...In just a short time after human beings are extinct, which could be in about 100 years, or so.

Anyone who thinks that human beings cannot have a profound longterm impact on their surroundings, and their children's wellbeing is completely out of their minds.

We have dammed and bridged rivers, moved mountains. We cut trees, fish oceans. Download Google-Earth or WorldWind, and look at just how gray the cities are with tar an concrete. There are so very many of us, and it takes so much to support even one person.

This thing we're standing on, we better take care of it, because of all the life here, we are among the physically weakest. Being at the top of the food chain means that nothing is eating us, but it also means that we need everything else to eat. As James Maynard said, "This is inevitable, life feeds on life, feeds on life! ...." Our lives hang in the balance of the other animals, without them, we will surely perish.

We can build rockets, but unless Albert was wrong, not one of the people who read this is ever going to make their escape to another world in their lifetime. There is nowhere waiting for us. Almost everyone who reads this will live out their lives regardless or how had, or how good we treat this thing, and die here.

I heard this line on the Sopranos that went something like this: "I don't $hit in my own yard." That's what we are all doing, just $hiting in our own yard, peeing in the very pool we swim in.

So we have this thing going on, where we like making things, there's nothing wrong with that, but I really believe that we're smart enough, cunning enough, clever monkey enough--that we can make our stuff with less mess, and less waste.

Can't we find someone to spin and recycle the chips? Isn't 6061--6061, small or not? Either we recycle, or some idiot is going to sign a pass to dig for bauxite--in your favorite hunting or fishing spot.

Do we really need coolant/lubricant to be that toxic? In spite of what the good folks at Clorox would tell you, chlorine reacts with organic compounds to form PCB's--especially when burnt.

The idea that environmentalism is counter to manufacturing is a lie told by people who don't want to clean up their own mess. If you are making lean, cheap, and efficient, and you want to stay in business, look at what you are just throwing out.

I used to build nuke and coal fired power plants, and I fully trust the technology used. And I like watching TV sometimes; Power is handy to have.

I live on a lake that has 2 coal fired powered plants on it's shore, both within eyesight of my house. Actually just a short stroll to either on the same road. I never see anything coming from the stacks of either. The air is so clean here, that I can't get a flickable booger unless I work in the shop.

I see Bald Eagles all the time. Remember when they were rare? I do. Sometimes even see them catching fish. There are at least two nests on the tops of the high tension poles that run on the road from the plants. The power company put platforms on the tops for them. Good neighbors.

Alligator sightings happen everyday. Remember when they were rare? Maybe some saw the news reports of the 12' gator that tried to eat a crack head a while back? That gator nested on my shore. Shame that they killed him. Have to train another.

The people that are jumping up and down and screaming about the environment have no reference of where we brought it back from. Acid rain was a real problem. Air pollution was a big problem, and still is a problem. It's better than it was in the 70's.

Address the real problems, and stop with the hysterics. CO2 makes up about 4% of greenhouse gases, yet the fanatics would have you believe that it's the most prevalent. Why? Because if they told the masses that water vapor made up 95% of the GH gases even the cattle would question what could be done to steer a change. Can't let facts and hard science get in the way of hysterics. This is all just a repeat of the ice age and ozone hole scares they tried to use before to attack autos and industry.

There is no more true environmentalist than me. Over my years I've contributed much to conservation of habitat in the way of hunting license fees. I actually use nature and would ride a bicycle if I thought I was hurting it by driving an SUV. Hell, I like killing and eating defenseless animals, why would I want to harm them?

Everything you mention only came about because someone worked to protect the environment. DDT could have made all the eagles extinct.Overhunting and poaching could have made all the alligators and crocodiles extinct.

With that said, when people become extinct, the world will recover generally. We make something out of this planet that looks like our moon, but not for long it will recover, but we won't be around to see it.

Lastly, a few nuclear accidents like Chrenoble, and our economy is finished, for good. It would never recover. I lived on the East Coast when it happend. I had to breath that crap in--it isn't going to make me live any longer is it?

No, it came about because there were REAL problems that needed to be and could be fixed. Then the people that really cared about the stuff that was broken and could be fixed....TRIED TO FIX IT! Did a pretty good job on those two as I see from my windows. At the time, the fanatics were jumping up and down and sceaming about the coming ice age and the hole in the ozone.

Global warming is just another fabricated eco crisis. Like the others before it.

Get a grip, Brenda. Humans are not going to be extinct and you aren't going to die from Chernoble. You will heat your curlers with nuke power one day, if you don't already. That is if the nuke doesn't meltdown first....JK. Nukes are safe, if the French can do it we can.

Can't let facts and hard science get in the way of hysterics. This is all just a repeat of the ice age and ozone hole scares they tried to use before to attack autos and industry.


For your information: Your coal grilled power plants still feeds the ozon hole over Scandinavia. Last year was a f**kin pain, I've never been using so much sun block. Nowadays we have reports in the newspapers about how long one can stay in the sun without sun block, do you still think the ozon hole is bogus?

For your information: Your coal grilled power plants still feeds the ozon hole over Scandinavia. Last year was a f**kin pain, I've never been using so much sun block. Nowadays we have reports in the newspapers about how long one can stay in the sun without sun block, do you still think the ozon hole is bogus?

Yes, absolutely convinced of it.

For your information: Your coal grilled power plants still feeds the ozon hole over Scandinavia. Last year was a f**kin pain, I've never been using so much sun block. Nowadays we have reports in the newspapers about how long one can stay in the sun without sun block, do you still think the ozon hole is bogus?

They have those reports everywhere, now. It's a health education thing. I remember when tanned people were considered healthier looking...wait a minute, they still are.

Odd that I haven't seen any mention of how long you can stay in the sun or how much sun block to use in any of the online african news services....Those people are in serious danger!!!

Odd that I haven't seen any mention of how long you can stay in the sun or how much sun block to use in any of the online african news services....Those people are in serious danger!!!

Are you being funny or just colorblind?

Everything you mention only came about because someone worked to protect the environment. DDT could have made all the eagles extinct.Overhunting and poaching could have made all the alligators and crocodiles extinct.

With that said, when people become extinct, the world will recover generally. We make something out of this planet that looks like our moon, but not for long it will recover, but we won't be around to see it.

Lastly, a few nuclear accidents like Chrenoble, and our economy is finished, for good. It would never recover. I lived on the East Coast when it happend. I had to breath that crap in--it isn't going to make me live any longer is it?

Want to talk to someone about DDT, try the Argentine Gov't. Since the price supports for peanuts has gone out a whole lot more of this nations peanuts are coming from there. They use DDT all the time, along with other outlawed (US) chemicals. DDT was bad for us and the envronment then but the Gov't allows our produce that is imported to be treaded with many chemicals that the US deems harmful to the envronment and humans.

Overhunt: Alligators were never actually as endangered as once thought, they simply moved into less accessable area where even they couldn't be counted. Once the pressure from man backed off they made a near overnight recovery, ie they spread out to relieve pressure from overpopulation of the safe areas.

The US needs to be responsible for itself, that I agree. However listening to every blubbering alarmist screaming about unfounded envronmental concerns is not responsible. I'm much more worried about the rest of the world. We are a pretty clean country compared globally.

Chernoybl was a fluke, that is why the dozen (11) identical sister plants operating in the former eastern block countries and Russia are still pumping out power vitally needed to allow them to grow their economies and support their citizens. Nuke power is the future, if ever the politicos will stop worring about pollsters and start worring about our fellow citizens. California will desperately be needing power this summer it could have in abundance if it wasn't for alarmist eco crazies. Amazing that the envronment hasn't crashed for all of eastern Europe which was under the fallout path for most of the time. Read an article in National Geo a few years back, I personally was amazed that the effect weren't felt farther afield than had been documented in the more immediate area of the disaster and the worse of the fallout path.

My .02
Scott

Are you being funny or just colorblind?

Both.

Just exactly how did those poor scandanavians survive the last time it was warm up there?? Did they employ an early SPF30???

How does this:

"Just exactly how did those poor scandanavians survive the last time it was warm up there?? Did they employ an early SPF30???"

Connect with this:

Odd that I haven't seen any mention of how long you can stay in the sun or how much sun block to use in any of the online african news services....Those people are in serious danger!!!

If you are simply displaying a lack of knowledge about geography okay; if you are being funny you have lost me.

...Ok, let me try to get my point across with this....

How much sunblock would have been used by the vikings that settled in Greenland during the medieval warm period??

It was hotter in Greenland and Iceland during 800-1200AD then it is today. I'm going out on a limb here and presume that with warmer temps, there was less cloud cover, and there was more killer UV. Therefore, a scandanavian today being alarmed at 'having' to use more sunblock might want to consider that the CLIMATE IN HIS NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGES.

...Ok, let me try to get my point across with this....

How much sunblock would have been used by the vikings that settled in Greenland during the medieval warm period??

It was hotter in Greenland and Iceland during 800-1200AD then it is today. I'm going out on a limb here and presume that with warmer temps, there was less cloud cover, and there was more killer UV. Therefore, a scandanavian today being alarmed at 'having' to use more sunblock might want to consider that the CLIMATE IN HIS NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGES.

But what does; "how much sun block to use in any of the online african news services....Those people are in serious danger!!! Have to do with Greenland, Iceland or Scandinavia? Last time I checked Africa was a not that close to any of them.

The ozone hole is a fact, it's easy to detect and changes with the polar seasons, being larger in polar Winter and smaller in polar Summer, because the low temperatures affect the equilibrium point of the stratospheric chemistry.
Nearly all of the chlorine, and half of the bromine in the stratosphere, where most of the depletion has been observed, comes from human activities.

It is unlikely that an ozone 'hole' existed in pre-industrial times due to much lower levels of Chlorine and half the level of Bromine [natural background levels]. However there may have been some thinning.

Ozone is produced by an interaction between UV and O2 which is disassociated into 2 x Oxygen atoms. These free radicals bond to two O2 molecules forming two O3 molecules. During the free oxygen radical production, the UV is absorbed.

Chlorine CFCs and various Bromine compounds interfere by capturing the free oxygen radicals and therefore reducing the production of ozone. The reactions are complex.

Stratospheric ozone is good, low level ozone from electrical equipment and photolysis of pollution is harmful.

The primary reason for the 'hole' being circumpolar is that the incident UV and the warming effects of the sun are related to COS(latitude). Both are therefore lowest furthest from the equator. [I have not allowed for the axis tilt.]

....Chlorine CFCs and various Bromine compounds interfere by capturing the free oxygen radicals and therefore reducing the production of ozone. The reactions are complex....

Actually it is chlorine, or bromine, radicals produced from the decomposition of the halocarbons that catalytically decompose the ozone. It is not exactly a true catalytic process because each chlorine atom, on average, decomposes nine (I think) ozone molecules, before it is consumed.

Which means the chlorine carried into the upper atmosphere on CFCs will eventually be removed. There is some indication that the springtime ozone depletion over south polar regions is start to recover. The figures for the last few years seem to show less depletion than five years ago. However, it is difficult to come to a definitive conclusion because the year to year variation is still larger than any absolute change.

Have we had measuring capability in place for long enough to know whether the variations occur naturally or not? From my reading, it looked as if the measuring capability came along just in time to provide some much - needed support for the theories explained above. I haven't studied the subject much, does anyone know?

If we know how much of the offending material was produced, and we know the transport mechanism that gets it to the affected area, and we know the chemistry of the reaction well enough to determine with certainty that the ozone thinning presently observed is caused by the offending material, then we should be able to calculate with some degree of accuracy how long it will take for the offending material to be used up since the chemicals were banned. And around that time, I suppose we should see the ozone holes disappear.

Right?

--97T--

Have we had measuring capability in place for long enough to know whether the variations occur naturally or not? From my reading, it looked as if the measuring capability came along just in time to provide some much - needed support for the theories explained above. I haven't studied the subject much, does anyone know?

If we know how much of the offending material was produced, and we know the transport mechanism that gets it to the affected area, and we know the chemistry of the reaction well enough to determine with certainty that the ozone thinning presently observed is caused by the offending material, then we should be able to calculate with some degree of accuracy how long it will take for the offending material to be used up since the chemicals were banned. And around that time, I suppose we should see the ozone holes disappear.

Right?

--97T--

Well I suppose you will reject the answers because they are based on talking to scientists who have lived and worked in the Antartic at both the US bases and British bases.

The measuring capability has been in place long enough to know that the Ozone depletion in the South Polar region is a natural phenomenon that has been exacerbated in the past thirty years or so.

Initially the depletion was not recognised because some satellite based monitoring equipment was set up to ignore anomalously low values.

I think the initial warnings dating back to the nineteen seventies, or thereabouts, were based on theoretical work. Some atmospheric chemists realized that CFC's are not stable when exposed to UV radiation even though they are stable to just about any other form of chemical attack. The UV effect is to release chlorine atoms from the CFC and these are extremely reactive. Chlorine occurs naturally as CL2, as do many elements such as O2, N2, H2. The reason for this is that the free atom has an unpaired electron which makes it a radical; radicals of any type are very reactive especially with double bonds. This is why oxygen radicals are postulated as a cause for cancer through damage to the carbon-carbon double bonds in DNA.

The quasi-catalytic decomposition of O3 by chlorine radicals was chemically valid and the postulated ozone depletion was a very tenable theory. Initially, because the satellite measurements did not show anything as mentioned above, the theoretical warning was pooh poohed.

Predicting when the ozone depletion will be reversed is not easy. The ban on CFC release is not observed by all countries and the exact amount that was released and is being released is not known. Determining the rate at which the CFC is being removed by reaction with O3 is also not easy. The ozone hole formation varies from year to year so it difficult to say with certainty what the trend is as I mentioned already.

Geof,

That's pretty much what I gathered from what I could find.

"The measuring capability has been in place long enough to know that the Ozone depletion in the South Polar region is a natural phenomenon that has been exacerbated in the past thirty years or so."

Do you have a link to this data?

Thanks,

--97T--

Geof,

That's pretty much what I gathered from what I could find.

"The measuring capability has been in place long enough to know that the Ozone depletion in the South Polar region is a natural phenomenon that has been exacerbated in the past thirty years or so."

Do you have a link to this data?

Thanks,

--97T--

No that phrasing is mine based on talking to people when I visited Antartica a few months ago.

....The measuring capability has been in place long enough to know that the Ozone depletion in the South Polar region is a natural phenomenon that has been exacerbated in the past thirty years or so....


It might be a good idea to clarify for some new and yet naive readers when the ozone hole was discovered, that they can see the significance of the thirty year period relative to our data sets.

It might be a good idea to clarify for some new and yet naive readers when the ozone hole was discovered, that they can see the significance of the thirty year period relative to our data sets.

I don't know that exactly; sometime in the 1980's I think. Going from memory I think the first, essentially theoretical predictions, on ozone depletion were in the late 1970's. This stimulated some research looking for it; I think it was ground based results suggested yes, satellite results suggested no and the intitial warnings were discounted. Then the satellite results were re-evaluated and the rejection of outliers in the data sets recognized. When these were included the satellite data concurred with the ground based data. I think it was in the late-ish 1980's that there was enough information and confidence to enact the ban on CFC's. And I think it was around then that 'the ozone hole' was discovered. I seem to remember all sorts of outlandish predictions for life being destroyed and the ocean ecosystems disrupted. It was some time later that it was found that the ozone hole was a natural, season related, phenomenon at both poles but more in the south. It was, I think, getting toward the late 1990's that it was recognized that bromine originating from the oceans was also involved in ozone removal.

The thing in all of this is that has, I think, never been positively proved in the sense of replicated in controlled experiments, is that chlorine from CFC's is what has caused an enhanced reduction in ozone levels; this is just the most reasonable explanation. The UV photolysis of CFC to produce chlorine radicals is chemically valid and the quasi-catalytic removal of ozone by chlorine radicals is also chemically valid. The ozone depletion in the holes seems to be levelling off which is to be expected if it is indeed due to CFC introduced chlorine because atmospheric release of these compounds has been greatly reduced for the last twenty years.

BrendaEM

Great topic.

I totally agree with your premise that we can do something. We must do something.

The Earth is a system. A system is an assemblage of inter-related elements comprising a unified whole. A sub-system is a system which is part of another system. A system consists of components (or elements) which are connected together.


...
I heard this line on the Sopranos that went something like this: "I don't $hit in my own yard." That's what we are all doing, just $hiting in our own yard, peeing in the very pool we swim in.

So we have this thing going on, where we like making things, there's nothing wrong with that, but I really believe that we're smart enough, cunning enough, clever monkey enough--that we can make our stuff with less mess, and less waste.

The idea that environmentalism is counter to manufacturing is a lie told by people who don't want to clean up their own mess. If you are making lean, cheap, and efficient, and you want to stay in business, look at what you are just throwing out.

My wife and myself have taken control and responibilty for being greener in the shop and at home. I was amazed at the number of things I was doing that we easily changed to get the same result but with less environmental impact.

Your point was that environmentalism is not counter to manufacturing is exactly right. I changed, I got equal or better results and I even saved some money to my surprise.

My little subsystem on earth is doing better. Consider the question, how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. If everybody did a little I know there would be a big change.



OT Anybody that quotes the Sopranos has to be my kind of person. :)

Thanks for the information, Geof.

I was wondering if researchers had any further data going back to earlier times, or whether they had discovered some kind of proxy to piece together historical data. Not that I want to encourage that too much, as you are probably aware it was fiddling with unqualified proxy data that allowed the IPCC to declare the current runaway temperatures that aren't happening.

I wonder if you could tag a quantity of CFC's with a radioactive isotope in a unique unnatural combination, release some, and then track where it disperses to. I'm sure I'm not the first to think of it, I wonder if it has ever been tried.

--97T--

Thanks for the information, Geof.

I was wondering if researchers had any further data going back to earlier times, or whether they had discovered some kind of proxy to piece together historical data. Not that I want to encourage that too much, as you are probably aware it was fiddling with unqualified proxy data that allowed the IPCC to declare the current runaway temperatures that aren't happening.

I wonder if you could tag a quantity of CFC's with a radioactive isotope in a unique unnatural combination, release some, and then track where it disperses to. I'm sure I'm not the first to think of it, I wonder if it has ever been tried.

--97T--

There's none so deaf as them that won't hear, none so blind as them that won't see, etc.

Aristotle said all men are liars, therefore Aristotle is a liar, therefore all men are not liars, therefore Aristotle speaks the truth, etc, etc.

Where is the fallacy in the Aristotle argument?

It was an honest inquiry. I guess you don't know or won't say.