Bigger than evolution? Tough call.Just got home from Arrowhead, 27 when we left. :D
These stupid "scientists" with their "studies" and "data." Doesn't take no fancy degree to feel the 57 F here in SoCal right now. Why so cold, warm globers?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
Just got home from Arrowhead, 27 when we left. :D
So an opinion piece on the telegraph is now "science".
Oh brother.
::)
Let me guess: bookreader, huh?
Ones without pictures, I mean.
Pfft.
It gets fucking cold as shit out there at night man.Low 20's at night, mid 30's during the day, they got about 6" of snow Thanksgiving night. Guess who doesn't have chains? :D
the dumbest poster on getbig strikes again!
Just got home from Arrowhead, 27 when we left. :D
With Melvin Goodrum being MIA for a while, it's good to have Coach around to keep the hilarity rolling. :-*
Just got home from Texas, low 30s at night. Nothing but 'Lone Star freedom' all last year, my bro going on and on: "Fuck California, man, you can do whatever you want out here."Hahaa. Can't you just go to the next county and buy beer to bring home?
Except drink. Yeah.
Can't buy a fucking beer in Van Zandt (DRY) County, and maybe no dancing, but you can get a Beretta M9 at Whataburger, and all the MOABs you can carry. Which is REAL freedom, I'm told.
Tbombz is MUCH dumber than coach.
The fact that just as many scientist who also attended elite universities and who have studied climate trends is irrelevant because Gore, Obama and the media told these imbeciles that global warming is a fact.
Hahaa. Can't you just go to the next county and buy beer to bring home?
Global warming is the new religion of the atheist. Regurgitating anything the media pushes and becoming experts in the area overnight via Facebook and other social media is the morons' new aphrodisiac. The fact that just as many scientist who also attended elite universities and who have studied climate trends is irrelevant because Gore, Obama and the media told these imbeciles that global warming is a fact. They refuse to consider the other side's studies as they blindly follow what they're programmed to believe.
I think you are mixing up atheist with liberal no brains. The fuck we have a right to tell China, Africa etc they cannot industrialise after we have... lower emissions would be nice but, l8ke a junkie sitting on a kilo we will wait til the last gramme to do anything. Meh... human nature.
coach, you used to do more than just start ten threads a day with a link to an article.
i miss your analysis.
If you know I start 10 threads a days why should I offer an analysis on this one? Don't think it's been beat to death. But I'll offer it one more time. It's bullshit, a scam to rape tax payers for more. Hope that helped.
Dude wakes up one morning in late November and notices that it is cold outside. Seems cold for this time of the year. Conclusion: no global warming!
Thank goodness climates don't depend on what a simple Getbigger thinks.
I don't expect many here to understand science nor be able to comprehend what is going on around them.
HAHA This is amazing, dude is shares my disdain, you can see the pain on his face.
MCWAY once posted a link showing how c02 cools the upper atmosphere, lol. this was evidence that it did in fact not heat the globe. Meanwhile the same reason co2 cools the atmosphere (it can't get in), is the same reason it heats the surface as it can't get out (greenhouse effect).
We are dealing with a special type of stupid, people like coach literally don't have a clue, none. He sits there benefitting from biomechanics research, evolutionary theory (medicine), physics in computers and cell phones, we are sending people to LIVE on MARS... yet this is a mystery Lmao.
I often wonder if stupid people know they are stupid, if there is ever a moment of lucidity, where reason weighs on them.
Exxon scientists already knew about global warming and climate change back in 1977:
http://gizmodo.com/exxon-scientists-knew-fossil-fuels-caused-climate-chang-1731707762
So now you're a fucking scientist?
I must not be as cynical as I thought... It still amazes me that people still ignore the science and the data and claim that climate change is some kind of invented hoax that card-carrying scientists perpetuate.
I guess it depends on who's science you go by. If you talk to a liberal you'd think the world was going to burn up and explode tomorrow so it's best they go for the money grab now.
I guess it depends on who's science you go by. If you talk to a liberal you'd think the world was going to burn up and explode tomorrow so it's best they go for the money grab now.
Joe, I'm a scientist. Science isn't partisan and data is data.
Bigger than evolution? Tough call.
These stupid "scientists" with their "studies" and "data." Doesn't take no fancy degree to feel the 57 F here in SoCal right now. Why so cold, warm globers?
But if your data doesn't agree with others, who's right? Personally "global warming" is a political scam and doesn't affect anyone one way or another. Come talk to me in a couple of hundred years and then I might agree.is pollution a hoax?
But if your data doesn't agree with others, who's right? Personally "global warming" is a political scam and doesn't affect anyone one way or another. Come talk to me in a couple of hundred years and then I might agree.
If our data doesn't agree, then there's a flaw in collecting the data so we look at the data collecting process, figure out what went wrong and fix it.
If our interpretations (i.e. the theories we each advocate) don't agree, the answer is much simpler: we each use our theories to make predictions and observe which theory fits best - that is, which makes more accurate predictions.
Science is about the rational examination of facts and the refinement of theories that allow us to model the world around us. It's not about politics or what you believe.
Quantum mechanics was such a crazy theory - one that required reframing everything we knew about classical physics and went against things we could directly observe with our eyes. Many prominent scientists doubted the whole quantum model - and laymen made fun of the crazy wacko physicists that wouldn't even believe their eyes.
You say to come back and talk to you in a couple of hundred years. What's the point? The debate is already, largely, settled and the models we have seen to model things fairly accurately and the predicted behavior fits what is observed.
As a scientist, I remain open to the possibility that the theory can be superseded by something better and more accurate and maybe that better and more accurate theory will better interpret our data to make stunningly different predictions. I'm sure the former will happen but I'm not so sure about the latter.
Like everything else, you see things in terms of politics. You apply the same kind of blindered partisan thinking you do to everything else where if someone doesn't agree with you they're wrong. This sort of infantile thinking may work for you but it doesn't work for me.
Climate change, to the best of our understanding, is very real - your objections notwithstanding. That doesn't mean that we should go out and outlaw the internal combustion engine or legislate that the only things that comes out of factory chimneys are rainbows and happiness. But we ought to at least consider whether there are things that we can do - from increasing the percentage of energy generated from renewable sources to developing better technology to reduce pollutants.
Believe Rush and Hannity and whomever else you take scientific advice from. I'll stick to the science.
Joe, I'm a scientist. Science isn't partisan and data is data.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
Global warming is a crock of shit.
yet again, sorry in advance that you wasted your time.
you have a better chance getting a rational response from a horse.
(http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/images/reviews/190/1314927907_2.jpg)
This why I say most liberals lose their way after they graduate from brainwashing academy. That being said let me ask you this. When do you think the world is coming to and end due to "global warming" ?
*i don't expect this to be answered anytime soon.
(http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_small/1/13923/1045811-picmistered1.jpg)
So you can't answer it either. Got it.
What kind of scientist?
You can't find one person who thinks pollution isn't bad. You can't find one person that thinks that pollution on our beaches isn't bad but most think that the temp raising 1-2degrees in the last 100 years is a non-issue. Again, more bullshit to get your wallets open.
This why I say most liberals lose their way after they graduate from brainwashing academy. That being said let me ask you this. When do you think the world is coming to and end due to "global warming" ?
*i don't expect this to be answered anytime soon.
Mostly a mathematician: I have degrees in math and computer science. I did some work with number theory which turned out to be mind-numbingly tedious, so now I do protein folding research along with the computational biology hippies.
One of my degrees is in engineering and the others in computer science. It's good to have some technical people on the forum to balance out the Luddites, conspiracy nuts, and tinfoil hat wearers.
I myself am not concerned about global warming. Taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere's as simple as planting more trees.
Tree count reaches three trillion:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34134366 (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34134366)
More trees in America than there were 100 years ago:
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true (http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true)
Mostly a mathematician: I have degrees in math and computer science. I did some work with number theory which turned out to be mind-numbingly tedious, so now I do protein folding research along with the computational biology hippies.
Bigger than evolution? Tough call.
These stupid "scientists" with their "studies" and "data." Doesn't take no fancy degree to feel the 57 F here in SoCal right now. Why so cold, warm globers?
This why I say most liberals lose their way after they graduate from brainwashing academy. That being said let me ask you this. When do you think the world is coming to and end due to "global warming" ?
*i don't expect this to be answered anytime soon.
Hey guys,
Don't forget to let the left wingers running the US Navy, NASA, IBM, Coca Cola,WALMART etc. know your personal opinions on this.
I'm sure they'd be happy to detune their strategies and advocacy on the climate change issue.
(disregarding what every expert on the subject says) ::)
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/documents/CCR.pdf
http://time.com/4045572/big-business-climate-change/
Hey guys,
Don't forget to let the left wingers running the US Navy, NASA, IBM, Coca Cola,WALMART etc. know your personal opinions on this.
I'm sure they'd be happy to detune their strategies and advocacy on the climate change issue.
(disregarding what every expert on the subject says) ::)
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/documents/CCR.pdf
http://time.com/4045572/big-business-climate-change/
Scientists use to think the world was flat!! we have not advanced since that point.
what a retarded question, it's something a child would ask as the adult struggles to compute.
No, it's not a "retarded" question. The left are playing this off with an alarmist mentality like the earth is going to burn up anytime. With all of this "science" and 'data" I'm sure they come up with an approximate date of destruction. Remember this from the 70's?
HOLY SHIT, the US NAVY is part of the climate change conspiracy!!!
This runs deeper than I imagined!
One of my degrees is in engineering and the others in computer science. It's good to have some technical people on the forum to balance out the Luddites, conspiracy nuts, and tinfoil hat wearers.
I myself am not concerned about global warming. Taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere's as simple as planting more trees.
Tree count reaches three trillion:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34134366 (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34134366)
More trees in America than there were 100 years ago:
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true (http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true)
No, it's not a "retarded" question. The left are playing this off with an alarmist mentality like the earth is going to burn up anytime. With all of this "science" and 'data" I'm sure they come up with an approximate date of destruction. Remember this from the 70's?
Oh man... weekly publication makes sensationalist claims on the front page in an effort to drive up sales. What a scandal! Never before have we seen such a thing...
You keep droning on about the left. To hell with the left, to hell with the right and to hell with you.
We need to look at the facts and to rationally evaluate what, if anything, we need to do based on our best understanding of the world around us. This isn't about political ideology. This isn't about your pick-up truck. Or your BBQ.
This why I say most liberals lose their way after they graduate from brainwashing academy. That being said let me ask you this. When do you think the world is coming to and end due to "global warming" ?
*i don't expect this to be answered anytime soon.
everyone knows global warming is just about cashing in on state programs by all those bio degree jerkoff who no one will hire in free market so state moral scam rapes taxpayer and lawyers now force biz to do environmental mipact study to tune of million n millions so the payoff is just government scam payment to crony communists, chris christie cancelld train from jersey to new york which had already run up 100mil in environmental impact studies, look it up, 100mil and they didnt even build he train!!
everyone knows global warming is just about cashing in on state programs by all those bio degree jerkoff who no one will hire in free market so state moral scam rapes taxpayer and lawyers now force biz to do environmental mipact study to tune of million n millions so the payoff is just government scam payment to crony communists, chris christie cancelld train from jersey to new york which had already run up 100mil in environmental impact studies, look it up, 100mil and they didnt even build he train!!
Are you at all worried your son may return from college "brainwashed," as you say?
Nah, he's not afraid to ask questions that don't make sense.
Nah, he's not afraid to ask questions that don't make sense.
On road transportation accounts for only ten percent of all greenhouse emissions and yet it is the most heavily regulated. Why? probably because it's the most visible by the public.
Here's how this hurts the common man. Cafe standards are set to be raised to 50 MPG for cars and 37 mpg for light trucks by 2023, which is only seven years away. By doing this the government is forcing car companies to only make and sell hybrid vehicles. I rented a Prius for a week and it was one of the worst cars I've ever driven. I personally don't want a hybrid. they are much more complicated than a normal car and it's expensive to replace the battery when they go bad. Yet, the government is essentially mandating everyone to buy these vehicles. >:(
So if "most people" think that something isn't bad then it isn't?
A while ago, most people thought that CFCs didn't damage the ozone layer. They thought so without knowing what CFCs are, what ozone is, what the ozone layer is or what it does. But still, they thought so.
I am reminded of Representative Doolittle, who argued that there was no causal relationship between CFCs and ozone depletion. He ignored scientists, claiming that there was "politics within the scientific community" and he would get to the bottom of it but he didn't want to "get involved in a mumbo-jumbo of peer-reviewed documents."
Others claimed that no research was presented - despite numerous studies and testimony by scientists. And all this, by the way, was after a Nobel Prize in Chemistry had been awarded to the scientists who discovered said causal link.
So just because people who haven't looked at the data and don't understand the science don't think a change of 1 or 2 degrees isn't a big deal doesn't mean that it's not a big deal.
Reality isn't up for a vote Joe.
the dumbest poster on getbig strikes again!X2, this loser doesn't "believe" in global warming.
Nah, he's not afraid to ask questions that don't make sense.
Nah, he's not afraid to ask questions that don't make sense.
Why would he ask nonsensical questions, though?
and our ability to "fix" the hole in the ozone layer seems like BS too.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/26/did-we-really-save-the-ozone-layer/
"During September to October, just after the Antarctic winter, the Ozone Hole is the largest for each year. NASA recently reported that from September 7 through October 13, 2015, the Ozone Hole reached a mean area of 25.6 million kilometers, the largest area since 2006 and the fourth largest since measurements began in 1979. The hole remains large, despite the fact that world ODS consumption all but disappeared about a decade ago."
whatever is happening to the global climate i doubt humans will be any more successful affecting it than they have been in fixing the ozone layer.
wouldn't be surprised if it's used to put the brakes on fast growing 3rd world economies if the speed of their growth starts to threaten western domination. a war in the name of climate control may be in the not too distant future.
There are so many issues with the article, it's hard to know where to begin. Let's nit-pick a bit: if you refer to the "Nobel Prize" as a "Noble prize" then you're basically proving you post drivel. But I digress...
The article makes some interesting claims, and pretends there's a huge mystery but does not describe how (a) well-understood mechanisms cause concentrations of chlorine compounds in the Antarctic region of the troposphere to increase, which interact with ozone causing localized depletion and (b) well-understood chemistry explains how the unusually long and cold Antarctic winters factor into this equation.
But, worse that this, the article doesn't even attempt to present a theory that would explain what we're seeing that makes testable predictions that we could look at and evaluate. So, what good is the article, exactly?
Look, the facts are simple: there's no doubt that CFCs were causing massive damage to the ozone layer, and eliminating their use has helped halt the damage to the ozone layer, which is slowly being reversed.
Seattle vs. Minnesota (-5)
Third coldest in playoff history. I think the first was 1967. You're right, it's getting warmer. "Global warming" is real. lol
Nobody disputes the presence of large Antarctic ozone "hole" that has grown. The question is do we understand why it has formed?
If we do, it's disingenuous to present it as evidence that eliminating (or dramatically reducing) CFCs did not help, especially if we know that eliminating CFCs did help. That's what this article did.
To paraphrase it, it argues that scientists told us to ban CFCs to fix the ozone layer and we did but now the ozone layer hole over the Antarctic has grown and so he scientists were wrong. And now they're telling you that there's global warming and why are they right now when they were wrong before.
If you see nothing wrong with this "logic" then there's no point in discussing this poorly-written piece of scientific smut.
more spin and BS.
I linked you to data that shows that the ozone layer is not getting any smaller after years of negligible CFC emissions. you claimed that we had managed to start "slowly repairing damage to the ozone layer"
link us to the data that shows this
i believe they only found the hole in 1979....who's to say how long the hole was there before that? who's to say how it had changed in size pre 1979?
after reducing CFCs to near zero for some years the hole is not showing any sign of getting smaller in fact it is now at it's 4th biggest size since we first it 1979....
with that in mind who is to say CFC emissions actually played any significant role in the hole in the 1st place....pretty straight forward logic really...
you think it is down to humility that no one is claiming any credit for the great work done in reducing CFC emissions and fixing the ozone layer?
conker turning atmospheric science on its head with these startling revelations.
no revelations needed. i know diddly squat about "atmospheric science" . but i am capable of deciphering simple data.
what's your view on CFC emission elimination and the effect it is having on the hole in the ozone layer?
and tbh this fixing the hole in the ozone layer sounds like a much simpler task than controlling the climate does. no doubt if the powers that be would consult me for the common sense view on climate change, i could save them the billions that they are going to waste following the advice of their fancy dan scientists ;D
i very much doubt we will have any greater success trying to control the climate than the native tribes had trying to make it rain with their rain dances.
global warming is based on thousands of data points over many years.
the "its cold at my house" perspective shows just how little the average Joe knows about information.
This year has seen the hottest October, November and December on record.
But on its own, that doesnt mean anything as elsewhere it couldve been below average.
The problem with science nay sayers is that they cant grasp the simple concept that they dont have the same data and dont have the skills and background to be able to interpret it. Complex algorithms have been derived to analyse the information and compare it to similar loads of data.
The fact that the overwhelming majority of trained, educated, informed scientists- who are adept at interpreting data and not prone to being swayed, all arrive to the same conclusion should be enough for joe public to take it as fact.
Joe Public doesnt stop at a bridge cos he cant do the math to work out how it got designed and built- he drives straight over it.
Joe Public doesnt need someone to explain how his phone touch screen works or how its design evolved, he just uses it.
Joe Public doesnt insist on being explained how daily weather forecasts are done- he just accepts that it works.
The problem with the media is that it caters to the largest demographic so it can sell copies. Its a good ongoing sale if there can be controversy. The very same scientists and engineers that achieve things joe public cant comprehend every day, are the ones who are concluding that global warming is real.
sometimes you gotta just accept that there are people out there that know more than you do. in order to do that, you need to accept that you dont have all the info and/or the knowledge/skills/education to even try to form an independent opinion based on facts.
Good post.
Nothing more needs to be said.
Actually it does, I am always hearing about the coldest or warmest on record. How long have the records been kept? 20 years, 200 years? If you say that the earth 4.5 billions years old, the 200 years is the blink of an eye in the grand scheme.
100 years.
And yes, it's a blink in regards to the time of the earth, but it's the information we have to work with.
Those who just simply dismiss it are using the information of the day. "Oh look, it's cool and it's August... Pfft... Global Warming or Climate Change is bullshit."
Which one is more data?
Data is data, it can be manipulated to say what you want. The climate has been changing on the earth since the earth was formed. Long before there were enough humans to make a difference or the use of fossil fuels. They find whale and fish fossils in the middle of a desert, how did they get there? Used to be covered by water at some point in earths history.
100 years.
And yes, it's a blink in regards to the time of the earth, but it's the information we have to work with.
Those who just simply dismiss it are using the information of the day. "Oh look, it's cool and it's August... Pfft... Global Warming or Climate Change is bullshit."
Which one is more data?
OK so when asked to provide some data to back up your claim that we have "started to reverse the damage we did to the ozone layer" the best you can come up with is this
Also, according to NASA: "Records in depth and size haven’t occurred during the same years (the largest ozone hole occurred in 2006), but the long-term trend in both characteristics is consistent: from 1980 through the early 1990s, the hole rapidly grew in size and depth. Since the mid-1990s, area and depth have roughly stabilized
When was that even written? Since the hole grew by nearly 20% in 2015 ?
OK let me help you. Below is the annually recorded size of the hole since records began in 1979 from the NASA website.
Please explain how these figures tell you that we are "reversing damage done to the ozone layer"
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/annual_data.html
(data snipped)
there you go , compelling evidence that eliminating CFC emissions is fixing the hole in the ozone layer ???
no doubt in 40-50 yrs time when the figures show that what we have done to control climate change has had zero effect, there will be another queue of useful idiots disregarding the figures and telling us that we are "slowly reversing climate change".
Not necessarily, but that's neither here nor there.
Currently, the data is overwhelmingly towards some sort of man made climate change. You talk about manipulated, but only 1% is manipulated to say climate change doesn't exist?
You would think they would manipulate to that direction a lot more than 1%.
No we have thousands of years of accurate data. This is incorrect.
Science is not always correct, and until what it presents is proven, it is a theory.
Science is not always correct, and until what it presents is proven, it is a theory.
Another card-carrying member of the "NOT A SCIENTIST, BUT ONCE SAW A LAB COAT FROM A DISTANCE" club...
Yes because [...]
as soon as science says something it is always right, shit the earth is flat, and the sun rotates around the earth right?
I don't have an opinion because to me it seems like an extremely complicated subject. I'd prefer to leave it to specialists. If they want to present a simplified explanation then I'll check that out but interpreting the raw data is something for folks with a background in the stuff. It's not necessary to have a technically detailed opinion on everything in fact it's pretty much impossible.
That said, I look up the ozone treaties and notice 197 countries have signed up and renewed it many, many times over many years. How does one explain that if the measures don't work? Have all 197 countries simultaneously been hoodwinked by the scientists again? How does that occur? Common sense should be applied to these questions too!
In the end, you need to have a better proposal for action since just complaining that what's being done is not working achieves nothing. So let us know what your proposal is for fixing this situation. Looking forward to seeing this!
It's naive to claim that the size of the ozone hole is controlled only by CFCs. In fact, nobody ever argued that. More specifically, I wrote that "eliminating [CFC] use has helped halt the damage to the ozone layer, which is slowly being reversed." Are you suggesting this statement is inaccurate? If so, which parts, specifically, are inaccurate?
Re: the size of the ozone hole. There a number of known factors that are involved and an excellent theory which provides a credible explanation and why an increase was observed. Are you suggesting the explanations are inadequate or deficient in some way?
Thanks for trying to help me. Now, since I'm a mathematician, let me try and help you: you're looking at sub-sampled raw data: using the daily maximum of a dynamic process to describe an entire year means that your "data" will fluctuate wildly. It would be much more helpful if we could crunch the entire data set, instead of sub-sampling the local maxima.
Luckily, in the same page, NASA also gives us the mean ozone hole size for the period 09/07 through 10/13 of each year since 1979. It's still sub-sampling, but the fact that we use the mean of a larger perior of time is better since it can can help us get a "broader" look at the data. Let's do that shall we? Our data points will be in red, and a nice cubic fit with an adjusted R2 of 0.82554 will be the blue curve:
(http://i.imgur.com/bSWFXH2.gif)
Huh... suddenly this "the hole grew by 20%" doesn't look quite as bad does it? And you learned an important lesson: you can't fuck with mathematicians.
Except that's a statement I never made. I said: "eliminating [CFC] use has helped halt the damage to the ozone layer, which is slowly being reversed." The NASA evidence you link to bears that out.
I'm not surprised that you misunderstand my position on climate change.
yes it is a very complicated subject and i would not attempt to argue the the intricacies of it, but saying you can't interpret the simple raw data that is available because you're not an expert, is like saying you can't tell which team is winning a football match when the score is 10-2 because you don't know anything about football.
it's simple data produced by NASA for laymen to see what is happening with the hole
the data shows that CFC emissions were slashed year on year and near eliminated around a decade ago and the data shows there is no trend in the size of the hole reversing...the size of the hole is recorded annually at roughly the same time each year, when the hole is at it's largest. it doesn't matter if every country in the world signed up for CFC reduction.... the data still says the same thing, the hole is not getting smaller. perhaps someone forgot to tell the hole how many people were supporting the CFC emission theory.
[...]
i don't have any proposals for "fixing this situation". i just instinctively don't believe we have any chance of significantly controlling the earth's climate regardless of what measures we take. and i think the vast amount of resources we are wasting on this issue could be directed into much more worthwhile and obtainable goals.
the entire educated world once believed the world was flat...how did that theory pan out?
i don't know why we put so much faith in these theories that scientists come up with about mind bogglingly complex issues. there are so many questions that science has no answers to. we can't even find a cure or vaccine for cancer, a disease that was identified hundreds of years ago and kills millions of us each year. but yet we have great confidence that scientists know how to fix a hole in the ozone layer and how to control the world's climate.
the post above is a pile of junk with no substance.
i will highlight this bit you posted.
"More specifically, I wrote that "eliminating [CFC] use has helped halt the damage to the ozone layer, which is slowly being reversed." Are you suggesting this statement is inaccurate? If so, which parts, specifically, are inaccurate?"
yes i am saying that is inaccurate, specifically this part
"eliminating [CFC] use has helped halt the damage to the ozone layer, which is slowly being reversed."
please link us to the data that shows CFC elimination has helped halt damage to the ozone layer and shows it is slowly being reversed, something that was compiled post 2015 measurements.
please no more of your BS rantings, just a link to the data.
yes it is a very complicated subject and i would not attempt to argue the the intricacies of it, but saying you can't interpret the simple raw data that is available because you're not an expert, is like saying you can't tell which team is winning a football match when the score is 10-2 because you don't know anything about football.
it's simple data produced by NASA for laymen to see what is happening with the hole
the data shows that CFC emissions were slashed year on year and near eliminated around a decade ago and the data shows there is no trend in the size of the hole reversing...the size of the hole is recorded annually at roughly the same time each year, when the hole is at it's largest. it doesn't matter if every country in the world signed up for CFC reduction.... the data still says the same thing, the hole is not getting smaller. perhaps someone forgot to tell the hole how many people were supporting the CFC emission theory.
the entire educated world once believed the world was flat...how did that theory pan out?
i don't know why we put so much faith in these theories that scientists come up with about mind bogglingly complex issues. there are so many questions that science has no answers to. we can't even find a cure or vaccine for cancer, a disease that was identified hundreds of years ago and kills millions of us each year. but yet we have great confidence that scientists know how to fix a hole in the ozone layer and how to control the world's climate.
i don't have any proposals for "fixing this situation". i just instinctively don't believe we have any chance of significantly controlling the earth's climate regardless of what measures we take. and i think the vast amount of resources we are wasting on this issue could be directed into much more worthwhile and obtainable goals.
Stop spewing crap: the data clearly and unambigiously shows that the size of the hole stabilized as CFC usage was reduced. The stabilization was highly correlated with the reduction of CFC usage. The 2015 increase - which you wave around this thread - isn't evidence that CFCs aren't responsible for this.
You make ridiculous claims that "we have great confidence that scientists know how to fix a hole in the ozone layer and how to control the world's climate." I don't know who "we" refers to - but it's not scientists. Why? Because that isn't what the scientists are saying.
Those are the facts. But hey, you haven't allowed facts to get in the way of your "argument" so far - why start now?
you are as dumb as a box of rocks.
scientists may have 'thought'(pushed the line) that the size of the hole had stabilised at some stage, but given the fact that the hole grew by near 20% last year a decade post CFC emission elimination....it looks like scientists may well have been "wrong" in their belief that the size of the hole had "stabilised".
well if "we" are not putting great confidence into the scientists' advice re global warming, why are so many countries clambering to sign up to implement costly measures that are apparently going to save the world from climate change?
are you saying it is not the advice from scientists that "we" are acting on?
firstly if you don't have an idea fixing the situation at all you've suddenly disqualified yourself as a relevant critic. One needs to actually advance discussion for people to care about what you're saying. That said I get you're responding intuitively; BUT, You should become interested in solving the problems that you're interested in otherwise what is the point? ???
Also, take your time explaining how the treaties were ratified universally on bad science. No data analysis required 8)
here's the graph from nasa so everyone can see the trend
(http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/statistics/meteorology_annual.png)
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/multimedia/SH.html
i don't think the smartest human beings alive are capable of "fixing" the global climate, so why am i going to start exploring possible solutions?
i really was not trying to pass myself off as a "relevant critic" on this subject (believe it or not!)....is that what you think you are?
i'm just giving my opinion on a subject i constantly see in the news which i think is BS, politicians that my taxes go towards paying, prancing around the world at this or that climate change summit. wasting time and money that could be used elsewhere.
i'm not saying climate change doesn't exist. i'm saying i don't believe we can control it. you don't have to have to have a solution for something to qualify you to discuss it.
who says treaties are being ratified on 'bad science' ? i wouldn't say all the scientists worldwide studying cancer are guilty of 'bad science' ...but they still can't find a cure for it can they ? and i instinctively believe a cure for cancer is likely to be more achievable than our ability to control the climate.
and....going on the that graph you just posted from NASA, what do you think the "trend" everyone can see is ?
the graph appears to be consistent the what AVXO is saying about the trend. ANYONE WITH EYES CAN SEE THE ARC FLATTENING OUT.
now i realise why you said earlier you don't try to interpret simple data yourself and prefer to leave it to the experts :D
Who said anything about "the arc flattening out" ? the data was supposed to show that damage done to the ozone layer was "reversing"
please explain how the "trend" in that chart tells you that the damage is being reversed?
the hole is not getting any smaller. In fact as of Oct 2015, years after CFC emissions were completely eliminated it grew annually by nearly 20% to the 4 largest size it has been since records began in 1979.
Oh brother.
Here's the thing. You admitted you don't know what you're talking about and that your comments are irrelevant.
this we can agree on. nothing else to discuss.
now i realise why you said earlier you don't try to interpret simple data yourself and prefer to leave it to the experts :D
Who said anything about "the arc flattening out" ? the data was supposed to show that damage done to the ozone layer was "reversing"
please explain how the "trend" in that chart tells you that the damage is being reversed?
the hole is not getting any smaller. In fact as of Oct 2015, years after CFC emissions were completely eliminated it grew annually by nearly 20% to the 4 largest size it has been since records began in 1979.
If it is slowing, that is a change or reversal. Simple logic.
it isn't slowing, it is up and down.
anyway "reversal" actually means going backwards not "slowing"
HTH
Who care's. We're all going to die in 13 days anyway. lol
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/02/24-days-to-al-gores-10-years-to-save-the-planet-and-point-of-no-return-planetary-emergency-deadline/
No it doesn't, reversal would refer to the direction of trend heading in opposite direction, if there is a negative correlation or inverse correlation, the growth would first slow as CFC's reduced, it wouldn't fix as it's not a binary phenomenon.
you say:
"reversal would refer the direction of trend heading in opposite direction" .....
would you say "heading in the opposite direction"(when something is going up/forwards) is the same thing as something going backwards? if yes, how are you disagreeing with me?
what you initially said was slowing = reversing, no it doesn't. slowing is not something "heading in the opposite direction".
slowing could be followed by "reversal" but until there is credible and consistent evidence of the damage "going backwards", it can't be claimed that the damage is being reversed.
if something is increasing at a particular rate, say by 100% every week, then several weeks later is now at 70% increase, the rate is decreasing, this is a reversal.
I think you might be conflating damage and size, forget damage, it's way to subjective, size or other objective markers make more sense, if we are using size, the trend is reversing.
Regardless it's not really all that important, if you are using it as an argument for doubting other pieces science, then it's moot. Look at the strength of the data, who cares about opinions.
Global warming has been outed as a scam long ago. Unbelievable that UN has balls to ask for 100B to fight global warming. Anything you subsidize you get more of! Pay for single moms? get lots! Pay unemployable master n phd in environmental science with tax stolen money? Pay lawyers to enforce regulations by charging 100s of millions for environmental impact studies? This is how people get rich using crony communism folks. Best part is these complete thieves really convinced themselves they are doing GOOD. IN SANE!!! Cut all of it and cut gov spending and regulations and price down and pay up and you live much better. Socialism failed in the 19th century. Socialism loses nonstop and makes you poorer. Capitalism is an endless boom. 2008 was caused by Bill Clinton threatening Fanny/Freddy which should not exist, to loan to poor. Poor didn't pay, and fed pumped money in, no document checking, and it all blew up. Bush tried to stop it but democrat congress le by Barny Frank said no economy just fine!! Mass produced housing, real education delivered by pay for course, and thorium clean atomic power would all be here already if capitalism was unchained. Socialism esp national socialsm aka nazi always FAILS.
yes i suppose you could say if the rate something is increasing at is declining , that "the rate of increase is reversing". but we were not talking about the rate of increase.
the claim was that we were "reversing the damage caused to the ozone layer" for that to be true there would need to be clear and consistent evidence that we were reducing the damage that had already been caused.
reversing the rate damage is increasing at does not equal reversing the damage
the damage to the ozone layer afai is primarily measured by the size of the hole in it....so "damage" and "size"(of hole) are pretty much interchangeable in this case.
the bolded is exactly my point, it doesn't matter what spin any 'expert' puts on it, looking at the data, no one could say with a straight face that there is any
clear pattern that shows "we are reversing the damage caused to ozone layer"
here's a report report from the "world leading experts" it's 400+ pages.
Actions taken under the Montreal Protocol have led to decreases in the atmospheric
abundance of controlled ozone-depleting substances (ODSs), and are enabling the return
of the ozone layer toward 1980 levels.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/chapters/2014OzoneAssessment.pdf
::)
why do you keep posting reports from 2014? why not post something from the back end of 2015 when the hole was back to near the biggest it's ever been since records began....
"Antarctica’s ozone hole in 2015
The 2015 Antarctic ozone hole formed later than usual and had the fourth-largest area measured since the start of the satellite record in 1979"
http://earthsky.org/earth/ozone-hole-2015
tbh most of the claims in the reports from 2014 looked optimistic to say the least given the data then, and that was before the hole grew again by just under 20% between 2014-2015.
seeing as the scientists at nasa etc played a leading role in warning about the danger from the hole in the ozone layer and how we should go about fixing etc.....do you not think they may have some incentive to put a 'spin' on their commentary of the data to some extent?
people don't like admitting they were wrong....especially when their professional reputation may be on the line.
K, so would you say that if the rate of increase is in fact slowing (less damage is accumulating) that the trend could in time conceivable become a net positive? said another way, if after enough time, will the size decrease, if the rate is slowing it would be logical to assume I reason.
yes i i'd say it is possible that if the rate of increase is slowing, in time the size could decrease. but with the ozone layer hole, after growing very quickly in a short space of time the rate of growth really stalled around 20 years or so ago, since then the size of the hole has gone up and down, in 2015 it jumped in size to be nearly as big as it's ever been. so it may have levelled off somewhat 20 years ago but it has not significantly got any smaller (if at all)
so the reports that say "the damage is being reversed" are IMO contradictory to the data. at best you could claim the level of damage has stabilised to some extent. what i believe happens is after a few years of the hole's size dropping, the scientists at nasa etc come out of the woodwork to say the damage is now reversing as they predicted, then the following year when the hole jumps again in size, they pretty much stay quiet.
slowing the rate of increase is not the same as reversing damage, agreed, damage is still occurring if the net result is less ozone. If the artic ice packs 1 ton a year, but over the last ten years has only packed .75 tonnes , and last year .65, one could reason the ice will eventually reduce if the trend continues. Do we know why this is occurring? if so, can we predict other aspects or even the rate? if so, it's a fair assumption to extrapolate these models, unless some extraneous variable was completely unaccounted for, however, our stats would see some anomaly after enough manipulation. Multiple linear regression's would account for multiple variables, if everyone is coming up with the same thing, worldwide, then it's real.
What is your central argument, besides the CFC's? that global warming is false?
no i'm not saying global warming is false per se but i am very sceptical about the idea that we are the cause of it with greenhouse gas emissions rather than it possibly just being caused by natural global occurrences and variance and i am even more sceptical when it comes to the belief that we are capable of manipulating the climate to suit us if we implement the suggested measures.
i also believe this issue will likely be used for political and financial gain. emerging economies are more reliant on dirty energy sources to continue their growth than the developed world is. if some of these emerging nations start to threaten western domination, we will no doubt see trade sanctions, possibly even military aggression being used to protect the current status quo, in the guise of saving the planet.
^^^ Quite the vast consipracy theory ::)
I don't really wanna join the paranoid foiler brigade here, but I'm pretty sure that spellin' is a blatant false flag, friend.
Instead masturbating over who's "right" or "wrong" - it's the dubious intent behind the slogan "climate change" that is the problem.Take all the cum from all the guys jacking it today in America, and pour it in coach's mouth. He will get so hot and horny, he will burn a hole in the ozone in 3 seconds.
Take all the cum from all the guys jacking it today in America, and pour it in coach's mouth. He will get so hot and horny, he will burn a hole in the ozone in 3 seconds.
Do you think if coach gets so stupid, he can ask to be reclassified as a dog?
Don't change the subject - Coach's intellect is not the issue.
11 days and counting...lolYou learned to count to 11? We are so proud of you.
^^^ Quite the vast conspiracy theory ::)
LET US KNOW HOW THIS NEFARIOUS AGENDA WAS IMPLEMENTED
it's not a conspiracy theory to be sceptical about what we have/are being told about the ozone layer or climate change.
these theories about what caused ozone depletion/climate change and how to fix it were arrived at from experimental models. there is no guaranty these theories will then play out as expected when it comes to the real world.
i'm sure scientists could cure cancer a million times over if they only had to show their cure via scientific modelling and not real world application.
we have been looking for a cure to cancer for hundreds of years and still not found it. but i must be a conspiracy theorist if i doubt our ability to pinpoint the exact cause along with the cure for issues we only really identified very recently, issues that are no doubt countless times more complex than cancer is.
OK as you have so much faith in NASA scientists.
"NASA research shows Earth's atmosphere contains an unexpectedly large amount of an ozone-depleting compound from an unknown source decades after the compound was banned worldwide."
Carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), which was once used in applications such as dry cleaning and as a fire-extinguishing agent, was regulated in 1987 under the Montreal Protocol along with other chlorofluorocarbons that destroy ozone and contribute to the ozone hole over Antarctica. Parties to the Montreal Protocol reported zero new CCl4 emissions between 2007-2012.
However, the new research shows worldwide emissions of CCl4 average 39 kilotons per year, approximately 30 percent of peak emissions prior to the international treaty going into effect.
"We are not supposed to be seeing this at all," said Qing Liang, an atmospheric scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study. "It is now apparent there are either unidentified industrial leakages, large emissions from contaminated sites, or unknown CCl4 sources."
"People believe the emissions of ozone-depleting substances have stopped because of the Montreal Protocol," said Paul Newman, chief scientist for atmospheres at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a co-author of the study. "Unfortunately, there is still a major source of CCl4 out in the world."
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/august/ozone-depleting-compound-persists-nasa-research-shows/#.VpeDyPmLTIU
i wonder how much more of their theory on the ozone layer will eventually turn out not as expected??
it's not a conspiracy theory to be sceptical about what we have/are being told about the ozone layer or climate change.
these theories about what caused ozone depletion/climate change and how to fix it were arrived at from experimental models. there is no guaranty these theories will then play out as expected when it comes to the real world.
i'm sure scientists could cure cancer a million times over if they only had to show their cure via scientific modelling and not real world application.
we have been looking for a cure to cancer for hundreds of years and still not found it. but i must be a conspiracy theorist if i doubt our ability to pinpoint the exact cause along with the cure for issues we only really identified very recently, issues that are no doubt countless times more complex than cancer is.
OK as you have so much faith in NASA scientists.
"NASA research shows Earth's atmosphere contains an unexpectedly large amount of an ozone-depleting compound from an unknown source decades after the compound was banned worldwide."
Carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), which was once used in applications such as dry cleaning and as a fire-extinguishing agent, was regulated in 1987 under the Montreal Protocol along with other chlorofluorocarbons that destroy ozone and contribute to the ozone hole over Antarctica. Parties to the Montreal Protocol reported zero new CCl4 emissions between 2007-2012.
However, the new research shows worldwide emissions of CCl4 average 39 kilotons per year, approximately 30 percent of peak emissions prior to the international treaty going into effect.
"We are not supposed to be seeing this at all," said Qing Liang, an atmospheric scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study. "It is now apparent there are either unidentified industrial leakages, large emissions from contaminated sites, or unknown CCl4 sources."
"People believe the emissions of ozone-depleting substances have stopped because of the Montreal Protocol," said Paul Newman, chief scientist for atmospheres at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a co-author of the study. "Unfortunately, there is still a major source of CCl4 out in the world."
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/august/ozone-depleting-compound-persists-nasa-research-shows/#.VpeDyPmLTIU
i wonder how much more of their theory on the ozone layer will eventually turn out not as expected??
There is nothing here that alters the fact that CFC's deplete ozone, this is a fact, like gravity is a fact, why the ozone is depleting is a theory, which contains these facts.Excellent!
The article is directly stating that there are still unaccounted sources of CFC, this does in no way change the fact that cfc deplete ozone, that's not debatable. Are there other variables? in no way is this a change to the theory, you are conflating uncertainty with error, then suggesting this must mean the basic chemistry is wrong, it's not.
There is nothing here that alters the fact that CFC's deplete ozone, this is a fact, like gravity is a fact, why the ozone is depleting is a theory, which contains these facts.
The article is directly stating that there are still unaccounted sources of CFC, this does in no way change the fact that cfc deplete ozone, that's not debatable. Are there other variables? in no way is this a change to the theory, you are conflating uncertainty with error, then suggesting this must mean the basic chemistry is wrong, it's not.
^^^ just more questions and confusion. You don't present an argument for anything. You may be highly disturbed by these issues but the reasons for that remain a mystery.
As if seeking a cure for cancer is a bad idea because a cure doesn't exist. How do you form your opinion on cancer? Are you in agreement with cancer research or disagreement? (Don't answer, it's rhetorical). By this logic seeking a remedy for damage to the environment is inappropriate because the problems are too severe. Having a bad idea about one thing doesn't mean that model of thinking should be spread to other areas. This would produce an outbreak of insanity of unprecedented proportions.
what in the hell drugs are you on? why do you think i should to an argument for anything just because i doubt scientists ability to do something?
i'm not saying we shouldn't look for ways to protect the environment where we can. i am saying i am very doubtful that we will be able to manipulate the climate to any significant extent if at all.
imo the vast amount of resources being poured into this attempt to manipulate the climate would be better directed elsewhere. following the paris summit we are now apparently going to see legally binding constraints introduced worldwide. no doubt like with other areas of international law, any penalties or punishments will only apply to some.
you are upset about something but it has nothing to do with science, data, climate, logic or facts.
your feelings are telling you something is wrong but you have failed to articulate an intelligible grievance.
The gap has not been bridged.
i encourage you to keep hammering away, perhaps something will come of it.