Artic Ozone loss caused by low temperatures

I question this blog post.

We know that the media is full of lies (e.g. the “humanitarian mission” in Libya). We know that history books are full of lies (e.g. the “holocaust”). We know we must be skeptical. We must verify things for ourselves. However we can take skepticism too far, and over-analyze things to the point where we ignore objective reality.

For example, some people ignore the objective reality that Hezbollah has fought two wars with the Jews. They think that Hezbollah is a Zionist Israeli front.  They take this assumption about Hezbollah on faith, and they attack anyone who questions their faith. Other people attack anyone who questions their faith that the “Rothschilds financed Hitler,” or that humans never went to the moon, or that most politicians are “reptilians," or that there is no such thing as global climate change.

The truth is that climatologists have reached a scientific consensus that global warming is a fact, and is mainly caused by human activity. The only real debate is political, as contrarian scientists and “free-market” propaganda mills insist that climate change is not real. This despite the fact that we are seeing record droughts in some areas, and record floods in other areas.

Regarding the alleged ozone loss in the arctic, global warming is a TREND. Within a general trend there are wild variations in climate and weather. As the earth warms, there are changes in things like the jet stream, which cause some areas to become unusually cold. Such conditions are transitory.

Consider what the ORIGINAL article said in the journal “Nature.” The entire entry is only one paragraph…

“Chemical ozone destruction occurs over both polar regions in local winter–spring. In the Antarctic, essentially complete removal of lower-stratospheric ozone currently results in an ozone hole every year, whereas in the Arctic, ozone loss is highly variable and has until now been much more limited. Here we demonstrate that chemical ozone destruction over the Arctic in early 2011 was—for the first time in the observational record—comparable to that in the Antarctic ozone hole. Unusually long-lasting cold conditions in the Arctic lower stratosphere led to persistent enhancement in ozone-destroying forms of chlorine and to unprecedented ozone loss, which exceeded 80 per cent over 18–20 kilometres altitude. Our results show that Arctic ozone holes are possible even with temperatures much milder than those in the Antarctic. We cannot at present predict when such severe Arctic ozone depletion may be matched or exceeded.”

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature10556.html

Blogs such as “Penny for your thoughts” say that “unusually long-lasting cold conditions” means “permanent cold conditions.”  This is a huge (and faith-based) jump in logic.

The city where I live has undergone a radical climate change over the last 30 years. I have witnessed this firsthand. As urbanization exploded in size, the city created a “heat island,” such that rain became less and less frequent. Everyone in my city agrees that the weather has dramatically changed over the years. I have not found one person in my city who disagrees. This by itself is not "proof" of global warming, yet it becomes evidence when we document the same thing happening in many large cities.

Many photos show the ongoing retreat of major glaciers. In the link below (from National Geographic), examine the seventh photo from the left. Since August 1921 the Rongbuk Glacier in southern Tibet (whose source is Mt. Everest) has lost some 350 vertical feet of ice, approximately the height of the Statue of Liberty. Yet people remain in denial about global warming.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/04/tibetan-plateau/bendiksen-photography

Here’s a different photo of the same glacier…

http://ngadventure.typepad.com/blog/2009/04/asias-big-water-problemmountaineers-help-photograph-glacier-retreat-in-nepal.html

Jews maintain their "holocaust" lie because it legitimizes Jewish atrocities and Jewish supremacy. Jews have a clear motive for their hoax.

However, if global warming is also a hoax, then what is the motive behind it? Who benefits from it? Al Gore? Most people who claim that global warming is not real are right-wing, Jew-loving, capitalist warmongers. Do you trust them? I don't. 

I say that man-made global climate change is real.

Global warming is a TREND

Only when deliberately massaged data is used. Even if it was a trend, the likelihood would be that it is as a result of changes in solar output, not human activity.

However, if global warming is also a hoax, then what is the motive behind it? Who benefits from it?

Revenue-extraction. Further demonisation of the human species and calls for population control, both in the sense of limiting human reproduction and further controlling those who are already alive.

[1] Climate change is not real

[2] Climate change is real, but not caused by fossil fuels.

You can’t logically hold both positions at the same time.

Sullivan writes, “Even if it was a trend, the likelihood would be that it is as a result of changes in solar output, not human activity.”

How has solar output changed? Can you document these supposed changes? What is it about anthropogenic or “man made” that so vexes you? The burning of fossils fuels produces carbon dioxide, which traps heat. This fact was established in the late 1800s.

Climate denial is strongest in the USA, the land of endless war. Climate deniers like Rush Limbaugh defend Israel, imperialism, and Wall Street. Some also deny evolution and carbon dating. Why are they wrong about everything except climate change? This is like saying that Jews are wrong about everything except the “holocaust.”

Climate deniers include the fossil fuel industry, corporate America, and right wing propaganda mills. Their propaganda has been incorporated by broader movements of right-wing populism that have a visceral loathing of environmentalism. Why are they wrong about everything except climate change?

Sullivan says the motive for the climate change “hoax” is “Revenue-extraction. Further demonisation of the human species and calls for population control, both in the sense of limiting human reproduction and further controlling those who are already alive.”

Who extracts revenue based on global warming? Who pays this revenue? What form does this revenue take? How is payment enforced? Who says global warming means that human reproduction must be limited? How is global warming used to control the masses? Who exerts this control?

If my request for specifics annoys you, then you are operating on faith, not facts. Ask yourself why you maintain this faith. Notice what type of people share your faith (e.g. British tabloids, right-wing science-phobic politicians, etc.). Ask yourself how much literature you have actually read on the topic.

On a different note, anthropogenic global climate change does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. Greenland, for example, is gaining ice in the center, but losing ice in the exterior regions, such that – on net balance – Greenland is losing 200 cubic kilometers of ice per year, which is double the rate of ten years ago.

Some people say that global warming is a hoax by environmental extremists and liberals who want an excuse for more big government (and/or world government via the U.N.). I am not an environmental extremist, and I despise the idea of world government.

Some people say that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the nuclear industry. I despise the nuclear industry, and I insist that all nuclear plants be shut down immediately.

Some people say that global warming is false, because most glaciers are growing, not melting. That assertion is too stupid to dignify with a response. 

Some people say that scientists regard global warming as debatable. Below is a partial list of organizations that accept global warming as a fact. If this is not scientific consensus, then what would a consensus look like?

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

National Academy of Sciences http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html

State of the Canadian Cryosphere http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html

The Royal Society of the UK

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135

American Geophysical Union http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html

American Meteorological Society http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html

American Institute of Physics

http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html

National Center for Atmospheric Research

http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html

American Meteorological Society

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html

The more evidence we have that global warming is real, the fewer Americans believe the evidence, because it scares them. As the banks push them into poverty, the American masses withdraw into a fantasy in which “God is in heaven, and all’s right with the world.” Republicans exploit this to their own advantage.

As the effects of climate change continue to accumulate, everyone will eventually admit that heat is cutting into wheat yields, nurturing beetles that are destroying northern forests, and attracting malarial mosquitoes to higher latitudes. They will admit that oceans are turning more acidic from absorbing excess carbon dioxide. Acidifying seas harm plankton, shellfish and other marine life up the food chain.

Then the same people who deny it today will claim that it is punishment from God. 

[1] Climate change is not real

[2] Climate change is real, but not caused by fossil fuels.

You can’t logically hold both positions at the same time.

Of course you can't. I hold to proposition number 2, with the proviso that if there is an impact on climate due to the burning of fossil fuels, it is negligible.

Sullivan writes, “Even if it was a trend, the likelihood would be that it is as a result of changes in solar output, not human activity.”

How has solar output changed? Can you document these supposed changes?

I can point you to research demonstrating a close correlation between climate and sunspot activity. See Friis-Christensen, E. and K. Lassen, Length of the solar cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate, Science, 254, 698-700, 1991.

What is it about anthropogenic or “man made” that so vexes you?

What vexes me is that it is a lie and a blatant one at that. What also vexes me is that this straw man of climate change is taking the focus away from real environmental issues.

The burning of fossils fuels produces carbon dioxide, which traps heat. This fact was established in the late 1800s.

That may be so, but carbon dioxide comprises only 0.035% of our planet's atmosphere and is comparatively a very weak greenhouse gas. Water-vapour is far more abundant in our atmosphere and is a much more effective greenhouse gas. 

Climate denial is strongest in the USA, the land of endless war. Climate deniers like Rush Limbaugh defend Israel, imperialism, and Wall Street.

Don't you just love that term "deniers". It gives this phony climate science all the gravitas of the Holoco$t. Anyway, climate-change fanboys also appear amongst the ranks of those defending Israel, imperialism and Wall Street.

Climate deniers include the fossil fuel industry, corporate America, and right wing propaganda mills.

I'm one of those who would be considered a heretic aka "climate denier". I'm neither right wing, associated with the fossil-fuel industry nor am I part of what constitutes America, let alone corporate America.

Their propaganda has been incorporated by broader movements of right-wing populism that have a visceral loathing of environmentalism. Why are they wrong about everything except climate change?

I'm neither a fan of right-wing populism nor do I have a visceral loathing of environmentalism. I am trained in the use of the scientific method and it is evident to me that it has been thrown out the door where climate research is concerned. 

Sullivan says the motive for the climate change “hoax” is “Revenue-extraction. Further demonisation of the human species and calls for population control, both in the sense of limiting human reproduction and further controlling those who are already alive.”

Who extracts revenue based on global warming? Who pays this revenue? What form does this revenue take? How is payment enforced?

For several years now I have had to pay more for my home heating, electricity and fuel for my car, due to so-called "carbon taxes". Payment is enforced through the addition of this tax at the point of purchase.  As these taxes are also levied on producers and distributors and the costs are passed on to the consumer, I also pay more for my food and other daily essentials due to fraudulent "carbon taxes". 

Who says global warming means that human reproduction must be limited? How is global warming used to control the masses? Who exerts this control?

Many "scientists" in the climate-change priesthood have made this Malthusian call for population control, some of which include: Professor Chris Rapley, the director of the British Antarctic Survey; Professor John Gillebaud, Emeritus Professor of Family Planning and Reproductive Health; Roger Martin, chair of Optimum Population Trust. These calls have been echoed by others in the priesthood, such as Al "The Bore" Gore and Jonathan Porritt of Greenpeace.  The matter was also featured on the agenda of the Copenhagen summit fiasco. 

If my request for specifics annoys you, then you are operating on faith, not facts. Ask yourself why you maintain this faith

Have you asked yourself why politicians, scientists, environmentalists and celebrities the world over are all singing from the same hymn-sheet on this issue? Doesn't the manufactured consensus give you any cause for concern or doubt?

Notice what type of people share your faith (e.g. British tabloids, right-wing science-phobic politicians, etc.). Ask yourself how much literature you have actually read on the topic.

I've cut my response short here because I simple won't respond any further to someone who condescends to me.  Let me just say this much. I don't care who shares or doesn't share my opinion. I don't validate my opinions on the basis of who does or does not share them.  As a scientist, albeit not in the nascent (ill)discipline of climate science, my curiousity was piqued by the way the scientific method was abandoned. This entire edifice of "climate change" is based on flawed models fed with massaged data. Neither the models nor the raw data were available to others outside the priesthood to prove or disprove the theory. As such, it remains a theory, and increasingly shaky one at that. 

In short, any problem for which the solution is more taxation and more control is a contrived problem. I'll leave you with a few quotes on this issue.

“The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”

• Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University

"The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

• Alexander King Co-Founder of the Club of Rome, (premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations) from his 1991 book The First Global Revolution

"I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."

• Al Gore, member of the Club of Rome and set to become the world's first carbon billionaire. He is also the largest shareholder of Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which looks set to become the world's central carbon trading body.

In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.

• Jacques Cousteau, French naval officer and explorer. Member of the Club of Rome.

"The threat of environmental crisis will be the 'international disaster key' that will unlock the New World Order."

• Mikhail Gorbachev, Former President of the Soviet Union, member of the Club of Rome

"I've cut my response short here because I simple won't respond any further to someone who condescends to me."

Yes our correspondence has degenerated, especially with you condescendingly dismissing my assertions as "meaningless, "utter nonsense" and "straw man arguments."  

That said, you make a good point about the Irish carbon tax. To be honest, I forgot about that odious excuse for the Collector General to steal more money. Here as always the tax falls hardest on individual households, while big corporations use loopholes and special provisions to avoid paying it. I staunchly oppose carbon taxes in any nation. I think nations should instead do whatever they can to promote authentically clean energy as far as possible. Taxes are not the answer. Taxes are a scam. If carbon taxes are the main engine of your opposition to global climate change rhetoric, then you and I are more allied than it may appear.

Anyway, climate change is not my main concern. My main villains are bankers, financiers, warmongers, war profiteers, puppet politicians, etc.

Thanks for taking the time to exchange ideas.

Yes our correspondence has degenerated, especially with you condescendingly dismissing my assertions as "meaningless, "utter nonsense" and "straw man arguments." 

Could you please point out where I have written any of these things? Maybe I´m having a premature senior moment, but I don´t recall writing anything of that nature.

A senior moment indeed.

If you have Microsoft windows, hit Control + F.

In the "find" window (upper left of your browser) enter the negative words you used against me, and then scroll up and down through our correspondence.

Those words of yours will be highlighted in yellow.

Thank you again for your correspondence.

Heydrich, I'm reluctant to come over all sarcastic as you have, but hey, you've deserved it. How about you use Ctrl+F and then scroll down to see the name at the bottom of the comments in question? You will find that the comments you refer to were authored by Aletho News. 

Apologies. I hope you know how much I respect you. Always have.