The Catastrophic Global Warming Myth

Capitalism Magazine ^ | Aug 16, 2002 | Steven Brockerman

[dagny taggert]

It's carbon released from the chlorofluorocarbons (CFC, a.k.a. freon) that reacts with ozone (O3, as opposed to normal O2 oxygen). If freon stayed together, it wouldn't get into the ozone layer, but it doesn't stay together.

For a rebuttal of this theory, see http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1994/vo10no23.htm

[sparkydragon]

Carbon or chlorine?

sparky

[mark the shark]

In my a/c classes it was stated that it was the chlorine that broke out of the combination and then migrated into the upper atmosphere and combined with O3 that produces the harmful effects. I never bought the argument in class and I always asked for supporting data but all I got was politically correct regurgitation.
I'm still leaning toward the theory that Du pont's patents were running out and it positioned them to sink R-12 as a bad gas and environmentally unsafe. The garbage I'm having to use now instead of R-12 is more unstable, more toxic and operates at much higher pressures, making things alot more interesting when things go wrong. If you doubt my conclusions get a copy of some of the ASHREA engineering data and read the charts and accompanying technical data on the gases and draw your own conclusions.

[wcbtinman]

One thing I never hear about is the self-regulating temperature method of Mother Nature.

If the earth heats up, more water is evaporated, creating clouds and the earth cools.(remember the "nuclear winter" scenario?) Once the temperature reaches some happy medium, the clouds dissipate, and the earth warms. To me, this explains the temperature cycles seen in the small amount of historical data that does exist.

Simple physics will react to any intervention man could create.

[The Raven]

I'm reading this book now. One interesting comment is that the Kyota treaty when implemented, delays by only 4 years the same result as doing nothing.

But aside from that --- getting back to the sun.....there are obvious cycles in the data......I couldn't find if the climate folks have the sun's cycles in their models. Here's an explanation, however, I found on the sun:

"...The sun experiences magnetic cycles that last 22 years, during which the sun reaches peak brightness and then swings back to a dimmer state. Baliunas also points out that, "The length of the magnetic cycle is closely related to its amplitude; thus the sun should be brightest when the sunspot cycle is short."

According to Baliunas, "Changes in the length of the magnetic cycle and in Northern Hemisphere land temperatures are closely correlated over three centuries." She also argues that if the data are correct, "Changes in the sunspot cycle would explain average temperature change of about 0.5 degrees C in the past 100 years."

[The Raven]

I don't remember Clinton/Gore sending any Global Warming treaties to Congress since the initial 99-0 defeat in the Senate. And then, after they're out of office, we hear that it was too expensive. That doesn't stop them from blaming 'Pubs, however.

[dagny taggert]

Ack! I even looked it up to make sure I didn't mis-remember, and I got it wrong anyway! Yes, I meant chlorine. Sorry.

[sparkydragon]

I probably wouldn't be too suprosed to find out you were right. I'd certainly believe that most of the enviornmental policy had more to do with someone's self interest rather than altruism.

sparky

[boris]

"What's the average temperature? I mean"

A play on words? You can use the mean to 'mean' "pretty much the average". The two terms--mathematically--are not identical, but "close enough". They are using the "mean" temperature.

The mean is that temperature below which 50% of the sampled temperatures will occur and above which 50% of the sampled temperatures will occur.

--Boris

[boris]

"Unless I need new glasses, the upper graph shows clearly that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere have been rising steadily."

This is true. They used to plot this data against the predictions of the warming doomsayers, using computer programs. The prediction is that we should all be roasting by now. For some reason, they no longer show the prediction alongside the data.

The moderate warming is wholly assignable to an equally-moderate increase in the "Solar Constant", i.e., the output power of the Sun, which has been gently rising for several human lifetimes.

--Boris

[SunkenCiv]

enviro- self-ping.

[RWCon]

The trouble with their arguments is this: As winds blow
accross the US, they lose carbon dioxide. The air over the
Atlantic contains less carbon dioxide that that over the
Pacific. I found this in a book "The Bottomless Well" by
Huber and Mills who cite a recent article in Science.

Somehow we soak up more carbon dioxide than we emit. We are
the good guys.