Commentary #6: Global Warming

[golftdibrad]

Oops, Science Was “Settled”—Until It Wasn’t: Plants Absorb 31% More CO₂ Than We Thought – Watts Up With That?

So all the predictive models are wrong because a base assumption is wrong, got it. Also, if 'the science' missed this critical variable in the carbon cycle, what else could they be missing? How accurate are the water vapor and cloud cover models for example?

[golftdibrad]

People say "the science" was right about the Ozone hole. We got off CFC's (r-12 & r-22) and made the entire world buy new refrigeration equipment.

"The science" has determined that HFC's (r-410 & r134a) cause too much global warming and once again the entire world is being made to buy new refrigeration equipment, oh and as a bonus this new stuff is straight up flamabe. R-32 is a single component refrigerant that is still an HFC, just one that causes less of that deadly global warming, while R-454B is a blend of R-32 and R-1234yf (used in some cars, sucks, that is a hydrofluoroolefin) that I'm sure will be found to cause some other horrible environmental problem in ~15 years.

Well, its looking more and more like "the science" missed the mark on CFC's.
Scientists Haven’t ‘Saved’ the Ozone Layer – Watts Up With That?

Tell me, how exactly does something with a molecular weight of 120 g/mol (r-12) & 86 g/mol (r-22) get up into the ozone layer (15-35 km high) in significant quantities from ground level in an atmosphere made up of 78% nitrogen with a molecular weight of 28 g/mol? Shouldn't proper recovery drive these emissions to trace levels anyway?

[Mark Rippetoe]

More importantly, when was the ozone hole first noticed/measured? How long has it actually been there?

[golftdibrad]

More importantly, when was the ozone hole first noticed/measured? How long has it actually been there?

The early 80s with data going back to 1957. I don't know much about this admittedly, but that seems too quick of a drop to blame cfc's

Nasa Ozone Watch: Ozone hole history facts

And I could indeed see some high level correlation in those figures with the production profile below...until production fell off a cliff. But production =/= emission, which is far harder to measure.
Global CFC production |
GRID-Arendal

[Jason Donaldson]

But production =/= emission, which is far harder to measure.

Harder to measure, perhaps, but given that we were told that a major source of the emissions was propellants (aerosol spray cans, inhalers, spraying insulating foam, et al.), and those were for regularly used, fairly short life span consumables, one can reasonably expect that this entails a significant drop in emission, as well.

[Mark Rippetoe]

More cracks in the wall: https://x.com/CitizenFreePres/status...53883366822091