Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
If you want to consider just environmental predictions, how about the Ice Age being triggered by sulfate emissions that the denialists like to go on about?.
|
According to the USGS Kīlauea emits 2,000 to 4,000 tons of SO2 (which absorbs water and mass) and becomes hydrogen sulfate.
So not really worried about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
Or we could consider that flurocarbons destroying the ozone layer thing. That's a nice example of a double-edged prediction: the environmental types were predicting a disaster from continuing use of flurocarbons, while the business-as-usual types were predicting economic disaster if they couldn't use them. Well, most flurocarbon use was banned, the ozone hole stopped growing (score one for environmentalists), and the economic disaster didn't happen.
|
My problems with the "hole in the ozone"
- No one has been able to prove more UVx reaches the ground with the hole in place.
- No one has been able to prove it effects human health.
- The base line measurements were taken from a serries of experements done in 1956.
- The largests ozone holes were observed after the decline of high stratospheric CFCs
- All the science is based on an observation sample size that is too small to make any valid conclusions (1956 + 1976 till now).
- The vast majority of CFCs were released in the northern part of the world but the big bad hole is in the south, hows that work?
- The Ozone layer ignores our predictions and does what ever it wants.