Global warming, a necessity?

[Patchd]

Whoa, wait, stop there before you start shouting me down. I'm extremely bad at understanding sciences but I try, I've always been under the impression that global warming was bad, it's causing rising sea levels, which in turn is affecting a large number of the human population, and will affect many more. But recently a housemate of mine told me that we actually need global warming (speaking in large scale, in terms of the human race in all) to plug up the holes in the Ozone layer, and to constantly replenish it, to not do so would be to invite skin cancer to everyone on this planet.

Now, I'm really confused. Can someone explain everything and sort this mess out please? Do we need global warming?

[revolution inaction]

Whoa, wait, stop there before you start shouting me down. I'm extremely bad at understanding sciences but I try, I've always been under the impression that global warming was bad, it's causing rising sea levels, which in turn is affecting a large number of the human population, and will affect many more. But recently a housemate of mine told me that we actually need global warming (speaking in large scale, in terms of the human race in all) to plug up the holes in the Ozone layer, and to constantly replenish it, to not do so would be to invite skin cancer to everyone on this planet.

Now, I'm really confused. Can someone explain everything and sort this mess out please? Do we need global warming?

Your house mate's wrong, the ozone layer has nothing to do with global warming.
The insulation provided by green house gasses like carbon dioxide is beneficial, it helps maintain a more hospitable temperature than would otherwise be the case, so we do need green house gasses. The problem is that the amount of these has been increased by human activity, causing the globule temperature to increase, changing the climate.
Ozone is a molecule that forms in the upper atmosphere and absorbs uv light (http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/1z1.html).

[Luisrah]

Your house mate's wrong, the ozone layer has nothing to do with global warming.


I wouldn't be so sure.

The destruction of the ozone layer makes tropospheric ozone exist. Tropospheric ozone (ozone in the lowest layer of the atmosphere) contributes to surface warming.

What your friend could be saying is that, atleast to ''common'' people, the ozone layer and global warming are intimately related. If people take action in stopping global warming, they will also take action to stop the destruction of the ozone layer.
It's a benificial lie I suppose.

[revolution inaction]

I wouldn't be so sure.

The destruction of the ozone layer makes tropospheric ozone exist. Tropospheric ozone (ozone in the lowest layer of the atmosphere) contributes to surface warming.

I was talking about the idea that global warming creates ozone, which is what the op was about, i should have been clearer, but while ozone contributes to the greenhouse effect it is not caused by it, global warming does nothing to "plug up" holes in the ozone layer.




What your friend could be saying is that, atleast to ''common'' people, the ozone layer and global warming are intimately related. If people take action in stopping global warming, they will also take action to stop the destruction of the ozone layer.
It's a benificial lie I suppose.

this is a incredible bad idea, the science is not hard to understand if explained correctly.
equally importantly lieing to people to scare them into doing as they are told will, if successful leave them disempowered and unable to make decisions without someone to tell them what to do.
And even if this doesn't bother you, in this case the idea that global warming plugs up the ozone layer would lead to people opposing action against global warming.

[Quail]

I don't quite see how the most common greenhouse gases that are produced by man (I'm thinking of carbon dioxide and perhaps methane and water) produce ozone? Perhaps someone could explain that?

The ozone layer absorbs a certain range of waves in the EM spectrum that are harmful to us (ie. UV rays). From my vague memories of A level chemistry, I believe that it's something to do with the bonds in the O3 molecule. There are many other chemicals that can be produced to give us the same protection though, hence why sunscreen works.

I don't think I would say that this is a valid argument against trying to limit the damage of global warming though. Since we have sunscreen, I'd rather have to use sunscreen more often than deal with the problems that global warming could potentially create.

[revolution inaction]

I don't quite see how the most common greenhouse gases that are produced by man (I'm thinking of carbon dioxide and perhaps methane and water) produce ozone? Perhaps someone could explain that?

They don't



The ozone layer absorbs a certain range of waves in the EM spectrum that are harmful to us (ie. UV rays). From my vague memories of A level chemistry, I believe that it's something to do with the bonds in the O3 molecule. There are many other chemicals that can be produced to give us the same protection though, hence why sunscreen works.

Thats right, ozone is O3

[Luisrah]

I was talking about the idea that global warming creates ozone, which is what the op was about, i should have been clearer, but while ozone contributes to the greenhouse effect it is not caused by it, global warming does nothing to "plug up" holes in the ozone layer.




this is a incredible bad idea, the science is not hard to understand if explained correctly.
equally importantly lieing to people to scare them into doing as they are told will, if successful leave them disempowered and unable to make decisions without someone to tell them what to do.
And even if this doesn't bother you, in this case the idea that global warming plugs up the ozone layer would lead to people opposing action against global warming.

Oh sorry, it was me who misunderstood the OP.
It looks like his friend doesn't know what he/she's talking about.
The gases that make the greenhouse effect larger don't create a better ozone layer lol

[Patchd]

Ah, interesting, I think I was high when I asked this so I forgot about it, but thanks for the replies. If I could get a clarification, it is the general consensus in this thread that although global warming contributes to the greenhouse effect, this is undermined by the devastation that human propelled global warming can produce?

This leads me to further questions, as I've never really been interested in the environment until now. What exactly would increased global warming result in, in terms of the human population?

[Quail]

Ah, interesting, I think I was high when I asked this so I forgot about it, but thanks for the replies. If I could get a clarification, it is the general consensus in this thread that although global warming contributes to the greenhouse effect, this is undermined by the devastation that human propelled global warming can produce?
Could you just rephrase this question? I'm not entirely sure what you mean (although that could just be due to being very tired and slightly hung-over).


This leads me to further questions, as I've never really been interested in the environment until now. What exactly would increased global warming result in, in terms of the human population?
Increased amounts of greenhouse gases, which prevent the energy from the sun leaving our atmosphere, cause the planet to warm up. This is currently causing the polar ice caps to melt, which will cause sea levels to rise (which would give us less available land). The average temperature of the earth would also increase, and there could be more extreme weather (such as hurricanes, etc). Increased global warming could also cause a lot of people to die from droughts and starvation, especially in less developed countries.

[Luisrah]

Ah, interesting, I think I was high when I asked this so I forgot about it, but thanks for the replies. If I could get a clarification, it is the general consensus in this thread that although global warming contributes to the greenhouse effect, this is undermined by the devastation that human propelled global warming can produce?

This leads me to further questions, as I've never really been interested in the environment until now. What exactly would increased global warming result in, in terms of the human population?

More people diyng of course. There are people that die because of heat in summer. Old people and people with breathing problems for example.

Global warming helps desertification, and few people want to live in the desert. The Saara (sp?) desert will grow, and populations will start moving away from it, and away from the heat.

Plus, global warming may become a real menace to humanity when it extinguishes ''important'' species. An important species in an ecosystem may become extint, and the others that depended on it (for food for example) may die too, and remember that we, humans, are at the top of the food chain. Any disruption in the food chain will hurt us.

And it's not just animals, plants too. The species on the ''tip'' of the Earth will either adapt or die. Some penguins only mate when the temperature is as -62ºC for example.

There's a whole lot of things involved

[Patchd]

Could you just rephrase this question? I'm not entirely sure what you mean (although that could just be due to being very tired and slightly hung-over).
Just in the sense that whilst global warming's contribution to the ozone layer is a positive, it's negative effects would far outweigh the positives, in terms of destruction to human life caused by further global warming.


Global warming helps desertification, and few people want to live in the desert. The Saara (sp?) desert will grow, and populations will start moving away from it, and away from the heat.
How will the desert grow, and what species of animals or plants (that actually affect our lives, not talking about penguins however cute or funny they may be) may be threatened with extinction as a result? Sorry for my ignorance, I usually dislike science because it's too confusing for me :tt2:

[Luisrah]

How will the desert grow, and what species of animals or plants (that actually affect our lives, not talking about penguins however cute or funny they may be) may be threatened with extinction as a result? Sorry for my ignorance, I usually dislike science because it's too confusing for me :tt2:

I don't really know how desert grows, but I know that global warming helps it.

It isn't just penguins, all the polar regions species get in danger because of that. Plus, global warming makes the sea levels rise.

Nature, in it's ''natural'' form, is steadily balanced. But one little thing can trigger huge things. For example, in Portugal, farmers started killing rabbits because they ate their crops, the rabbit population got smaller, and since the lynx pardinus usually eats rabbits, it is now in danger of extinction.

See what I mean? Bigger deserts means less space with good conditions for life. As you may know, most species are threatened to be extint because of the lack of space for habitats, or it's destruction.

So, going back, and imagining that all the polar region species becom extint, you just have to count how many species feed on those now extint, and how many species competed with those now extint for food.

Some species won't migrate when their habitats become too hot. Some species won't be able to adapt to climate changes.

I don't know right now, but there's lots of examples. Fish species for example. Bees too are in a sort of danger.
You can probably look somewhere on the net for more info on the direct impact on our lives

[Patchd]

With all due respect, I don't care about animal species dying out if they don't affect me or other humans as a result. I understand that they can, bees being an example you provided, are bees becoming extinct as a result of global warming? Is there nothing to suggest that another species will take it's place, such as butterflies?

Although yes, point taken about desertification which will result in loss of life, farmland and livelihoods, as well as rising sea levels.

[h0m0revolutionary]

are bees becoming extinct as a result of global warming? Is there nothing to suggest that another species will take it's place, such as butterflies?

No, both are dying at an alarming rate.

David Attenborough makes the point better than I can when he says that without such insects [and subsequent pollination] "there would literally be nothing".

[Luisrah]

No, both are dying at an alarming rate.

David Attenborough makes the point better than I can when he says that without such insects [and subsequent pollination] "there would literally be nothing".

Exactly

Somewhere in the far-east Asia, people have to pollinize (sp?) flowers, because there are no more bees.
And bee community (lol I invented that name because I don't know the name) can pollinize thousands of flowers in a day, and a worker can only polinize a few hundred.

There. You got a big worry for humanity. If those insects don't pollinize flowers, lots of plants won't reproduce. Plants are at the base of food chains, and without them, most probably everything would die.
Well, except bacteria and bla bla...

[Quail]

With all due respect, I don't care about animal species dying out if they don't affect me or other humans as a result. I understand that they can, bees being an example you provided, are bees becoming extinct as a result of global warming? Is there nothing to suggest that another species will take it's place, such as butterflies?

It can be difficult to predict the impact of killing off a species of animals. Ecosystems are in a delicate balance and if we upset the balance it will affect every other organism in the ecosystem, including ourselves. The bees/insects that pollinate things dying is a good example.

Also, are there any links to articles or whatever that actually back up this ozone thing? Not understanding how it works makes me somewhat skeptical. Even if it is true though, the negative impacts of global warming would far outweigh an increased risk of skin cancer since we already have a solution to that.

[Luisrah]

Also, are there any links to articles or whatever that actually back up this ozone thing? Not understanding how it works makes me somewhat skeptical. Even if it is true though, the negative impacts of global warming would far outweigh an increased risk of skin cancer since we already have a solution to that.

I don't like sending links for people to read, I prefer explaining. If you don't know how the destruction of the ozone layer is happening, I can explain you if you want.

[Honggweilo]

lazer printers create ozone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_printer#Ozone_hazards

print more

[Patchd]

Also, are there any links to articles or whatever that actually back up this ozone thing? Not understanding how it works makes me somewhat skeptical. Even if it is true though, the negative impacts of global warming would far outweigh an increased risk of skin cancer since we already have a solution to that.
I have no links unfortunately, I got it from Skinz :tt2: Thanks for all the replies though, this has been quite useful. :D

[superiority]

Just in the sense that whilst global warming's contribution to the ozone layer is a positive

It's not. Ozone layer is created naturally, by sunlight striking the atmosphere. Human activities (old-timey refrigerators and aerosols) caused "holes" (lower concentrations of ozone) in the ozone layer. We stopped doing that, and it regenerates itself. There are still big holes over Australia/New Zealand/Antarctica, but it's getting better.


With all due respect, I don't care about animal species dying out if they don't affect me or other humans as a result.

It would be pretty difficult for you not to be affected by mass extinctions. Imagine the seas warm up a few degrees, 80% (number pulled out of my ass) of worldwide marine life dies, that's a major food source that's disappeared. Any birds that rely on fish will die out as well. Bugs that rely on those birds die. Plants that rely on those bugs die. A few more links in this chain and it's impossible to grow grains below the arctic circle because your crops are constantly overrun by locusts. &c. &c. Hypothetical example, but the general idea (mass extinctions lead to throwing global ecosystems out of whack, with disastrous consequences for humanity) is a very real possibility. This is why I'm an environmentalist. I live in the environment, of course I want to preserve it.

[Quail]

I don't like sending links for people to read, I prefer explaining. If you don't know how the destruction of the ozone layer is happening, I can explain you if you want.
Sorry, I think I understand the destruction (free radicals? The memory of A level chemistry is beginning to fade). The comment was actually aimed at Patchd, wondering if he could provide anything to explain how global warming replenishes the ozone layer.

[The Vegan Marxist]

System change not climate change!

[bajo.el.arco.del.sol]

i've never heard anyone make the argument that climate change is necessary for the reconstruction of the ozone layer, but i have heard the opposite argument - that the hole in the ozone layer was usefully mitigating the effects of climate change.

since the banning of cfcs, the hole in the ozone layer has been gradually repairing itself, and since ozone is a greenhouse gas and the ozone layer is a key component of the greenhouse effect, there is a strong probability that the warming we will experience from a combination of the restoration of the ozone layer and increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will be greater than that which we would experience with a big hole in the ozone layer.

i don't have enough posts to put a link, but here is an article that gives a useful explanation of it: guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/01/ozone-antarctica

note that contrary to what many of the very confused commenters on that article seem to think, this does not mean that we should be trying to make the hole in the ozone layer bigger!