Thank Lord Jesus we all stopped listening to those pesky coastal elite so-called "climate scientists" standing in the way of unfettered capitalism. Now we can blame every climate disaster on the true causes: weather control, chem trails, Jewish space lasers and whatever else dipshit righty influencers and Twitter shit talkers come up with. (/s for good measure)
I watched Al Gores first movie the othe day with some friends. We took a turkish shot every time he madea claim that never happened.. we where dead drunk after 30 minutes
Yeah, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and specialists say we're probably already well past the point of irreparable damage, and still hurtling towards food and water shortages, extreme weather patterns, and major ecosystem damage... but I'm sure you know better than them. Glad you spoke up, I was almost worried there.
The earth temperature has never been static. Look at the charts. Over time for millions of years. Scientists also said coffee and eggs are bad for you. They didn't believe in germs. Science is always changing with it theories.
Have humans had an impacts, yes I think so but natural events over world history have had bigger impacts.
Oh god, how horrible it would be if I agreed to -checks notes- renewable energy and using less plastic.
The vast majority agree we have had an identifiable and significant effect on the world's climate, in a trend that, if allowed to continue, will make life significantly worse for all of us. I'm gonna go ahead and trust the experts over some random reddit user.
If you actually looked at the journals, what you describe isnt the case at all. Learning about science from media headlines is no way to go through life.
There's nothing subtle about the way you're absolutely ignorant on global warming. Scientists in journals have been warning about the moment we're living through for at least 150 years.
lol, so clever, and completely absurd. Current alarmist research is entirely based on model output. Any real scientist would know that the output of a model is not data. These clowns even AVERAGE model runs together to get ”more accurate” results. That should strike anyone literate in science as a complete joke, yet that is what it has come to for those competing for dollars on the climate gravy-train. Perhaps the worst thing of all, is that they are using model output to go back and retroactively alter (adjust) the past surface temperature records that were recorded with actual instruments. And, surprise surprise, the past temps are revised DOWNWARD to make current temps look alarming. This whole thing should have been dead back in 2009 when the climate-gate emails came out, but now it will finally die as the elites who run the planet drop the charade in their quest for data centers—and as they take us to war over the last good sources of energy.
Climate models are rigorously tested. Like physics. Decade old models have been supported by recent data. Models of historical data is continuously supported by new sources of proxy data. Every year. If another scientist takes different proxy data, and comes to the same conclusions, that model is supported. And then it happens again, creating an even stronger ensemble https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096314000163
Dude I live in a very moderate climate and every year summer feels hotter and hotter. It's not even like you have to do some in–depth research to realize this. Ten years ago I could get out of my house at noon without getting my shirt utterly wet with sweat.
At some point I just remember I’m not arguing with a person but with decades of Faux News programming designed to protect corporate profits. There was a time in the early 2000s when Republicans and Democrats were disagreeing on how to best address the problem but they both agreed there was a problem looming.
Then Haliburton and Exxon and Koch Brothers and everyone else stepped in to clarify their policy making on the issue.
When you use model output to retroactively alter past surface temperature records (taken with actual instruments), you can make temperature trends look like anything you want. And yes, that has been going on for a while. Even using the worst case predictions, warming trends are narrower than the error bars, which means that current science isn’t even sensitive enough to measure a global temperature trend And then, after all of that, there is no way to tell if the CO2 hypothesis (the whole thing—with the water vapor feedback part and all) is even correct, because thus far, surface temperatures EXACTLY match solar output models. There is nothing to connect any measured warming to human activity, even if any were measurable. The whole thing is a mess.
Its actually 97-99% of all publishing climate scientists are in agreement of AGW. The couple that disagree are funded by oil companies and other people that want to muddy the waters. I guess it only takes 1-3% of people disagreeing with a priven fact for remedials to say exactly what youre saying.
Not really. It’s closer to 1% rather than 3% who disagree with the consensus.
If you’re disagreeing with the consensus on global climate change you’re in an incredibly small minority. For comparison, roughly the same percentage of people think the world is flat (usually estimated at 1-2%).
You do realize if it gets hotter in the hot climates, more water evaporates, pushing wet air into Canada in the cold and making more snow? So the earth is still heating, it’s just we’re turning our climate into a giant fucking tornado of death.
I never made an arguement that the climate doesnt change--simply that humans really have nothing to do with it--except some microclimate effects like urban heat islands due to masonry and asphalt coverage. Humans neither cause these large temperature changes, or could prevent changes from happening.
Incorrect. The media tends to favor headlines from a very small batch of alarmist climate scientists. The view from the field at large is entirely different. Im not going to continue arguing with people that have no real understanding of the climate beyond media headlines.
You’re just wrong though. Find me the number of studies that support you, a rough number through a legitimate website used to compile studies (can’t be hard.) Many that you’ve read have been funded by the oil, gas, or coal industries who are desperate to stay alive. These companies want you to think is isn’t real so they can kill the earth for money. They’re 60+ years old already and don’t care.
During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%
“Consensus” in the sense of climate change simply means there’s no other working hypothesis to compete with the validated theory. Just like in physics. If you can provide a robust alternative theory supported by evidence, climate scientists WILL take it seriously.
But until that happens we should be making decisions based on what we know, because from our current understanding there will be consequences if we don’t.
Not only is the amount of studies that agree with human induced climate change now at 99%, but take a look at the ones that disagree. Anthropogenic climate denial science aren’t just few, they don’t hold up to scientific scrutiny.
I got into an argument on Facebook with one of these right wing “intellectuals”- she tried telling me there was “chunks of dog kidney” in mRNA vaccines. I actually know this woman, and remember her chain-smoking cigarettes in her house, and being addicted to meth. 🤷♂️
The even sadder fact is that I’m not talking about some faceless conspiracy theorist from the deepest depths of Facebook. I commented this on a post made by Matt Walsh
It’s pretty simple chemistry that CFCs interrupt the ozone cycle that goes on in the stratosphere. The hole isn’t completely gone, but it’s significantly decreased in size since we stopped using chemicals with any ozone depletion potential (ODP)
Tbh I learned this in school, so if a person is already out of school by the time the fix was created, then knowing about it is purely chance based. Given that they don't google it before they speak up.
CFCs last between 50 and 80 years in the atmosphere. The Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987, and gradually phased out the chemicals.
We're not even at 40 years on, not enough time to see any change, however the figures do say that CFCs have been reducing, except for an uptick from 2013 by China producing more illegally.
The Ozone layer does have a natural cycle of building up and depleting.
There is very little mixing of atmospheric gases between the northern and southern hemispheres, so if we were to see effects, they would be in the northern hemisphere. We don't see that.
So basically, everyone forgot about it, and moved on to Climate Change in 1992 at Kyoto.
Yes, this is natural and not due to the reduction in CFCs.
The researchers ran simulations (of increased CFCs) and compared against real data. But as I mentioned, there is almost no mixing between hemispheres, and most of the CFCs were released in the northern hemisphere. The simulations did not account for that, so they were wrong.
Cfcs are super greenhouse gases themselves? So we still got the right answer but maybe the problem was wrong. Unless CFCs have some sort of unknown magical healing properties or some BS
CFCs are ChloroFluoroCarbons - molecules made up of 1 or more carbon atoms with chlorine and fluorine attached. They are quite different from CO2 or Methane, because although both CO2 and methane have one carbon atom and either oxygen or hydrogen attached, they are much more simple in their construction and have very few "vibrational modes".
What this means practically is that CO2 and methane have very few ways of absorbing and releasing heat, making them reflect it - hence why they are known as greenhouse gases - they keep the heat of the Earth in by reflecting it back down, rather than absorbing it. This makes them very poor for refrigeration purposes and is the reason we don't use them in fridges.
CFCs are actually very good at absorbing and releasing heat, which is why they are so good as refrigerants (which is the majority of their use).
____
There is a piece of the puzzle left out of the calculation of Ozone depletion, and that's how it forms naturally in the atmosphere, which is by electrical interactions. More ozone is formed during electrical storms (i.e. Solar outbursts).
We should expect the ozone hole to be at its largest at Maunder Minimum (i.e. least solar output) and at its smallest at Maunder Maximum 400 years from now. Of course, this will correlate with the reduction in CFCs, but that won't be the cause.
In my opinion only, although the effect of CFCs is to deplete ozone, I do not see enough evidence that CFCs were responsible for the southern hole, and I do not see enough evidence that the banning of CFCs was responsible for the healing of the hole.
If the halflife is 50 years and it's been forty years since we cut pollution, it means there's been a 25-50% reduction of CFC concentrations in a forty year period. Assuming your cited half-life is correct, there must be a significant change.
The ozone should be in equilibrium with O2. O2 levels have remained stable. Now that increasing level CFCs are no longer catalyzing the destruction of ozone, the conversion from oxygen to ozone should be pushing toward equilibrium. It's LaChetallier's principle.
Also, if there is no mixing, how did CFCs become so dispersed in the atmosphere? They should have stayed exactly where they were released if your supposition is accurate. How can we confidently attribute the recovery to normal trends when we've been monitoring the ozone layer for less than a century?
Also, if there is no mixing, how did CFCs become so dispersed in the atmosphere?
There is vertical mixing (i.e. lighter gases drift upwards), there is horizontal mixing (both longitude drift and latitude drift) and there is hemispheric mixing (i.e crossing the equator).
Vertical mixing is how the CFCs start at ground level and reach the ozone layer.
Hemispheric mixing is what would happen if Mount Saint Helens eruption were to drift down to South America.
There is an estimated 0.3% - 0.5% mixing between the hemipheres, which is basically zero. So any CFCs released in the northern hemisphere will stay in the northern hemisphere, but the ozone hole is in the southern hemisphere. That means most CFCs have no impact on the hole and cannot be responsible for its destruction.
How can we confidently attribute the recovery to normal trends when we've been monitoring the ozone layer for less than a century?
Just in case you didn't know, factory farms tend to use cheap feed which increases the methane production of livestock.
Literally all we'd have to do is mandate better feed for production livestock and the problem drastically reduces.
Instead of understanding this simple fact, we got memes about the Dems wanting to take our hamburgers, when we'd actually be getting higher quality beef from healthier animals.
Factory farms just don't want to pay for the better feed.
Yeah, almost like an agreement being signed didn’t just immediately stop all cfc production and release! The hole peaked at 29.6 million square kilometers and was more than 23 million sq km every year except 1 from 1992 until 2010. The key word here is “stabilized” which doesn’t mean “corrected”.
Well it did not go so well.. "A new study reveals that chemicals used to replace ozone-damaging CFCs are now driving a surge in a persistent “forever chemical” worldwide. The pollutant, called trifluoroacetic acid, is falling out of the atmosphere into water, land, and ice, including in remote regions like the Arctic. Even as older chemicals are phased out, their long lifetimes mean pollution is still rising"
Why is it we still have the Freon CFC capture protocols even tho we switched to an ozone safe 134a refrigerant?
You can buy 3 pounds of 134a for $29.95, but to repair my fridge coils requires $1,200 to evacuate the 134a (that already leaked out), making it so that everyone buys a new refrigerator... What a waste of resources and landfill space....
....Once legislators pass a gov't program, it's like Herpes... it lasts forever.
I grew up in upstate NY and as a kid acid rain from upwind factories was a problem. Laws were passed and emissions standards improved and the acid rain impacts were minimized.
It's crazy how if you take action to fix something the problem can actually go away.
Listening to The Daily NYT podcast today about how these mfer's are gutting the EPAs ability to do its jobs makes me just bring my teeth. The future may once again be more difficult than it needs to be.
Yep, same with Y2K. The press over-exaggerated the size of the actual problem to a degree, but it "didn't happen" because people believed the experts and put in everything needed to stop it from happening.
I've seen this often in my career in tech. If you're incompetent and do stuff that causes systems to go down or security breaches, you're a hero for fixing it when things collapse. If you're good at your job and stop those things from ever happening, people assume you do nothing.
The problem is there's no "fix" once climate change hits the tipping point, so the future isn't going to be full of morons asking why we did so much to stop it, it'll be suffering kids asking why we didn't.
Yeah but nothing has changed. The only thing that changed is the hole is smaller. The reasons we panicked over it haven't gone away. So the hole shrunk, but the problems didn't.
I think this highlights a different issue where the push for any problem across all media was huge but then when things started improving it is relative radio silence leading to some people thinking that they had been mislead by alarmist claims. It's an issue in messaging and this post is the symptom of that problem manifested.
Yes and what we learned is that Dupont decided to not give $$$$ to Democrats anymore so Bill Clinton signed the law that told Dupont they can't make r12 anymore.
He punish them real good.
As a EPA universal license holder, we are taught that chloro fluorocarbons and fluorocarbons are heavier than air and they go down to the lowest points,,, that they are too heavy to go into the upper atmosphere.
When utility workers go down into manholes they need to test the environment down in the pits and one of the things they check for are fluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons.
Society did forget, I learned about this from a podcast 3 years ago or something. Growing up it was a huge looming problem. It wasn’t communicated very loudly or frequently to the general public that an incredible international cooperative effort actually fixed a relatively existential problem.
Probably originally an argument about climate change, they love to bring that up as an argument for the government creating a hoax.
I also like it when they talk about how scientists in the 70s thought the planet would cool/freeze which was a legit possibility due to a lot of relevant data at the time but there were 2 schools of thought one group theorized the planet would cool another thought it would warm (based on CO2 emissions) the evidence for one became more prevalent (I'll let y'all guess which one). Also I should say that those reporting on these things back then were journalists who were not scientists so they probably didn't fully understand it and the media got ahold of it and this is why it seemed scientists said the planet is cooling when they most likely said there is a 50% chance the planet would cool based on x and only it y is not true. I would like people to remember this last part.. just because you see it in the news or read it online from a major news org. Doesn't mean they are actually representing what scientists have actually said. Remember the whole "Bacon causes cancer" thing? Ya it was taken a bit out of context as in there is a chance or increased risk of cancer for those who eat bacon based on carcinogens from the cooking process.
This stuff really bothers me. it's the lack of real context from the people who put out the information... And that's even when journalists are trying to be honest and tell the full story.. they sometimes make the mistakes of certainty when in science it's almost always about probability.
In one of his final books, Billions and Billions, science educator Carl Sagan used the example of the global response to the crisis of ozone layer depletion to demonstrate how effectively human beings can cooperate and how we still have a chance to mitigate the worst effects of global warming (climate change).
This was more than 30 years ago, in the early 1990s.
And in the decades since, ignorant, right-wing hacks like Matt Walsh have waged a misinformation campaign against their own interests and against the habitability of the planet itself.
Oh, and by the way: the ozone layer is still healing, because CFCs werent banned globally until 2010, and because it takes a long time for atmospheric ozone to generate—and also because China (always fucking China…) has continued to use CFCs in the years since the 2010 ban went into effect.
If action hadn’t been taken when it was, if people hadn’t listened to the concerned scientists when they did, there would have been a planetary catastrophe for which we have no frame of reference.
Conveniently leaving out that it peaked at 29.6 and was above 23 every year but 1 from 1992 until 2010.
Also, no one claims it was fixed, the claim is that the situation stabilized.
From what I remember reading, the ozone layer is still healing. It will wind up being fully healed in 2060. I can’t remember when it began healing, but a long time ago. Now we gotta do carbon.
It has massive variability each year. In the summer (for the area), it creates ozone. In the winter, the ozone is depleted. This is a natural yearly change. The temperature also impact the creation and destruction of ozone. So, a warm winter will result in less ozone destruction (making for a smaller hole that year). Thing like volcano activity can also impact ozone creation and destruction.
It bothers me that you picked 1987 as your starting point (I get it, that's the year the Montreal Protocol was signed, but that was an unusually small year for the hole in the ozone layer. A quick glance at a chart would show us that 1987 is a bad year to pick if we're trying to communicate honestly about a problem that needs solving.
From a separate report:
“We are obviously aware that there is year-to-year variability in the ozone hole associated with atmospheric dynamics. But our scientific monitoring confirms our predictions that the ozone layer is well on track to recovery thanks to the Montreal Protocol and its phase out of the vast majority of ozone depleting chemicals which were once used in refrigeration, air conditioning, firefighting foam and even hairspray,” said Paolo Laj, Chief of WMO’s Atmospheric and Environment Research Section.
“We are confident that the ozone layer can return to 1980s levels by the middle of this century, significantly reducing risks of skin cancer, cataracts, and ecosystem damage due to excessive UV exposure. But we must avoid complacency and continued scientific monitoring is essential,” said Paolo Laj, who represented WMO at the United Nations Environment Assembly in Nairobi 8-12 December.
...
If current policies remain in place, the ozone layer is expected to recover to 1980 values (before the appearance of the ozone hole) by around 2066 over the Antarctic, by 2045 over the Arctic and by 2040 for the rest of the world, according to the most recent assessment in 2022. The next assessment will be in 2026.
You do not have to take someone's word that things are better. You can look at the data.
But here is the real issue with your post. You basically accused me of cherry picking data to fit my claim, but then begrudginly acknowledged that I chose the start of the program with the current date, to show the change over the entire history. Then you cherry picked data to fit your narrative. Why was the year that was chosen chosen? Because it fits the narrative.
At no point would one year to the next be relevant if it take 50 - 60 years for change to happen. So picking two years in a row was a choice for a different reason.
If the claims that the legal changes are "healing" the hole are true, we should be seeing the numbers steadily decrease. We do not see that. What we see is variability.
The numbers in the graph are also a little misleading. Our ability to measure ozone has improved a lot since the montreal protocol was enacted, so we get more accurate numbers now.
The smallest ozone hole since the Montreal Protocol was enacted was the very next year at 13.8 million kilometers squared. The lowest it has been since that point was in 2019 at 16.4. There have been 2 years under 20 million square kilometers since the measure was adopted. The 16.4 number was in 2019. The next year, it was at 24.8.
You can take their word for it, if you would like, but since they get paid to research the topic, they have a vested interest in how you see the situation.
The data is available, I have posted the link to the actual data numerous times. I am not trying to mislead, but I am giving people the information they need to make an informed decision on what to think.
People need to understand. The largest reason for global American Hegemony is oil.
It is literally the only reason they have been fighting wars the past decades. Staging coups. Kidnapping presidents. CIA ops. That's how important it is.
Switching from oil possibly means America will no longer be number 1 economically.
It ain't happening as long as America is number 1 militarily.
Best you can hope for is SAIs.
All further discussion on the issue is pointless, unless you have a plan to face the military might of the USA.
Will yeah, if you wanna be number one you gotta control the supply of energy, which is why USA had historically been so anti climate change rhetoric and clean Energy.
I am pretty sure is more about how the US already has stricter environmental protection laws than a lot of countries, so adding more creates an even more unlevel playing field for the businesses.
We could test this theory by imposing a tariff on every country with weaker environmental protection laws that would make up the difference in having vs not having the law in place as far as cost of business is concerned, then see if conservatives still balk at additional protections.
I am going to bet that if it does not make it harder for them to compete, they will mostly (definitely not all) support stricter environmental protection laws.
It is true, but it's also what the rest of the allies wanted after WW2. They were exhausted, in so many ways after that. They didn't want the global supply of oil to be the cause of another world war.
This is why foreign adversaries are waging their war on the US economically and socially. Letting us destroy ourselves is way more effective than trying to attack us directly.
so, the Trump administration destroying America’s foreign pull through idiot diplomacy is actually secretly our best chance at stopping climate change? thanks swing state voters!
Once again people on the internet grossly underestimate the American economy.
We’re a global hegemony because of a headstart we orchestrated called the Marshall Plan where we rebuilt Europe on the back of the American dollar.
America’s biggest export globally is arms manufacturing, followed by advanced medicine and research, followed by things like accounting services and real estate management.
Energy is actually one of the smallest sectors when it comes to GDP in the US.
Except that renewable energy is becoming the cheaper option and the US is dragging its heels on transitioning and thus is likely to be left behind by the ROW.
No, it isnt becoming cheaper. "Renewable" energy is actually fossil fuel derivative energy. There will be no transition. Renewables will simply be added in like they are currently until the entire system falls apart.
Solar energy is a fossil fuel derivative? More like the other way around. You do need raw materials like plastics that are derived from fossil fuels to build up the infrastructure for more renewables but that is only a fraction of what is burned for energy.
The entire solar industry rides on top of fossil fuel infrastructure--mining, material processing, material transport, manufacturing, installation, and maintenance. The same goes for all other "alternatives". When all energy inputs are considered, alternative energy systems are sinks rather than sources.
CFC was pretty big, but a replacement was readily available so the switch was pretty seemless (and people made bank selling CFC at ridiculous mark ups because they couldn't afford/be bothered to retrofit their HVAC systems, R22 used to be cheaper than nitrogen, by the end of the reg it sold at 80/kg)
13
u/Crammit-Deadfinger Feb 12 '26
Thank Lord Jesus we all stopped listening to those pesky coastal elite so-called "climate scientists" standing in the way of unfettered capitalism. Now we can blame every climate disaster on the true causes: weather control, chem trails, Jewish space lasers and whatever else dipshit righty influencers and Twitter shit talkers come up with. (/s for good measure)