• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Parrots Anti-Science Misinformation As He Readies Climate Change Panel

You evidently have trouble reading. I clearly said it is a seasonal phenomenon, but the fluctuation in the size of the hole was INCREASING annually hence the action taken via the Montreal Protocol, and it continues to be successful. Clear now?

No, you never showed that 3 parts per BILLION of CFC's can somehow overwhelm O3, while the dominant cause of the annual breakdown are from these which I have already quoted, which you completely ignored:

Natural forces can alter the amount of ozone. Remember, ozone is very unstable. It reacts easily with other atoms, and will easily donate that free oxygen atom (O1) to nitrogen gas (N2), hydrogen gas (H2), or chlorine (Cl). These atoms have always existed in the stratosphere, and they are released from a wide variety of sources (volcanoes, oceans, etc.)

bolding mine


N2 amount to at least 780 parts per MILLION, the others a lot more than CFC's yet somehow gets ignored in favor of a trace amount of CFC's which at its PEAK reached 3 parts per BILLION, which was about 18 years ago. Yet when there were near ZERO level of CFC's in the air in the 1950's, Ozone "holes" were found to exist anyway, despite the elevated Solar radiation at the time.

Then you IGNORED that chart from NASA showing that CFC's doesn't have a measurable effect on total ozone changes since there is so little of it in the first place, which is the point you ignore.

Meanwhile this gets ignored all the time since it greatly weakens the already trivial effect CFC's ever has on O3 levels:

Elsevier

The Antarctic ozone depletion caused by Erebus volcano gas emissions

December 2015

Abstract
Heterogeneous chemical reactions releasing photochemically active molecular chlorine play a key role in Antarctic stratospheric ozone destruction, resulting in the Antarctic ozone hole. Hydrogen chloride (HCl) is one of the principal components in these reactions on the surfaces of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs). PSCs form during polar nights at extremely low temperatures (lower than −78 °C) mainly on sulfuric acid (H2SO4) aerosols, acting as condensation nuclei and formed from sulfur dioxide (SO2). However, the cause of HCl and H2SO4 high concentrations in the Antarctic stratosphere, leading to considerable springtime ozone depletion, is still not clear. Based on the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data over the last 35 years and by using the NOAA HYSPLIT trajectory model, we show that Erebus volcano gas emissions (including HCl and SO2) can reach the Antarctic stratosphere via high-latitude cyclones with the annual average probability P¯ann.'>P¯ann. of at least ∼0.235 (23.5%). Depending on Erebus activity, this corresponds to additional annual stratospheric HCl mass of 1.0–14.3 kilotons (kt) and SO2 mass of 1.4–19.7 kt. Thus, Erebus volcano is the natural and powerful source of additional stratospheric HCl and SO2, and hence, the cause of the Antarctic ozone depletion, together with man-made chlorofluorocarbons.

LINK

====================================================
The CFC's effect has always been overblown to the point of stupidity since the amount is at the PEAK was about 3 parts per BILLION (year 2000) versus the N2 alone is 780 parts per MILLION and then you have H2 and Cl that are also in parts per million.

This is why that skepticism has increased in recent years when more and more research shows that the Stratospheric conditions in the South Pole region coupled with a very high continentail elevation have existed for a long time to produce "holes" naturally.
 
Last edited:
I think its too late to stop climate change. We need to start colonizing the planets and the oceans immediately.
 
Snopes was wrong since they didn't bother to look at the original website entries that has Dr. Moore LISTED as a Founder, here is my post showing this and the actual Greenpeace webpage showing it:

Post 40

Snopes flopped this one badly since I knew for YEARS that he was a Founder, yet Snopes still doesn't know.

Pathetic.

Yeah sure. It's kind of recurring theme with you guys - Snopes is wrong. The IPCC is wrong. Tens of thousands of Climatologists are wrong. The National Academy of Science is wrong --- but Climate Denier bloggers - their word is Gospel.
 
Long ago bypassed by subsequent research. For example:
[FONT="][URL="http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/20thCentury.pdf"]Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776[/URL] [/FONT]

The IPCC studies solar radiative forcing. It's that tiny bar at the bottom, and is fairly insignificant when it comes to climate change. What else you got?

AR5 Radiative forcing_Fig8.15_Pg697.JPG
 
The IPCC studies solar radiative forcing. It's that tiny bar at the bottom, and is fairly insignificant when it comes to climate change. What else you got?

View attachment 67252813

Actually the tiny bar at the bottom is labeled Solar irradadiance, not solar radiative forcing.
I may be incorrect, but everything on the table is solar radiative forcing, of one form or another.
The paper lays out well what they are talking about.
http://old.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/20thCentury.pdf
The model takes into account all the standard radiative forcings, and in addition the possibility of a non-thermal solar component.
We find that the best fit is obtained with a negligible net feedback. We also show that a non-thermal solar component is
necessarily present, indicating that the total solar contribution to the 20th century global warming, of DT solar= 0.27 ± 0.07°C,
is much larger than can be expected from variation in the total solar irradiance alone. However, we also find that the largest contribution to
the 20th century warming comes from anthropogenic sources, with DT man= 0.42 ± 0.11°C.
They found that total change was roughly 40% solar and 60% anthropogenic.
 
The IPCC studies solar radiative forcing. It's that tiny bar at the bottom, and is fairly insignificant when it comes to climate change. What else you got?

The IPCC is wrong.

My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]. . . We know from the climate-gate e-mails that the hockey stick was an example of shady science. The medieval warm period and little ice ages were in fact global and real. And, although the IPCC will not admit so, we know that the sun has a large effect on climate, and on the 20th century warming in particular. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]
bundestagFig1.jpg
[/FONT]
[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]In the first slide we see one of the most important graphs that the IPCC is simply ignoring. Published already in 2008, you can see a very clear correlation between sea level change rate from tide gauges, and solar activity. This proves beyond any doubt that the sun has a large effect on climate. But it is ignored.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]To see what it implies, we should look at figure 2.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
bundestagFig2.jpg
[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]This is the contribution to the radiative forcing from different components, as summarized in the IPCC AR5. As you can see, it is claimed that the solar contribution is minute (tiny gray bar). In reality, we can use the oceans to quantify the solar forcing, and see that it was probably larger than the CO2 contribution (large light brown bar). [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Any attempt to explain the 20th century warming should therefore include this large forcing. When doing so, one finds that the sun contributed more than half of the warming, and climate has to be relatively insensitive. How much? Only 1 to 1.5°C per CO2 doubling, as opposed to the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5. This implies that without doing anything special, future warming will be around another 1 degree over the 21st century, meeting the Copenhagen and Paris goals.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]The fact that the temperature over the past 20 years has risen significantly less than IPCC models, should raise a red flag that something is wrong with the standard picture. . . . [/FONT][/FONT]
 
Yeah sure. It's kind of recurring theme with you guys - Snopes is wrong. The IPCC is wrong. Tens of thousands of Climatologists are wrong. The National Academy of Science is wrong --- but Climate Denier bloggers - their word is Gospel.

Gee even when you are SHOWN the 2002 Greenpeace website that LIST him as a founder:

greenpeace_founders_before.jpg


The rest of the evidence HERE
 
Last edited:
[FONT=&quot]Climate News[/FONT]
[h=1]CEI Leads Coalition Letter on Commission on Climate Security[/h][FONT=&quot]A letter sent to president Trump supports Dr. Will Happer, has dozens of supporters. Dear President Trump, The undersigned organizations and individuals write to express our strong support for the proposed President’s Commission on Climate Security. It is our understanding that this commission, which is being planned and would be directed by Dr. William Happer…
[/FONT]
 
[FONT=&quot]Climate Science[/FONT]
[h=1]Massive Coalition Backs Trump’s Climate Science Committee[/h][FONT=&quot]From The New American Written by Alex Newman A massive coalition of environmental organizations, activists, and think-tank leaders signed a letter to President Donald Trump supporting the proposed Presidential Commission on Climate Security (PCCS), as well as the work of Trump climate and national security adviser Dr. William Happer of Princeton University. The campaign, which…
[/FONT]
 
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/21/massive-coalition-backs-trumps-climate-science-committee/"]
will-happer.jpg
[/URL]Climate Science[/FONT]

[h=1]Massive Coalition Backs Trump’s Climate Science Committee[/h][FONT="]From The New American Written by Alex Newman A massive coalition of environmental organizations, activists, and think-tank leaders signed a letter to President Donald Trump supporting the proposed Presidential Commission on Climate Security (PCCS), as well as the work of Trump climate and national security adviser Dr. William Happer of Princeton University. The campaign, which…
[/FONT]

Lol. The list of signatories reads like a Who's Who of fossil fuel vested interests. Polluters wanna keep polluting. No surprises there!
 
[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/21/massive-coalition-backs-trumps-climate-science-committee/"][/URL]Climate Science[/FONT]
[h=1]Massive Coalition Backs Trump’s Climate Science Committee[/h][FONT="]From The New American Written by Alex Newman A massive coalition of environmental organizations, activists, and think-tank leaders signed a letter to President Donald Trump supporting the proposed Presidential Commission on Climate Security (PCCS), as well as the work of Trump climate and national security adviser Dr. William Happer of Princeton University. The campaign, which…
[/FONT]
The video in the link by Nils-Axel Morner is very good!
 
Back
Top Bottom