Comments on: I’ve Never Bought the Hype

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 31 May 2007 07:11:15 +0000

So if reduced rainfall is related to the recession of large glaciers around the world why is there less rainfall? As for the polar ice caps the article you referenced links two articles.

The first article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=16782603

states that snowfall in the eastern half of Antartica surpasses the reduction of ice in the west. It also says “he result exacerbates the difficulty of explaining twentieth century sea-level rise.”

The second article:
http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/fahan_mi_shipwrecks/infohut/acc.htm

is linked presumably to state that this same snowfall
completely mitigates the loss of ice but the linked article does notthing of the kind.

Instead, it raises another interesting point in that Earth’s oceans are a huge carbon sink and that oxygen and carbon are exchanged where it meets the atmosphere. Does it occur to anyone reading this that maybe melting ice and increased snowfall in Antartica is nature’s process of balancing out what’s happening in the upper atmosphere with the mixture of greenhouse gasses?

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 30 May 2007 21:48:14 +0000

I do not know how much, if any, human activity is contributing to global warming. What I do know is that I will never be able to bring myself to agree with Al Gore even if God himself appears to me, smacks me upside the head and says “Of course global warming is primarily the result of human activity you stupid m**********r!”

By: Roger

Roger — Wed, 30 May 2007 16:46:36 +0000

Ah, good question. I just ran into that yesterday. Reduced rain fall in the specific areas where the glaciers are. Go here: http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderg/index.html

Go down the page about half way.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 30 May 2007 08:00:04 +0000

What the 11 year sun intensity cycle doesn’t explain for me is the melting of the polar ice caps and the Greenland glacier. If in fact no measurable warming trend has happened in the last 20 years by sattelite measurements than what is causing the ice to melt?

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 30 May 2007 07:54:28 +0000

You’re right that the article was not about the ozone layer. Weren’t you trying to make the point that we don’t need to worry about reducing greenhouse gas emissions by quoting it though? Furthermore, I would surmise that Reason magazine has a distinct agenda on this topic. So did manufacturers of CFC’s like Dupont years ago.

By: Roger

Roger — Tue, 29 May 2007 16:44:10 +0000

That’s interesting. Of course, the article didn’t talk about the ozone because that wasn’t the subject. I wonder if what you present is relatively new information in the last ten years. I would suspect that they didn’t know then what they know now regarding the ozone layer.

Could be wrong though.

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 25 May 2007 22:47:31 +0000

I know what you’re thinking “but dude, it’s CFC’s that caused the depletion of the Ozone”. It’s not as simple as that though unfortunately. One school of thought is that greenhouse gasses cause the stratosphere to cool which in turn prolongs the seasonal conditions that allow CFC’s to degrade the ozone. Furthermore, it’s theorized that constant pressure on cooling trends in the upper atmosphere could allow other ozone depletion pockets to form in other areas of the planet. One zone that’s being watched now is over the Arctic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#_note-39

“Global warming from CO2 is expected to cool the stratosphere. This, in turn, would lead to a relative increase in ozone depletion and the frequency of ozone holes. The effect may not be linear; ozone holes form because of polar stratospheric clouds; the formation of polar stratospheric clouds has a temperature threshold above which they will not form; cooling of the Arctic stratosphere might lead to Antarctic-ozone-hole-like conditions.”

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 25 May 2007 18:53:39 +0000

Even if you completely discount the affect of increased CO2 emissions gathering in the upper atmosphere as a direct cause/effect relationship to global warming we still have a big ass hole in our ozone layer that needs to be dealt with.

Your sources conveniently ignore this problem in relation to the topic of the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.