CFCs are not released by volcanoes. The article clearly states that it is the sulphur from volcanoes that generates PSCs, which are the surface catalyst required for ozone chemistry. It is obvious that at this time we cannot do anything about sulphur releases from volcanoes but we can do something about CFC production and release. Is your arguement that since we cannot solve all of the problems we should not try to solve any of them?
Ozone is destroyed in a on going chemical process that is balanced by the creation of new ozone through natural mechanisms. The equilibrium level ozone is what we get. With CFCs introduced the equilibrium levels get shifted to lower concentrations. The introduction of man made ozone would be of little consequence as it couldnt be done a scale necessary to offset the CFC destruction. It would also need to be a continuous input which would make it very expensive and time consuming. A better plan, as we have done, is to attempt to reduce the CFCs and shift the equilibrium levels back to more favourable conditions.
Perhaps, but what we do now is that a single molecule of CFC can destroy thousands of ozone molecules before it is taken out of the chemical cycle. This overt destruction of ozone would not occur if we did not introduce CFCs to the atmosphere.
International accords have acted to reduce the amount of CFCs being released into the atmosphere. These are the pollutants that affect the chemical ozone cycle. So a decreases in them would permit ozone to stick around.
People in Antarctica do get sunburnt very easily, as do people in new zealand and chile when the hole is over their region. Chile has many school programs preventing children from going outside during hole episodes.
Missile shields are offensive weapons. When you no longer fear the retaliation of your enemy you are free to attack with impunity. The deterrant to war is mutually assured destruction. This introduces an imbalance that induces war.
You are assuming it is meaningful to average something that is chaotic.
You are confusing chaotic and random. Chaos can be studied because there exist statistical patterns. With regard to a regions climate, let's take an example of the pacific north west, the weather is consistently within a band of values. That is, warmer and more precip than the same latitude further east. This is a result of the topography of the region. So while the eddy fluctuations on a small scale may be chaotic and non deterministic the overall pattern they generate over time is not. It is the emergent behaviour of the system, which can be called an average in simple terms.
Your label for climate doesn't make much sense to me, but I agree that the assumption that the future will be the same as the past is a dangerous and ultimately disappointing perspective.
Everyone seems aware of the Earth's cyclical nature but not aware that a large percentage of humanity would not survive living through these cycles. As a species we are adaptable, very true, but adaptability in a species usually arises because the majority were wiped out and the remainder were hardy enough, had enough resources or were lucky enough to stay alive.
Greenland was named to entice people to come to it despite the fact that it was a frozen wasteland. Due to the amount of effort to go there from Europe it was assumed that once people arrived and realized they were swindled it would be too much effort to go back. The reverse is true of Iceland, which is a temperate climate due to geothermal effects and the gulf stream. It was named Iceland so that visitors would be reluctant to visit a place with such an inhospitable name, thereby leaving the area for those who had already arrived.
The human concept of "climate" is entirely that: a human concept.
I call bullshit. This is like saying average height is a human concept. Climate is the average of weather, and would exist regardless of humans, therefore not a human concept.
People talk back and forth about whether global warming is our fault or if it's natural, what should we do, blah blah blah. Our civilization is accustomed to the climate we are currently in. It is the climate in which we succeed. If global warming is or is not our fault, if it could get colder or warmer or what not, who gives a shit whose fault it is. We are an engineering species who change our environment to suit our needs. If the Earth is going to warm up or cool down we should devise ways to control that without concern that it is our fault or a natural occurence. The Earth will be fine, it used to be a giant ball of molten rock, it's we who will have our way of life interrupted unless we get this planet under control.
This question is a bit slippery because it is difficult to name civil liberites at all. Even the ones that aren't being taken away. It might be a better measure to ask people how they feel about their freedom. Do people think twice about doing certain things that they might not have done before. Do they feel their privacy is being encroached upon. Are they more worried now about what the government can do to them.
Civil liberty is a gut feeling, not a simple enumeration.
Being locked up for no listed crime, with no represnetative, for being of a certain faith and descent, is what i would term a violated civil liberty.
Differential heating sets up temperature gradients on the earth surfaces which produce pressure disparities that drive circulation. Although water vapour is important in defining system behaviour its influence arises from the storage and transport of latent heat. The other species play minor roles with regards to heating.
This book is worth a trip to the library. It was my introduction when I was first intrigued. Also, Godel, Escher, Bach speaks to the same concepts as well as others.
The law is defined by the authorities. If you accept it as it is now, then you do not have anything to fear because you will obey the law. What if the law changes? What if, as a hypothetical example, a law comes down saying reading books is no longer allowed. Or owning a personal computer is no longer allowed. If you do not agree with these new laws, and perhaps you find them so horrible that you cannot obey them, than you are not a law abiding citizen. The new horrible laws may even lead you to revolt against your government. Because of your time spent gathering your personal data when the laws were acceptable to you the authorities now have all the information they need to use against you now that the laws have changed and you have become a criminal because the things you hold dear have been criminalized.
What is now may not always be. It is not prudent to give up to authorities all your information regardless if you are law abiding in the current legal system.
I disagree with your second statement. Two points, one a niggling one and another that is less so.
a) The system doesn't work against paper mills because the output of a paper mill is new content, that's why it is a mill.
b) Students have a decent arguement in saying that they own the material within a paper they write (an original one) and the fact that the system indexes their content if it is deemed legitimate (assuming there is no option to opt out) means the company is bolstering its product without due compensation. The papers i write are my property. They are given to a professor for a grade but even the professor does not have a right to show it as an example without my permission. Reproduction without prior consent, and due compensation, is listed in the cover of most (scientific) journals.
Re:Driving a Truck Through This One
on
Global Dimming
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The premise of nuclear winter is that the atmosphere absorbs all incoming solar radiation. The surface and the atmosphre then reach a radiative equilibrium through long wave emission. The equilibrium temperature of the surface is then the same as the planet's (as a whole) measured emission temperature from space. That is, 255 K. Average surface temp today is ~288 K. Increase atmospheric absorbption leads to decreased surface temps.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, then you see graphs like this and you wonder, do people pick data sets that conform to their bias?
Planes traditionally fly in the troposphere, not in the mid stratosphere where we need the ozone. Not that chemtrails are ozone.
CFCs are not released by volcanoes. The article clearly states that it is the sulphur from volcanoes that generates PSCs, which are the surface catalyst required for ozone chemistry. It is obvious that at this time we cannot do anything about sulphur releases from volcanoes but we can do something about CFC production and release. Is your arguement that since we cannot solve all of the problems we should not try to solve any of them?
Ozone is destroyed in a on going chemical process that is balanced by the creation of new ozone through natural mechanisms. The equilibrium level ozone is what we get. With CFCs introduced the equilibrium levels get shifted to lower concentrations. The introduction of man made ozone would be of little consequence as it couldnt be done a scale necessary to offset the CFC destruction. It would also need to be a continuous input which would make it very expensive and time consuming. A better plan, as we have done, is to attempt to reduce the CFCs and shift the equilibrium levels back to more favourable conditions.
Perhaps, but what we do now is that a single molecule of CFC can destroy thousands of ozone molecules before it is taken out of the chemical cycle. This overt destruction of ozone would not occur if we did not introduce CFCs to the atmosphere.
International accords have acted to reduce the amount of CFCs being released into the atmosphere. These are the pollutants that affect the chemical ozone cycle. So a decreases in them would permit ozone to stick around. People in Antarctica do get sunburnt very easily, as do people in new zealand and chile when the hole is over their region. Chile has many school programs preventing children from going outside during hole episodes.
A missile defense shield, if it was available to both sides, like the English Channel, would cease being a offensive weapon.
Missile shields are offensive weapons. When you no longer fear the retaliation of your enemy you are free to attack with impunity. The deterrant to war is mutually assured destruction. This introduces an imbalance that induces war.
You are assuming it is meaningful to average something that is chaotic.
You are confusing chaotic and random. Chaos can be studied because there exist statistical patterns. With regard to a regions climate, let's take an example of the pacific north west, the weather is consistently within a band of values. That is, warmer and more precip than the same latitude further east. This is a result of the topography of the region. So while the eddy fluctuations on a small scale may be chaotic and non deterministic the overall pattern they generate over time is not. It is the emergent behaviour of the system, which can be called an average in simple terms.
Your label for climate doesn't make much sense to me, but I agree that the assumption that the future will be the same as the past is a dangerous and ultimately disappointing perspective.
Everyone seems aware of the Earth's cyclical nature but not aware that a large percentage of humanity would not survive living through these cycles. As a species we are adaptable, very true, but adaptability in a species usually arises because the majority were wiped out and the remainder were hardy enough, had enough resources or were lucky enough to stay alive.
Greenland was named to entice people to come to it despite the fact that it was a frozen wasteland. Due to the amount of effort to go there from Europe it was assumed that once people arrived and realized they were swindled it would be too much effort to go back. The reverse is true of Iceland, which is a temperate climate due to geothermal effects and the gulf stream. It was named Iceland so that visitors would be reluctant to visit a place with such an inhospitable name, thereby leaving the area for those who had already arrived.
The human concept of "climate" is entirely that: a human concept.
I call bullshit. This is like saying average height is a human concept. Climate is the average of weather, and would exist regardless of humans, therefore not a human concept.
People talk back and forth about whether global warming is our fault or if it's natural, what should we do, blah blah blah. Our civilization is accustomed to the climate we are currently in. It is the climate in which we succeed. If global warming is or is not our fault, if it could get colder or warmer or what not, who gives a shit whose fault it is. We are an engineering species who change our environment to suit our needs. If the Earth is going to warm up or cool down we should devise ways to control that without concern that it is our fault or a natural occurence. The Earth will be fine, it used to be a giant ball of molten rock, it's we who will have our way of life interrupted unless we get this planet under control.
Do you have any papers you could recommend that discuss this behaviour?
This question is a bit slippery because it is difficult to name civil liberites at all. Even the ones that aren't being taken away. It might be a better measure to ask people how they feel about their freedom. Do people think twice about doing certain things that they might not have done before. Do they feel their privacy is being encroached upon. Are they more worried now about what the government can do to them.
Civil liberty is a gut feeling, not a simple enumeration.
Being locked up for no listed crime, with no represnetative, for being of a certain faith and descent, is what i would term a violated civil liberty.
Do we really expect one of the authors to be impartial and objective?
Disinterested third parties are the analysts we should be interviewing.
The city of Sault Ste. Marie in Ontario already has a functioning system as discussed in this article.
I am also aghast at this meteorological baloney.
Differential heating sets up temperature gradients on the earth surfaces which produce pressure disparities that drive circulation. Although water vapour is important in defining system behaviour its influence arises from the storage and transport of latent heat. The other species play minor roles with regards to heating.
Why stop with lesser mammals and avians? Humans do it too.
This book is worth a trip to the library. It was my introduction when I was first intrigued. Also, Godel, Escher, Bach speaks to the same concepts as well as others.
The law is defined by the authorities. If you accept it as it is now, then you do not have anything to fear because you will obey the law. What if the law changes? What if, as a hypothetical example, a law comes down saying reading books is no longer allowed. Or owning a personal computer is no longer allowed. If you do not agree with these new laws, and perhaps you find them so horrible that you cannot obey them, than you are not a law abiding citizen. The new horrible laws may even lead you to revolt against your government. Because of your time spent gathering your personal data when the laws were acceptable to you the authorities now have all the information they need to use against you now that the laws have changed and you have become a criminal because the things you hold dear have been criminalized.
What is now may not always be. It is not prudent to give up to authorities all your information regardless if you are law abiding in the current legal system.
I disagree with your second statement. Two points, one a niggling one and another that is less so. a) The system doesn't work against paper mills because the output of a paper mill is new content, that's why it is a mill. b) Students have a decent arguement in saying that they own the material within a paper they write (an original one) and the fact that the system indexes their content if it is deemed legitimate (assuming there is no option to opt out) means the company is bolstering its product without due compensation. The papers i write are my property. They are given to a professor for a grade but even the professor does not have a right to show it as an example without my permission. Reproduction without prior consent, and due compensation, is listed in the cover of most (scientific) journals.
The premise of nuclear winter is that the atmosphere absorbs all incoming solar radiation. The surface and the atmosphre then reach a radiative equilibrium through long wave emission. The equilibrium temperature of the surface is then the same as the planet's (as a whole) measured emission temperature from space. That is, 255 K. Average surface temp today is ~288 K. Increase atmospheric absorbption leads to decreased surface temps.