Mending Ozone Hole May Benefit Climate Change

[VisaJourneyLady 33]

And the idea that this is some sort of a accelerated is also bogus. Scientists can't tell if a previous warming occurred over the span of a hundred years or a thousand. That is just more fear mongering. The planet is changing and we are neither causing it or can stop it. Get used to it.

Of course they can, we have records going back more than a hundred years, and there are many kinds of tests they can do to be able to tell what the temperatures we have had over many hundereds of thousands of years.

[GaryC 7]

And the idea that this is some sort of a accelerated is also bogus. Scientists can't tell if a previous warming occurred over the span of a hundred years or a thousand. That is just more fear mongering. The planet is changing and we are neither causing it or can stop it. Get used to it.

Of course they can, we have records going back more than a hundred years, and there are many kinds of tests they can do to be able to tell what the temperatures we have had over many hundereds of thousands of years.

Show me. You can't. Our recorded history of temps goes back only a few hundred years. That is less than a tick of the clock where the world is concerned. The rest are done with ice cores and fossil records. They can't tell the difference between 100 years and a thousand years.

[GaryC 7]

The difference is the rate of acceleration of that change. Drag it out over a few thousand years and humans as well as all animal and plant live can adjust hopefully. If those changes occur within in this next century then we're all f##ked. I'll take the worldwide consensus of climate scientist's word for it - that human produced greenhouse gases are rapidly accelerated climate change and on the positive side, there is a good chance that we can not only drastically slow down the rate, but can reverse some of the damage as demonstrated with the ozone. It wasn't until ozone depleting chemicals were banned that we are gradually seeing the ozone hole shrink - whereas before it was growing.

What you don't seem to understand that even if the entire world suddenly became carbon neutral the climate will still do what it is doing, finishing up from the last ice age. We are warming naturally because we are supposed to. CO2 levels are rising as a reaction to warmer weather not from the piddly little amount we contribute. Compared to the naturally occurring CO2 our contribution is minuscule. And the idea that this is some sort of a accelerated is also bogus. Scientists can't tell if a previous warming occurred over the span of a hundred years or a thousand. That is just more fear mongering. The planet is changing and we are neither causing it or can stop it. Get used to it.

That's not what the consensus is among climate scientists around the world. I'll take their analysis and predictions over yours, and the majority of people around the world are on board as well.

There is no consensus among climate scientists. Never has been and in the last few years fewer and fewer scientists are buying into the hysteria. Man made global warming is a theory that has been dis-proven, or should I say cannot be proven.

[VisaJourneyLady 33]

well I suppose since the world is only 6,000 years old, I suppose you got me there Gary!!

[mawilson 2,133]

There is no consensus among climate scientists. Never has been and in the last few years fewer and fewer scientists are buying into the hysteria. Man made global warming is a theory that has been dis-proven, or should I say cannot be proven.

Many scientists believe that the cause of global warming is the Sun.

For those screaming "consensus", here's a paper published in the Journal of Atmospheric

and Solar-Terrestrial Physics:

Solar resonant diffusion waves as a driver of terrestrial climate change

[GaryC 7]

well I suppose since the world is only 6,000 years old, I suppose you got me there Gary!!

You think that? No wonder you believe in man made global warming.

[GaryC 7]

There is no consensus among climate scientists. Never has been and in the last few years fewer and fewer scientists are buying into the hysteria. Man made global warming is a theory that has been dis-proven, or should I say cannot be proven.

Many scientists believe that the cause of global warming is the Sun.

For those screaming "consensus", here's a paper published in the Journal of Atmospheric

and Solar-Terrestrial Physics:

Solar resonant diffusion waves as a driver of terrestrial climate change

Give Mav 30 seconds to look at this. He will tell you the science is all wrong. Our only source of heat just CAN'T be the cause of GW.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The difference is the rate of acceleration of that change. Drag it out over a few thousand years and humans as well as all animal and plant live can adjust hopefully. If those changes occur within in this next century then we're all f##ked. I'll take the worldwide consensus of climate scientist's word for it - that human produced greenhouse gases are rapidly accelerated climate change and on the positive side, there is a good chance that we can not only drastically slow down the rate, but can reverse some of the damage as demonstrated with the ozone. It wasn't until ozone depleting chemicals were banned that we are gradually seeing the ozone hole shrink - whereas before it was growing.

What you don't seem to understand that even if the entire world suddenly became carbon neutral the climate will still do what it is doing, finishing up from the last ice age. We are warming naturally because we are supposed to. CO2 levels are rising as a reaction to warmer weather not from the piddly little amount we contribute. Compared to the naturally occurring CO2 our contribution is minuscule. And the idea that this is some sort of a accelerated is also bogus. Scientists can't tell if a previous warming occurred over the span of a hundred years or a thousand. That is just more fear mongering. The planet is changing and we are neither causing it or can stop it. Get used to it.

That's not what the consensus is among climate scientists around the world. I'll take their analysis and predictions over yours, and the majority of people around the world are on board as well.

There is no consensus among climate scientists. Never has been and in the last few years fewer and fewer scientists are buying into the hysteria. Man made global warming is a theory that has been dis-proven, or should I say cannot be proven.

Then you have no idea what the word consensus means, not to mention scientific theory. Doesn't matter though....the whole world has embraced the notion that we must drastically reduce our production of greenhouse gases in hopes of slowing down the rate of acceleration. Thankfully, the scientists who do have a say on such matters and the leaders of the world are all on board.

FWIW:

con·sen·sus

1.majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.

It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.

Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.

Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.

[mawilson 2,133]

There is no consensus among climate scientists. Never has been and in the last few years fewer and fewer scientists are buying into the hysteria. Man made global warming is a theory that has been dis-proven, or should I say cannot be proven.

Many scientists believe that the cause of global warming is the Sun.

For those screaming "consensus", here's a paper published in the Journal of Atmospheric

and Solar-Terrestrial Physics:

Solar resonant diffusion waves as a driver of terrestrial climate change

Give Mav 30 seconds to look at this. He will tell you the science is all wrong. Our only source of heat just CAN'T be the cause of GW.

If Europe wants to carbon-tax its citizens, be my guest.

I'm just glad that America is not buying into this climate control crapola.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There is no consensus among climate scientists. Never has been and in the last few years fewer and fewer scientists are buying into the hysteria. Man made global warming is a theory that has been dis-proven, or should I say cannot be proven.

Many scientists believe that the cause of global warming is the Sun.

For those screaming "consensus", here's a paper published in the Journal of Atmospheric

and Solar-Terrestrial Physics:

Solar resonant diffusion waves as a driver of terrestrial climate change

Give Mav 30 seconds to look at this. He will tell you the science is all wrong. Our only source of heat just CAN'T be the cause of GW.

If Europe wants to carbon-tax its citizens, be my guest.

I'm just glad that America is not buying into this climate control crapola.

We have. Even Bush and McCain have acknowledge the need to deal with Climate Change.

[mawilson 2,133]

We have. Even Bush and McCain have acknowledge the need to deal with Climate Change.

Yah well, they have acknowledged many things, doesn't mean they are gonna do a damn thing about it.

Good luck to Europe and the rest of the world though.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We have. Even Bush and McCain have acknowledge the need to deal with Climate Change.

Yah well, they have acknowledged many things, doesn't mean they are gonna do a damn thing about it.

Good luck to Europe and the rest of the world though.

What part of it bothers you?

[mawilson 2,133]

We have. Even Bush and McCain have acknowledge the need to deal with Climate Change.

Yah well, they have acknowledged many things, doesn't mean they are gonna do a damn thing about it.

Good luck to Europe and the rest of the world though.

What part of it bothers you?

What part of what bothers me?

[GaryC 7]

The difference is the rate of acceleration of that change. Drag it out over a few thousand years and humans as well as all animal and plant live can adjust hopefully. If those changes occur within in this next century then we're all f##ked. I'll take the worldwide consensus of climate scientist's word for it - that human produced greenhouse gases are rapidly accelerated climate change and on the positive side, there is a good chance that we can not only drastically slow down the rate, but can reverse some of the damage as demonstrated with the ozone. It wasn't until ozone depleting chemicals were banned that we are gradually seeing the ozone hole shrink - whereas before it was growing.

What you don't seem to understand that even if the entire world suddenly became carbon neutral the climate will still do what it is doing, finishing up from the last ice age. We are warming naturally because we are supposed to. CO2 levels are rising as a reaction to warmer weather not from the piddly little amount we contribute. Compared to the naturally occurring CO2 our contribution is minuscule. And the idea that this is some sort of a accelerated is also bogus. Scientists can't tell if a previous warming occurred over the span of a hundred years or a thousand. That is just more fear mongering. The planet is changing and we are neither causing it or can stop it. Get used to it.

That's not what the consensus is among climate scientists around the world. I'll take their analysis and predictions over yours, and the majority of people around the world are on board as well.

There is no consensus among climate scientists. Never has been and in the last few years fewer and fewer scientists are buying into the hysteria. Man made global warming is a theory that has been dis-proven, or should I say cannot be proven.

Then you have no idea what the word consensus means, not to mention scientific theory. Doesn't matter though....the whole world has embraced the notion that we must drastically reduce our production of greenhouse gases in hopes of slowing down the rate of acceleration. Thankfully, the scientists who do have a say on such matters and the leaders of the world are all on board.

FWIW:

con·sen·sus

1.majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.

A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, the Grand Canyon cuts through layers of different kinds of rock, such as the Coconino sandstone, Hermit shale, and Redwall limestone. These rock layers often contain fossils that are found only in certain layers. Those are the facts.

It is a fact is that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.

Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves.

Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions.

There is no consensus. The GW nuts want you to believe that but it still does not make it so. Every day more and more scientists from around the world are speaking out against the dangerous notion that we can somehow cause GW.

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."

The names were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer, the co-authors of the new book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, mainly from the peer-reviewed studies cited in their book. The researchers' specialties include tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites, lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and astrophysics.

"We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted."

"Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people," says Avery. "It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease." "There may have been a consensus of guesses among climate model-builders," says Singer. "However, the models only reflect the warming, not its cause." He noted that about 70 percent of the earth's post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals only a tiny 0.2 degrees C.

The historic evidence of the natural cycle includes the 5000-year record of Nile floods, 1st-century Roman wine production in Britain, and thousands of museum paintings that portrayed sunnier skies during the Medieval Warming and more cloudiness during the Little Ice Age. The physical evidence comes from oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, tiny sea and pollen fossils, and ancient tree rings. The evidence recovered from ice cores, sea and lake sediments, cave stalagmites and glaciers has been analyzed by electron microscopes, satellites, and computers. Temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period on California's Whitewing Mountain must have been 3.2 degrees warmer than today, says Constance Millar of the U.S. Forest Service, based on her study of seven species of relict trees that grew above today's tree line.

Singer emphasized, "Humans have known since the invention of the telescope that the earth's climate variations were linked to the sunspot cycle, but we had not understood how. Recent experiments have demonstrated that more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth create more or fewer of the low, cooling clouds that deflect solar heat back into space-amplifying small variations in the intensity of the sun.

Avery and Singer noted that there are hundreds of additional peer-reviewed studies that have found cycle evidence, and that they will publish additional researchers' names and studies. They also noted that their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without any corporate contributions.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/ne...se,176495.shtml

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We have. Even Bush and McCain have acknowledge the need to deal with Climate Change.

Yah well, they have acknowledged many things, doesn't mean they are gonna do a damn thing about it.

Good luck to Europe and the rest of the world though.

What part of it bothers you?

What part of what bothers me?

Reducing greenhouses gases.