Skip to comments.
The Catastrophic Global Warming Myth
Capitalism Magazine ^
| Aug 16, 2002
| Steven Brockerman
Posted on 08/16/2002 1:49:55 PM PDT by The Raven
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 last
To: sparkydragon
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
To: dagny taggert
Carbon or chlorine?
sparky
To: sparkydragon
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.
To: The Raven
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.
To: ATOMIC_PUNK
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."
To: Arthur Wildfire! March
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.
To: sparkydragon
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.
To: mark the shark
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
To: Arthur Wildfire! March
"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
49
posted on
08/18/2002 11:49:15 AM PDT
by
boris
To: tictoc
"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
50
posted on
08/18/2002 12:13:32 PM PDT
by
boris
51
posted on
11/11/2005 11:22:54 PM PST
by
SunkenCiv
(Down with Dhimmicrats! I last updated my FR profile on Wednesday, November 2, 2005.)
To: The Raven
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.
52
posted on
11/12/2005 12:05:23 AM PST
by
RWCon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson