Climate change denial strongly linked to right-wing nationalism

We didn't stop the Ozone hole.
Our efforts did diddly squat. It continued to grow long after we stopped making them.

You might also note that the Ozone hole didn't ever manifest over the places where CFC's were being dispersed. But instead was focused over only one pole as far from humans as is it globally possible to be. And unlike CFC pollution in the atmosphere was seasonal in it's appearance. So clearly there is no simple, direct and linear causation.

I've heard the argument that CFCs take while to break down. So if the Ozone layer didn't shrink for a while after CFCs stopped being introduced that would be plausible under your theory.
But, after CFC's stopped being added, it still grew. Therefore, what was growing it wasn't the CFC's.
If it had stopped growing when the CFC's had stopped growing, you might have had a point. But that's not the case. It didn't stop growing, it didn't slow down.



The science is in.
By a process of elimination we have been able to remove them from the list of possible causes.



Rationalisng your way out of personal responsibility cuts both ways mate.
You don't want to admit you got it wrong and how much damage was done to people on the strength of this bad call.

You want to double down and are quite willing to lie your way out of things. That too is to be expected.

 

Do you even read what you write? Could you really be that simple? So, what? No worse means what? Stop fire? Stop eating plants? Stop driving? Not using modern indoor plumbing? Stop using plastics? I ask, because the fix for CFCs was a complete ban for industrial and personal use. I know, you won't see the corner you're in, but sometimes, you must open your eyes.

 

I'm sorry but this is incorrect. You've misinterpreted the website. The website says that ozone (O3) both encourages warming and cooling depending on the level in which it is bound in the atmosphere. The reason is because O3 is opaque to incoming shortwave radiation, but because it's also a polyatomic molecule it has it's molecular vibrational modes activiated by IR photons and thus traps outgoing longwave radiation. That makes it a greenhouse gas by definition. Naturally occurring ozone is high in the atmosphere and has a negative radiative forcing (cooling). Anthroprogenic ozone is low in the atmosphere and has a positive radiative forcing (warming).

But, ozone isn't the same thing as CFCs. CFCs are also polyatomic molecules that get their molecular vibrational modes excited by IR photons just like CO2, H2O, CH4, O3, etc. That makes them greenhouse gases as well. And because CFCs have more atoms they have more ways in which the vibrational excitations are activated thus leading to a broader spectrum of IR absorption on a per molecule basis than CO2. CFCs are potent GHGs. But, there's a double whammy. CFCs also breakdown O3 high in the atmosphere. And has already been pointed out O3 high in the atmosphere partially blocks incoming shortwave radiation. Less O3 high up means more incoming shortwave radiation down low.

This is what I mean when I say denial of the link between CFCs and ozone depletion goes hand in hand with the denial of CO2 and warming. The science has broad overlap so if you deny one then you are really forced to deny the other as well. The problem is that this then snowballs into a denial of IR spectroscopy, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, etc. until there's eventually a wholesale denial of all scientific disciplines. That's the track you're on here.

 

Then help me see the error of my ways. Explain to me your rationale for taking caution to the wind and letting industry burn CO2 willy nilly which leads to concentrations that are far above the natural state. You certainly wouldn't support the proliferation of aerosol pollution and I'm guessing you agree with the regulation of CFCs as well so why do you grant an exception for CO2 which is definitively linked to warming due to its GHG behavior and which will force future generations to spend money (thus reducing GDP) fixing the problem the current generation caused? That is a redistribution of wealth no different than letting the current generation clean up the environmental messes (think superfund sites here) that past generations created.

Wait...let me guess...it's because you think that when humans emit a CO2 molecule it has magical properties that cause it to behave differently and is thus less influential in the biosphere as a GHG than if nature emitted it? Right?

Help me open my eyes.

 

See, this is what the issue is. I ask what you want. You stammer about, and refuse to commit to a direction. And worse, you attempt to make it my problem because somehow my pointing out that you can't express an actual solution you will stick to, that somehow then, is my fault? Laughable. I gave you possible avenues, all of which have been advocated at some point as solutions you might chose from. I compared CO2 to CFC regulation, and of course now it's my obligation to tell you what you think? That is kind of funny, if you think about it.

 

I'm old enough to know we seldom know "all the answers." Further research is highly advisable, but what we know already is that humanity will be profoundly impacted by this global warming. Perhaps there are actions we can take to offset that impact at least partially. But, it seems to me, the worst choice we can make is to ignore it and leave it up to chance.

 

Thanks for your correction on the meaning of that website. My bad. I now concur with your assessment.


Now, genius is boiling things down to their simplest forms.

The art of the con, is too complicate beyond your marks ability to follow.


So, simplicity.
We stopped releasing CFCs. the Ozone hole didn't stop growing.
By a process of elimination we can see CFC's were not the cause of the growth.

So, unfollowable complexity, see your post quoted above,
Lookit all the big words that you think I shouldn't dare deny because they are all so smart sounding. Why to deny you, is to deny science itself.
How much money do you want?

 

CFC emissions declined over a period of decades culminating in an effective worldwide ban by around 2010. But even today countries are still cheating on their obligations and there's even been an uptick in CFC emissions. That's right...partial pressures of CFC11 have actually increased since they bottomed out around 2010. See An unexpected and persistent increase in global emissions of ozone-depleting CFC-11 for more information. So in a nutshell your assertion that CFCs stopped being added isn't true. Nevertheless, CFC emissions are dramatically less than they were in the 70's and as a result the ozone hole has stopped growing and is beginning to show signs of shrinking. Or, at least it was until CFCs emissions began increasing.

 

CFC emissions have actually increased in recent years.

The ozone hole area increase rate began declining in correlation with declining CFC emissions and has even stopped growing in recent years.

 

And the Ozone hole has actually shrunk in recent years.


The key to this in my mind is that the two circumstances are not connected.
One is not followed by another.

A cessation of CFC's is not matched by a slow down in growth or a cessation in growth at that time. And that is the time the optimum effect is present.

So if CFC have just risen again we should have seen some growth again. But we are seeing the opposite.


I'm not saying you have to see all the effects right there at the exact time of release. i understand your concept of half life/chemical decay.

But I should see changes at those times. That is when they should be the most dramatically obvious.
I haven't seen them.

The con artists who spun me a line, weren't backed up by science.
They were at best wrong and at worst liars.

They have spent the money. The must be made example of.


You have to understand mate.
You are dealing with a sophisticated audience. People try and con us out of our money every day.

Talking high fallooting crap, just identifies yourself to us as someone trying to deceive us.

You want our money. We get it.
We don't want to give it you. No matter what fantastic story you come out with.


And that is the simple truth of it.
Doesn't matter what you say.
We can't trust you. And we don't.

And the more you mumbo jumbo it all up, the less you are believed.
In your mind it is making you more credible to others.
But that is in your mind.

 

Cows are the real problem, and horses and other large animals. That could be what killed the dinosaurs.

And I am not going to leave the planet any worse than I found it because I existed in it. It is the other 4 billion too many inhabitants that are f-ing it up.

 

Yes, that does help but I still do not understand why you seem to be obsessed with making that point with me and why it bothers you so much that your insinuations are bordering on personal insults. There must be a reason why you have singled me out.

And you haven't answered my questions.
Just answer these two "yes or no" questions and then we'll see:
1). Do you believe that man is responsible for the so-called Global Warming?
2). Is it your opinion that I believe in it?

 

Sorry, but everything I was taught about the solar system in 8th grade is ALL WRONG. This is a joke about global warming being real and man's fault!

 

“Polls, a product of left wing imagination.”

Just like another Clinton presidency.

 

He is that way with me this morning too. Then he has the audacity to say I am trolling because I will not let him lead the conversation with his global warming nonsense.

 

Yes. His questions and statements are so poorly worded that it is difficult (impossible) to know what he is getting at, and when you do not reply in a fashion that he considers sufficient, he says you are purposely refusing to answer his questions. He mixes doubles and synonyms so maybe his English just isn't very good?

 

Huh? Cows killed the dinosaurs?

 

Ok, please don't take this the wrong way, but I think a lot of your confusion boils to not understanding how physical responses work and how their evidence is discerned by by data. In this particular case you're confused by the difference between transient response and equilibrium response. My hunch is that you didn't know there was difference so you assumed (no fault of your own) that they are the same thing when they aren't.

The difference is that a transient response is the time synchronized behavior of one variable compared to another. Equilibrium response is the eventual response of one variable compared to another when the other one is held constant. TR and ER are different depending on the nature of the physical process involved. For example, TR is what is used to describe the value of ozone concentration C at the moment CRC11 has a partial pressure of P. The value of C at the moment P is measured is the transient response. But, this is very different then ER. If you then hold P constant C will still change until it reaches an equilibrium with P. This may be a few days or a few centuries depending on the exact nature of the processes involved. The ER for CFC11 is not the same as the TR so if you're trying to match up ozone concentration with CFC11 partial pressures on the same time axis then your methodology is flawed from the start.

And we haven't even gotten into the details of how different CFC species have different TR/ER behaviors. And not only is there a lag between the ER and TR in terms of time, but there's also magnitude differences as well. The TR-to-ER ratio is used to describe how much more you can expect one value to change at the ER vs the TR. Different CFC species have different TR-to-ER ratios.

Furthermore, CFC processes aren't the only processes that are modulating the ozone hole size. There are many other factors in play including natural cycles that create self limiting upward and downward forcings on the size that have periods as short as days or as long as years. This is what creates the noise in the data.

By the way, this concept applies to the climate as well. For example, the TR to an increase of CO2 from 310 ppm to 410 ppm is about 0.9C. But, the ER won't occur for another decade or two because the ocean-to-air heat flux processes take 10-40 years to achieve equilibrium when they are perturbed. The TR-to-ER ratio of the climate is approximately 0.7 which means that a TR of 0.9C will eventually lead to an ER of 1.3C once the heat flux dies off and the atmosphere stabilizes and that's assuming the CO2 concentration is held constant at 410 ppm. The interesting thing about CO2 is that it is both a forcing and a feedback with respect to the temperature. So the CO2 concentration itself will have TR and ER behaviors that are dictated by how the temperature modulates natural fluxes.

The point...you're taking a way too myopic approach with your statement here. But, even with all of this said there is a clear and decisive correlation between CFCs and ozone depletion.

 

We are told that the temperature increase from 1951 has been .4C. Lets assume this was all caused by the greenhouse effect. CO2 accounts for ~20% of the GH effect, but lets attribute all of the increase to CO2. It is estimated that ~4% of atmospheric CO2 is man made from burning fossil fuels. That would mean that humans caused 4% of the warming since 1951 which amounts to .016C, an insignificant amount.

 

If you want to blame all the warming there has been on CO2 bear in mind that only 4% of atmospheric CO2 is from humans burning fossil fuels. If we are responsible for 4% of the warming its nothing to panic over. It is an insignificant number.

 

I'm not willing to find out.
You can make all the excuses you like.

Bottom line. We stopped using CFC and the Ozone hole didn't stop growing.
You can make any theory you like to rationalise that occurance....
And so can I.

You can look at the science and make some super complicated theory to explain it.
I will look at the science and make some simplistic one.

Mine costs you nothing.

All yours cost me fortunes.

So mine is better.
It doesn't hurt anyone.

There is no confusion here.
All your theories suck.
They all involve you taking over the world.
They all involve me giving you money.
Not interested.

You see a problem, fix it on your own.

And be warned global warming people. We are going to hold you to account.
All the money you waste that is not yours, you still owe.
Your debt to society will be paid.

You have pissed enough people off for long enough now. Backlash is coming.
And you deserve it.

 

Global cooling, warming, and paranoia about weather in general, is strongly linked with Left Wing Kookism.

 

That is not accurate. At all. You are trying to equate the human contribution of CO2 per year in comparison to the total amount of CO2 produced every year with the amount of additional CO2 that remains in the atmosphere and increases the concentration.

There is a natural cycle of CO2, but the amount of CO2 produced artificially through combustion does not get accounted for by that natural cycle and thus, it remains in the atmosphere and increases the CO2 concentration.

 

Please post the ESTABLSHED "natural cycle of CO2", including the level of ATMOSPHERIC CONCENTRATIONS.

 

The amount of warming from 1950 is about 1.0C. Every dataset in existence confirms this value.

I'm impressed. That's actually pretty close to the scientific consensus. See the chart below. Note that since H2O is residual and only acts as an amplifier and not a forcing agent itself it is, by convention, included in the forcing agents without explicitly listing it. Therefore CO2 (plus it's H20 residual) is 1.68 / 4.53 = 37%. But, when you subtract out the H2O residual which is estimated to be equivalent to the forcing of CO2 itself you are left with (1.68 / 2) / 4.53 = 18.5%. So yeah, about 20% according to the IPCC AR5.

Another big correction is in order here. It is estimated that ~4% of all CO2 flux is man made; not the total atmospheric concentration. The flux is in units of ppm/yr. It just so happens that the approximate fluxes have convenient magnitudes to work with. Here is the breakdown where uppercase E is emissions and A is absorptions and lowercase 'n' is natural and 'a' is anthroprogenic.

Before industrialization

En = 100 ppm/yr
An = 100 ppm/yr
Ea = 0 ppm/yr
Aa = 0 ppm/yr

dC/dt = (En - An) - (Ea - Aa) = (100 - 100) - (0 - 0) = 0 ppm/yr

After industrialization (present)

En = 100 ppm/yr
An = 100 ppm/yr
Ea = 4 ppm/yr
Aa = 2 ppm/yr

dC/dt = (En - An) - (Ea - Aa) = (100 - 100) - (4 - 2) = 2 ppm/yr

Note that humans emit about 4 ppm/yr of CO2, but our actions cause an increase in absorptions of about 2 ppm/yr. Over the last 250 years the total concentration has increased by about 130 ppm from 280 ppm to 410 ppm. Of that 410 ppm the human contribution is 130 ppm which means we account for 130 / 410 = 32% of the total.

We aren't responsible for 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. We are responsible for 32% of it. That 4% yearly figure is how we got from 280 ppm to 410 ppm.

Even assuming you meant to put 32% in place of the 4% and 1.0C in place of 0.4C in your statement the logic still doesn't work either way. The reason is because this 0.04 * 0.4 = 0.016C calculation assumes that the entirety of the CO2 in the atmosphere was inactive prior to 1950 and then got suddenly turned on after 1950. But, that couldn't be further from the truth. CO2 always modulates the climate in proportion to the concentration. So if we assume the equilibrium response of 280 ppm got us to the 1950 value of -0.1C then the transient response of an additional 130 ppm brought us up to 0.9C for a total increase of 1.0C. And what percent of the last 130 ppm is man made? Duh...100%. So the calculation you meant to run was 1.0 * 1.0 = 1.000C. And that's just the transient reponse. We still need to wait a decade or two before we see what the equilibrium response to additional 130 ppm will bring. 0.016C vs 1.000C is a pretty big difference!

By the way, it really is believed that nearly 100% of the warming from 1950 is caused by man.