Earth just recorded its hottest 12-month streak (November 2022-October 2023). Analysis using Climate

Physic deniers that apparently know their science is wrong and continue to publish baloney because they've got bills to pay and no other useful skills.

 

And where exactly did I say that single atom oxygen was ozone?

Oh, please feel free to go back and check, I never said that. I explained the process that creates the O1 from O2. I did not think that I had to go into even more depth than that, but I guess I have to break this down Barney Style.

Oxygen as most know does not like to exist in a solitary state as a free atom, so the free oxygen atoms then bind with O2, creating O3, which is what actually makes up Ozone. And more ultraviolet light then breaks it back down into O and O2, which then repeats the cycle. This is known as the "Ozone-Oxygen Cycle". However, at this time for example in the Polar Region there is very little ozone left, as it has already started breaking down due to the reduced amount of radiation hitting the upper atmosphere. And soon the ozone will be completely vanishing.

I never said "Atomic Oxygen is Ozone", that is your own imagine there at play. I just did not think I had to freaking explain the entire cycle, and covering just the aspect that is applicable to why there is an annual hole in the layer was sufficient. But I guess I should not be surprised, knowing how little you seem to grasp such things and then inserting things that were not even said because that is how you believe they should be.

But please, quote back exactly where I said atomic oxygen was ozone. I simply did not believe I had to break it down even more than I already had.

Oh, from your own reference.

Once again, a literal "no duh!" thing, as that is just after the darkest part of Winter over the Antarctic. Little to no ultraviolet light striking the upper atmosphere, so the ozone there is naturally breaking down and vanishing. The thing is, once again I actually understand it is part of a cycle, and has been going on for as long as our planet has had oxygen in the upper atmosphere and had our eccentric tilt.

 

Well, they have only themselves to blame then.

Most people attribute the ozone depletion to Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which is why the US banned them all the way back in 1978.

Australia however continued to manufacture and use them until they were forced by the Montreal Protocol to ban them in freaking 1995.

And in case you did not know, that means they continued to produce and use them for an additional 17 years.

So kindly explain to us how it is the fault of the US about skin cancers in Australia, when Australia themselves continued to manufacture and use them for almost two decades after the US banned them?

 

Can you name any specific person that has spent a dime on anything directly tied to merely driving a vehicle with an internal combustion engine?

 

Myself, to be honest I see it as more childish than that.

They want to see no change in anything, ever. And if anything ever does change, they must find somebody to blame it on.

They simply can not comprehend cycles that take place not even over tens of thousands of years, but ones that take place over around 100,000 years. They expect everything today to have been the same as yesterday, and to continue to be the same tomorrow.

I would love to see a time machine invented, and take them to what is almost yesterday, geologically speaking. Where mile thick glaciers covered all of Canada, and there was no San Francisco Bay at all. Where the first human settlements on North America were at beaches that are now 20 miles or more offshore. Where the first inhabitants would have seen sights like Lake Missoula, and the fire fountains at Craters of the Moon in Idaho. And even the collapse of Mount Mazama.

Some people are so freaking dense that they can't comprehend how much out planet has changed in just the last 10,000 years.

 

I can certainly agree with that but given what's at stake with the physics denier politics, I see it as much more nefarious.

I mean if they really had a case that made any sense one would think they could rustle up 218 votes in the House and 60 votes in the Senate and amend the Clean Air Act as originally envisioned in the Constitution.

But no, apparently they know that it's all BS because they prefer to wage a 40 year crusade to convince a liberal Supreme Court to allow the rules (and attendant Constitutional protections) to be bent so the Federal agencies who are supposed to operate under Congressional control determine their own rules and what the agencies are going to do to enforce them. No matter what gets destroyed in the wake.

Make no mistake, they want to portray Trump supporters as fascist to distract from their own totalitarian ambitions.

CO2 is not in any way a pollutant. Period. It shouldn't be regulated ever. And the fact that they've blatantly cheated to accomplish their goals goes way beyond childish. It's very adult. An evil adult.

 

I guess that is the difference. I do not care at all about politics, and do not view things through a political lens.

But it does make me want to shake my head when people who claim to understand science in the end know nothing about geology. Or evolution. Or actually much of anything. And believe the entire planet is static and should never change.

And normally their attempts to try and justify their beliefs are so damned twisted and convoluted that I am surprised they do not cut their own throats with Occam's Razor.

 

“ Science” requires citations - where are yours?

 

Yesss and……

You lot released most of that and WE have been coping the results BTW 1995 was when it was officially banned but actual manufacture had voluntarily ceased in production BEFORE the end of 1989
https://www.aerosol.com.au/about-aerosols/environmental-facts

 

I said you were rabbiting on about oxygen when the topic was ozone not that you had claimed oxygen was ozone

 

Conspiracy theory is strong in this one!

 

It's like the Ant and the Grasshopper.

The ant recognized the risk and executed a solid plan - even giving warnings to others.

 

The Montreal Protocol is an exceptional example of the world coming together to address a human caused problem with our atmosphere.

The serious reduction of chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons and hydrochloroflurocarbons accomplished by international agreement and implementation of reductions over most of the world made a significant difference. This had an effect on many industries.

This idea that it is all about daylight is nonsense. Human contributions very clearly change our atmosphere in ways that can make it worse for humans.

 

Yes. You.

We spend tax dollars ensuring humans get healthcare by helping people buy insurance, by giving aid to hospitals who treat patients who have no way of paying, etc.

We spend tax dollars on those who can no longer work or miss days of work or have to step back to part time work due to disease that is in part caused by burning oil on our city streets. This is a productivity loss for America besides the direct cost.

Plus for those who buy insurance, healthcare costs of care for individuals are spread to all subscribers.

That is a quick overview of the healthcare issues we pay for.

Then, there is the fact that we use our military to defend the oil production of other countries. We defend the movement of oil with our military.

And, the world market for oil sets the price for that product. Thus we pay more (like everybody else) when there are risks to supply (like the war in Ukraine) or production changes, etc., in other parts of the world.

Economists state that a spike in world oil prices was a leading cause of the inflation spike in the USA. More than 2/3 of our oil consumption goes to transportation. We ALL paid for having our transportation anchored in burning oil on our streets and highways. It was a serious economic hit to the USA, with people trying to blame it on Biden!!!

 

Wait, you really believe that?

You are aware that there was a huge spike in CFCs about a decade ago, right? But it did not come from the US.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/scien...h=OCr5AksudVcscajbwKjaphQ246JM0xgM1D4iboUXT-0

Once again, you are pointing fingers at the US, and ignoring everything else.

 

only for narcissistic people.
For you to think that anything you do has any impact whatsoever on the environment is stupid.

For you to think you're buying an electric car has any kind of positive impact on the environment is kind of like believing in Scientology.

I don't remember anything about the sky falling in that fable.

Are you sure you have that right.

 

I haven't said anything about what I would do. And, the fable I mentioned is one where there was a failure to reasonably prepare for the future.

We'll see if there is an impact from EVs in a few years.

The current level means little except for the auto industry.

 

EVs will be an ecological disaster. this is a case of feels over reals.

 

Baloney. I pay for my healthcare costs that largely come from age and genetics.

And if the government wanted to reduce my taxes I wouldn't object.

Might want to try again. Just one person.

 

That's not what I asked you about. Let's try this again:

Can ONE thermometer at 'X location' within West Virginia accurately measure the temperature of any given location within the entire State of West Virginia?

Yes or no.

Why are you avoiding answering this question?

Welcome to Paradox City.

You've already put your omniscience on full display by telling this forum that there aren't any scientists on this forum, but now you're saying that "credentials are unknown"? Which is it?

WRONG.

What matters is the physics itself (IOW, the laws of science themselves). It doesn't matter what anyone (or any "expert" for that matter) thinks about physics, as that doesn't change physics in any way.

 

I realize that you're not even the slightest bit interested in being rational. That became fully apparent the moment that you ignored (and continue to ignore) the "pivotal question" that I'm asking you. A whole exposure of the fraud of your religion is a very scary thing; I get it.

NOAA can't even justify this fraudulent physics-denying religion called "global warming". Nobody can. It's completely silly in every conceivable way. The unfortunate part of it is that many otherwise fairly rational people also fall for the BS; the only difference is that they usually don't buy into the "catastrophic" sect of the religion.

Nope, you don't get to shift the burden of proof like that. I don't have to falsify anything, as I'm not the one who is making the claims about the existence of "global warming". YOU (and they) are. YOU (and they) have the burden of proof regarding your faith. I don't have to do anything. Every moment that you attempt to falsely claim that "global warming" is "science", I'm going to retort back with the bits of science, mathematics, and logic that your religion is outright denying.

I wouldn't be here if you'd simply leave it alone as your choice to believe in a religion that is based in physics-denial. But every moment that you try to pretend that your religion is science, I'm going to keep calling you out on it and keep presenting the science that your religion denies for all to see.

 

Nope. You don't get to slither away like that.

YOU are the one who is willfully choosing to adopt their erroneous beliefs. That means that those beliefs are now YOUR OWN beliefs. YOU are the only one who can account for YOUR OWN beliefs, so I'm speaking to YOU.

It seems as if you're unable to rationalize your own beliefs...

 

The Earth is not a thermal energy source; neither is a rock. A rock's temperature doesn't increase with a blanket around it.

 

There isn't just one ground sensor in West Virginia being used for the purposes here. There are sensors mounted on aircraft including balloons and there are satellites for this purpose.

Also, the issue is change, not the absolute reading on a temperature sensing device of some design.

You should be more worried about temperature readings being affected by the growth of population or industry.

The fact that there is no way of checking credentials is equivalent to saying there are no qualified scientists here.

This isn't about "changing physics". It IS about how our sciences are applied to this particular problem. For example, Earth is not a closed system wrt temperature. Our laws come with restrictions.

 

I think it's pretty clear that you are attempting to falsify the hypotheses related to climate change.

You do have that burden as you chose it.

To do that, you have to convince scientists.

Otherwise, you're just politicking.