Conservatives fund a study that reveals global warming is real.

[Kershaw]

[Fusion]

Global warming is just as real as global cooling. That's why its being called 'Climate change' in the mass media nowadays, so the fucktards can fund Solyndras and Winterizing and various other retarded ideas.

Wanting the earth to stagnate at a certain temperature is like hoping it'll be exactly 80° all summer, day and night, with no damn change at all.

[joshh]

So all the efforts to cut emissions isn't working....what a huge surprise.

Or maybe humans have little to nothing to do with it.

[herbivor]

If humans can have no impact on the climate than how does one explain huge holes in the ozone over the poles? Surely that should be proof that we can effect our atmosphere with relatively small percentage of emissions.

[joshh]

If humans can have no impact on the climate than how does one explain huge holes in the ozone over the poles? Surely that should be proof that we can effect our atmosphere with relatively small percentage of emissions.

How do you explain the existence of humans, clearly god truly does exist....because it has to be the *only* explanation.

[tjts1]

Oh no its snowing on the east coast. That means global warming is just a myth... right?

[mrsleeve]

If humans can have no impact on the climate than how does one explain huge holes in the ozone over the poles? Surely that should be proof that we can effect our atmosphere with relatively small percentage of emissions.

your assumeing that the Ozone layer is consistent and uniform all over the globe, and that it has always been that way. we didnt know there was a hole until we had satellites to see that thing. It has prolly been there in some form, for hundreds of 1000's of years before humans have even graced this ball of dirt

you assume that the higher intensity of the magnetosphere, or the consolidation of the solar wind interactions with the atmosphere has nothing to do with it.

[E30Kaiser]

your assumeing that the Ozone layer is consistent and uniform all over the globe, and that it has always been that way. we didnt know there was a hole until we had satellites to see that thing. It has prolly been there in some form, for hundreds of 1000's of years before humans have even graced this ball of dirt

you assume that the higher intensity of the magnetosphere, or the consolidation of the solar wind interactions with the atmosphere has nothing to do with it.

As someone not involved with the argument, I would just like to point out that the main point with the Ozone layer is that while there was a hole in it, namely one near Australia 20 years ago, now there isn't, post regulation changes. You can argue that that is just coincidence, but just pointing that there isn't a hole anymore and hasn't reappeared.

[xlragtop]

Really? Global warming!Do people still believe this dribble.

[mrsleeve]

As someone not involved with the argument, I would just like to point out that the main point with the Ozone layer is that while there was a hole in it, namely one near Australia 20 years ago, now there isn't, post regulation changes. You can argue that that is just coincidence, but just pointing that there isn't a hole anymore and hasn't reappeared.

While this is a valid point and not arguing that its not, you are assuming that its not cyclical as well, in lock step with solar activity. Solar activity peaked in what 1985 and has been on slow down since. Just as much as a coincidence as the CFC's and their phase out (though developing countries are still using them en mass), equaling a Ozone replenishment .......... Kinda the same thing as the G/W thing too.

we dont know as we dont have accurate data to prove that out, as we have only had the ability to do so for a snap shot in time. Its equates to handing some one a picture of a e30 and asking them to extrapolate from that 1 single image what all cars from time of their invention to 100 years from now form all manufacturers, did or will look like and how the all function.

[E30Kaiser]

While this is a valid point and not arguing that its not, you are assuming that its not cyclical as well, in lock step with solar activity. Solar activity peaked in what 1985 and has been on slow down since. Just as much as a coincidence as the CFC's and their phase out (though developing countries are still using them en mass), equaling a Ozone replenishment .......... Kinda the same thing as the G/W thing too.

I concur, you need a longer term study of the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere in relation to solar activity to draw a proper conclusion.

[mrsleeve]

^
That is the same reasoning most of us AGW skeptics are just that skeptics, coupled with the fact of who and where the money to support its research has come from, people that have been pushing not having their actions match the rhetoric, people openly admitting to using the movement to push an agenda ect.....

The rush rush rush to the conclusion to ram "fixes" though (that have more terrestrial implications) with just a very very small amount of information in the puzzle. kinda like trying to fix your car by having a list of some of the possibles (say 17%) and having a blind midget throw darts to pick what thing to fix

[joshh]

As someone not involved with the argument, I would just like to point out that the main point with the Ozone layer is that while there was a hole in it, namely one near Australia 20 years ago, now there isn't, post regulation changes. You can argue that that is just coincidence, but just pointing that there isn't a hole anymore and hasn't reappeared.

That would be a real point *if* carbon emissions were down. They are never going to be down because the human race is expanding and so is industry. Nothing they will change in regulations will change that basic fact. It's even well known that Cap and Tax wouldn't slow carbon emissions. And those that are pushing it know it.

[E30Kaiser]

That would be a real point *if* carbon emissions were down. They are never going to be down because the human race is expanding and so is industry. Nothing they will change in regulations will change that basic fact. It's even well known that Cap and Tax wouldn't slow carbon emissions. And those that are pushing it know it.

Carbon emissions have nothing to do with the Ozone layer, totally separate topic.

[joshh]

Carbon emissions have nothing to do with the Ozone layer, totally separate topic.

Ozone is also a greenhouse gas in the upper atmosphere and, therefore, plays a role in Earth's climate. The increases in primary greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, may affect how the ozone layer recovers in coming years. Understanding precisely how ozone abundances will change in a future with diminished chlorofluorocarbon emissions and increased emissions of greenhouse gases remains an important challenge for atmospheric scientists in NOAA and other research centers.

http://www.oar.noaa.gov/climate/t_ozonelayer.html

I.E. CFC is a carbon emission.

That entire article shows we do not fully understand how the Ozone works.

Significant depletion also occurs in the Arctic ozone layer during the late winter and spring period (January - April). However, the maximum depletion is generally less severe than that observed in the Antarctic, with no large and recurrent ozone hole taking place in the Arctic.

Since the 1980's, scientists at ESRL have been participants in field, theoretical, and laboratory research to demonstrate some of the key processes that contribute to the observed difference between the depletion of ozone in the Arctic and Antarctic. For example, the POLARIS mission in 1997, was designed to study ozone photochemistry in the Arctic during the summertime at middle and high latitudes. And later, the SAGE III Ozone Loss and Validation Experiment (SOLVE) campaign was designed to examine the processes controlling ozone levels at mid- to high latitudes in the Arctic during the winter. The mission also acquired correlative data needed to validate the Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment (SAGE) III satellite measurements that are used to quantify high-latitude ozone loss. Both these experiments took measurements using the NASA DC-8 and ER-2 aircraft, as well as balloon platforms and ground-based instruments

They don't even know if the "green house gasses" that are replacing CFCs are ozone *friendly*.

NOAA researchers regularly measure ozone depleting gases in the lower and upper atmosphere and attempt to account for observed changes. As a result of international regulations, ozone-depleting gases are being replaced in human activities with "ozone-friendly" gases that have much reduced potential to deplete ozone. NOAA researchers are also measuring these "substitute" gases as they accumulate in the atmosphere. Observing changes in both old and new gases emitted into the atmosphere allows researchers to improve our understanding of the fate of these gases after release and thereby improve our ability to predict future ozone changes.