So the Oceans are rising are they?

[RollingThunder]

Some of the environmentalist's scare stories stay in fashion and some don't. I mean, whatever happened to "acid rain"?

Environmental regulations. Whatever happened to knowing about a topic before posting? Limits on SO2 reduced the "acid rain" problem, just like banning CFCs led to the shrinking of the ozone hole. Funny how many deniers talk about "junk science". That's what they said about the two examples I gave. They just can't help being on the wrong side of science, history AND logic again, now that we're talking CO2 and GHGs.

I am not a scientist.

That's for damn sure. You actually seem to be more of an anti-scientist who's completely clueless and just parrots propaganda you get off of denier cult blogs.

I'm sure that a scientist can tell the difference between dog poop and cow poop. If it's on my shoe, I'm not concerned so much with the origin as the removal.

You make it quite obvious that you are unable to tell the difference between shit and shinola. You should be concerned with removing the oil corp propaganda poop from your skull.

The content of CO2 in the air may be tangently(sic) related Climate Change.

No little dufus, CO2 levels are directly related to the current abrupt global warming/climate changes. That is because CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. Too bad you're too ignorant and ideologically brainwashed to understand that fact. Virtually all of the actual scientists on Earth understand it though which is why no one with more than half a brain takes you denier cult retards seriously.

The connection of CFC's to the Ozone Hole may be related, but while the science is compelling, the hole is bigger than it was when the CFC's were banned. Go figure. The hole disappears and reappears every year. Every year. The wailing warnings always seem to leave that part out.

If you keep listening to Rush, your brain will eventually wither up into something resembling a dried monkey turd. Or perhaps it already has.

You seem to imagine that problems involving the release into the atmosphere of man-made gases in large quantities over long periods of time will clear up almost instantly as soon as we make some reduction in those releases. LOL. You have no conception of the volume of gases involved or the physics governing that gas's interaction with the rest of the atmosphere or the time scale that will be necessary to return the system to something like the previous 'normal'.

Dr. Paul Newman, a senior research scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center:
"The Antarctic ozone hole will reach sizes on the order of 8-10 million square miles nearly every year until about 2018 or so," said Newman. "Around 2018, things should slowly start improving, and somewhere between 2020 and 2025, we'll be able to detect that the ozone hole is actually beginning to decrease in size. Eventually the ozone hole will go back to its normal level around 2070 or so."


***

 

[code1211]

Environmental regulations. Whatever happened to knowing about a topic before posting? Limits on SO2 reduced the "acid rain" problem, just like banning CFCs led to the shrinking of the ozone hole. Funny how many deniers talk about "junk science". That's what they said about the two examples I gave. They just can't help being on the wrong side of science, history AND logic again, now that we're talking CO2 and GHGs.

I am not a scientist.

That's for damn sure. You actually seem to be more of an anti-scientist who's completely clueless and just parrots propaganda you get off of denier cult blogs.



You make it quite obvious that you are unable to tell the difference between shit and shinola. You should be concerned with removing the oil corp propaganda poop from your skull.

The content of CO2 in the air may be tangently(sic) related Climate Change.

No little dufus, CO2 levels are directly related to the current abrupt global warming/climate changes. That is because CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. Too bad you're too ignorant and ideologically brainwashed to understand that fact. Virtually all of the actual scientists on Earth understand it though which is why no one with more than half a brain takes you denier cult retards seriously.

The connection of CFC's to the Ozone Hole may be related, but while the science is compelling, the hole is bigger than it was when the CFC's were banned. Go figure. The hole disappears and reappears every year. Every year. The wailing warnings always seem to leave that part out.

If you keep listening to Rush, your brain will eventually wither up into something resembling a dried monkey turd. Or perhaps it already has.

You seem to imagine that problems involving the release into the atmosphere of man-made gases in large quantities over long periods of time will clear up almost instantly as soon as we make some reduction in those releases. LOL. You have no conception of the volume of gases involved or the physics governing that gas's interaction with the rest of the atmosphere or the time scale that will be necessary to return the system to something like the previous 'normal'.

Dr. Paul Newman, a senior research scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center:
"The Antarctic ozone hole will reach sizes on the order of 8-10 million square miles nearly every year until about 2018 or so," said Newman. "Around 2018, things should slowly start improving, and somewhere between 2020 and 2025, we'll be able to detect that the ozone hole is actually beginning to decrease in size. Eventually the ozone hole will go back to its normal level around 2070 or so."


***

So, to be clear, you are saying that the link between CO2 and Warming is as provable as the link between atmospheric sulfur and acid rain?

If that is your stance, make your case.

Begin with explaining why our current warming trend pre-dates the Industrial Revolution. Include the explanation of why we are about 1 degree cooler right now than we were about 8000 years ago with CO2 estimated to be about 100 ppm lower than today.

You might want to touch on why the climate system does not respond in accord with the predictions of Dr. Hansen and why, if the sea level is rising by an amount between 1 and 3 mm annually, the shore lines of Pomeii and Herculaneum are still above water today and still on the shore where they were in about 80 AD. The sea level should have risen by more than 10 feet in the intirim and yet it has not.

Theoretical projections and results are sometimes more closely aligned in scientific considerations.

If it makes you feel better as you respond to hurl insults, please do so. For the sake of brevity, could you please group the insults into one section and your facts into another? In that way I can more easily separate the shit from the Shinola which, in passing, is a trademarked product name and should be capitalized.

 

[Old Rocks]

I am not a scientist.

That's for damn sure. You actually seem to be more of an anti-scientist who's completely clueless and just parrots propaganda you get off of denier cult blogs.



You make it quite obvious that you are unable to tell the difference between shit and shinola. You should be concerned with removing the oil corp propaganda poop from your skull.




No little dufus, CO2 levels are directly related to the current abrupt global warming/climate changes. That is because CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. Too bad you're too ignorant and ideologically brainwashed to understand that fact. Virtually all of the actual scientists on Earth understand it though which is why no one with more than half a brain takes you denier cult retards seriously.

The connection of CFC's to the Ozone Hole may be related, but while the science is compelling, the hole is bigger than it was when the CFC's were banned. Go figure. The hole disappears and reappears every year. Every year. The wailing warnings always seem to leave that part out.

If you keep listening to Rush, your brain will eventually wither up into something resembling a dried monkey turd. Or perhaps it already has.

You seem to imagine that problems involving the release into the atmosphere of man-made gases in large quantities over long periods of time will clear up almost instantly as soon as we make some reduction in those releases. LOL. You have no conception of the volume of gases involved or the physics governing that gas's interaction with the rest of the atmosphere or the time scale that will be necessary to return the system to something like the previous 'normal'.

Dr. Paul Newman, a senior research scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center:
"The Antarctic ozone hole will reach sizes on the order of 8-10 million square miles nearly every year until about 2018 or so," said Newman. "Around 2018, things should slowly start improving, and somewhere between 2020 and 2025, we'll be able to detect that the ozone hole is actually beginning to decrease in size. Eventually the ozone hole will go back to its normal level around 2070 or so."


***

So, to be clear, you are saying that the link between CO2 and Warming is as provable as the link between atmospheric sulfur and acid rain?

If that is your stance, make your case.

Begin with explaining why our current warming trend pre-dates the Industrial Revolution. Include the explanation of why we are about 1 degree cooler right now than we were about 8000 years ago with CO2 estimated to be about 100 ppm lower than today.

You might want to touch on why the climate system does not respond in accord with the predictions of Dr. Hansen and why, if the sea level is rising by an amount between 1 and 3 mm annually, the shore lines of Pomeii and Herculaneum are still above water today and still on the shore where they were in about 80 AD. The sea level should have risen by more than 10 feet in the intirim and yet it has not.

LOL. This is exactly the arguement for the fact that we have changed things quite radically. You see, the sea was not rising between 80 AD and about 1900. The accelerating rise in sea level has come about because of the thermal expansion of the water from the increasing heat in the atmosphere and the melt of the ice from our increasing the GHGs in the atmosphere.

You are stating the proof of the rise in sea level being a recent phenomonem related to the increase in GHGs in the atmosphere. Thank You

Theoretical projections and results are sometimes more closely aligned in scientific considerations.

If it makes you feel better as you respond to hurl insults, please do so. For the sake of brevity, could you please group the insults into one section and your facts into another? In that way I can more easily separate the shit from the Shinola which, in passing, is a trademarked product name and should be capitalized.

Again, thank you for noting one of the proofs of how recent the rise in sea level is.

 

[code1211]

That's for damn sure. You actually seem to be more of an anti-scientist who's completely clueless and just parrots propaganda you get off of denier cult blogs.



You make it quite obvious that you are unable to tell the difference between shit and shinola. You should be concerned with removing the oil corp propaganda poop from your skull.




No little dufus, CO2 levels are directly related to the current abrupt global warming/climate changes. That is because CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. Too bad you're too ignorant and ideologically brainwashed to understand that fact. Virtually all of the actual scientists on Earth understand it though which is why no one with more than half a brain takes you denier cult retards seriously.




If you keep listening to Rush, your brain will eventually wither up into something resembling a dried monkey turd. Or perhaps it already has.

You seem to imagine that problems involving the release into the atmosphere of man-made gases in large quantities over long periods of time will clear up almost instantly as soon as we make some reduction in those releases. LOL. You have no conception of the volume of gases involved or the physics governing that gas's interaction with the rest of the atmosphere or the time scale that will be necessary to return the system to something like the previous 'normal'.

Dr. Paul Newman, a senior research scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center:
"The Antarctic ozone hole will reach sizes on the order of 8-10 million square miles nearly every year until about 2018 or so," said Newman. "Around 2018, things should slowly start improving, and somewhere between 2020 and 2025, we'll be able to detect that the ozone hole is actually beginning to decrease in size. Eventually the ozone hole will go back to its normal level around 2070 or so."


***

So, to be clear, you are saying that the link between CO2 and Warming is as provable as the link between atmospheric sulfur and acid rain?

If that is your stance, make your case.

Begin with explaining why our current warming trend pre-dates the Industrial Revolution. Include the explanation of why we are about 1 degree cooler right now than we were about 8000 years ago with CO2 estimated to be about 100 ppm lower than today.

You might want to touch on why the climate system does not respond in accord with the predictions of Dr. Hansen and why, if the sea level is rising by an amount between 1 and 3 mm annually, the shore lines of Pomeii and Herculaneum are still above water today and still on the shore where they were in about 80 AD. The sea level should have risen by more than 10 feet in the intirim and yet it has not.

LOL. This is exactly the arguement for the fact that we have changed things quite radically. You see, the sea was not rising between 80 AD and about 1900. The accelerating rise in sea level has come about because of the thermal expansion of the water from the increasing heat in the atmosphere and the melt of the ice from our increasing the GHGs in the atmosphere.

You are stating the proof of the rise in sea level being a recent phenomonem related to the increase in GHGs in the atmosphere. Thank You

Theoretical projections and results are sometimes more closely aligned in scientific considerations.

If it makes you feel better as you respond to hurl insults, please do so. For the sake of brevity, could you please group the insults into one section and your facts into another? In that way I can more easily separate the shit from the Shinola which, in passing, is a trademarked product name and should be capitalized.

Again, thank you for noting one of the proofs of how recent the rise in sea level is.

In every example that I can find, any encroachment of the sea level rising is dependant on the land sinking. This is the case as examples in Venice , Italy and Houston, Texas and Alexandria, Egypt.

Do you have any examples in major cities with ocean coast lines that have absolute proof of the encroachment of the risen sea level on their shores. According to the AGW'ers, there has been an 8 inch vertical rise in the sea level since 1880 due to Global Warming.

It seems like London or New York or Boston should have some evidence that is easily demonstrated. Naples? Tripoli? St. Augustine? Honolulu? I should think this would be big news and trumpeted wildly by "peer reviewed" sources.

Pearl Harbor has had enough time to have a 5 inch rise in the sea level and yet the shore line is right where Nimitz left it.

Please dig up the proof of the rising sea level and show it.

 

[IanC]

The connection of CFC's to the Ozone Hole may be related, but while the science is compelling, the hole is bigger than it was when the CFC's were banned. Go figure. The hole disappears and reappears every year. Every year. The wailing warnings always seem to leave that part out.

If you keep listening to Rush, your brain will eventually wither up into something resembling a dried monkey turd. Or perhaps it already has.

You seem to imagine that problems involving the release into the atmosphere of man-made gases in large quantities over long periods of time will clear up almost instantly as soon as we make some reduction in those releases. LOL. You have no conception of the volume of gases involved or the physics governing that gas's interaction with the rest of the atmosphere or the time scale that will be necessary to return the system to something like the previous 'normal'.

Dr. Paul Newman, a senior research scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center:
"The Antarctic ozone hole will reach sizes on the order of 8-10 million square miles nearly every year until about 2018 or so," said Newman. "Around 2018, things should slowly start improving, and somewhere between 2020 and 2025, we'll be able to detect that the ozone hole is actually beginning to decrease in size. Eventually the ozone hole will go back to its normal level around 2070 or so."


***

this is a typical condescending remark from the alarmist side. Rolling Thunder--do you understand the physics? do you think that CFCs are the only factor, or even the main factor?

Q.-B. Lu
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada

Received 7 August 2008; published 19 March 2009

This Letter reports reliable satellite data in the period of 1980–2007 covering two full 11-yr cosmic ray (CR) cycles, clearly showing the correlation between CRs and ozone depletion, especially the polar ozone loss (hole) over Antarctica. The results provide strong evidence of the physical mechanism that the CR-driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules plays the dominant role in causing the ozone hole. Moreover, this mechanism predicts one of the severest ozone losses in 2008–2009 and probably another large hole around 2019–2020, according to the 11-yr CR cycle.

© 2009 The American Physical Society

URL:
Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 118501 (2009): Correlation between Cosmic Rays and Ozone Depletion

personally, as a skeptic, I do not have to take either explanation as the gospel truth. most likely it is a bit of both and some other factors that we dont understand at the moment.

AGW is the same type of scenario. did it warm up (hole appear)? yes. was there a human influenced change that co-incided with the increased temp (ozone hole)? yes. was there a simple physical process that could reasonably explain what was happening? yes. was the correlation between the CO2 (CFCs) sufficiently strong to attribute all or most of the warming (ozone hole) to that one factor? no. multi-decadal ocean currents and solar cycles give a much stronger correlation than Co2, just like cosmic ray activity has a greater correlation to the ozone hole than CFCs do. is it still possible that CO2 (CFCs) contributes to warming (ozone hole)? yes, almost certainly but to a much lesser amount than we are being told, and they are NOT the absolute causes that the alarmists faint over.

 

[RollingThunder]

Two quick points:

1. Since the alternation between ice ages and interglacials started, the beginning of every ice age has been immediately preceeded(sic) by the highest point of CO2 during the preceeding(sic) interglacial.

2. The warming trend that we currently enjoy started before the industrial Revolution. If your thesis is that the Industrial Revolution cuased the warming, you are arguing that the future caused the past.

LOLOLOL...yeah, two quick points that are quite wrong. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Do you get this pseodo-scientific crap off of a denier cult blog or do you just make it up on your own? I notice that you never seem to be able to come up with any supporting evidence or citations to back up your foolishly mistaken claims.

For the glacial periods in the last 650,000 years CO2 levels were the highest towards the beginnings of the interglacials and lowest just before the glacial period.

There was one glacial period about 440 million years ago that scientists at first thought had started with apparently high CO2 levels. Further research showed that this was mistaken and based on a paucity of data points in that period. The high CO2 levels were the result of the prolonged and intense volcanism that produced the Appalachians but CO2 levels dropped sharply over the next 5 million years prior to the glacial period and that drop may have triggered the glaciation. Of course you denier cult dingbats are too ignorant about the science to understand that the sun's output has been very, very slowly increasing over the last billion years and solar insolation was around 4% weaker 440mya than it is now. This reduced the effect of the higher CO2. There are some other factors that affect glacial cycles too as it turns out. Here's a good article in Science on a study published a year and a half ago in the science journal Geology that explains what happened to the CO2 levels and produced the cooling and the subsequent glacial period.

The Mountains That Froze the World
Geology
by Phil Berardelli
3 November 2009
(short excerpt)

The rise of the Appalachians plunged Earth into an ice age so severe that it drove nearly two-thirds of all living species extinct. That's the conclusion of a new study, which finds that the mountains' rocks absorbed enough greenhouse gas to freeze the planet. In the October issue of Geology, Young and colleagues propose the following scenario: As CO2-laced acid rain fell on the rocks, it formed limestone that washed into the Nevada sea and locked away huge amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. Then, when the volcanism ended, about 450 million years ago, the sequestering continued, thinning CO2 levels to maybe a few times higher than today. Back then, a dimmer sun couldn't keep the atmosphere warm without CO2's help--hence, the eventual onset of the ice age.


As for your second mistaken 'point', the current abrupt warming trend actually did mostly start after the industrial revolution and the trend has gotten stronger in the last two decades. Here's an article about one of the studies published in the journal Science that confirms that fact.

Arctic Warming Overtakes 2,000 Years of Natural Cooling
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
September 03, 2009

BOULDER—Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reached their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years, new research indicates. The study, which incorporates geologic records and computer simulations, provides new evidence that the Arctic would be cooling if not for greenhouse gas emissions that are overpowering natural climate patterns.

The international study, led by Northern Arizona University and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), will be published in the September 4 edition of Science. It was primarily funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR's sponsor.

The scientists reconstructed summer temperatures across the Arctic over the last 2,000 years by decade, extending a view of climate far beyond the 400 years of Arctic-wide records previously available at that level of detail. They found that thousands of years of gradual Arctic cooling, related to natural changes in Earth's orbit, would continue today if not for emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

New research shows that the Arctic reversed a long-term cooling trend and began warming rapidly in recent decades. The blue line shows estimates of Arctic temperatures over the last 2,000 years, based on proxy records from lake sediments, ice cores and tree rings. The green line shows the long-term cooling trend. The red line shows the recent warming based on actual observations. A 2000-year transient climate simulation with NCAR?s Community Climate System Model shows the same overall temperature decrease as does the proxy temperature reconstruction, which gives scientists confidence that their estimates are accurate. [ENLARGE] (Courtesy Science, modified by UCAR.) News media terms of use*


"This result is particularly important because the Arctic, perhaps more than any other region on Earth, is facing dramatic impacts from climate change," says NCAR scientist David Schneider, one of the co-authors. "This study provides us with a long-term record that reveals how greenhouse gases from human activities are overwhelming the Arctic's natural climate system."

Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University, the lead author and head of the synthesis project, says the results indicate that recent warming is more anomalous than previously documented.

"Scientists have known for a while that the current period of warming was preceded by a long-term cooling trend," says Kaufman. "But our reconstruction quantifies the cooling with greater certainty than before."

Greenhouse gases overtake a natural cycle

The new study is the first to quantify a pervasive cooling across the Arctic on a decade-by-decade basis that is related to an approximately 21,000-year cyclical wobble in Earth's tilt relative to the Sun. Over the last 7,000 years, the timing of Earth's closest pass by the Sun has shifted from September to January. This has gradually reduced the intensity of sunlight reaching the Arctic in summertime, when Earth is farther from the Sun.

The research team's temperature analysis shows that summer temperatures in the Arctic, in step with the reduced energy from the Sun, cooled at an average rate of about 0.2 degrees Celsius (about .36 degrees Fahrenheit) per thousand years. The temperatures eventually bottomed out during the "Little Ice Age," a period of widespread cooling that lasted roughly from the 16th to the mid-19th centuries.

Even though the orbital cycle that produced the cooling continued, it was overwhelmed in the 20th century by human-induced warming. The result was summer temperatures in the Arctic by the year 2000 that were about 1.4 degrees C (2.5 degrees F) higher than would have been expected from the continued cyclical cooling alone.

"If it hadn't been for the increase in human-produced greenhouse gases, summer temperatures in the Arctic should have cooled gradually over the last century," says Bette Otto-Bliesner, an NCAR scientist who participated in the study.

Natural archives of Arctic climate

To reconstruct Arctic temperatures over the last 2,000 years, the study team incorporated three types of field-based data, each of which captured the response of a different component of the Arctic's climate system to changes in temperature.

These data included temperature reconstructions published by the study team earlier this year. The reconstructions were based on evidence provided by sediments from Arctic lakes, which yielded two kinds of clues: changes in the abundance of silica remnants left behind by algae, which reflect the length of the growing season, and the thickness of annually deposited sediment layers, which increases during warmer summers as deposits from glacial meltwater increase.

The research also incorporated previously published data from glacial ice and tree rings that were calibrated against the instrumental temperature record.

The scientists compared the temperatures inferred from the field-based data with simulations run with the Community Climate System Model, a computer model of global climate based at NCAR. The model's estimate of the reduction of seasonal sunlight in the Arctic and the resulting cooling was consistent with the analysis of the lake sediments and other natural archives. These results give scientists more confidence in computer projections of future Arctic temperatures.

"This study provides a clear example of how increased greenhouse gases are now changing our climate, ending at least 2,000 years of Arctic cooling," says NCAR scientist Caspar Ammann, a co-author.

The new study follows previous work showing that temperatures over the last century warmed almost three times faster in the Arctic than elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere. This phenomenon, called Arctic amplification, occurs as highly reflective Arctic ice and snow melt away, allowing dark land and exposed ocean to absorb more sunlight.

"Because we know that the processes responsible for past Arctic amplification are still operating, we can anticipate that it will continue into the next century," says Gifford Miller of the University of Colorado at Boulder, a member of the study team. "Consequently, Arctic warming will continue to exceed temperature increases in the rest of the Northern Hemisphere, resulting in accelerated loss of land ice and an increased rate of sea level rise, with global consequences."

About the article

Title: "Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling"

Authors: Darrell S. Kaufman, David P. Schneider, Nicholas P. McKay, Caspar M. Ammann, Raymond S. Bradley, Keith R. Briffa, Gifford H. Miller, Bette L. Otto-Bliesner, Jonathan T. Overpeck, Bo M. Vinther, and Journal of Paleolimnology special issue authors.

Publication: Science, September 4, 2009

© 2011 UCAR

*Media & nonprofit use of images: Except where otherwise indicated, media and nonprofit use permitted with credit as indicated above and compliance with UCAR's terms of use.

Terms of Use - Permitted Use. The user is granted the right to use the Site for non-commercial, non-profit research, or educational purposes only, without any fee or cost.

 

[RollingThunder]

this is a typical condescending remark from the alarmist side. Rolling Thunder--do you understand the physics? do you think that CFCs are the only factor, or even the main factor?

I would suppose that you must get a lot of "condescending remarks" when people notice that you're just parroting some crap you heard from Rush or got off of a denier cult blog. The obvious fact is that you have no real understanding of the paper you are quoting.

Q.-B. Lu
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada

Received 7 August 2008; published 19 March 2009

This Letter reports reliable satellite data in the period of 1980–2007 covering two full 11-yr cosmic ray (CR) cycles, clearly showing the correlation between CRs and ozone depletion, especially the polar ozone loss (hole) over Antarctica. The results provide strong evidence of the physical mechanism that the CR-driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules plays the dominant role in causing the ozone hole. Moreover, this mechanism predicts one of the severest ozone losses in 2008–2009 and probably another large hole around 2019–2020, according to the 11-yr CR cycle.

© 2009 The American Physical Society

URL:
Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 118501 (2009): Correlation between Cosmic Rays and Ozone Depletion

personally, as a skeptic, I do not have to take either explanation as the gospel truth. most likely it is a bit of both and some other factors that we dont understand at the moment.

Sorry but you are not a 'skeptic', you are a denier. There is a difference. This study is not saying that cosmic rays, rather than CFCs, caused the appearance of the ozone hole six decades ago. After all the cosmic rays have been hitting the Earth forever. The scientists who authored this study are claiming that there is some indications that it may be primarily cosmic rays rather than sunlight that is interacting with the CFCs and breaking them down chemically into the chlorine that eats the ozone and causes the hole over Antarctica and the thinning worldwide. Other scientists disagree. In either case, the CFCs are still responsible for the ozone loss. Obviously, ianc, you never read the article you cited and you are just parroting some misinformation/lies about what it says that you got off some denier cult blog or something.

Do cosmic rays destroy the ozone layer?
PhysicsWorld.com
A website from the Institute of Physics
(short excerpt)

Lu, however, believes that cosmic rays break up the CFCs. He says that when cosmic rays ionize atmospheric molecules the liberated electrons can be stored on the surface of the ice particles and that these electrons, rather than the sunlight, break up the CFCs and convert the fragments into molecular chlorine... However, Neil Harris of the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit in Cambridge, UK, is not convinced. He told physicsworld.com that showing a statistical correlation is not enough to prove the validity of the cosmic-ray mechanism since there could be other causal factors varying throughout the solar cycle. In any case, he says, Lu is wrong to compare cosmic ray intensity against total ozone because measurements of the latter depend on the movement of ozone around the atmosphere as well as the actual disappearance of ozone. "He has put forward an additional mechanism to explain the creation of atomic chlorine," adds Harris. "But there is no need for this extra mechanism because the chlorine can be produced by direct sunlight."

AGW is the same type of scenario.

You mean the 'scenario' like this one where you don't understand the science and get all your misinformation from denier cult blogs? Yeah, your understanding of AGW is a lot like that scenario.

did it warm up (hole appear)? yes. was there a human influenced change that co-incided with the increased temp (ozone hole)? yes. was there a simple physical process that could reasonably explain what was happening? yes. was the correlation between the CO2 (CFCs) sufficiently strong to attribute all or most of the warming (ozone hole) to that one factor? no.

Wrong again. The correct answer is yes. Global warming is indeed primarily linked to rising CO2 levels.

multi-decadal ocean currents and solar cycles give a much stronger correlation than Co2, just like cosmic ray activity has a greater correlation to the ozone hole than CFCs do.

Wrong all around there, little dude, as I suppose must be usual for you. Wrong (as I just showed) about the CFCs, wrong about the ocean currents and wrong about the solar cycles.

Solar Variability & Global Warming
Stanford Solar Center
(excerpt)

A recent review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate. Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, "it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes." That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.

Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle. Changes over longer periods must be inferred from other sources. Estimates of earlier variations are important for calibrating the climate models. While a component of recent global climate change may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The effects of global climate change are apparent (see section below) despite the fact that the Sun is once again less bright during the present solar minimum. Since the last solar minimum of 1996, the Sun's brightness has decreased by 0.02% at visible wavelengths, and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths, representing a 12-year low in solar irradiance, according to this NASA news article (April 1, 2009). Also, be sure to read this more recent article: 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade.

©2008 by Stanford SOLAR Center · Permitted Uses

Permitted Uses - All images and text not credited otherwise are Copyright (c) 1996-2007 by the Stanford SOLAR Center, Solar Observatories Group, Stanford University, CA. All rights reserved. Reproduction of SOHO, NASA, and Solar Center owned images is permitted and strongly encouraged for educational purposes so long as no charge is made for copies, credit is given to the the appropriate sources, and the appropriate copyright notice is included.

is it still possible that CO2 (CFCs) contributes to warming (ozone hole)? yes, almost certainly but to a much lesser amount than we are being told, and they are NOT the absolute causes that the alarmists faint over.

More denier cult trash. I've already demonstrated that you're full of misinformation and propaganda and you have no idea what you're talking about. CO2 is definitely, by far and away, the primary driving factor behind the current abrupt global warming/climate changes. The world scientific community is in agreement on this and all the evidence supports it.

 

[wirebender]

LOLOLOL...yeah, two quick points that are quite wrong. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Do you get this pseodo-scientific crap off of a denier cult blog or do you just make it up on your own? I notice that you never seem to be able to come up with any supporting evidence or citations to back up your foolishly mistaken claims.

I see you don't go in for peer reviewed science either. Understandable, but I am afraid that it puts you behind the 8 ball. Here is some peer reviewed science for you that states quite clearly that atmospheric CO2 increases have historically followed temperature increases clearly indicating that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause.

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration Across the Mid-Pleistocene Transition

From the abstract: These estimates are consistent with a close linkage between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global climate, but the lack of a gradual decrease in interglacial Pco2 does not support the suggestion that a long-term drawdown of atmospheric CO2 was the main cause of the climate transition.

Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination

From the abstract: The close correlation between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature indicates that the Southern Ocean played an important role in causing the CO2 increase.

In case you might be wondering, that corelation is because warm water holds less CO2 than cold water. As the ocean warmed, CO2 was released resulting in increased atmospheric CO2. There is always a lag between increased temperatures and increased atmospheric CO2.

Coherence established between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

The hypothesis that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is related to observable changes in the climate is tested using modern methods of time-series analysis. The results confirm that average global temperature is increasing, and that temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide are significantly correlated over the past thirty years. Changes in carbon dioxide content lag those in temperature by five months.

Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations

From the abstract: High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations. Despite strongly decreasing temperatures, high carbon dioxide concentrations can be sustained for thousands of years during glaciations;

Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming

From the abstract: Deep-sea temperatures warmed by ∼2°C between 19 and 17 thousand years before the present (ky B.P.), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical–surface-ocean warming by ∼1000 years. The cause of this deglacial deep-water warming does not lie within the tropics, nor can its early onset between 19 and 17 ky B.P. be attributed to CO2 forcing.


ScienceDirect - Quaternary Science Reviews : The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka

The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka

From the abstract: Over the full 420 ka of the Vostok record, CO2 variations lag behind atmospheric temperature changes in the Southern Hemisphere by 1.3±1.0 ka, and lead over global ice-volume variations by 2.7±1.3 ka. However, significant short-term changes in the lag of CO2 relative to temperature, subsequent to Terminations II and III, are also detected.


Need more?

 

[IanC]

this is a typical condescending remark from the alarmist side. Rolling Thunder--do you understand the physics? do you think that CFCs are the only factor, or even the main factor?

I would suppose that you must get a lot of "condescending remarks" when people notice that you're just parroting some crap you heard from Rush or got off of a denier cult blog. The obvious fact is that you have no real understanding of the paper you are quoting.

personally, as a skeptic, I do not have to take either explanation as the gospel truth. most likely it is a bit of both and some other factors that we dont understand at the moment.

Sorry but you are not a 'skeptic', you are a denier. There is a difference. This study is not saying that cosmic rays, rather than CFCs, caused the appearance of the ozone hole six decades ago. After all the cosmic rays have been hitting the Earth forever. The scientists who authored this study are claiming that there is some indications that it may be primarily cosmic rays rather than sunlight that is interacting with the CFCs and breaking them down chemically into the chlorine that eats the ozone and causes the hole over Antarctica and the thinning worldwide. Other scientists disagree. In either case, the CFCs are still responsible for the ozone loss. Obviously, ianc, you never read the article you cited and you are just parroting some misinformation/lies about what it says that you got off some denier cult blog or something.

Do cosmic rays destroy the ozone layer?
PhysicsWorld.com
A website from the Institute of Physics
(short excerpt)

Lu, however, believes that cosmic rays break up the CFCs. He says that when cosmic rays ionize atmospheric molecules the liberated electrons can be stored on the surface of the ice particles and that these electrons, rather than the sunlight, break up the CFCs and convert the fragments into molecular chlorine... However, Neil Harris of the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit in Cambridge, UK, is not convinced. He told physicsworld.com that showing a statistical correlation is not enough to prove the validity of the cosmic-ray mechanism since there could be other causal factors varying throughout the solar cycle. In any case, he says, Lu is wrong to compare cosmic ray intensity against total ozone because measurements of the latter depend on the movement of ozone around the atmosphere as well as the actual disappearance of ozone. "He has put forward an additional mechanism to explain the creation of atomic chlorine," adds Harris. "But there is no need for this extra mechanism because the chlorine can be produced by direct sunlight."





You mean the 'scenario' like this one where you don't understand the science and get all your misinformation from denier cult blogs? Yeah, your understanding of AGW is a lot like that scenario.




Wrong again. The correct answer is yes. Global warming is indeed primarily linked to rising CO2 levels.

multi-decadal ocean currents and solar cycles give a much stronger correlation than Co2, just like cosmic ray activity has a greater correlation to the ozone hole than CFCs do.

Wrong all around there, little dude, as I suppose must be usual for you. Wrong (as I just showed) about the CFCs, wrong about the ocean currents and wrong about the solar cycles.

Solar Variability & Global Warming
Stanford Solar Center
(excerpt)

A recent review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate. Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, "it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes." That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.

Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle. Changes over longer periods must be inferred from other sources. Estimates of earlier variations are important for calibrating the climate models. While a component of recent global climate change may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The effects of global climate change are apparent (see section below) despite the fact that the Sun is once again less bright during the present solar minimum. Since the last solar minimum of 1996, the Sun's brightness has decreased by 0.02% at visible wavelengths, and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths, representing a 12-year low in solar irradiance, according to this NASA news article (April 1, 2009). Also, be sure to read this more recent article: 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade.

©2008 by Stanford SOLAR Center · Permitted Uses

Permitted Uses - All images and text not credited otherwise are Copyright (c) 1996-2007 by the Stanford SOLAR Center, Solar Observatories Group, Stanford University, CA. All rights reserved. Reproduction of SOHO, NASA, and Solar Center owned images is permitted and strongly encouraged for educational purposes so long as no charge is made for copies, credit is given to the the appropriate sources, and the appropriate copyright notice is included.

is it still possible that CO2 (CFCs) contributes to warming (ozone hole)? yes, almost certainly but to a much lesser amount than we are being told, and they are NOT the absolute causes that the alarmists faint over.

More denier cult trash. I've already demonstrated that you're full of misinformation and propaganda and you have no idea what you're talking about. CO2 is definitely, by far and away, the primary driving factor behind the current abrupt global warming/climate changes. The world scientific community is in agreement on this and all the evidence supports it.

Dude! now your just moving the goalposts. I showed that the 'consensus' didnt understand the ozone hole.

and your link to arctic warming is a joke. the same jokers behind the Hockey Stick and IPCC shenanagans are all over it. they claim their 'estimates' match up with their 'models' so it must be right! hahaha. and I am not sure- were you claiming that that study had something to do with proving CO2 was increasing temps? because it certainly doesnt.

why do you continue to call me a denier? because you alarmists dont have proof that CO2 is the main cause of increased temps? or is it because I dont believe your doomsday scenarios that change every day and arent supported by actual measured physical evidence?

 

[wirebender]

Dude! now your just moving the goalposts. I showed that the 'consensus' didnt understand the ozone hole.

Ozone hole. That was just a warm up scam for the big AGW hoax.

 

[code1211]

Two quick points:

1. Since the alternation between ice ages and interglacials started, the beginning of every ice age has been immediately preceeded(sic) by the highest point of CO2 during the preceeding(sic) interglacial.

2. The warming trend that we currently enjoy started before the industrial Revolution. If your thesis is that the Industrial Revolution cuased the warming, you are arguing that the future caused the past.

LOLOLOL...yeah, two quick points that are quite wrong. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Do you get this pseodo-scientific crap off of a denier cult blog or do you just make it up on your own? I notice that you never seem to be able to come up with any supporting evidence or citations to back up your foolishly mistaken claims.

<snip>

.

I'm glad that you get such a kick out of my posts. In your long and winding post, I think I noticed the hockey stick graph. I would have expected nothing less from a person who appreciates a good joke.

During cooler weather, CO2 is sequestered in the ground especially in areas of perma frost. This also happens annually due to the majority of land being in the Northern Hemisphere. When warming occurs, as it is right now, the sequestered CO2 is emitted as a function of warming. That is why the CO2 is highest immediately before any glacial period begins. If you do not understand this, you know nothing of the process at all.

The Industrial Revolution is genearlly thought to have begun in the 18th century and continued into the 19th. Our current warming period, according to most proxies, started during the 17th century. It is as logical to say that the Industrial Revolution caused the Little Ice Age and the Warming period we currently enjoy. Both started before the Industrial Revolution.

If your knowledge of this is lacking, you simply need more knowledge.

I recomend GlobalWarmingArt.com. This is a site that presents data and facts with little if any propaganda.

 

[RollingThunder]

LOLOLOL...yeah, two quick points that are quite wrong. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Do you get this pseodo-scientific crap off of a denier cult blog or do you just make it up on your own? I notice that you never seem to be able to come up with any supporting evidence or citations to back up your foolishly mistaken claims.

I see you don't go in for peer reviewed science either. Understandable, but I am afraid that it puts you behind the 8 ball.

You are such an idiot, wirehead. My post that you're responding to contained references to articles in two peer reviewed journals - Geology and Science. And that, to you, means that I "don't go in for peer reviewed science", eh? LOLOLOL. Moron!!!

Here is some peer reviewed science for you that states quite clearly that atmospheric CO2 increases have historically followed temperature increases clearly indicating that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause.

The scientific studies you cite do not indicate that the current increased CO2 is the result of increased temperatures as you imagine that they do. You're just a scientifically illiterate denier cultist clinging to another one of the long ago debunked myths of your ginned up cult of dupes and stooges. I strongly suspect that you're not intelligent enough to comprehend just why you're wrong or open minded enough to even consider evidence that contradicts your cherished denier cult delusions and myths. But for the possible readers here who actually have an above room temperature IQ, here are the facts.

Anti-global heating claims – a reasonably thorough debunking
Scholars and Rogues

DENIER MYTH#21: Ice core data illustrates that CO2 has previously always risen after temperature increases, not before as scientists are claiming is happening now. Therefore any global heating we’ve experienced is already over and we should start cooling down soon. (sources: Multiple)

Debunking: There are a number of problems with this argument – a logical fallacy, an inaccuracy with regard to the time scales involved, and a misunderstanding of how the transitions in question (deglaciation, or going from an ice age to an inter-glacial period) are understood to work.

First, the logical fallacy is known as “predictive appeal to history,” and it relies on the “it’s always happened this way in the past, so it will always happen this way.” Or, to steal an analogy that a commenter on Digg used, if you push your foot down on the gas 10 times and the car accelerates each time, you can realistically expect that the next time you put your foot down on the gas the car will accelerate again. That’s science. But what if you put your foot on the gas and nothing happens? Assuming that that car would have accelerated was a reasonable scientific expectation, but once the car didn’t accelerate, you have to leave your prediction behind and actually figure out what’s busted in the car. Or, to put this analogy in terms that more directly parallel global heating, what if you’re sitting in the car and it accelerates even before you put your foot on the gas? Did you accidentally put your foot on the gas and not realize it? Or has something broken under the hood that you’ll fix before you can slow down again? In the case of global heating, the Earth’s atmospheric CO2 took off before the temperature started rising, and scientists have identified that the differences this time around are human-caused, or anthropogenic (See Myth #3).

CO2 over last 1000 yearsRelying on prior history to generate predictions only works when everything is equal and the situations are substantially identical. What we have today in the case of global heating is not substantially identical in a scientific sense to prior episodes of heating in the past. Without CO2 produced by the burning of fossil fuels, the natural atmospheric CO2 concentration would be approximately 280-290 ppm instead of the approximately 383 ppm it is today. As the image at right shows, modern human civilization itself has made the situation substantially different from prior climatic cycles.

The second problem is that proponents of this myth are confusing different time scales. It is true that the Vostok ice core has illustrated that there is a delay of between 200 and 800 years between a change in temperature and the lagging change in CO2. However, this change is only observable at transitions between periods of glaciation and interglacial periods where the changes are of sufficient magnitude to overcome the uncertainties in the measurements and proxies used to estimate temperature, CO2 concentration, and age. Part of the lag is due to the fact that gas bubbles are trapped in ice that is older than the air trapped. Another part of the lag is due to the time required to heat up the ocean enough to start outgassing CO2 (see Myth #2). Other sources of lag could be the time required for the ocean to mix vertically, for sea-ice to melt, for oceanic biological productivity to change, and/or for the concentrations of atmospheric dust to change (“Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III”, Science Magazine #299). However, even then the lag is but a small percentage of the total time required to deglaciate the planet, specifically between 200 to 800 years in a deglaciation that lasts 5000 to 6000 years.

But the time scales are even more impressively different when you consider the magnitude of the changes and how fast they’ve occurred. Across Termination III described above, the concentration of CO2 increased from 240 ppp to 280 ppm over the course of approximately 5000 years, or at an average rate of 0.008 ppm CO2 year. Since 1850, the concentration of CO2 has increased from about 280 ppm to about 383 ppm, or at an average rate of 0.656 ppm CO2 per year.

Finally, it’s understood that prior climate changes were not driven by human activity since there was no human activity to drive them. However, as the article linked above shows, this doesn’t change the fact that CO2 is believed to have played a significant role in the very same transitions used to support this myth. According to the article, deglaciation Transition III in the Vostok ice core started with the melting of Antarctic ice driven by some change in solar forcing, followed by an increase in global CO2, and then by the melting of Northern Hemisphere glaciers. The paper’s authors clearly state the implication:

This confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation. Rather, deglaciation is probably initiated by some insolation forcing (1, 31, 32), which influences first the temperature change in Antarctica (and possibly in part of the Southern Hemisphere) and then the CO2. This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing. First, the 800-year time lag is short in comparison with the total duration of the temperature and CO2 increases (~5000 years). Second, the CO2 increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation (Fig. 3)….

…The sequence of events during this Termination is fully consistent with CO2 participating in the latter ~4200 years of the warming. The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is then further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacks (39) that are also at work for the presentday and future climate.

In other words, even if prior changes in climate weren’t started by increased CO2 concentrations, more CO2 in the air continued the deglaciation.

Has CO2 concentrations lagged temperature in the past? Yes, the ice cores show this quite specifically on a glacial/interglacial timescale (hundreds of thousands of year). But what’s happening to the atmosphere today has no analogue in the past. Deglaciation transitions occur due to changes in CO2 concentrations that are both smaller in magnitude than modern anthropogenic changes (40 vs. 103 ppm) and slower in duration (~5000 vs. 157 years). Because the rate of change in CO2 concentration appears to be unprecedented, we cannot rely exclusively on paleoclimatic data to explain what’s happening today. Instead climate scientists have developed scientific predictive techniques (aka computer climate models) that are informed by the paleoclimatic data we have, but that also incorporate the differences between the climate of modern humanity and the analyzed paleoclimates into their analyses.

In essence, human civilization jammed the climate accelerator and the usual planetary brakes aren’t enough yet to keep us from accelerating. (Other sources: Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination, New constraints on the gas age-ice age difference along the EPICA ice cores, 0–50 kyr)

At one point or another, each of these claims represented a real problem with the science of global heating. But no longer – the scientific evidence has become overwhelming. However, it’s the minority composed of global heating deniers who continue to hunt for flaws in climate science, so the deniers serve a valuable scientific purpose – when they find a real hole, or just think they have, addressing their claims are what has made the science of global heating as bullet-proof as it now is.

It comes down to this simple fact: the overwhelming majority of the scientific evidence points to human-induced global heating, and every claim made by global heating deniers has been effectively debunked. And because the consequences of doing nothing are so severe, we must act now even as the data continues to improve – we can no longer afford to wait.

This site - Scholars and Rogues © 2007-2011

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8]YouTube - Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The Temp leads Carbon Crock[/ame]

Need more?

Oh Yeah, lots more. Far more than you could ever provide from your stock of debunked denier cult lies, misinformation and fossil fuel industry propaganda.

 

[code1211]

<snip>

I've already demonstrated that you're full of misinformation and propaganda and you have no idea what you're talking about. CO2 is definitely, by far and away, the primary driving factor behind the current abrupt global warming/climate changes. The world scientific community is in agreement on this and all the evidence supports it.

Dude! now your just moving the goalposts. I showed that the 'consensus' didnt understand the ozone hole.

and your link to arctic warming is a joke. the same jokers behind the Hockey Stick and IPCC shenanagans are all over it. they claim their 'estimates' match up with their 'models' so it must be right! hahaha. and I am not sure- were you claiming that that study had something to do with proving CO2 was increasing temps? because it certainly doesnt.

why do you continue to call me a denier? because you alarmists dont have proof that CO2 is the main cause of increased temps? or is it because I dont believe your doomsday scenarios that change every day and arent supported by actual measured physical evidence?

Wow! This Rolling Thunder guy is hopeless.He starts with a false premise, continues with false data and concludes with empty conclusions.

He's a perfect proponent for the IPCC.

 

[westwall]

Dude! now your just moving the goalposts. I showed that the 'consensus' didnt understand the ozone hole.

and your link to arctic warming is a joke. the same jokers behind the Hockey Stick and IPCC shenanagans are all over it. they claim their 'estimates' match up with their 'models' so it must be right! hahaha. and I am not sure- were you claiming that that study had something to do with proving CO2 was increasing temps? because it certainly doesnt.

why do you continue to call me a denier? because you alarmists dont have proof that CO2 is the main cause of increased temps? or is it because I dont believe your doomsday scenarios that change every day and arent supported by actual measured physical evidence?

Wow! This Rolling Thunder guy is hopeless.He starts with a false premise, continues with false data and concludes with empty conclusions.

He's a perfect proponent for the IPCC.

No, he's just a brainless troll.

 

[RollingThunder]

this is a typical condescending remark from the alarmist side. Rolling Thunder--do you understand the physics? do you think that CFCs are the only factor, or even the main factor?

I would suppose that you must get a lot of "condescending remarks" when people notice that you're just parroting some crap you heard from Rush or got off of a denier cult blog. The obvious fact is that you have no real understanding of the paper you are quoting.


Sorry but you are not a 'skeptic', you are a denier. There is a difference. This study is not saying that cosmic rays, rather than CFCs, caused the appearance of the ozone hole six decades ago. After all the cosmic rays have been hitting the Earth forever. The scientists who authored this study are claiming that there is some indications that it may be primarily cosmic rays rather than sunlight that is interacting with the CFCs and breaking them down chemically into the chlorine that eats the ozone and causes the hole over Antarctica and the thinning worldwide. Other scientists disagree. In either case, the CFCs are still responsible for the ozone loss. Obviously, ianc, you never read the article you cited and you are just parroting some misinformation/lies about what it says that you got off some denier cult blog or something.

Do cosmic rays destroy the ozone layer?
PhysicsWorld.com
A website from the Institute of Physics
(short excerpt)

Lu, however, believes that cosmic rays break up the CFCs. He says that when cosmic rays ionize atmospheric molecules the liberated electrons can be stored on the surface of the ice particles and that these electrons, rather than the sunlight, break up the CFCs and convert the fragments into molecular chlorine... However, Neil Harris of the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit in Cambridge, UK, is not convinced. He told physicsworld.com that showing a statistical correlation is not enough to prove the validity of the cosmic-ray mechanism since there could be other causal factors varying throughout the solar cycle. In any case, he says, Lu is wrong to compare cosmic ray intensity against total ozone because measurements of the latter depend on the movement of ozone around the atmosphere as well as the actual disappearance of ozone. "He has put forward an additional mechanism to explain the creation of atomic chlorine," adds Harris. "But there is no need for this extra mechanism because the chlorine can be produced by direct sunlight."





You mean the 'scenario' like this one where you don't understand the science and get all your misinformation from denier cult blogs? Yeah, your understanding of AGW is a lot like that scenario.




Wrong again. The correct answer is yes. Global warming is indeed primarily linked to rising CO2 levels.




Wrong all around there, little dude, as I suppose must be usual for you. Wrong (as I just showed) about the CFCs, wrong about the ocean currents and wrong about the solar cycles.

Solar Variability & Global Warming
Stanford Solar Center
(excerpt)

A recent review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate. Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, "it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes." That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.

Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle. Changes over longer periods must be inferred from other sources. Estimates of earlier variations are important for calibrating the climate models. While a component of recent global climate change may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The effects of global climate change are apparent (see section below) despite the fact that the Sun is once again less bright during the present solar minimum. Since the last solar minimum of 1996, the Sun's brightness has decreased by 0.02% at visible wavelengths, and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths, representing a 12-year low in solar irradiance, according to this NASA news article (April 1, 2009). Also, be sure to read this more recent article: 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade.

©2008 by Stanford SOLAR Center · Permitted Uses

Permitted Uses - All images and text not credited otherwise are Copyright (c) 1996-2007 by the Stanford SOLAR Center, Solar Observatories Group, Stanford University, CA. All rights reserved. Reproduction of SOHO, NASA, and Solar Center owned images is permitted and strongly encouraged for educational purposes so long as no charge is made for copies, credit is given to the the appropriate sources, and the appropriate copyright notice is included.

is it still possible that CO2 (CFCs) contributes to warming (ozone hole)? yes, almost certainly but to a much lesser amount than we are being told, and they are NOT the absolute causes that the alarmists faint over.

More denier cult trash. I've already demonstrated that you're full of misinformation and propaganda and you have no idea what you're talking about. CO2 is definitely, by far and away, the primary driving factor behind the current abrupt global warming/climate changes. The world scientific community is in agreement on this and all the evidence supports it.

Dude! now your just moving the goalposts. I showed that the 'consensus' didnt understand the ozone hole.

LOLOLOL. No, little retard, you "showed" no such thing. The only thing you showed with your idiotic post was that you couldn't understand the study you were citing. Scientists understand that mankind's release of CFCs into the atmosphere was the cause of the ozone hole and the paper you cited was only questioning whether the primary factor breaking down the CFCs into chlorine is sunlight or cosmic rays. You don't understand it because you're a brainwashed moron who believes the mistaken interpretation given to the results of that study on some denier cult blog.

and your link to arctic warming is a joke. the same jokers behind the Hockey Stick and IPCC shenanagans are all over it. they claim their 'estimates' match up with their 'models' so it must be right! hahaha. and I am not sure- were you claiming that that study had something to do with proving CO2 was increasing temps? because it certainly doesnt.

LOLOLOL....riiiight. NASA is a "joke" to you only because you're an idiot and you can't understand the evidence. The intelligent people of the world see your anti-science denier cult as the new 'flat earthers' and regard you dingbats as the 'joke'.

why do you continue to call me a denier?

Because you are. You are an ad hoc member of a semi-religious cult of reality denial that has been ginned up by the propagandists working for the fossil fuel interests to confuse the public about the reality and dangers of AGW. You fall for their BS because you are a rightwingnut wacko with sub-normal intelligence and no education.

because you alarmists dont have proof that CO2 is the main cause of increased temps? or is it because I dont believe your doomsday scenarios that change every day and arent supported by actual measured physical evidence?

There are mountains of evidence supporting the conclusions of the world's climate scientists. The problem is that you and the other denier cultists on here are just too stupid, ignorant and brainwashed to be able to comprehend the evidence that has convinced all of the real climate scientists on the planet as well as most of the world leaders in business and government.

 

[westwall]

I would suppose that you must get a lot of "condescending remarks" when people notice that you're just parroting some crap you heard from Rush or got off of a denier cult blog. The obvious fact is that you have no real understanding of the paper you are quoting.


Sorry but you are not a 'skeptic', you are a denier. There is a difference. This study is not saying that cosmic rays, rather than CFCs, caused the appearance of the ozone hole six decades ago. After all the cosmic rays have been hitting the Earth forever. The scientists who authored this study are claiming that there is some indications that it may be primarily cosmic rays rather than sunlight that is interacting with the CFCs and breaking them down chemically into the chlorine that eats the ozone and causes the hole over Antarctica and the thinning worldwide. Other scientists disagree. In either case, the CFCs are still responsible for the ozone loss. Obviously, ianc, you never read the article you cited and you are just parroting some misinformation/lies about what it says that you got off some denier cult blog or something.

Do cosmic rays destroy the ozone layer?
PhysicsWorld.com
A website from the Institute of Physics
(short excerpt)

Lu, however, believes that cosmic rays break up the CFCs. He says that when cosmic rays ionize atmospheric molecules the liberated electrons can be stored on the surface of the ice particles and that these electrons, rather than the sunlight, break up the CFCs and convert the fragments into molecular chlorine... However, Neil Harris of the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit in Cambridge, UK, is not convinced. He told physicsworld.com that showing a statistical correlation is not enough to prove the validity of the cosmic-ray mechanism since there could be other causal factors varying throughout the solar cycle. In any case, he says, Lu is wrong to compare cosmic ray intensity against total ozone because measurements of the latter depend on the movement of ozone around the atmosphere as well as the actual disappearance of ozone. "He has put forward an additional mechanism to explain the creation of atomic chlorine," adds Harris. "But there is no need for this extra mechanism because the chlorine can be produced by direct sunlight."





You mean the 'scenario' like this one where you don't understand the science and get all your misinformation from denier cult blogs? Yeah, your understanding of AGW is a lot like that scenario.




Wrong again. The correct answer is yes. Global warming is indeed primarily linked to rising CO2 levels.




Wrong all around there, little dude, as I suppose must be usual for you. Wrong (as I just showed) about the CFCs, wrong about the ocean currents and wrong about the solar cycles.

Solar Variability & Global Warming
Stanford Solar Center
(excerpt)

A recent review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate. Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, "it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes." That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.

Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle. Changes over longer periods must be inferred from other sources. Estimates of earlier variations are important for calibrating the climate models. While a component of recent global climate change may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The effects of global climate change are apparent (see section below) despite the fact that the Sun is once again less bright during the present solar minimum. Since the last solar minimum of 1996, the Sun's brightness has decreased by 0.02% at visible wavelengths, and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths, representing a 12-year low in solar irradiance, according to this NASA news article (April 1, 2009). Also, be sure to read this more recent article: 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade.

©2008 by Stanford SOLAR Center · Permitted Uses

Permitted Uses - All images and text not credited otherwise are Copyright (c) 1996-2007 by the Stanford SOLAR Center, Solar Observatories Group, Stanford University, CA. All rights reserved. Reproduction of SOHO, NASA, and Solar Center owned images is permitted and strongly encouraged for educational purposes so long as no charge is made for copies, credit is given to the the appropriate sources, and the appropriate copyright notice is included.





More denier cult trash. I've already demonstrated that you're full of misinformation and propaganda and you have no idea what you're talking about. CO2 is definitely, by far and away, the primary driving factor behind the current abrupt global warming/climate changes. The world scientific community is in agreement on this and all the evidence supports it.

Dude! now your just moving the goalposts. I showed that the 'consensus' didnt understand the ozone hole.

LOLOLOL. No, little retard, you "showed" no such thing. The only thing you showed with your idiotic post was that you couldn't understand the study you were citing. Scientists understand that mankind's release of CFCs into the atmosphere was the cause of the ozone hole and the paper you cited was only questioning whether the primary factor breaking down the CFCs into chlorine is sunlight or cosmic rays. You don't understand it because you're a brainwashed moron who believes the mistaken interpretation given to the results of that study on some denier cult blog.




LOLOLOL....riiiight. NASA is a "joke" to you only because you're an idiot and you can't understand the evidence. The intelligent people of the world see your anti-science denier cult as the new 'flat earthers' and regard you dingbats as the 'joke'.

why do you continue to call me a denier?

Because you are. You are an ad hoc member of a semi-religious cult of reality denial that has been ginned up by the propagandists working for the fossil fuel interests to confuse the public about the reality and dangers of AGW. You fall for their BS because you are a rightwingnut wacko with sub-normal intelligence and no education.

because you alarmists dont have proof that CO2 is the main cause of increased temps? or is it because I dont believe your doomsday scenarios that change every day and arent supported by actual measured physical evidence?

There are mountains of evidence supporting the conclusions of the world's climate scientists. The problem is that you and the other denier cultists on here are just too stupid, ignorant and brainwashed to be able to comprehend the evidence that has convinced all of the real climate scientists on the planet as well as most of the world leaders in business and government.

No, there is a mountain of manufactured and manipulated data supporting them with their good ol' boy network of peer reviewers. The brainwashed fool is you. UAH shows that this is the coldest March in 9 years. The global temperature has dropped .653C in one year and it looks like it is going to continue to fall for the next decade or so in conjunction with the Southern Oscillation. So, if everything continues as it does we really have nothing to worry about (not that we ever did) the 4th IPCC Assessment Report calculated a rise of
.74C for the whole of the 20th century. That is almost completely wiped out in a period of 15 months.

"April 5th, 2011
YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2010 01 0.542 0.675 0.410 0.635
2010 02 0.510 0.553 0.466 0.759
2010 03 0.554 0.665 0.443 0.721
2010 04 0.400 0.606 0.193 0.633
2010 05 0.454 0.642 0.265 0.706
2010 06 0.385 0.482 0.287 0.485
2010 07 0.419 0.558 0.280 0.370
2010 08 0.441 0.579 0.304 0.321
2010 09 0.477 0.410 0.545 0.237
2010 10 0.306 0.257 0.356 0.106
2010 11 0.273 0.372 0.173 -0.117
2010 12 0.181 0.217 0.145 -0.222
2011 01 -0.010 -0.055 0.036 -0.372
2011 02 -0.020 -0.042 0.002 -0.348
2011 03 -0.099 -0.073 -0.126 -0.345"



UAH Temperature Update for March, 2011: Cooler Still -0.10 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Global temperature still headed down- UAH: negative territory | Watts Up With That?

 

[RollingThunder]

Dude! now your just moving the goalposts. I showed that the 'consensus' didnt understand the ozone hole.

LOLOLOL. No, little retard, you "showed" no such thing. The only thing you showed with your idiotic post was that you couldn't understand the study you were citing. Scientists understand that mankind's release of CFCs into the atmosphere was the cause of the ozone hole and the paper you cited was only questioning whether the primary factor breaking down the CFCs into chlorine is sunlight or cosmic rays. You don't understand it because you're a brainwashed moron who believes the mistaken interpretation given to the results of that study on some denier cult blog.




LOLOLOL....riiiight. NASA is a "joke" to you only because you're an idiot and you can't understand the evidence. The intelligent people of the world see your anti-science denier cult as the new 'flat earthers' and regard you dingbats as the 'joke'.





Because you are. You are an ad hoc member of a semi-religious cult of reality denial that has been ginned up by the propagandists working for the fossil fuel interests to confuse the public about the reality and dangers of AGW. You fall for their BS because you are a rightwingnut wacko with sub-normal intelligence and no education.

because you alarmists dont have proof that CO2 is the main cause of increased temps? or is it because I dont believe your doomsday scenarios that change every day and arent supported by actual measured physical evidence?

There are mountains of evidence supporting the conclusions of the world's climate scientists. The problem is that you and the other denier cultists on here are just too stupid, ignorant and brainwashed to be able to comprehend the evidence that has convinced all of the real climate scientists on the planet as well as most of the world leaders in business and government.

No, there is a mountain of manufactured and manipulated data supporting them with their good ol' boy network of peer reviewers.

Well, that is one of the braindead beliefs/myths of your cult but it has no foundation in reality.

USA Govt. Study Debunks 'Climate-Gate' Clearing Scientists of Charges That They Manipulated Data
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fm37nCOHHc]YouTube - [USA] Govt. Study Debunks 'Climate-Gate' Clearing Scientists of Charges That They Manipulated Data[/ame]

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy
(short excerpt)

The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.

Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

* Factcheck.org says claims against scientists misrepresent the content of the emails.
* Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann (pdf) of wrongdoing.
* An independent investigation commissioned by the University of East Anglia found no evidence of fraud or deceit.
* A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.

(continued - much more plus many links on website)

The brainwashed fool is you.

That's another one of your delusions, walleyed, but the evidence shows otherwise.

UAH shows that this is the coldest March in 9 years.

LOLOLOLOL....big whoop...so what, numbnuts??? You're citing a satellite instrumental record of a portion of the Troposphere and all it means is that this March was one of the ten hottest March's on record for that part of the atmosphere. Meanwhile, this February, the combined global land and ocean average surface temperature was 0.72 F (0.40 C) above the 20th century average of 53.9 F (12.1 C) and 2010 was tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880. This was the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th century average. (Source: NOAA) And January 2000 to December 2009 was the warmest decade on record. (Source: NASA)

The global temperature has dropped .653C in one year and it looks like it is going to continue to fall for the next decade or so in conjunction with the Southern Oscillation.

No, walleyedretard, global temperatures have not dropped and if you think that some measurements of the temperatures in a portion of the Troposphere indicate that, then you are even more of an idiot than you normally appear to be. Your denier cult myths about falling temperatures have been repeatedly debunked by each years temperature data but you cretins are still holding on to your delusions like grim death.

GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index

 

[Old Rocks]

Dude! now your just moving the goalposts. I showed that the 'consensus' didnt understand the ozone hole.

LOLOLOL. No, little retard, you "showed" no such thing. The only thing you showed with your idiotic post was that you couldn't understand the study you were citing. Scientists understand that mankind's release of CFCs into the atmosphere was the cause of the ozone hole and the paper you cited was only questioning whether the primary factor breaking down the CFCs into chlorine is sunlight or cosmic rays. You don't understand it because you're a brainwashed moron who believes the mistaken interpretation given to the results of that study on some denier cult blog.



LOLOLOL....riiiight. NASA is a "joke" to you only because you're an idiot and you can't understand the evidence. The intelligent people of the world see your anti-science denier cult as the new 'flat earthers' and regard you dingbats as the 'joke'.





Because you are. You are an ad hoc member of a semi-religious cult of reality denial that has been ginned up by the propagandists working for the fossil fuel interests to confuse the public about the reality and dangers of AGW. You fall for their BS because you are a rightwingnut wacko with sub-normal intelligence and no education.

because you alarmists dont have proof that CO2 is the main cause of increased temps? or is it because I dont believe your doomsday scenarios that change every day and arent supported by actual measured physical evidence?

There are mountains of evidence supporting the conclusions of the world's climate scientists. The problem is that you and the other denier cultists on here are just too stupid, ignorant and brainwashed to be able to comprehend the evidence that has convinced all of the real climate scientists on the planet as well as most of the world leaders in business and government.

No, there is a mountain of manufactured and manipulated data supporting them with their good ol' boy network of peer reviewers. The brainwashed fool is you. UAH shows that this is the coldest March in 9 years. The global temperature has dropped .653C in one year and it looks like it is going to continue to fall for the next decade or so in conjunction with the Southern Oscillation. So, if everything continues as it does we really have nothing to worry about (not that we ever did) the 4th IPCC Assessment Report calculated a rise of
.74C for the whole of the 20th century. That is almost completely wiped out in a period of 15 months.

"April 5th, 2011
YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2010 01 0.542 0.675 0.410 0.635
2010 02 0.510 0.553 0.466 0.759
2010 03 0.554 0.665 0.443 0.721
2010 04 0.400 0.606 0.193 0.633
2010 05 0.454 0.642 0.265 0.706
2010 06 0.385 0.482 0.287 0.485
2010 07 0.419 0.558 0.280 0.370
2010 08 0.441 0.579 0.304 0.321
2010 09 0.477 0.410 0.545 0.237
2010 10 0.306 0.257 0.356 0.106
2010 11 0.273 0.372 0.173 -0.117
2010 12 0.181 0.217 0.145 -0.222
2011 01 -0.010 -0.055 0.036 -0.372
2011 02 -0.020 -0.042 0.002 -0.348
2011 03 -0.099 -0.073 -0.126 -0.345"



UAH Temperature Update for March, 2011: Cooler Still -0.10 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Global temperature still headed down- UAH: negative territory | Watts Up With That?

Strongest La Nina in a long time. And, by that graph, no where near the negative anamoly that we saw after the Super El Nino of 1998. In fact, by your own graph, from 2002 to 2007, the average analomy was about the same as the very highest points on the graph prior to that time, excepting 1998.

2010, a moderate El Nino, with the last few months of the year in a very strong La Nina, yet managed to tie 1998, along with 2005, for the warmest year on record. Not only that, look at the temperature analomys from 1983 to 1987. All the points were lower than -0.1.

UAH Temperature Update for Feb. 2011: -0.02 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

 

[skookerasbil]

Ignoring MWP is gay..............ever notice the k00ks only post up stuff from 1998 on............like time began in 1998!!!


Much, much warmer then s0ns..................sorry...................




Oh.........DODGE is saying they just brought back the Durango!!! Was that from 1200 AD??

 

[skookerasbil]