Vilham wrote:
It is absorbed very strongly by most solid substances, and even absorbed appreciably by air.
Therefore the lack of O3 in the ozone at the north pole lets in increased amounts of UV thus making the ice warmer, through the water molecules absorbing the UV energy, thus heating up to melting point, thus melting parts of the north pole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion if you had read the page rather than claiming to have read it you would have found this link.
now im realy not going to debate this anymore, we are increasing the rate of global warming enough that it makes a difference, now whether you are going to accept that and change your life style or not is up to you or you could continue debating it and doing nothing to help the world in its natural course whether that is it warming up naturally or not. Infact if we are going on your argument that it is warming up anyway without our help it quite clearly doesnt need our help in this process and therefore we should stop helping it.
Apparently junior, you do not even read your own articles (nor does PekkaA, or he would have caught this too). Only once is the word 'melt' used in the entirety of the article and that usage is NOT related to UVB. Again I state that the main concern with the depletion of the ozone layer is biological, not thermal.
Wikipedia wrote:
Consequences of ozone depletion
Since the ozone layer absorbs UVB ultraviolet light from the Sun, ozone layer depletion is expected to increase surface UVB levels, which could lead to damage, including increases in skin cancer. This was the reason for the Montreal Protocol. Although decreases in stratospheric ozone are well-tied to CFCs, and there are good theoretical reasons to believe that decreases in ozone will lead to increases in surface UVB, there is no direct observational evidence linking ozone depletion to higher incidence of skin cancer in human beings.
Biological effects of increased UV
The main public concern regarding the ozone hole has been the effects of surface UV on human health. As the ozone hole over Antarctica has in some instances grown so large as to reach southern parts of Australia and New Zealand, environmentalists have been concerned that the increase in surface UV could be significant.
No one here is arguing that the depletion of the ozone layer is a good thing, Vilham. However your lack of understanding of how UV radiation works is fairly clear. I suggest you take a look at the following link...
http://gcrio.gcrio.org/ozone/chapter3.pdfPekkaA wrote:
Darth_Fleder, could you explain to...me, what were you trying to say when you linked
this and
thisCan you show any other similarities between Earth, Mars and Jupiter than having a same sun? Or did you just find some nice looking page that had one sentence that suited your purposes? I'm curious. Btw, this is picked from first article: "Despite more than three decades of Red Planet exploration, scientists are still relatively clueless about the climate of Mars". So even if you could point out something it wouldn't be reliable.
First PekkaA, that statement means that there is not enough data to understand how the Martian climate works and subsequently there is no way to make any conclusions of why events are occuring with 100% certainty. However the data on the retreating polar caps on Mars has been documented and that final statement does not in any way invalidate the data. The fact that the Earth, Mars and Jupiter share the same sun is rather relevant, PekkaA. I am sorry to point this rather obvious fact out to you, but the sun is the engine which drives the solar system. If there is evidence to suggest that other planets in the solar system undergoing similar climate shifts in the same direction as here on Earth, doesn't that beg further consideration of a common factor, in this case the sun? Those citations were included to show that there is some effect other than gas emissions at work and to illustrate that there is still too much unconsidered in the current hysteria and being left out in current climatological models.
NASA wrote:
SUN'S DIRECT ROLE IN GLOBAL WARMING MAY BE UNDERESTIMATED, DUKE PHYSICISTS REPORT At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities, two Duke University physicists report. The physicists said that their findings indicate that climate models of global warming need to be corrected for the effects of changes in solar activity.
Scafetta & West wrote:
N. Scafetta Physics Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA B. J. West Mathematical and Information Science Directorate, U.S. Army Research Office, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA PMOD has been widely used in geophysical research. According to this composite, TSI has been almost stationary (-0.009%/decade trend of the 21-23 solar minima [Willson and Mordvinov, 2003]) and by adopting it, or the equivalent TSI proxy reconstruction by Lean et al. [1995], some researchers and the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2001; Hansen et al., 2002] deduced that the Sun has not contributed to the observed global surface warming of the past decades. Consequently, the global surface warming of DT1980 - 2002 = 0.40 ± 0.04K (*insert DT=delta T which means change in temp*) from 1980 to 2002 shown in Figure 2 could only be induced, directly or indirectly, by anthropogenic added green house gas (GHG) climate forcing. [4] Contrariwise, ACRIM presents a significant upward trend (+0.047%/decade trend of the minima) during solar cycles 21-23 (1980-2002) [Willson and Mordvinov, 2003]. The purpose of this letter is to estimate the contribution of this upward trend to the global surface warming from 1980 to 2002, which covers one Hale solar cycle... ...In conclusion, we believe our estimates Z7 and Z8 of the climate sensitivity to solar variations from 1980 to 2002 are realistic. By using the ACRIM TSI increase estimate DIsun (1) and the climate sensitivity Z8 (6) in equation (3), the warming caused by DIsun is DTsun 5 0.08 ± 0.03. Thus, because the global surface warming during the period 1980-2002 was DT1980 - 2002 = 0.40 ± 0.04K, we conclude that according to the ACRIM TSI composite the Sun may have
minimally contributed 10-30% of the 1980-2002 global surface warming.
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2005GL023849.pdf
What they are saying is that the previous model's only conclusion was that the increase in temperature could only have been attributable to atmosoheric causes and neglected to account for variations in the output of the sun. Note the word minimally. Their report is summed up well here...
The World Climate Report wrote:
"The sun played a dominant role in climate change in the early past, as several empirical studies would suggest, and is still playing a significant, even if not a predominant role, during the last decades. The impact of solar variation on climate seems significantly stronger than predicted by some energy balance models...The significant discrepancy between empirical and theoretical model estimates might arise because the secular TSI [total solar irradiance] proxy reconstructions are disputed and/or because the empirical evidence deriving from the deconstruction of the surface temperature is deceptive for reasons unknown to us. Alternatively, the models might be inadequate because of the difficulty of modeling climate in general and a lack of knowledge of climate sensitivity to solar variations in particular. In fact, theoretical models usually acknowledge as solar forcing only the direct TSI forcing while empirical estimates would include all direct and indirect climate effects induced by solar variation. These solar effects might be embedded in several climate forcings because, for example, a TSI increase might indirectly induce a change in the chemistry of the atmosphere by increasing and modulating its greenhouse gas (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.) concentration because of the warmer ocean, reduce the earth albedo by melting the glaciers and change the cloud cover patterns. In particular, the models might be inadequate: (a) in their parameterizations of climate feedbacks and atmosphere-ocean coupling; (b) in their neglect of indirect response by the stratosphere and of possible additional climate effects linked to solar magnetic field, UV radiation, solar flares and cosmic ray intensity modulations; (c) there might be other possible natural amplification mechanisms deriving from internal modes of climate variability which are not included in the models. All the above mechanisms would be automatically considered and indirectly included in the phenomenological approach presented herein. The bigger the observed solar impact, the smaller the observed human impact. The smaller the human impact, the less sensitive the climate is to greenhouse gas emissions. The less sensitive the climate is to greenhouse gas emissions, the less the impact greenhouse changes (and greenhouse gas emissions restrictions) will have in the future."
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index … r-warming/
Now I would again like to reiterate that a warming planet and rising CO2 levels is NOT necessarily a bad thing.
The Marshall Insitute wrote:
It is said, for example, that CO2-induced global warming will be so fast and furious that many species of plants and animals will not be able to migrate towards cooler regions of the planet (poleward in latitude and/or upward in elevation) rapidly enough to avoid extinction. It is said that the process has already been set in motion by the global warming of the past hundred and fifty years. It is said, that "a significant impact of global warming is already discernible in animal and plant populations," and that, as a result, "we're sitting at the edge of a mass extinction." It is easy to make long-term predictions; but to substantiate them with facts is an entirely different matter. And even when the facts are largely in hand, one can still be blinded by preconceived ideas that make it difficult to comprehend the real meaning of what has been discovered. So it is with the specter of species extinction that hovers over the global warming debate. The vast majority of people who have studied the subject have not understood some of the issue's most basic elements; and they have consequently drawn conclusions that are not aligned with reality. Proponents of what we shall call the CO2-induced global warming extinction hypothesis seem to be totally unaware of the fact that atmospheric CO2 enrichment tends to ameliorate the deleterious effects of rising temperatures on earth's vegetation. They appear not to know that more CO2 in the air enables plants to grow better at nearly all temperatures, but especially at higher temperatures. They feign ignorance of the knowledge (or truly do not know) that elevated CO2 boosts the optimum temperature at which plants grow best, and that it raises the upper-limiting temperature above which they experience death, making them much more resistant to heat stress. The end result of these facts is that if the atmosphere's temperature and CO2 concentration rise together, plants are able to successfully adapt to the rising temperature, and they experience no ill effects of the warming. Under such conditions, plants living near the heat-limited boundaries of their ranges do not experience an impetus to migrate poleward or upward towards cooler regions of the globe. At the other end of the temperature spectrum, however, plants living near the cold-limited boundaries of their ranges are empowered to extend their ranges into areas where the temperature was previously too low for them to survive. And as they move into those once-forbidden areas, they actually expand their ranges, overlapping the similarlyexpanding ranges of other plants and thereby increasing local plant biodiversity.
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/Templ … nction.pdf
Now as to fears that our activities may be pushing into another 'Little Ice Age' by a change in the gulf stream, I would point out that we have just emerged from one that could hardly be blamed upon the Industrial Revolution. After reading several long documents on the subject by proponents of this theory, I was able to glean from this from one of them.
Gagosian wrote:
Robert B. Gagosian President and Director Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution The equatorial sun warms the ocean surface and enhances evaporation in the tropics. This leaves the tropical ocean saltier. The Gulf Stream, a limb of the Ocean Conveyor, carries an enormous volume of heat-laden, salty water up the East Coast of the United States, and then northeast toward Europe... But records of past climates-from a variety of sources such as deep-sea sediments and ice-sheet cores-show that the Conveyor has slowed and shut down several times in the past. This shutdown curtailed heat delivery to the North Atlantic and caused substantial cooling throughout the region. One earth scientist has called the Conveyor "the Achilles' heel of our climate system." At what threshold will the Conveyor cease? The short answer is:
We do not know. Nor have scientists determined the relative contributions of a variety of sources that may be adding fresh water to the North Atlantic. Among the suspects are melting glaciers or Arctic sea ice, or increased precipitation falling directly into the ocean or entering via the great rivers that discharge into the Arctic Ocean.6 Global warming
may be an exacerbating factor.
http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/vie … do?id=9986
Again, these events are shown to have happened before in the past without the benefit of an industrial revolution to aid them. The main gist that I was able to extract from reading of the document was that he presented many alarming possibilities, but he uses them a lever to promote his fields of study, i.e. more funding.
Gagosian wrote:
Though we have invested in, and now rely on, a global network of meteorological stations to monitor fast-changing atmospheric conditions, at present we do not have a system in place for monitoring slower-developing, but critical, ocean circulation changes.
It's hard to get funding without a pressing need, isn't it. I refer back to an earlier quote...
Stephan H. Schneider in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989 wrote:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change.
To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This "double ethical bind" we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula.
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Pu … itNews.pdf
In the case of Mr. Gagosian it appears that he is choosing to be effective.
Gagosian wrote:
Such a change could cool down selective areas of the globe by 3° to 5° Celsius, while simultaneously causing drought in many parts of the world. These climate changes would occur quickly, even as other regions continue to warm slowly.
As Patrick Michaels wrote "Seventeen years ago, in 1989, the Alps endured a virtually snowless winter. Environmentalists blamed global warming. A Swiss lobbying group, Alp Action, wrote in 1991 that global warming would put an end to winter sports in the Alps by 2025. Then in 1999 the Alps had their greatest snowfall in 40 years. Greenpeace blamed global warming. How in the world can that be? Is it possible to blame global warming for every weather anomaly, even if two consecutive events are of opposite sign? Can such a claim have "scientific" justification? If one regards the United Nations as an authority on such things, the answer, unfortunately, is yes. Global warmers, thanks to the good offices of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, can blame any weather event on pernicious economic prosperity and resultant greenhouse gas emissions. The most recent IPCC summary on climate change was published three years ago. IPCC purports to be the "consensus of scientists" but in fact is a group of individuals hand-picked by their respective governments. The United Nations wrote in 1995: "Warmer temperatures will lead to . . . prospects for more severe droughts and/or floods in some places and less severe droughts and/or floods in others."
As a punishment for not cleaning out the cat box, you might ask your kid to diagram this sentence. Rather than strain the graphics of this word processor, we'll simply parse it. What the IPCC is saying is that global warming will cause in "some places" and/or "others":
* More intense wet periods.
* More intense dry periods.
* More intense wet and dry periods.
* Less intense wet periods.
* Less intense dry periods.
* And less intense wet and dry periods.
So, according to the "consensus of scientists," it's OK to blame a flood, or, if you're in the mountains, a flood of snow, on global warming. It's also OK to blame a drought or a snowless Alp on global warming. It's even OK to blame weather that is more normal than normal ("less intense wet and dry periods") on global warming.
The IPCC statement, which cannot be proved wrong, is a cynical attempt to allow anyone to blame anything on global warming. As Julius Wroblewski of Vancouver, Canada, wrote, this logic "represents a descent into the swamp of the non-falsifiable hypothesis. This is not a term of praise. Falsifiability is the internal logic in a theory that allows a logical test to see if it is right or wrong."
A non-falsifiable theory is one for which no test can be devised, and the U.N. statement fits the bill perfectly.
There is simply no observable weather or climate that does not meet its criteria, except one: absolutely no change in the climate, meaning no change in the average weather or the variability around that average. Every climatologist on the planet knows that is impossible. Climate has to change because the sun is an inconstant star and the Earth is a nonuniform medium whose primary surface constituent, water, is very near its freezing point. Freezing (or unfreezing) water makes the planet whiter (or darker), which affects the degree to which it reflects the sun's warming rays. A flicker of the sun, therefore, ensures climate change.
Robert Mann, writing in Geophysical Research Letters, recently provided a powerful demonstration of this phenomenon. Using long-term records from tree rings and ice cores, he concluded that the planet was on a 900-year cooling streak between 1000 and 1900. Then we warmed up almost twice as much as we had cooled, but at least half of that warming was caused by our inconsistent sun. Two NASA scientists recently demonstrated that the sun has been warming throughout the last 400 years. As a result, if the last decade weren't among the warmest in the last millennium, something would have been wrong with the basic theory of climate:
The sun warms the Earth. That doesn't mean we haven't supplied a bit of greenhouse warming, too. But greenhouse warming behaves differently than pure solar warming: It occurs largely in the coldest air masses of winter. That's a far cry from the United Nation's nonsense about "some places" and "others" experiencing more unusual, less unusual or unusually usual weather."
Again, we are forgetting that WARM PLANET=GOOD and COLD PLANET=BAD. Many seem to have a great fear of the planet drying up and becoming a desert with increased temperatures. You seem to be forgetting how the process of precipitation works.
Clausen et al @ Potsdam-Institut fur Klimafolgenforschung wrote:
Martin Claussen1, Claudia Kubatzki, Victor Brovkin, and Andrey GanopolskiPotsdam-Institut fur Klimafolgenforschung, Potsdam, Germany
Philipp HoelzmannMax-Planck-Insitut fur Biogeochemie, Jena, Germany
Hans-Joachim PachurInstitut fur Geographie, Freie Universitat Berlin, Germany
During the mid-Holocene some 9 - 6 thousand years ago(ka), the summer in many regions of the Northern Hemi-sphere was warmer than today. Palaeobotanic data indicate an expansion of boreal forests north of the modern treeline [Tarasov et al., 1998; Texier et al., 1997; Yu andHarrison, 1996]. In North Africa, data reveal a wetter climate [Hoelzmann et al., 1998]. Moreover, it has been found from fossil pollen [Jolly et al., 1998] that the Saharan desert was almost completely covered by annual grasses and low shrubs...
To analyze why desertification in North Africa is abrupt in comparison with the rather smooth orbital forcing, we performed a series of simulations exploring the dynamics of the atmosphere-only model (model A), the atmosphere-vegetation model (AV) and the atmosphere- ocean model(AO), respectively. Firstly we have run the atmosphere-only model while keeping the ocean, i.e. the seasonal cycle of sea-surface temperatures (SST) and sea ice, as well as global vegetation pattern constant in time.In this case, the atmosphere follows orbital forcing rather smoothly(Fig.1, B). The same applies to global precipitation. Keeping sea-surface temperature, sea-ice, and vegetation at mid-Holocene values yields a generally warmer and wetter climate for the following reasons.
Firstly, a warmer ocean surface directly warms the near-surface atmosphere. Secondly, a warmer ocean evaporates more water.http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:eiz … &cd=12
More evaporated water = more rain. Water+warmth+CO2=GOOD for plant growth. Increased plant growth=GOOD for the food chain. WARM PLANET=GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. It would appear the you so-called environmentalists are on the wrong side of this issue.
