Global Warming

[sandhunter]

Originally Posted by Dalton22

maybe banning fluorocarbons is why the ozone layer stopped shrinking and why u don't hear about it anymore

You missed what I said , the hole in the ozone is still there and growing and the Governments and media just stopped talking about it , as they moved on to Global Warming
I am not denying Global Warming only the cause .

[cicciobuki]

Originally Posted by sandhunter

.
Climate change does exist but the full reasons for it are not known , (...) I think the hole is caused by the rockets burning through it as they go into space but the Government's want us to think differently

So all the rockets that go into space go past Antarctica? Sneaky!

Originally Posted by sandhunter

You missed what I said , the hole in the ozone is still there and growing and the Governments and media just stopped talking about it , as they moved on to Global Warming
I am not denying Global Warming only the cause .

Actually, the hole has been at its smallest since 1988 (and had been at its largest in 2006). It's still huge though.
It does grow and shrink depending on the season on Antarctica.

[bavlion]

To all "believers" here:
Nobody says, that it did not get warmer.
What I (and many others with an education in natural sciences) say is that CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Why?
Thre is no valid physics for a green house effect.

There were several warmer periods since the last ice age, each of them warmer than the present one.
Nobody in the "believer-camp" has an explanation for that.
All they say is: but this time it is CO2...

How stupid!

[cicciobuki]

Originally Posted by sandhunter

.
Why do they need to report their evidence ? they are private corporations and don't need to report to the people only their respective boards , you might see it as wrong but that is the price we pay for living in a Free Capitalist Society

I'm no expert, but maybe they get tax benefits and/or fundings from the government for certain things (like investing in greener energy etc)?
If so it seems normal to me that they have to report stuff in return.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by bavlion

To all "believers" here:
Nobody says, that it did not get warmer.
What I (and many others with an education in natural sciences) say is that CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Why?
Thre is no valid physics for a green house effect.

There were several warmer periods since the last ice age, each of them warmer than the present one.
Nobody in the "believer-camp" has an explanation for that.
All they say is: but this time it is CO2...

How stupid!

The question is not warmer at the present one. The question is how warm it will be in the future.
Actually that's still not that warm... but what will happen in 30, 50, 100 years.
Other problems that scientists have to solve are: what will happen when the
Oceans will be saturated in CO2? What if huge amount of methane gaz will escape the toundra?

Actually they already observed that the concentration of CO2 in the Ocean has changed a few. A small change of pH will probably damage the shells and the survival of the coral.
You maybe didn't notice, but we can't live without life in the oceans. They are several things like that that we do not notice when we live in our little perception of the globality.

I'm myself not an expert. But when thousands of scientists are preoccupied, I prefer to listen to them instead of a bunch of clowns who believe in stories written about 2000 years ago, telling that if Jerusalem will not be in Jewish or Christian hands, their souls will burn forever in hell. WTF!!!!

That's quite arrogant from people who are not scientists, who didn't spend more than 10 minutes on a article telling that everything is ok and then blaming specialists who spent 30 years of their life to carefully watch and analyse datas and observations.
Maybe the specialists will be wrong, but if it's the fact, our grandchildren will not blame them, because these scientists would have behaved like careful ancesters.
But if they will be correct and we will have done nothing, sorry, but I hope in that case that there will be a God and he will sent all the arrogant and cupid people to burn in hell.

I'd like to know, why old scientists I met (two guys about 60 years old) and my biologist friends, who work in top European Universities, who are not rich, who are not paid by lobbies, would tell us bullshits.
Why do these scientists warn us: "Be careful with our unique planet. We only get one, not two." ? Because they want to harm us?
Sorry but I don't think about this one second. They are good scientists that observe facts, real facts.

[bavlion]

"The question is not warmer at the present one. The question is how warm it will be in the future."
Look at the concentrations of CO2 in the past and the corresponding temperatures.
Thre is absolutely no correlation to be seen.
And do not forget:
Thre is no physics for a greenhouse in the atmosphere.

"I'm myself not an expert."
This is obviously right!

"But when thousands of scientists are preoccupied, I prefer to listen to them instead of a bunch of clowns..."

It is better to learn and know instead of believing...

"...who spent 30 years of their life to carefully watch and analyse datas and observations."
These people have no say in todays media

"Why do these scientists warn us: "Be careful with our unique planet. We only get one, not two." ?

I agree, but not in the case of CO2, which by the way is essential for life on this planet.

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by bavlion

I agree, but not in the case of CO2, which by the way is essential for life on this planet.

Only in small amounts. Higher levels of CO2 are just not a good sign, period. In ages past such levels were associated with higher temperatures and extinctions.

We want to keep that stuff at a reasonable level. There is a natural cycle for the absorption of CO2, if through our activities we outrun its ability to recycle CO2 then we really don't know what would happen. But based on geological evidence we might see rapidly rising temperatures at some totally unpredictable point in the process and a sudden and substantial change to the world's ecology and weather patterns.

[piper66]

I read with some interest comments about the hole in the ozone layer. It happens to be above the largest active volcano, Mt. Erebus, I live in NZ which is close to said hole and remember when it was "discovered". There was an interview here with the senior "met" service scientist about it and he couldn't say how long the hole had been there as the science that made it's discovery was new. I'm not a naysayer re warming but so much of the science seems a bit flawed and some very new discoveries are being used as evidence.

[bavlion]

"Only in small amounts."
Really?
To what extent?

"Higher levels of CO2 are just not a good sign, period."
Oh yes...
Just like Crows!
Beware!


"In ages past such levels were associated with higher temperatures and extinctions."

This is a blunt lie.

Higher temps are good for life.
Where is more life: South pol or Amazonas?

"We want to keep that stuff at a reasonable level."
Who is "we"?
What level is reasonable and why?

"There is a natural cycle for the absorption of CO2, if through our activities we outrun its ability to recycle CO2..."

Under what level do we start outrunning?
Have you ever seen historical levels of CO2?

"...then we really don't know what would happen."

Who is "we"?

"But based on geological evidence we might see rapidly rising temperatures at some totally unpredictable point in the process and a sudden and substantial change to the world's ecology and weather patterns."

"based on geological evidence..."

It gets funnier...
What evidence???

"...we might see rapidly rising temperatures at some totally unpredictable point in the process and a sudden and substantial change to the world's ecology and weather patterns."

Äh...
Physics behind that apokalyptic scenario???

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by bavlion

To all "believers" here:
Nobody says, that it did not get warmer.
What I (and many others with an education in natural sciences) say is that CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Why?
Thre is no valid physics for a green house effect.

How odd, you claim that "There is no valid physics for a greenhouse effect."

The American Institute of Physics, EPA, and NASA say that there is. Here are links to their websites, as well as to a Scientific American article.

https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/ove...eenhouse-gases

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...reenhouse-gas/

Where did you say your degrees are from? And your major field of study?

I personally am very concerned about the massive amounts of methane being released into the atmosphere as a result of the rapidly thawing tundra.

Originally Posted by bavlion

There were several warmer periods since the last ice age, each of them warmer than the present one.
Nobody in the "believer-camp" has an explanation for that.
All they say is: but this time it is CO2...

How stupid!

You might try reading "Frozen Earth" by Doug Macdougall, University of California Press, ASIN: B012HU7XX2. Prof Macdougall presents a review of the scientific understanding of ice ages in layman friendly terms.