An inconvenient truth

[Aliantha]

What Uni are you associated with Dave? What's your field of study? Just curiousity here. A lot of what you've said correlates with what my husband keeps telling me. He's with UQ.

[tw]

For those who don't first learn facts before knowing why, your executive summary is the last paragraph.

Quoting one who says global warming problem does not exist:

Originally Posted by caranddriver.com

The long absence of farm-belt glaciers confirms an inconvenient truth that Gore chooses to ignore. The warming of our planet started thousands of years before SUVs began adding their spew to the greenhouse.

You gave credence to a clearly distorted and naive editorial. But then you quoted another:

Originally Posted by Lindzen

On neither ground – independent justification or climatic relevance – is Kyoto appropriate.

xoxoxoBruce quotes naysayers who disagree with a large and growing majority. Why ignore those from responsible science?

In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout.

Lindzen promotes ideas not supported by facts. You quoted someone from the Cato Institute and then insist he is not political? A word is credibility.

You quote Lindzen's congressional testimony whose former co-authors will no longer collaborate with him and who even took him to task, point by point, in the WSJ. You completely ignore congressional testimony from responsible scientists independent of political organizations? Ralph J. Cicerone, President, National Academy of Sciences on 21 Jul 2005 before the US Senate
You call selective sampling credible? It's called a political agenda.

xoxoxoBruce - your author conceded that CO2 increases will double to levels never seen in earth’s history. Then he denies this is a problem. He says, a warmer earth then radiates more heat; therefore does not get warmer. You accept this nonsense? His own peers don’t. CO2 levels can quadruple and everything will be fine? This is your expert? Yes, xoxoxoBruce, you cite political type from the Cato Institute as an expert. Even his own co-authors publicly dispute his new agenda.

Your own citation - Lindzen - even tried to claim that money for dissident science - science that George Jr promotes - is drying up. Anyone with trivial knowledge knows that is a lie. George Jr – who perverts science for a political agenda – would deny money to those who promote his agenda? Of course not. But then you cited this Cato Institute ‘scientist’ as the only expert. Again, credibility and honesty is not in your first posts.

When asked where you got numbers, you said,

From Dr Linzen's Senate testimony;

That's it. You cite someone from a right wing political organization as science proof? Why do you ignore reams of congressional testimony from those who come from science – not a political organization? Such as Ralph J. Cicerone, President, National Academy of Sciences on 21 Jul 2005 before the US Senate and others.

xoxoxoBruce - you openly derided whether global warming would create more methane releases. Why? You doubted. That’s it? Doubt without first collecting facts is sufficient for logic? Where is prerequisite science – what one grasps before doubting? Did you notice why I accurately doubted Saddam’s WMDs long before an invasion? Did you learn why George Jr’s claims of a Saddam / bin Laden conspiracy were obvious myths in September 2001? Did I just wildly speculate that the administration was hindering 10th Mountain in Afghanistan - and therefore why we did not get Osama bin Laden? I first learned facts. Your citations were mostly political agendas hyped as if science. - without first learning facts. Even your Nature citation was nothing more than a letter. Where is the peer review of a letter? Again, credibility.

You immediately doubt that temperature increases also increase methane. Post #49 Your assumptions about methane says everything about where your doubts of global warming come from. Why do you doubt without first learning facts? Why do you doubt only because of White House propaganda – especially when this president – an MBA - is one of the world’s most prolific liars? When do you question irrelevant and clearly speculative numbers in a caranddriver.com editorial? Questioned was not that editorial. Questioned was why you cite a political statement as science? Questioned is why you have opinions and could not even spend $40 for the Scientific American issue. Questioned is why you have so many conclusions and yet would not even sit in a library long enough to read only one science publication. My post challenged (and without any insult) – credibility.

.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I posted it to see if someone could shoot holes in the numbers. Instead of ranting, why don't you tell us what's wrong with the numbers?

I told you what was wrong with the numbers. Its credibility. Numbers you posted don’t come from science, are taken out of context, or make claims not previously heard – at least in science. Years ago, I posted a highly regarded chart – which you eventually acknowledged. Meanwhile you posted contrary to a chart that was provided days previously. After promoting myths contrary to that chart, you finally conceded to those numbers:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce on 5 Oct

OK, show me the chart, bullshit artist. I don't see any chart,

You ignored facts because short posts were too long to read? You ignored real world numbers but posted nonsense from caranddriver.com ? Then post an insult (bullshit artist) only because you did not first learn facts? Remember that chart of 2 Oct 2006 at 1603 hrs? More denial:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce on 6 Oct

TW, you were wrong on Oct 2nd at 1603 hours and you still are. You link to a chart with nothing to back it up. Cherry picking an unsubstantiated chart,

Even Lindzen of the Cato Institute does not deny numbers in that chart. Numbers that show something happening in the past 100 years that has never before happened on earth. Eventually, even Bruce acknowledged the Vostok chart has long been a basis for scientific discussion. But how long did it take to get him to accept reality? Again, so many posts (including the ‘bullshit artist’ insult) rather than first learning even numbers on that Vostok chart.

xoxoxoBruce quickly cited Lindzen as credible. But the Vostok chart? Six days and 61 posts later … xoxoxoBruce finally acknowledged data from a 1980s Vostok chart. Meanwhile Lindzen credibility even among his own peers is what? Cato Institute.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

What I glean from all of this is that the planet is pretty much doing the same thing it's always done,

Again, a statement not possible if using data of 20 years ago and when we add data to what xoxoxoBruce’s chart does not show. Current CO2 levels go well off that chart – CO2 is rising that fast and is that far above any previous numbers. Temperature changes rose a massive 0.8 degrees in 100 years; 0.4 degress in 30 years; and the curve is rising faster – as CO2 numbers predict. Increases that took tens of thousands of years suddenly increase in only 100? How does mrnoodle say, “planet is pretty much doing the same thing it's always done,”. Only a mental midget president – who would go to CA for money as a Category 5 hurricane kills in New Orleans – would also make that statement. Make claims and never read the PDBs - or numbers in a chart. One would have to be George Jr stupid to believe nothing has changed. Even Lindzen from the Cato Institute admits to massive changes only in the past 100 years.

From Editors of Scientific American:

... the Bush administration's impulse on global warming has been to wait for "something to turn up" - say the discovery of plentiful, noncarbon fuel or a technique to eliminate greenhouse emissions at low cost. Global warming has never been the priority it should be.

Is that from Scientific American a political agenda? Obviously not. Demonstrated is where xoxoxoBruce’s doubts come from. From political sources masking as science, from an editorial that makes little science sense, by ignoring mainstream facts, by repeatedly denying the Vostok chart (even insulting the messager), and by not even spending $40 to get one issue of Scientific American dedicated entirely to the topic.

Mankind is clearly contributing to a major global warming problem. That is not disputed – except by wacko politicians such as scumbag president’s lawyers. Only question is “how much and how destructive”. Having so successfully made this personal by posting insults (bullshit artist) rather than facts, xoxoxoBruce did just what an anti-American president wants everyone to do. A mental midget needs us all to pervert science for his political agendas. Science has long since moved on to ask “how much and how destructive”. This thread demonstrates why so many in The Cellar believed a lying president’s WMD myths and that Saddam was complicit in 11 September. Too many don't demand the irrefutible fact before jumping to conclusions. xoxoxoBruce has just done that - even assuming a political figure from the Cato Institute would be honest.

It’s called knowing only because Rush Limbaugh, et al said so. That is why Americans are dying in mass numbers, now, in a country declared "Mission Accomplished". Science first demands the numbers and learning the whys – what Limbaugh types fear – such as data from the Vostok chart posted 2 Oct 2006 at 1603 hours. That date and time in this thread demonstrates how long some will deny facts and numbers to believe political myths – six days and 61 posts.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

[Hippikos]

Hippikos pointed out there was a dip in temperature, mid 20th century, but I think that was explained as the accumulation of aerosols(dirt) in the air from inefficient coal burning during the previous 100 years. Back when the people in Pittsburgh, PA, never saw the Sun because of the smokestacks belching soot.

This thesis might hurt your Noble Prize nomination...

PS This article might undermine your thesis...

[tw]

Repeated warnings of 11 September were provided to Condi Rice and senior administration officials. But because a specific example was not provided, then no such terror threat existed? xoxoxoBruce uses same logic to proclaim global warming does not exist. Because no one can cite a specific threat or study, then the danger/problem does not exist. xoxoxoBruce - do you really have the intelligence of a mental midget president?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

it's nice to hear that scientists, ... admit there is an uncertainty they can't eliminate entirely.

Uncertainty proved bin Laden did not intend to attack the United States. Clearly the PDB was wrong because of uncertainty. Since probablility was only 80%, then uncertainty proves global warming does not exist. Classic Rush Limbaugh logic. No wonder so many great Americans were on the trail of and could have averted 11 September. But bosses used xoxoxoBruce's reasoning that proved the threat did not exist. Bosses therefore quashed every attempt to avert 11 September. Learn from history. After all, uncertainty means bin Laden and global warming do not exist.

Doubters first learn facts. Then are doubters who
when complexity is too difficult. xoxoxoBruce - engineers and scientists are saying same if you first bother to learn. You know so much that you could not bother to even read one issue of Scientific American? I expect that from Urban Guerrilla - not from you. Why do you fear to learn before knowing? Why do you do what Rush Limbaugh wants?

[Hippikos]

Not in heavy UV light they aren't.

CFCs measured at about 35 km altitude is about 0,1 parts per trillion (ppt), and that's because CFCs are about 4,5 times heavier than air. The UV radiation with the necessary energy for splitting the CFCs molecules are well above the 45 kms, where no CFCs are found. That UV radiation is known as UV-C. But even if those 0,1 pppt of CFCs release their chlorine atoms, the they cannot react with ozone due to the gaseous phase of chemistry.

Weather patterns. You might as well ask why water collects in puddles, when the rain coats an area evenly.

Nice try, but incorrect. Chlorine cathalytic reaction allegedly responsible for destroying ozone in the infamous layer has never been demonstrated in any lab essays. They tried many times, but nothing happened. It all relates to the "gaseous phase" of chemical reactions: chlorine only reacts with ozone over the solid surface of ice crystal in the polar clouds over Antarctica. Ask your chemistry professor.

It's a bad UV-A filter, a good UV-B filter, and an excellent UV-C filter.

UV radiation with the energy enough to split the highly stable CFC molecule is found well above the 40 km mark, the region where oxygen (although one of the strongest gas molecules –along with nitrogen- it is not as stable as the CFC molecule) absorbs almost all the UV-C radiation that could dissociate the CFC molecules.

Now, if you want to blame something, someone about the ozone hole over the Antarctic, blame the Mother Earth, it produces a hundred thousand times more chlorine than man every year. It's a natural phenomenon, already noticed back in the 50's.

[bluesdave]

If anyone wants to read some authoritative information on Ozone Depletion, have a look at these sites:

http://www.ciesin.org/TG/OZ/oz-home.html - Click on "Overview"

http://cloud1.arc.nasa.gov/solve/ - Click on "Mission Description"

http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Educat...one/ozone.html

This link is off the previous page, and covers the "for" and "against" arguments.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/chemistry/ - NASA's Goddard Institute - Atmospheric Chemistry site.

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

If anyone wants to read some authoritative information on Ozone Depletion, have a look at these sites:

http://www.ciesin.org/TG/OZ/oz-home.html - Click on "Overview"

http://cloud1.arc.nasa.gov/solve/ - Click on "Mission Description"

http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Educat...one/ozone.html

This link is off the previous page, and covers the "for" and "against" arguments.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/chemistry/ - NASA's Goddard Institute - Atmospheric Chemistry site.

You should try to get George Dobson’s great book, published in 1968 by Oxford University Press, “Exploring the Atmosphere”, and red Chapter 6, where you will find a beautiful graph: Figure 6.2 ANNUAL VARIATION OF TOTAL OZONE FOR EACH 10 DEGREES OF LATITUDE where is clearly shown the “normal” average ozone levels during different months, and different latitudes. This graph is for the northern hemisphere, but the ozone levels vary with the seasons, and we can see that ozone levels are quite low in winter and spring and recover during summer and fall (as in the southern hemisphere). The depletionists try to ignore this historic fact: Dobson and the French were the ones who discovered the “hole” back in 1957, and this show that the hole has a natural (dynamic) cause, and has nothing to do with chemistry.

Ciesin claims: "Special attention is devoted to the evidence that most of the chlorine comes from the photolysis of CFC's and related compounds." Which of course is a blatant untruth. As I said above the Earth produces 100,000 times more chlorine.

From the Ciesin site: "Catalytic destruction of O3 ”Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) themselves are not involved in the catalytic process; upon reaching the stratosphere, they are subject to higher levels of ultraviolet radiation that decompose the CFC and release atomic chlorine." As written above, CFCs to be decomposed by UV rays, they must reach altitudes higher than 40 km, where the energetic UV-C photons have the energy required for “splitting” CFCs molecules. And no CFCs have been found at such altitudes.

http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Educat...one/ozone.html claims: "The decrease of stratospheric ozone was first reported in 1974 and the decrease was quickly linked to the increasing presence of a class of manmade compounds called CFC's or Chlorofluorocarbons." This is also untrue, the "ozonhole"was already discovered in the 50's by Dobson, see above.

This is just a start. How can we know for sure that the rest is also blatantly untrue? The only holes people like former presidents of the National Academy of Science Dr. Frederick Seitz, or respected atmospheric scientists as Dr. Fred Singer, or Richard Lindsay, or Dr. Michaels, or late French vulcanologist Dr. Haroum Tazieff can find are the holes in the "Ozone Scare"...

Chlorine atoms can ONLY react with ozone on the hard ice crystals in the surface of the SPC (stratosphere polar clouds) in Antarctica. As SPC forms ONLY in Antarctica during the winter and spring (they do not form over the Arctic, because the Arctic’s stratosphere is not cold enough), the logical conclusion is that chlorine do not react with the ozone layer in the rest of the world. That’s a fact. But recognizing this fact would show the ozone depletion theory is a fake, and would deprive scientists milking the “ozone scare cow” of the so much needed money to survive.