Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Ozone Thread (merged)

Re: +++Arctic ozon shield -40% +++

Unread postby dohboi » Fri 08 Apr 2011, 07:38:00

So let me get this straight, dor. Are you suggesting that chemistry may operate on fundamentally different principles above the Arctic than above the Antarctic?

And is there something wrong about researching topics before discussing them? Are we all supposed to know absolutely everything about every topic before we even get to this site? What kind of a site do you consider this to be?

You admitted that you were not an atmospheric chemist, so presumably you did some googling around before posting? Should you be embarrassed about that activity?

Your bile seems a bit...misdirected in this case.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: +++Arctic ozon shield -40% +++

Unread postby dorlomin » Fri 08 Apr 2011, 09:36:09

dohboi wrote:So let me get this straight, dor. Are you suggesting that chemistry may operate on fundamentally different principles above the Arctic than above the Antarctic?
Not unless it will make you feel better.

And is there something wrong about researching topics before discussing them?
. Researching would be a very very good idea. One day people might pick up the habit. 8)

so presumably you did some googling around before posting?
None other than the link it was from memory Im afraid.
User avatar
dorlomin
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 03:00:00

Re: +++Arctic ozon shield -40% +++

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Fri 08 Apr 2011, 09:59:18

dor is upset because I corrected her misconception. She was again trying to play 'expert', but didn't quite get it right.

As for atmospheric chemistry in the stratosphere with regards to methane, I am well versed from years of researching the topic of the ESAS methane.

I was already long aware of that article on the polar vortex enhancing methane transport to the stratosphere, as it was published in 2001.

Knowing to look for it comes from knowing it was there to find.

Obviously she was 'googling' trying to prove me wrong, and found I was right, so had to be satifsfied with attacking me personally again.

If you watch the EGU press conference you will find they were saying the same thing I just did. The extension of the existence of the polar vortex, cold stratospheric temperatures and polar stratospheric clouds into April has led to a longer period of ozone destruction. They also explain that the cooling of the stratosphere was the result of the polar night and greenhouse gas induced global warming in the Arctic.

The increase of polar stratospheric clouds(PSCs), is not only dependent on low stratospheric temperatures but also an abundance of water vapor in the stratosphere. The primary source of that water vapor being methane oxidation in the stratosphere.

Such a detailed understanding of the mechanisms of this, does not come from a few moments of googling. It takes understanding of the diverse elements and how they relate.

dor needs to set her ego aside. This isn't about her. It's about ensuring that the information being posted is accurate and as complete as possible.

This is about educating, not a pissing contest.
Last edited by Cid_Yama on Fri 08 Apr 2011, 10:40:36, edited 1 time in total.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: +++Arctic ozon shield -40% +++

Unread postby dorlomin » Fri 08 Apr 2011, 10:16:37

Such a detailed understanding of the mechanisms of this, does not come from a few moments of googling. It takes understanding of the diverse elements and how they relate.
I think I would pay money to keep watching you post. Busted for posting the first abstract your google search revealed, never even noticed it was about the Antarctic and now bluffing it out. You amuse me like meemoe does.

dor needs to set here ego aside. This isn't about her

I love the psuedo religious patronising tone, you can almost hear it in a David Koresh or Jim Jones type eco messiah type way, belittling the criticisms of Gods messenger.

Cid you are a phoney old prophet. If you were 'all that' youd have had guest posts on SkepticalScience or Climate Progress by now. Instead you hide out here where no one will call your bluff.

Assigning causality between the polar vortex and cold stratospheric temperatures is simplistic and incorrect.
Lovely stuff. So self important. Hope to see your flock jump in with some keyboard chewing as well.
User avatar
dorlomin
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 03:00:00

Re: +++Arctic ozon shield -40% +++

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Fri 08 Apr 2011, 10:27:26

The mechanisms of the polar vortex are the same at either pole. The only difference is that the one in Antarctica is more intense as it is over land.

Your post mearly demonstrates your own ignorance and vindictiveness.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: +++Arctic ozon shield -40% +++

Unread postby mos6507 » Fri 08 Apr 2011, 12:46:29

Does Cid come across a little extreme and leaping to premature conclusions? Yes. Does it mean the status of the environment is A OK? Hardly. We're kind of quibbling over whether our goose will be slow-roasted, toasted, or stir-fried.

I would like all of these research papers to filter their way down to the MSM before I let it really assimilates in my doom-o-meter. And don't tell me the MSM doesn't post about climate doom. They do it all the day. Just read Desdemona Despair to confirm that. So there's no real need to be on as much of a bleeding edge as Cid is, considering that these papers are written in such a techno-geek way that hardly anybody here is really qualified to interpret them.
mos6507
 

Re: +++Arctic ozon shield -40% +++

Unread postby Puchica » Fri 08 Apr 2011, 12:52:55

My problem about the MSM is that in the one subject I do know somewhat about (paleolithic & neolithic art and culture) university and research findings are so mangled and misinterpreted that sometimes the MSM headline is the opposite of the conclusion of the research. If that carries over to climate research, MSM isn't very reliable, I'm afraid
From the secure heights
Puchica
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed 02 Feb 2011, 08:35:51

Re: +++Arctic ozon shield -40% +++

Unread postby scas » Fri 08 Apr 2011, 13:05:54

Apparently there are 22 000 methane craters in the Arctic, the largest one 750 km squared. Abrupt release has been going on for years now, and the reports on tundra and lake-bed methane have been near constant. At some point, enough methane must be released to have a significant effect on the climate. That time is now, apparently.

As for the methane bomb, it has been known for decades. David Archer was writing about it back in 1992. John Nissen too has been saying 2011 will be the year that methane really kicks up. Governments just prefer to wait for catastrophe before responding; at that point, homo Sapiens have been naturally selected against and what might emerge might be a form of ultra-tough tribal cannibal. Like the New Guineans. Maybe Cid is wrong that everyone will be dead in a decade - it won't make a difference if the average temperature is 15 degrees C anomoly by 2050 or 2100. And that is ignoring any serious methane ignitions and world ozone depletion.
scas
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Tue 02 Nov 2010, 06:39:52

Re: +++Arctic ozon shield -40% +++

Unread postby kiwichick » Fri 08 Apr 2011, 22:25:11

as we have seen from recent events in MENA linear trends can rapidly and abruptly become nonlinear

are we approaching the point of nonlinear climate change?
even as peak oil kicks in , along with possible demand destruction, the emphasis seems to be to swap to gas and to ramp up unconventional oil or coal

total emissions keep growing along with the constant population growth

population stabilisation seems to be almost more taboo than peak growth/resources
User avatar
kiwichick
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2267
Joined: Sat 02 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Southland New Zealand

Re: +++Arctic ozon shield -40% +++

Unread postby mos6507 » Sun 10 Apr 2011, 09:27:21

Puchica wrote:My problem about the MSM is that in the one subject I do know somewhat about (paleolithic & neolithic art and culture) university and research findings are so mangled and misinterpreted that sometimes the MSM headline is the opposite of the conclusion of the research. If that carries over to climate research, MSM isn't very reliable, I'm afraid


MSM to me includes scientific periodicals like National Geographic and Scientific American that don't have to talk down to its readers. That's what I'm expecting to see next.
mos6507
 

Re: +++Arctic ozon shield -40% +++

Unread postby dorlomin » Mon 11 Apr 2011, 04:49:24

mos6507 wrote:Does Cid come across a little extreme and leaping to premature conclusions?
Cid turned up here tripping out on an anti American hate fest on the Geopolitics forum. Then he discovered Global Warming and now its his little means of punishing the US for not adopting the politics he likes. He doesnt leap to conslusions, he already has his conclusions and makes the 'facts' fit them. Mankind is to die because they are not liberal enough for our little munchkin.

mos6507 wrote:Yes. Does it mean the status of the environment is A OK? Hardly. We're kind of quibbling over whether our goose will be slow-roasted, toasted, or stir-fried.
The current level of methane in the atmosphere is below that used for the climate sensitivity calculations in IPCC TAR in 2001. The Arctic is still believed to be about 1.5C cooler than it was only 120 000 years ago. It takes staggering amounts of energy to heat up water, and there is a lot of water up in the Arctic.
It maybe that we are already 'doomed', who knows. But these cheese eating surrender monkies are about as usefull as a chocolate teapot.
User avatar
dorlomin
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 03:00:00

Re: +++Arctic ozon shield -40% +++

Unread postby dorlomin » Mon 11 Apr 2011, 04:56:26

Too many people round here are basically yellow cowards. No spine, no hope, no balls. Even if we were doomed, we will go down fighting and trying to save what we can.

Gutless jessies like Cid and the keyboard chewers are as bad as the deniers.
User avatar
dorlomin
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 03:00:00

Re: +++Arctic ozon shield -40% +++

Unread postby mos6507 » Mon 11 Apr 2011, 07:55:01

dorlomin wrote:He doesnt leap to conslusions, he already has his conclusions and makes the 'facts' fit them.


Which makes him the same as just about everybody else on this forum.
mos6507
 

Re: +++Arctic ozon shield -40% +++

Unread postby sjn » Mon 11 Apr 2011, 09:22:52

mos6507 wrote:
dorlomin wrote:He doesnt leap to conslusions, he already has his conclusions and makes the 'facts' fit them.


Which makes him the same as just about everybody else on this forum.

Generally, people form an intuitive conclusion or belief on a given subject based upon their aquired knowledge and biases (or filters) whether through social conditioning, or more often than we would like to admit through our own genetic preponderance and sensitivity. We all exhibit behaviours that fall into particular strageties which have been selected for though survival our ancestors at some time in the past, of course this doesn't mean success in the present or future is assured, our sensitivy to different information and our abilty to filter out what we consider important is an major factor in survival and reproductive sucess. This includes scientists as much as anybody, although a good scientist will be conscious of the pitfalls and aware of their failings thus compensate, even so they're still driven to prove the validity of their beliefs.

This certainly doesn't mean intuition is wrong or unhelpful, few would dig into difficult subjects if alarm bells were ringing in their minds, we here shoud all be testament to that! We can be wrong, but through the process of discovery and by maintaining awareness ideas themselves are not facts we may build a body of evidence around an an idea while alowing our beliefs to be proven false.
User avatar
sjn
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: Wed 09 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK

Re: +++Arctic ozon shield -40% +++

Unread postby sjn » Mon 11 Apr 2011, 09:37:13

dorlomin wrote:Too many people round here are basically yellow cowards. No spine, no hope, no balls. Even if we were doomed, we will go down fighting and trying to save what we can.

Gutless jessies like Cid and the keyboard chewers are as bad as the deniers.

Dor, please cut out the ad homs. or I'll have to do it for you.
User avatar
sjn
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: Wed 09 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK

Re: Arctic ozone shield -40%

Unread postby Shar_Lamagne » Mon 11 Apr 2011, 11:41:42

Dor, What you hate is that Cid was right and you were proven wrong, again.

You also hate that he is certain that it's all over within a decade for us.

You feel that interferes with you attempts to stir others to action. Do you have kids? That's what mos hates about Cid, he doesn't leave any hope for the kids.

We all have our own reasons for wanting things to be other than they are. But I've looked at the papers he has linked to, I've listened to his arguments, and tried to find a hole. But I can't.

My best assessment of the situation, based on the evidence presented, is that Cid is right.

And Cid is not the only one with this assessment. Lovelock and Peter Ward are of the same mind. And Semiletov.

To dismiss it as extremism is just you doing what you want to do, dismiss it, for whatever reason. Not based on facts, but on emotion.

Then there's your dripping vitriol. You hate him because you can't out debate him. He's got the facts on his side, you present none. Just personal attacks.

Your Tantrum style of posting just embarrasses yourself and lowers others estimation of you.
We are not so much as disillusioned but illusion free – Miranda Devine - journalist
User avatar
Shar_Lamagne
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 572
Joined: Sat 14 Feb 2009, 01:57:14
Location: Perth

Re: Arctic ozone shield -40%

Unread postby mos6507 » Mon 11 Apr 2011, 12:54:47

The whole attack the messenger thing is very easy to do. I've done plenty of that, and all I can say in my defense is that beyond a certain point I feel the debate invariably shifts towards the ideological/philosophical/psychological.

What I mean by that is, let's say Cid IS right. We won't necessarily know it until we start to live it. So until then, how do we deal with that, and whatever sliver of uncertainty remains? As we begin to ride through this, how should we cope?

You begin to have to pivot from preventative medicine in the case of political action and preps and things, over to setting your affairs in order, palliative care, and bucket lists.

That's a really big transition to make. We may all still in the bargaining phase whether they will admit it or not. It's "if I do this or that prep, I will 'win'." It's "I know better than YOU do. MY area (city, country, region) is gonna make it and you're in a death trap, heheheh!" They haven't spent a lot of time thinking about scenarios that are so bad that their survival odds, even with the best location and preps, drops to near zero.

So what people like Lovelock and Cid do is challenge the dogma of the game-theory of peak oil prep and mitigation.

Since most of us are so emotionally invested in the hope that _some_ action at some level, even if it's nothing but building a lifeboat doomstead, will pay off, we just don't like people coming around to tell us no, a few brutish neo-cavemen be chewing on femurs in the arctic circle.

It takes away just about the only residual hope that doomers have.

So that's OUR bias.

Now, does having a bias mean your prediction has to be wrong? Not necessarily. If you want something to happen, or you fear something will happen, it might just work out the way you hope or fear after all. Sure, Iran Cable cut and nonsense like that is easy to brush off, but Cid is citing lots of technical papers, not Alex Jones. So he's got some credibility there. I just can't understand those damn things enough to know what they are really saying or whether it's the final word.

So where is the truth as far as what we can do to help on the downslope and where things are gong to settle? We know it won't be good, but I don't know and I'd rather not "call" it considering how different my life would have to be if it were to fall on one end of the extreme or another.

There's a certain amount of selfishness in our natures. We don't necessarily have to kick back and eat drink and be merry, but still, our mortality pretty much demands that we tend to our own checklist of personal experiences and accomplishments we want to make in life and doomsday only pushes that stuff into center stage. That's why of late I've been kind of challenging the common wisdom that unrelenting preps from here to the end are the only way to go. There's more to life than engineering personal survival at all costs, and if it turns out all that work will be for naught anyway, maybe spend some more time smelling the roses while you still can.

Remember that not that far back in history, before germ theory, people had pretty crappy life expectancies (and please, no more links to anthropik). Some disease or another was gonna do you in. It was pretty dreary. It's only now that we have had the luxury to kind of keep mortality in the cobwebs of our mental attics until age starts to catch up with us. So getting reintroduced to death is something we're just going to have to go through. But the idea that a select few of us can be in the right place at the right time and not have to trouble ourselves with any of this is, well, it seems far-fetched. Only now while we're still in the calm before the storm can you rationalize that. But I think a lot of people are going to have a rude awakening and won't really be able to psychologically cope with the idea that they aren't home-free for the apocalypse after all.

So entertaining the Lovelock/Cormac McCarthy scenarios is not such a bad mental exercise because it may very well be what we or our kids have to face.
mos6507
 

Re: Arctic ozone shield -40%

Unread postby dorlomin » Mon 11 Apr 2011, 15:00:32

Shar_Lamagne wrote:Dor, What you hate is that Cid was right and you were proven wrong, again.
lol. wrong matey but he ho...... 8)

Shar_Lamagne wrote:To dismiss it as extremism is just you doing what
Again the religious babble. You cant even understand my critiques so its religious babble about certainties.


Shar_Lamagne wrote:You hate him because you can't out debate him. He's got the facts on his side, you present none.

Again with the religious certainty. Check out my first post on the thread. It was fundamentally correct. Your profit was to busy tripping on his ego acknowledge that.



Shar_Lamagne wrote:Your Tantrum style of posting just embarrasses yourself and lowers others estimation of you.

Your projecting here. Tut tut. Do you not realise I am smiling and laughing while I post, this is enjoyable knocking the wind out of a windbag. 8)

:mrgreen:
User avatar
dorlomin
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 03:00:00

Re: Arctic ozone shield -40%

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Mon 11 Apr 2011, 18:02:14

No, Dor, you were not correct. Correct answer was the exceptionally cold stratosphere was caused by the polar night, and the effects of greenhouse gas warming in the Arctic.

The polar vortex forms throughout the polar night and eventually can isolate the air mass within the vortex from warming external air currents, enhancing the cooling within the vortex.

Had that been what you said, it would not have needed correcting.

The rest of your banter just puts you with the likes of meemoe. Just trollish nonsense. Want to post like an idiot? Be my guest. There are a lot of trolls on here much better at it than you.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7169
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: Arctic ozone shield -40%

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 12 Apr 2011, 09:22:11

I was looking around for something on the age of the ozone layer and found this:

http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonelayer.htm

It mentions that the ozone layer has been around for about 600 million years. Does anyone know what the evidence is for this. Is there some hint in evolution or in the rocks? Would we know if there had been holes like this anytime during that period.

It's one thing to melt ice caps that have been in existence for millions of years. Wiping out a protective layer of the upper atmosphere that has been there for nearly a billion years would really be an...accomplishment! :cry:
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 79 guests