NASA: Ozone hole smallest it's been since 1988

Global warming BTFO!

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=91212&src=eorss-iotd

Other urls found in this thread:

blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/05/23/weekly-document-declassifying-argus-1959/
petitionproject.org/
youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

This has to do with the reduction of CFCs released into the atmosphere. By the way, corporations and media kept pumping out stories and reports about how CFCs were not responsible for destroying the ozone layer, and that the scientists were using faulty data in order to push a political narrative... really makes you think...

not defending the global warming bollocks generally but this isn't a global warming, this was a legit thing from certain chemicals we were putting in the air reacting with the substance that makes up bit of the atmosphere that protects us from dangerous radiation. ozone depletion doesn't cause global warming, it just means we all get skin cancer

oh it's gonna kill us all! another nothing burger.

If a Venus style runaway greenhouse effect is what scientists are worried about, why didn't it happen when CO2 concentrations were higher than they are now in ancient history?

Why did life thrive when there was absolutely no ice caps at all?

And hotter average temperatures than now?

Maybe some Aussies get skin cancer.

>
DuPont, which made 1/4 of the world's CFCs, spent millions of dollars running full-page newspaper advertisements defending CFCs in 1975, claiming there was no proof that CFCs were harming the ozone layer. Chairman Scorer of DuPont commented that the ozone depletion theory was "a science fiction tale...a load of rubbish...utter nonsense." (Chemical Week, 16 July 1975).

>The CEO of Pennwalt, the third largest CFC manufacturer in the U.S., talked of "economic chaos" if CFC use was to be phased out (Cogan, 1988). DuPont, the largest CFC manufacturer, warned that the costs in the U.S. alone could exceed $135 billion, and that "entire industries could fold" (Glas, 1989). The Association of European Chemical Companies warned that CFC regulation might lead to "redesign and re-equipping of large sectors of vital industry..., smaller firms going out of business... and an effect on inflation and unemployment, nationally and internationally" (Stockholm Environment Institute, 1999).

>One CFC industry magazine stated in 1975, "The whole area of research grants and the competition among scientists to get them must be considered a factor in the politics of ozone" (Roan, 1985). A publication by the conservative think tank, The Cato Institute, argued that NASA's 1992 warnings of a potential ozone hole opening up over the Northern Hemisphere "were exquisitely timed to bolster the agency's budget requests" (Bailey, 1993).

>Earth scientists identify a problem
>industry tries to smear them
>governments listen to the scientists
>the problem is more or less solved

global warming ... btfo? ... I guess?

I read an article some years ago that said no link was ever made with cfcs and ozone depletion according to their data. Were cfcs just another political boogeyman?

>Why did life thrive when there was absolutely no ice caps at all?
>And hotter average temperatures than now?

We didn't have 7+ billion people back then.

Evidently, NASA is overlooking the fact that Ozone is an Ionized Oxygen atom created by lightning...

scientists don't worry about that. In fact, they specifically say in the published referee journal literature that it's, not necessarily physically impossible, but highly implausible for it to happen because of human activity.

Ozone layer has no association with (((AGW)))
It's also been there since they started monitoring the ozone layer.

Anybody who believes man-made (((global warming))) is real is a fucking retard

Is God angry and throwing more lightnings from Olympus lately?

Humans aren't the only ones that contribute to carbon emissions

I'm not referring to that. I'm referring to feeding 7+ billion people. Food security is going to be an increasingly more important global issue if the temperature continues to rise.

Why don't we plant a ton of trees to halp with global warming?

let all the niggers starve

lower population results in less carbon emissions

climate returns to normal

problems solved

CFCs reacting with ozone is basic chemistry

Love how right wingers always try to pick holes in science they know absolutely nothing of

>let all the niggers starve

They're not going to sit there and die.

>CFCs reacting with ozone is basic chemistry

Ironically, this "basic chemistry" was criticized by industry special interests and think tanks over 30 years ago, just as climate change is today.

Of course, it will still take decades for the ozone to recover after the U.S. launched an unknown amount of nukes at it in Operation Argus.
blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/05/23/weekly-document-declassifying-argus-1959/
Conveniently soon after that is when the ruse of global warming/climate change started to cover-up the real cause of ozone layer damage.

Well, considering the temperature hasn't risen since 1998, and it only raised what, 0.4C and not 3C before the leveling off... is there even a single reason why this pic is relevant?

im sure the planet can't cope
so somehow us humans must (((fix))) it hey i got an idea, lets pump money out into front organizations all that I run
WOW amazing ideas. foundation myth

get real

There's no citation on that.

So it's not a graph, it's a drawing.

Try again, Schlomo.

>NASA is full of shit, global warming isn't real, Earth is flat, etc.
>NASA publishes article regarding shrunken hole in O-zone
>Readily cites NASA

lol, stupid frog.
>

it's the GISTEMP annual time series from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

140 years? Oh that's adorable. Have you ever matched that graph up with the sun radiation vs. CO2? No? That's because you're an idiot!

Now look at graph that is 200,000 years old and get back to me.

I'll wait for your response.

climate change has more to do with natural changes in our ecosystem and the sun's cycle that we do
mother nature is stronger than we give her credit

I love how left wingers ignore basic biology when it comes to race and gender

How interesting that you chose the ONLY data set that supports the hoax.

But temperature TOTALLY results from CO2 - even though billions of years of history disproves this.

empirical paleoclimate data shows that we have left the centennial temperature variability of the Holocene (the last 10,000 years) and that current temperatures are indistinguishable from Eemian temperatures (~120,000 years ago). Since the Eemian is thought to be the warmest of the late Pleistocene interglacials, we're going to see global surface temperatures that are unprecedented for the last 800,000 years.

Not sure how that helps your case

>Now look at graph that is 200,000 years old and get back to me.

Havent been making weather graphs for 1200 years, let alone 200,000.

Why does every alarmist (shill) use tight graphs like these?

First - that's a shitty data set that most of the world disagrees with.

Second - NASA's been caught several times manipulating their data (why use a NASA source? Is it because their fake data is the only source that agrees with the hoax?)

Third - why is it truncated so closely. 1880? If you're going to truncate, why not do it for data that's reliable? Or make it much larger with estimates from respected data sets like ice cores?

Why 1880-2012? Seems odd. (Because it's fake as shit.)

>Evidently, NASA is overlooking the fact that Ozone is an Ionized Oxygen atom created by lightning...

Stratospheric Ozone is triatomic oxygen produced high in the stratosphere from the termolecular reaction of O + O2 + M -> O3 + M. It's a photochemical process. Tropospheric ozone produced from lightning is insignificant.

I'm a world expert on ozone (pic related) ama

petitionproject.org/

u know u have a TV show called "Bill Nye shows the world what the libs actually believe" in regards to science right?
the only direction your voice can travel while speaking about science is up, mental midget.

it's completely immaterial which data set I cite because all of the half dozen or so terrestrial surface temperature monitoring bodies (UK MetOffice, the Hadley Center, NOAA, Berkeley Earth, Cowtan&Wey, Copernicus, ...) are more or less identical.

This is so dumb. Not only are the curves your showing completely incorrect and don't even have a scaled y-axis, the correlation between partial pressure of CO2 and surface temperature has long been established for all sorts of different time scale - from the thousand year time-scale (e.g., PETM), to the million year time-scale (e.g., covariance between CO2 and Cenozoic temperature over the last 66 million years), to the time-scale of a billion years (icehouse - greenhouse variability).

Global warming is a myth and trump will win again faggots

...

Have a Physics major sign a global warming petition is like having an engineer play a scientist on live tv then believe he really is a scientist.

>I'm a world expert on ozone (pic related) ama
How often do you have sex?

Can you get high off it?

Oh sweetie.
Oh sweetie no.
You're using graphs created by physicists.

Climatology is to atmospheric physics what Bill Nye is to astronomy.

> (You)
>>I'm a world expert on ozone (pic related) ama
>How often do you have sex?

I'm a sperm donor, so I have to abstain during the week. My wife and I have sex multiple times on Saturdays.


> (You)
>Can you get high off it?

kys, degenerate.

I rest my case. Honestly.

Lets get this out of the way then, is my rough understanding correct? Ozone's absorption spectrum is strongly in the UV range and weakly in the Vis-IR range, meaning the ozone layer has less to do with climate change and more to do with protecting us from the cosmic/solar rays that, while being a smaller component of the total solar flux that heats the planet, are more damaging to living tissue.

Polacks being retarded as usual

They do already.

Listen brit, global warming would actually help polish economy and climate. I want those pineapples grown in Poland. Fuck winter.

>don't even have a scaled y-axis
What's that now?

>Growing coffee in the Rockies
>not having to support nigger tier countries that grow coffee

Well not much they can do with .50 cal raining down upon them

To the first order, yes.

The problem of stratospheric ozone depletion is largely decopupled from climate change; however, there are feedbacks between the two. Strangely enough, climate change is expected to produce a "super-recovery" of stratospheric ozone - that is, more ozone will be in the stratosphere than existed prior to the industrial era.

Scientific consensus isn't a popularity contest.

Wow global warming is not a hoax then

The problem is that you are suggesting qualitative changes in the plantet's health over the span of a few decades, which does not set well with me and sounds like bullshit instinctively. That is a very human time scale 30-50 years, not a terrestrial time period.

Aww look, another non-NASA data set showing no connection.

Trump trump trump trump trump trump!

Interesting. Would that super recovery constitute a negative feedback, even if only a weak one?

>25 year old printed texts

When will the same happen with (((xenoestrogen)))?

Are you replying to the wrong person?

Library books. Wonder why I have them, specifically, when there are more updated versions?

Hint: because I'm writing about something and needed to reference the sources the papers on that something reference.

I'm a simple man... I see a leaf, I assume it's the shitposter.

Forgive me for associating you with climate shills. I know you have enough to worry about with the 1,000,000 more migrants Trudeau is about to shove up your country's ass.

the dumbest, most incoherent scale ever (for example: the 3°C temperature difference is >3x the length of the 1°C temperature difference).
But even if you accept that, the CO2 curve still has no scaled y-axis, there are no uncertainty envelopes shown, the resolution of the record is horrible and "Jurassic" is misspelled.

This is just a horrible bastardization of paleoclimatology

notice it start snowing here by halloween again lately just like it did when I was young in the 70's

>Why did life thrive when there was absolutely no ice caps at all?

It was a different kind of life back then. Think of organisms as a series of ranges of survivability. Each organism has a range of temperatures it can survive in, food availability is another range, salinity of their environment, humidity, snow pack, etc there are hundreds of these ranges for each organism. Some ranges are very narrow for certain organisms, others are very broad.

Life adapts over time to changes in their environment which is really a shift in their survivability ranges. This happens slowly, however, so accelerated changes in the environment can lead to massive extinction events, which is what we are witnessing now.

Super-recovery would produce a positive feedback, as ozone has a slight forcing (ability to trap heat).

At the same time, it will reduce some of the shortwave hitting the surface, but not enough to compensate for the heat trapping effect.

Hello tinfoil-kun.

damnit I wanted to see that

This is not at all my field so I don't want to come off as being an inquisition, just looking to clarify the basics: what is the physical mechanism by which the feedback is a net positive, if light fails to explain it? Would the ozone also trap the much longer wave terrestrial radiation or is it simpler than that, like convective/ conductive heat transfer (or I guess, the insulation of such transfer)?

The hole in the Ozone is a naturally occurring phenom. It shrinks and grows and moves and dissapears and comes back. It's like a fart sniffer in a bathroom.

meanwhile where i live it was 70 degrees fahrenheit when it's usually 40.

Yes, you get it. More longwave radiation will be trapped by ozone's vibrational transitions than the enhanced reduction of shortwave by ozone's electronic transitions.

empircal
means BULLSHIT
like the empirical scientific method
IVE DISCOVERED TEHIR JEW SHIT

Where I live it was 30 when it's usually 60.

What's your retarded point, friendo?

Thermodynamics is an empirical science.

Skeptical people: We have data going back 500 million years, why not use that?

Shills: omg your graph's y-axis labels are strange to me - look at THIS graph that covers 10% the timeline that yours does.

Me, right now: Your objection to my graph's odd y-axis labeling is not an argument, and not a reason to get rid of the 90% of data that doesn't agree with you.

...

Professor Ivar Giaever, the 1973 Nobel Prizewinner for Physics trashes the global warming/climate change/extreme weather pseudoscientific clap-trap and tells Obama he is "Dead Wrong". This was the 2012 meeting of Nobel Laureates.

youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM

Nobel Laureate in Physics with an expertise in climate physics calls out the shilling.

Will you watch this with as open a mind as you watched An Inconvenient Truth?

People like you need to be institutionalized.

I can go back as far as you want.
Let's take another specific example.
The graph you posted suggests that CO2 was uniformly low during the whole Permian.

What really happened however is what you see in my picture, with the familiar Cenozoic pattern:
Minima in CO2 concentration coincide with in tropical SST, geologic indicators for glaciation in the SH and low-stands in sea level during the Asselian and the early Artinskian.
Maxima in CO2 concentration coincide with high tropical SSTs, a lack of glaciation and sea level high-stands during the Sakmarian and late Artinskian.

see
You look at one side of an argument and then stick their fingers in your ears when valid arguments are raised.

When these same valid argument are being raised by a NOBEL LAUREATE CLIMATE PHYSICIST - you still don't listen.

And this is why your shill shit will never catch on with Sup Forums.

Us: NASA lies constantly, they've been called out several times on it by various international institutions
You: you're crazy. you're dumb. check out this ridiculously truncated graph from NASA that agrees with me
Us: Here's a 35 minute video from one of the fathers of modern climatology
You: You should be institutionalized.

Watch the video or KYS, shillfag.

see

>imagine being this retarded
Ozon depletion is caused by CFCs, not global warming.

what? its psceudoscience

I remember in third grade being told that global warming was real, and it was real bad. We went on a totally-not-political field trip to some shithole where Al Gore gave a speech about the dangers of global warming. Not even three years later, it was "glimate change :DDDDD", and then every once in a while I hear "global gooling :DDDDDD"
Really makes me think.

(Addendum)
Of course all of those things are real. Global warming, global cooling and climate change all happen on a natural cycle throughout Earth's history.
But to say it's humanity's fault is when I just chuckle. Every time a cow sharts, he's doing more damage than I ever will.

Problems with that:
1) BEST ESTIMATE: by what methodology? Because the last time I saw a graph like this, the author had thrown out 31 of 35 estimates that didn't agree with him, and used the 4 that did. The time before that, the author chose the MIDPOINT - not the mean, not the median, the fucking MIDPOINT.

I'm 2 for 2 on BTFO-ing graphs like this. I'd check the methodology before you put too much faith in this graph.

2) This is another 40 million year graph in a 500 million year timeline that we have data for. Obviously, #1 is a lot more important of a question to answer, but this is important too.

But really - you should just go watch a nobel laureate climate physicist explain the problems with the alarmism. He knows far more than I, and addresses a host of nonsense in a 35 minute video.

youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM

Yeah nah. People just like to use the adjective empirical to make it sound more official. The laws of thermodynamics, as far as we know, is entirely correct, because it's been tried and true for every single instance we've applied it to, from the micro to macro scale, all the way to the universal scale.
Climate change through human action, though, is not empirical, not in the slightest.
Did you know that "99% of climate scientists agree" bullshit is actually true? They all agree, because they all get their weather data from a single satellite/sensor array, and the computers connected to them make adjustments before anybody gets the data.
And guess what? The algorithms are kept secret.

I'm not going to watch a 30 minute video of a guy that has (contrary to your claims) no expertise in climate science and type out a giant response to everything he says because (a) no one would bother to read that and (b) the thread would fold long before I was finished.

Let's just take one random example:
At one point, he claims that the Greenland ice sheet is growing and that now there is more ice on Greenland than there was 15 years ago. Not only is that completely incorrect (both direct gravimetrical measurements and indirect mass-balance estimates show that Greenland has a strong net-loss of mass), the mass loss has actually strong accelerated:

during the period from 1992-2001 it was ~34 Gt/year
during the period from 2002-2011 it was 215 Gt/year

during the last few years it was 286 Gt/year.

So yeah, I'm not in the least bit impressed by this sort of babble.

>i pulled this shit outta my ass with no link to back it up, now re-assure me that those dirty leftists were wrong guys

i dont know what it is, emprical even stands for, sounds lke some rome bullshit, so anybody who connects it to their shit aka you, is full of shit

i think i know its bullshit cause their is only one scientific method and when i was a kid they tried to pawn off this shit to me they called, emprical or imperical scientific method. WHICH IS
BULL SHIT

That's easy

1) instead of parading your own ignorance around and asking what the methodology they used (thinking that there couldn't possibly an answer to this), why don't you just try to find it out?

They used NEITHER midpoint NOR median NOR mean. They inferred past CO2 concentration from pedogenic carbon isotopes of paleosols and stomatal density and then derived the best estimate by a Monte Carlo simulation from 1000 random samples for each variable and time-location combination.

>I'd check the methodology before you put too much faith in this graph.

2) As I said, this pattern is robust for the last 720,000,000 years. I just posted two more constrained examples (Cenozoic and early Permian) because the specifics can be much more insightful.

>Empirical evidence, also known as sensory experience, is the knowledge received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría).
The Scientific Method, by definition, is empirical.

except the ozone layer has barely anything to do with global warming you cuck