Thread: The Great Global Warming Swindle

Originally Posted by CCUSA

Thanks Pat for putting this video up. I have been arguing with my sister for weeks over this issue. I just sent her the video.

This is such a farce. I really feel bad for the 3rd world. They need electricity to become a modern, productive society. They should not be denied this right. I hope this video shuts the carbone dioxide theory for global warming down!

You're welcome. Yeah, I know what you mean. My mother-in-law is a True Believer in human-caused global warming and I can't even talk to her about it anymore. I'm glad they made this documentary, because I had never heard some of the stuff in it.

Yes, for whatever reason the UN, via the IPCC, seems to be intent on denying the third world the opportunity to develop. It's a pity and I feel sorry for those people who are not being allowed to develop their coal and oil resources, but instead they have to try and use solar and wind, the most costly and unreliable sources of electricity.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

I imagine that in the not–too–distant future, all of the hype will have died down, particularly if the climate should decide to cool—as it did during much of the past century; we should take note here that it has not warmed since 1998.

Scarcely surprising, given that the record solar maximum that we experienced in the late 1990s peaked in early 1999.

Sorry, what was the solar maximum again? I remember reading about it a few years ago, but I've forgotten now.

The lie continues. I just saw a newsbreak commercial for highlights on a rally in NYC for global warming issues, awareness and something about stopping the amount of co2 by 2025.

I hope this video spreads far and wide now. I think it has about 33,000 hits. I hope it grows. I just sent it out to all my contacts.

Originally Posted by patbrunz

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

I imagine that in the not–too–distant future, all of the hype will have died down, particularly if the climate should decide to cool—as it did during much of the past century; we should take note here that it has not warmed since 1998.

Scarcely surprising, given that the record solar maximum that we experienced in the late 1990s peaked in early 1999.

Sorry, what was the solar maximum again? I remember reading about it a few years ago, but I've forgotten now.

The sun goes through periodic heating and cooling cycles. Solar maximum is the peak of such a cycle. In the 1990s we went through an usual period of solar activity that climaxed in 1998-99 with the hottest solar maximum on record. Of course, we haven't had the ability to record them accurately for very long. In the aftermath of that solar maximum, we also were subjected to a couple of massive solar flares that went off the algorithmic scale that has sufficed since we started measuring them. This would be akin to experiencing an earthquake that went off the Richter Scale.

What if we are wrong and there is global warming cause by humans?This is not about Gore. He is not that smart.
Industries are the loser and don't want you to believe global warming is cause by humans.


The stratospheric ozone layer shields life on Earth from the Sun’s harmful ultraviolet radiation. Chemicals that destroy ozone are formed by industrial and natural processes. With the exception of volcanic injection and aircraft exhaust, these chemicals are carried up into the stratosphere by strong upward-moving air currents in the tropics. Methane (CH4), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), nitrous oxide (N2O) and water are injected into the stratosphere through towering tropical cumulus clouds. These compounds are broken down by the ultraviolet radiation in the stratosphere. Byproducts of the breakdown of these chemicals form “radicals”—such as nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and chlorine monoxide (ClO)—that play an active role in ozone destruction. Aerosols and clouds can accelerate ozone loss through reactions on cloud surfaces. Thus, volcanic clouds and polar stratospheric clouds can indirectly contribute to ozone loss.

When ultraviolet light waves (UV) strike CFC* (CFCl3) molecules in the upper atmosphere, a carbon-chlorine bond breaks, producing a chlorine (Cl) atom. The chlorine atom then reacts with an ozone (O3) molecule breaking it apart and so destroying the ozone. This forms an ordinary oxygen molecule(O2) and a chlorine monoxide (ClO) molecule. Then a free oxygen** atom breaks up the chlorine monoxide. The chlorine is free to repeat the process of destroying more ozone molecules. A single CFC molecule can destroy 100,000 ozone molecules.* CFC - chlorofluorocarbon: it contains chlorine, fluorine and carbon atoms.
** UV radiation breaks oxygen molecules (O2) into single oxygen atoms.
Antarctic Ozone Hole
As winter arrives, a vortex of winds develops around the pole and isolates the polar stratosphere. When temperatures drop below -78°C (-109°F), thin clouds form of ice, nitric acid, and sulphuric acid mixtures. Chemical reactions on the surfaces of ice crystals in the clouds release active forms of CFCs. Ozone depletion begins, and the ozone “hole” appears.
Natural events such as Volcanic Eruptions can strongly influence the amount of Ozone in the atmosphere.
However, man-made chemicals such as CFCs or chlorofluorocarbons are now known to have a very dramatic influence on Ozone levels too. CFCs a were once widely used in aerosol propellants, refrigerants, foams, and industrial processes.


http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonedestruction.htm


South Pole Ozone Hole Minimum Profiles NOAA

dyehard39 wrote

Chemicals that destroy ozone are formed by industrial and natural processes.

If you watch the video, they do not deny that industry contributes but in a miniscule amount compared to natural causes like volcanoes, decaying plant matter and animals.

Patbrunz wrote on above post

Points I found interesting that were presented in the documentary were:

1. There have been many times in Earth's history when it has been much warmer than now and when there has been a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere than now and the world didn't end. I think it was stated in the film that one warmer period was 8,000 years ago and another was in medieval times. These were times when humans could not have been responsible for the elevated CO2 either.

2. The data shows that CO2 atmospheric increases FOLLOW temperature increases; therefore the CO2 doesn't cause the temperature increases, but is a result of the temperature increases.

3. Volcanoes, oceans, animals, and decaying plant matter each add more CO2 to the atmosphere than humans do. What really blows me away is how people who subscribe to the theory of human-caused global warming react when you question it. They act like it's dogma and no questioning of it is allowed. It's like a religion to them or something.

Isn't the ozone hole a separate issue from the greenhouse effect, which is supposed to be causing global warming?

IIRC, global warming is not purported to be caused by the hole in the ozone layer. Global warming is purported to be caused by the greenhouse effect, which is caused by what have become known as, "greenhouse gases," such as CO2. Apparently water vapor is also a greenhouse gas.

IIRC, the ozone hole problem is caused by different gases that destroy the ozone layer, which is a layer of the atmosphere that protects us from cosmic rays and has nothing to do with temperature.

Originally Posted by dyehard39

What if we are wrong and there is global warming cause by humans?This is not about Gore. He is not that smart.
Industries are the loser and don't want you to believe global warming is cause by humans.


The stratospheric ozone layer shields life on Earth from the Sun’s harmful ultraviolet radiation. Chemicals that destroy ozone are formed by industrial and natural processes. With the exception of volcanic injection and aircraft exhaust, these chemicals are carried up into the stratosphere by strong upward-moving air currents in the tropics. Methane (CH4), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), nitrous oxide (N2O) and water are injected into the stratosphere through towering tropical cumulus clouds. These compounds are broken down by the ultraviolet radiation in the stratosphere. Byproducts of the breakdown of these chemicals form “radicals”—such as nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and chlorine monoxide (ClO)—that play an active role in ozone destruction. Aerosols and clouds can accelerate ozone loss through reactions on cloud surfaces. Thus, volcanic clouds and polar stratospheric clouds can indirectly contribute to ozone loss.

When ultraviolet light waves (UV) strike CFC* (CFCl3) molecules in the upper atmosphere, a carbon-chlorine bond breaks, producing a chlorine (Cl) atom. The chlorine atom then reacts with an ozone (O3) molecule breaking it apart and so destroying the ozone. This forms an ordinary oxygen molecule(O2) and a chlorine monoxide (ClO) molecule. Then a free oxygen** atom breaks up the chlorine monoxide. The chlorine is free to repeat the process of destroying more ozone molecules. A single CFC molecule can destroy 100,000 ozone molecules.* CFC - chlorofluorocarbon: it contains chlorine, fluorine and carbon atoms.
** UV radiation breaks oxygen molecules (O2) into single oxygen atoms.
Antarctic Ozone Hole
As winter arrives, a vortex of winds develops around the pole and isolates the polar stratosphere. When temperatures drop below -78°C (-109°F), thin clouds form of ice, nitric acid, and sulphuric acid mixtures. Chemical reactions on the surfaces of ice crystals in the clouds release active forms of CFCs. Ozone depletion begins, and the ozone “hole” appears.
Natural events such as Volcanic Eruptions can strongly influence the amount of Ozone in the atmosphere.
However, man-made chemicals such as CFCs or chlorofluorocarbons are now known to have a very dramatic influence on Ozone levels too. CFCs a were once widely used in aerosol propellants, refrigerants, foams, and industrial processes.


http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonedestruction.htm


South Pole Ozone Hole Minimum Profiles NOAA

Come back and talk tyo us when you understand what you are parrotting.

First off, "ozone holes":

The only "ozone hole" ever witnessed was over Antarctica, the most remote location on the planet relative to human industrial activities. No prevailing wind pattern carries or focuses manmade gaseous chemicals at the South Pole, so how could these chemicals have gotten there? The simple answer is that they could not have and did not get there.

The process that caused the ozone hole over the South Pole is now understood, but you're not going to find the green activists fessing up to the fact. Our planet's magnetosphere protects us from incoming solar and cosmic radiation by shunting charged particles to the poles. This is the effects that causes the auroras. In the midsts of the record solar maximum I noted above, the incoming solar winds briefly overpowered the portion of the ozone layer immediately over the South Pole, converting the O3 into O2 faster than it could be replenished. Once the solar cycle cooled back down, the "hole" closed as quickly as it had opened. Notice that these activists won't bother trying to explain how this allegedly egregious manmade problem suddenly and permanently ceased (until the next solar maximum, of course). Nevermind that many Southern Hemisphere nations continued and continue to use CFCs, whose use was only curtailed in the Northern Hemisphere.

Another thing that the activists behind the banning of CFCs won't tell you is that the molecular weight of these compounds is such that they do not and cannot remain in the upper atmosphere. CFCs settle out into low-lying areas as does chlorine gas (which is why you are told by authorities to avoid low-lying areas and creek bottoms whenever there is an accident that liberates chlorine gas). Even in the event that some small quantities of CFCs are vaulted into the ionosphere by updrafts from storm clouds (which would be a neat trick, since cumulonimbus clouds ice over upon reaching the stratosphere, miles beneath the ionosphere), two factors make such an event less than threatening. First off, these gases would persist on the ionosphere for only a very short period of time because their molecular weight would cause them to precipitate out. More importantly, these particles are not directly injurious to ozone. That's right, CFCs themselves do no damage ozone. Before they can do that, they have to undergo an unlikely chain of reactions that eventually create a chlorine radical that is actually the harmful compound. Only a tiny percentage of CFCs would ever be subjected to this chain of reactions, and only under very specific conditions that are unlikely to occur in the rarefied air of the ionoshpere. Now, if the CFCs underwent these reactions at ground level and produced the chlorine radical there, you still have the issue that chlorine is one of the heavier gases (more than twice the molecular weight of oxygen and nitrogen, the primcipal components of our atmosphere) and would therefore precipitate out of the upper atmoshpere very quickly.

After you take some advanced collegiate level chemistry classes, dyehard, get back to me and we can discuss this further. I don't know much about the site you fetched your incomplete and outdated information from, but you should be careful about your sources if you don't understand the material.

And CG, isn't the, "ozone hole," issue unrelated to the global warming issue?

Originally Posted by patbrunz

And CG, isn't the, "ozone hole," issue unrelated to the global warming issue?

Yes. The two are unrelated. Ozone attenuates UV, while the so-called greenhouse gases trap IR.