Posted by TibetanMonkey, Originator of t on April 4, 2010, 2:11 am
(I took the title from a cartoon at the link below)
Yep, that's the irony of it. We don't even have to sacrifice that much
just to play it safe. Just ride a bike or be vegetarian perhaps. Why
so much resistance to change?
I guess that's too threatening to the fat lazy couch potatoes... ;)
'Featured as part of the cover story of Scientific American magazine's
April issue, which hit newsstands on March 24, U of M professor Jon
Foley makes the case for why we need to pay more attention to all
environmental processes that contribute to the Earth's health. In his
article, "Boundaries for a Healthy Planet," he argues that while
climate change gets ample attention, species loss and nitrogen
pollution exceed safe limits by greater degrees. In addition, other
environmental processes such as ocean acidification and stratospheric
ozone depletion are also moving toward dangerous thresholds.'
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/04/is_earth_past_the_tipping_poin.php
------------------------------------------------
THE WISE TIBETAN MONKEY SAYS
"Being frugal and smart is GOOD FOR YOU and others"
http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
Posted by Rod Speed on April 4, 2010, 3:42 am
Just a complete yawn if we do what makes sense.
TibetanMonkey, Originator of the Banana Kung-Fu wrote:
> (I took the title from a cartoon at the link below)
> Yep, that's the irony of it. We don't even have to sacrifice that much
> just to play it safe. Just ride a bike or be vegetarian perhaps.
Makes a hell of a lot mores sense to use nukes to replace coal fired power
stations.
> Why so much resistance to change?
Because the terminally stupid things proposed will fuck the economy, stupid.
> I guess that's too threatening to the fat lazy couch potatoes... ;)
It wouldnt fix the problem.
> 'Featured as part of the cover story of Scientific American magazine's
> April issue, which hit newsstands on March 24, U of M professor Jon
> Foley makes the case for why we need to pay more attention to all
> environmental processes that contribute to the Earth's health.
Then he's a fool. The environment is doing fine.
> In his article, "Boundaries for a Healthy Planet," he argues that
> while climate change gets ample attention, species loss and
> nitrogen pollution exceed safe limits by greater degrees.
Complete and utter drivel.
> In addition, other environmental processes such as ocean acidification and
> stratospheric ozone depletion are also moving toward dangerous thresholds.'
More drivel.
>
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/04/is_earth_past_the_tipping_poin.php
Posted by Don Klipstein on April 5, 2010, 12:44 pm
TibetanMonkey, Originator of the Banana Kung-Fu wrote in part:
>>article, "Boundaries for a Healthy Planet," he argues that while
>climate change gets ample attention, species loss and nitrogen
>pollution exceed safe limits by greater degrees. In addition, other
>environmental processes such as ocean acidification and stratospheric
>ozone depletion are also moving toward dangerous thresholds.'
>http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/04/is_earth_past_the_tipping_
>poin.php
Stratospheric ozone depletion, as it turns out, is looking to me like a
disaster averted by nearly eliminating production of CFCs and nearly
eliminating release into the atmosphere of CFCs and halogenated
hydrocarbons in general.
Gas/Vapor 1998 Concentration 2009 Concentration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFC-12 269 ppt 242-244 ppt (down 9.3%)
CFC-11 533 ppt 536-538 ppt (up .75%)
CFC-113 84 ppt 76-77 ppt (down 8.9%)
carbon tetrachloride 102 ppt 88-89 ppt (down 13%)
Hydrochlorofluorocarbons are still increasing, with HCFC-22 being the
main one, but they are less damaging than the CFCs that they replaced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gases
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
One thing interesting about the second link: Total anthropogenic
radiative forcing (change in radiation balance assuming constant surface
temperature since before the Industrial Revolution), from listed
greenhouse gases, as of 2009 was 2.98 watts per square centimeter. CO2
was responsible for 1.66 of that in 2009 and 1.46 of that in 1998. The
four chlorine compounds that I mentioned above accounted for .269 W/m^2 in
2009 and .28 W/cm^2 in 1998.
The above 4 plus HCFC-22 accounted for .31 W/cm^2 in 1998 and .302
W/cm^2 in 2009.
For that mater, total anthropogenic ozone depleting gas EECI is down 10%
from its peak in 1994 and still declining:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ozone_cfc_trends.png
Not that radiative forcing is the mechanism for statospheric ozone
destruction, but stratospheric ozone presence has stabilized both where it
is most-monitored (in the Antarctic) and in a larger global measure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Min_ozone.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TOMS_Global_Ozone_65N-65S.png
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/ozone_maps/movies/OZONE_D1979-10%25P1Y_
G%5e360X240.LSH.mpg
(Animation of how the month of October fared from year to year, which I
selected because October is a bad month for Antarctic stratospheric ozone)
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/climatology_10.html
(If one needs a different version of the animation)
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
> Yep, that's the irony of it. We don't even have to sacrifice that much
> just to play it safe. Just ride a bike or be vegetarian perhaps.