An Inconvenient Truth

sourdough

surferdude wrote:

And there are plenty of relatively easy ways to adapt so that it's not a health issue.

When ozone layer weakened it's not like we started toppling over dieing of cancer. We adapted, started wearing more shirts, hats and sunscreen. We made lifestyle changes in response. This is how humans can best protect themselves from climate change.

The ozone was a bit easier to remedy though. Only a few pollutants that weren't that difficult to eliminate from daily life were the problem (mainly CFC's from aerosol cans). CO2, methane and other greenhouse gasses are much harder to find quick fixes for.

As for the health point of view, if you live in southern Chile, they live under the hole in the ozone and it is dangerous for them to walk out in the streets with ANY skin exposed for any amount of time.

I don't know how we are going to adapt to flooded coastal cities, new diseases and severe drought. All of these are going to be symptoms of a warmer climate. Even without a warming climate we are going to be running short of fresh water, but if our glaciers are gone, I can't help but think that we're going to have lots of problems. (Surferdude and I may not notice it as much being on the west coast of a rainforest but the vast majority of people will.)

surferdude

sourdough wrote:

I don't know how we are going to adapt to flooded coastal cities, new diseases and severe drought. All of these are going to be symptoms of a warmer climate. Even without a warming climate we are going to be running short of fresh water, but if our glaciers are gone, I can't help but think that we're going to have lots of problems. (Surferdude and I may not notice it as much being on the west coast of a rainforest but the vast majority of people will.)

People will move. New medicines will be invented. A drought in one place will most likely be offset by more rain in another. Potable water may be an issue but I've thought this has always been our most pressing environmental issue.

world

Because we only discovered the ozone hole in 1985 I think its hard to tell if its humans that caused that hole to open up. The hole might just go through a cycles. Even back in 2003 the ozone hole shrunk by 20 per cent.

sourdough

I think they demonstrated the effect of CFC's on ozone, and since its ban it has begun healing itself. Can you provide a source for it shrinking 20%? I've never heard of that before.

world

sourdough wrote:

I think they demonstrated the effect of CFC's on ozone, and since its ban it has begun healing itself. Can you provide a source for it shrinking 20%? I've never heard of that before.

I belive it is common knowledge that it started shrinking a few years back, check google or yahoo. Some scientists think it shrunk because of the ban and some scientists think it shrunk because of a cycle it goes through.

sourdough

world wrote:

I belive it is common knowledge that it started shrinking a few years back, check google or yahoo. Some scientists think it shrunk because of the ban and some scientists think it shrunk because of a cycle it goes through.

Sorry, I misunderstood your post. Yes, the hole is shrinking due to the ban on CFC's that I mentioned earlier, the hole has begun to heal itself and has therefore shrunk. This does not show that it goes through cycles, but that it is able to rebuild itself.

world

sourdough wrote:

Sorry, I misunderstood your post. Yes, the hole is shrinking due to the ban on CFC's that I mentioned earlier, the hole has begun to heal itself and has therefore shrunk. This does not show that it goes through cycles, but that it is able to rebuild itself.

Shrinking due to the ban on CFC may be completely true. But when the hole was only discoverd back in 1985 its hard to prove.

An example of that logic is if everyone in New Orleans stops driving cars and a hurricane never hits the city for the next 100 years. Is it safe to say that driving cars in New Orleans caused the hurricane to hit?