Climate change

Dampsquid

In the 80s we had acid rain
The 90s we had the depletion of the ozone layer

Now we have climate change.... is it the latest fad? will it still be the biggest discussion issue in 10 / 20 years time?

Terry

Dampsquid wrote: »

In the 80s we had acid rain
The 90s we had the depletion of the ozone layer

Now we have climate change.... is it the latest fad? will it still be the biggest discussion issue in 10 / 20 years time?

No idea. What do you think?

Nah. Next year's zombie war should be the talking point in the future.

Amongst zombies, anyways. Murrrrrrrghh...

KIVES

Climate change is a fad surely...just worry about the here and now and follow my Uncle Terry's advice - 'You'll get no thanks for altruism'...

WhiteWashMan

from AH

Pherekydes

To green issues? Why not to Weather?

lostinsuperfunk

The reason the acid rain stopped in northern Europe is that we took action and reduced the sulphur emissions from heavy industry.
The reason the Antarctic ozone hole stopped growing is that we took action and halted the use of CFCs.

Lennoxschips

As was said, acid rain in the 80s was real. It lead to things like improved, unleaded, petrol and a general cleaning up of industry. The fall of the Soviet union and the decline of it's massive unregulated heavy industry also helped ease the problems in Europe.

The ozone hole in the 80s/90s was real and led to a global ban on CFCs.

Global warming is also very real.

mise

Nope its not a fad, despite what some skeptics say..

For anyone with any interest in it, Id recommend reading both Heat by George Monbiot and The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery. They are both well written and researched, and quite easy to follow

gillyfromlyre

Just another excuse to get money off ordinary people, you have to get this type of insulation, that type of measure to prevent blahh blahh blahh. The damage is done and the people who are paying to prevent further damage didn't cause it in the 1st place. Sunspots and the lack of sunspots have dramatic effects on climate, as well as numerous other natural occurrences.
My uncle in-law Gerry piped up last friday after scoffing down his scones and tea "They'll be cracking down on bean eaters soon to curtail the methane emissions"

djpbarry

gillyfromlyre wrote: »

you have to get this type of insulation, that type of measure to prevent blahh blahh blahh.

Surely this is in your own interest, as it will save you money in the long run. Do you think you'd be better off if your house had no insulation?

gillyfromlyre wrote: »

Sunspots and the lack of sunspots have dramatic effects on climate...

No they don't.

gillyfromlyre wrote: »

...as well as numerous other natural occurrences.

Such as?

Jack Sheehan

lostinsuperfunk wrote: »

The reason the acid rain stopped in northern Europe is that we took action and reduced the sulphur emissions from heavy industry.
The reason the Antarctic ozone hole stopped growing is that we took action and halted the use of CFCs.

Exactly, these could be considered victories as we stopped the problem growing and are now reversing it. Both were reasonably easy to solve however because it was a specific chemical causing it. (Chlorofluorocarbons for the ozone layer and sulfur dioxide for the acid rain)
Global warming is more complex and will require a more complex solution.

CerebralCortex

What is your evidence that sunspots have no effect? I'm genuinely interested. I've changed my spots so many times on the global warming thing it would be nice to know what the truth is.

???????

djpbarry

CerebralCortex wrote: »

What is your evidence that sunspots have no effect? I'm genuinely interested.

I didn't say that - I said they don't have a dramatic effect, or at least they have not been shown to have such an effect. Here's an article on the subject and a review paper.

djmc

Now we have climate change.... is it the latest fad? will it still be the biggest discussion issue in 10 / 20 years time?
All depends on the weather:)

bonkey

CerebralCortex wrote: »

What is your evidence that sunspots have no effect?

You should ask gillyfromlyre what the evidence is that they have significant effect.

The default position should be that there is no (known) effect, until such times as someone can establish otherwise.

I'm genuinely interested. I've changed my spots so many times on the global warming thing it would be nice to know what the truth is.

???????

No-one knows what the truth is. What we do know, however, are the various scientific stances on the various issues.

piraka

djpbarry wrote: »

I didn't say that - I said they don't have a dramatic effect, or at least they have not been shown to have such an effect. Here's an article on the subject and a review paper.

Sunspots have a dramatic effect on the Quasi Biennial Oscillation.

Pascal14

lostinsuperfunk wrote: »

The reason the acid rain stopped in northern Europe is that we took action and reduced the sulphur emissions from heavy industry.
The reason the Antarctic ozone hole stopped growing is that we took action and halted the use of CFCs.

Thats exactly what I read in the paper as well.

piraka

lostinsuperfunk wrote: »

The reason the Antarctic ozone hole stopped growing is that we took action and halted the use of CFCs.

Stopped growing! The largest ever recorded ozone hole was in 2006.

lostinsuperfunk

Stopped growing! The largest ever recorded ozone hole was in 2006.

Thanks. I stand corrected. Are there any theories to explain why?

piraka

lostinsuperfunk wrote: »

Thanks. I stand corrected. Are there any theories to explain why?

Although the CFC concentrations have stabilized there have been increases in other ozone depleting compounds in the stratosphere notably nitrous oxide and water through pollution.

Good references

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/rich2952/rich2952.pdf
http://www.acia.uaf.edu/PDFs/ACIA_Science_Chapters_Final/ACIA_Ch05_Final.pdf
http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/SAP/Scientific_Assessment_2006/01-Contents_Preface.pdf
http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/SAP/Scientific_Assessment_2006/index.shtml


One possible explanation of the 2006 hole could be due to the Energetic Particle Precipitation of NO from the Mesosphere into the stratosphere.

Enhanced NOx in 2006 linked to strong upper stratospheric Arctic vortex, Randall et al GRL Vol 33, 2006.

Energetic particle precipitation effects on the southern Hemisphere stratosphere in 1992 – 2005 Randall et al GRL Vol 112, 2007

djpbarry

lostinsuperfunk wrote: »

The reason the Antarctic ozone hole stopped growing is that we took action and halted the use of CFCs.

piraka wrote: »

Stopped growing! The largest ever recorded ozone hole was in 2006.

The rate of ozone depletion has slowed considerably. CFC's persist in the atmosphere for quite a long time, so a detectable recovery will probably not occur until about 2025, with ozone levels recovering to 1980 levels by around 2070.

piraka

The rate of ozone depletion is levelling and causing concern even with the reduction in CFC.

djpbarry

piraka wrote: »

The rate of ozone depletion is levelling...

That's what I said.

piraka wrote: »

...and causing concern even with the reduction in CFC.

Of course it's a concern; ozone will continue to be destroyed as long as CFC's persist in the atmosphere and the situation warrants observation. But, if CFC levels continue to fall, then we should see ozone levels begin to recover in the not-too-distant future.

If our use of CFC's had not been curbed, then things would be very different indeed.

bonkey

piraka wrote: »

The rate of ozone depletion is levelling and causing concern even with the reduction in CFC.

If the rate of depletion is levelling to anything higher than a rate of 0, then I'd damn-well hope its causing concern.

Pascal14

bonkey wrote: »

If the rate of depletion is levelling to anything higher than a rate of 0, then I'd damn-well hope its causing concern.

Who provides this data you are refering to?

bonkey

What data?

I was applying mathematical analysis to someone else's claim, without commenting on the accuracy of the claim, and explicitly allowing for it to be false.

Lennoxschips

sometimes it's better just to link to a graph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Min_ozone.jpg

djpbarry

Lennoxschips wrote: »

sometimes it's better just to link to a graph:

Far too efficient for my liking - where's the fun in that?

Owdetojoy

lostinsuperfunk wrote: »

The reason the acid rain stopped in northern Europe is that we took action and reduced the sulphur emissions from heavy industry.
The reason the Antarctic ozone hole stopped growing is that we took action and halted the use of CFCs.

You are right about the CFCs, but how did we halt sulphur emissions in Europe?

Owdetojoy

Dampsquid wrote: »

In the 80s we had acid rain
The 90s we had the depletion of the ozone layer

Now we have climate change.... is it the latest fad? will it still be the biggest discussion issue in 10 / 20 years time?

It's costing the equivalent of internet sales every year. Wind energy does not work, neither does solar at reducing co2 emissions. Electric cars simply transfer the emissions from the car exhaust to the power stations.

snow scorpion

ted1

snow scorpion wrote: »

How much damage did storm Ophelia do in Ireland alone? What about Katrina ? And the other storms worldwide? That’s what the temperature increase is doing. We’d make the trillions back soon enough.