Where are the sun spots?

[MikePA]

But that doesn't blind me from seeing a real problem at the heart of the matter.

This is the crux of the debate. I do not see a problem, I see normal temperature changes.

 

[texbaylea]

This is the crux of the debate. I do not see a problem, I see normal temperature changes.

MikePA

I agree with you.

A little anecdotal information. I am scientifically trained and for nearly a decade I was a research manager in a particular area. The research scientist were continually running in, figuratively yelling and screaming, we just found out that we have this terrible situation and we need MONEY to find out how bad it is and what to do about it. Their progress was monitored of course and when the resulting data did not support their premise the response was invariably, we think that we now have a better protocol that will give better results. GIVE US MORE MONEY! Eventually everyone concludes yes or no, there was a problem but never as bad as originally promoted. Also, Frequently I got political pressure to fund certain scientists.

Scientists are living off "global warming" right now - they are self serving people like many others. Look for the mavericks, they frequently have a better handle on what is going on.

Vernon

P.S. When something becomes "accepted scientific thought" in the popular press, or by politicians, something is wrong. Science advances by discourse and argument. When one side can suppress opposing thought, real solutions can be greatly delayed.

 

[Eagleview]

And it all comes back down to them justifying their own exsistance .

 

[SPYDERLK]

MikePA

I agree with you.

[[[A little anecdotal information. I am scientifically trained and for nearly a decade I was a research manager in a particular area. The research scientist were continually running in, figuratively yelling and screaming, we just found out that we have this terrible situation and we need MONEY to find out how bad it is and what to do about it. Their progress was monitored of course and when the resulting data did not support their premise the response was invariably, we think that we now have a better protocol that will give better results. GIVE US MORE MONEY! Eventually everyone concludes yes or no, there was a problem but never as bad as originally promoted. Also, Frequently I got political pressure to fund certain scientists.]]]

Scientists are living off "global warming" right now - they are self serving people like many others. Look for the mavericks, they frequently have a better handle on what is going on.

Vernon

P.S. When something becomes "accepted scientific thought" in the popular press, or by politicians, something is wrong. Science advances by discourse and argument. When one side can suppress opposing thought, real solutions can be greatly delayed.

So youre saying the scientists were NEVER right?? Somehow, an example based on so specious a premise makes me suspicious of its scientific validity.
larry

 

[texbaylea]

So youre saying the scientists were NEVER right?? Somehow, an example based on so specious a premise makes me suspicious of its scientific validity.
larry

Larry
Read what I said
. Yes there frequently were problems but rarely as bad as the initial sell job. There is so much competition for research money that a lot of puffery is used.
It was **** making priority decisions because of the puffery.

I firmly believe that a lot of the "global warming" is puffery. Notice it has now become "climate change" so that they can swing either way.

I think we know who the biggest puffer is!

Vernon

 

[SPYDERLK]

Larry
Read what I said
. Yes there frequently were problems but rarely as bad as the initial sell job. There is so much competition for research money that a lot of puffery is used.
It was **** making priority decisions because of the puffery.

I firmly believe that a lot of the "global warming" is puffery. Notice it has now become "climate change" so that they can swing either way.
Vernon

I did read what you said, and with extrapolation and interpolation recognized it as a weighed statement, however camouflaged. Altho its garnered meaning is compatible with your 2nd post I think only the 1st deserved some rebuttal.
larry

 

[CurlyDave]

Larry

I firmly believe that a lot of the "global warming" is puffery. Notice it has now become "climate change" so that they can swing either way.

Vernon

Absolutely right. And, it now turns out that we had a century which averaged out to a slight warming, and now the last 10 years have reversed that warming.

The truth is we don't even have "climate change" -- we are right back to where we were about 110 years ago. And going colder, not warmer. We may be very thankful for all those SUVs and pickups in a few more years.

 

[alchemysa]

I guess some of you guys think the hole in the ozone layer was a big hoax too, and that banning chlorofluorocarbons in spray cans was an over-reaction.

 

[MikePA]

I guess some of you guys think the hole in the ozone layer was a big hoax too, and that banning chlorofluorocarbons in spray cans was an over-reaction.

The 'hole' is there. It's importance and the banning of CFCs should have been debated. Since CFCs have already been banned, the question is irrelevant.

 

[Eagleview]

Back in Alberta one was able to see the Northern Lights. After an unusually nice light show weather changes like storms usually occurred within four days time. I do miss seeing them in Nova Scotia as they can be quite spectacular!

Of course you folks Down Under don't see the Northern Lights! It's the Aurora Australis isn't it?



Thats one of the things i want to see before the Carbon in my body is "Sequestered" back into the soil . But while ever you have got those big nasty Grizzly bears running around i might do it from a window in a bus . Why do'nt you have soft cuddly Koala bears like us . Everything on your side of the planet wants to eat you . As for the Aurora Australis , it's a little South of us .

 

[Egon]

The northern lights dance best in the dead of winter when the Grizzly is denned up sleeping.

Best be reading "The cremation of Sam McGee" before visiting the northern climes! The boiler on the Marge of lake Labarge has probably long since succumbed to the laws of thermodynamics so you may want to bring a substitute!

I have heard strange things happen as absolute zero is approached!

 

[alchemysa]

The 'hole' is there. It's importance and the banning of CFCs should have been debated. Since CFCs have already been banned, the question is irrelevant.

It was well and truly debated. You must have missed it.

In the end, the importance, cause, and only practical solution, were agreed upon almost universally.

You obviously don't do any reseach before you post so heres a little snippet I got from Wikipedia for you..

"No significant natural sources have ever been identified for these compounds. (chlorofluorocarbons) Their presence in the atmosphere is due almost entirely to human manufacture"

 

[jdbower]

I'm not sure what your Wikipedia quote is there for, all it says is that (news flash!) CFCs are man made. So is steel, maybe that's the issue.

The Ozone Scare was a great example of acting before the facts were in. They discovered the hole in the mid 80's, and they found it was getting bigger. They knew that CFCs destroyed ozone, they could replicate that in the lab. They kind of neglected to explain why the hole was over the south pole when most of the population is in the north, I guess CFCs are heavy and sink to the bottom of the planet. Or maybe Aussies smell bad and need a lot of deodorant. It was the 80s so we won't talk about the hairspray... Some people pressured the government to do something about CFCs (won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!) and, luckily, replacement compounds were available so the government banned them and industry switched to "green" compounds and we now all pay a little extra for deodorant and hair spray. But the earth was saved!

But the ozone hole is still there. And it's growing. And also shrinking. Turns out that we now think the ozone hole may have ALWAYS been there, at least since before the industrial revolution when most people agree pollution really started. It also has cycles, both seasonal as well as cycles that last longer periods. Banning CFCs had a negligible impact on the ozone layer and was generally a waste of money and effort, but people feel good about that CFC-free sticker so there's no need to say "mea culpa" and apologize. The lesson to learn here is that the knee-jerk reaction to doomsday media reports is often pre-mature and, more importantly, the media are awful at retracting these stories. In fairness, the general population is awful at watching those stories.

Now, ironically, too much ozone in the lower atmosphere where the CFCs were used is bad for you. I wonder if bringing back CFCs would help those with breathing issues on those ozone-filled summer days?

If you had cited sulfur compounds and acid rain or anti-smog devices those could be seen as wins for the environmentalists. Unfortunately I'm with the founder and ex-head of Greenpeace, he quit the organization because they started to focus less on the environment and more on politics and punishing evil corporations. That's why CO2 is the big baddie now, it covers all internal combustion engines and the majority of power generation (oops! forgot and those evil nukes). They never mention water vapor, which is much more potent but would kill the hydrogen fuel market. Nor do they mention methane, because the best way to prevent methane is to prevent trees from decomposing. Either burn them or turn them into lumber before they get the chance. Climate science today is like medicine during the civil war. We know enough to be dangerous but there's a long road ahead before climate models can even come close to predicting what's going on. So we'll take a look at the cost of each bugbear they come up with and decide how serious the threat is and how expensive it is to fix. With CFCs we got off easy, no such luck with CO2.

 

[MikePA]

It was well and truly debated. You must have missed it.

In the end, the importance, cause, and only practical solution, were agreed upon almost universally.

You obviously don't do any reseach before you post so heres a little snippet I got from Wikipedia for you..

"No significant natural sources have ever been identified for these compounds. (chlorofluorocarbons) Their presence in the atmosphere is due almost entirely to human manufacture"

No, I didn't miss anything, but thanks for the quote from Wikipedia, the ultimate 'reseach' {sic} source for all things scientific. And I'm supposed to take your word that it was 'well and truly debated'. Right.

However, you have missed the obvious.The issue isn't whether there are CFCs in the atmosphere, that's irrelevant. The question is did CFCs cause the hole in the ozone layer or was the 'hole' a natural one. That was never debated.

As I said before, this discussion is a waste of time since CFCs were banned. Much more productive to debate whether we can get gas from water.

 

[Eagleview]

I personally think that the "hole" has been there since the begining of time . I would think it would have something to do with charged particles repelling each other around the South pole , maybe attracting at the North pole .

 

[Egon]

I am still awaiting someone to tell me if burning my log is more unfriendly to the environment than if I let it rot in the woods!

 

[Eagleview]

Burning it releases the carbon straight into the atmosphere were as letting it rot , "Sequesters" the carbon into the soil , locking it up once more . But without Volcanoes belching it out billions of years ago there would be no atmosphere or plant life to begin with .

 

[jdbower]

Burning it releases the carbon straight into the atmosphere were as letting it rot , "Sequesters" the carbon into the soil , locking it up once more . But without Volcanoes belching it out billions of years ago there would be no atmosphere or plant life to begin with .

It's not quite as simple as that. For one, decomposing material also releases gaseous hydrocarbons like methane - a greenhouse gas much more potent than CO2. You can also consider that some of the CO2 produced by burning the tree in the lower atmosphere will be absorbed by the local flora - creating stronger plants means that they're also likely to survive long enough to go to seed. This subtle effect further reduces the net CO2 atmospheric buildup. Plus CO2 is about global warming, not climate change. Releasing the ash into the atmosphere has been considered to be a mask for global warming. Granted it's mostly an excuse as to why the models don't match up with reality, but if that's the current state of the science it's fair game. When you couple all these reasons together (and I'm sure I can come up with some more) it's feasible that burning the wood could have a net cooling effect. Either way, it's best to shape it into lumber and put some use to it.

Someone once calculated that it's actually more carbon polluting to walk or bike to the shops than it is to drive within a certain range because of the extra CO2 you'd burn by getting out of breath. Sometimes once more variables are added to the equation you get surprising answers

 

[alchemysa]

I'm not sure what your Wikipedia quote is there for, all it says is that (news flash!) CFCs are man made. So is steel, maybe that's the issue.

.

The Wiki quote means that nature does not make its own CFC's. They are a man-made invention. So the only way they got into the atmosphere is because we put them there.

The discovery of ozone depletion and the discovery of the ozone hole are not the same thing.

I think scientists had known for about 10 years that ozone had been depleting. But it wasn't until the mid eighties that they discovered that the depletion was so bad that it created a 'hole'. So its worth remembering that concerns about this issue were raised and debated long before the hole was discovered. The discovery of the hole was a big wake up call. It was time to stop debating and start doing something.

The hole (the thinnest concentration of ozone) is over the south pole because of the earth's spin and because the air stays colder for longer.
To suggest it should be in the northern hemisphere because thats where most of the people are is pretty funny.

 

[alchemysa]

No, I didn't miss anything, but thanks for the quote from Wikipedia, the ultimate 'reseach' {sic}

I don't rely on Wikipedia but Wikipedia is usually pretty 'concise' so its a good source for the 'short version' of things and good short quotes.

Do you really know anything about Wikipedia? I have some experience with it and i can tell you that extreme or unproven views are rapidly knocked out. Its a completely open source so there has to be very widespread agreement on the facts or it just won't last.

If anything, I'd say its pretty conservative in the way it presents scientific articles. They have a rule: 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary references'. This tends to weed out the loonies.
Wikipedia is far from perfect but its quite good if you understand how its put together.

To give you some idea, the Wiki article on the ozone hole is the result of 25,000 public corrections since just 2002. The article you see has been honed that many times to acheive a result that is palatable to all the interested parties.

But you can still go into Wikipedia yourself and change the facts about the Ozone hole to suit your argument. The only problem is you'll need some credible research to back up your story or it won't last for too long.