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 82
    More: Cool, environments, Antarctica, chlorofluorocarbons, ozone layer, weather satellites, Montreal Protocol, South Pole, international agreement  
•       •       •

9573 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Feb 2013 at 5:22 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 32 of 82 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report