Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by ModGlock17, Sep 18, 2019.
The 1980’s is over. No more using aqua net hair spray.
China has been cheating. But we cannot have R12 anymore even though it is an excellent refrigerant. Others need higher pressure to work creating other problems.
I've always "loved" how the united nations, through the IPCC, can blame Global Warming for EVERYTHING, and especially whether a particular year is hot or cold, wet or dry, flood or drought, bunker crops or crop blight, etcetera etcetera etcetera.
No matter what the weather does, the IPCC points towards Global Warming as being responsible. This is not just pseudo-Science on steroids, it is patently junk Science unrestrained and running amok. I get literally amazed at just how many, otherwise intelligent people see the IPCC and their cronies hold up diametrically opposing data points, and then let the IPCC get away with insisting that Global Warming is ALWAYS responsible for both observed extremes.
Moreover, since part of their Climate Change supercomputer modeling was found to be purposely programmed with the exact opposite of what is occurring in the atmosphere (e.g., GIGO), the IPCC and their cronies have consistently ignored all requests to make the modeling programs available for review by independent experts.
I am positive that just like the prevailing weather patterns are always spun to be the result of Global Warming's influence, this data about the ozone "hole" decreasing in size will also be key-holed into being, yep, "a result of Global Warming"
Simply put, well, make that VERY simply put, when ultraviolet light hits oxygen, ozone is created. OTOH, the more ozone there is, the less ultraviolet light gets through that ozone.
So understanding, one thing has been known since in-depth studies of the Ozone layer(s) began, which is when the upper Ozone layer(s) show an increase in ozone, the lower layers begin to show a decrease, and this is simply due to less ultraviolet light reaching the oxygen molecules contained within the lower layer(s) of our atmosphere.
This decrease has nothing to do with ongoing anthropological (i.e., human) influences, which is the way I am guessing the IPCC and their cronies will spin this data about the hole getting smaller. Rather, the decrease in the lower levels is be due to the fact upper layers are now able to block more of the ultraviolet light from actually reaching the lower layers. Period.
Less ultraviolet light coming through the upper Ozone layer means less ozone being created in the lower level. Of course I bet the globalists will again either blame chlorofluorocarbons, or something really stupid like cow and chicken farts.
I just love this world we live in....
******* What he said *****
So the earth's "o zone" hole is nice and tight?
I'll be in my bunk.
Lets not allow the facts to get in the way of our goal of raising taxes and stealing people's Freedom.
Just read an article where China has been pumping TONS of CFCs into the atmosphere for many years (with no one doing anything about it). Now we're hearing the ozone hole is shrinking. Maybe CFCs had nothing to do with it after all?
So, does this mean I can skip the SPF?
Here lies the fault in your argument.
The article you quote does NOT say the emissions went down, only that "the countries of the world banded together," blah, blah, blah.
The ugly truth is that CfC emissions globally went UP, even though they were banned in most 1st world countries - in yet another attempt to regulate commerce and behavior based on bad science.
Yeah, it doesn't fit the narrative, so the facts are omitted.
This WILL get the low-information or headline voter's attention.
I just heard that politicians are now saying Climate Change ends the world in only 10 years, so with that accelerated time schedule, we don't need an ozone layer anyway...
The thing you have to realize is that, outside of firearms, the average Glocktalk user isn't very smart I think people here think that ozone and global warming are directly correlated.
I'm going to trust NASA on this one:
Well, that is well written!
Are these the same groups that changed historical temperature data because it didn't fit their computer programs?
You have proof that data was changed? Or are we talking about revising their hypothesis as new data is gleaned?
What about the moon landing? Do you trust NASA on that one?
No. Just windmills.
Kinda like the NOAA weather stations that were placed close to air conditioner condensers among other things.
This article explains how changing the historical temperature data is, I guess, now accepted scientific method. So I shouldn't say anything.
Could it be that expiring patents caused ozone depletion?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Where do you think they filmed "The Right Stuff" ?
I rest my case.
Global CFC emissions are about 1/4 what they were in the late 1980's. China's emissions are a fraction of what the US and Europe used to put out.