I think they fully address that point on the same site:

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/heavier.html

 

They address that point too:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/glob_dep.html

 

Reply to the latest bullshit article: They use R-11 in their documentation which was not commonly used in automobiles or refigeration equipment prior to about 1980. R-12 was used in AC systems and autos also prior to 1980. And R12 and R11 both phased out in 1980/

Most large refrigeration air conditioning systems used R-21. I was an air conditioning systems engineer from 1953 to 1989.

Notice the ozone holes are still growing despite the non-use of the alleged cause.
Isn't it possible that solar radiation has changed and could cause it? Both N and S holes are also near the mag poles where more ionized particles enter the atmosphere from space and they are quite capable of breaking it down.

And in case you think I am the only person that thinks what I said, think again, I know a number of Science people, including writers, one of whom worked at Lawrence Livermore Labs, who think the same thing I do about this.

Did you ever look at how much money is being made or granted on the GW front? Do you think they are going to give up this gravy train? Scientists debunking this cannot even get published in journals, the control of the propaganda is so tight. This information from other non-scientific journals, the people in question have written in about the problem.
No I am not going to be bothered to do a lot of research and publish my sources, they are from my memory and not made up. Believe what you like.

 

If it's just the Earth going through cycles, why does that equate going to hell?

-S-

 

Snoochies, there is no such thing as the "mid atlantic" current. I do think you mean the North Atlantic current, which yes, helps to regulate the local climate. Thats why the Brits aren't freezing their buns off.

And it has nothing to do with the climate in Argentina. There's a whole other ocean current in the southern hemisphere.

Here's something for you all to chew on:
About 12,000 years ago, the world saw DEGLACIATION and melting of ice caps in Greenland. This effected ocean currents, thus effecting the local climate in drastic ways. This was called YOUNGER DRYAS. After the melting, the Northern Hemisphere was thrust into a 1300 year (+/- 70 years) cold climate period. (Read: Mini ice age)

The transition of the warmer climate and thus melting of the caps and the global cooling happened over a period of a DECADE OR SO. It was quite abrubt. This effected mostly Europe, with global effects taking a little longer to pan out, mostly because ocean currents move quite slowly.

There were no people around with factories and cars polluting the planet 12,000 years ago. This happend on its own. It was a natural part of the global cycle. It is very complicated, but it has to do with global tilt and other factors, which have a cycle of about 41,000 years. And the last (major) glacial retreat happened 35,000 years ago. With minor "little ice ages" like Younger Dryas occuring in between. Scientists are still unsure what caused those. Mostly the Northern Hemisphere was always the one getting fucked.

Just in case anyone wants a good source, this was one of mine: https://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10046

So we are quite possibly, and almost certainly, moving toward another Ice Age...however large or small.

The question is: Is this just part of the normal global cycle of warming before a cooling phase?

Or are humans forcing the Earth towards this "climate change"?

My personal thoughts is that we are in the normal cycle, but that humans aren't helping and quite possibly are speeding up the process a bit. Either way, everyone's term we love to hate-"global warming" is going to lead to one badass skiing season in the N. Hemisphere.

That's it...I'm moving to Australia.

 

Leila - I agree - I for one do remember the concerns about the next ice age coming - in the mid 70s that's all people were talking about.

The eco system is so large and complex that scientists do take huge guesses on their computer models - but it is becoming very un PC to deny the effect that mankind is having on climate change - when in fact the world does go through these cycles - why do you think it is Mother Nature after all - it's just that her cycles aren't monthly they're every 40,000 years - wonder if Father Time gets any action whilst she's on?

 

BB I love what you said. Thank you.


Shirley

 

It just proves the earth is a bitchy woman.

 

Isn't that why she is named GAIA?:-D








Forgive, me I beg you for the triple post, (cringe,cringe)

 

was just reading about carbon footprints - I have planted 7 trees in my garden in the last year - can I find anywhere that tells me how much my co2 footprint is reduced? Can I fuck ? All I can find is fucking websites trying to get me to pay to plant a tree in africa - money making hogwash !

Oh and i liked this direct quote :-

The IPCC Second Assessment Report estimates that a sea-levels will rise by approximately 49 cm over the next 100 years, with a range of uncertainty of 20-86 cm.

 

Perhaps "Idiot" is too strong. How about "Hypocrite?"

He travels around in a jet, or in an Escalade, not exactly setting the example for others is he.

And how about the "Live Earth" concerts held this past weekend throughout the world. Ever wonder how much greenhouse gasses were put into the atmosphere with that event. Lets see, band members traveling to the shows by jet, then there are the fans driving their cars to the concerts, then there's the electricity they used to put on the concerts. Hmmmmm....do I see a double standard here?

 

Don't forget all the litter left on the ground by the concert goers, I read about that and shook my head in disbelief.

 

Puh-leez. There's a WHOLE lot more money to be made by opposing action on global warming than there is by promoting action on it. If there were billions to be made through combatting global warming, GM and Exxon would be first in line.

 

So Al Gore, rather than taking action to publicize and draw attention to the problem, should just hunker down and try not to produce any carbon emissions?

This is such a ridiculous, specious argument, it beggars the mind.

 

Have you looked into Carbon Offsetting which is the new media inspired buzz in the UK ?

 

I do think you have to question his motives - is he (a) doing this to save the world or (b) doing this to make Al Gore look like a nice politician?

 

You're free to level that charge if and when he announces his candidacy for president. But it's worth noting that he did NOT run in 2004, when he certainly could have.

 

OK so more of a serious question - how much has my CO2 emissions been offset by me planting 7 trees? I just cannot find the results without having numerous companies offering to plant them for me at a (i'm sure) very reasonable cost.

Also any thoughts on the IPCC second assessment report - re sea levels - the range of uncertainty does rather make the report a complete load of hogwash in my mind and not worth the paper it's written on?

 

I read an article about 15 years ago (in New Scientist - when it was a decent read) about some voice tone research done on politicians in the USA; the conclusion was that Al Gore would never be President because he too monotone.

 

It seems this is the new standard by which we evaluate candidates for president. With George Bush, it was all about whether or not we wanted to have a beer with him. With Nixon, he was doomed because he sweat too much (although we later overlooked that problem, and look what we ended up with!).

It's all nonsense. I'd like to elect someone who is intelligent, compassionate, articulate, persuasive, and inspirational. If I want a beer, I'll have one with the UPS guy.