For a few years now, environmental issues have seemed to take the forefront in many people's minds. However, there is speculation about what the public is doing to lessen the myriad of environmental problems (littering, ozone depletion, global warming and pollution, to name a few) that are ruining the world. It seems as if there is much talk for change, but nobody actually wants to step up in order to correct the problems.
In order to find out if teens are actually helping to fix these global crises, I meandered the halls of my school and asked some students this question: "What are you, personally, doing in order to correct the environmental problems that the world is facing today? If you do not believe that there is a problem, please state your reasons."
"There is a problem; however, it's mostly caused by the natural changes in Earth's climate. I am helping to save the world (from these problems) by separating my glass from my plastic."
-Kristen Glaser, rising senior at Central York High School
"I do believe that there is a problem, but I could be doing much more to correct it. I carpool and use the low-emission light bulbs."
-Jayson Myers, rising senior at Central York High School
"There is a problem. (In order to fix it) I personally have invented a product that slows down the release of phosphate and consequently lowers the pollution of waterways due to phosphate runoff."
-Alex Ghaben, rising junior at Central York High School
"However, there is speculation about what
the public is doing to lessen the myriad of environmental problems
(littering, ozone depletion, global warming and pollution, to name a few)
that are ruining the world."
The "ozone hole" is not a problem, and it's not "ruining the world."
Read my post on environmental facts: http://www.yorkblog.com/teentakeover/2007/06/since_were_on_the_subject.html
I forgot to mention in that post that the ozone hole hasn't given ANYONE in Australia skin cancer - because the hole doesn't reach Australia.
The ozone hole may not be giving people cancer, but it is affecting the environment and whole spectrun of the world. One of the main contributors to global warming is the ozone whole over the Antarctic. Even though it may not be affecting us, it most definately IS affecting the world.
You obviously haven't thought much about what you're saying. The ozone hole has nothing to do with global warming.
Even this Wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_hole#Ozone_depletion_and_global_warming , which supports the idea of ozone depletion, says this (Notice the use of the term "mass media", which is where most people get their ideas about the environment):
"Ozone depletion and global warming:
Although they are often interlinked in the mass media, the connection between global warming and ozone depletion is not strong. There are four areas of linkage:
The same CO2 radiative forcing that produces near-surface global warming is expected (perhaps surprisingly) to cool the stratosphere. This cooling, in turn, is expected to produce a relative increase in ozone (O3) depletion and the frequency of ozone holes.
Radiative forcing from various greenhouse gases and other sources: Conversely, ozone depletion represents a radiative forcing of the climate system. There are two opposing effects: Reduced ozone causes the stratosphere to absorb less solar radiation, thus cooling the stratosphere while warming the troposphere; the resulting colder stratosphere emits less long-wave radiation downward, thus cooling the troposphere. Overall, the cooling dominates; the IPCC concludes that "observed stratospheric O3 losses over the past two decades have caused a negative forcing of the surface-troposphere system"[32] of about −0.15 ± 0.10 watts per square meter (W/m2).
One of the strongest predictions of the greenhouse effect theory is that the stratosphere will cool. Although this cooling has been observed, it is not trivial to separate the effects of changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases and ozone depletion since both will lead to cooling. However, this can be done by numerical stratospheric modeling. Results from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory show that above 20 km (12.4 miles), the greenhouse gases dominate the cooling.[34]
Ozone depleting chemicals are also greenhouse gases. The increases in concentrations of these chemicals have produced 0.34 ± 0.03 W/m2 of radiative forcing, corresponding to about 14% of the total radiative forcing from increases in the concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases."
First off, you may want to check out your source on that. Although wikipedia is proven to be right on some subjects, it is also known to be notoriously wrong on others.
Also, whether you want to admit it or not, the enhancement of ozone depletion is being caused directly by humans. In your so-called "left" source (which is hardly left at all) there is this image...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Min_ozone.jpg . And what has the ozone layer been doing recently since the dawn of new technology and increased car usage?
Nonetheless, the growth of the ozone holes, as little gorwoth from human causes there might be (or so you put it), is allowing increased UV rays inside of the earth's atmosphere. What does that cause?? Eh??
Also, you might want to come up with a better source than a user generated search engine next time.
Just because Wikipedia is wrong sometimes, it isn't wrong all the time - and my guess is the guy who wrote that knows a lot more than you do about the climate and atmosphere.
And more UV rays doesn't necessarily lead to greater temperatures, because of the chemical processes involved in the destruction and formation of ozone. Notice that the article says:
"Reduced ozone causes the stratosphere to absorb less solar radiation, thus cooling the stratosphere while warming the troposphere; the resulting colder stratosphere emits less long-wave radiation downward, thus cooling the troposphere. Overall, the cooling dominates; the IPCC concludes that "observed stratospheric O3 losses over the past two decades have caused a negative forcing of the surface-troposphere system"[32] of about −0.15 ± 0.10 watts per square meter (W/m2)."
Unless you can prove that doesn't make sense, you can't dismiss it just become a few people that post on Wikipedia aren't reliable. If you understand some physics and chemistry, you ought to see that it makes sense.
I'm not going to argue anymore - I don't like debating online.
I thought of something else to say - some tips on argumentation.
It's not a good idea to say that a source is unreliable and then to use that source, as you do with the Wikipedia article. First you said the excerpt I posted might be unreliable because it's from Wikipedia, but you then used the ozone hole photo to support your argument.
I never said the article was "left" or leftist - I said it supported the idea of ozone depletion, as you do.
I don't mean to shift definitions here, but I know that CFCs do destroy ozone in the stratosphere. CFCs made the ozone hole over Antarctica deeper. But it hasn't been proved that that's a problem.
The real issue is a cost/benefit analysis: Is there good enough reason to discontinue use of CFCs, which are the best existing refrigeration and fire-extinguishing chemicals? In banning CFCs, poor people in third-world countries have been deprived of food because the food spoiled (I know that sounds far-fetched, but it's true). If the benefit of banning CFCs is greater than that cost, then the ban was the right thing to do.
Though I said I didn't like debating online, I put this post on because I do enjoy debating. And I especially enjoy rational debate. Which is why I'll tell you it's better to attack a person's argument than the person himself (or herself). This could be a good debate with some good points on both sides - and I see good points on both sides.
I think I might put on a post on rational debate. Thanks for talking with me.
I'll end with one of the assumptions behind argumentation - it's a collaborative goal. BOTH sides are working together toward a solution to the problem, to decide the right path to take.
By the way, I was just using info from "your source" just in case you wanted to say that it was false information. There are some major contradictions in that article alone.
Also, as we are still arguing the relationship between global warming and ozone depletion, both are still considered environmental problems in the world. If your "ozone cylce" argument is true, then you cannot say that humans have not, in any way, altered the cycle by a little or a lot. As little or much impact that humans have on the ozone layer, they still have an impact and every small impact matters. Therefore it remains an environmental issue, as it states in my article.
One small dot of black paint left on a brush will ruin a whole picture. (ponder that one)
This argument was getting way off base from the original point, that ozone depletion is a problem. This relationship between G.W. and O.D. has absolutely no connection with the argument.
Seth, I was trying to end this argument politely.
I don't think you can truly prove there are contradictions in that Wikipedia article, and I don't think you used the article just so I could say I was wrong to use it.
I said I admitted that CFCs destroyed ozone in the stratosphere, but can you prove it's a problem? One small dot of black paint may ruin a picture, but sloppy reasoning WILL ruin an argument. And unless you possess highly advanced knowledge of the atmosphere, you can't prove that CFCs would do anything significant to the ozone layer. And if there's no good evidence that CFCs can cause environmental problems, why did we get rid of them, depriving the world of such amazing chemicals?
And you're the one who said ozone depletion caused global warming, an idea which makes no sense at all scientifically. (I could find plenty of other sources besides the Wikipedia article that support my statement).
You need to pay attention to what you say and how you think - you don't argue too well.
This time, I'm done.
I just have one last thing to state, and that is for everyone to take a gander at this website.
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/
Browse around it. Click on a few links. It is very interesting!
The whole argument, what both of us said, is irrelevant. My article still stands to be true and that website validates it.