Global Warming Air and Ocean

Nor can you do anything about my rational and reasonable scientific questioning.

 

But it still happens which is why Cape Grim detects particles known to be emitted in the northern hemisphere

 

Because that was not the direction of the error

Just re read it. They were

 

You are missing the magnitude because the assertion is that a lot if not all of the CFCs migrate from the north through the improbable cell barriers to the Antarctic.

 

This isn't true. We still have a hole in the ozone layer and this was caused by products that release chlorine. Chlorine will bind to the oxygen in the ozone and break it up. Thanks to international agreements banning these chlorine products, this has stopped new chlorine from entering. The old chlorine eventually is degraded naturally, and ozone naturally repairs itself. Since these agreements, the degrade in ozone has drastically reduced to the point where in 2016 the ozone is now slowly being repaired because there is so little chlorine left.

 

If you mean a drastic reduction, 25 years later the Arctic ozone hole was 4% smaller and the Antarctic unchanged. Since this is all based on satellite data which is a very short time span, no one really knows what it did before that.

 

Yes, it is only 4% smaller and that is because even when you stop adding new chlorine the old chorine will still be up there breaking up ozone. Thankfully over time the chlorine will eventually reduce over time, and ozone naturally repairs. So we first saw a slowdown in the degrade as less chlorine was added, and the amount of old chlorine was reduced, and eventually these amounts were small enough that the repair rate of ozone is larger than the degrade rate of the diminishing chlorine.



Here is a nice youtube video explaining it:

 

Without know what the natural variability is we cannot know if the hypothesis is correct. Records are too small to know. It is wishful thinking to think it is known.

 

Nope! The world's climate patterns are changing radically right now due to some very un-natural changes to the balance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, like the measured 46% increase in CO2 that is entirely caused by mankind's activities, primarily burning fossil fuels for energy and transportation, and deforestation.

That's one of the fraudulent myths of your little cult of AGW denial....but in the real world, not everyone is as clueless, ignorant and brainwashed as you anti-science reality deniers are.

 

"less accurate ship measurements. "
"It's not about adjusting up or down."
So it makes sense to raise the more accurate temperatures UP?
Now *that* is the logic of an AGW religionist for you!

"Moving from the slightly higher ship data to the lower buoy data made it appear that the rate of increase was slowing when in fact it was not."
If the ship data is less accurate then how to you come to this conclusion?
That's like saying a voltmeter that reads to the nearest 5volts is better than one that measures to the nearest 1v!

 

Yeah academia get grants to find how man is destroying the Earth, not if. Cronyism exists in the green industry.

 

If we pump chlorine into the atmosphere it will erode the ozone layer. That is a certain undeniable fact based on simple chemistry of how chlorine reacts with O3. This is why the layer eroded when we pumped in chlorine. Studies also showed areas with more chlorine were more ozone depleted which confirms the chemistry. Immediately when we started cutting back on chlorine the depletion stopped. Thats pretty convincing evidence if you ask me.

 

The fossil fuel industry funds climate denial studies. Is that cronyism too?

 

That's stupid. Yes the data needs to be "aligned". Bravo. You figured that out. So instead of making the adjustment (relatively smaller amount) with the recent date...you would prefer to change ALL the previous data and really confuse things (which is of course your goal)

 

That is the hypothesis. You cannot know. My statement still stands.

 

And it's pretty convincing evidence that we can affect the atmosphere in a positive way

 

Oh, malarky!
Do the buoys show more, less, or the same rate of change as the ship measurements? If they show the same rate of change as the ship measurements then changing their temperature readings to match the ship measurements wouldn't make any difference! So why the push to change the temperature?
If their rate of change is more or less than the ship measurements then changing the buoy temperatures to read the same as the ship measurements allows you hide the fact that buoys indicate more or less increases.
My guess is that the buoys show not only colder temps but also show a slower rate of change in the temp readings. It gives more credence to the warming hiatus.
And the AGW religionists couldn't stand that.

 

You can't respond a post full of evidence with a claim "its just a hypothesis" without specifically addressing my arguments.

So lets say that studies find that cyanide by its nature is bad for your body. It also find that people who eat cyanide are more and more sick and more likely to die. When people stopped eating cyanide the sickening stopped and eventually reversed itself. This wouldn't convince you?

 

Again, a load of malarky!
Most of the land/sea data sets are shown as variations from a standard average over a chosen period of time.
If the ship measurements show hot then they also a positive variation against the standard average.
If the buoy measurements show colder then they will show either a smaller positive variation or perhaps even a negative variation compared to what the ship measurements show.
By adjusting the buoy measurements to be the same as the ship measurements then you hide the fact that the buoys show different levels of variation from the standard average.
It's manipulation of the data by the AGW religionists to hide the facts from the public. It's part of the reason some AGW religionists are now saying there is no warming hiatus. They changed the sea temperature readings to show higher readings so it "proves" global warming.
The satellite data shows a variation of -0.2 to +0.2 from 1975 to 2014. While the climate models show a variation of of -0.2 to a range of +0.4 and +1.5 between the same dates!
A huge part of this differential is from data manipulation of land/sea measurements. When you increase the sea measurements of the buoys you wind up increasing the differential from the measurement standard average.
It truly is just that simple!

 

Why do they need to be aligned? If you raise the buoy temp measurement then you change its variation from the standard average. Why would you want to do that? So it will better support the global warming fraud?
Yes, you *should* change all the past data to align with the buoy data. Why would that confuse anything? That's a simply program that can be written in literally minutes!
Then the variation of the sea measurements from the standard average would be more accurate!

 

So if you quit eating cyanide and died of something else? Pretty much the same thing. If you do not know the natural cycle you cannot know any if any other effect plus or minus. For instance, in 2015 the Antarctic ozone hole reached a record breaking size after reducing for about a decade. Are you now going to say reducing CFCs is ineffective.

 

WHAT?

If past ship readings were higher than current buoy readings, and the difference is in the measuring device and are consistent...NOT adjusting for that would incorrectly make it seem as if the ocean were cooling when it is not.

Of COURSE you need to adjust for that

 

No, we already know that cyanide causes sickness and know that the sickness is because of cyanide. So when things stop getting worse when you stop taking cyanide is pretty obvious. Dying when you don't eat cyanide isn't proof cyanide isn't harmful or that stopping cyanide isn't effective obviously. Even you don't know everything about the natural cycles in the body, if the cause is proven to be cyanide then a recovery after stopping the cause is strong evidence.

The hole was a record breaking size but what you aren't saying is that it is only barely a record and you are only looking at one year in isolation. When you look at the trend the size of the hole has stopped increasing and has remained constant for the past 20 years. When you look at the actual amount of ozone it has actually been increasing since 2000.

Basic chemistry explains why we don't see immediate results. First off, regulations were only increased over time and we didn't stop adding the chlorine immediately and even now some chlorine is still being added. Second, even if you stop adding chlorine the old chlorine will still be up there breaking down ozone so we should expect the ozone layer to continue to degrade but at a slowing rate as more and more chlorine is naturally deactivated, and the ozone has more of a chance to repair itself. All of your arguments are refuted by just a basic knowledge of chemistry.

 

Who made that assertion??

Usually I find that when claims like this are made there is no real foundation for them

 

Maybe I missed it but I thought your assertion is that the preponderance of CFCs emitted in the north finds its way past all the cell barriers to the deep Antarctica before it starts to do damage to ozone.