Earth Science..'Ooops, again!'

It's been twenty years since scientists discovered that manmade chlorofluorocarbons were depleting the stratospheric ozone layer that protects us by shielding from solar UV rays.
And gave rise to concern on the antarctic 'hole in the ozone'.

Reaction was relatively swift... the primary culprit being chemicals used in plastics manufacture and refrigerant gases {Air Conditioning, freezers, etc} were phased out or changed to less hazardous versions, globally.

I wont go into the changes it made in how you work on your car or what it requires to buy refrigerant.

NOW it turns out that there was a 'slight miscalculation' somewhere and the effect of those manmade gases was ONE TENTH - 1/10 - point one
of what we were lead to believe.
http://reason.com/blog/show/122712.html

To the result that there is no way man could have EVER influenced what happened to the ozone layer, at least not using the same model that the scientists promoted. It is recovering by the way.

Do I advocate going back to where we were? Nope. It actually didnt cost all that much to make the changes and it kept some dumbasses away from access to hazardous materials {I have a license to buy and use them, by the way, ergo....}

Now, ALGore, let's talk about manmade global warming by CO2....and 'Inconvenient Truths'

 

RE: Earth Science..

I still dont buy this global warming impending doom. I acknowledge that it exists and I've been talking about it in smart circles for as long as I can remember @ 15 years or so. Since this time I've learned a significant amount about other factors and characteristics fo this phenomenon.

Do I think man has something to do with global warming? Well yeah, but only as a minor contributer. I'm so surprised by the disconnect between sciences. For example... Geomagnetics show that the earth has magnetic poles and at each pole, north and south, there is a gaping hole in the atmosphere and the magnetic field... Geologists have proved that the earths field fluxuates (sp?) in magnetic strengths giving us less or more protection on any given day or trend of days.

I'm not brilliant, obviously. But given the above information and the major contributors to GlobWarm, volcanoes, solar radiation, and whatever else we can think of.... doesnt it seem like every conclusion they come up with ignores some of ntals of SCIENCE?

 

RE: Earth Science..

... unless someone like Crooksandliars finds a connection to Karl Rove, that is..

ROFL!

But you are right. Global Warming is a fact. Though it's important to wonder just how MUCH the earth is actually warming. Snowpack is actually getting deeper in some places.

We have little effect on it.. and no one has been able to point out how CO2 can lag temp in BOTH directions of change. IE, on all the charts I've seen.. even those who say we're causing it .. when global temps start down, CO2 is still rising.

Ergo if what we do has little effect on the temp, what we do can have little effect on stopping it. That's why there so much emphasis on the former 'fact'.. and so little discussion on the latter effects.

Better we figure out how to make lemonade, so to speak.

 

Hers an interesting article I read a week back in the good ole Pipress which relates;
http://www.twincities.com/ci_6952778?IA ... ck_check=1

Hmmmmm.....I thought all the worlds scientists agreed........ I realize its not his field of study but that doesn't mean he dosen't have credibility on the issue, in fact in some ways he may have more credibility because he wouldn't have a conflict of interest.

Its alright I'm sure they'll just call him an Industry Puppet, that technique usually works for them.

 

One of the stupidest views coming from the "Green community" (Yahoo Green section encourages this nonsense tragically) is that going "organic" is good for the environment.

Growing "organic" is like 20-30% less productive than growing "non-organic" crops. This means "organic" food is more expensive. You also have to use more manure to grow organic and so you need more cows. And since you need more cows you need more pasture lands to graze cows. More pasture land means less trees. It also means more cows. More cows and fewer trees mean more CO2.

The whole logic behind going organic as being pro-environmental is that if you "buy local" trucks won't have to drive long miles to deliver fresh produce. The stupidity is that no city could ever have enough local organic produce to feed its population. So you are always going to have to truck food from long distances to feed urban populations.

I'm definitely "green" like everybody else, but this kind of irresponsible thinking makes me hate the established Green movement.

 

Sorry... THAT isnt the worst part.

Methane is 14X more destructive than CO2. That delicious odor from that cow lot is largely... But I read somewhere that the earth itself disgorges more methane in the oceans than all the livestock in the world.

Well.. isnt THIS timely!

Wel... I have another take on why he isnt there.. he's putting his climate crusade in mothballs.