PDA

View Full Version : Environment Banning CFC's avoided destroying 2/3rd of earth's ozone layer...


jAZ
03-26-2009, 06:40 AM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gd0Rbh9TB0qV69YNVYLTPT-TuUxQD971B8U02

NASA: Environmental disaster avoided on ozone loss
By SETH BORENSTEIN – 6 days ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Here's rare good news about an environmental crisis: We dodged disaster with the ozone layer. A NASA study about ozone-munching chemicals from aerosol sprays and refrigeration used a computer model to play a game of what-if. What if the world 22 years ago didn't agree to cut back on chlorofluorocarbons which cause a seasonal ozone hole to form near the South Pole?

NASA atmospheric scientist Paul Newman said the answer is a "bizarre world."

By 2065, two-thirds of the protective ozone layer would have vanished and "the ozone hole covers the Earth." And the CFCs, which are long-lived potent greenhouse gases, would have pushed the world's temperature up an extra 4 degrees.

In mid-latitudes like Washington, DNA-damaging ultraviolet radiation would have increased more than sixfold. Just 5 minutes in the summer sunshine would have caused a sunburn, instead of 15. Typical midsummer UV levels, now around 10 or 11, would have soared to 30. Summer thunderstorms in the Northern Hemisphere would have been much stronger.

"It is a real horrible place," Newman told The Associated Press.

But that dreadful scenario was "a world avoided," according to the paper published this week in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

After scientists raised warnings in the early 1970s — later earning a Nobel Prize — 193 nations agreed in the1987 treaty called the Montreal Protocol to cut CFC emissions. CFCs had been used in air conditioning, aerosol sprays, foam packaging and other products.

Newman, the co-chair of the protocol's scientific panel, said the study provides hope that the world can do the same thing on another looming but even harder to solve environmental problem: Global warming.

"There's a huge lesson to be learned here," said Paul Wapner, director of Global Environmental Politics at American University. "In significant cases, human beings can get together and arrive at international or global principles and avoid ecological catastrophe."

jAZ
03-26-2009, 06:41 AM
http://scienceblogs.com/highlyallochthonous/2009/03/2008.png

http://scienceblogs.com/highlyallochthonous/2009/03/2020.png

http://scienceblogs.com/highlyallochthonous/2009/03/2040.png

http://scienceblogs.com/highlyallochthonous/2009/03/2060.png

http://scienceblogs.com/highlyallochthonous/2009/03/ozone_scale.png

Mr. Kotter
03-26-2009, 06:43 AM
Wow, Al Gore may be inspired to action, giving up his chartered flights and the carbon imprint of a 5800 sq. foot house....to ride bikes and live in a van down-by-the-river now...

BucEyedPea
03-26-2009, 06:43 AM
Thanks for the :BS: reminder. Time for me to take some of those old aerosol spray cans out of my archive of poison, so I can spray them into the atmosphere.

HonestChieffan
03-26-2009, 07:23 AM
Imagine if we had just outlawed air conditioners. That was the opportunity missed.

All the money saved on AC equipment.
All the money saved on electricity
The reduction in carbon dioxide from not burning all that deadly dirty coal
People would sit outside on porches and talk, neighborhoods would bond.

And peace broke out across the land.

If only we had known.

oldandslow
03-26-2009, 08:01 AM
Thanks for the :BS: reminder. Time for me to take some of those old aerosol spray cans out of my archive of poison, so I can spray them into the atmosphere.

CFC's are good???

Brock
03-26-2009, 08:42 AM
:rolleyes: Just imagine how wonderful the world would be if we'd never discovered fossil fuels.

oldandslow
03-26-2009, 09:09 AM
:rolleyes: Just imagine how wonderful the world would be if we'd never discovered fossil fuels.

I suspect the next generation or so will find out unless we find another miracle energy source.

Brock
03-26-2009, 09:11 AM
I suspect the next generation or so will find out unless we find another miracle energy source.

There's plenty of coal. No problem.

banyon
03-26-2009, 03:16 PM
Thanks for the :BS: reminder. Time for me to take some of those old aerosol spray cans out of my archive of poison, so I can spray them into the atmosphere.

That's a real glimpse into the psychology of denial and indoctrination.

jAZ
03-26-2009, 04:16 PM
That's a real glimpse into the psychology of denial and indoctrination.

Have you noticed how widespread it seems to have become in the last 60 days? It's reached post Iraq War levels lately.

mlyonsd
03-26-2009, 04:27 PM
I wonder which global warming bigot wrote the computer model software.

As long as a non-partisan computer makes the call we should believe it, right?

Saul Good
03-26-2009, 05:27 PM
Can we get a computer model to show how much of the planet Milosevic would have conquered if Clinton hadn't sodomized an intern with a cigar?

banyon
03-26-2009, 05:41 PM
I wonder which global warming bigot wrote the computer model software.

As long as a non-partisan computer makes the call we should believe it, right?

This is a NASA study, not Greenpeace or Earthfirst.

mikey23545
03-26-2009, 05:44 PM
Scientists are commemorating the discovery 20 years ago that man-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used chiefly in refrigerators and air-conditioners were responsible for creating the "ozone hole" over the Antarctic. The scientists concluded that CFCs would drift into the stratosphere where they would produce chlorine compounds that react with ice particles and sunlight to efficiently destroy ozone molecules that shield the surface from ultraviolet light streaming from the sun. In 1987, the world adopted the Montreal Protocol to eventually eliminate the production of CFCs. Activists often cite the Montreal Protocol as a model for a future treaty addressing man-made global warming by banning the emission of greenhouse gases. A Nobel Prize in chemistry was awarded in 1995 to the three scientists who identified the ozone/CFC connection.

<b>This neat story of the scientific identification of a man-made cause for stratospheric ozone depletion followed by a successful international response to the threat is now being challenged by some very recent research.</b> News@nature.com (sub required) is reporting a new analysis by Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, which finds that the data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2) is almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.

What this could mean according to the Nature news article is that:

<b> "This must have far-reaching consequences," Rex says. "If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being."</b> What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago2 (see graphic). If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. <b>The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.</b>

Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum
is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. <b>"Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart," </b>says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.

"Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely," agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. "Now suddenly it's like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge." ...

Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question, Rex stresses. "Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions."

Of course, it may be that Rex's research has gone wrong somehow or that another chemical mechanism involving CFCs will turn out to be chiefly responsible for ozone depletion. Nevertheless, it is good to keep in mind that all scientific results are provisional and may change in the light of new evidence.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/122712.html

petegz28
03-26-2009, 05:45 PM
I think it is pretty much ignorant to try and argue that CFC's are not bad for the environment. I am not saying that the world would have come to an end or anything, but people need to maintian a certain sense of perspective on the matter.

mlyonsd
03-26-2009, 05:46 PM
This is a NASA study, not Greenpeace or Earthfirst.

You don't think NASA funding is based on political points of view?

banyon
03-26-2009, 05:47 PM
You don't think NASA funding is based on political points of view?

Probably less so than the other organizations I mentioned. Plus, it would stand to reason that this study was conducted mainly during the Bush administration's NASA as well.

petegz28
03-26-2009, 05:50 PM
You don't think NASA funding is based on political points of view?

Considering the Al Gore crowd pretty much snubbed NASA while he was in office I would say, hardly.

mikey23545
03-26-2009, 06:04 PM
This is a NASA study, not Greenpeace or Earthfirst.

Nasa bigwig James Hansen got caught taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from environmental groups to advocate their tripe...Care to rethink your position on NASA?

jAZ
03-26-2009, 06:12 PM
Nasa bigwig James Hansen got caught taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from environmental groups to advocate their tripe...Care to rethink your position on NASA?

What are you muttering about?

banyon
03-26-2009, 06:12 PM
Nasa bigwig James Hansen got caught taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from environmental groups to advocate their tripe...Care to rethink your position on NASA?

The entire organization? It's pretty large. DO you know if anyone involved the study took money? Do you have a link? Does this mean that we can't trust Buzz Aldrin or John Glenn either?


THEY PROBABLY WEREN'T EVEN ON THE MOON!

BucEyedPea
03-26-2009, 06:13 PM
CFC's are good???

They weren't bad either. Just more green bs. I never bought into that one either. I also never use hairspray but I bought myself some to protest....still have the cans.

Saul Good
03-26-2009, 06:14 PM
They weren't bad either. Just more green bs. I never bought into that one either. I also never use hairspray but I bought myself some to protest....still have the cans.

Can we lift the damned ban on DDT already?

Uncle_Ted
03-26-2009, 06:14 PM
Sometimes I wonder about the Dick Cheney crowd:

Exhibit A:
1% chance Saddam had nukes and could give em to terrorists? Move heaven and earth to take him out.

Exhibit B:
High percentage chance (75% chance? 95% chance?) that CFC's destroy the ozone layer? Do nothing because the research isn't 100% certain.

:shake:

Saul Good
03-26-2009, 06:15 PM
Sometimes I wonder about the Dick Cheney crowd:

Exhibit A:
1% chance Saddam had nukes and could give em to terrorists? Move heaven and earth to take him out.


1% chance, huh? Where would you put the percentages on Iran having nukes?

Uncle_Ted
03-26-2009, 06:16 PM
Can we lift the damned ban on DDT already?

Dioxin and lead pipes too. All liberal fantasy ... :D

Uncle_Ted
03-26-2009, 06:18 PM
1% chance, huh? Where would you put the percentages on Iran having nukes?

I'm talking about the "one percent doctrine" vis-a-vis Iraq. If left alone Iran has a much greater than 1% chance of getting nukes.

mikey23545
03-26-2009, 06:19 PM
The entire organization? It's pretty large. DO you know if anyone involved the study took money? Do you have a link? Does this mean that we can't trust Buzz Aldrin or John Glenn either?


THEY PROBABLY WEREN'T EVEN ON THE MOON!

Oh for fuck's sake. This was a big news story a few years ago - look it up.

mikey23545
03-26-2009, 06:21 PM
Most in NASA wanted Hansen to step down after the incident, but of course being an unprincipled liberal, he refused. I haven't heard anything about him recently.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2009, 06:22 PM
:rolleyes: Just imagine how wonderful the world would be if we'd never discovered fossil fuels.

Well let's, see. I know o&s challenged me on this before, saying no biologist would believe this, but one reason America has more trees today than in the 1800's is because wood was used for fuel in homes. Large clearings were made every year....as well as to run engines, build fences, homes and rr tracks. And large clearings were made for farming even in the east before farming moved to better fields in the mid-west. These practices deforested just the eastern half of the country, where most of the forests were. One of things that helped the forests survive was the use of fossil fuels instead of needing wood. Wood for fuel alone, contributed to most of the deforestation. Other things were concrete which more places could be built with. Yes, one could say fossil fuels saved the forests.

Not only that but this is an accepted view by forestors—that there are more trees now than back then.

Check out the Forest History Society.
http://www.foresthistory.org/

I picked up some of their publications. Fascinating stuff.


The other thing fossil fuels helped with was better health for the people. Feces all over public streets would get dried in the sun then rained on then dried again and get inhaled by people. Lockjaw was one result. It was cleaner than what we had back then. In fact most improvements in health are from our improved standard of living from newer technologies. Then those get perfected as we continuously improve and evolve.

We are so much better off than back then—even with fossil fuels.

mikey23545
03-26-2009, 06:24 PM
Topping it all, Hansen has allegedly received hundreds of thousands of additional dollars to further politicize the issue of global warming. According to Investors Business Daily, "How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely ‘NASA whistleblower' standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by [George] Soros' Open Society Institute (OSI), which gave him ‘legal and media advice'? That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship ‘philanthropy' by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's ‘politicization of science' program."

Hansen denied any relationship with OSI, but Investor's Business Daily refused to back off on their story, "claiming the funding first passed through the Government Accountability Project, which then used it to package Hansen for the media."

With that kind of cash allegedly lining his pockets, do you think that Hansen will ever allow the data that he is charged with maintaining to point to anything but disaster?

In talk-radio such conflicting activities would be deemed "payola" with the guilty party booted out the door. For the sake of truth, and the proper use of the taxpayer's dollar, James Hansen needs to be relieved of his NASA duties.

mikey23545
03-26-2009, 06:29 PM
In his new Discovery Channel special, Brokaw does not disclose the potential and known biases of the scientists he chose to feature. For example, Brokaw presents NASA’s James Hansen as an authority on climate change without revealing to viewers the extensive political and financial ties that Hansen has to Democratic Party partisans. Hansen, the director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed and controlled by former Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz.

Subsequent to the Heinz Foundation grant, Hansen publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president in 2004, a political endorsement considered to be highly unusual for a NASA scientist. Hansen also has acted as a consultant to Gore's slide-show presentations on global warming, on which Gore’s movie is based. Hansen also very actively promoted Gore and his movie, even appearing at a New York City Town Hall meeting with Gore and several Hollywood producers in May.

Hansen also wrote in an article in the journal Natural Science in 2003 that the use of “extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change “may have been appropriate at one time” to drive the public's attention to the issue a disturbing admission by a prominent scientist.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2009, 06:29 PM
I knew all about the Hansen bs too and NASA complicity. Scientists like to keep their jobs just like anybody else. In fact....I put a thread up about greedy scientists lining up for their share of bailouts...

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=200694&highlight=greedy+scientists

jAZ
03-26-2009, 06:31 PM
Scientists are commemorating the discovery 20 years ago that man-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used chiefly in refrigerators and air-conditioners were responsible for creating the "ozone hole" over the Antarctic. The scientists concluded that CFCs would drift into the stratosphere where they would produce chlorine compounds that react with ice particles and sunlight to efficiently destroy ozone molecules that shield the surface from ultraviolet light streaming from the sun. In 1987, the world adopted the Montreal Protocol to eventually eliminate the production of CFCs. Activists often cite the Montreal Protocol as a model for a future treaty addressing man-made global warming by banning the emission of greenhouse gases. A Nobel Prize in chemistry was awarded in 1995 to the three scientists who identified the ozone/CFC connection.

<b>This neat story of the scientific identification of a man-made cause for stratospheric ozone depletion followed by a successful international response to the threat is now being challenged by some very recent research.</b> News@nature.com (sub required) is reporting a new analysis by Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, which finds that the data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2) is almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.

What this could mean according to the Nature news article is that:

<b> "This must have far-reaching consequences," Rex says. "If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being."</b> What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago2 (see graphic). If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. <b>The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.</b>

Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum
is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. <b>"Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart," </b>says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.

"Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely," agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. "Now suddenly it's like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge." ...

Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question, Rex stresses. "Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions."

Of course, it may be that Rex's research has gone wrong somehow or that another chemical mechanism involving CFCs will turn out to be chiefly responsible for ozone depletion. Nevertheless, it is good to keep in mind that all scientific results are provisional and may change in the light of new evidence.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/122712.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/uncertainty-in-polar-ozone-depletion/

28 September 2007
Uncertainty in polar ozone depletion?
Filed under: Arctic and Antarctic Climate Science— group @ 3:51 PM
Guest commentary by Drew Shindell

The unique chemistry that causes dramatic ozone depletion in the polar springtime lower stratosphere has been studied intensely for the past 2-3 decades and much that was speculated about 30 years ago when the problem first emerged has been verified and made more coherent. However, a new report concerning laboratory measurements of a key molecule involved in this chemistry have raised questions about current understanding. The results (Pope et al., J. Phys. Chem., 2007) suggest a reduced ability for sunlight to break apart the chlorine monoxide dimer (Cl2O2) and have already led to a great deal of debate about their implications. I'll try here to help assess what these new measurements really mean.


The past decades of study have developed a comprehensive understanding of how polar ozone depletion (“Ozone Holes”) takes place. In brief, human-produced halocarbons (chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and a few other molecules like methyl bromide) are broken down by sunlight in the stratosphere, releasing chlorine and bromine. These highly reactive atoms mostly go into fairly long-lived molecules that are not very reactive and therefore act as ‘reservoirs’. There are two situations in which a substantial amount of chlorine, the more important of the two, can come out of the reservoirs in large enough amounts to destroy a substantial amount of ozone. One is in the upper stratosphere around 40-50 km altitude, where strong sunlight forms reactive molecules that frees the chlorine. The other is the polar springtime lower stratosphere, where extremely cold temperatures lead to unique chemistry on the surface of ice particles that again transforms chlorine from its reservoirs into more reactive forms.

Atmospheric observations show that in both these situations, there is indeed enhanced reactive chlorine and simultaneous depletion of ozone. Measurements from satellites, aircraft, and ground-based instruments all give independent, consistent information verifying the links between cold temperatures in the polar springtime lower stratosphere and chlorine, and between chlorine and ozone. It's important to note that none of the laboratory data on the direct chemical reactions that destroy ozone have been questioned. What has now been questioned is not the link between the chlorine released from CFCs and ozone loss, but rather the rate at which the chlorine atoms can destroy ozone via a particular cycle involving the Cl2O2 molecule.

Measurements of this molecule are exceedingly difficult to make in the laboratory as it is highly unstable. Several earlier measurements of the relevant rate have shown variations of a factor of 3 or so, so that the uncertainty in the rate is not new. However, we have substantial auxiliary evidence for what the rates must be i.e. observations of chlorine in the atmosphere provide independent constraints on Cl2O2. Limited direct observations of Cl2O2, as well as many measurements of total chlorine and of chlorine monoxide (ClO), constrain the amount of Cl2O2 (which can’t be greater than the total minus the amount in the ClO molecule). These observations are inconsistent with both the new measurements and earlier reports of a reduced ability of sunlight to break up Cl2O2 (Shindell and de Zafra, GRL, 1995, 1996; Stachnik et al., GRL, 1999; Stimpfle et al., JGR, 2004). Thus although the current state of knowledge is that the laboratory measurements on the stability of the Cl2O2 molecule vary by roughly a factor of 10 (including the newly reported values), the independent measurements suggest strongly that the upper half of that range is more likely to be correct, not the lower.

Given the difficulty in making the laboratory measurements, it is quite possible that these are wrong, and confirmation of the new results is certainly needed. Should the results hold up, the chemistry involved in polar ozone loss may need to be re-evaluated. As there are other cycles that do not involve the Cl2O2 molecule but cause similar dramatic ozone depletion, such as cycles including both ClO and BrO (its bromine-containing analogue), any revision to current understanding would most likely simply shift the relative importance of the various ozone-destroying cycles. However, as noted, it is not clear how one would reconcile these measurements with actual atmospheric observations, which are not consistent with a more stable Cl2O2 molecule.

A wealth of observational data supports the role of chlorine and bromine in polar ozone loss, and uncertainty in a single step of the relevant chemistry does not undermine the Montreal Protocol controlling substances that release these atoms into the stratosphere. It is important, however, that the new results be tested so that we can be confident we understand the potential effects of future changes in temperature on polar ozone loss (as different chemical reactions have different sensitivities to temperature). This will allow us to better understand the effects of climate change on the stratospheric ozone layer, and to verify the effectiveness of the Montreal Protocol, which has already shown signs of success in reducing the growth of atmospheric concentrations of CFCs, and seems to have lead to at least a leveling off of ozone depletion over most of the planet. Full recovery is not expected for a few decades though.

Saul Good
03-26-2009, 06:32 PM
Well let's, see. I know o&s challenged me on this before, saying no biologist would believe this, but one reason America has more trees today than in the 1800's is because wood was used for fuel in homes. Large clearings were made every year....as well as to run engines, build fences, homes and rr tracks. And large clearings were made for farming even in the east before farming moved to better fields in the mid-west. These practices deforested just the eastern half of the country, where most of the forests were. One of things that helped the forests survive was the use of fossil fuels instead of needing wood. Wood for fuel alone, contributed to most of the deforestation. Other things were concrete which more places could be built with. Yes, one could say fossil fuels saved the forests.

Not only that but this is an accepted view by forestors—that there are more trees now than back then.

Of course it's true. The same is true of animals. How many cows do you think you would see if nobody ate beef or made products out of leather?

mikey23545
03-26-2009, 06:32 PM
The entire organization? It's pretty large. DO you know if anyone involved the study took money? Do you have a link? Does this mean that we can't trust Buzz Aldrin or John Glenn either?


THEY PROBABLY WEREN'T EVEN ON THE MOON!

Any other snide remarks, asshole?

mlyonsd
03-26-2009, 06:33 PM
Probably less so than the other organizations I mentioned. Plus, it would stand to reason that this study was conducted mainly during the Bush administration's NASA as well.

I hope the current president has enough time to go through lower level studies and weed out the research that goes against his thinking like Cheney did. :)

BucEyedPea
03-26-2009, 06:35 PM
Of course it's true. The same is true of animals. How many cows do you think you would see if nobody ate beef or made products out of leather?

Oh! Well your point reminds me of paper products today and trees. The more paper we use the more trees we have because paper companies own and manage what are called working forests or they'd go out of business. It's just maintaining inventory. I had a tour of one of these forests once. They replant regularly and are careful to not cut down too much.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2009, 06:36 PM
Any other snide remarks, asshole?

ROFL

banyon
03-26-2009, 06:36 PM
Any other snide remarks, asshole?

I don't know were the supposed to be links to some sort of objective, credible source or something?

And I'm supposed to find the NASA scientists guilty by association with this guy who may have had nothing to do with their program henceforth for time immemorial on your say-so?

banyon
03-26-2009, 06:38 PM
ROFL

Yeah, you're great.

Shouldn't you be on another thread talking about how swell Joseph McCarthy was or something?

mikey23545
03-26-2009, 06:45 PM
Meet James Hansen

In America, and perhaps the world, the pre-eminent source for global weather information is NASA. Blessed with three or more temperature measuring satellites, NASA also collects data from NOAA and foreign sources to get a fix on global temperatures. This convergence of resources is unparalleled , and thus much of the world uses NASA’s continually-revised data and graphs to determine weather history and policy.

Which is unfortunate.

Particularly, because NASA simply cannot be trusted to provide scientifically unbiased information on this subject. When not demonstrating incomprehensible incompetence, NASA cooks the books.

Chef-in-chief is Dr. James Hansen.

James Hansen’s name should sound familiar. He is the fellow who has been screaming about global warming for over 20 years. He famously claimed that the Bush Administration was trying to silence him (huh?).

He is the detached scientists that went to Congress and testified that oil executives should be tried for crimes against humanity. (Wonder what penal statute that is?)

In real life, as opposed to the imaginary one occupied by the marvelous Dr James Hansen, the man is like an incompetent, unthinking, dogmatic, dolt: systematically reducing NASA to a high school-level science fair.

The latest, as reported by the Daily Tech:

Amateur team finds NASA error similar to one they discovered a year ago.

GISS’ most recent data release originally reported last October as being extraordinarily warm– a full 0.78C above normal. This would have made it the warmest October on record; a huge increase over the previous month’s data.

Those results set off alarm bells with Steve McIntyre and his gang of Baker Street irregulars at Climateaudit.org. They noted that NASA’s data didn’t agree at all with the satellite temperature record, which showed October to be very mild, continuing the same trend of slight cooling that has persisted since 1998. So they dug a little deeper.

McIntyre, the same man who found errors last year in GISS’s US temperature record, quickly noted that most of the temperature increase was coming from Russia. A chart of world temperatures showed that in October, most of Russia, the largest nation on Earth, was not only registering hot, but literally off the scale. Yet anecdotal reports were suggesting that worldwide, October was actually slightly colder than normal. Could there be another error in GISS’s data?

An alert reader on McIntyre’s blog revealed that there was a very large problem. Looking at the actual readings from individual stations in Russia showed a curious anomaly. The locations had all been assigned the exact temperatures from a month earlier– the much warmer month of September. Russia cools very rapidly in the fall months, so recycling the data from the earlier month had led to a massive temperature increase.

I know what you are thinking. Anybody could have made the same mistake: using September data for October. And you might be right. Because the Wonder Boys and Girls at NASA do it all the time.

The really odd thing is: it is a one-way street.

Because such errors, inexplicably, always show the Earth warming.

Even if it isn’t.

The correction forced upon NASA last year was even more dramatic because it altered the entire Global Warming premise (although I am sure you have not heard a word about this in the media).

Going over the NASA historical weather graph, Steve McKintyre noticed some severe and unlikely high temperature spikes. He asked NASA for its mathematical model in an attempt to understand the same. A model is necessary because weather averages and means are based upon widely divergent observations, with sparse reporting on the high seas (thus satellites), Antarctica, and Africa.

NASA refused (of course).

McKintyre reverse engineered the model and discovered NASA had fallen victim to a Y2K bug. The result:

“NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding.

The warmest year on record is now 1934.

1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II.

Revision of data at NASA is all too common.

It works like this: if the data does not support global warming, it is wrong. So it must be revised. From the Wall Street Journal:

For years, records from surface thermometers showed a global warming trend beginning in the late 1970s. But temperatures sensed by satellites and weather balloons displayed no concurrent warming. These records have been revised a number of times, and I examined the two major revisions of these three records…..There have been six major revisions in the warming figures in recent years, all in the same direction.

That direction would be to make the past colder thus making the current temperature appear warmer. Why have surface temperatures warmed? As Dr Alan Anthony Watts has long since proved, because of urbanization and the deterioration of locations of the thermometers. They are located in heat wells, near AC vents or at airports.Ridiculous. The background radiation should be measured in a grassy field of an acre or so, with instrumentation in a vented shad shed at least 4 feet off the ground.

banyon
03-26-2009, 06:46 PM
Do you just not believe in citing your sources or what?

mikey23545
03-26-2009, 06:57 PM
From Investor's Business Daily:

The Soros Threat To Democracy

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 24, 2007

Democracy: George Soros is known for funding groups such as MoveOn.org that seek to manipulate public opinion. So why is the billionaire's backing of what he believes in problematic? In a word: transparency.

George Soros & MoveOn.org: Exclusive Series

How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute , which gave him "legal and media advice"?

That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program.

That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly "censored" spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda.

Hansen even succeeded, with public pressure from his nightly news performances, in forcing NASA to change its media policies to his advantage. Had Hansen's OSI-funding been known, the public might have viewed the whole production differently. The outcome could have been different.

That's not the only case. Didn't the mainstream media report that 2006's vast immigration rallies across the country began as a spontaneous uprising of 2 million angry Mexican-flag waving illegal immigrants demanding U.S. citizenship in Los Angeles, egged on only by a local Spanish-language radio announcer?

Turns out that wasn't what happened, either. Soros' OSI had money-muscle there, too, through its $17 million Justice Fund. The fund lists 19 projects in 2006. One was vaguely described involvement in the immigration rallies. Another project funded illegal immigrant activist groups for subsequent court cases.

So what looked like a wildfire grassroots movement really was a manipulation from OSI's glassy Manhattan offices. The public had no way of knowing until the release of OSI's 2006 annual report.

Meanwhile, OSI cash backed terrorist-friendly court rulings, too.

Do people know last year's Supreme Court ruling abolishing special military commissions for terrorists at Guantanamo was a Soros project? OSI gave support to Georgetown lawyers in 2006 to win Hamdan v. Rumsfeld — for the terrorists.

OSI also gave cash to other radicals who pressured the Transportation Security Administration to scrap a program called "Secure Flight," which matched flight passenger lists with terrorist names. It gave more cash to other left-wing lawyers who persuaded a Texas judge to block cell phone tracking of terrorists.

They trumpeted this as a victory for civil liberties. Feel safer?

It's all part of the $74 million OSI spent on "U.S. Programs" in 2006 to "shape policy." Who knows what revelations 2007's report will bring around events now in the news?

OSI isn't the only secretive organization that Soros funds. OSI partners with the Tides Foundation, which funnels cash from wealthy donors who may not want it known that their cash goes to fringe groups engaged in "direct action" — also known as eco-terrorism.

On the political front, Soros has a great influence in a secretive organization called "Democracy Alliance" whose idea of democracy seems to be government controlled solely of Democrats.

"As with everything about the Democracy Alliance, the strangest aspect of this entire process was the incessant secrecy. Among the alliance's stated values was a commitment to political transparency — as long as it didn't apply to the alliance," wrote Matt Bai, describing how the alliance was formed in 2005, in his book "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics."

Soros' "shaping public policies," as OSI calls it, is not illegal. But it's a problem for democracy because it drives issues with cash and then only lets the public know about it after it's old news.

That means the public makes decisions about issues without understanding the special agendas of groups behind them.

Without more transparency, it amounts to political manipulation. This leads to cynicism. As word of these short-term covert ops gets out, the public grows to distrust what it hears and tunes out.

The irony here is that Soros claims to be an advocate of an "open society." His OSI does just the legal minimum to disclose its activities. The public shouldn't have to wait until an annual report is out before the light is flipped on about the Open Society's political action.

mikey23545
03-26-2009, 06:58 PM
How's IBD for a source?

banyon
03-26-2009, 07:00 PM
How's IBD for a source?

In a set of opinion pieces that are disputed within the pieces themselves? Pretty biased I would think.


And you never did answer the guilt by association question(s).

mikey23545
03-26-2009, 07:00 PM
BTW, if you want bibliographies for every post, do your own fucking research.

banyon
03-26-2009, 07:03 PM
BTW, if you want bibliographies for every post, do your own ****ing research.

How about just a f*cking link? No one asked for a bibliography .

jAZ
03-26-2009, 07:15 PM
Nasa bigwig James Hansen got caught taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from environmental groups to advocate their tripe...Care to rethink your position on NASA?


Topping it all, Hansen has allegedly received hundreds of thousands of additional dollars to further politicize the issue of global warming. According to Investors Business Daily, "How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely ‘NASA whistleblower' standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by [George] Soros' Open Society Institute (OSI), which gave him ‘legal and media advice'? That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship ‘philanthropy' by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's ‘politicization of science' program."

Hansen denied any relationship with OSI, but Investor's Business Daily refused to back off on their story, "claiming the funding first passed through the Government Accountability Project, which then used it to package Hansen for the media."

With that kind of cash allegedly lining his pockets, do you think that Hansen will ever allow the data that he is charged with maintaining to point to anything but disaster?

In talk-radio such conflicting activities would be deemed "payola" with the guilty party booted out the door. For the sake of truth, and the proper use of the taxpayer's dollar, James Hansen needs to be relieved of his NASA duties.

Thanks for quoting something that I could google.

This is a blog entry from today that is rooted in an EDITORIAL written by Investors Business Daily.

Anway here's the original editorial and as you read it, ask yourself why woudl a news paper break a story through th editorial page?

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=275526219598836

You will see that in their editorial, the claim that:

"Hansen... was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute... by as much as $720,000"

Well, first note that they don't even try to offer evidence. They don't even mention that they have any. They just make the accusation as if it's fact and throw in a few weasle words for good measure.

So what is the rest of the story?

http://blog.seattlepi.com/environment/archives/122664.asp

The swift boating of a climate scientist
The blogosphere was in a churn this week over NASA scientist James Hansen's receipt of $720,000 from the George Soros-funded Open Society Institute. There's just one problem: The story's completely wrong.

No wonder bloggers are getting such a bad reputation for accuracy. But you also have to bear in mind that this "story" had its roots in an editorial in the venerable Investor's Business Daily, called to my attention by Dateline Earth reader Todd Myers of the Washington Policy Center. Here's what IBD's anonymous scribe said:

How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute, which gave him "legal and media advice"?

That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program.

Now, despite the weasel words, the IBD did report that "Hansen ... was really funded" by Soros's institute. Our initial reaction was that this qualifies as news. And so, naturally, we started to check it out -- unlike some other bloggers. Hansen answered our e-mail almost immediately:


Have not received a cent from them -- don't even know them -- somebody must be trying to make me stop doing science by forcing me to respond to swift-boating.

He apparently felt compelled to write this longer response for his website and e-mail list (which I notice increasingly focuses on our country's deer-in-the-headlights response to climate change, rather than his usual updates on climate-change science):

Sometime after giving a potentially provocative interview to Sixty Minutes, but before it aired, I tried to get legal advice on my rights of free speech. I received a call from the President of the Government Accountability Project (GAP) telling me that I had won the Ridenaur Award (including a moderate amount of cash -- $10,000 I believe; the award is named for the guy who exposed the Viet Nam My Lai massacre), and offering pro bono legal advice. I agreed to accept the latter (temporarily), signing something to let them represent me (which had an escape clause that I later exercised). I started to get the feeling that there may be expectations (strings) coming with the award, and I was concerned that it may create the appearance that I had spoken out about government censorship for the sake of the $. So I called the President of GAP, asking how the nomination process worked and who made the selection. He mentioned that he either nominated or selected me. So I declined the award, but I continued to accept pro bono legal advice for a while.

Here is the 60 Minutes piece he mentions, btw.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jc4OzpgTOhk&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jc4OzpgTOhk&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Hansen says GAP basically intervened on his behalf when a Bush appointee at NASA tried to keep him from speaking his mind on global warming. Hansen soon severed his ties to GAP and while he remains grateful for their help, he had this to say about the letter GAP wrote on his behalf:

This letter shows me why scientists drive 1995 Hondas and lawyers drive Mercedes.

He goes on to say:

The bottom line is: I did not receive one thin dime from George Soros. Perhaps* GAP did, but I would be surprised if they got $720,000 (that's a lot of Mercedes).

(For the record, the journalist writing this post drives a 1990 Honda.)

I've heard many denials in my time, and that one seems to say very clearly that the IBD editorial and all the blogs that flowed from it were wrong. Hansen did *not* get the money. (Unless he's lying -- possible, I suppose, but foolhardy for someone who made his denial so very public.)

Now, even when the record has been set straight, a visit to technorati.com shows that many of my fellow bloggers are continuing to act as if they got nothing wrong. Take this example from Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters:

Once again, regardless of what the truth is concerning Hansen's connection to Soros, the idea that no press outlets are pursuing this story to assist in the finding and dissemination of the facts is further evidence of media complicity concerning advancing global warming hysteria and assisting whatever the liberal agenda is at the time.

How disgraceful.

Funny, that's what my journalism professors said about journalists who fail to check their facts.

*Note the use of this word "perhaps," in which Hansen acknowledges he may not have all the facts. Let me also say that I've placed calls to the Open Society Institute and GAP. If they have anything to add I'll update this post.

Update 3:30 p.m. Sept. 27: Well, I heard back from both GAP and the Open Society Institute.

GAP's president Louis Clark and Rick Piltz, director of GAP's climate science watch program, say they helped Hansen in about February to April of 2006. Their 15-page grant proposal to the Open Society Institute in late July of that year had 15 lines that referred to Hansen, with seven lines recounting what they'd already done for him and two more that said they "remain available to defend Dr. Jim Hansen's job and to offer legal advice upon request."

So, Hansen didn't take any money from either GAP or OSI.

jAZ
03-26-2009, 07:17 PM
How's IBD for a source?

An IBD editorial that refused to even claim that they have any evidence at all isn't the same thing as a sourced work of journalism by IBD.

jAZ
03-26-2009, 07:22 PM
How about just a f*cking link? No one asked for a bibliography .

The funny thing is (and I suspect the thing he was trying to hide) was that he was parroting information he just learned today (he quoted an article written just today, not one written at the time of the IBD rumor mongering.

Looks like he was trying to play off information he was rapidly echoing as if it had the gravitas of being "a big news story a few years ago".

Of course to prove this, he had to post a report written TODAY.

He's literally parroting blindly the echo chamber rhetoric as fast as he possibly can, and pretending it's all old news we've all known about for years because it was everywhere.

KILLER_CLOWN
03-26-2009, 11:09 PM
ok guys we have 10 minutes to save the planet from the ozone depletion, please make your checks out to me and fast, order NOW! Save Humanity 1 check(to me) at a time!

banyon
03-26-2009, 11:12 PM
ok guys we have 10 minutes to save the planet from the ozone depletion, please make your checks out to me and fast, order NOW! Save Humanity 1 check(to me) at a time!

Yeah, it was a big moneymaking scam!

Who made money on it?

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-26-2009, 11:26 PM
The Invisible Hand would have easily covered up any hole.

Ultra Peanut
03-26-2009, 11:32 PM
1% chance, huh? Where would you put the percentages on Iran having nukes?Pretty fucking irrelevant question there, buddy.

How's IBD for a source?Pretty shitty. Remember their "polls present grim outlook for Obama" pieces last fall? Yeah, I'm sure you don't.

jAZ
03-27-2009, 06:49 AM
Pretty shitty. Remember their "polls present grim outlook for Obama" pieces last fall? Yeah, I'm sure you don't.

Yeah, I didn't even bother to get into the nature of Investor's Business Daily and their agenda. They aren't your average WSJ or FT. I didn't even bother to go there because of the unbelievable audacity that they had to do this *reporting* via their (we can say nearly anything we want and it doesn't even have to be true because it's just our opinion) editorial page.

What a crock.

And they didn't even provide any evidence... but worse, they didn't even claim that they *had* any evidence.

They just said it as if it's fact, and zombies like mikey just drone it back drool and all.

KILLER_CLOWN
03-27-2009, 07:22 AM
Yeah, it was a big moneymaking scam!

Who made money on it?

I wanna make some now, so send it in big fella, send it in. Only 5 minutes left to save the world.

KC native
03-27-2009, 08:37 AM
Yeah, I didn't even bother to get into the nature of Investor's Business Daily and their agenda. They aren't your average WSJ or FT. I didn't even bother to go there because of the unbelievable audacity that they had to do this *reporting* via their (we can say nearly anything we want and it doesn't even have to be true because it's just our opinion) editorial page.

What a crock.

And they didn't even provide any evidence... but worse, they didn't even claim that they *had* any evidence.

They just said it as if it's fact, and zombies like mikey just drone it back drool and all.

What's sad is IBD used to be a decent paper (especially for company specific news). I don't remember exactly when they went off the rails but they have been consistently getting worse over the last couple of years. I used to skim their stuff and now I just skip over.

BucEyedPea
03-27-2009, 08:46 AM
BTW, if you want bibliographies for every post, do your own ****ing research.

I take it banyon demanded a briefing paper or college level dissertation on a BB. LMAO

Eventhough, you put up other detailed articles. You won't win with a lawyer. They argue to win even if it's by endless
demands that never satisfy them. They also don't understand what an opinion or values are.

cdcox
03-27-2009, 10:17 AM
Any one who does not recognize the harmful effects of CFCs and their potentially catastrophic effect on the planet has either been misinformed or is willfully ignorant. It is equivalent to arguing that there is no such thing as gravity. The evidence is overwhelmingly one sided. The effects were predicted based on the chemistry of these compounds in the 1970s. The prediction was made many years before any actual depletion was observed. The discovery of the Antartic "ozone hole" in 1985 was a complete surprise, because no one imagined that ozone depletion would be concentrated in such a small area or be so severe. After its discovery, atmospheric scientists then worked out the detailed mechanisms of why ozone depletion occurred in the Antartic in September/October. The first signs of recovery of the ozone layer are now being recorded, after most of most damaging chemicals have been phased out for several years.

It is still possible to be a skeptic about global warming. The same cannot be said about the effects of CFCs on stratospheric ozone. The atmospheric chemistry and physics in the case of ozone depletion can be easily understood by someone with a few college level chemistry and physics classes without the aid of computers. Climate change is much more complicated and I don't blame people for being skeptical, even though I think they are probably wrong.