1. The original GW/CC claims were based on cfcs disrupting the ozone layer and causing a hole
To this end cfcs were almost completely stopped in 1994 and then completely stopped (except in aircarft fire extinguishers) in 1997
This isn't so Sarge, when Wallace Smith Broecker coined the phraes "Global warming" in his 1975 paper, "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?", he dealt only with the effects of greenhouse gasses and the hole in the ozone layer and it's relationship to CFCs hadn't even been discovered.
Yes Steve i only became aware of his claims after i (at Mr Ps insistence) did my research and i will bet a few schekals that 99% of the population had never heard of it either.
I never for a second thought of global warming until the polar researchers hit the headlines with the hole in the ozone layer and melting ice caps.
It is pretty obvious to me that the CO2 brigade Took the global temperature rises prior to 1997 and based their predictions on that WITHOUT taking warming caused by CFCs into account and as their agenda IS CO2 fullstop placed the blame solely on CO2
The subsequent lowering of their OWN predictions which just by chance coincides with the depletion of the CFCs from the upper atmosphere and the decreasing size of the hole in the ozone layer plus their failure to acknowledge that if you will forgive me INCONVENIENT TRUTH speaks volumes about their objectivity
So let me ask you a question HOW much of the newly DOWNWARDLY revised temperature increases is due to Malankovich theory urbanization and deforestation
And if they know that (which i am sure their blinkered view wont acknowledge It) what is the %age increase due to CO2 and just how much of a threat compared to the other three obvious reasons for global warming/climate change
Just to put it in context i still believe CO2 emissions are a problem but carbon taxes are a fraud and even if CO2 emissions stopped tomorrow GW/CC and rising temps will continue due to the other three reasons i have continuously stated and have been studiously ignored
Just to put it in context i still believe CO2 emissions are a problem but carbon taxes are a fraud.....
Fossil fuels are taxed by 60% in some countries already, why is that not a fraud? The fact of the matter is that emissions could have at least been halved since 1975 if an effort had been made, purely by increasing efficiency. It would have caused a bit of loss in tax revenue though!
Fossil fuels are taxed by 60% in some countries already, why is that not a fraud?
You should look at the tax on cigarettes and the emissions they give out which effect far fewer humans
GW/CC and rising temps will continue due to the other three reasons i have continuously stated and have been studiously ignored
and still studiously ignored
So let me ask you a question HOW much of the newly DOWNWARDLY revised temperature increases is due to Malankovich theory urbanization and deforestation
So let me ask you a question HOW much of the newly DOWNWARDLY revised temperature increases is due to Malankovich theory urbanization and deforestation
I don't believe any of it. As I understand it, the changes in projected increases are more to do with the fact that more heat is being absorbed into the deeper depths of the ocean than previously thought and that increases the time lag in the system.
let me understand you. do you mean no GW from urbanization, deforestation, Malankovic theory
Does that mean you believe it is solely due to CO2 ??
I will await your answer before i presume i am
Fair enough steve so let me rephrase the question
The new downwardly /reduced forecast levels let us just use one degree for ease of understanding (although we both know it is a lot lower) but how much of that one degree is from the three i have mentioned and how much of it is CO2 in approx %ages
I am still struggling with what you are saying
That CFCs were blamed for GW by making a hole in the ozone layer
CFCs have been banned and the ozone layer hole is now shrinking
If the ozone layer hole causes GW it must also cool the planet as it shrinks that is simple logic
The fact that the forecast temps was based on temps previous to the ban on CFCs
The fact that they have been revised downward from 2002
to deny that CFCs have had nothing to do with it defies that simple logic
and now suddenly the deep oceans are absorbing more heat the oceans have been there since time began but suddenly they absorb more heat WITHOUT EXPLANATION sorry that just does not fly with me
Funny but i have just been watching a program on GEO THERMAL VENTS any chance the scientists know how much heat they put into the deep ocean
It strikes me the scientists are determined to push CO2 and the politicians are more than happy to make a fraudulent bundle out of it
Its this CO2 is the holy grail that erks me plus the carbon taxes that will penalize the poor
yes CO2 is a problem but it isnt the ONLY cause Have a look at Indonesia and the smoke over Singapore
That CFCs were blamed for GW by making a hole in the ozone layer
They never were, there was never any issue with a hole in the ozone layer and global warming. The problem with having a hole in the ozone layer was to do with radiation and an increased risk of skin cancer.
As previously discussed, CFCs were phased out via the Montreal Protocol due to their part in ozone depletion. However, the atmospheric impacts of CFCs are not limited to its role as an active ozone reducer. This anthropogenic compound is also a greenhouse gas, with a much higher potential to enhance the greenhouse effect than CO2.
The ozone that CFCs were depleting is also a greenhouse gas so removing it will have a cooling effect, not warming. This whole issue of CFCs is yet another obscuration of the real problem, probably promoted by the fossil fuel industry in their latest attempt to avoid any responsibility for wrecking the worlds climate.
So removing one greenhouse molecule (ozone) and replacing it with a molecule of (CFC ) (with a much higher potential to enhance the greenhouse effect than CO2.)
Leads to cooling
And deforestation and urbanisation have nothing to do with GW
I will leave this debate as i just dont have a willy sorry link thats bigger than either of you
So removing one greenhouse molecule (ozone) and replacing it with a molecule of (CFC ) (with a much higher potential to enhance the greenhouse effect than CO2.)
Leads to cooling
Of course, first you would need to rewrite greenhouse gas theory to explain why C02 isn't causing warming before you start using it to attribute any temperature rise to other gasses.
No steve i do not have to rewrite any theory but i do suggest you inform that obscure of the chart website WIKIPEDIA they have it wrong
cos that is where the quote comes from
