Sea level rise is accelerating

why not, are you saying that everyone should own a gun? funny, the obummer dude is trying to take them away.

BTW, thanks for describing the welfare system, sit at home and take money from the workers, right? isn't that the libturd way?

 

Uh.....every science agency on the planet that takes a stand on AGW.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes everyone in the military should have a gun. DUH

 

Your demented denial of science and reality results in your posts coming across as totally insane.

The thinning of the ozone layer and its subsequent recovery (still only partial) because the world took effective action to ban chloroflorocarbons is documented fact. Your denial is ridiculous.

Ozone Depletion - Losing Earth's Protective Layer
National Geographic
The ozone layer is a belt of naturally occurring ozone gas that sits 9.3 to 18.6 miles (15 to 30 kilometers) above Earth and serves as a shield from the harmful ultraviolet B radiation emitted by the sun.

Ozone is a highly reactive molecule that contains three oxygen atoms. It is constantly being formed and broken down in the high atmosphere, 6.2 to 31 miles (10 to 50 kilometers) above Earth, in the region called the stratosphere.

Today, there is widespread concern that the ozone layer is deteriorating due to the release of pollution containing the chemicals chlorine and bromine. Such deterioration allows large amounts of ultraviolet B rays to reach Earth, which can cause skin cancer and cataracts in humans and harm animals as well.

Extra ultraviolet B radiation reaching Earth also inhibits the reproductive cycle of phytoplankton, single-celled organisms such as algae that make up the bottom rung of the food chain. Biologists fear that reductions in phytoplankton populations will in turn lower the populations of other animals. Researchers also have documented changes in the reproductive rates of young fish, shrimp, and crabs as well as frogs and salamanders exposed to excess ultraviolet B.

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), chemicals found mainly in spray aerosols heavily used by industrialized nations for much of the past 50 years, are the primary culprits in ozone layer breakdown. When CFCs reach the upper atmosphere, they are exposed to ultraviolet rays, which causes them to break down into substances that include chlorine. The chlorine reacts with the oxygen atoms in ozone and rips apart the ozone molecule.

One atom of chlorine can destroy more than a hundred thousand ozone molecules, according to the the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The ozone layer above the Antarctic has been particularly impacted by pollution since the mid-1980s. This region’s low temperatures speed up the conversion of CFCs to chlorine. In the southern spring and summer, when the sun shines for long periods of the day, chlorine reacts with ultraviolet rays, destroying ozone on a massive scale, up to 65 percent. This is what some people erroneously refer to as the "ozone hole." In other regions, the ozone layer has deteriorated by about 20 percent.

About 90 percent of CFCs currently in the atmosphere were emitted by industrialized countries in the Northern Hemisphere, including the United States and Europe. These countries banned CFCs by 1996, and the amount of chlorine in the atmosphere is falling now. But scientists estimate it will take another 50 years for chlorine levels to return to their natural levels.

 

Not every science agency does climate change study so you are referring to political statements.

 

Nope. Every agency in the world that does climate studies AND every agency that has examined the evidence on AGW theory support the theory. That is science

 

why is obummer letting them go then?

 

dude, does ozone need sunlight to exist? Just curious if you know this?

- - - Updated - - -

do you have that list?

 

Sure I refer you to the NASA AGW consensus page. Long list of scientific agencies and their official policy statements. Easy way to prove me wrong. Name one reputable one which openly denies AGW.

 

how then do you know that is all of them?

BTW, why has there been a pause if there is the big list of agencies? It is in the IPCC AR5 report. so, what say you!!

 

There is no pause. Just name one that denies it. Should be easy....right?

 

So you are clueless about the uprisings in some of the scientific societies because of their blatant political statements and counter to their own work groups created to advise them? Figures. You are impressed with authority more than science.

 

I know of no uprising of scientists who all openly deny agw theory. There is no such uprising

 

Why would anyone deny a theory? That would be like denying you just wrote something.

 

What??? That makes no sense at all. If someone comes out with a theory that global warming was caused by little green men from mars it would be widely denied by everyone. Are you kidding?

 

Given the extremely large number of scientists from divese fields, organizatons and cultures,,.it s unsurprising that disagreements exist

Never the less, there remains a very broad agreement on some fundamental issues

Namely that

It is possible for humans to make changes to the global environment

That increasing co2 levels are an example of such a change

That co2 has been experimentally tested to have certain physical properties

That those properties COULD have the effect of adding heat to the environment

That the earths climate is warming... Which MAY be related to increased co2 levels

That IF co2 is contributing to warming, it COULD HAVE serious consequences in the long run as such warming accumulates

That is SEEMS likely that humans are CONTRIBUTING to observed warming Although there is controversy about how much that contribution is and how serious the consequences

Hoosier, you will find an extremely small number of scientists That disagree with the above

 

can you post a link to the experiment that shows the danger?

 

We could debate the ozone hole scare in another thread if you like but I notice you focused on one sentence of my post instead of the main theme which was the AGW movement is political. When I asked what you do to fight global warming besides (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about it online you said vote dem. Game set match.

 

We have already established your hypocrisy in the fight against ISIS. When do you ship out?

- - - Updated - - -

NASA AGW evidence page.

 

Excellent point except AGW is not a theory it is an hypothesis.

 

Not according to NASA.

 

There is no doubt there is a theory so why deny there is one?

Now, how accurate that theory is in a coupled non-linear chaotic system is the real question. So far observed science is not playing along well, to the point of a bunch of scientists putting out a paper attacking the data instead of the theory.

 

That increasing co2 levels are an example of such a change - Yes

That co2 has been experimentally tested to have certain physical properties - Yes

That those properties COULD have the effect of adding heat to the environment - Yes

That the earths climate is warming... Which MAY be related to increased co2 levels - Yes but not even the 102 models agree how much and their average is 2.5 times the observed temperature and at the equator 3 times.

That IF co2 is contributing to warming, it COULD HAVE serious consequences in the long run as such warming accumulates - Very debatable that warming is a serious problem

That is SEEMS likely that humans are CONTRIBUTING to observed warming Although there is controversy about how much that contribution is and how serious the consequences - Though there is no proof that any of the alarmist notions have happened, there is lots of controversy with a theory that predicts nothing but explains everything.

Hoosier, you will find an extremely small number of scientists That disagree with the above - You will find those scientists that do not agree with the alarmism are retired or have tenure and are not under any threat to ruin their career by bucking the political consensus.

If you know a lot about climate science you would know it is a science in it's infancy and very murky. The claim some people make that the 'science is settled' is for useful idiots and not based in science.

The usual suspects along with Bernie Sanders as co-sponsor attached an amendment into the Energy bill to try and silence any inconvenient science called the “Merchants of Doubt” Amendment. The same politicians that virtually ignored the science presented to them earlier this year.

 

R

Why? So you can get your ignorant science-denying butt kicked to the curb on that thread too? LOL.

I did not say "vote dem", although that would be a better guide than the one you obviously must be using - 'Vote Dim'. That was Bush's slogan, wasn't it?

Actually, what I said was this: What you or I can do individually is pretty trivial......but as far as what 'we' as the human race, or 'we' as the American people, can do, there is quite a bit that urgently needs to be done.

The most important and most urgent things 'we' can do right now to deal with this situation are the various ways that 'we', as a country and as a planetary civilization, can reduce mankind's huge CO2 emissions and make the switch from fossil fuels to clean renewable energy sources.

As individuals, the most important and most effective thing we can do right now to deal with this climate change crisis would be to support and elect politicians who are willing to deal with the climate change crisis honestly on a national level by working on drastically reducing carbon emissions and methane emissions (as almost 200 nations just agreed to do)......and vote against any politicians who are stooging for the fossil fuel industry by opposing any effective actions, like instituting carbon emissions taxes, to deal with this crisis.

If Republican politicians had any integrity, they would be willing to deal with the climate change crisis honestly on a national level by working on drastically reducing carbon emissions and methane emissions....in which case it would only be their utter insanity on all of the other important issues that would keep me from supporting them. Unfortunately, they are (almost) all stooging for the fossil fuel industry dollars to fund their re-election campaigns and voting against the best interests of the American people and the entire planet.

Although the causes and dangers of human caused global warming/climate changes are entirely scientific issues, the fact is that the only way to effectively deal with the climate change crisis is through coordinated actions and policies by the various national governments around the world to drastically reduce carbon emissions. As almost 200 nations just laid the foundations for in Paris a few months ago. The amounts of CO2 being emitted globally from the use of fossil fuels to power our transportation and energy generation networks are so enormous, reducing them significantly requires strong government regulations and restrictions on carbon-emitting activities.....but these kind of government actions are anathema to the rightwingnut 'free market, unrestrained Capitalism' worshipers.....which is one of the real reasons that all of the rightwingnuts are in denial about human caused global warming.....the necessary solutions to the crisis offends their crackpot political and economic ideologies.

 

One would think you are praying for disaster but no worries, you will have to come to grips with reality eventually.

 

Is the threat ot warming debatable.... Yes we agree on that point
But IF YOU AGREE, then you have also agreed that there is an unqantifiable threat. You have your opinion about how severe the threat is.., but since we agree the issue is debatable, your opinion is ony an opinion. The FACT is that there is an unquantified threat

Alarmist notions.... Those all refer to future consequences, so of course there is no proof that they have akready happened. There is only indicative evidemce that ... For example... Glaciers are melting, sea kevels are rising, the ocean is acidifying


Intimidated scientists.... Perhaps in one or several clountries. It is hard to imagine such complete international cooperation or conspiracy in virtually all nations. Besides which you mentined a gathering tide of skepical scientists... So apparently they are not retired

Murky science. Yes, obviously the science remains murky. And few things in science are ever finally settled. What is settled is that at the present tine there is a broad consensus of scientists who feel it is increasingly likely that we ARE altering the climate, and that while the consequences are uncertain, there are lots of reasons to be concerned

- - - Updated - - -

Which experiment are you referring to? The one where we do a double blind experiment on the earths climate?