"Global warming" the biggest science scandal ever...

[mr.turbo]

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.

^^^ Quite the vast conspiracy theory

LIST OF INTERNATIONAL AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS, AND REVIEWERS

Assessment Cochairs
Ayité-Lô Nohende Ajavon
Paul A. Newman
John A. Pyle
A.R. Ravishankara
Scientific Steering Committee
Ayité-Lô Nohende Ajavon
David J. Karoly
Malcolm K. Ko
Paul A. Newman
John A. Pyle
A.R. Ravishankara
Theodore G. Shepherd
Susan Solomon
Chapters, Lead Authors, and Chapter Editors
Chapter 1: Update on Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODSs) and
Other Gases of Interest to the Montreal Protocol
Lucy J. Carpenter and Stefan Reimann [Lead Authors]
Andreas Engel and Stephen A. Montzka [Chapter Editors]
Chapter 2: Update on Global Ozone: Past, Present, and Future
Steven Pawson and Wolfgang Steinbrecht [Lead Authors]
Vitali E. Fioletov and Ulrike Langematz [Chaper Editors]
Chapter 3: Update on Polar Ozone: Past, Present, and Future
Martin Dameris and Sophie Godin-Beekmann [Lead Authors]
Slimane Bekki and Judith Perlwitz [Chapter Editors]
Chapter 4: Stratospheric Ozone Changes and Climate
Julie M. Arblaster and Nathan P.Gillett [Lead Authors]
Lesley J. Gray and David W.J. Thompson [Chapter Editors]
Chapter 5: Scenarios and Information for Policymakers
Neil R.P. Harris and Donald J. Wuebbles [Lead Authors]
Mack McFarland and Guus J.M. Velders [Chapter Editors]
Twenty Questions and Answers About the Ozone Layer: 2014 Update
Michaela I. Hegglin [Lead Authors]
Coordinating Editor
Christine A. Ennis
iv
Authors, Contributors, and Reviewers
Jon Abbatt Canada
Ayité-Lô Nohende Ajavon Togo
Hideharu Akiyoshi Japan
Joan M. Alexander USA
Simon Alexander Australia
Stephen O. Andersen USA
Valentina Aquila USA
Julie M. Arblaster Australia/USA
Matthew Ashfold Malaysia
Ghassem Asrar USA
Pieter J. Aucamp South Africa
Alkiviadis F. Bais Greece
Mark P. Baldwin UK
Elizabeth A. Barnes USA
Steven L. Baughcum USA
Gufran Beig India
Slimane Bekki France
Peter Bernath USA
Tina Birmpili UNEP
Thomas Birner USA
Donald R. Blake USA
Greg Bodeker New Zealand
Rumen D. Bojkov Germany
Geir O. Braathen WMO
Peter Braesicke Germany
Stefan Brönnimann Switzerland
Dominik Brunner Switzerland
James B. Burkholder USA
John P. Burrows Germany
Neal Butchart UK
Amy H. Butler USA
Wenju Cai Australia
Francesco Cairo Italy
Natalia Calvo Spain
Pablo O. Canziani Argentina
Lucy Carpenter UK
Kenneth S. Carslaw UK
Andrew J. Charlton-Perez UK
Wissam Chehade Germany
Martyn P. Chipperfield UK
Bo Christiansen Denmark
Irene Cionni Italy
Cathy Clerbaux France
Melanie Coldewey-Egbers Germany
Martin Dameris Germany
John S. Daniel USA
Jos de Laat The Netherlands
Andy Delcloo Belgium
Sandip Dhomse UK
Susana B. Diaz Argentina
Marcel Dorf Germany
Anne R. Douglass USA
Geoffrey S. Dutton USA
Richard S. Eckman USA
Nawo Eguchi Japan
James William Elkins USA
Andreas Engel Germany
Ines Engel Germany
Christine A. Ennis USA
Veronika Eyring Germany
David W. Fahey USA
Vitali Fioletov Canada
Eric L. Fleming USA
Piers M. Forster UK
Paul Fraser Australia
Stacey M. Frith USA
Lucien Froidevaux USA
Jan Fuglestvedt Norway
Masatomo Fujiwara Japan
John C. Fyfe Canada
Annie Gabriel Australia
Lenah Gaoetswe Botswana
Chaim I. Garfinkel Israel
Hella Garny Germany
Marvin A. Geller USA
Edwin P. Gerber USA
Andrew Gettelman USA
Tomasz Gierczak Poland
Manuel Gil-Ojeda Spain
Nathan P. Gillett Canada
Sophie Godin-Beekmann France
Marco González Kenya
Lesley J. Gray UK
Kevin M. Grise USA
Jens-Uwe Grooß Germany
Serge Guillas UK
Joanna D. Haigh UK
Bradley D. Hall USA
Steven C. Hardiman UK
Neil R.P. Harris UK
Birgit Hassler USA
Alain Hauchecorne France
Peter Haynes UK
Michaela I. Hegglin UK
François Hendrick Belgium
Peter Hitchcock UK
Authors, Contributors, and Reviewers
v
Øivind Hodnebrog Norway
Larry Horowitz USA
Ryan Hossaini UK
Jianxin Hu China
Nathalie Huret France
Dale F. Hurst USA
Iolanda Ialongo Finland
Mohammad Ilyas Malaysia
Franz Immler Belgium
Ivar S.A. Isaksen Norway
Charles H. Jackman USA
Michal Janouch Czech Republic
Julie M. Jones UK
Ashley Jones Canada
Kenneth W. Jucks USA
David J. Karoly Australia
Alexey Yu. Karpechko Finland
Yasuko Kasai Japan
Philippe Keckhut France
Sergey Khaykin Russia
Doug Kinnison USA
Andrew R. Klekociuk Australia
Jeff R. Knight UK
Malcolm K. Ko USA
Yutaka Kondo Japan
Karin Kreher New Zealand
Kirstin Krüger Norway
Paul B. Krummel Australia
Lambert J.M. Kuijpers The Netherlands
Markus Kunze Germany
Michael J. Kurylo USA
Paul J. Kushner Canada
Erkki Kyrölä Finland
Gabriela Lakkis Argentina
Shyam Lal India
Jean-François Lamarque USA
Tom Land USA
Ulrike Langematz Germany
Johannes Laube UK
Katharine Law France
Franck Lefèvre France
Bernard Legras France
Jos Lelieveld Germany
Qing Liang USA
Eun-Pa Lim Australia
Jintai Lin China
Nathaniel Livesey USA
Diego Loyola Germany
Emmanuel Mahieu Belgium
Desmond Manatsa Zimbabwe
Gloria L. Manney USA
Martin R. Manning New Zealand
Elisa Manzini Germany
Bella Maranion USA
Daniel R. Marsh USA
Amanda C. Maycock UK
Mack McFarland USA
Charles McLandress Canada
Chris McLinden Canada
Johan Mellqvist Sweden
Michael P. Meredith UK
Pauline M. Midgley Switzerland
Daniel M. Mitchell UK
Mario J. Molina USA
Stephen Montzka USA
Olaf Morgenstern New Zealand
Jens Mühle USA
Rolf Müller Germany
Hiroaki Naoe Japan
Thando Ndarana South Africa
Paul A. Newman USA
Ole John Nielsen Denmark
Simon O’Doherty UK
Keiichi Ohnishi Japan
Luke D. Oman USA
Vladimir L. Orkin USA
Andrew Orr UK
Yvan Orsolini Norway
Steven Pawson USA
Juan Carlos Peláez Cuba
Stuart A. Penkett UK
Judith Perlwitz USA
Thomas Peter Switzerland
Irina Petropavlovskikh USA
Klaus Pfeilsticker Germany
Daniel Phoenix USA
Damaris K. Pinheiro Brazil
Giovanni Pitari Italy
Michael Pitts USA
David Plummer Canada
Lorenzo M. Polvani USA
Jean-Pierre Pommereau France
Lamont Poole USA
Robert W. Portmann USA
Michael J. Prather USA
Michael Previdi USA
Ronald G. Prinn USA
John A. Pyle UK
Birgit Quack Germany
B. Rajakumar India
S. Ramachandran India
V. Ramaswamy USA
Authors, Contributors, and Reviewers
vi
Cora Randall USA
William Randel USA
Marilyn Raphael USA
A.R. Ravishankara USA
Stefan Reimann Switzerland
James Renwick New Zealand
Laura Revell Switzerland
Markus Rex Germany
Robert C. Rhew USA
Harald E. Rieder Austria
Martin Riese Germany
Matt Rigby UK
Vincenzo Rizi Italy
Alan Robock USA
Jose M. Rodriguez USA
Eugene Rozanov Switzerland
Vladimir Ryabinin Switzerland
Alfonso Saiz-Lopez Spain
Takatoshi Sakazaki Japan
Ross J. Salawitch USA
Michelle L. Santee USA
Robert Sausen Germany
Sue Schauffler USA
Robyn Schofield Australia
Dian J. Seidel USA
Megumi Seki UNEP
William Seviour UK
Jonathan Shanklin UK
Tiffany A. Shaw USA
Rajendra Shende India
Theodore G. Shepherd UK
Kiyotaka Shibata Japan
Keith Shine UK
Masato Shiotani Japan
Michael Sigmond Canada
Peter Simmonds UK
Isla R. Simpson USA
Isobel J. Simpson USA
Rajiv R. Singh USA
Björn-Martin Sinnhuber Germany
Karen L. Smith USA
Susan Solomon USA
Seok-Woo Son Korea
Johannes Staehelin Switzerland
Wolfgang Steinbrecht Germany
Gabriele P. Stiller Germany
Richard S. Stolarski USA
William T. Sturges UK
Tove M. Svendby Norway
Neil C. Swart Canada
David W. Tarasick Canada
Susann Tegtmeier Germany
Said Ali Thauobane Comoros
Larry W. Thomason USA
Owen Brian Toon USA
Matthew B. Tully Australia
David W.J. Thompson USA
Simone Tilmes USA
John Turner UK
Joachim Urban Sweden
Ronald van der A The Netherlands
Guus J.M. Velders The Netherlands
Daniel P. Verdonik USA
Jean-Paul Vernier USA
Martin K. Vollmer Switzerland
Peter von der Gathen Germany
Christian von Savigny Germany
Timothy J. Wallington USA
Darryn W. Waugh USA
Ann R. Webb UK
Mark Weber Germany
Debra K. Weisenstein USA
Ray F. Weiss USA
Laura J. Wilcox UK
Jeannette Wild USA
Elian Augusto Wolfram Argentina
Yutian Wu USA
Donald J. Wuebbles USA
Shi-Keng Yang USA
Shigeo Yoden Japan
Yoko Yokouchi Japan
Paul J. Young UK
Shari A. Yvon-Lewis USA
Durwood Zaelke USA
Christos S. Zerefos Greece
Lingxi Zhou China
Jerry Ziemke USA
Chapter Editorial Contributors
Chapter 1:
Nada Derek Australia
Jenny Hudson UK
Authors, Contributors, and Reviewers
A.11
S. Ramachandran Physical Research Laboratory India
V. Ramaswamy NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory USA
Cora Randall University of Colorado / Laboratory for Atmospheric
and Space Physics USA
William Randel National Center for Atmospheric Research USA
Marilyn Raphael University of California Los Angeles, Department of
Geography USA
A.R. Ravishankara NOAA ESRL Chemical Sciences Division and
Colorado State University, Department of Chemistry and
Department of Atmospheric Science USA
Stefan Reimann Empa, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science
and Technology Switzerland
James Renwick Victoria University of Wellington New Zealand
Markus Rex Alfred Wegener Institute – Helmholtz Centre for Polar and
Marine Research Germany
Robert C. Rhew University of California Berkeley USA
Harald E. Rieder University of Graz, Austria Austria
Martin Riese Forschungszentrum Jülich, Institute of Energy and Climate
Research – Stratosphere Germany
Vincenzo Rizi CETEMPS, Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche e Chimiche,
Università Degli Studi dell'Aquila Italy
Alan Robock Rutgers University, Department of Environmental Sciences USA
Jose M. Rodriguez NASA Goddard Space Flight Center USA
Eugene Rozanov World Radiation Center / Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology Zürich Switzerland
Vladimir Ryabinin World Climate Research Programme Switzerland
Alfonso Saiz-Lopez Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Institute
of Physical Chemistry Rocasolano Spain
Ross J. Salawitch University of Maryland, College Park USA
Michelle L. Santee Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology USA
Robert Sausen Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR),
Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre Germany
Sue Schauffler National Center for Atmospheric Research USA
Robyn Schofield University of Melbourne, ARC Centre of Excellence for
Climate System Science Australia
Dian J. Seidel NOAA Air Resources Laboratory USA
Megumi Seki United Nations Environment Programme, Ozone Secretariat Kenya
Jonathan Shanklin British Antarctic Survey UK
Tiffany A. Shaw Columbia University, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory USA
Rajendra Shende TERRE Policy Centre India
Theodore G. Shepherd University of Reading, Department of Meteorology UK
Kiyotaka Shibata Meteorological Research Institute Japan
Keith Shine University of Reading, Department of Meteorology UK
Masato Shiotani Kyoto University, Research Institute for Sustainable
Humanosphere Japan
Peter Simmonds University of Bristol (retired) UK
Isla R. Simpson Columbia University, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory USA
Rajiv R. Singh Honeywell International USA
Björn-Martin Sinnhuber Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Germany
Karen L. Smith Columbia University, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory USA
Appendix A
A.12
Susan Solomon Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of
Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences USA
Johannes Staehelin Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich, Institute for
Atmospheric and Climate Science Switzerland
Wolfgang Steinbrecht Deutscher Wetterdienst, Hohenpeissenberg Germany
Gabriele P. Stiller Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute for Meteorology
and Climate Research Germany
Richard S. Stolarski The Johns Hopkins University USA
William T. Sturges University of East Anglia UK
Tove M. Svendby Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) Norway
Neil C. Swart Environment Canada Canada
David W. Tarasick Environment Canada Canada
Susann Tegtmeier GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel Germany
Said Ali Thaoubane Université des Comores Comoros
Larry W. Thomason NASA Langley Research Center USA
David W.J. Thompson Colorado State University USA
Simone Tilmes National Center for Atmospheric Research USA
Owen Brian Toon University of Colorado, Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space
Physics, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences USA
Matthew B. Tully Australian Bureau of Meteorology Australia
John Turner British Antarctic Survey UK
Guus J.M. Velders National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) The Netherlands
Daniel P. Verdonik Hughes Associates, Inc. USA
Martin K. Vollmer Empa, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science
and Technology Switzerland
Christian von Savigny Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-University of Greifswald,
Institute of Physics Germany
Timothy J. Wallington Ford Motor Company USA
Darryn W. Waugh The Johns Hopkins University USA
Ann R. Webb University of Manchester UK
Debra K. Weisenstein Harvard University, School of Engineering and Applied ScienceUSA
Ray F. Weiss University of California San Diego, Scripps Institution
of Oceanography USA
Laura J. Wilcox University of Reading, Department of Meteorology UK
Elian Augusto Wolfram Laser Research Center and Applications, CEILAP
(CITEDEF-CONICET) Argentina
Donald J. Wuebbles University of Illinois USA
Shi-Keng Yang NOAA / NWS / NCEP Climate Prediction Center USA
Shigeo Yoden Kyoto University Japan
Durwood Zaelke Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development USA
Christos S. Zerefos Academy of Athens Greece
Lingxi Zhou Chinese Meteorological Administration, Chinese Academy
of Meteorological Sciences China
Jerry Ziemke NASA Goddard Space Flight Center USA

LET US KNOW HOW THIS NEFARIOUS AGENDA WAS IMPLEMENTED

[Conker]

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.

[The Ugly]

^^^ 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.

[mr.turbo]

I don't really wanna join the paranoid foiler brigade here, but I'm pretty sure that spellin' is a blatant false flag, friend.

 

[_bruce_]

Instead masturbating over who's "right" or "wrong" - it's the dubious intent behind the slogan "climate change" that is the problem.

[HTexan]

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.

[_bruce_]

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.

Don't change the subject - Coach's intellect is not the issue.

[HTexan]

Don't change the subject - Coach's intellect is not the issue.

Do you think if coach gets so stupid, he can ask to be reclassified as a dog?

[Coach is Back!]

11 days and counting...lol

[HTexan]

11 days and counting...lol

You learned to count to 11? We are so proud of you.

[Conker]

^^^ 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??

[Necrosis]

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.

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.

[mr.turbo]

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??

^^^ 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.

[dr.chimps]

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.

Excellent!

[Coach is Back!]

10 days left.

[Conker]

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.

where did i suggest the chemistry is wrong? i'm sure CFCs do deplete ozone. what i am sceptical about is whether our CFC emissions caused the hole in the ozone layer.

the reason i highlighted that report was to point out that NASA have now realised there are actually other sources of CFC like gases that they were unaware existed at the time they put the blame for the hole on human CFC emissions. how many more things will come to light that they didn't expect or weren't aware of?

just because it is a fact that CFCs deplete ozone, it does not automatically follow that our CFC emissions were the cause of the hole in the ozone layer.

[Conker]

^^^ 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 produce 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.

[mr.turbo]

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.

[Conker]

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.

you're a weirdo