Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Panthers_Lover

Global warming out of this world?

Recommended Posts

twylyght    1,512

Nah... time for work. I was stupid for venturing back into Tinderbox anyways... I get dumber every time I revisit this sandbox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
twylyght    1,512

same old snark with no substance

my response to the questions posed by mmmbeans after that attempted to note the things we knew for a fact just a short time ago that turned out to be completely false. The concept of scientists being wrong while quoting hard facts flies over the head of most on this page.

I'm outty... have fun with lack of reading comprehension

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PhillyB    40,346

my response to the questions posed by mmmbeans after that attempted to note the things we knew for a fact just a short time ago that turned out to be completely false. The concept of scientists being wrong while quoting hard facts flies over the head of most on this page.

I'm outty... have fun with lack of reading comprehension

it's rare that i see you post anything that isn't fringe stupidity. lack of substantive responses reflects the lack of substance in your posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




natty    555

my response to the questions posed by mmmbeans after that attempted to note the things we knew for a fact just a short time ago that turned out to be completely false. The concept of scientists being wrong while quoting hard facts flies over the head of most on this page.

I'm outty... have fun with lack of reading comprehension

Wait, what? Are you talking about the CFC thing you posted? You were serious about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thatlookseasy    607

CO2 being a greenhouse gas is no more in dispute than CFCs cause a breakdown of O3.

The catch for the latter is justifying how a heavier-than-air molecule gets miles above the surface to perform this breakdown. Yet is was accepted as a slam dunk for anyone in the know about science just two decades ago.

Wait, do you really think that heavier than air particles can't reach the stratosphere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
twylyght    1,512

Wait, do you really think that heavier than air particles can't reach the stratosphere?

Sure they can... with volcanoes throwing them up there by force. Hence, the reason why the ozone hole gets bigger after an eruption.

I suppose that is devoid of substance though... stupid science and its useless factoids

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thatlookseasy    607

Sure they can... with volcanoes throwing them up there by force. Hence, the reason why the ozone hole gets bigger after an eruption.

I suppose that is devoid of substance though... stupid science and its useless factoids

The idea that heavier particles will not naturally rise in the atmosphere is based on the assumption that diffusion is the dominant form of atmospheric circulation. Yet diffusion is very slow, and anyone who has been outside on a windy day knows the atmosphere doesnt circulate slowly.

Basic meteorology will tell you that vertical mixing in the atmosphere happens all the time as high and low pressure systems move across earth's surface. Its not like this stuff is a mystery, people collect samples all the time from the upper atmosphere to learn more about atmospheric chemistry. In the case of ozone, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used as coolants at the surface mix with the atmosphere, and eventually reach the stratosphere where they destroy ozone. Its not conjecture, its a well understood mechanism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
twylyght    1,512

The idea that heavier particles will not naturally rise in the atmosphere is based on the assumption that diffusion is the dominant form of atmospheric circulation. Yet diffusion is very slow, and anyone who has been outside on a windy day knows the atmosphere doesnt circulate slowly.

Basic meteorology will tell you that vertical mixing in the atmosphere happens all the time as high and low pressure systems move across earth's surface. Its not like this stuff is a mystery, people collect samples all the time from the upper atmosphere to learn more about atmospheric chemistry. In the case of ozone, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used as coolants at the surface mix with the atmosphere, and eventually reach the stratosphere where they destroy ozone. Its not conjecture, its a well understood mechanism

Agreed. it is well understood. Volcano erupts. Ozone holes form

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thatlookseasy    607

Agreed. it is well understood. Volcano erupts. Ozone holes form

Well volcanoes have little to do with the ozone hole and even less to do with atmospheric circulation. The ozone hole was tiny to non-existent prior to the 1980s and has begun to decline as the long lived CFCs slowly dissipate since we stopped using them.

Volcanoes do produce aerosols, which can lead to ozone destruction, but this is typically at mid latitudes and not around the poles where the ozone hole is found. This is why volcanic activity has no effect on the size of the ozone hole.

p16wRnI.png

Large_Ozone_Hole_en.jpg

Volcanoes also do nothing to explain the appearance/ disappearance of the ozone hole every spring and summer in the antarctic. This is because the ozone hole is caused by very cold temperatures forming polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs), which are sites for free radical formation for Chlorine containing species. Once the sun returns in the antarctic spring, these chlorine radicals photolyse and destroy ozone.

ibJi5CX.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thatlookseasy    607

So, when volcanoes erupt, nothing should happen to the ozone layer... yet... it does.... pesky facts

Yes, volcanic eruptions can lead to ozone destruction. But they still have little to do with the ozone hole that forms over Antarctica every September and is gone by December

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
teeray    16,195

I would suggest reading State of Fear by Michael Creighton. His 20 page bibliography from a decade ago does FAR MORE actual research than that picture book by Al Gore that is still touted as indisputable science.

Good book. I read it. It is a cut and paste version of science fiction where you take the stuff you like, throw out or ignore the stuff you don't like, and create a good but fiction story around it.

I wouldn't use that book as a reference on global warming education, but I would recommend it for a good science fiction read.

Here is some good non-fiction reading on the topic if you are interested

http://stephenschnei....edu/index.html

http://www.wundergro...ne_skeptics.asp

http://www.wundergro...offear.asp?MR=1

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
twylyght    1,512

Good book. I read it. It is a cut and paste version of science fiction where you take the stuff you like, throw out or ignore the stuff you don't like, and create a good but fiction story around it.

I wouldn't use that book as a reference on global warming education, but I would recommend it for a good science fiction read.

Here is some good non-fiction reading on the topic if you are interested

http://stephenschnei....edu/index.html

http://www.wundergro...ne_skeptics.asp

http://www.wundergro...offear.asp?MR=1

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Let's assume the East Angola incident never happened and that all Global Climate science was working for actual truth. How good of a job have they been doing? If we were to take the predictions of just a decade ago and look at how they panned out, how well did they do?

Is anyone actually still thinking in the face of this track record that the alarmists know as much as they claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PhillyB    40,346

this time last year i was on a cargo ship in the middle of the pacific ocean bound for new zealand writing a book. there were four other passengers on board - two ex navy vietnam vets, an elderly french man, and a scientist from the university of washington conducting research on the oxygen levels of the ocean at various latitudinal points, a data set gathered multiple times annually and added to a vast collection of data that is interpreted to track patterns of temperature warming.

i'm pretty sure that guy was paid off to fudge his data, as is every other university-employed scientist who would otherwise put a desire to find facts in place of some grand conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×