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

[avxo]

the post above is a pile of junk with no substance.

Oh... well! If someone as credible as you says it, then it must be true. By the way, I know you're already very credible, but for those extra-tough jobs, you may want to repeat your statement in TECHNICOLOR!

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.

I already did: the data from your link, clearly showed that the size of the ozone hole was growing rapidly, but the growth tapered off as the CFC emissions were all but eliminated. The tapering of of the growth is highly correlated with the reduction of emissions.

The numbers tell a story. You may not like it, but that's your problem, nobody else's.

please no more of your BS rantings, just a link to the data.

You've posted the link already.

[mr.turbo]

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.

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 

here's the graph from nasa so everyone can see the trend 



http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/multimedia/SH.html

[Conker]

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?

[avxo]

you are as dumb as a box of rocks.

At least I have great striated glutes.

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".

Again, you're operating on the misconception that a single measurement is indicative of a pattern and dismissing the possibility that there are other reasons for the increase. Hint: there are in fact other reasons, some of which are well-understood.

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?

Whether we need to do anything - and if so, at what cost - is another question.

are you saying it is not the advice from scientists that "we" are acting on?

You wrote: "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."

Again, I don't know how "we" is, but no serious climate scientist is talking about controlling the world's climate.

[Conker]

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 

here's the graph from nasa so everyone can see the trend 



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 ?

[mr.turbo]

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 ?

ok don't have anything new to say. things are just going round and round.

the graph appears to be consistent the what AVXO is saying about the trend. ANYONE WITH EYES CAN SEE THE ARC FLATTENING OUT.

[Conker]

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

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.

[mr.turbo]

now i realise why you said earlier you don't try to interpret simple data yourself and prefer to leave it to the experts

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.

[Conker]

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.

you really are a special kind of stupid. you admitted that you feel having any opinion on this subject is beyond you and you would rather just trust the 'experts', yet you think your comments here have relevance?

look this is the type of stupid you are. you presented a graph from NASA that maps the size of hole, saying "here's the graph from nasa so everyone can see the trend " as if you were introducing something new for "everyone" to see.

obviously unable to comprehend that i had already posted the exact same data just in the form of figures rather than a graph. LOL

i used to think you were quite an intelligent dude but you really are not very bright. and the fact that i am capable of pretty much instantly seeing from that data (whether in figures or graph form) that there is no consistent downward trend in the size of the hole and you cannot, means anything i have to say is automatically more relevant than anything you do.

[Necrosis]

now i realise why you said earlier you don't try to interpret simple data yourself and prefer to leave it to the experts

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.

[Conker]

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

[Coach is Back!]

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/

[Necrosis]

it isn't slowing, it is up and down.

anyway "reversal" actually means going backwards not "slowing"

HTH

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.

[dr.chimps]

This thread:

Those with a scientific understanding vs. those with an internet connection.

[avxo]

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/

Wiggs was right! Nibiru is coming! Nibiru is coming!

[Conker]

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.

[Necrosis]

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.

[Conker]

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.

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"

[HTexan]

Coach is getbig's village idiot

[mr.turbo]

for people curious about what NASA says about their own data:

Has the Montreal Protocol been successful in reducing ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere?

Yes, as a result of the Montreal Protocol, the overall abundance of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) in the atmosphere has been decreasing for more than a decade. If the nations of the world continue to comply with the provisions of the Montreal Protocol, the decrease will continue throughout the 21st century. Those gases that are still increasing in the atmosphere, such as halon-1301 and HCFCs, will begin to decrease in the coming decades if compliance with the Protocol continues. However, it is only after midcentury that the effective abundance of ODSs is expected to fall to values that were present before the Antarctic ozone hole was first observed in the early 1980s.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/twentyquestions/Q16.pdf

  

[mr.turbo]

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

 

[absfabs]

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.

[The Ugly]

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.

How can you argue with this? Outed as a scam, the man says.

[Necrosis]

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"

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.

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?

[Conker]

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.