The Ozone Scare Was A Dry Run For The Global Warming Scare

Quote:


Quote:


All very similar pseudo science to the co2 hoax.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/05/the-ozone-scare-was-a-dry-run-for-the-glob...

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 9:48pm:

Hmmm how you say in monkey...... you have been lied to your entire life and never question it

Read a little, it may take you from primitive to something a little less primitive.

' Prior to 1979, scientists had not observed concentrations below 220 Dobson Units. But in the early 1980s, through a combination of ground-based and satellite measurements, scientists began to realize that Earth’s natural sunscreen was thinning dramatically over the South Pole each spring. This large, thin spot in the ozone layer came to be known as the ozone hole.'

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/ozone.php

There was never any hole, merely thinning.

Because scientists hadn't seen a low reading before they hadn't existed, right? Of course we have 60 years of readings, so it must be correct.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 9:48pm:


Chimp... YOUR problem is, you attack the posters so often, rather than the actual science/message, that it's really reached the point that a w@nk 'instruction' from you to "apologise and self ban" is pretty much 100% proof that the post is absolutely correct (otherwise you wouldn't crap on about apologies etc)..

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 9:48pm:

You're dealing with people who simultaneously claim that man never went to the moon yet somehow moon-rock for fusion will save humanity just in case the leftys are not wrong...

Yay, crack is like really good for you and stuff 

lee wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 10:41am:

Extra extra: real all about it- nothing can be measured ever 

lee wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 4:59pm:

lee can pick up on typos : you should run for liberal preselection   

Quote:


Yes it was ozone thinning that let in larger amounts of dangerous UV radiation. In the media it was described as a hole but you are arguing over semantics. The effect of an ozone layer that is half the thickness is still dangerous.

Quote:


This quote shows a complete lack of understanding of how the carbon cycle (and chlorine cycle) works. In nature the amount of CO2 or Cl in the atmosphere becomes a balance between what is naturally created and what is naturally destroyed. Problems occur when human activity creates extra  of the gas which then accumulates.

Progessives, your article is pure ideologically driven pseudo science

lee wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 10:59am:


Because when the hole gets big enough it can get as far north as Australia
http://www.theozonehole.com/2013ozonehole.htm

Ok I concede that my graphic didn't demonstrate the dangers of ozone depletion.

Quote:


Surely Lee even you have to admit that the eradication of CFCs to prevent any additional damage to the ozone layer has been a win for science and for society in general.

lee wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 11:53am:

No respect for the calculus that gave you civlisation and new money tryhard-upper-middle-class status 

go the tryhards that voted for howard and abbott still pretending they knew what conservatism meant 

lee wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 5:32pm:

Bro, is burning fossil fuels natural variation?

Emma wrote on Dec 12^th, 2015 at 2:12am:


No surprises there I guess that you would say that.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 12^th, 2015 at 4:20am:



really

' In bringing this about, Mrs Thatcher played an important part. It is not widely appreciated, however, that there was a dramatic twist to her story. In 2003, towards the end of her last book, Statecraft, in a passage headed "Hot Air and Global Warming", she issued what amounts to an almost complete recantation of her earlier views.

She voiced precisely the fundamental doubts about the warming scare that have since become familiar to us. Pouring scorn on the "doomsters", she questioned the main scientific assumptions used to drive the scare, from the conviction that the chief force shaping world climate is CO2, rather than natural factors such as solar activity, to exaggerated claims about rising sea levels. She mocked Al Gore and the futility of "costly and economically damaging" schemes to reduce CO2 emissions. She cited the 2.5C rise in temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period as having had almost entirely beneficial effects. She pointed out that the dangers of a world getting colder are far worse than those of a CO2-enriched world growing warmer. She recognised how distortions of the science had been used to mask an anti-capitalist, Left-wing political agenda which posed a serious threat to the progress and prosperity of mankind. '

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7823477/Was-Marg...

I guess you could read the book to refute it. Or just shoot the messenger.

lee wrote on Dec 12^th, 2015 at 5:01pm:

Right I mention ozone hole, you bring up AGW.

The hole in the ozone layer and AGW are two separate things.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 12^th, 2015 at 5:34pm:

This HAS happened before, you know Bobby?.  It isn't new. But as a wee puppy you don't have the memories of us older folk.

Emma wrote on Dec 12^th, 2015 at 11:26pm:



Yes it's happened before but -

if the world was heating up we wouldn't have snow in summer.

you are forgiven

namaste

Bobby. wrote on Dec 12^th, 2015 at 11:45pm:



what you said ? in BOLD above..??

is Nonsense.

Aussie Patriot wrote on Dec 12^th, 2015 at 11:43pm:


So you're saying that the current 400ppm CO2 doesn't produce any significant change in the warming effect from the 310ppm in the 50s? (assuming you're that old)

I think most climate scientists would agree with your observation that you remember bigger heat waves when you were a kid. 

If you're trying to say that current climate conditions are not particularly remarkable, then you're fairly close to the mark.

At 400ppm,  the effect you would have is very subtle, because natural variation makes it impossible to detect in terms of comparing heat waves when you were a kid with heat waves now.

If you are saying that in your location, there is no noticeable effect yet, then you'd be absolutely on the ball.

However if you were suddenly catapulted into 2075, there is a good chance that you would notice a difference. It still wouldn't be catastrophic though.

If the CO2 by that time had increased to 650ppm, then you'd be starting to have tangible effects that don't require elaborate global measurements to detect.

With a global population of 7.3 billion today and who knows how much by 2075, any subtle effects on climate will have a significant effect on their ability to survive. We're on the edge.

The major players are already taking steps to avoid this happening. They are switching to renewable energy in a major way. With a great deal of planning and action from others, there is a very good chance that your great great grandson will be alive to make inane comments on internet forums 200 years from now, oblivious to the fact that  the whole energy generation ball game has changed completely, and hopefully the world population has stabilised to a more realistic level. 

He'll still be able to show his grandson some coal. There will still be massive amounts of it, because they gave up burning the stuff to generate energy ages ago.

The good news is that you won't have to do anything, except post comments that because you don't notice any difference, AGW is nonsense. 

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 13^th, 2015 at 8:36am:



You are forgetting that in the last 2 years the world has seen record low temperatures.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 13^th, 2015 at 8:48am:


And a lot more record high temperatures.

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 13^th, 2015 at 11:38am:

lol, semantics 

Yay, go the liberal party and copper internet based dreams of an innovation nation!

Someone just make it stop 

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 13^th, 2015 at 11:11am:



You are channelling Lewandowsky too much.

'The Curious Case of Condemning Climate Skeptics as Conspiracy Theorists (Lewandowsky, Oberauer, & Gignac, 2013)

Into this mix stepped Lewandowski et al. (2013) with a paper titled, “NASA Faked the Moon Landing – Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax” – which strongly implies that people who doubt global warming believe bizarre conspiracy theories.  As Lewandowsky et al. (2013, p. 622) put it, “… conspiratorial thinking contributes to the rejection of science.”

One possibility is that this was true – that a disproportionately high number of people who disbelieve climate science also believe in something as silly as the faking of the moon landing.  Another, however, was that this was essentially trumped up in order to cast those who are most skeptical of the climate science as fools.

The implication that climate skeptics believe in the faking of the moon landing is another phantom fact.  Out of over 1145 respondents, there was a grand total of 10 who believed the moon landing was faked.  Among the 134 of participants who “rejected climate science,” only three people (2%) endorsed the moon-landing hoax. The link asserted in the title of the paper did not exist in the sample.

Understanding when people are and are not persuaded by science is an interesting and important area of research. But this curious case highlights the threat to scientific integrity that can stem from high moral missions. The notion that skeptics believed something so silly as the faking of the moon landing is yet another myth essentially concocted by the researcher.'

'The Social Psychology of Morality'

A new book from Psychology Press.

lee wrote on Dec 13^th, 2015 at 7:09pm:


Not really.

I just wondered if you shared the views of Ajax, who also posts here. He is a froth-at-the-mouth climate science denier, as well as being  a moon landing denialist and a 911 conspiracy theorist.  Oh, and he thinks that the banks are behind climate science, and that it's just a way of controlling the masses. It might also be a UN plot too. I don't remember all his ravings. 

Ajax wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 11:01am:


 

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:15pm:


Renewables are the future.  The major oil companies are no longer funding the denial industry. They had to play for time. Now they are ready to profit from renewable energy.

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:50pm:


It's just good business sense.

Quote:


I have been saying the Himalayan Plateau and the glaciers on it that are retreating are the reason the Chinese are pro action on AGW.

As well as the rivers mentioned above the Himalayan glaciers feed another four rivers, watering a quarter of the worlds population.

Quote:


China dragging their feet on climate action is in the past.

Quote:


Of course, if we had not elected a Neanderthal in 2013, if the Greens had been sincere in wanting an ETS we could have been part of all this, now we will be passive consumers of renewables AGAIN!

Could have reduced power costs to consumers, industry too:
Quote:


Will finish with the subhead:
Quote:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12052582/Even-if-the-global-warming...

I have also been an advocate of nuclear power here. It alone can , provide the high density power for industry.

We can use it for desalinisation. Buy the most modern plant, boost hugely nuclear science, engineering, applications like medical. Then get into electric cars, build a network of charging stations. Get Tesla to come here, build the real NBN, dam northern rivers, send them south and west, irrigation and hydro, water the drying south.

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:15pm:


I have never subscribed to subsidising third world countries in the name of reducing carbon footprint.  Any money spent on renewable schemes in these countries is irrelevant, because it will have little impact within a global context.

Most of these countries will never improve.

boxy wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 8:32pm:


What the ozone layer that is still there. The ozone hole that was nearly repaired in May 2015, the ozone hole that was the fourth largest ever in October? That one?

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 8:44pm:


50 years they reckon. About 2050 or so before levels can return to pre 1979 values.  Actually the stratospheric Cl radical concentration is slowly coming down.  Like anything else, there will be natural variation.  In the case of this October, it was unusually cold weather conditions.

Next year, who knows?  It's difficult to predict individual years, as opposed to underlying trends.

As to renewable energy, get used to it.

Sooner or later, we're going to need to transition to renewables. Time to stop freeloading on the 100's of millions of years worth of energy, stored in the bodies of dead (and long extinct) species. The more and longer we rely on the easy fix, the harder it's going to get to transition to something that is long term sustainable.

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 9:04pm:



That's the problem with only 60 odd years of data; we don't know if it is just natural variation.

Nuclear is long term sustainable.

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 9:32pm:

Yes, it potentially is, as long as we can mitigate the downsides.

The ozone is interesting.

'Why Has an Ozone Hole Appeared over Antarctica When CFCs and Halons Are Released Mainly in the Northern Hemisphere?'

'The Earth's atmosphere is continuously stirred over the globe by winds. As a result, ozone-depleting gases get mixed throughout the atmosphere, including Antarctica, regardless of where they are emitted.'

http://www.unep.ch/ozone/faq-science.shtml#question6

Now this is the same line of reasoning used to describe CO2 as a well mixed gas. However, IBUKI and OCO2 satellites both show that CO2 is not well mixed.

Where does that leave the conclusion on CFC's?

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 9:28pm:


The Ozone hole is definitely as a result of Chlorine radicals caused by the breakdown of CFCs. There probably won't be much of a trend until concentrations reduce further.

Thomas Midgley has a lot to answer for.

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 9:59pm:


It's because their is more ice in the statosphere in the southern hemisphere to facilitate the destruction of ozone. So even though there are less CFCs in the southern hemisphere they are more potent.

Quote:

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 12:05pm:


It's quite a good summary. The ozone destruction is catalysed by free radicals at an altitude of about 20km. In the case of stratospheric ice, it's the H-O_x. radical where x=1 or 2.

The actual water content (dewpoint) at that altitude is miniscule.

lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 2:28pm:



I wondered what you meant. I thought you meant transport to the upper atmosphere. It's a gas.

The Antarctic is effectively isolated for about a year. The lag time is about a year.  Let me find a suitably academic reference.

Here we are. Also from Harvard:
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap4.html

Look through the article until you find this diagram:



Quote:



The Antarctic airmass is actually pretty well isolated during the winter. It's referred to as the Antarctic Vortex.

. already dealt with so deleted

lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 6:24pm:

ah, back to lee not reading properly