I like nature- I am a dirty, crunchy, organic-eating, bike-riding hippie.

[Scott Robertson]

To get back on topic, I want to explore the fact that backpacking can help us to refute the old adage the "nothing is ever free".

I don't like to believe this statement because it sets in stone each thing's worth. If you think about it- the worth of anything is so temporary and subjective that to label something with worth would be a bad idea. To me, the electric guitar is worth very little but a cello is worth very much. Tomatoes could go rot in a hole for all I care, but I might cry if I don't have zucchini at least three meals a week.

Backpacking equipment IS monetarily expensive. No denying that. However- how could you, being a backpacker, say that it cost you anything? The value of one camping trip trumps any amount of dollars I have spent on camping equipment and gasoline to get to the trailhead. To me, backpacking is more than free because I can only gain from my experiences. Freedom exists only in liberation and I cannot find anything more liberating than pitching my tent on the beach and imagining the ancients looking to the sky and seeing exactly what I see.

To explore this, talk about what makes your life as a backpacker "free".

[Lorraine Pace]

A basic law of economics, there are always costs involved.

There were some really excellent points in this discussion, especially in Mark's rant. I'm also chuckling at Erin's observation that experts have found we, the people, have been found to be responsible for global warming (or is it the new Ice Age?).

This is because it immediately brought to mind how we, the people, were held responsible for the ozone hole – we are all going to die! – by those same scientists until very recently.

We, the people, don't hear too much about it as the ozone hole healed, and the grant dollars went away when eventually someone had the integrity to report that the ozone was most affected by solar activity and we, the people, were but blips. Who wants to kill a grant cash cow? Same thing with avian flu.

That said, listening to scientists is a whole lot better than listening to environmentalists.

Michael Crichton as a writer – thought that point was very clearly made but apparently needed to be reiterated – cited journals like Science and Nature, published by – errrm – scientists. What makes him notable is as a voice of dissent who gives another side of what is usually a very one-dimensional media/environmentalist picture which is usually something about us destroying the planet and dying. *Yawn*

I didn't know Bush had taken other voices into account, and have just given your prez extra credit. Here I was thinking he simply had the economic good sense to see Kyoto exactly for what it was.

Mark's assessment that we simply do not know or understand the complex system of earth is the core truth. Everything else is speculative, based on tiny parts of a huge picture. Ice shelves break off here, but thicken over there. Hmm.

By the way Scott, marketers are tearing their hair out as advertisements work less than ever before in a highly fragmented market that increasingly demands personalized information and service. Your readers are probably ignoring your environmental articles just as much as they are ignoring those advertisements, while half the forum ignores this thread.

And just touching on politics briefly, the US may have put the deceased Saddam into power but I doubt Americans expected him to slaughter his own people in the future. Or did you? But if your point is Americans care most when they find themselves in danger, I agree. Rwanda comes to mind. But then, self-preservation is an instinct that applies to everyone, not just people in this country. Not a whole lot of nations went to Rwanda – no danger – and that includes we Africans who lived just down the road.

[John S.]

The next thing you know those ozone scientists are going to try and tell me that humans evolved from apes..what a laugh!

[Ernie Elkins]

Despite Scott's valiant efforts to get this discussion back on topic, I'm going to go on another tangent — I feel that it's necessary given Lorraine's misinformation about ozone depletion, Michael Crichton's crackpot theories, etc.

1. The threat of ozone depletion has abated because scientists saw the problem and governments and corporations took action. It's a good example of how we CAN avoid potential catastrophe when we put our best foot forward. I'm far from an expert on the field, but I do know that, as Lorraine says, solar actitivity plays a role in ozone levels. The scientific consensus, however, is that solar activity's role is relatively minor in the overall scheme of things, especially in the middle and lower stratosphere where ozone is most concentrated. Large-scale ozone depletion, as we've seen over Antarctica in the last 15 years, is widely agreed among scientists to be caused by human-made CFC's. Climatic conditions in the spring over Antarctica (specifically polar stratospheric clouds) enhance the reaction between UV light and CFC's and so make the problem most severe in that region of the atmosphere.

2. Are Michael Crichton's claims about the science of global warming accurate? Not according to the scientists who actually do the research and understand the data. Take a look at this article from the Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes/

[Ernie Elkins]

Oh, and by the way, the ozone layer has NOT "healed." Ozone levels over Antarctica aren't expected to return to 1980 levels for another 50+ years. And the "one-dimensional media/environmentalist picture" is absurd. If anything, the media has done the public a grave disservice by NOT accurately reporting the risks of climate change. After all, their advertisers have a vested interest in business as usual. Here's an exerpt from an article published two years ago on the fair.org website:

"In our study called "Balance as Bias: Global Warming and the U.S. Prestige Press"—presented at the 2002 Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change in Berlin and published in the July 2004 issue of the journal Global Environmental Change —we analyzed articles about human contributions to global warming that appeared between 1988 and 2002 in the U.S. prestige press: the New York Times , Washington Post , Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal .

Using the search term "global warming," we collected articles from this time period and focused on what is considered "hard news," excluding editorials, opinion columns, letters to the editor and book reviews. Approximately 41 percent of articles came from the New York Times , 29 percent from the Washington Post , 25 percent from the Los Angeles Times , and 5 percent from the Wall Street Journal .

From a total of 3,543 articles, we examined a random sample of 636 articles. Our results showed that the majority of these stories were, in fact, structured on the journalistic norm of balanced reporting, giving the impression that the scientific community was embroiled in a rip-roaring debate on whether or not humans were contributing to global warming.

More specifically, we discovered that:

53 percent of the articles gave roughly equal attention to the views that humans contribute to global warming and that climate change is exclusively the result of natural fluctuations.

35 percent emphasized the role of humans while presenting both sides of the debate, which more accurately reflects scientific thinking about global warming.

6 percent emphasized doubts about the claim that human-caused global warming exists, while another 6 percent only included the predominant scientific view that humans are contributing to Earth's temperature increases.

Through statistical analyses, we found that coverage significantly diverged from the IPCC consensus on human contributions to global warming from 1990 through 2002. In other words, through adherence to the norm of balance, the U.S. press systematically proliferated an informational bias."

Here's the address for anyone who would care to read the article in its entirety:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978

[W I S N E R !]

Noooo!!!! Michael Crichton again!!! I was really, REALLY hoping we were done with him.
It's like calling George Clooney in as an "expert witness" on a medical malpractice suit because he once played a doctor.
It's also intellectual fraud.
Well stated responses Erin and Ernie!

[Jay Draiman]

MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R2

In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America’s Utilization of Energy sources must change.
"Energy drives our entire economy." We must protect it. "Let's face it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy."
Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.

The federal, state and local government should implement a mandatory renewable energy installation program for residential and commercial property on new construction and remodeling projects with the use of energy efficient material, mechanical systems, appliances, lighting, etc. The source of energy must by renewable energy such as Solar-Photovoltaic, Geothermal, Wind, Biofuels, etc. including utilizing water from lakes, rivers and oceans to circulate in cooling towers to produce air conditioning and the utilization of proper landscaping to reduce energy consumption.

The implementation could be done on a gradual scale over the next 10 years. At the end of the 10 year period all construction and energy use in the structures throughout the United States must be 100% powered by renewable energy.

In addition, the governments must impose laws, rules and regulations whereby the utility companies must comply with a fair “NET METERING” (the buying of excess generation from the consumer), including the promotion of research and production of “renewable energy technology” with various long term incentives and grants. The various foundations in existence should be used to contribute to this cause.

A mandatory time table should also be established for the automobile industry to gradually produce an automobile powered by renewable energy. The American automobile industry is surely capable of accomplishing this task.

This is a way to expedite our energy independence and economic growth. It will take maximum effort and a relentless pursuit of the private, commercial and industrial government sectors commitment to renewable energy – energy generation (wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, geothermal, energy storage (fuel cells, advance batteries), energy infrastructure (management, transmission) and energy efficiency (lighting, sensors, automation, conservation) in order to achieve our energy independence.

Jay Draiman
Northridge, CA. 91325
12-30-2006

P.S. I have a very deep belief in America's capabilities. Within the next 10 years we can accomplish our energy independence, if we as a nation truly set our goals to accomplish this.
I happen to believe that we can do it. In another crisis–the one in 1942–President Franklin D. Roosevelt said this country would build 60,000 [50,000] military aircraft. By 1943, production in that program had reached 125,000 aircraft annually. They did it then. We can do it now.
The American people resilience and determination to retain the way of life is unconquerable and we as a nation will succeed in this endeavor of Energy Independence.

[Lorraine Pace]

Just a cursory glance at fair.org, with it's focus on WalMart and Hugo Chavez – who is being painted as a dictator – tells the story. Not to mention lines like the media licking the hands that feed them.

So the bottom line IS we are destroying the earth, and we are all going to die! (But the good news is that we can save ourselves, too).

LOL!

[Ernie Elkins]

Hmmm…that response doesn't surprise me. After all, why bother with facts of your own when you can create a nice diversion by attacking the credibility of the messenger. In fact, you didn't even do that fairly — you just dismissed fair.org because they write about Wal-Mart and Hugo Chavez. You didn't provide any evidence whatsoever that the study in question was flawed or incorrect, nor did you offer alternative studies that prove your own point.

As to your comment about "destroying the earth," once again your conduct is (not surprisingly) quite juvenile. Are we destroying the earth? I doubt it — life on earth will most likely survive anything we do to it. Are we in danger of changing the earth's climate in ways that will make life extremely difficult for future generations? The scientific consensus is that this is real possibility. That's it in a nutshell.

So, if you'd like to continue this discussion, please start by providing some well-documented alternative evidence that, unlike speeches from Michael Crichton, hasn't been thoroughly debunked.

[mark henley]

No …. we just have to eat the cheeseburgers faster!

[mark henley]

Some great points made by all.

Is global warming actually happening?

Can man actually have an impact on global warming or is man's influence simply a drop in the bucket compared to other factors such as natural climate shifts over time, volcanic activity, ect.

I don't pretend to know the answers. In fact … I don't believe that anyone KNOWS at this point. I'm an engineer by training .. sort of a "aplications science major" so to speak, or someone who utilizes science to make things work. As such, my question would be this … what is a Theory but a SWAG backed up by emperical evidence?

5000 years ago Man believed that Stars in the sky were nothing more than lights in the sky. People were running around yelling that the world was going to end because the Gods were punishing everyone because man was bad.

500 years ago everyone was convinced that the world was flat and was the center of the universe. The world was going to end because Man was bad and were living bad lives.

50 years ago, it was believed that smoking wasn't bad for you and that the world was going to end because man was stupid and was going to push the button, ie, the world was going to end because of what man was doing.

Today … Meat bad, Carbs bad, Fat bad, Sex bad, drinking bad, and guess what, man is still bad and the world is going to end because of something that man is doing.

The point is that I keep hearing that the world as we know it will end because I drive my car to work every morning, like to read by electric light instead of moonlight, and have a cheeseburger every once and a while. I don't doubt that there is a real issue in there somewhere, but frankly I'm sick and tired of some talking head on TV telling me Oh S**T, were all gonna die if we don't drink the right kind of soda or have the correct cell phone provider.

So … I will conceed the point that there are people in this world who are both smarter and better educated than I.

I will also conceed the point that Man, in his arrogance, hasn't taken very good stewardship over this wonderful world that we live in.

I will also give on the point that man is a big self destructive by nature.

But … you must give in on the point that what the public is suffering from is simple Information Overload!

To that end …. a few definitions:

Money …. a method of transfering units of work or effort.

Economics … the study of how individuals, groups, and populations expend their work's value.

Politics …. the science of how people interact in groups and populations.

Everything is Economics or Politics when your talking groups or populations of people. Additionally , each fuels the other … economics fuels politics because of taxes, dues, or other funds collected for the common good of the group. Politics fuels economics because everyone has a vested interest in how common funds are expended.

The media is a poor messenger for science.

Many scientists have difficulty working within economics and politics, and therefore rely on the media to influence the public at large to place political pressure on governments so that the government will expend economic resources on the issues they present.

Perhaps our educational system should include more training in econ and poli sci in masters and doctorate programs irregardless of specialty, including a mandatory media/public relations course?

[Lorraine Pace]

Erin, I am not a scientist, and you want ME to produce evidence? The world truly is doomed.

You totally disregard the point that we simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND what is happening with the planet, provide fair.org as a citation, and then skitter into the personal. Sounds like I stepped on your toes. Ouch.

Don't you think biased messengers bring bias, or do they suddenly switch into neutral? Who funds fair.org anyway? Poor debunked Michael Crichton, you may remember, cited Science and Nature (journals written by scientists). Not fair.org. That is probably where he made his great mistake.

BTW, in the paper today, the link talks about using fossil fuels and the extinction of species (we destroying the earth and are all going to die!). What was that about alarmist predicitions, anyway?

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2116873.ece

Dr Hansen said: "We just cannot burn all the fossil fuels in the ground. If we do, we will end up with a different planet.

"I mean a planet with no ice in the Arctic, and a planet where warming is so large that it's going to have a large effect in terms of sea level rises and the extinction of species."

The good news, however (we can still save ourselves), is …

"The warning, from Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, was one of four sobering predictions from senior scientists and forecasters that 2007 will be a crucial year for determining the response to global warming and its effect on humanity."

Turn off your power now. It's not too late. It's 2007.

The only thing I would add to your post, Mark, is that humans in their arrogance really think they are more powerful than the planet on which they live.

[Shawn Basil]

You know, when I taught for NOLS I always felt good about helping young adults see true wilderness so they would appreciate its value and work to defend it when they heard about opening up that area for drilling. Almost none of my students were hippies – a NOLS course costs way too much. But most all of them left with an appreciation of what the natural world has to offer. I never needed to lecture or cajole. The process was natural.

I think that sums up the whole essence of backpacking.

I backpack to get away from people telling me how to live my life. And let the backcountry remind me of what it means to simply live.

[Aaron Sorensen]

As I am reading these threads it becomes obvious that there are a few different generations of age groups that tend to agree – disagree with each other.
As all the nano gear comes out better and lighter, the impact on buying each new gadget seems to lesson as the age groups get younger.

There seems to be a point in time among Americans aged in there mid 20's and younger that they or many of there friends were raised by the Internet and/or Play station.

As the younger are more irregardless to the impact needing all this gadgetry has, you must realize that wanting something doesn’t make it there’s. This gear was bought by most of those older generation adults, but they would rather submit than hear there kid crying/nagging about it all the time.

Every generation has to out due the other. I believe the coming generation will fell it is necessary to have a cell phone and computer by the time they can talk and know how to ask for one.

It’s hard to take a stand on these issues, but impossible to dismiss them. The good ol US of A in a whole will never take a step back to help the world.

If you want to take a stand, we have to start with convincing the next generation to do with out.

[Ernie Elkins]

Lorraine:

I'm not asking you to go out and conduct scientific studies on global warming; I'm merely requesting that you support your claims with documented evidence. Instead, your approach seems to be to brush off any evidence that I cite by saying "we're all going to die. LOL!" or to claim that my sources are "biased."

As for the story that you did reference, I'm not sure that it proves what you think it does. Does it prove that the writer at the Independent accurately represented the facts as leading scientists see them? Yes it does. As the study I cited makes clear, roughly a third of the newspaper articles they looked at DID accurately report the reality as scientists see it. Does it prove that scientists are being alarmist? No it doesn't. For them to be alarmists, they would need to be exaggerating the dangers — I'm inclined to agree with the consensus of scientists who say that they are not. Since you don't agree, I invite you (once again) to provide some evidence to support your position.

As for Michael Crichton's citations from scientific journals, the Boston Globe article that I referenced makes it pretty clear that those citations were in fact distortions. So, unless you have evidence otherwise, let's please remove Mr. Crichton the discussion.

Finally, I'm not disregarding the point that we don't fully understand what's happening with the planet. Of course we don't. I'm not claiming that we do. But I am claiming that a consensus of scientists who understand these issues better than you or I feel strongly that the evidence points to a likely shift in global climate if we continue business as usual, and that this shift could dramatically alter the world as we know it in the relatively near future.

Ernie

BTW — you never responded to my rebuttal to your claim that the ozone hole was caused by solar activity. Are you conceding the point, or do you have contrary evidence that you simply haven't shared?

[Ernie Elkins]

You bring up an interesting issue, Aaron. My wife and I are both in our mid-30's, and we discuss the issue of generational differences on a regular basis. I'm not old enough to say "those kids these days…" with any authority, but I am worried about the "I deserve it" mentality that you mention. We seem to require more and more stuff to be satisfied. As I mentioned earlier (before this thread ended up in left field), one of the things that I love about UL backpacking is the simplicity that it can encourage. When we think carefully about what we're carrying and why we're carrying it, we become more aware of what we really do need and what we can do without. I'm working hard to apply that principle to my life as a whole. Anytime I bring up this subject, I'm reminded of a passage from Peter Matthiessen's The Snow Leopard about the satisfaction that came with knowing that all of his earthly possessions were on his back. I still have a house full of possessions, but at least I'm not adding new possessions at the same pace as I used to (although I am guilty of adding quite a few new pieces of lightweight backpacking gear over the last few years).

[Scott Robertson]

I think the concept of generational differences, while interesting, are unfair and over-simplifying. To say a certain generation is one particular way is a stereotype- a gross generalization, if you will.

A lot of the kids in my generation (generally raised in the 1990s) have a "give me now" attitude- but not all of them. I know that I certainly do not.

I personally believe that the sense of needing everything instantly has a lot to do with our environment (no trees and rivers, I'm talking society) and the way we were raised. Advertisers and corporations cater to our need to have things fast. Fast food, cable internet, charge credit cards, 0% APR, "Don't pay a dime until 2009!", faster cars, caffeine, and etc. are all examples of this need.

I haven't left the house yet but I already know firsthand how credit cards can quickly ruin your life. Credit cards caused my parents to get divorced and declare bankruptcy. I may have cried when the repo man dragged off my beloved piano, but my parents had it worse.

As for those in my generation who do demand everything now, they are only 99% to blame. Their parents constitute that other 1%. Why? Because the parents don't have the ability to say NO, YOU CANNOT HAVE THIS NOW, YOU DO NOT DESERVE IT. I believe that if their parents put their feet down and refused to budge, their attitudes would change.

But what parent wants to parent anymore? Why deal with your child's behavioral problem when you can just pump them with a few Adderall every morning. Why teach your child to cope with and solve his/her problems when you can get them some antidepressants and pretend everything is okay?

I think that my generations lack of respect for older generations has a lot to do with the education system. Our education system has moved from being vocational and purposeful to being all about numbers and statistics. Everything now revolves around Math, English, and Science. My generation can find the rate at which the two trains collide, tell you what the word "nihilism" means, explain the development of a human child but I'll be surprised if any of us know how to do taxes properly, fix a carburetor, or what true love is. The education system places emphasis on certain things and measures worth based solely off of those topics and thus my generation looks at older generations and thinks "what a bunch of idiots!"

There are those in my generation who understand a lot more than we're given credit for. At a lot of those people, myself included, are frustrated by the stereotype that is forced upon us. We don't really want to grow up (I don't think anyone really does), but we're already years and years ahead of most of our peers. I thank my parents for that, however. Although they are poor at handling money, they taught me to appreciate everyone because each person plays a vital role in reality.

How boring would it be if we were all the same always?

[Erin McKittrick]

As a crusty 27 year-old who doesn't even own a cell phone, I'm not young enough to be an expert (though I do have a 13 year-old brother), but I don't see the fact that kids like high tech toys as a sign that they are going to do worse for the environment than the rest of us.

Wanting an array of high tech electronic toys (cell phone, iPod, gaming system, etc..) does not seem particularly different than wanting an array of high tech backpacking toys (that new 4oz thing with the super high tech fabric, etc…).

Which is better? The young person with all the tech gadgets, living in a condo in a walkable urban neighborhood? Or the older person in a huge rustic house in the suburbs, with a couple of old gas-guzzling cars, and none of the gadgets?

The important thing is environmental conciousness. That will impact both policy decisions and consumption decisions. It might be better if people didn't want stuff. But there aren't enough of them, young or old, to pin my hopes on. I'd settle for people thinking carefully about their stuff, where it comes from, and how we can make it in a better way.

-Erin
http://www.groundtruthtrekking.org/WildCoast.html

[Ernie Elkins]

Generalizations can help us with the bigger picture, but you're absolutely right, Scott, in saying that they're often unfair and over-simplified. We definitely need to understand cultural trends so we can form a clear road map of where the future might be taking us, but we certainly can't lose sight of the fact that we can't sort people as if they were playing cards (a spade is a spade…).

Also, Erin, your point about environmental consciousness is well put. It might not be realistic to expect people to want less, but you're absolutely right that maybe we can make some progress toward getting people to think more about what they have, where it comes from, and how to make it in a way that's less costly to the environment we all share. James Martin (The Meaning of the 21st Century) argues that we need to work toward what he calls an "eco-affluent" lifestyle, one that allows us to preserve the good things that modern society has to offer without so severely stressing the natural resources upon which we (and everyone else in the world) depend.

[Lorraine Pace]

"I backpack to get away from people who tell me how to live my life." I empathise.

These are usually also the people who burn fuel in their efforts to save the world. Ironic.

I'm not sure how this making do with less stuff is supposed to work. Unfortunately, most of the world is already making do with "less".

Those who are already making do with less also happen to be the ones causing most of those pesky, supposedly climate-changing emissions so deplored – China alone will probably overtake the US in just a year or two (the world being what it is, nothing is certain).

China isn't buying into environmentalism. So, what will effectively change by making do with less or having a supposedly lighter footprint blah blah? If the world is in danger from emissions, what is going to done about China? India? And the rest of the third world? If what you believe is correct, these are the ramifications: We are destroying the earth and we are all going to die!

Oh, and before I forget, on the ozone hole:

"A stream of particles from the Sun, in combination with extreme weather conditions, caused an unprecedented thinning last year of the upper Arctic ozone layer.

Scientists have been puzzled by the chemical processes that destroyed up to 60% of ozone molecules in the lower mesosphere and upper stratosphere (the atmospheric layers that lie 30 to 40 kilometres above ground) in the first months of 2004. Reactions with chlorofluorocarbons (CFC), the compounds responsible for ozone depletion in the lower stratosphere, could not explain the decline in higher layers.

Now an international team of atmosphere researchers, led by Cora Randall of the University of Colorado at Boulder, has suggested a natural cause for this ozone loss at high altitudes.

Strong solar storms in October 2003 carried energetic electrons and protons into the Earth's upper atmosphere, where they boosted production of nitrogen oxides by a factor of four. Such oxides are a known group of ozone killers. Very strong winds inside the polar stratospheric vortex, which was exceptionally powerful last winter, then transported the excess nitrogen gases further into the atmosphere. At around 40 kilometres' height, they mixed with, and attacked, the ozone layer."

http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=1614

So, ozone depletion without CFCs, all because of the sun. Who would have thought it possible? Those CFCs were also supposed to have scarey lifespans averaging a 100 years – so why is the ozone hole even doing so well? Please don't tell me it's because we cut back on CFCs. We shouldn't even be seeing results now – unless something else is afoot.

[Ernie Elkins]

How to deal with growing demands on global resources from China and India is a major topic of discussion. I don't know that it's true that China isn't buying into environmentalism, but they are at least taking note of the fact that their growth might not be sustainable. They've taken voluntary measures to curb their CO2 emissions, even though the Kyoto Protocal (which they signed) doesn't require them to do so. China's congress recently passed a renewable energy law, and China has pioneered small wind turbines and biogas plants. That shows me that they're making an effort, even if its only a small one at this point. A heck of a lot more is required of them, just as a lot more is required of those of us the western world. The game's not over, though, and I for one am optimistic that solutions for these problems are not out of our reach. In many cases, the technology is already out there — we just have to implement policies that will favor its continued development and distribution. Not an easy task, but not an insurmountable one either. It's amazing what capitalism can do when it's pointed in the right direction — just look at the growing market for organic and sustainably produced goods here in the US.

As for living with less, I'm well aware that citizens of third world countries (as well as a lot of impoverished Americans and Europeans) make do with a lot less for reasons that are completely beyond their control. I also know that all of the stuff that we consume here in the US doesn't come out of thin air. The resources that go into producing and distributing it certainly have an impact on everyone who inhabits this planet, and it's a step in the right direction if we can start cutting back on that consumption. Our consumption patterns aren't the only problems were facing, but they're certainly one of the easiest that we can fix at the individual level.

Finally, thanks for providing a reference for your claims about ozone depletion. As I indictated previously, though, I don't dispute that solar activity can have an effect on ozone levels. However, this article confirms my previous point: the effect of solar activiy is strongest in the upper layers of the stratosphere (in this case the upper stratosphere and lower mesosphere). Since most ozone is in the middle and lower stratosphere, though, solar activity can't account for losses there. This depletion of upper stratospheric ozone is certainly something that we need to understand, but it in no way replaces human activity as a significant role in overall ozone depletion.

[paul johnson]

I need some education on a couple of points that I've often wondered about, but don't really understand very much about.

First, if CFC's are so much heavier than air and even ozone, how do they get 10-50 km up to damage the lowest ozone layer? Not saying it can't happen, but does convection really account for this [if convection is the postulated cause???]?

Second, it is rather well known, that the last global warming that current science can determine occurred circa 1000AD. What caused that global warming? Some have postulated volcanic activity. I, perhaps quite ignorantly, thought that extensive volcanic activity would have the opposite effect, like in 1816 (Tamora erupted the prev. Spring in Apr. 1815) when summer never came to New England (snow in June). There was also an earlier one in the 18th cent., but i'm having trouble recalling the specifics. Apparently, global warming is cyclical in nature with the last one (besides what we may currently be undergoing) occurring circa 1000AD. I still haven't read anything, besides volcanic activity, as being the cause for that, but i'm not sure that volcanic activity is an adequate first cause based upon its effects at other times. Any suggestions?

EDIT:
Just remembered, it wasn't a year w/o summer, nor was it in the 18th cent. It was in 1635 and it was thought to be a cat. 5 hurricane (though some say only a cat. 3, IIRC) that devastated early colonies in several colonies both within New England and further south.

[b d]

pj et al.,

I think the real issue, and in China for example the underlying issue is population (I speak of China having been there and being involved in China 'politics' as a young, far younger, radical student and then a China Trade lawyer). China is a good example of the problems facing the 'Third World' or underdeveloped countries (develop to feed and house the people, provide jobs and income v. harm the environment in some fashion). What you see in Somalia and other areas is a 'bad' example of what is happening.

But, much of the environmental problems follow on or are a product of unrestrained child birth and population explosion.

That said, global warming appears to be a real phenomenon — for example, the inversion and heat/atmospheric layers over large cities and smog. An old friend and professor / chemist said to me that he never used to take it seriously but now does, because of his experiences in flying at high altitudes and coming into land at major urban areas, and because of changes in weather patterns. But, I think he was mostly empirically observing the smog and inversion layers over all major cities, even those with pro-environmental policies and laws.

The volcano issue is interesting because my step-daughter came back from UC Berkeley from the engineering program (and she is a young rock climber and nature nut) and said that more carbons and other junk were released by volvanoes in one incident than all the cities and people combined in years. So, pj, I also wonder about that. So I would also like to understand more. bd

[Ernie Elkins]

pj:

Here's an excerpt from a Wikipedia article on ozone depletion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion):

"A frequent point made is that since CFC molecules are much heavier than nitrogen or oxygen, they cannot reach the stratosphere in significant quantities. But atmospheric gases are not sorted by weight; the forces of wind (turbulence) are strong enough to fully intermix gases in the atmosphere. CFCs are heavier than air, but just like argon, krypton and other heavy gases with a long lifetime they are uniformly distributed throughout the turbosphere and reach the upper atmosphere."

Here are a couple of addresses that the writer points to for more information:

http://www.so.wustl.edu/science_outreach/curriculum/ozone/info/stratosphere/myths/heavier.html

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/intro/

Thanks to its in depth treatment of the ozone layer and ozone depletement, I've found the latter to be very helpful.

[paul johnson]

Ernie, Many thanks for the reply and links. I haven't checked the links yet. I supposed convection was going to be postulated for the depletion of the Ozone layer. I'll have to check your links to see if they explain why it would be more selective, targeting the south pole in particular (IIRC)? The quote you gave mentioned "uniformly distributed". If so, why are the poles more susceptible (wondering if they will postulate something to do w/the earth's axial rotation???).

Hopefully, the links will explain this to me. I'm typically skeptical if i don't understand the theory, or if some of the theory doesn't make sense.

One thing that quote fr/Wiki doesn't explain is since the CFC's can be so "uniformly distributed", why isn't ozone so similarly "uniformly distributed"? I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?! I learned in philosophy classes that the ancient Greek Philosophers taught that one inherent property of truth is that it is consistent. Unless there is another mechanism that selectively causes uniform distribution of all gases but ozone, then this seems highly inconsistent to me. Yes, i know how ozone is formed, and i guess one might expect a higher concentration in the upper atmosphere, but below that why isn't there are a more uniform mixture of ozone? After all, we have convection working to mix gasses, so why not mix the ozone more uniformly? Hope those links can explain that in terms that a dummy like me can understand.

Well, at least your links will give me enough reading to keep me out of trouble for some evenings.

[Author]

Posts