Ozone Hole is Shrinking

[cldnails]

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM6MD7H07F_index_0.html

OMG, somebody throw the monkey wrench in Mr. Lookatme Gore's agenda. But let me get this straight, if it gets bigger it's blamed on everything 'PEOPLE' are doing and the human impact on earth...

But if it shrinks:

is due to natural variations in temperature and atmospheric dynamics

I'm so cornfused. So hos is all the heat from Global warming going to escape into space if the hole closes up? OMG, another fear.

[KeithCash]

That was very funny. We need to add this one the crazy section

[D3n!ss3_gÜrL]

yay! i've just heard this one here! i cannot even say a thing!

[TheFriend]

Yeha: ROFL!
Very funny and crazy.......

[regie76]

Nice..

It makes me laugh too.

[Zap]

The real problem here is that most humans want a straight answer that makes sense to them and isn't complicated. Some of us can handle intricate truths, but most of us just want to be told "black" or "white" as a difinitive answer so that we can go back to blissfully sipping away at their grande double half caf mocha frappacino while munching on their double Big Mac.

The truth is that both are correct. People have a great impact on the well being of this planet and have affected it deeply for the past 100 years with industrialization.

The Earth also goes to hot and cold extremes all on it's own, without human intervention.

The Earth has been a solid ball of ice and then thawed out again, several times in it's history, long before humans began building factories and driving cars. These cycles would continue, whether we were here or not.

That doesn't erase the fact that our presence has sped up this process in the direction of HOT over the past century. Anyone with cognitive abilities can tell you that.

Every summer, we have certain days that break all temperature records. That's nothing new. We have a lot of days in the year. But there's a difference in recent years that certainly point to a trend. The records being broken are not from 100 years ago or 150 years ago. They are from 2 years ago or 5 years ago, more often than not. That means that record breaking temperatures are happening more frequently and more recently. That would suggest that the process is accellerating.

Science tells us that carbon dioxide in our atmosphere acts as a blanket that traps heat. Add more carbon dioxide, the blanket gets thicker, trapping more heat. This process happens and then corrects itself in cycles too large for humans to witness first hand. But, the changes to our planet from our direct intervention are all around us and easy to see.

[StrongInTheArm]

Zap is so hot he understands global warming.

You can't look at one figure and make a conclusion. You have to look at the big picture over time. Only by doing so can you see the trend.

It used to be that the ozone hole would close every year. Now when it closes it seems people find that to be odd. Remember there is not supposed to be a hole in the first place and the fact it comes back means the problem is still with us.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Zap

That doesn't erase the fact that our presence has sped up this process in the direction of HOT over the past century. Anyone with cognitive abilities can tell you that.

Again, debatable. Scientists are debating it, so I see no reason to bypass the debate and claim it is fact, entirely for political correctness.

Originally Posted by Zap

Every summer, we have certain days that break all temperature records.

The fact that the planet is warming is not the question. The question is whether humans are responsible for it, and to a lessor extent whether humans can stop it.

Originally Posted by Zap

Science tells us that carbon dioxide in our atmosphere acts as a blanket that traps heat.

There are many greenhouse gases. The bulk of those greenhouse gases are created naturally. In order to believe that humans are causing global warming, or believe that humans can stop global warming by not producing greenhouse gases, requires a lot of blind faith. Even if humans stopped using cars, destroyed all their dams, etc, etc, then you'd still have the bulk of greenhouse gases being created.

According to some science - and science is really a fanciful term because most of it is junk science and you can't get two of those clowns to agree on anything specific - animals - livestock that feed humans - are responsible for 18% of greenhouse gases. Are humans going to stop eating? Are we going to kill off every cow in order to make Gore happy? Does Gore really believe the crap he is spouting? From his flying habits, I would have to say "no".

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth...

Well, damn, let's just cover the ocean, cover the Lakes, and we can all sit back and enjoy the cow farts.

Seriously guys, when there is political motivation to scientific theory, you can't just take the word of a Gore at face value.

[Zap]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Again, debatable. Scientists are debating it, so I see no reason to bypass the debate and claim it is fact, entirely for political correctness.

Many of the sheeple that are debating it (on both sides) are being paid to debate it. Their arguements carry a lot less weight.
Some of us believe that it really isn't debatable and that the debate is just a stalling tactic to continue the status quo.

I saw a totally unrelated documentary last night on aging and genetics that brought up an interesting point. If we could find a way to alter our genes so that we lived 500 or 1000 years, do you think we (as a species) would be taking better care of our planet? Relating to this topic, some of these oil tycoons are 60, 70 80 years old and have made the almighty dollar their number one priority in life. They'll be dead soon and there's no profit to be made by caring about the planet they leave behind. Food for thought.

Originally Posted by John Scott

The fact that the planet is warming is not the question. The question is whether humans are responsible for it, and to a lessor extent whether humans can stop it.

I agree completely.
I don't give a shit about Gore or his pet projects.
I know that a certain amount of global warming is natural and would happen if humans existed or not.
I also know that humans cause some of it.

I personally don't care much for the "leave Earth alone or undamaged by human presence" view.
I say we're here and we want to stay here for a long time. Getting ourselves mired down in a debate that big companies have a stake in isn't going to help us.
If we're burning too much fossil fuels and causing the planet to warm to a point where we can't exist here anymore, then we need to stop it with whatever means we have at our disposal. We can't cover the oceans. It's not in our present toolkit. But we can try to burn fewer fossil fuels and look for alternatives to try to stop the current direction and speed of global warming.
If we were in an ice age right now, I would be the first person to say that we need to burn more fossil fuels and warm the planet a little bit.
Again, it's about self preservation and listening to big oil companies tell us everything is fine and there is no problem doesn't help us any.

Originally Posted by John Scott

There are many greenhouse gases. The bulk of those greenhouse gases are created naturally. In order to believe that humans are causing global warming, or believe that humans can stop global warming by not producing greenhouse gases, requires a lot of blind faith. Even if humans stopped using cars, destroyed all their dams, etc, etc, then you'd still have the bulk of greenhouse gases being created.

According to some science - and science is really a fanciful term because most of it is junk science and you can't get two of those clowns to agree on anything specific - animals - livestock that feed humans - are responsible for 18% of greenhouse gases. Are humans going to stop eating? Are we going to kill off every cow in order to make Gore happy? Does Gore really believe the crap he is spouting? From his flying habits, I would have to say "no".

Well, damn, let's just cover the ocean, cover the Lakes, and we can all sit back and enjoy the cow farts.

Seriously guys, when there is political motivation to scientific theory, you can't just take the word of a Gore at face value.

Or an oil company, either. They all have a vested interest. But we do know that burning carbon dioxide produces greenhouse gas and that contributes to global warming. If we want to still be here in 200 or 300 years, we'd better do something about it, just because we can.

[John Scott]

Or an oil company, either.

Problem is, it's not oil companies that are fighting it. I see oil companies jumping on the PC bandwagon all the time. The politicians are not screwing them - the get paid no matter what. It's the consumers who are getting the screw. Every time they want to raise the gas tax, you get the green freaks scaring off any opposition with their "promoter of global warming" title.

So right there you get everybody with a socialist, tax and spend agenda on the global warming bandwagon.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...balwarming.htm

When all the science is politically controlled, it ceases to be science.

[scorpionagency]

Originally Posted by John Scott

When all the science is politically controlled, it ceases to be science.

I fully agree, That goes for everything politically controlled (E.G. Religion, Corporations, Etc..)

Zap: The real problem here is that most humans want a straight answer that makes sense to them and isn't complicated. Some of us can handle intricate truths, but most of us just want to be told "black" or "white" as a difinitive answer so that we can go back to blissfully sipping away at their grande double half caf mocha frappacino while munching on their double Big Mac.

I think the largest problem isn't the issue itself, Its the moderation or lack there of when it comes to releasing the information to the people.

This is where Top Secret & Freedom Of Information conflict. On one hand with Top Secret you are actually protecting the people more by NOT disclosing devastating tactical, geographical, & statistical information.

On the other hand with Freedom of Information, the people can freely learn everything provided under this Act in order to make a well educated decision.

Now, The conflict is, what to release & when to release it.... Then you have the double standard Press hunting the information & Only extracting bits & pieces of what they can get their little grubby rating guided hands on (Prior to official release). When the Media releases these Bits & pieces without ALL the facts it creates mass hysteria & controversy.

While 2 wrongs don't make a right, As humans we are responsible for everything that happens to us (E.G. Action / Reaction - Cause & Effect).

In Conclusion: Believe NOTHING your Hear & ONLY Half of what you See, The truth is Much more clearer that way! - By - Eric C. Lyon

[Atom]

Originally Posted by Zap

Many of the sheeple that are debating it (on both sides) are being paid to debate it. Their arguements carry a lot less weight.
Some of us believe that it really isn't debatable and that the debate is just a stalling tactic to continue the status quo.

I saw a totally unrelated documentary last night on aging and genetics that brought up an interesting point. If we could find a way to alter our genes so that we lived 500 or 1000 years, do you think we (as a species) would be taking better care of our planet? Relating to this topic, some of these oil tycoons are 60, 70 80 years old and have made the almighty dollar their number one priority in life. They'll be dead soon and there's no profit to be made by caring about the planet they leave behind. Food for thought.


I agree completely.
I don't give a shit about Gore or his pet projects.
I know that a certain amount of global warming is natural and would happen if humans existed or not.
I also know that humans cause some of it.

I personally don't care much for the "leave Earth alone or undamaged by human presence" view.
I say we're here and we want to stay here for a long time. Getting ourselves mired down in a debate that big companies have a stake in isn't going to help us.
If we're burning too much fossil fuels and causing the planet to warm to a point where we can't exist here anymore, then we need to stop it with whatever means we have at our disposal. We can't cover the oceans. It's not in our present toolkit. But we can try to burn fewer fossil fuels and look for alternatives to try to stop the current direction and speed of global warming.
If we were in an ice age right now, I would be the first person to say that we need to burn more fossil fuels and warm the planet a little bit.
Again, it's about self preservation and listening to big oil companies tell us everything is fine and there is no problem doesn't help us any.



Or an oil company, either. They all have a vested interest. But we do know that burning carbon dioxide produces greenhouse gas and that contributes to global warming. If we want to still be here in 200 or 300 years, we'd better do something about it, just because we can.

( Wikipedia Quote: ) The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth... ( End Quote )

Why did they even bother to say "about"? This margin is ridiculously wide, don't you think?

Originally Posted by Zap

If we're burning too much fossil fuels and causing the planet to warm to a point where we can't exist here anymore, then we need to stop it with whatever means we have at our disposal.

I'll have to disagree. The "if" in the quote above is simply too big of an if. Do you not agree? The obvious indication is that they do not have sufficient knowledge.

[Tanya]

*looks up*

I don't see no hole...

[Jesse Vlasveld]

Wait, isn't it a good thing that the socalled hole is shrinking?
Why are we still debating over science and politics then, good things should be celebrated!

[Atom]

Originally Posted by scorpionagency

I fully agree, That goes for everything politically controlled (E.G. Religion, Corporations, Etc..)



I think the largest problem isn't the issue itself, Its the moderation or lack there of when it comes to releasing the information to the people.

This is where Top Secret & Freedom Of Information conflict. On one hand with Top Secret you are actually protecting the people more by NOT disclosing devastating tactical, geographical, & statistical information.

On the other hand with Freedom of Information, the people can freely learn everything provided under this Act in order to make a well educated decision.

Now, The conflict is, what to release & when to release it.... Then you have the double standard Press hunting the information & Only extracting bits & pieces of what they can get their little grubby rating guided hands on (Prior to official release). When the Media releases these Bits & pieces without ALL the facts it creates mass hysteria & controversy.

While 2 wrongs don't make a right, As humans we are responsible for everything that happens to us (E.G. Action / Reaction - Cause & Effect).

In Conclusion: Believe NOTHING your Hear & ONLY Half of what you See, The truth is Much more clearer that way! - By - Eric C. Lyon

Originally Posted by scorpionagency

Believe NOTHING your Hear & ONLY Half of what you See, The truth is Much more clearer that way! - By - Eric C. Lyon

It would be a pretty boring debate without belief, no? I'm sorry but I just had to believe something, so I could join in the debate.

[Atom]