Something else for the left to ignore...

[szh]

Let me point out something (if you have not looked at the links I posted yet):

Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.

Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.

So, if you were in my shoes, do you think I should accept your comments? Or the ones made by a Professor who is the Chair of the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech and has 30 years of research experience in the field?

She WORKED on that specific report and is saying the above!

Z

[C-Kwik]

Let me point out something (if you have not looked at the links I posted yet):

Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.

Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.

So, if you were in my shoes, do you think I should accept your comments? Or the ones made by a Professor who is the Chair of the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech and has 30 years of research experience in the field?

She WORKED on that specific report and is saying the above!

Z

If the way you evaluate science is to seek out credibility, perhaps you should do so on both sides equally...



That's a graph of what virtually everyone else is basing the trend on vs what Prof Curry is.

Furthermore, if you want to look into even finer details, consider this:



This graph shows the difference in trendline if you take out the last two data points. I'm not suggesting we simply pull data out because it is inconvenient. But climate trend is not something we can really establish in a short time period like this. The minimum time frame to evaluate climate trends is at least 17 years according to Santer et al. 2011:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2 ... 6263.shtml

Credibility is certainly important. But perhaps you should reconsider what you base one's credibility on. I try to base it on whether or not the science appears credible or not. This requires one to actually look at the science and perhaps try to understand it. All the he said she said crap is just a distraction from what is really important. You must have ADD.

[szh]

I probably have ADD.

But, I don't think you got my point entirely either.

The problem lies in statistics - frequently, cause and effect get mixed up when examining relationships.

For example, to use a little inane example, it is obvious that everyone who breathes air dies ... eventually. So, air is a killer, if you go by the obvious statistics.

My point was that if there was a direct relationship between CO2 being a "cause" and driver of global warming, then even 10 years ought to be sufficient to show it.

But, in the 10 year period in question, CO2 levels went up a lot, but warming - overall - did not (ignoring the minor fluctuations, of course). If the relationship between warming and CO2 is so clear and direct, then even 10 years ought to be sufficient to show the connection - (I don't entirely buy into the 17 year theory ... yet).

So, it is possible that both are the result of other unrelated cause(s) - one of which caused the CO2 to go up, but did not affect the temperature average.

Note that I am STILL not saying that warming is not occurring - of course, it appears to be doing so on a long enough scale (even assuming the data accuracy problems)! My problem is with the "clarity" and stated "obviousness" of CO2 driving the warming being pushed so hard.

It ain't so clear ... yet. And, I may be proven wrong, of course.

Z

[C-Kwik]

My point was that if there was a direct relationship between CO2 being a "cause" and driver of global warming, then even 10 years ought to be sufficient to show it.

But, in the 10 year period in question, CO2 levels went up a lot, but warming - overall - did not (ignoring the minor fluctuations, of course). If the relationship between warming and CO2 is so clear and direct, then even 10 years ought to be sufficient to show the connection - (I don't entirely buy into the 17 year theory ... yet).

If you look at past data, you'll find plenty of ~10 year periods that show declines, only to go back up again and continue the overall trend. The reason there isn't an apparent immediate feedback is that there are multiple cycles that occur concurrently. If global temperatures remained steady (as a trend), we would probably just see a ~10 year cycle oscillating back and forth indefinitely. But if the trend is going up, we will still see a downward movement or a perhaps a slowdown of the trend while the amplitude of the oscillation is negative. If you're having trouble understanding this concept, bust out your TI-xx calculator (you better have one! ) and put the equations y1=5sin(20x), y2=3sin(200x), y3=0.5x, and y4=5sin(20x) + 3cos(200x) + 0.5x into it and graph it. I would hope this is trivial for you. Looking at the graph, the y1 and y2 terms are the noise in the equation y4. y3 is what is actually important as that is the trendline.

So, it is possible that both are the result of other unrelated cause(s) - one of which caused the CO2 to go up, but did not affect the temperature average.

Note that I am STILL not saying that warming is not occurring - of course, it appears to be doing so on a long enough scale (even assuming the data accuracy problems)! My problem is with the "clarity" and stated "obviousness" of CO2 driving the warming being pushed so hard.

It ain't so clear ... yet. And, I may be proven wrong, of course.

I understand if you are simply uncertain about the science. Be skeptical. That's fine. But the premise of your argument against it has thus far not have had any scientific basis. Further, all your skepticism is directed only at one side. A "skeptical" scientist would be skeptical of all findings equally. That is, they would be objective. That said, there are plenty of articles that address each aspect of doubt you address here. You've simply not looked for it or are ignoring it.

For example, to use a little inane example, it is obvious that everyone who breathes air dies ... eventually. So, air is a killer, if you go by the obvious statistics.

On the other hand, statistics show that 100% of everyone who has died has stopped breathing air...

I might say this is more analogous to a an investigation of a murder in which a man is found in a public restroom stabbed to death. No witnesses and no surveillance of the murder. But the camera outside of the bathroom shows two men enter the bathroom (one of them the victim) and only one comes out. Noone else enters or leaves before or after the murder. There is no other way to access the restroom. Upon investigating, they found the man who left had purchased a knife that matches the stab wounds. Do you need much more than that to find him guilty?

[szh]

You know ... I think we are not that far apart as it may seem perhaps.

At least, I think I am not a "skeptic" of global warming per se. My concern has to do with the "incontrovertible" statements that CO2 is the primary (or only) driver/cause - that bothers me, since the science facts are not totally in yet, as far as I am concerned.

We shall have to see, I guess ...

Z

[IBCoupe]

You know, whenever a particular name is thrown around as an authority in a climate science debate, especially by climate change skeptics, I like to search their name on grist. Here's a link to their thoughts on the BEST study.

[stebo0728]

Regardless of the status of fact for MMGW or GW in general, cleaning up and reducing CO2 outputs can't be a bad thing. Show me a plan that actually seeks to do this, and not just redistribute wealth on a global scale, and we can put the blame game aside, and work together regardless of whos at fault, mankind or mother nature.

[szh]

You know, whenever a particular name is thrown around as an authority in a climate science debate, especially by climate change skeptics, I like to search their name on grist. Here's a link to their thoughts on the BEST study.

Just more proof about my earlier comment about the "if you say anything against the IPCC, you will be publicly attacked personally" in an attempt to discredit.

Unless my browser is showing something wrong and I am not getting the right outcome, it is pretty funny that in an attempt to discredit Curry, the quote below are the words that are used, but all the links in that section appear to be self-referential ... pointing back to the page ITSELF ... i.e., to the same web page that this extract is from! ...

The old "I am right, because I say so!" approach.

Pretty much the entire science blogosphere have written at length about my old friend Curry.

Hockey Stick fight at the RC Corral, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt to Curry: “In future I will simply assume you are a conduit for untrue statements rather than their originator”
Annan (who runs through various debunkings of her): “(S)He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense“; Here is Eric Steig refuting her absurd claim about the IPCC that “they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC.”
Bart Verheggen’s, “Judith Curry goes from building bridges to burning them“
Judith Curry abandons science

Z

[IBCoupe]

Regardless of the status of fact for MMGW or GW in general, cleaning up and reducing CO2 outputs can't be a bad thing. Show me a plan that actually seeks to do this, and not just redistribute wealth on a global scale, and we can put the blame game aside, and work together regardless of whos at fault, mankind or mother nature.

A credit trading scheme worked wonders for President George H.W. Bush and acid rain.

[IBCoupe]

You know, whenever a particular name is thrown around as an authority in a climate science debate, especially by climate change skeptics, I like to search their name on grist. Here's a link to their thoughts on the BEST study.

Just more proof about my earlier comment about the "if you say anything against the IPCC, you will be publicly attacked personally" in an attempt to discredit.

Unless my browser is showing something wrong and I am not getting the right outcome, it is pretty funny that in an attempt to discredit Curry, the quote below are the words that are used, but all the links in that section appear to be self-referential ... pointing back to the page ITSELF ... i.e., to the same web page that this extract is from! ...

The old "I am right, because I say so!" approach.

Pretty much the entire science blogosphere have written at length about my old friend Curry.

Hockey Stick fight at the RC Corral, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt to Curry: “In future I will simply assume you are a conduit for untrue statements rather than their originator”
Annan (who runs through various debunkings of her): “(S)He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense“; Here is Eric Steig refuting her absurd claim about the IPCC that “they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC.”
Bart Verheggen’s, “Judith Curry goes from building bridges to burning them“
Judith Curry abandons science

Z

I thought the self-referencing links were more easily explained as errors in HTML, especially given that they reference outside sources.

I mean, if there was any doubt, you could always Google the quotes in question.

[szh]

Nah, it is more fun my way.

Z

[stebo0728]

A credit trading scheme worked wonders for President George H.W. Bush and acid rain.

I disagree. For one, a credit trading scheme does not address the real problem. It does not reduce the output. It just creates an intangible currency, and ties it to a tangible one, and creates wealth redistribution, with a slight "free market" tang. It sets the stage as well for creating yet another subclass of dependency, a new way to campaign on "we'll increase the credit ration if you vote for us" or "they want to end your carbon credit income" scare tactics. Again, this is where my skepticism of the system runs high. If the output of the CO2 is the problem, lets end the output of the CO2. Then at least when the earth either keeps heating, or turns back into the winter wonderland of our dreams, we'll know the result was not of our doing.

[C-Kwik]

A credit trading scheme worked wonders for President George H.W. Bush and acid rain.

I disagree. For one, a credit trading scheme does not address the real problem. It does not reduce the output. It just creates an intangible currency, and ties it to a tangible one, and creates wealth redistribution, with a slight "free market" tang. It sets the stage as well for creating yet another subclass of dependency, a new way to campaign on "we'll increase the credit ration if you vote for us" or "they want to end your carbon credit income" scare tactics. Again, this is where my skepticism of the system runs high. If the output of the CO2 is the problem, lets end the output of the CO2. Then at least when the earth either keeps heating, or turns back into the winter wonderland of our dreams, we'll know the result was not of our doing.

Any reasonably pragmatic viewpoint will easily see that ending CO2 output is impossible. Perhaps it may become more possible in the long term, but real solutions aren't going to be purely idealistic. At best, if we could reduce our net carbon output to zero, it would have to take time to get there. The infrastructure to make such a leap feasible not only includes the energy delivery, but how we consume the energy as well. Replacing an entire fleet of commercial vehicles is costly. Hell, for the foreseeable future, vehicles like planes aren't likely to see a big move away from fossil fuels. Consider that the energy density of available bio-fuels is not as high as current fossil fuels. And they are costlier. So not only do costs of the fuel go up, but so do the payloads. So suggesting an unrealistic option is not a reasonable suggestion to make in lieu of a program, that even if we assumed your view is accurate on, is simply asinine. At that, perhaps you might go as far as making a real suggestion of how we might achieve such a goal. I doubt you'll find such a solution that will be less intrusive than any carbon credit program is.

But as for carbon credits, its intent is to put a cost on the waste. Another similar option would simply be a carbon tax, which would alleviate some of your concerns. I see some advantages and disadvantages of both, but ultimately, the idea of putting a cost on emissions (which is done for every other type of harmful waste) is certainly moving in the right direction. I'm certainly open to new ideas, but they would have to be effective. I'm not sure there would be any other options that would be as effective as putting a cost on waste. Generally, businesses tend to respond to costs that affect their bottom line. If the cheaper option (especially in the long term) is to invest in reducing emissions then its a no brainer.

[carloslebaron]

There is something that most guys supporting the idea of global warning caused by humans still can't understand: that this planet has passed through hot and cold eras without human intervention.

What are these guys expecting: a never changing planet?...the same climate forever? Give me a break! Get mature!

So, if they input the current warming to us...to whom they input the recent glacial era: to the ancient people who used logs to make fire? Are the ancient people guilty of the mamooth's disappearance?

Lets be real about this, if -read it as "if"- the climate will be warmer for the future, then, the only thing we must do is to adapt to the change.

Simple as that. The oceans take away a big portion of land due to their higher levels? Well, start to built your house in higher land. What are you going to do in case the ocean covers your land, just cry? ...Point your finger on Chinese people? ...Scream to God? ...Hit you neighbor because he farts a lot? Come on, just adapt to the changes, at the end you will have no other choice, because what will happen, it will happen, since you can't control it.

No one can control climate, it happens.

The computer simulations about a near future with a warmer climate stink, no one can trust in those simulations because are made in base of the imaginations of the programers. We have nothing to predict with accuracy about weather, less we can predict with accuracy a climate. The main reason has been given right above, we cannot predict about something that we can't control. Period.

A good example of my words is the recent volvano eruption in the Philipines that sent ashes to the upper atmosphere, to the point that the temperature of the entire world dropped 1 degree. See? No one predicted it, because we can't control it.

So, the so called science of the "global warmingists" is nothing but alarmists that found a way to make profit in base of fear.

Just pay no attention to them, that they are using you when you support their ideas and solutions, which won't do anything if the world's climate is changing again, as it did it in the past.

Just prepare for the changes, besides of the basic radio and batteries, and the first aid kit, buy three hundred packages of matches or lighters, a good gun or rifle, a water purifier, a boat, and if is possible a group of dudes who will be on your side, because..do you remember Katrina when people who can't wait for governmet assistance started to rob others inclusive killing them for food? Do you remember that in the stadium where they were located that several robberies and rapes happened? Well, in catastrophes don't expect much "good samaritans" around, because if no control by authorities reaches your place, you must have to survive "against others" somehow...

But, this is an extreme scenario...it happened in New Orleans only but it happened in a very small period of days, just think about it, the deal here is not to cry but to prepare.

Cheers.

[AZhitman]

Rare occasions, but I agree with Carlos on this one.

[C-Kwik]

There is something that most guys supporting the idea of global warning caused by humans still can't understand: that this planet has passed through hot and cold eras without human intervention.

What are these guys expecting: a never changing planet?...the same climate forever? Give me a break! Get mature!

No scientist researching global warming is saying that there aren't natural causes for climate change. What their research does is separate the natural effects from the man made ones. How do they do this? By focusing on the rate of change of climate. The current rate of warming is not anything that natural causes has been able to cause over the longer term through internal forcings.

So, if they input the current warming to us...to whom they input the recent glacial era: to the ancient people who used logs to make fire? Are the ancient people guilty of the mamooth's disappearance?

Lets be real about this, if -read it as "if"- the climate will be warmer for the future, then, the only thing we must do is to adapt to the change.

Your focus on this is quite narrow. Humans, as a species can adapt pretty well to a lot of circumstances. However, we are not the only inhabitants of earth. Perhaps some don't care, but ultimately, much of our survival depends on other inhabitants. There is a tiered system of how the biomass is consumed. Save for plant life, each tier requires a certain amount of biomass consumption to survive. Rapid climate change will make it difficult for many species of plant and animal life to survive. They simply can't adapt fast enough. This means our supplies of biomass are going to be affected.

One might argue that our agriculture systems are sufficient. But the reality is, regardless of cause, if temperatures rise, ice melts. Seal levels subsequently rise. Many of our largest agriculture regions end up underwater. Not just under water, under salt water. Perhaps we can engineer solutions to prevent sea water from coming inland. But consider the costs and risks. Imagine what happens if a levee breaks. Aside from lost lives and damaged property, its sea water we are dealing with. Salt would basically contaminate the farm land it comes into contact with.

Simple as that. The oceans take away a big portion of land due to their higher levels? Well, start to built your house in higher land. What are you going to do in case the ocean covers your land, just cry? ...Point your finger on Chinese people? ...Scream to God? ...Hit you neighbor because he farts a lot? Come on, just adapt to the changes, at the end you will have no other choice, because what will happen, it will happen, since you can't control it.

No one can control climate, it happens.

Surely, there is little we can do about natural variances in climate. But the argument is that the warming we are seeing is not a natural variance.

The computer simulations about a near future with a warmer climate stink, no one can trust in those simulations because are made in base of the imaginations of the programers. We have nothing to predict with accuracy about weather, less we can predict with accuracy a climate. The main reason has been given right above, we cannot predict about something that we can't control. Period.

Weather is primarily a function of the movement of energy throughout earth's atmosphere and oceans. The earth is always trying to reach a state of equilibrium. But Earth is a very dynamic system in which the the variances are cycling in periods of days, months, seasons, and years. Perhaps even some that span over much longer periods of time. The longer periods are largely not going to have a big effect from the day to day weather as the changes are so small they can be ignored. Its the smaller variances that have the largest effect on weather. Problem with measuring weather is that there are internal variables that can't be measured. It would be like trying to model the exact interactions of every molecule of a gas in a volume to calculate pressure.

Climate is different than weather. Its big influences come from temperature, which can be calculated from energy (see my prior posts for discussions for more insight about that). The change in weather on a day to day basis will average out to a very small net change so that can be ignored. As such, there is no direct comparison you can make between weather and climate. Measuring climate is a lot more like measuring the average pressure of all the molecular interactions of a gas in a volume.

A good example of my words is the recent volvano eruption in the Philipines that sent ashes to the upper atmosphere, to the point that the temperature of the entire world dropped 1 degree. See? No one predicted it, because we can't control it.

Actually, we can. We can mimic the effects of a volcano on climate by dumping a sulfur based aerosol in the upper atmosphere. This is the primary component by which volcanoes reject solar energy back into space. Its actually something that researchers are discussing as a way to keep temperatures down. However, it only masks the effects of CO2 and is not a long term solution.

So, the so called science of the "global warmingists" is nothing but alarmists that found a way to make profit in base of fear.

I could easily say, global warming deniers all have interests in protecting their profits, but that is nothing but a red herring that does nothing to prove whether global warming is actually occurring or not. Much like your statement above.

Just pay no attention to them, that they are using you when you support their ideas and solutions, which won't do anything if the world's climate is changing again, as it did it in the past.

Appeals to emotion? Its a a tactic used in an argumentative paper. And since you didn't back it with actual fact (scientific reasoning/data) its a weak tactic when the subject matter is scientific in nature. Perhaps you should stop arguing with your emotions and learn to argue based on what you can reason or prove.

Just prepare for the changes, besides of the basic radio and batteries, and the first aid kit, buy three hundred packages of matches or lighters, a good gun or rifle, a water purifier, a boat, and if is possible a group of dudes who will be on your side, because..do you remember Katrina when people who can't wait for governmet assistance started to rob others inclusive killing them for food? Do you remember that in the stadium where they were located that several robberies and rapes happened? Well, in catastrophes don't expect much "good samaritans" around, because if no control by authorities reaches your place, you must have to survive "against others" somehow...

But, this is an extreme scenario...it happened in New Orleans only but it happened in a very small period of days, just think about it, the deal here is not to cry but to prepare.

Cheers.

Without getting into a debate about the relation between GW and the severity of Katrina, there is a lot of research that indicates that the most likely scenario from increased temperature will be adverse weather of increased magnitude. If true, we will be facing a lot more potential scenarios like Katrina. Surely, its hard to cay with certainty that this will be the case, but from a pragmatic point of view, do we bet on the least likely outcome?

That said, who is crying? Who isn't preparing? Preparations can include reducing the impact of a problem. We as humans, have done this throughout our history. We build stronger buildings to withstand natural disasters better. We build defense systems to prevent others from attacking us as effectively. We may even preemptively attack another nation that poses an imminent threat. In cases where a danger to us is caused by ourselves, we find solutions to deal with those as well. If we hadn't, we would still be crapping in community pots in the hallway and chucking the contents out the window out onto the street. We might be living amongst our trash. Instead, we as a people, found community solutions to problems. There is nothing wrong with taking a similar approach here. If everyone acted with only their individual interests in mind, we would not have gotten to where we are now.

Basically, we leave it to individuals to prepare for the worst. But collectively, we should be trying to prevent the worst. These options aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, luck would favor both.

[stebo0728]

Great post there Carlos. I agree whole heartedly. I still havent heard a good excuse for the anthropological findings that pop up when these "all time low" glaciers melt away. How the hell were there colonies there if this is an "all time low". LOL. Science in general is flawed, too many assumptions, too many "houses of cards".

I agree with environmentalism TO A DEGREE. As to the degree of cleaning up our environment, locally, and limiting our pollution. Finding cleaner ways to do the things we do. Those are all admirable goals, but to blame ourselves for global changes, or to think we can in some way effect global change, has always been and will probably always be preposterous to me.

But what makes it worse, as I said before, is that the fixes we put in place do nothing to advance the above goals. Instead we just seek to hijack this fabricated problem as a means to effect global wealth redistribution. When the key treaty in play does NOTHING to a superpower responsible for CO2 output TRIPLE our own, Im sorry, but output reduction IS NOT the intended goal, it may be the advertised goal, but its a bait n switch. Again, show me tactics attuned to addressing the goals above, and maybe, regardless of GW, or MMGW existence, we can get on the same tactical page.

[bigbadberry3]

Science in general is flawed, too many assumptions, too many "houses of cards".
.

[C-Kwik]

Great post there Carlos. I agree whole heartedly. I still havent heard a good excuse for the anthropological findings that pop up when these "all time low" glaciers melt away. How the hell were there colonies there if this is an "all time low". LOL. Science in general is flawed, too many assumptions, too many "houses of cards".

Your lack of understanding of the science does not make science flawed. "I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you."

I agree with environmentalism TO A DEGREE. As to the degree of cleaning up our environment, locally, and limiting our pollution. Finding cleaner ways to do the things we do. Those are all admirable goals, but to blame ourselves for global changes, or to think we can in some way effect global change, has always been and will probably always be preposterous to me.

The issue of blaming ourselves for global changes goes back to the science. Isn't arbitrarily assuming we can't possibly have an effect on global climate is exactly the kind of assumption you detested in your first paragraph. Do you actually have anything to back that statement up?

The reality is that assumptions are made in science. But they are practical and based on some level of reasonable analysis or experimental data. We make plenty of assumptions in all kinds of hard sciences. It introduces some errors, but they are generally quite small and still agree very well with experimental data. Consider how far science has gotten us by making assumptions. We simply do not have the capability to analytically solve every problem.

But what makes it worse, as I said before, is that the fixes we put in place do nothing to advance the above goals. Instead we just seek to hijack this fabricated problem as a means to effect global wealth redistribution. When the key treaty in play does NOTHING to a superpower responsible for CO2 output TRIPLE our own, Im sorry, but output reduction IS NOT the intended goal, it may be the advertised goal, but its a bait n switch. Again, show me tactics attuned to addressing the goals above, and maybe, regardless of GW, or MMGW existence, we can get on the same tactical page.

I assume you are talking about China. As I've mentioned before, China's per capita CO2 output is still quite a bit less than ours. A little more than 3 times more (4 times more for GHG emissions). And despite the huge population difference, we still manage to emit 78% of the emissions that China does. The US has the biggest opportunities to impact CO2 output. That's not to say we let China off the hook, but playing the game of "well he gets to do it, why can't I?" isn't the mature or responsible way to approach it.

As for redistribution of wealth, please elaborate on how and to what extent you think that is occurring.

[stebo0728]

Im gonna stop with the GW stuff on this forum. I have a fine understanding of the science involved, Im just not as good at argueing on it I suppose, but I'll leave one more nugget for you to dissect. I akin this whole MMGW scare to the witch hunt we had in the 80's and 90's regarding CFC's and the ozone. Then we passed all kinds of bans on CFC's, changed freon formulas every 6 months it seemed, making AC units obsolete almost upon installation, and for what?

Look at this site
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/SH.html

Its a good site, explains the ozone, what the problems are, and no doubt CFC's were not helping, but look at some of the maps and data. You can see, the ozone has continued to deplete even after we've completely banned CFC's. In fact, it almost seems as if the depletion accelerated in the 2000's. Perhaps thats a delayed reaction from the emmissions in the 90's, I'm not sure how long the chemical reactions take to come to fruition. Still the problem was sensationalized and overhyped, the same treatment that GW and MMGW is recieving now.

Go ahead and respond however you like. I may at some point pick this mantle back up when I have more time to research, and properly formulate my arguments, but for now I'm going to concentrate more on getting Obama to keep his one term promise.

[szh]

Take a look at this article and some of the comments too ...

http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... tter-daily

Z

[C-Kwik]

Im gonna stop with the GW stuff on this forum. I have a fine understanding of the science involved, Im just not as good at argueing on it I suppose, but I'll leave one more nugget for you to dissect. I akin this whole MMGW scare to the witch hunt we had in the 80's and 90's regarding CFC's and the ozone. Then we passed all kinds of bans on CFC's, changed freon formulas every 6 months it seemed, making AC units obsolete almost upon installation, and for what?

I would contend, that if your understanding of the science were clear, you would be able to argue the science with reasonable clarity. But in your first post in this thread you have shown you don't seem to understand vapor pressure. You don't seem to understand why CO2 is considered such an important pollutant. You didn't argue the science at all otherwise. And regardless of the politics involved, the science is what this whole debate ultimately boils down to.

Its a good site, explains the ozone, what the problems are, and no doubt CFC's were not helping, but look at some of the maps and data. You can see, the ozone has continued to deplete even after we've completely banned CFC's. In fact, it almost seems as if the depletion accelerated in the 2000's. Perhaps thats a delayed reaction from the emmissions in the 90's, I'm not sure how long the chemical reactions take to come to fruition. Still the problem was sensationalized and overhyped, the same treatment that GW and MMGW is recieving now.

I glanced at the site, but I couldn't find any graphs that quickly show the trends. I don't have the time to try and interpret the data. But in the sentences I bolded above, you basically go from uncertainties (on your part) to conclusions. You do the same thing with MMGW. You find things you aren't clear on and then jump to the conclusion that it must not be true. Its disingenuous.

But since you bring up two points about CFC's and ozone. Consider this. The move from CFC's occurred in the mid-nineties. Nearly 20 years ago. I believe the two main refrigerants after that were R-134a and R-22. R-134a is likely to be phased out due to its effects on GW and it still has some ozone depleting potential. R-22 still has chlorine in it and still has some impact on the ozone. R-22 appears to be used a lot. My dad installs and services A/C systems in homes and businesses and has a large stockpile of R-22. So the standard is changing again. I'd say a ~20 year cycle is reasonable. Even then, it didn't make old systems completely obsolete. My CRX is running R134a. Other than changing the refrigerant oil and some seals, it was pretty easy. SAE is suggesting the next standard to use HFO-1234yf. This is supposed to be very similar to R-134a in terms of its operation. So I have to wonder who is actually making the sensationalized/over-hyped comments?

[C-Kwik]

Take a look at this article and some of the comments too ...

http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... tter-daily

Z

The take away I have from that is to ignore the politics (or at least, don't get caught up in it) and focus on the science. Now if others would just follow suit...

[szh]

Take a look at this article and some of the comments too ...

http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... tter-daily

Z

The take away I have from that is to ignore the politics (or at least, don't get caught up in it) and focus on the science. Now if others would just follow suit...

Yes on both points you make.

Z