Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Parity News)   Wait a minute, there's actually good news about the environment?   (paritynews.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, environments, Antarctica, chlorofluorocarbons, ozone layer, weather satellites, Montreal Protocol, South Pole, international agreement  
•       •       •

9589 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Feb 2013 at 5:22 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



82 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-11 11:55:09 PM  
Meh, we went through this last week.  The second smallest hole was in 2002, and the largest ever recorded was in 2006.

We'll probably play this same game again in another 10 years.  It will take time for the hole to close permanently, or at least shrink to consistently small levels.
 
2013-02-11 11:56:21 PM  
You mean something man did actually worked?  (CFC ban)

We must quash this false data, else everyone will expect us to do something about climate change!
 
2013-02-12 01:53:05 AM  
Link farked already.
 
2013-02-12 05:23:44 AM  
This goes against everything libs believe
 
2013-02-12 05:23:46 AM  
It is funny to remember the headlines when CFCs were banned about how the entire global economy was going to crash and burn because of such massive government interference in the markets.
 
2013-02-12 05:28:15 AM  
Thank god, I've been dying to use my stock pile of hair spray from the 80's. These bangs are going to soar again!
 
2013-02-12 05:30:44 AM  
looks cyclical.

/ducks
 
2013-02-12 05:31:52 AM  
Adele's pantyhose.  Thar be the enemy!
 
2013-02-12 05:35:03 AM  

xria: It is funny to remember the headlines when CFCs were banned about how the entire global economy was going to crash and burn because of such massive government interference in the markets.


Funny, I remember how the hole in the ozone was going to kill us all and it was probably already too late
 
2013-02-12 05:38:39 AM  
"Scientists" if the ozone hole closes - "We told you CFCs were the problem".

"Scientists" if the ozone hole doesn't close - "We told you that it was too late".

Science, it just works...either way....bizzatches.
 
2013-02-12 05:39:30 AM  

giftedmadness: This goes against everything libs believe


LOLWUT?
 
2013-02-12 05:41:49 AM  
As I said in the other link to this story.

Sorry the whole 'ozone hole' thing didn't work out the way you wanted and it is probably a naturally occurring phenomenon but you learned your lessons... You're much better at creating global panic over absolutely nothing now, so maybe 'climate change' will do a better job of creating a global panic the way you want.
 
2013-02-12 05:49:04 AM  

mike_d85: looks cyclical.

/ducks


Shoots

/dog laughing
 
2013-02-12 05:53:17 AM  

randomjsa: As I said in the other link to this story.

Sorry the whole 'ozone hole' thing didn't work out the way you wanted and it is probably a naturally occurring phenomenon but you learned your lessons... You're much better at creating global panic over absolutely nothing now, so maybe 'climate change' will do a better job of creating a global panic the way you want.


It was only a matter of time till someone took a thread shiat.
 
2013-02-12 05:55:12 AM  
This thread is proof positive that if you strongly hold a position, any bit of news can be spun to reinforce your belief.
 
2013-02-12 05:59:40 AM  

randomjsa: As I said in the other link to this story.

Sorry the whole 'ozone hole' thing didn't work out the way you wanted and it is probably a naturally occurring phenomenon but you learned your lessons... You're much better at creating global panic over absolutely nothing now, so maybe 'climate change' will do a better job of creating a global panic the way you want.


More easier to say some thrive on chaos and will twist facts any way in the name of positive change.

1970's: Global Cooling, everyone panic!
1980's: Ozone is depleting, everyone panic!
1990's: Global Warming, everyone panic!
2000's: Global Climate Change, everyone panic!
 
2013-02-12 06:00:50 AM  

randomjsa: As I said in the other link to this story.

Sorry the whole 'ozone hole' thing didn't work out the way you wanted and it is probably a naturally occurring phenomenon but you learned your lessons...  but we decided not to be completely apathetic about it and actually did something before we wrecked our only place to live. ...


Seriously bud, your cause-and-effect inferences are amazing.
 
2013-02-12 06:02:30 AM  

sudo give me more cowbell: randomjsa: As I said in the other link to this story.

Sorry the whole 'ozone hole' thing didn't work out the way you wanted and it is probably a naturally occurring phenomenon but you learned your lessons... was looking like a bit of a problem at first, but we decided not to be completely apathetic about it and actually did something before we wrecked our only place to live. ...

typo. FTFM
 
2013-02-12 06:02:30 AM  

RabidJade: randomjsa: As I said in the other link to this story.

Sorry the whole 'ozone hole' thing didn't work out the way you wanted and it is probably a naturally occurring phenomenon but you learned your lessons... You're much better at creating global panic over absolutely nothing now, so maybe 'climate change' will do a better job of creating a global panic the way you want.

More easier to say some thrive on chaos and will twist facts any way in the name of positive change.

1970's: Global Cooling, everyone panic!
1980's: Ozone is depleting, everyone panic!
1990's: Global Warming, everyone panic!
2000's: Global Climate Change, everyone panic!




Wow, it's almost like we have decades worth of data to be concerned about.
 
2013-02-12 06:05:50 AM  
Still too cold in Antarctica.
 
2013-02-12 06:06:09 AM  

RabidJade: randomjsa: As I said in the other link to this story.

Sorry the whole 'ozone hole' thing didn't work out the way you wanted and it is probably a naturally occurring phenomenon but you learned your lessons... You're much better at creating global panic over absolutely nothing now, so maybe 'climate change' will do a better job of creating a global panic the way you want.

More easier to say some thrive on chaos and will twist facts any way in the name of positive change.

1970's: Global Cooling, everyone panic!

Nobody ever said this. Ever. Stop being deliberately dishonest.
1980's: Ozone is depleting, everyone panic! -Let's ban CFC's since they've been shown to be causing the probem.
2000's: Hey, that whole "banning CFC's thing" actually worked. Great!
1990's: Global Warming, everyone panic!
2000's: Global Climate Change, everyone panic! sit on their asses and do nothing because we don't like science and prefer to live in our own pretend reality where science doesn't work.
 
2013-02-12 06:08:13 AM  
This is great news for penguins. Now they don't have to worry about skin cancer.
 
2013-02-12 06:08:24 AM  

ghare: giftedmadness: This goes against everything libs believe

LOLWUT?




R u that dumb?
 
2013-02-12 06:13:10 AM  

giftedmadness: This goes against everything libs believe


Look, if you're going to troll then try not to go so completely over the top.  It just makes it so obvious.
 
2013-02-12 06:22:47 AM  

xria: It is funny to remember the headlines when CFCs were banned about how the entire global economy was going to crash and burn because of such massive government interference in the markets.


Banning CFCs = A chemical in my fridge is replaced with another. BFD
Moving away from fossil fuel = I have to change the way I live. OMFG!
 
2013-02-12 06:24:33 AM  

giftedmadness: This goes against everything libs believe


Fixing a problem by following the advice of scientists goes against everything libs believe?

This lib believes you's trollin'.
 
2013-02-12 06:42:52 AM  
sudo give me more cowbell:
1970's: Global Cooling, everyone panic!
Nobody ever said this. Ever. Stop being deliberately dishonest.


Hrm,
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

Although it has been refuted my point was it was published in more than one place to create environmental panic in that decade. To refute a lot of that evidence some organizations reported they didn't have a great understanding of climate change for the era. But you know, let's just take the loudest and most obnoxious scientists at face value and run around in a panic waiting for the sky to implode.

Science is just another form of religion with the sides proving each other wrong with information that only certain people take as fact. Government mandating science isn't the proper course of action either.
 
2013-02-12 06:51:48 AM  
Can we see the data in numerical form, possibly even graphical, to determine if there's been a positive trend since the Montreal Protocol?

/inquiring fire protection engineer mourning the loss of Halon products would be curious to know
 
2013-02-12 06:51:50 AM  
Just further evidence that climate change is real.
 
2013-02-12 06:56:08 AM  
What about the ozone layer everywhere else?  The hole over antarctica was kind of contraversial because there wasn't much early data--most satellites don't orbit at such extreme inclinations that they can get a look at the poles.  But the effect of CFC's on the ozone layer globally was noticed well before the hole was spotted.  So, has the ozone layer recovered elsewhere?
 
2013-02-12 06:57:33 AM  

giftedmadness: ghare: giftedmadness: This goes against everything libs believe

LOLWUT?

R u that dumb?


LOLOLWUTWUT????
 
2013-02-12 06:58:12 AM  

RabidJade: sudo give me more cowbell:
1970's: Global Cooling, everyone panic!
Nobody ever said this. Ever. Stop being deliberately dishonest.

Hrm,
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

Although it has been refuted my point was it was published in more than one place to create environmental panic in that decade. To refute a lot of that evidence some organizations reported they didn't have a great understanding of climate change for the era. But you know, let's just take the loudest and most obnoxious scientists at face value and run around in a panic waiting for the sky to implode.

Science is just another form of religion with the sides proving each other wrong with information that only certain people take as fact. Government mandating science isn't the proper course of action either.


LOLWUT?
 
2013-02-12 06:59:39 AM  

RabidJade: Science is just another form of religion


Nonsense--if it were, we would have a much easier time raising money.

BTW, where do you think the gadget you are using to post to the internet came from?  And the internet itself for that matter?  Science probably also played a role in your not dying in childhood, though that is more statistical.
 
2013-02-12 07:00:39 AM  
I find it funny that we have been funding „scientists "to go to Antarctica to study a hole in an invisible layer. These people have not been freezing their buttocks off - they took the money, stopped in Rio and had a great time.

"Oh, that hole in the invisible layer?It's closing now.Pass me another Caipirinha."
 
2013-02-12 07:01:40 AM  

pciszek: RabidJade: Science is just another form of religion

Nonsense--if it were, we would have a much easier time raising money.

BTW, where do you think the gadget you are using to post to the internet came from?  And the internet itself for that matter?  Science probably also played a role in your not dying in childhood, though that is more statistical.


bah, that wasn't science that did that, it was reward from jebus for drilling for oil
 
2013-02-12 07:02:16 AM  
But.. Hummers!!
 
2013-02-12 07:02:22 AM  

xria: It is funny to remember the headlines when CFCs were banned about how the entire global economy was going to crash and burn because of such massive government interference in the markets.


Well, it didn't collapse, and mind you I have no ax to grind in the CFC question (how would i know what's caused the hole), but if the class warriors are to be believed, the economy has been stagnant for the non-rich since the 70s/80s.

Obviously there are many many variables, but I'm just sayin'.
 
2013-02-12 07:06:43 AM  
Al Gore seen sticking his fingers in his ears, running around singing " LALALALALALALALALALALALALA".
 
2013-02-12 07:17:21 AM  

7FARK7: Al Gore seen sticking his fingers in his ears, running around singing " LALALALALALALALALALALALALA".


??????

If the CFC ban hadn't made any difference, your jab might have some kind of relevance.
 
2013-02-12 07:21:37 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Well, it didn't collapse, and mind you I have no ax to grind in the CFC question (how would i know what's caused the hole), but if the class warriors are to be believed, the economy has been stagnant for the non-rich since the 70s/80s.


But it hasn't been stagnant for the rich, now, has it?

Is there any evidence that "trickle down" economics works?  Don't tell me why it should work in theory, I've already heard that many times.  Can any economist cough up some empirical data to demonstrate that the model describes the real world?
 
2013-02-12 07:24:38 AM  
1980s: We can't ban CFC's; besides, the hole will close on its own.
2010s: See? The hole closed on its own; we didn't need to ban CFCs.

Same logic:

1994: We can't ban assault weapons; besides, crime can't get any worse.
2013: See? crime went down; we didn't need to ban assault weapons.
 
2013-02-12 07:28:09 AM  

HaywoodJablonski: Just further evidence that climate change is real.


Yep the temperature changes every day, usually after the sun rises or sets
 
2013-02-12 07:31:04 AM  

xria: It is funny to remember the headlines when CFCs were banned about how the entire global economy was going to crash and burn because of such massive government interference in the markets.


No kidding...and I remember similar arguments back when catalytic converters on cars were going to send us all back to the Stone Age.
 
2013-02-12 07:32:51 AM  

RabidJade: randomjsa: As I said in the other link to this story.

Sorry the whole 'ozone hole' thing didn't work out the way you wanted and it is probably a naturally occurring phenomenon but you learned your lessons... You're much better at creating global panic over absolutely nothing now, so maybe 'climate change' will do a better job of creating a global panic the way you want.

More easier to say some thrive on chaos and will twist facts any way in the name of positive change.

1970's: Global Cooling, everyone panic!
1980's: Ozone is depleting, everyone panic!
1990's: Global Warming, everyone panic!
2000's: Global Climate Change, everyone panic!


One Newsweek cover is global panic?

Good thing I only ever see it six months later, at my dentist...
 
2013-02-12 07:34:49 AM  
So, I'm honestly curious, when we found the hole in the ozone layer, did we know that it wasn't already always there?  Was it solid everywhere and we punched a hole in it, or has there always been a hole there and it fluctuates as natural forces dictate?
 
2013-02-12 07:35:11 AM  

RabidJade: sudo give me more cowbell:
1970's: Global Cooling, everyone panic!
Nobody ever said this. Ever. Stop being deliberately dishonest.

Hrm,
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

Although it has been refuted my point was it was published in more than one place to create environmental panic in that decade. To refute a lot of that evidence some organizations reported they didn't have a great understanding of climate change for the era. But you know, let's just take the loudest and most obnoxious scientists at face value and run around in a panic waiting for the sky to implode.

Science is just another form of religion with the sides proving each other wrong with information that only certain people take as fact. Government mandating science isn't the proper course of action either.


There should be a penalty of some kind for posting neo-luddite anti-science crap on the INTERNET.
 
2013-02-12 07:37:48 AM  

RabidJade: But you know, let's just take the loudest and most obnoxious scientists at face value and run around in a panic waiting for the sky to implode.


www.desmogblog.com
oh yeah... .definitely just a handful of alarmists.
 
2013-02-12 07:38:54 AM  
andreedave.com
 
2013-02-12 07:42:52 AM  
pciszek:

Is there any evidence that "trickle down" economics works?

Is that a trick question?

Here, learn something, " . . . the record of history is absolutely clear."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
 
2013-02-12 08:43:08 AM  
Gotta love conservatives... "We love pollution because libs libs libs!!!"
 
2013-02-12 08:48:20 AM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: pciszek:

Is there any evidence that "trickle down" economics works?

Is that a trick question?

Here, learn something, " . . . the record of history is absolutely clear."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A


Not a trick question, but that 'answer' you gave sure was a joke.
 
2013-02-12 08:59:17 AM  

sudo give me more cowbell: RabidJade: But you know, let's just take the loudest and most obnoxious scientists at face value and run around in a panic waiting for the sky to implode.


oh yeah... .definitely just a handful of alarmists.


I wonder if global warming/climate change deniers ever consider their ranks are almost exclusively American? Must be the water.
 
2013-02-12 09:13:27 AM  
There is nothing in that picture to tell me that it is closing. I see the same type of image in 2012 as in 2002 and yet there are 9 years of wide open between them. There is no gradual reduction, it is just suddenly less just like in 2002. And yet after 2002 it goes back full on. I bet 2013's picture has a lovely shade of dark blue.
 
2013-02-12 09:24:03 AM  

RabidJade: Science is just another form of religion


i560.photobucket.comi560.photobucket.comi560.photobucket.comi560.photobucket.comi560.photobucket.comi560.photobucket.comi560.photobucket.comi560.photobucket.comi560.photobucket.comi560.photobucket.com

/cuz you got bites
 
2013-02-12 09:24:04 AM  

Greylight: I wonder if global warming/climate change deniers ever consider their ranks are almost exclusively American? Must be the water.


They believe that Americans are special.
 
2013-02-12 09:24:15 AM  

SevenizGud: "Scientists" if the ozone hole closes - "We told you CFCs were the problem".

"Scientists" if the ozone hole doesn't close - "We told you that it was too late".

Science, it just works...either way....bizzatches.


Can you tell me why, specifically, it is thought that CFCs are to blame for the ozone hole?
 
2013-02-12 09:26:10 AM  

Greylight: I wonder if global warming/climate change deniers ever consider their ranks are almost exclusively American?


Nah. We've got them here in Norway too. Interestingly enough, they all vote FrP (think "republican light").
 
2013-02-12 09:27:59 AM  
Why should this surprise anybody? The environment has not survived for some three billion years by being fragile.
 
2013-02-12 09:29:31 AM  
This is old news.  They have been measuring an improvement in the Ozone layer since the 80's.

Still nice to see the headline though.
 
2013-02-12 09:32:35 AM  
Ever since Richard Nixon instituted the EPA in the 70s, the US has had cleaner air and water year after year, President after President, Republican or Democrat.  We've cleaned up more and more of our most toxic waste sites, dramatically reduced pollution from factories, cars, trucks, small engines, diesel engines, power plants, etc., etc.

Environmentalists should be trumpeting these victories, not pretending that they didn't exist, because the successes of the past 40 years mean that we're doing something right.
 
2013-02-12 09:37:23 AM  
ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov

Mose: Can we see the data in numerical form, possibly even graphical, to determine if there's been a positive trend since the Montreal Protocol?


Data from NASA.  Short version:

Top graph: The ozone hole went from undetectable to 20,000,000 km2 in the 1980s.  We banned a bunch of ozone-depleting substances, and the size of the hole basically leveled off.  CFCs stick around in the upper atmosphere for several decades, so we're now waiting them out.

Bottom graph: The thinnest point of the ozone "hole"  dropped by roughly a factor of two while we were still cranking out CFCs.  We banned them, and it leveled out.

Longer version:

The 1995 Chemistry Nobel lectures from Molina, Crutzen, and Rowland are here.  They got the cause and mechanism correct in the 1970s, but it took 10-15 years to get political capital to act.  Of course, back then the Republican party was not aggressively stupid about sensible environmental legislation (emphasis mine):

"To the Senate of the United States: I transmit herewith, for the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, done at Montreal on September 16, 1987. The report of the Department of State is also enclosed for the information of the Senate. The Montreal Protocol provides for internationally coordinated control of ozone-depleting substances in order to protect public health and the environment from potential adverse effects of depletion of stratospheric ozone. The Protocol was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program, pursuant to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, which was ratified by the United States in August 1986. In this historic agreement, the international community undertakes cooperative measures to protect a vital global resource. The United States played a leading role in the negotiation of the Protocol. United States ratification is necessary for entry into force and effective implementation of the Protocol. Early ratification by the United States will encourage similar action by other nations whose participation is also essential. I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to the Protocol and give its advice and consent to ratification.

Ronald Reagan
The White House
December 21, 1987"
 
2013-02-12 09:38:45 AM  

meanmutton: Ever since Richard Nixon instituted the EPA in the 70s, the US has had cleaner air and water year after year, President after President, Republican or Democrat.  We've cleaned up more and more of our most toxic waste sites, dramatically reduced pollution from factories, cars, trucks, small engines, diesel engines, power plants, etc., etc.

Environmentalists should be trumpeting these victories, not pretending that they didn't exist, because the successes of the past 40 years mean that we're doing something right


True, but the problem is now that China and India are messing things up faster than the west can clean. Unfortunately, China simply does not care.
 
2013-02-12 09:51:10 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: xria: It is funny to remember the headlines when CFCs were banned about how the entire global economy was going to crash and burn because of such massive government interference in the markets.

Well, it didn't collapse, and mind you I have no ax to grind in the CFC question (how would i know what's caused the hole), but if the class warriors are to be believed, the economy has been stagnant for the non-rich since the 70s/80s.

Obviously there are many many variables, but I'm just sayin'.


Uh, yeah.  I'm going to go ahead and call BS on "I'm just asking questions, but it's due to the cost of refrigeration.  Otherwise we'd all be rolling around in our platinum limousines, like those bigshot scientists with their book-learning smart faces."

In 1979, it cost the average worker in the US 74.1 hours of work to buy a 17 ft3 refrigerator.  In 2009, it cost the average worker in the US 28.1 hours of work to buy a 17.5 ft3 refrigerator charged full of OH MY GOD ECONOMY RUINING REPLACEMENT REFRIGERANTS that uses roughly one third of the electricity.  Source.  We nearly completely banned CFCs globally, and your refrigerator is objectively about 10 times better than it was beforehand anyway.

Next up: "Indoor plumbing.  I'm just asking questions, but around the time that got popular, we had some World Wars.  Obviously, there are many variables, and I have no ax to grind on this, but maybe we should just poop in a hole like Pappy did."
 
2013-02-12 09:56:13 AM  

SevenizGud: "Scientists" if the ozone hole closes - "We told you CFCs were the problem".

"Scientists" if the ozone hole doesn't close - "We told you that it was too late".


Please explain the flaws in the Molina-Crutzen-Rowland theory.  Because you aren't just a seventh-rate threadshiatting troll, and have given this issue serious thought, of course.

By the way, cc: the Chemistry Nobel committee, because if you're going to overturn decades of atmospheric science, you might as well collect your eight million Swedish kronor.
 
2013-02-12 09:58:25 AM  
I've always wondered: if global warming is caused by too much ozone, but CFCs punch holes in said ozone, wouldn't repairing the holes increase global warming?
 
2013-02-12 10:02:44 AM  

Nickninja: I've always wondered: if global warming is caused by too much ozone, but CFCs punch holes in said ozone, wouldn't repairing the holes increase global warming?


I guess you would wonder that if the primary cause of global warming was ozone.  And if CFCs were not themselves incredibly potent greenhouse gases.

www.giss.nasa.gov
 
2013-02-12 10:10:28 AM  

sudo give me more cowbell: RabidJade: But you know, let's just take the loudest and most obnoxious scientists at face value and run around in a panic waiting for the sky to implode.


oh yeah... .definitely just a handful of alarmists.


No one is denying that climate changes. It just so happens that every single year the IPCC admits their models are wrong and they failed to account for the impact from...the god Damn Sun.
 
2013-02-12 10:15:58 AM  

theknuckler_33: Not a trick question, but that 'answer' you gave sure was a joke.


Nah, the joke is "trickle down economics"
 
2013-02-12 10:19:35 AM  

enforcerpsu: sudo give me more cowbell: RabidJade: But you know, let's just take the loudest and most obnoxious scientists at face value and run around in a panic waiting for the sky to implode.


oh yeah... .definitely just a handful of alarmists.

No one is denying that climate changes. It just so happens that every single year the IPCC admits their models are wrong and they failed to account for the impact from...the god Damn Sun.


Citation needed.  We'll need to see a statement directly from the IPCC admitting this.  You've obviously seen one so it shouldn't take long to find.
 
2013-02-12 10:37:09 AM  
chimp_ninja: Top graph: The ozone hole went from undetectable to 20,000,000 km2 in the 1980s. We banned a bunch of ozone-depleting substances, and the size of the hole basically leveled off.  CFCs stick around in the upper atmosphere for several decades, so we're now waiting them out.

That's not correct. The "correct" answer is that the ozone hole was first directly measured in 1984 from ground stations in Antarctica. Subsequent reanalysis of satellite imagery showed a hole as far back as 1977, but the technology was immature, so it's not really known when the hole started nor how large it was prior to the mid-70's.
 
2013-02-12 10:37:25 AM  

enforcerpsu: No one is denying that climate changes. It just so happens that every single year the IPCC admits their models are wrong and they failed to account for the impact from...the god Damn Sun.


I don't even know where to begin with this... the whole idea of the greenhouse effect is based around the Sun. Sunlight comes in, warms up the planet and heat fails to escape. That's the idea. Saying that they didn't account for impact from the sun is a patently absurd statement on it's face. It's like saying I failed to account for the existence of gravity when I sat down.

Now if you wanna say that their models improperly estimated the impact of the sun, that's another kettle of fish, but I highly doubt that you have the necessary expertise in atmospheric dynamics to make that assessment. Their model's aren't perfect. All models in all history throughout science involve some measure of approximation, but to use that as a basis for dismissing their entire body of research is pretty obtuse.
 
2013-02-12 11:10:36 AM  
This just proves that those crazy scientists simply didn't know what they were talking about when it comes to hydrofluorocarbons. We should listen to them about global warming either.
 
2013-02-12 11:19:18 AM  

enforcerpsu: No one is denying that climate changes. It just so happens that every single year the IPCC admits their models are wrong and they failed to account for the impact from...the god Damn Sun.


You managed to post this wharrgarrbl directly below a NASA graphic with a column for solar influence.

Hey, look.  People measuring solar irradiance:

www.nasa.gov

Note the slight downward trend over the last few decades.  You know, the ones with the highest temperature readings in modern history.  All extraplanetary trends (solar irradiance, cosmic ray flux, sunspot counts, etc.) point towards cooling over the past few decades.Why are you making things up?
 
2013-02-12 11:42:52 AM  

giftedmadness: This goes against everything libs believe


Four posts in and we already have a nominee for stupidest comment in the thread!
 
jvl
2013-02-12 12:49:58 PM  

xria: It is funny to remember the headlines when CFCs were banned about how the entire global economy was going to crash and burn because of such massive government interference in the markets.


[[Citation Needed]]

It was considered an annoyance, and there were worries that it would make Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration a hard problem.

Completely unlike CO2.  We should have a crash program to build as many Nuke and Solar plants as fast as possible, but expecting the rest third world to do the same and actually stop CO2 from increasing in the atmosphere is a fool's errand.
 
2013-02-12 01:01:03 PM  

RabidJade: Although it has been refuted my point was


Just stop.
 
2013-02-12 03:16:59 PM  

theknuckler_33: Gotta love conservatives... "We love pollution because libs libs libs!!!"


What the FuCI< does politics have to do with science?
 
2013-02-12 03:22:08 PM  

StarSys: There is nothing in that picture to tell me that it is closing. I see the same type of image in 2012 as in 2002 and yet there are 9 years of wide open between them. There is no gradual reduction, it is just suddenly less just like in 2002. And yet after 2002 it goes back full on. I bet 2013's picture has a lovely shade of dark blue.


Polar stratospheric ice crystals act as catalytic sites for O3 to decay to O2 + O.  Once CFC's were banned the equation is going back to its equilibrium (which demands O3 to be present).  Last time I checked, it said its roughly a 50 year process for CFCs to be wiped from the atmosphere.  Looking at a few data points can be misleading.
 
2013-02-12 03:45:54 PM  

jvl: We should have a crash program to build as many Nuke and Solar plants as fast as possible, but expecting the rest third world to do the same and actually stop CO2 from increasing in the atmosphere is a fool's errand.


I'm normally in favor of recycling, but this was the same argument put forward in the 1980s for why we could never afford to ban CFCs.  Everyone else would obviously keep making them and run us out of business with cheap refrigerators.

Fortunately, they were ignored by noted libby libtard lib Ronald Reagan.
 
2013-02-13 07:13:45 AM  
old news is old

thanks for the 'new' update
I'll try not to panic
 
2013-02-15 12:53:40 PM  

giftedmadness: This goes against everything libs believe


If by "libs," you mean "climate change deniers who think man can't affect the environment," then yeah, you're spot on.
 
2013-02-15 01:00:28 PM  

Mose: /inquiring fire protection engineer mourning the loss of Halon products would be curious to know


There's no office prank funnier than locking the only exit to the server room from the outside, then dropping halon on an unsuspecting coworker.
 
Displayed 82 of 82 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report