread out. If you brought down all the ozone in the world from the atmosphere down to ground level, the layer would only by 5mm thick. And there are or were billions of CFCs up there. Like I said, CFCs are scary things.

The reduction in the ozone layer wasn't just a fake scare invented by the greenies. The reduction in uses of CFCs has helped. The seasonal ozone holes are expected to recover slowly and return to normal size at about 2050.

[sunsettommy]

CFCs are still scary SOBs. They last from 65-160 years in the atmosphere. CFCs break down in the atmosphere, releasing chlorine atoms. Just one of these chlorine molecules can literally destroy thousands of ozone molecules. They do this every hour, every day, every night for 60-160 years.

The ozone layer itself is very thin and spread out. If you brought down all the ozone in the world from the atmosphere down to ground level, the layer would only by 5mm thick. And there are or were billions of CFCs up there. Like I said, CFCs are scary things.

The reduction in the ozone layer wasn't just a fake scare invented by the greenies. The reduction in uses of CFCs has helped. The seasonal ozone holes are expected to recover slowly and return to normal size at about 2050.

Your ignorance is scary.

There were evidence of "ozone Holes" in the late 1950's.

The YEARLY steep Ozone reduction is tied to the POLAR VORTEX.

The colder the polar vortex the greater the destruction of the ozone.Antartica region was undergoing a cooling trend at the time.

The ozone "layer" was thinner in the 1960's.

The pac-man effect crap you bring up is plain stupid.You fail to realize that FAR more ozone is created by the action of Solar rays than a few CFC's derived chlorine molecules can destroy.

O2 also absorbs IV rays too and Chlorine does nothing to O2.

Maybe you consider the math next time?

[Aussie]

Your ignorance is scary. Your propensity to believe anything is disturbing.

There were evidence of "ozone Holes" in the late 1950's.That's a common misconception.

An ozone hole was first observed in 1956

G.M.B. Dobson (Exploring the Atmosphere, 2nd Edition, Oxford, 1968) mentioned that when springtime ozone levels over Halley Bay were first measured, he was surprised to find that they were ~320 DU, about 150 DU below spring levels, ~450 DU, in the Arctic. These, however, were the pre-ozone hole normal climatological values. What Dobson describes is essentially the baseline from which the ozone hole is measured: actual ozone hole values are in the 150-100 DU range.
The discrepancy between the Arctic and Antarctic noted by Dobson was primarily a matter of timing: during the Antarctic spring ozone levels rose smoothly, peaking in April, whereas in the Antarctic they stayed approximately constant during early spring, rising abruptly in November when the polar vortex broke down.
The behavior seen in the Antarctic ozone hole is completely different. Instead of staying constant, early springtime ozone levels suddenly drop from their already low winter values, by as much as 50%, and normal values are not reached again until December. (FAQ, Part III (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/antarctic/), section 6)

The YEARLY steep Ozone reduction is tied to the POLAR VORTEX.

The colder the polar vortex the greater the destruction of the ozone. The colder the air, Antartica region was undergoing a cooling trend at the time.And? Scientists realise that the polar vortex is an integral part of the reduction in the ozone hole. Without the polar vortex and the polar stratospheric clouds it produces, there would be no chemical reactions with the chlorine resulting in the destruction of ozone.

You're supporting the scientist's side. Good on you.

The ozone "layer" was thinner in the 1960's. Halley Bay Antarctic Ozone Data


Mean October ozone column thickness, Dobson Units,
as measured at the British Antarctic Survey station
at Halley Bay (Latitude 76 south, Longitude 26 west)

1956 321 1971 299 1986 248
1957 330 1972 304 1987 163
1958 314 1973 289 1988 232
1959 311 1974 274 1989 164
1960 301 1975 308 1990 179
1961 317 1976 283 1991 155
1962 332 1977 251 1992 142
1963 309 1978 284 1993 111
1964 318 1979 261 1994 124
1965 281 1980 227 1995 129
1966 316 1981 237 1996 139
1967 323 1982 234 1997 139
1968 301 1983 210
1969 282 1984 201
1970 282 1985 196

The pac-man effect crap you bring up is plain stupid.You fail to realize that FAR more ozone is created by the action of Solar rays than a few CFC's derived chlorine molecules can destroy.There are only 3 billion metric tons of ozone in the atmosphere. That's 0.00006 percent of the atmosphere.

It's a balance between sunlight that creates ozone and chemical reactions that destroy ozone.

O2 also absorbs IV rays too I think you mean UV rays. O2 molecules do absorb UV rays and then seperate to form seperate O atoms. These atoms join with other O2 molecules which forms ozone.

O2 + O = O3

Again, what are you arguing against? Scientists all know this stuff.

and Chlorine does nothing to O2.Maybe so, but chlorine does do something to O3 which is ozone.

Maybe you consider the math next time?It's chemistry, not maths.

[Aussie]

CO₂ is already passè...it is a well known fact that temperatures spike before it does...therefore CO₂ cannot be the cause of global warming.Could I see some references please?

[DoctorDoom]

"Do you agree that the Earth is warming (recently)?" Yes.

Do I give a shit that the Earth is warming (recently)? No.

I have better things to do with my life than pay attention to the ravings of shit-brained leftists who are out to turn America into a f**king third-world banana republic.

IAC, right now a far more critical situation than global warming has arisen, and it demands that I address it immediately. My sock drawer needs rearranging.

[Aussie]

Do I give a shit that the Earth is warming (recently)? No.Global warming has serious implications for the environment. You're looking at huge losses in biodiversity because some species are highly specialised in the environment they live in. But I doubt you care about the eco-system (I wonder if your grandchildren might though...in a century or so, tigers might only be seen in zoos or picture books).

Global warming will melt some parts of the polar ice caps. This will raise the sea level, causing flooding in some low-level areas. Already some small islands in the Pacific are in danger. They have a long standing agreement with New Zealand in case they need to permanently evacuate their ancestral homes. Again, I doubt you care about those people. They're not likely to bother you in America.

How about predicted increases in droughts in some countries? Glaciers melt which means short-term increases in water supply but they start to run out in the dry season. There could be further loss of drinking water in poor countries, more pressure on unsustainable groundwater use, more river usage reducing flow, increased water restrictions, etc etc. This will affect you. Water is the most precious resource we have.

How about agriculture? It's hoped that global warming will increase agriculture yields, but no one is sure yet. It's predicted that Africa will be hard hit. With a reduction in rainfall, there will be less food to go around, meaning more starvation. Then again, I doubt you care about the billion or so starving people around the world.

But hey, who gives a shit huh? Certainly not you.

[sunsettommy]

Try the YEARLY average to get a much better picture:

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ozwv/dobson/select.html

Then this:

Graph (http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ozwv/dobson/gifs/ams/ams_recent.gif) of the station's recent published values...

What you chose was a single month.:rotflmbo:

I showed that there is little change from 1963 to 2004 outside the polar vortex phenomenon.

Look around in the link for other locations.You will see very different local of maximum levels of Ozone.Some over 440 DU at Barrow.To less than 360 in france.

There is no such thing as a consistent layer of Ozone.It varies considerably month to month and year to year from location to location.

It is a small geographical region where so much of the handwringing is going on.A region that has something not found ANYWHERE else.The Polar Vortex.It is all about the extreme cold and the lack of sunlight.

It is true that we have evidence of Ozone "holes" back in the 1950's.You just want to hang onto a MODERN version of what a Ozone hole is.

I find it funny that so much fearmongering goes on when we have so little data to know if this is a common phenomenon or not.We have records from the 1950's and that is all and in SELECTED regions too.

As long as we have Oxygen and sunlight.We will ALWAYS have adequate Ozone.The basic science in Ozone creation is adequately known to see that the Ozone hole scare is a game played by ignorant people.

Yup it is indeed MATHEMATICS.

[aaron11]

I think Aussie's mother needs to stop letting him play on the computer...

[DoctorDoom]

Global warming has serious implications for the environment.That's true only if one believes the screeching hyperbole of ecowackos about future conditions for which they have no evidence whatsoever, and about their wild-ass guesses re the changes in the environment for which they are equally devoid of evidence.

You're looking at huge losses in biodiversity ...Prove it, you alarmist twit. We are growing weary of your Chicken-Little pseudoscience. And BTW, biodiversity has been adversely affected by this and that since life existed on this planet. Mother Nature is a heartless, uncaring bitch, child. Live with it.

... because some species are highly specialised in the environment they live in.And would you care to show us how that is unique in 2006 rather than being the norm throughout the last few hundred million years? I believe that you're one of the numbwits who spew your junk science in the evolutionism forum, so you must be at least vaguely familiar with the notion of survival of the fittest. When the environment changes (as it has been doing for many megayears), the "species (that) are highly specialised in the environment they live in" can't cope with it. And we should care because? If you entertain the lunatic notion that humans are capable of achieving ecological stasis, then you're dumber than even I had assumed.

But I have no doubt that you liberal assmites will blame President Bush for the extinction of billions of species throughout Earth's environmentally dynamic and inconstant history.

But I doubt you care about the eco-system ...Of course not, moron. I don't live here. I just visit this backward little planet because I find its neuronically-challenged liberal assholes to be mildly amusing when my planet experiences slow news days. :rolleyes:

(I wonder if your grandchildren might though...in a century or so, tigers might only be seen in zoos or picture books).You liberaloonies love subjunctive-mood weasel-words: "tigers might only be seen ..." Do you think we should give your simplistic bullshit any credence when the best you can do is, "tigers might only be seen"?

Global warming will melt some parts of the polar ice caps. This will raise the sea level, causing flooding in some low-level areas.Only if the fanciful fictions of the scaremongers of the left become fact, and their 0% accuracy to date militates against that eventuality. Frankly, twit, the idea of seaports in Las Vegas appeals to me. It would mean that Mexifornia had become Pacific Ocean seabed, and that would be no loss.

Already some small islands in the Pacific are in danger. They have a long standing agreement with New Zealand in case they need to permanently evacuate their ancestral homes.:violin:

The unidentified islands' "long standing agreement with New Zealand" will continue to so for a really long time to come, and their "ancestral homes" are in no peril.

Again, I doubt you care about those people. They're not likely to bother you in America.Not unless they get the Internet, which should never have been brought to Down Under, given the number of bloody idiots that infest FC from there.

How about predicted increases in droughts in some countries?How about them? I trust Nostradamus and Criswell more than the ecoloony fear-peddlers. Gloom & doom predictions are SOP for wannabe social engineers. How about showing us some solid evidence to support the predictions?

Glaciers melt ...As they have been doing since the Ice Age, but amazingly enough, glaciers didn't exist before the Ice Age, which means that the world drastically cooled. And there is evidence that the arctic region was at one time far warmer than it is now. Buy a clue, Ozzie: drastic swings of global temperature are natural and unpreventable. BTW, the Ice Age ended with precisely zero contribution from humans, which means that something other than SUVs and liberal hot air was responsible.

... which means short-term increases in water supply but they start to run out in the dry season. There could be further loss of drinking water in poor countries, more pressure on unsustainable groundwater use, more river usage reducing flow, increased water restrictions, etc etc. This will affect you. Water is the most precious resource we have.And of course you believe that a slightly warmer Earth will cause all that water to vanish into a parallel dimension where ultraterrestrials will use it to fill their swimming pools. Damn, boy, have you ever considered being a screen writer for bad horror movies?

Do you ever bother to think about the mindless rhetoric that you're quoting from the "Gore For God" campaign booklets?

How about agriculture? It's hoped that global warming will increase agriculture yields, but no one is sure yet."... (No) one is sure yet." That's the nature of environmental extremism, but they don't let that stop them from reciting their bullshit as the fifth Gospel.

It's predicted that Africa will be hard hit.And it's predicted by equally credible sources that millions of giant space ships from the Ashtar Command and the Pleiadeans will evacuate the "enlightened" people from Earth prior to such an eventuality.

With a reduction in rainfall ...... which will be caused by thousands of cubic miles of liquid water being released onto the planet, which oddly enough will not evaporate and form clouds from whence comes rain ...

... there will be less food to go around, meaning more starvation.Your flair for the monotonously melodramatic is wearing out its tenuous welcome.

Then again, I doubt you care about the billion or so starving people around the world.I could say that I agree with the LIBERAL population explosion alarmists that there are entirely too many people on Earth, and that a few billion assuming ambient temperature would drastically improve it for the rest of us. IAC, what the hell good is Africa, anyway? What does it contribute to the world other than a continent-sized Petri dish for AIDS, endless wars and massacres, and young girls for UN agents to rape?

But hey, who gives a shit huh? Certainly not you.I give a shit for many things, kid. However, the fatuous bloviations of sophomoric ecowackos are not on the list.

<center><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/ChickenGlobal1.jpg" /></center>

[DoctorDoom]

And one other thing, bloke: what do you suggest that man do to arrest the EEEEE-vill global warming (more accurately, global climate change) from transpiring?

[Gonzo67]

Global warming will melt some parts of the polar ice caps. This will raise the sea level, causing flooding in some low-level areas. Already some small islands in the Pacific are in danger. They have a long standing agreement with New Zealand in case they need to permanently evacuate their ancestral homes.


Using statements like this will not help, but only HURT your cause.

Surely you are aware that when water freezes, it EXPANDS. Hence, MELTING ICE, cannot POSSIBLY put more water into the ocean than it's displacing.

So if the polar icecaps melt, you would be looking at a LOWERED sea-level. Not a rise in the sea-level.

Here's a fun experiment for you, take a glass, fill it all the way to the top with ice., now pour water in it until the water is right at the top of the glass. Then let the glass sit there over night. You can throw a heating lamp by it if you want to speed it up.

When the ice melts, according to YOUR theory anyway, you should have a full glass of water and a wet counter where all the excess water from the melting ice wet.

Unfortunately, things wont work out the way you seem to believe they will. You'll have about a half a glass of water once the ice melts, if you're lucky.

So your argument of melting polar ice caps flooding the world is SCIENTIFICALLY impossible.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Global warming has serious implications for the environment.
Maybe. Maybe not. The problem with your argument is that there is no evidence that global warming is being caused by human activities. Consequently, there is absolutely nothing that we can or should do to stop it.

I noticed that you mentioned that the Antarctic Ozone Hole (AOH) was discovered in 1956. That was before there was any significant use of CFCs, so there was no way that the hole could have been caused by CFCs. It wasn't until at least 1958 that there was significant enough production of CFCs bring the price down so that the average person could afford air conditioning. Prior to that, only the very rich, major corporations, and movie theaters could afford air conditioning.

BTW, prior to 1956 there were no instruments accurate enough to measure an ozone hole, so it's highly likely that the AOH had been occurring for hundreds or thousands of years before it was discovered.

[Aussie]

I think Aussie's mother needs to stop letting him play on the computer...And this contributes to the conversation...how?

Prove it, you alarmist twit.There's no need for the vitriole. It's not Flame Wars. Do you speak this way to every person you meet?

Prove it, you alarmist twit. We are growing weary of your Chicken-Little pseudoscience. And BTW, biodiversity has been adversely affected by this and that since life existed on this planet. Mother Nature is a heartless, uncaring bitch, child. Live with it.Like I said, it's expected that biodiversity will be seriously affected by global warming. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has free reports detailing everything from what global warming is, what causes it, what impact it will have and what can be done.

There is a lot to go through, but these are the relevant pieces of information:

5.2.2. Current Models of Ecosystem Change (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/204.htm)

5.2.3. Impacts on Biodiversity (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/206.htm) 5.2.3.1. Global Models of Biodiversity Change (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/206.htm#5231) 6.3 Marine Ecosystems (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/287.htm)

6.4. Coastal Systems (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/292.htm)

And would you care to show us how that is unique in 2006 rather than being the norm throughout the last few hundred million years? It's not unique at all. Some species have always been specialised and species have always gone extinct.

What is worrying is the pace of the extinction. It's not known how fast new species are evolving to replace the ones being lost.

I believe that you're one of the numbwits who spew your junk science in the evolutionism forum,Is it not possible to have a polite conversation?

so you must be at least vaguely familiar with the notion of survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest in a particular environment, yes.

When the environment changes (as it has been doing for many megayears), the "species (that) are highly specialised in the environment they live in" can't cope with it. And we should care because?There's several reasons why we should be worried about the loss of biodiversity. One, we rely on the ecosystem. It may not seem like it, but without the marine ecosystem or the loss of keystone terrestrial species, we wouldn't be here today. Humans rely on fish and other marine animals for food. These fish eat other fish that eat other fish that eats phytoplankton, the base from which the marine ecosystem thrives. Phytoplankton are very susceptible to any climate change and an increase in temperature could have a serious impact on fish populations.

We all know that forests act as the lungs for the Earth, absorbing carbon dioxide and respiring oxygen. It's been found that when forests start to get 'stressed' from environmental factors, instead of respiring oxygen, they start to release carbon dioxide instead. That just makes the problem worse. Rainforests face huge losses because of illegal clear felling. Aside from the fact that they are a carbon sink and destroying forests means you're releasing long-stored carbon back into the atmosphere, you're also losing potential medicines. A fair while back, they found a new cancer treating medicine from the bark of a tree in a Pacific Island.
Tropical rain forests are called the 'world's largest pharmacy' because of the large amount of natural medicines discovered there. Nearly half of the medicines that we use come from the rainforests. For example, rain forests are responsible for containing the "basic ingredients of birth control hormones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control_pill), stimulants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulant), and tranquilizing drugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranquilizing_drug)" (Banks 36). Curare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curare) (a paralyzing drug) and quinine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinine) (a malaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria) cure) are also found there. Scientists believe that the cures for many more diseases will be discovered there in the future. Currently, 121 prescription drugs currently sold worldwide come from plant-derived sources. And while 25% of Western pharmaceuticals are derived from rainforest ingredients, less than 1% of these tropical trees and plants have been tested by scientists. With the loss of animals that keep the rainforest ecosystem healthy, you'll lose the rainforests. You lose the rainforests, you lose the next potential life-saving medicine.

You may not know it, but humanity still relies on nature. This is just the practical benefits of preserving the ecosystem. How about leaving this world better for the next generation? Aren't we doing a grave disservice by destroying their natural heritage?

If you entertain the lunatic notion that humans are capable of achieving ecological stasis, then you're dumber than even I had assumed.
I've just written a great deal. I'd appreciate it if you were civil.

But I have no doubt that you liberal assmites will blame President Bush for the extinction of billions of species throughout Earth's environmentally dynamic and inconstant history.I will not blame President Bush for every single thing that goes wrong. However, he could be doing more to help the environment.
You liberaloonies love subjunctive-mood weasel-words: "tigers might only be seen ..." Do you think we should give your simplistic bullshit any credence when the best you can do is, "tigers might only be seen"?There's only a few thousand of them left. Depending on how things go, they might be totally extinct in the wild and in the captivity. I wanted to give the best-case scenario. That's why I used 'might'.

Only if the fanciful fictions of the scaremongers of the left become fact, and their 0% accuracy to date militates against that eventuality. Frankly, twit, the idea of seaports in Las Vegas appeals to me. It would mean that Mexifornia had become Pacific Ocean seabed, and that would be no loss.If things get that serious, then the sea level will rise.For the complete range of AOGCMs and SRES scenarios and including uncertainties in land-ice changes, permafrost changes and sediment deposition, global average sea level is projected to rise by 0.09 to 0.88 m over 1990 to 2100, with a central value of 0.48 m (Figure 11.12 (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/429.htm#fig1112)). The central value gives an average rate of 2.2 to 4.4 times the rate over the 20th century.

11.5 Future Sea Level Changes (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/429.htm)

The unidentified islands' "long standing agreement with New Zealand" will continue to so for a really long time to come, and their "ancestral homes" are in no peril.Oh?

As a low lying islands lacking a surrounding shallow shelf, the island communities of Tuvalu are especially susceptible to changes in sea level and storm patterns that hit the island undissipated. The extent and causes of sea level change are disputed, however it is estimated that a sea level rise of 20-40 centimetres (8-16 in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inch)) in the next 100 years could make Tuvalu uninhabitable.<sup class="reference" id="_ref-Patel_0">[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvalu#_note-Patel)</sup><sup class="reference" id="_ref-0">[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvalu#_note-0)</sup> The South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pacific_Applied_Geoscience_Commission) suggest that while Tuvalu is vulnerable to climate change, there are additional environmental problems such as population growth and poor coastal management, which are affecting sustainable development on the island, they rank the country as extremely vulnerable using the Environmental Vulnerability Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Environmental_Vulnerability_Index&action=edit). <sup class="reference" id="_ref-1">[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvalu#_note-1)</sup> While some commentators have called for the relocation of the population of Tuvalu, to Australian, New Zealand or Kioa, however the current Prime Minister Maatia Toafa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maatia_Toafa) says his government does not regard rising sea levels as such a threat that the entire population would need to be evacuated.<sup class="reference" id="_ref-2">[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvalu#_note-2)</sup><sup class="reference" id="_ref-3">[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvalu#_note-3)</sup> New Zealand has agreed to accept an annual quota of 75 evacuees.<sup class="reference" id="_ref-4">[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvalu#_note-4)</sup>
How about them? I trust Nostradamus and Criswell more than the ecoloony fear-peddlers. Gloom & doom predictions are SOP for wannabe social engineers. How about showing us some solid evidence to support the predictions?Another long-standing model result related to drought (a reduction in soil moisture and general drying of the mid-continental areas during summer with increasing CO₂) has been reproduced with the latest generation of global coupled climate models (Gregory et al., 1997; Haywood et al., 1997; Kothavala, 1999; Wetherald and Manabe, 1999). This summer drying is generally ascribed to a combination of increased temperature and potential evaporation not being balanced by precipitation. To address this problem more quantitatively, a global climate model with increased CO₂ was analysed to show large increases in frequency of low summer precipitation, the probability of dry soil, and the occurrence of long dry spells (Gregory et al., 1997). The latter was ascribed to the reduction of rainfall events in the model rather than to decreases in mean precipitation. However, the magnitude of this summer drying response may be related to the model’s simulation of net solar radiation at the surface, and more accurate simulation of surface fluxes over land will increase confidence in the GCM climate changes.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/365.htm

As they have been doing since the Ice Age, but amazingly enough, glaciers didn't exist before the Ice Age, which means that the world drastically cooled. And there is evidence that the arctic region was at one time far warmer than it is now. Buy a clue, Ozzie: drastic swings of global temperature are natural and unpreventable. BTW, the Ice Age ended with precisely zero contribution from humans, which means that something other than SUVs and liberal hot air was responsible.No one denies this. Why must you create strawmen? We all know that we didn't have cars in the Ice Age. Climate change has been occuring hundreds of millions of years before we even existed as a recognisable species.

What my post is talking about is the possible effects of melting glaciers. That's it. Okay?

And of course you believe that a slightly warmer Earth will cause all that water to vanish into a parallel dimension where ultraterrestrials will use it to fill their swimming pools. Damn, boy, have you ever considered being a screen writer for bad horror movies?

Do you ever bother to think about the mindless rhetoric that you're quoting from the "Gore For God" campaign booklets? A slightly warmer global average temperature can be disastrous. Even a small change in temp can affect weather patterns and precipitation, especially in such a large continent like Africa.

"... (No) one is sure yet." That's the nature of environmental extremism, but they don't let that stop them from reciting their bullshit as the fifth Gospel. Science is tentative.
I could say that I agree with the LIBERAL population explosion alarmists that there are entirely too many people on Earth, and that a few billion assuming ambient temperature would drastically improve it for the rest of us. IAC, what the hell good is Africa, anyway? What does it contribute to the world other than a continent-sized Petri dish for AIDS, endless wars and massacres, and young girls for UN agents to rape?Africans are people too. They don't need to contribute anything. They can sit on their ass for the rest of their lives for all I care. All I want for them is a good life. I'm sure you don't contribute anything to the good of the world.

<sup id="_ref-4" class="reference"></sup>

[Aussie]

Thank you for such a nice, moderated post.
Maybe. Maybe not. The problem with your argument is that there is no evidence that global warming is being caused by human activities. Consequently, there is absolutely nothing that we can or should do to stop it. Ah, but this isn't my point. My point is that the Earth is warming and that the effects of warming are serious. If you read over my posts again, I have not said that global warming is caused by humans. Well, not just yet anyway. What I am arguing for is that global warming is real and that the effects could potentially be very bad.

No evangelising for the causes of the environment just yet. So lets just keep it to whether global warming is happening and how badly screwed we're going to get if it is happening.

I noticed that you mentioned that the Antarctic Ozone Hole (AOH) was discovered in 1956. You must have misunderstood me. The first observation of the ozone hole in Antarctica was in the years 1980-1984.

That was before there was any significant use of CFCs, so there was no way that the hole could have been caused by CFCs.You're right that before 1956, CFCs weren't in significant use. However, the ozone hole was NOT discovered then. It would be at least 30 years later before it was first observed.

We have ground based measurements of the ozone levels in Antarctica starting from 1956. These were then supplemented by more measurements in the Arctic and elsewhere on Antarctica. Satellite measurements weren't available until the 70s.

So we have pretty detailed records. We could compare the 'normal' levels of ozone with the depleted levels of ozone and thereby make the connecting with an ozone hole.

BTW, prior to 1956 there were no instruments accurate enough to measure an ozone hole, so it's highly likely that the AOH had been occurring for hundreds or thousands of years before it was discovered.From 1956 (when ozone was first being measured) to the discovery of the ozone hole (which did not exist before the late 70s), the measurements were very accurate.

[Aussie]

Surely you are aware that when water freezes, it EXPANDS. Hence, MELTING ICE, cannot POSSIBLY put more water into the ocean than it's displacing.That would be quite a good point, except for the fact that Antarctic and Greenland ice sit on a landmass, unlike ice shelves that float on water.

And one other thing, bloke: what do you suggest that man do to arrest the EEEEE-vill global warming (more accurately, global climate change) from transpiring?I'm afraid that discussing this topic will further detract from the OP...but hell, we're already on ozone so why not?

I personally think we should try to switch as fast as humanly possible from burning fossil fuels to 'clean' energy. Wind (yes I know they kill birds. You build away from their migration routes. Besides, cars kill more birds), geothermal, tidal energy, solar and yes, nuclear (but we've got to do something about the waste. Until we can find a permanent solution, we'll put it somewhere safe). Burning fossil fuels is the biggest contributer to greenhouses gases.

Promote hydrogen fuel cell cars. Develop the technology further by providing companies incentives.

Next, I'd push hard (and I mean hard) to preserve the rainforests and other carbon sinks (like the ocean and the micro-organisms that store it). Enforce the laws. All this while trying to improve the social and economic outlook for the nearby countries. Saving the environment is good, but I consider human needs more important. Feed the people and they'll stop eating bushmeat. Teach the logging companies how to do sustainable forestry (not clear-felling and just leaving the forest to die).

This is all ridiculously simple and not likely to happen at all. I have never had delusions of grandeur. It's not going to happen in less than 50 years.

[DoctorDoom]

There's no need for the vitriole. It's not Flame Wars. Do you speak this way to every person you meet?No, only to liberals.

[Aussie]

Graph of the station's recent published values... That graph shows perfectly what I was talking about:http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ozwv/dobson/gifs/ams/ams_recent.gif

[edit] the image was waay too big so I took it out. Follow the link.

If you look at the pink and red lines on the far right side at October, you'll see the levels of ozone measured in dobson units diving sharply down. Thanks for the extra evidence.


What you chose was a single month.:rotflmbo: Well, duh! What I showed was the data from October in Antarctica! October! Hello? Ring any bells? SPRING!

The Antarctic ozone hole is greatest while in SPRING! OF COURSE THE DATA SHOWS ONLY OCTOBER DATA! BECAUSE THE OZONE HOLE APPEARS IN SPRING!

Wow. Just wow.

I showed that there is little change from 1963 to 2004 outside the polar vortex phenomenon.How did you show this? I must have missed it. Please explain.

Look around in the link for other locations.You will see very different local of maximum levels of Ozone.Some over 440 DU at Barrow.To less than 360 in france.OF COURSE! No one, absolutely no one! is saying that there's a massive ozone hole over the whole surface of the Earth. Of course ozone levels vary from one part of the Earth to another!

There is no such thing as a consistent layer of Ozone.It varies considerably month to month and year to year from location to location.Absolutely!

It is a small geographical region where so much of the handwringing is going on.A region that has something not found ANYWHERE else.The Polar Vortex.It is all about the extreme cold and the lack of sunlight.Absolutely! The polar vortex combined with the CFCs are the reasons behind the ozone hole! I'm glad we're in agreement!

It is true that we have evidence of Ozone "holes" back in the 1950's.You just want to hang onto a MODERN version of what a Ozone hole is.That's not true:

There is an oft quoted statement that the Antarctic ozone hole was discovered in 1956 and therefore it can't be caused by CFCs. This remark originates from a paper by Professor G M B Dobson, the scientist who designed the ozone spectrophotometer which has been the standard for ozone measurements since the 1930s. The big advantage in standardising on one make of instrument is that we can be certain that changes in ozone amount that are measured, are changes in the atmosphere rather than changes due to observational technique. The following is taken from Dobson's paper in Applied Optics, March 1968, Vol 7, No3.


'One of the more interesting results on atmospheric ozone which came out of the IGY (International Geophysical Year) was the discovery of the peculiar annual variation of ozone at Halley Bay (76 south, 26 west). The annual variation of ozone at Spitzbergen was fairly well known at that time, so, assuming a six months difference, we knew what to expect. However, when the monthly telegrams from Halley Bay began to arrive and were plotted alongside the Spitzbergen curve, the values for September and October 1956 were about 150 units lower than was expected. We naturally thought that Evans has made some large mistake or that, in spite of checking just before leaving England, the instrument had developed some fault. In November the ozone values suddenly jumped up to those expected from the Spitzbergen results. It was not until a year later, when the same type of annual variation was repeated, that we realized that the early results were indeed correct and that Halley Bay showed a most interesting difference from other parts of the world. It was clear that the winter vortex over the South Pole was maintained late into the spring and that this kept the ozone values low. When it suddenly broke up in November both the ozone values and the stratosphere temperatures suddenly rose.'
The change in data was because Halley's Bay had unusual weather from other places in the world. Not surprising because Antarctica is pretty different. There's no discrepencies. What you're doing is blowing this whole thing out of proportion. Read the context.

What Dobson recorded is the normal data before the ozone hole actually appeared.

[DoctorDoom]

Since you offered suggestions, the confrontation is suspended.

I personally think we should try to switch as fast as humanly possible from burning fossil fuels to 'clean' energy.Standard fare, but let's move on.

Wind (yes I know they kill birds. You build away from their migration routes. Besides, cars kill more birds) ...Those who trumpet wind energy must find places to put the wind farms where liberals can't see them, e.g., not in the Gulf or off of Cape Cod. However, windfarms are useless without a steady wind, and that limits their siting to those places where the terrain permits it. This presupposes wide open areas, and that will lead to hissyfits amongst the enviroloonies, whose opposition them is (ostensibly) aesthetic. They are ugly. They cannot be made otherwise. If one wants wind power, one must suffer with their appearance.

And unfortunately, wide open areas with steady winds make good migration routes.

They could of course be sited on mountain peaks, but again the issue of, "They're not PRETTY!" will disallow them.

... geothermal ...Very limited potential, and not a long-term solution, inasmuch as extracting heat from rock cools the rock, and the energy output decreases. And it is limited by practicality to sites where geothermal activity is already proven, e.g., Yellowstone. Envision the ecowackos exploding about building power plants in a national park.

... tidal energy ...A lot of potential, but lotsa luck getting it past the anti-everythingists, who will complain that it would interfere with the travel of fishies.

... solar ...Frequently discussed, but its value is in point-of-use applications away from other sources of energy. It will never be practical for anything else.

And the major problem is that none of them have any potential as base-load energy sources.

... and yes, nuclear ...It's the only rational source for large-scale energy, but of course the ecoloonies oppose it.

... (but we've got to do something about the waste. Until we can find a permanent solution, we'll put it somewhere safe).The US has a permanent solution, but it is being fought tooth and nail by the antis and their political pawns, whose scientific ignorance is utterly appalling. Their accident scenarios are breathtakingly outrageous, but they love to scare the shit out of the sheeple who are, if possible, even more ignorant of the subject than the antis.

If we could remove those fear-peddling morons from the mix, nukes would blossom like dandelions on a spring morning.

Burning fossil fuels is the biggest contributer to greenhouses gases.Except for nature.

Promote hydrogen fuel cell cars. Develop the technology further by providing companies incentives. Hydrogen is one of those things that sound good, but ... From a May 3 post:

First, a couple of factoids: hydrogen as a fuel has 2.6 times the energy content of an equivalent mass of gasoline, e.g., kilogram for kilogram. However, liquid hydrogen requires 4 times the volume of gasoline for an equal energy content.

E.g., the gasoline in a 15-gallon tank weighs about 90 pounds. Liquid hydrogen with the same energy content weighs 34 pounds, but requires a 60-gallon tank to hold it. For that reason alone, it's hard to envision it in small vehicles. There's more on liquid hydrogen below.

<hr>
Gasoline requires nothing other than a safe tank to hold it and a pump to get it to the engine. It stores at atmospheric pressure and ambient temperature. Hydrogen, being a gas, cannot simply be pumped into a tank and used.

There are several ways to store hydrogen. The first and simplest way is by compressing it into high-pressure tanks. This has several drawbacks. First, it requires the expenditure of considerable energy to run the compressor. Second, the highest practical pressure in a hydrogen tank is about 6000 PSI (equivalent to water pressure at a depth of 13,820 feet). Envision a 6000-psi tank rupturing due to material fatigue and failure. The explosion of the tank itself would quite likely blow the car apart, but since that would generate at least one or two sparks, there would also be a quite impressive fireball. For that reason, frequent inspections of the tanks are required. How many consumers would be willing to put up with that constant, costly necessity?

IAC, compressed hydrogen will never be practical in cars. A compressed hydrogen gas tank that contained energy equivalent to a gasoline tank would be more than 3,000 times bigger than the gasoline tank. Imagine replacing a Yugo's 9-gallon tank with a 27,000-gallon tank.

Obviously, compressed hydrogen is useless for transportation.

<hr>
The only other practical storage technology at present is liquid hydrogen. While the figures at the top are far less daunting than those of compressed gas, LH has its own problems. First, it must be stored at 20° Kelvin or -253°C (-424°F). That's 20°C or 36°F above absolute zero, almost as cold as a New England winter night. To store it in liquid form requires a tank that insulates the liquid and can retain its structural integrity at nearly absolute zero. Such tanks are of course available, but converting the technology for use in a car would be impractical.

First, the tank and its associated equipment would be quite heavy and, as seen earlier, 4 times as large as a gasoline tank for the same energy content.

Second, in the event of an accident that ruptures the tank, there will be a spray of lethally cold liquid. It would also pose the likelihood of an explosion much larger than the blast of a compressed gas tank, because the amount of hydrogen would be far greater.

Third, the fueling process would be far more complicated, inasmuch as transferring a high-pressure, super-cold liquid requires much more than shoving a nozzle into a filler pipe.

Fourth, the fueling stations would require expensive, energy-consuming compressors and refrigeration to maintain their stores of LH.

Fifth, the process of liquifying hydrogen uses energy equivalent to 30% of the energy content of the gas.

Sixth, the infrastructure that must be built to enable a large-scale hydrogen-based transportation system is so formidable that is unlikely to be attempted.

This page provides basic info on the various means of hydrogen storage. Part of the above data comes from it.

INFO - Hydrogen - Hydrogen Storage (http://www.fuelcellstore.com/cgi-bin/fuelweb/view=NavPage/cat=1014)

Lastly, regardless of the method for storing it, hydrogen itself is not an energy source, but an energy transfer medium. It is not found free in nature. It must be generated by extracting it from compounds, and the process, by the laws of physics, must always require more energy than can be provided by the hydrogen. Thus, the use of hydrogen fuel is a net energy loss. (And generating the energy used to produce hydrogen also produces GHGs.)

Envision the price of gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, etcetera, if refineries had to use more energy to make them than the petroleum could provide. This is the major impediment to a hydrogen-based economy.

And if one thinks that the ecowackos are on the edge of insanity now, wait until we start building new power plants to provide the energy for generating hydrogen. What will be most galling to them is that nukes can be a very effective source of hydrogen (http://www.physorg.com/news8956.html). Talk about a dilemma.

Next, I'd push hard (and I mean hard) to preserve the rainforests and other carbon sinks (like the ocean and the micro-organisms that store it). Enforce the laws. All this while trying to improve the social and economic outlook for the nearby countries. Saving the environment is good, but I consider human needs more important. Feed the people and they'll stop eating bushmeat.And this affects the US in what way? We don't have <s>jungles</s> rainforests. And America IS a net carbon sink.

Teach the logging companies how to do sustainable forestry (not clear-felling and just leaving the forest to die).Familiarize yourself with American logging operations. That is NOT done here. The greatest danger to our forests are from the enviroassholes that will not allow old-growth and deadwood clearing, drastically increasing the likelihood of major fires. Responsible forestry is the business of the US logging industry. The anti-everythingist jerkoffs are the impediments.

This is all ridiculously simple ...Stating it is "ridiculously simple". Doing it is another matter entirely.

... and not likely to happen at all.Not as long as idiots dictate energy policy.

I have never had delusions of grandeur. It's not going to happen in less than 50 years.It can, but first it will require telling the idiots to sit down and STFU. That calls for balls, and our "leaders" have a conspicuous lack of them.

[sunsettommy]

That graph shows perfectly what I was talking about:http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ozwv/dobson/gifs/ams/ams_recent.gif

[edit] the image was waay too big so I took it out. Follow the link.

If you look at the pink and red lines on the far right side at October, you'll see the levels of ozone measured in dobson units diving sharply down. Thanks for the extra evidence.

Well, duh! What I showed was the data from October in Antarctica! October! Hello? Ring any bells? SPRING!

The Antarctic ozone hole is greatest while in SPRING! OF COURSE THE DATA SHOWS ONLY OCTOBER DATA! BECAUSE THE OZONE HOLE APPEARS IN SPRING!

Wow. Just wow.
How did you show this? I must have missed it. Please explain.

OF COURSE! No one, absolutely no one! is saying that there's a massive ozone hole over the whole surface of the Earth. Of course ozone levels vary from one part of the Earth to another!

Absolutely!
Absolutely! The polar vortex combined with the CFCs are the reasons behind the ozone hole! I'm glad we're in agreement!

That's not true:

The change in data was because Halley's Bay had unusual weather from other places in the world. Not surprising because Antarctica is pretty different. There's no discrepencies. What you're doing is blowing this whole thing out of proportion. Read the context.

What Dobson recorded is the normal data before the ozone hole actually appeared.

I see that you will ignore the part about the April to september average that is very stable.That alone damages you idea that Chlorine is increasingly wiping out the Ozone over Antartica.The so called hole varies in size year to year.Bigger one year then gets smaller another year then bigger again.

It is limited to part of the year when the meterological situation favors the accelerated breakdown of Ozone.That is all.The rest of the year there is no unusual breakdown rate of Ozone going on.

Not surprising that you deliberately ignore the part of the year that does not show unusual change.The 42 year long record shows annual variations but the average over the period is very constant.

You specifically look at the small part of the year where the dominant polar vortex is present to say that the Ozone layer is in trouble.That is called cherrypicking.It is a BUILT IN METEROLOGICAL PHENOMENON!

Starting in the late 1970's on through the 1980's.Antartica had undergone a strong cooling trend.That increases the time period when it is -80 below zero.Coupled with a stronger polar vortex effectively promotes greater ozone destruction.

The recovery is virtually complete since the chart shows no significant deviation for the rest of the year from the 42 year norm.

The rest of the year there is little change.That is what you gloss over.

That is what the chart I showed you shows.

That is what you miss.

The scientific estimation of TOTAL CFC's in the atmosphere is around 6,000,000 tons.The damaging effect is visible only in the polar regions.The rest of the world shows little overall change.

That is what you miss.

[sunsettommy]

Deleted

[sunsettommy]

Aussie,
This is what you said at post #38:

Bolding is mine.

CFCs are still scary SOBs. They last from 65-160 years in the atmosphere. CFCs break down in the atmosphere, releasing chlorine atoms. Just one of these chlorine molecules can literally destroy thousands of ozone molecules. They do this every hour, every day, every night for 60-160 years.

The ozone layer itself is very thin and spread out. If you brought down all the ozone in the world from the atmosphere down to ground level, the layer would only by 5mm thick. And there are or were billions of CFCs up there. Like I said, CFCs are scary things.

The reduction in the ozone layer wasn't just a fake scare invented by the greenies. The reduction in uses of CFCs has helped. The seasonal ozone holes are expected to recover slowly and return to normal size at about 2050.

That is called scaremongering.Its only significant effect can be tied to the South pole where the METEROLOGICAL phenomenon creates a highly ideal situation to rapidly deplete the Ozone layer.

The rest of the worlds Ozone layer is barely affected at all.

Here is a link that should put to rest your idea that CFC's is so dangerous to the worlds Ozone layer.

The writer puts this issue in clear language even you should understand.

Ozone Depletion

by Robert J. Bidinotto (Bidinotto@compuserve.com)
Copyright © 1994, Robert J. Bidinotto, All Rights Reserved


<HR>First published as two posts to the Moderated Discussion of the Objectivist Philosophy electronic mail list postings of May 7, 1994. Some names in the text refer to individuals who posted comments online in this discussion. Ozone and Objectivity


Is our stratospheric ozone layer under attack by chlorine coming from man-made CFCs?

Paul Robinson's posting of March 24 on the subject of ozone depletion and CFCs is correct in its skeptical answer, but very wrong in how he arrives at that answer. I am concerned that, in a hasty effort to repudiate radical environmentalists, too many of "us" (following the lead of the late Dixy Lee Ray, Rush Limbaugh and others) are becoming susceptible to junk science and half- baked theories. The ozone controversy is a prime example.

I'd like to comment at length, because this issue shows that some of us -- relying too much upon a rationalistic, deductive method -- tend not to do our empirical homework on serious issues. We apparently think that it's enough to extend our philosophical principles deductively into various specialized controversies, and -- with only a smattering of facts at our disposal -- logically infer the "right" answers. This case vividly illustrates the pitfalls of that approach. So consider this posting not a side trip into the environmentalist controversy, but instead a case study focusing on the perils of poor methodology.

(a lot more here)

http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/RobertBidinotto/OzoneDepletion.html

A snippet from the link:


It is absolutely true that "ozone depletion" is an absurd environmentalist bogey-man. There is no evidence that long-term global ozone levels are declining; there is no evidence that ultraviolet radiation levels reaching ground level are increasing; and even the declines in ozone projected by alarmists for the next thirty years would not result in ultraviolet exposure levels equivalent to one's moving about 100 miles south! Moreover, the so-called "ozone hole" cannot expand outside of Antarctica, because it is confined to that region by unique meteorological conditions. And one of NASA's own studies, conducted by Dr. Linwood Callis, found that the impact of CFCs on the ozone layer during the 1980s had been negligible.

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Naturalized-Texan]

"G.M.B. Dobson, the Oxford professor who started modern ozone observations, recounts that when the Halley Bay Antarctic station was first set up in 1956, the monthly telegrams showed that "the values in September and October 1956 were about 150 [Dobson] units [50%] lower than expected. In November the ozone values suddenly jumped up to those expected. It was not until a year later, when the same type of annual variation was repeated, that we realized that the early results were indeed correct and that Halley Bay showed most interesting difference from other parts of the world." (S. Fred Singer, My Adventures in the Ozone Layer, 3/31/89 (http://www.sepp.org//ozone/advinozon.html))

"Malignant melanoma, the deadly form of skin cancer, has been increasing worldwide over the last 50 or so years, however -- LONG BEFORE CFCs CAME INTO GENERAL USE; it seems to be related to exposure to the sun." (S. Fred Singer, Lecture at St. Vincent College, February 1, 1995 (The link is no longer available))


"The hypothesis that CFCs deplete ozone is still just that: a hypothesis. The theory did not predict the Antarctic ozone hole and cannot predict what will happen globally. There is no firm evidence as yet for a long-term depletion of global ozone. Much of data is contaminated; the ozone record is dominated by large, natural fluctuations on many time scales; and there are even long-term changes of natural origin extending over decades." (S. Fred Singer, Lecture at St. Vincent College, February 1, 1995 ((The link is no longer available)))

"The existence of the ozone hole--a temporary thinning of the ozone layer--does not prove the existence of global depletion." (S. Fred Singer, Lecture at St. Vincent College, February 1, 1995) Rainbird claims that the ozone hole is proof of ozone depletion. "I want to state clearly that there is no scientific consensus on ozone depletion." (S. Fred Singer, Testimony before Congress, September 20, 1995 (http://www.sepp.org//ozone/ozcongr2.html))

"The [ozone] hole was never predicted by the [CFC] theory, which tells you something about the theory's credibility, and the gullibility of the media. The hole is a genuine phenomenon, a temporary thinning of the layer every October, during the Antarctic spring. The thinning lasts for several weeks and then the layer recovers. The exact mechanism is not understood even today, and it is still not possible to make sure predictions about what the ozone hole will be like next year, or ten years from now." (S. Fred Singer, Lecture at St. Vincent College, February 1, 1995 ((The link is no longer available)))

More: FIVE SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS ON THE CFC-OZONE ISSUE (http://www.sepp.org//ozone/5questions.html)

Still more: Stratospheric Ozone (http://www.sepp.org//ozone/ozone.html)

[Aussie]

Boy, you guys are really piling on the posts. I'm a bit short on time so I'll come back to you guys soon.

[Naturalized-Texan]

You must have misunderstood me. The first observation of the ozone hole in Antarctica was in the years 1980-1984.

You're right that before 1956, CFCs weren't in significant use. However, the ozone hole was NOT discovered then. It would be at least 30 years later before it was first observed.

We have ground based measurements of the ozone levels in Antarctica starting from 1956. These were then supplemented by more measurements in the Arctic and elsewhere on Antarctica. Satellite measurements weren't available until the 70s.

So we have pretty detailed records. We could compare the 'normal' levels of ozone with the depleted levels of ozone and thereby make the connecting with an ozone hole.

From 1956 (when ozone was first being measured) to the discovery of the ozone hole (which did not exist before the late 70s), the measurements were very accurate.
I've often seen all this leftist nonsense that the AOH was not discovered until the 1980s. You know as well as Prof. Dobson and I do that the AOH was discovered in 1956 and was observed again in 1957 and in 1958 as part of the International Geophysical Year. It is in the Left's interest to claim otherwise, so the politically-motivated junk scientists flat-out lied about when the AOH was discovered.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I know that discussion of the ozone "hole" is off topic, but I have to make these points:

There has never been an ozone hole in the Antarctic, or anywhere else. What everyone calls a "hole" is nothing more than a thinning of the ozone layer. The Antarctic Ozone Hole (AOH) is really a thinning of the ozone over the South Pole regions caused by the extreme cold of of the Antarctic winters and occurs in the spring of each year. The colder the winter, the greater the thinning. However, there was never a "hole." Prof. Dobson clearly observed that thinning from October 1956 through November 1956 and he observed the same thinning in the next 2 years. So, it is absolutely correct to state that Prof. Dobson discovered the AOH in 1956.

The question then is: For how many years before Prof. Dobson's discovery had there been that thinning (that "hole")? Hundreds of years? Thousands of years? More? No one knows for sure. What we do know is that it was there in 1956.

[Aussie]

Those who trumpet wind energy must find places to put the wind farms where liberals can't see them, e.g., not in the Gulf or off of Cape Cod.Yeah yeah yeah, aesthetically speaking, wind farms don't look good. I don't care. If it will help save the environment, I'll do it.

However, windfarms are useless without a steady wind, and that limits their siting to those places where the terrain permits it.True.

This presupposes wide open areasOr coastal and mountainous areas.

and that will lead to hissyfits amongst the enviroloonies, whose opposition them is (ostensibly) aesthetic. They are ugly. They cannot be made otherwise. If one wants wind power, one must suffer with their appearance.Aesthetics or potentially saving the world...hm. That's a tough one. :rolleyes:

And unfortunately, wide open areas with steady winds make good migration routes. You can build around them. I've had discussions with bird-watchers and ornithologists and they are aware of the bird-killing problems. They say that wind-farms and bird migratory paths can work together and minimise causalties. Deaths are unavoidable, but millions more birds are killed by cars every year.

They could of course be sited on mountain peaks, but again the issue of, "They're not PRETTY!" will disallow them.
I think even environmentalists know that aesthetics loses out in the end. It's rich whiny homeowners that's the problem.

Very limited potential, and not a long-term solution, inasmuch as extracting heat from rock cools the rock, and the energy output decreases. And it is limited by practicality to sites where geothermal activity is already proven, e.g., Yellowstone. Envision the ecowackos exploding about building power plants in a national park. In some places, geothermal energy can work. Geologically active countries like New Zealand, Italy and Iceland especially:

In Iceland, there are three major geothermal power plants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power) which produce about 17% (2004) of the country's electricity. In addition, geothermal heating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heating) meets the heating and hot water requirements for around 87% of the nation's housing.
A lot of potential, but lotsa luck getting it past the anti-everythingists, who will complain that it would interfere with the travel of fishies. Build em in the right spots, but there's no way around the fact that we're going to kill a lot of fish.

Frequently discussed, but its value is in point-of-use applications away from other sources of energy. It will never be practical for anything else. Perhaps, but it is the most promising renewable energy source so far As technology advances, we'll get greater and greater efficiency, making solar power finally competitive with conventional sources of energy.

If you look out over Sydney today, many of the houses have solar panels up on top of their roofs, heating their water and swimming pools. And this is just residential areas. Rural communities have gobbled this sort of technology up.

Who knows, one day we might get massive rows of solar panels covering deserts.

And the major problem is that none of them have any potential as base-load energy sources.I don't see how this is a problem.

It's the only rational source for large-scale energy, but of course the ecoloonies oppose it.

The US has a permanent solution, but it is being fought tooth and nail by the antis and their political pawns, whose scientific ignorance is utterly appalling. Their accident scenarios are breathtakingly outrageous, but they love to scare the shit out of the sheeple who are, if possible, even more ignorant of the subject than the antis. I mean a permanent, permanent solution. Not just storing it but getting rid of it, whether it be recycling the waste (god knows what as) or punting it into space. Until then, we'll keep it in a safe, secure place.

Except for nature.:question:

Hydrogen is one of those things that sound good, but ... From a May 3 post:

First, a couple of factoids: hydrogen as a fuel has 2.6 times the energy content of an equivalent mass of gasoline, e.g., kilogram for kilogram. However, liquid hydrogen requires 4 times the volume of gasoline for an equal energy content.

E.g., the gasoline in a 15-gallon tank weighs about 90 pounds. Liquid hydrogen with the same energy content weighs 34 pounds, but requires a 60-gallon tank to hold it. For that reason alone, it's hard to envision it in small vehicles. There's more on liquid hydrogen below.

<hr>
Gasoline requires nothing other than a safe tank to hold it and a pump to get it to the engine. It stores at atmospheric pressure and ambient temperature. Hydrogen, being a gas, cannot simply be pumped into a tank and used.

There are several ways to store hydrogen. The first and simplest way is by compressing it into high-pressure tanks. This has several drawbacks. First, it requires the expenditure of considerable energy to run the compressor. Second, the highest practical pressure in a hydrogen tank is about 6000 PSI (equivalent to water pressure at a depth of 13,820 feet). Envision a 6000-psi tank rupturing due to material fatigue and failure. The explosion of the tank itself would quite likely blow the car apart, but since that would generate at least one or two sparks, there would also be a quite impressive fireball. For that reason, frequent inspections of the tanks are required. How many consumers would be willing to put up with that constant, costly necessity?

IAC, compressed hydrogen will never be practical in cars. A compressed hydrogen gas tank that contained energy equivalent to a gasoline tank would be more than 3,000 times bigger than the gasoline tank. Imagine replacing a Yugo's 9-gallon tank with a 27,000-gallon tank.

Obviously, compressed hydrogen is useless for transportation.

<hr>
The only other practical storage technology at present is liquid hydrogen. While the figures at the top are far less daunting than those of compressed gas, LH has its own problems. First, it must be stored at 20° Kelvin or -253°C (-424°F). That's 20°C or 36°F above absolute zero, almost as cold as a New England winter night. To store it in liquid form requires a tank that insulates the liquid and can retain its structural integrity at nearly absolute zero. Such tanks are of course available, but converting the technology for use in a car would be impractical.

First, the tank and its associated equipment would be quite heavy and, as seen earlier, 4 times as large as a gasoline tank for the same energy content.

Second, in the event of an accident that ruptures the tank, there will be a spray of lethally cold liquid. It would also pose the likelihood of an explosion much larger than the blast of a compressed gas tank, because the amount of hydrogen would be far greater.

Third, the fueling process would be far more complicated, inasmuch as transferring a high-pressure, super-cold liquid requires much more than shoving a nozzle into a filler pipe.

Fourth, the fueling stations would require expensive, energy-consuming compressors and refrigeration to maintain their stores of LH.

Fifth, the process of liquifying hydrogen uses energy equivalent to 30% of the energy content of the gas.

Sixth, the infrastructure that must be built to enable a large-scale hydrogen-based transportation system is so formidable that is unlikely to be attempted.

This page provides basic info on the various means of hydrogen storage. Part of the above data comes from it.

INFO - Hydrogen - Hydrogen Storage (http://www.fuelcellstore.com/cgi-bin/fuelweb/view=NavPage/cat=1014)

Lastly, regardless of the method for storing it, hydrogen itself is not an energy source, but an energy transfer medium. It is not found free in nature. It must be generated by extracting it from compounds, and the process, by the laws of physics, must always require more energy than can be provided by the hydrogen. Thus, the use of hydrogen fuel is a net energy loss. (And generating the energy used to produce hydrogen also produces GHGs.)

Envision the price of gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, etcetera, if refineries had to use more energy to make them than the petroleum could provide. This is the major impediment to a hydrogen-based economy.

And if one thinks that the ecowackos are on the edge of insanity now, wait until we start building new power plants to provide the energy for generating hydrogen. What will be most galling to them is that nukes can be a very effective source of hydrogen (http://www.physorg.com/news8956.html). Talk about a dilemma.That is the main technological problem of hydrogen right now. Storing it. Compressing it doesn't alleviate the density problem, liquid hydrogen brings with it a whole set of new problems. Sure, the logistics of switching from a fossil-fuel economy to hydrogen is mind-boggling, but this is one tough nugget to crack. Well, sitting on our ass won't solve anything. President Bush made that speech a while ago saying that America was addicted to oil. America needs to pump some resources in the R&D.
And this affects the US in what way? We don't have <s>jungles</s> rainforests. And America IS a net carbon sink. The rainforests are the world's lungs. They breathe in carbon dioxide, breathe out oxygen. Destroying rainforests mean a release in carbon dioxide, meaning an increased greenhouse effect (which you don't believe in anyway) all around the world.

Familiarize yourself with American logging operations. That is NOT done here. The greatest danger to our forests are from the enviroassholes that will not allow old-growth and deadwood clearing, drastically increasing the likelihood of major fires. Responsible forestry is the business of the US logging industry. The anti-everythingist jerkoffs are the impediments.I meant the guys over in the Amazon rainforest who have already destroyed 20% of it.

-------
I can't believe I haven't mentioned this already. Increased efficiency of diesel and gasoline fueled vehicles. If switching to renewable energy is going to take as long as I think it will, then we might as well do something NOW.

I've often seen all this leftist nonsense that the AOH was not discovered until the 1980s. You know as well as Prof. Dobson and I do that the AOH was discovered in 1956 and was observed again in 1957 and in 1958 as part of the International Geophysical Year. It is in the Left's interest to claim otherwise, so the politically-motivated junk scientists flat-out lied about when the AOH was discovered.Do you have evidence to suggest that the ozone hole was discovered in 1956?

[Aussie]

"G.M.B. Dobson, the Oxford professor who started modern ozone observations, recounts that when the Halley Bay Antarctic station was first set up in 1956, the monthly telegrams showed that "the values in September and October 1956 were about 150 [Dobson] units [50%] lower than expected. In November the ozone values suddenly jumped up to those expected. It was not until a year later, when the same type of annual variation was repeated, that we realized that the early results were indeed correct and that Halley Bay showed most interesting difference from other parts of the world." (S. Fred Singer, My Adventures in the Ozone Layer, 3/31/89 (http://www.sepp.org//ozone/advinozon.html)) Why did you miss this part out?

-We naturally thought that Evans has made some large mistake or that, in spite of checking just before leaving England, the instrument had developed some fault. In November the ozone values suddenly jumped up to those expected from the Spitzbergen results. It was not until a year later, when the same type of annual variation was repeated, that we realized that the early results were indeed correct and that Halley Bay showed a most interesting difference from other parts of the world. It was clear that the winter vortex over the South Pole was maintained late into the spring and that this kept the ozone values low. When it suddenly broke up in November both the ozone values and the stratosphere temperatures suddenly rose.'-

Mr Dobson answers it himself.

"Malignant melanoma, the deadly form of skin cancer, has been increasing worldwide over the last 50 or so years, however -- LONG BEFORE CFCs CAME INTO GENERAL USE; it seems to be related to exposure to the sun." (S. Fred Singer, Lecture at St. Vincent College, February 1, 1995 (The link is no longer available))The ozone hole doesn't cause melanoma. It is UV rays that cause melanoma, and melanoma and UV rays have always existed. It's predicted that the ozone hole lets in more UV rays and that skin cancer rates could rise. I'd like to see some data for the above quote so that I can be sure that it's not just people who aren't putting on their sunscreens.

Because of this uncertainty, it is difficult to estimate the impact of ozone depletion on melanoma incidence. One study showed that a 10% increase in UVB radiation was associated with a 19% increase in melanomas for men and 16% for women (Fears et al, Cancer Res. 2002, 62(14):3992-6). A study of people in Punta Arenas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punta_Arenas), at the southern tip of Chile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile), showed a 56% increase in melanoma and a 46% increase in nonmelanoma skin cancer over a period of seven years, along with decreased ozone and increased UVB levels (Abarca, Jaime F. & Casiccia, Claudio C. (2002) Skin cancer and ultraviolet-B radiation under the Antarctic ozone hole: southern Chile, 1987-2000. Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine 18 (6), 294-302 [10] (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0781.2002.02782.x/full/)).

"The hypothesis that CFCs deplete ozone is still just that: a hypothesis. The theory did not predict the Antarctic ozone hole and cannot predict what will happen globally. There is no firm evidence as yet for a long-term depletion of global ozone. Much of data is contaminated; the ozone record is dominated by large, natural fluctuations on many time scales; and there are even long-term changes of natural origin extending over decades." (S. Fred Singer, Lecture at St. Vincent College, February 1, 1995 ((The link is no longer available)))
I've noticed that you quote just one man. Why not thousands of scientists?

"The existence of the ozone hole--a temporary thinning of the ozone layer--does not prove the existence of global depletion." (S. Fred Singer, Lecture at St. Vincent College, February 1, 1995) Rainbird claims that the ozone hole is proof of ozone depletion. "I want to state clearly that there is no scientific consensus on ozone depletion." (S. Fred Singer, Testimony before Congress, September 20, 1995 (http://www.sepp.org//ozone/ozcongr2.html))The one man again. Why not the National Academy of Science?

"The [ozone] hole was never predicted by the [CFC] theory, which tells you something about the theory's credibility, and the gullibility of the media. The hole is a genuine phenomenon, a temporary thinning of the layer every October, during the Antarctic spring. The thinning lasts for several weeks and then the layer recovers. The exact mechanism is not understood even today, and it is still not possible to make sure predictions about what the ozone hole will be like next year, or ten years from now." (S. Fred Singer, Lecture at St. Vincent College, February 1, 1995 ((The link is no longer available)))There he is again. As much as I like underdogs, why am I not seeing his science papers in distinguished peer-reviewed journals? Why isn't he joined by thousands of climatologists?

------------
Hey sunsettommy, I will come back to your post. But right now, I've got the World Cup to watch.

[Gonzo67]

E.g., the gasoline in a 15-gallon tank weighs about 90 pounds. Liquid hydrogen with the same energy content weighs 34 pounds, but requires a 60-gallon tank to hold it. For that reason alone, it's hard to envision it in small vehicles. There's more on liquid hydrogen below.


Well, if it's tough for anyone to envision it in "small vehicles" which I presume by that they mean cars and the like, then perhaps this little video will help improve their vision...

WATCH VIDEO - WMV FORMAT (http://webpages.charter.net/gonzo367/burnwater.wmv)

No need to convert to Hydrogen when you can just use water, and I'm sure you have a hose at your house, making virtually every house a "refueling station".

[Rhino]

That's not liquid hydrogen, which Doc was referring to. It's very interesting though. I hope he succeeds in developing this. Some still doubt the validity of his claims though.

[dreamer]

Global warming is real, and it has to be addressed. It may not be completely from man, but we have played a part. Think about a truck, and how much exhaust it puts out. Now multiply that by the number of vehicles in a major city such as Houston, and then multiply it by the thousands of major cities in the world. And all that is being pumped into the atmosphere everyday. You can try and hide from the truth, but it is only common sense that that much Carbon Dioxide would have at least some affect on our atmosphere.

[Rhino]

Not really.

[DoctorDoom]

That's not liquid hydrogen, which Doc was referring to. It's very interesting though. I hope he succeeds in developing this. Some still doubt the validity of his claims though.I have no doubt that his secret will be bought out and suppressed by Big Oil, the same as the pill that turns water into gasoline, the free energy motors and perpetual motion machines, etcetera.

Rule of thumb: when something seems too good to be true, it is. I'm sensing the ghost of cold fusion rising from the graveyard of scams and crackpot ideas. What the video is depicting violates the laws of physics. Ergo, until the alleged process is verified in lab tests, the watchword is skepticism.

[Gonzo67]

That's not liquid hydrogen, which Doc was referring to. It's very interesting though. I hope he succeeds in developing this. Some still doubt the validity of his claims though.


Aye, I know, which is why I added:

"No need to convert to Hydrogen when you can just use water, and I'm sure you have a hose at your house, making virtually every house a "refueling station"."

After the video link. ;)


What the video is depicting violates the laws of physics. Ergo, until the alleged process is verified in lab tests, the watchword is skepticism.


Why would you think that? It's not as "far fetched" as you may believe. After all, isn't water nothing more than two parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen. Both of which, when separate, are combustible.

The U.S. Navy already has and uses technology to manufacture air in submarines by extracting oxygen from sea water. Now if we can extract oxygen from water and use it to breathe, it's only logical to believe that the same technology, with some modification, could be used to extract hydrogen from water and use it for fuel.

The gentleman in the video isn't going to lay out the details of the technology on the nightly news so every tech-head with some green to spare can rip off his design and profit from his work. I can fully understand that. As it was said in the video, he's in the process of designing a Hummer for the military that can run on both water and gas, and he drives his Escort that is rigged as a water/gas hybrid, but is able to also run on water alone. And 100 miles on 4 ounces of water, sounds like pretty good mileage. Though the video isn't clear on if thats when it's running as hybrid or running on water alone.

[DoctorDoom]

The issue is that the alleged process starts with water and ends with water, which thermodynamically, under ideal conditions, results in zero energy for useful work. And only in fiction and crackpot sites do we find ideal conditions.

Water is the lowest possible energy state for hydrogen and oxygen. The only way one could use water as a fuel is if the product has an even lower energy state than the water, which does not and cannot exist. Ergo, any energy from this process is being obtained from external energy applied to the system, and the hydrogen and oxygen are merely energy "carriers".

Here's some info on the "HHO", which is not a new concept.

Brown's gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HHO_gas)

One use is in water torches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_torch).

The notion that it can be used to power cars is frivolous. Since the gas must be produced on demand, the vehicle must be equipped with a power generating system to perform the electrolysis. Given the inefficiencies of electrolysis (theoretically peaking at 94% but never actually achieved), it would be more practical to use the generator to drive the vehicle electrically.

And 100 miles on a cup of water? RI-I-IGHT. It smells of a scam.

Here's a long thread about it on a science forum.

Water Fuel (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=20763)

[Aussie]

I see that you will ignore the part about the April to september average that is very stable.That alone damages you idea that Chlorine is increasingly wiping out the Ozone over Antartica. Who said CFCs were increasingly destroying the ozone layer?

The so called hole varies in size year to year.Bigger one year then gets smaller another year then bigger again.Absolutely.

It is limited to part of the year when the meterological situation favors the accelerated breakdown of Ozone.That is all.The rest of the year there is no unusual breakdown rate of Ozone going on.I'm not sure why you're not getting this. It is the unique atmospheric conditions over Antarctica, combined with the release of CFCs because of those atmospheric conditions, that contributes to the loss of ozone.

Polar vortex creates the clouds that aid in the chemical reactions with CFCs in spring.

Not surprising that you deliberately ignore the part of the year that does not show unusual change.The 42 year long record shows annual variations but the average over the period is very constant.What? Have you actually taken a look at the graph? Here (http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ozwv/dobson/gifs/ams/ams_recent.gif) it is again. The pink line on the right is from 1963-78 spring, the red line is from 1979 spring onwards. Notice how the red line starts significantly lower than the pink line? Coming out of spring, the red line starts off at around 100 dobson units while the pink line starts coming back up at about 225. There is nothing consistent or constant about these figures.

You specifically look at the small part of the year where the dominant polar vortex is present to say that the Ozone layer is in trouble.That is called cherrypicking.It is a BUILT IN METEROLOGICAL PHENOMENON!OF COURSE IT IS! THE OZONE LAYER ISN'T SINGLE HANDEDLY DESTROYED BY CFCs! WE'RE IN AGREEMENT!

Starting in the late 1970's on through the 1980's.Antartica had undergone a strong cooling trend.That increases the time period when it is -80 below zero.Coupled with a stronger polar vortex effectively promotes greater ozone destruction.I would like to see the data for that cooling trend. Surely you have some metereological charts for me.

No one is denying that the polar vortex has an important role in ozone depletion. So stop creating strawmen! I AGREE WITH YOU! What almost every scientist agrees on is that the polar vortex is not enough to destroy the ozone. The polar vortex is merely a circulation of air. There's no chemical reaction taking place between the polar vortex and the ozone. It's the CFCs that are carried up by the polar vortex THAT ACTUALLY DESTROYS the ozone.

The recovery is virtually complete since the chart shows no significant deviation for the rest of the year from the 42 year norm.
It's not complete. It will still take many decades for the ozone levels to return to normal.

The rest of the year there is little change.That is what you gloss over.Of course in the rest of the year there is little change! The polar vortex is at its most destructive in spring, when the sun returns to Antarctica and starts setting off the chlorine thats been building up.

The scientific estimation of TOTAL CFC's in the atmosphere is around 6,000,000 tons.The damaging effect is visible only in the polar regions.The rest of the world shows little overall change. Not only have the ozone levels at the poles been dropping, it's believed that the overall ozone amount in the Earth's atmosphere has been decreasing. Take a look at this chart:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/TOMS_Global_Ozone_65N-65S.png

That's the total amount around the world, not just the poles.

[DoctorDoom]

Yeah yeah yeah, aesthetically speaking, wind farms don't look good. I don't care. If it will help save the environment, I'll do it.Tell it to the loonies. They're the ones that are using ignorant politicians to block it.

Or coastal and mountainous areas.Again you're facing opposition from the anti-everything elitists.

Aesthetics or potentially saving the world...hm. That's a tough one.I have no idea what the PoV is Down Under, but here, aesthetics will win every time.

You can build around them. I've had discussions with bird-watchers and ornithologists and they are aware of the bird-killing problems. They say that wind-farms and bird migratory paths can work together and minimise causalties. Deaths are unavoidable, but millions more birds are killed by cars every year.This assumes that the migratory paths are static, like airline travel lanes. Unfortunately, birds don't obey traffic laws. Personally, I don't care. Build the things and be done with it.

I think even environmentalists know that aesthetics loses out in the end. It's rich whiny homeowners that's the problem.And it's the ecowackos who stir them up for political purposes.

In some places, geothermal energy can work. Geologically active countries like New Zealand, Italy and Iceland especially:Of course, but it's not practical in geologically inactive locations, which are far more abundant. Use it where it's available.

In Iceland, there are three major geothermal power plants which produce about 17% (2004) of the country's electricity. In addition, geothermal heating meets the heating and hot water requirements for around 87% of the nation's housing.One factor worth considering: per the CIA World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/ic.html), Iceland's population is 299,388 (July 2006 est.). That's less than a large number of cities.

On the same page, the annual electricity consumption is 8.619 billion kWh (2004), or what a 1000-MW nuke can provide. This is about 10,260,714.3 KWh/day. Of that, 17.5% is geothermal, or 1,795,625 KWh/day. Thus geothermal provides 74,817.7 kilowatts of generation. It is practical in iceland because the country's power needs are low. It would be lost in a nation like the US, with a consumption of 3.656 trillion kWh (2003), 434 times that of Iceland.

I say use whatever is available and screw the enviroloonies.

Perhaps, but it (solar) is the most promising renewable energy source so far. As technology advances, we'll get greater and greater efficiency, making solar power finally competitive with conventional sources of energy.Wishful thinking. Practical solar photovoltaic cells might reach 20% conversion efficiency, but since solar energy is by definition subject to weather and the time of day, it will never be useful for anything other than peak-power or point-of-use applications. And it cannot compete with fossil-fuel or nuclear generation.

If you look out over Sydney today, many of the houses have solar panels up on top of their roofs, heating their water and swimming pools. And this is just residential areas. Rural communities have gobbled this sort of technology up.And that's just the sort of applications for which solar power is well suited. Go for it!

Who knows, one day we might get massive rows of solar panels covering deserts.Not in America. It would cast a shadow on an endangered bug. Can't have that. But that consideration aside, you're talking of many square miles of panels, plus all the supporting structures, plus the power storage for use at night, plus the equipment for converting the DC to AC, plus miles of transmission towers across the desert to connect the site to the grid, plus the toxic wastes created by manufacturing solar cells, and ... and ... It would cost far more than an equivalent nuke.

I mean a permanent, permanent solution.Unnecessary. Rad waste decays over time, and within 500 years or so it is less radioactive than the original uranium ore. OTOH, toxic wastes are dangerously non-radioactive forever. When the last radioactive atom decays into inertness, chlorine and beryllium and arsenic will be as dangerous as they are today. However, no one is concerned about a "permanent, permanent solution" for them.

Not just storing it but getting rid of it, whether it be recycling the waste (god knows what as) ...For one thing, more nuclear fuel. Reprocessing spent fuel could power all our nukes for decades without mining another gram of uranium.

... or punting it into space.The cost would be utterly prohibitive and unjustified.

Until then, we'll keep it in a safe, secure place.Yucca Mountain is America'a answer. It's opposed by anti-nukes and politicians, the former because it would erase one of their primary arguments against nuclear energy.

That is the main technological problem of hydrogen right now. Storing it. Compressing it doesn't alleviate the density problem, liquid hydrogen brings with it a whole set of new problems. Sure, the logistics of switching from a fossil-fuel economy to hydrogen is mind-boggling, but this is one tough nugget to crack.Storing it one significant roadblock, but producing it is a much bigger hurdle. No matter what technology is used, there are side effects, e.g., generating "greenhouse gases". And as pointed out previously, it requires more energy to produce hydrogen than it can provide. Therefore, hydrogen is a net waster of energy. It will never be otherwise.

And there is no indication that it will ever be practical on a large scale.

Well, sitting on our ass won't solve anything.What you mean, "our", white man?

President Bush made that speech a while ago saying that America was addicted to oil. America needs to pump some resources in the R&D.Tell ya what. You worry about Australia and let Americans worry about America. And it IS being heavily researched, BTW. Don't make assumptions that you can't support.

The rainforests are the world's lungs. They breathe in carbon dioxide, breathe out oxygen.Really? No shit! That means they're just like every other kind of plant on Planet Earth. Golly! Whoda thunk it?

Destroying rainforests mean a release in carbon dioxide, meaning an increased greenhouse effect (which you don't believe in anyway) ...Pull your head out of your arse. I never made such a statement and you bloody well know that. What I reject is that humans are responsible for global climate change.

... all around the world.And what do you, in your infinite wisdom, propose to do about it, O Great Worldsaver? The jungles ("rainforests" is politically correct, ecowacko bullshit) are not under our control. Talk to the assholes of the Useless Nations about it. They need a diversion from their endless scandals. Maybe they'll pass a resolution. We all know how meaningful that would be.

I meant the guys over in the Amazon rainforest who have already destroyed 20% of it.The amazon JUNGLE is not under US jurisdiction. Ergo, US forestry practices are not applicable there. Why don't you go talk to them about it? No doubt they will give a shit.

I can't believe I haven't mentioned this already. Increased efficiency of diesel and gasoline fueled vehicles. If switching to renewable energy is going to take as long as I think it will, then we might as well do something NOW.One assumes that you confine your "research" to the ecoloonie propoganda from AlBore and Earth First. Vehicle efficiences are constantly being improved, but there will be a point where increasing it further will result in impractical and/or unsafe vehichles.

Repeating our top story: you worry about your country and we'll worry about ours. G'day, mate.

[DesertFox]

Global warming will only be bad if it keeps up uninterruptedly for a couple thousand years AND if it gets worse than it has so far.

[Rhino]

Saw a special on Krakatoa last night where they said the volcano reduced global temperatures well into the 20th century. Stands to reason they've been increasing since then. Makes me wonder how much of the warming changes may be due to volcanic activity.

[Aussie]

That's some great lateral thinking there Rhino. We know that some volcanic activities show up in ice cores (in the form of volcanic material carried over vast distances or similar stuff like that) and that volcanic activity can change the climate. The climatic impact tends to rely on where the volcano is. Usually, this is the tropics.

The eruption of El Chichon (Mexico 1982),the eruption of Mt Pinatubo in the Phillipines in 1991, Santa Maria (Guatemala, 1902), Mt Agung (Indonesia in 1963) and Krakatoa (Indonesia 1883) all had cooling effects. Notice how they're all near the tropics?

Eruptions can send material high up into the stratosphere (10-15 km up in the air). This is high above the trophosphere where the rain and clouds are, so the sulphur dioxide released by the eruption stays in the air longer. It's not washed down.

Eruptions up in the higher latitudes do the same thing, but the main difference between higher-latitude eruptions and tropical eruptions is that air circulation in the stratosphere lifts the tropical air (and also the sulphur dioxide being carried around with it), but pushes down the high altitude air.

The main impact of this sulphur dioxide is cooling. Sulphur dioxide reflects back the sun's light over a given area.

Climatologists take all this into account. They have ice cores that correspond to the noticeable eruptions, like the Toba supervolcano eruption in Sumatra, 75 000 years ago. Apparently, it was so huge that the global human population was reduced to just a few thousand individuals. We can still see evidence of the genetic 'bottleneck' that resulted from inbreeding. As a side note, that's why if we all came from Adam and Eve, we should see it in the genetic evidence. Anyway, ice cores from Greenland show that the Toba eruption was followed by at least six years of 'artificial volcanic winter'.

The cooling effect is connected with how much material is thrown up by the volcano. Over many millions of years, volcanoes can significantly swing the climate around (google Snowball Earth). But we haven't had a really big eruption anywhere in the last few thousand years that can explain the steady rise in CO2 levels, or the average increase in temp. Right now, global warming is the best theory we have.

I'd also like to say that volcanoes do release CO2 into the atmosphere, but the amount is nothing compared to human-connected emissions. Volcanoes release about 145 to 255 million tons of carbon per year. Humans release 7.1 BILLION tons of carbon.

Krakatoa certainly did put up a lot of dust though: In the year following the eruption, global temperatures were lowered by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius on average.

There's other evidence to suggest the main source of CO2 is human-related. If you're interested, I'll provide some links.

[Rhino]

I've seen it. I think just about everybody is probably entrenched in their opinions until something more substantial and verifiable comes out to shake things loose. Time will tell.

[DoctorDoom]

Humans release 7.1 BILLION