Psssttt… that’s why we have Mexico. :)
@Xi:
CO2 …
Humans have been gaining ground on trees and grass for …
let’s be conservative … 5,000 years. If something wasn’t helping the balance over 5,000 years ago it sure seems to be now. And with over 150 years of Industrial Revolution, the Earth seems to be doing very well. :)
Gaining ground on trees…… well, trees have a lifetime of say 50-150 years. All carbon they store was in the air in that time. The change done by cutting down trees over the last millenia is slow compared to that cycle.
Ergo, the earth has had some time to adapt to that, and it seems it did. Sure, it changed the ecosystem, but slowly enough for noone to suffer.
No comes the industrialization. Digging up coal and oil on a large scale: Alle the carbon that ancient, vast forests had stored. We release this huge amount of carbon in …say two trees lifetimes…
And that is way too fast for any eco-system to adapt.
The hole in the ozone layer …
Yesterday, 9/30/2002, the news media (CBS/US) stated that the ozone hole had divided in two. They also said the hole, which had previously been measured at 9 million (that’s thousand thousand) sq. miles, was now (as two holes) measured at 6 million (that’s thousand thousand) sq. miles.
Nice that you give only half the info. I read the same / a similar article.
The hole is much smaller this year, than the last years, true. But the explanation is that it is due to temperature changes (if i remember correctly).
As well: it is extremely funny to see these lines of argument by anti-environmentalists:
(1) CO2, temperature rise: … well, what we see is inside the fluctuations, we need more time to see wether it is real or jsut a “one-year-effect”. So, we keep on going as usual until then
(2) Ozone layer: it shrinks, it shrinks, it shrinks… Well, it does so this year, but of course, that is not a “one-year-effect” but real. We can go on as we did before …
See my point, and why i am highly suspicious?
Methinks the envirowackos (but I am an environmentalist) are losing ground. Oh, No! They will become more extreme! I am looking forward to the laughs, but am sorry for the pain and unemployment they will cause. - Xi
Hmmm, I am looking forward to the new technologies we will need, and the new jobs it will create in the long run.
If you feel sorry for the unemployment…… then let’s destroy all computers… that will create lots of new jobs for “math-slaves”… and after that all telephones and telegraphs and TVs and radios. That will create a lot of jobs for couriers, book- and newspaper-printers, messagers etc.
And then we destroy all cars, planes and even trains… new jobs as we need much more people doing the transports on horseback and sailing ships, and people to “grow” all the horses we will need…
I guess i made my point :)
@F_alk:
As well: it is extremely funny to see these lines of argument by anti-environmentalists:
(1) CO2, temperature rise: … well, what we see is inside the fluctuations, we need more time to see wether it is real or jsut a “one-year-effect”. So, we keep on going as usual until then
(2) Ozone layer: it shrinks, it shrinks, it shrinks… Well, it does so this year, but of course, that is not a “one-year-effect” but real. We can go on as we did before …See my point, and why i am highly suspicious?
i’m usually suspicious of people who quickly jump to the extremes of an argument - their data tends to be quite skewed and only half of it is generally presented. Also people who do not hold to their beliefs are usually labelled as well with extreme labels.
Is anyone truly an anti-environmentalist? Or is this a label that is applied to someone who believes that the environment is not truly being threatened - i thought an anti-environmentalist would say something like “we have a problem - the ozone layer is not being destroyed as quickly as we would like. We must start burning things more quickly.”
As opposed to a non-fear-monger (another extreme label - mocking those suspicious of moderates) who might say "well, it turns out that the damage to the environment isn’t as bad as people say . . . ".
The fact is that there are few facts of proven relevance still. Any time it gets warm or cold here, we’re always “approaching records set in 1883” or something like that. Certainly i’m pro-environment, pro-Kyoto (unlike my dad - who is not anti-environment), but we jump to hysterics far too often in these matters.
@cystic:
@F_alk:
…anti-environmentalists…
… Also people who do not hold to their beliefs are usually labelled as well with extreme labels.
Is anyone truly an anti-environmentalist? …
…i thought an anti-environmentalist would say something like “we have a problem - the ozone layer is not being destroyed as quickly as we would like. We must start burning things more quickly.”…
You are right of course, i overreacted to the term envirowackos ….
but i like your definitoin of anti-environmentalist…but could as well be a person who hates environmentalists, with the hyphen in the word :)
ahhhh of course.
You were talking about people who are against environmentalists.
silly me.
many apologies.
(damn hippies . . . ) :P
@F_k:
Nice that you give only half the info. I read the same / a similar article. The hole is much smaller this year, than the last years, true. But the explanation is that it is due to temperature changes (if i remember correctly).
Ah, yes, temperature! That argument has already been lost in a previous string.
Scientists have admitted that the earth is heating itself more than man is, and they presented studies to back it up! The Earth is still doing a great job of Healing herself!
When there’s an obvious need for change someone (or the evil Automobile and Oil Industries who have perpetrated the ‘Buy Up All the Alternatives’ ploy will step forward with the solution. The Profit Factor will out!
You’ve heard those ‘Automobile and Oil Industries’ rumors,
haven’t you, F_k?
@F_k:
As well: it is extremely funny to see these lines of argument by anti-environmentalists
Thank you for showing your presumptive nature, again!
I am a skeptical environmentalist,
not an envirowacko like some. - Xi
@Xi:
@F_k:
Nice that you give only half the info. I read the same / a similar article. The hole is much smaller this year, than the last years, true. But the explanation is that it is due to temperature changes (if i remember correctly).
Ah, yes, temperature! That argument has already been lost in a previous string.
We surely have totally different sources there, and i don’t trust yours as far as i can reach with my arms tied behind my back.
The ozone layer and the CO2 to first order have nothing to do with each other. I will not discuss that further, as we won’t “listen to each other”… sorry, lacking a better expression.
When there’s an obvious need for change someone (or the evil Automobile and Oil Industries who have perpetrated the ‘Buy Up All the Alternatives’ ploy will step forward with the solution. The Profit Factor will out!
i hope it will not be too late then.
@F_k:
As well: it is extremely funny to see these lines of argument by anti-environmentalists
Thank you for showing your presumptive nature, again!
I am a skeptical environmentalist,
not an envirowacko like some. - Xi
I was not refering to you there, feel free to feel offended, but it wasn’t you i meant.
Some news on the hole in the ozone layer.
It was smaller the last years, but that definitely was due to other temperatures.
“It is absolutely ridiculous that we live without an ozone layer. We have men, we have rockets, we have seran wrap. FIX IT!!! And dont come back till you do”
-Lewis Black
Scientists are predicting a large ozone hole over much of Antarctica this spring.
Parliamentary Secretary for the Antarctic Dr Sharman Stone said that a larger ozone hole meant that people were likely to be at greater risk of sunburn and should take precautions.
Question…if the hole is only above Australia, how many people are going to get sunburned there?
“Our scientists are telling us that the trend in atmospheric readings above Antarctica are similar to those observed in 2000, when the ozone hole was of record size and about three times the size of Australia,” Dr Stone said.
“This is the legacy of ozone depletion over many years and reinforces just how long it can take to repair the damage.
If it only took 3 years to shrink the hole that much, it’s not that long of a time, is it?
I hate to say it(NoIdon’t!), but Xi was right 10 months ago(even without good sources at the time.)
‘Temperature’ is temperature whether is air, water, or soil measurement.
Though this year is loopy in the US and Europe(from what I’ve read and heard I hope no one requires SOURCES for that.) Any other continents having a bad summer/winter(South of the equator. :D )
Has the Antarctic melted yet? Whatever happened to that iceberg the size of Australia? :P
Though this year is loopy in the US and Europe(from what I’ve read and heard I hope no one requires SOURCES for that.)
No sources necessary, already been confirmed in other thread, therefore it’s true. :lol: I was going to try and include some sources in my other post, but I was too lazy to find any that F_alk would say were wrong. :roll: So I just gave up and went with my questions from the web site he found. (Should be a better debate)
Very magnamanous :D of you, GI. But I’m afraid we haven’t heard from the peni* gallery yet. Ew, ew! Did I say that!(Rather pithy today[no lisp.])
Okie-dokie! If you are over there… is this an especially hot summer for the desert?!?
@Grigoriy:
Question…if the hole is only above Australia, how many people are going to get sunburned there?
The hole is over Antarctica (see what you quoted), which is pretty close to Australia. The people there know the problem, and try to live with it as good as possible since the early 80s.
Australia is the country with most skin cancer. 2 of 3 Ozzies will /have been treated for that in their live time. Melanoma are more common than lung cancer. The mortality rates are about twice as high as those in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area.
If it only took 3 years to shrink the hole that much, it’s not that long of a time, is it?
There was talk of a “record size” in 2000. The hole in 2002 was the smallest since 1988. There was no notion of “how much” it actually was then.
So, we can see that the hole there is od different size for temperature reasons. That does not at all change the fact that it (a) is there and (b) caused by us humans.
sigh why don’t you go to Australia and do not protect yourself?
So, we can see that the hole there is od different size for temperature reasons. That does not at all change the fact that it (a) is there and (b) caused by us
I don’t think GI was doubting that (t’s a fact, not an opinion), but his post was in response to this… “This is the legacy of ozone depletion over many years and reinforces just how long it can take to repair the damage." - that being the opinion.
@El:
Very magnamanous :D of you, GI. But I’m afraid we haven’t heard from the peni* gallery yet. Ew, ew! Did I say that!(Rather pithy today[no lisp.])
Okie-dokie! If you are over there… is this an especially hot summer for the desert?!?
1)A source is only necessary when starting a thread, once we get going we can just rely on our differences to keep it going. :lol:
2)I couldn’t reliably say…it’s my first (and hopefully only) summer over here, and while I couldn’t say it’s an especially hot summer, I will say that I have developed a fear of living without AC, and I start shivering when the temperature hits 70 degrees (21 deg. C), when I used to start avoiding work at that temperature because of the heat.
@TG:
I don’t think GI was doubting that (t’s a fact, not an opinion), but his post was in response to this… “This is the legacy of ozone depletion over many years and reinforces just how long it can take to repair the damage." - that being the opinion.
Oh, ok…
Well, for that, we can see that even though we might have thought it was getting better over the last years, this does not seem to be the case at all. We still reach new record sized holes, even thogh we stopped putting fluor-chlor-CH into the atmosphere… about 10 years ago?
However can the number fluctuate so much between smallest since 1988 in 2002 and largest recorded ever (I’m assuming 2003)?
The 2003 will be of about the record size as it seems, and the predictions are quite reliable. So, the answer is “yes, it can fluctuate that much”.
Something that usually is used against environmentalists, as some (other) fluctuations are normal, then the effect could be “just fluctuations”. The other side of the medal is never heard (not even by environmentalists): the same fluctuations could be “favoring” us, and the real man-made effect is much worse….
