Global cooling or global warming?

[Sinatra]

I do know that we seem to have an ice age every 10,000 years - give or take a few.

I also know that the ozone layer is depleting because of the use of CFCs and all that other shit we put in the air.

I would also journey a wild guess that this would probably be the first time in history that humans have actually buried tons and tons of waste that takes thousands of years to decompose.. and has polluted the water with our own fecal matter, along with chemical pesticides and fertilizers, not to mention the choice to use, exclusively, a fuel which we knew nothing about the source from which it came. (That would be oil and natural gas- fossil fuels)

We have absolutely done far more damage in the past 100 years, than in the entire history of the world.

So regardless of whether we are cooling right now, or warming up- I have all systems glowing green for GO for 100% sustainable energy, and waste reduction.

Such blissful ignorance...

 

[The T]

I also know that the ozone layer is depleting because of the use of CFCs and all that other shit we put in the air.

Actually, that's a myth too. The dreaded ozone hole comes and goes. BTW...the sun interacting with the atmosphere creates ozone.

So regardless of whether we are cooling right now, or warming up- I have all systems glowing green for GO for 100% sustainable energy, and waste reduction.

First, you'll have to define down what "sustainable" means.

Secondly, most people are for waste reduction, as it positively affects their bottom lines. However, they're against things called "waste reduction" that end up causing more waste than they reduce (i.e. glass recycling).

And everytime there is a lightning strike ozone is created.

 

[The T]

I stated earlier, that based on data, we are in warming solar cycle, even thought there is current cooling trend. I am not denying solar cycles and warming as a result from it. I am denying that humans are principle cause of the warming.

First time I started following climate was when I started reading articled from Claude Allegre, scientist from France. He's one of the early stage high end scientists to whom other "warmers" turned to for their argument. Honestly, that long ago I wasn't paying much attention to the whole thing, until he reversed his course upon reviewing new data on glaciers, what resulted in being castigated and roundly attacked by his former supporters. It became clear to me then, that warming became more of a religion then a science and that whole thing was primarily driven by a desire to control, then to do what is right for the environment.

Let me be clear: I'm all for wind, solar, hydro, hydrogen and geothermal energy sources, but more then any of these, I am for modern and clean nuclear energy. If "warmists" were truly about the environment then they would be pushing for nuclear power along with everything else. But no, "warmists" reject it and that's telling me they are not completely honest to us. I was thinking what they could be hiding and it hits me... Nuclear power plants cannot be built by the "common people" with no money, experience and knowledge. But if enough money is redistributed (taken then given) to those all those special interest groups who support this government under "green job" umbrella, many will become instantly rich without even showing results of their work or producing anything, since they have to do the research in the field that is still not much known. No guaranties they will succeed, but if they do, they will become even richer.

I am all for solar improvements and other alternative energies. But, if you are going to scream and cry that we have to change right now, then you better support shovel ready nuclear power or you are nothing but an ideological hack.

This is a fair view. And it highlights what is being done to our economies as a result. And of course the elites will get richer, and it's to that end they push this. (Ends justifies the means) Good post.

 

[Toronado3800]

I stated earlier, that based on data, we are in warming solar cycle, even thought there is current cooling trend.

Ok, I give. Was 2008 the entire cooling trend?

 

[Toronado3800]

Nuclear energy is great, most folks view it like they view strip clubs though.

They want them close enough to get their lights turned on by them but not in their back yard.

 

[Toronado3800]

This is the hole in 2006. Let's talk about CFC's if you want to move to Argentina and enjoy this soon. DDT also had some good points if you don't care about some side effects.

 

[Old Rocks]

I also know that the ozone layer is depleting because of the use of CFCs and all that other shit we put in the air.

Actually, that's a myth too. The dreaded ozone hole comes and goes. BTW...the sun interacting with the atmosphere creates ozone.

So regardless of whether we are cooling right now, or warming up- I have all systems glowing green for GO for 100% sustainable energy, and waste reduction.

First, you'll have to define down what "sustainable" means.

Secondly, most people are for waste reduction, as it positively affects their bottom lines. However, they're against things called "waste reduction" that end up causing more waste than they reduce (i.e. glass recycling).

Lordy, lordy, ol' fuckin' dumb Dooodeee....... is at it again.

Realizing that this is considerably above your grade level of understanding, but here is a concise and easily understood explanation of how CFC interact with stratospheric ozone.

CFC's and Ozone Depletion

 

[Old Rocks]

I stated earlier, that based on data, we are in warming solar cycle, even thought there is current cooling trend.

Ok, I give. Was 2008 the entire cooling trend?

And what a cooling trend it was. Eighth warmest in the last 150 years. A regular avalanche of a cooling trend.

 

[Oddball]

Lordy, lordy, ol' fuckin' dumb Dooodeee....... is at it again.

Realizing that this is considerably above your grade level of understanding, but here is a concise and easily understood explanation of how CFC interact with stratospheric ozone.

CFC's and Ozone Depletion

So what?...That still doesn't refute the facts that the much feared and loathed ozone hole comes and goes like the tide, nor that sunlight interacting with the atmosphere creates ozone.

Besides that, I never said anything about CFCs.

Speaking of not being able to read to grade level....

 

[SFC Ollie]

While I will agree that we do need to find and perfect the next great energy that we will be using, to produce electricity, heat, transportation etc. I will fight every politician that tries to ram some program down my throat. We have the time and the energy available for now that we can afford to allow our scientists to come up with what is needed. Without the Government forcing anything on us.

Last time I checked politicians weren't normally scientists.

 

[Toronado3800]

We have the time and the energy available for now that we can afford to allow our scientists to come up with what is needed. Without the Government forcing anything on us.

I dunno. My pessimistic view of human nature overtakes me. Seems if you put someone on a corporate board they make different decisions than HOPEFULLY they would in their personal life. Leave corporations alone they'll still spray DDT all over creation


Can you believe this?

 

[Screaming Eagle]

This is the hole in 2006. Let's talk about CFC's if you want to move to Argentina and enjoy this soon. DDT also had some good points if you don't care about some side effects.

DDT had side effects? Please enlighten us.

 

[Oddball]

I'm still trying to figure out how the CFCs know to migrate to Antarctica.

 

[Toronado3800]

DDT had side effects? Please enlighten us.

Really?
DDT Effects

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm still trying to figure out how the CFCs know to migrate to Antarctica.

I'm still trying to figure out how someone as stupid as you learned to use a keyboard.

 

[Old Rocks]

This is the hole in 2006. Let's talk about CFC's if you want to move to Argentina and enjoy this soon. DDT also had some good points if you don't care about some side effects.

DDT had side effects? Please enlighten us.

Consider yourself enlightened.

Research Summaries - Alavanja et al.

The investigators combined published data from North American studies on preterm delivery or duration of lactation and DDE exposure with African data on DDT spraying and the effect of preterm birth or lactation duration on infant deaths to estimate infant mortality rates (IMR). Specifically, Chen and Rogan wanted to compare malaria-specific IMR with DDT-induced IMR. The increase in infant mortality due to maternal DDT exposure was calculated based on the following findings from the scientific literature: (I) The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the US Centers for Disease Control reported an increase in the rate of preterm birth with increasing levels of DDE in maternal serum; (ii) Two birth cohort studies reported a negative relationship between lactation duration and DDE levels. Specifically, mothers with higher concentrations of serum DDE breastfed their infants 40%-50% less than those mothers with low or undetectable levels of DDE. African data was then used to correlate the IMR with preterm birth (RR=2.0; preterm births accounted for 17% infant deaths in sub-Saharan Africa) and WHO-Africa data was used to correlate the IMR with shortened lactation duration (Senegal, estimated that DDT-induced shorted lactation from 19 months to 11 months would result in RR=2.0). The North American data was used to further estimate the proportion of preterm births due to DDT exposure. Using the assumption that DDT spraying increased the preterm delivery rate from approximately 15% in Africa before DDT spraying to 25% after spraying (RR=1.7 for preterm birth, RR=2.0 preterm birth leading to infant death), DDT-induced preterm births increase the IMR by 9%

 

[Big Fitz]

So since one climatological hoax has been foiled, we're going to go back to an even older one?

Face it, you got a skip in your record.

It's mankind's fault. It's capitalism's fault. Only socialism can save us now. >skip< It's mankind's fault. It's capitalism's fault. Only socialism can save us now. >skip< It's mankind's fault. It's capitalism's fault. Only socialism can save us now. >skip< It's mankind's fault. It's capitalism's fault. Only socialism can save us now. >skip< It's mankind's fault. It's capitalism's fault. Only socialism can save us now. >skip< It's mankind's fault. It's capitalism's fault. Only socialism can save us now. >skip< It's mankind's fault. It's capitalism's fault. Only socialism can save us now. >skip<

 

[Oddball]

I'm still trying to figure out how the CFCs know to migrate to Antarctica.

I'm still trying to figure out how someone as stupid as you learned to use a keyboard.

IOW, you have no explanation, asshole.

 

[Old Rocks]

So since one climatological hoax has been foiled, we're going to go back to an even older one?

Face it, you got a skip in your record.

It's mankind's fault. It's capitalism's fault. Only socialism can save us now. >skip< It's mankind's fault. It's capitalism's fault. Only socialism can save us now. >skip< It's mankind's fault. It's capitalism's fault. Only socialism can save us now. >skip< It's mankind's fault. It's capitalism's fault. Only socialism can save us now. >skip< It's mankind's fault. It's capitalism's fault. Only socialism can save us now. >skip< It's mankind's fault. It's capitalism's fault. Only socialism can save us now. >skip< It's mankind's fault. It's capitalism's fault. Only socialism can save us now. >skip<

And you have a stick up your ass.

Why don't you send the Aussies some of the stolen e-mails, they need a bit of help with the current heat wave. Surely that would cool that, correct?

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm still trying to figure out how the CFCs know to migrate to Antarctica.

I'm still trying to figure out how someone as stupid as you learned to use a keyboard.

IOW, you have no explanation, asshole.

The explanation is simple. The CFCs spread through out the atmosphere and stratosphere, where, due to the cold, the their effects are magnified many orders of magnitude over Antarctica.

Chapter 11 Section 1
Measurements over Antarctica have shown that the heterogeneous chemistry theory is correct. Antarctic ozone loss was caused by the heterogeneous reactions of chlorine compounds on the surfaces of polar stratospheric clouds. Once the chlorine is freed by these heterogeneous reactions, the weak levels of sunlight initiate and maintain the catalytic ozone loss photochemistry. The chlorine compounds are principally of manmade origin: the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) we discussed in Chapter 1. These were the safe, inert compounds developed in the late 1920s for refrigeration and aerosol propellants. CFCs gained enormous usage worldwide since their creation. Measurement of extremely high levels of chlorine monoxide over Antarctica was the "smoking gun" that provided clear evidence that the CFCs were the culprit behind these ozone losses.

The answer to the question of why do temperatures get so cold inside the stratosphere above Antartica, as opposed to elsewhere, and allow PSCs to form involves the unique circulation pattern there. First, you need sunshine (actually UV light) to heat the stratosphere. Since the Antarctic stratosphere is dark during polar night, there isn't any heating of the polar stratosphere by the Sun. The Antarctic stratosphere cools off by emitting IR radiation to space, just like an electric stove element that cools from red hot after you turn off the stove. Second, the weather systems in the stratosphere warm the polar regions. During the southern winter these stratospheric weather systems are very weak, and there is nothing to heat the Antarctic stratosphere. Hence, because of the IR cooling and weak weather systems, the polar stratosphere gets very, very cold.

A second aspect of these very cold temperatures is something we've discussed in previous chapters, the polar night jet stream (see Chapter 6). The polar night jet is a ribbon of fast moving winds that develops near the edge of the polar night and the cold temperatures. Wind speeds reach 100 mph or greater at 70,000 feet. This jet results from the same two processes that give us the very cold polar region, weak weather systems and infrared cooling. We also tend to think of this jet as a "vortex" of air that swirls west to east around the South Pole. The jet also acts as a barrier to transport of air between the south polar region and the southern midlatitudes.

The reactions required for ozone loss ultimately also involve sunlight, so it is necessary for there to be sunlight, as well as extremely cold temperatures with polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) Such conditions exist for a few weeks of the year in September and early October, at the start of the southern spring. By December, conditions are too warm for PSCs and also the strong polar vortex breaks down as temperature differences become less. The warming temperatures in spring, and the breakup of the polar vortex shuts down the rapid ozone-destroying reactions that occur via heterogeneous chemistry.

Now Doooodeeee....., I answered your question. Now answer mine. How come you are to fucking stupid to look up simple stuff like this yourself?