atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#721: Ozone hole and climate change skepticism.

Just wandering through my list of bookmarks I found myself at, and saw this article about how the "ozone hole" is "shrinking".

It's more of the same stupid useless blather, but what made me post about it was this:

"We've got this large reservoir of CFCs and halons sitting in the atmosphere, slowly leaking into the stratosphere where it does the ozone destruction,..."

Where is this reservoir? Show me the reservoir. Show me how many PPM of our atmosphere is CFCs. (Hint: if all the freon ever manufactured was released into the atmosphere now, it wouldn't register on a meter set to PPM even 50 years from now.) itself has the counter for this: Seasonal Variations in Antarctic Ozone.

As far as we know the "ozone hole" has always been there. It was discovered in 1956, which was long before CFCs were in widespread use even in the United States. NASA's "record low" figure of 96 DU for ozone concentrations over Antarctica are 14 DU lower than the measure in 1958 of 110, which happened before CFCs were in widewpread use even in the United States.

The concentrations hover between 250-300 for most of the year, and ozone "depletion" only occurs from sometime in August until sometime in October, and then averages around 150 DU lower than for nine months of the year.

I have to use this graphic again:

This is a NASA graph. I've plotted the actual low ozone concentration for 1958 with a callout to show the data point...not that it's really necessary to show which data point it is.

* * *

Then there's this. A sociologist delves into "climate change skepticism" and tries to understand why some people reject the idea that humans are causing global warming.

The sociologist thinks that it's a coping mechanism.
In some sense, not wanting to know was connected to not knowing how to know. Talking about global warming went against conversation norms.

It wasn't a topic that people were able to speak about with ease - rather, overall it was an area of confusion and uncertainty. Yet feeling this confusion and uncertainty went against emotional norms of toughness and maintaining control.
Why would we want to believe that scenarios of melting Arctic ice and spreading diseases that appear to spell ecological and social demise are in store for us; or even worse, that we see such effects already?

Information about climate change is deeply disturbing. It threatens our sense of individual identity and our trust in our government's ability to respond.

At the deepest level, large scale environmental problems such as global warming threaten people's sense of the continuity of life - what sociologist Anthony Giddens calls ontological security.

Thinking about global warming is also difficult for those of us in the developed world because it raises feelings of guilt. We are now aware of how driving automobiles and flying to exotic warm vacations contributes to the problem, and we feel guilty about it.
And they have a picture of ostriches in the article, just to make the point.

Some people are so certain that "global warming=man made=apocalypse" that they can't seem to understand that there are pefectly reasonable people out there who don't agree with them. And so they must find reasons why people don't agree with them--are they stupid or crazy, or misguided? Oh, you see, it's not that; they're just trying to cope with the scary news that we're all going to die horribly.

Well, I'm here to tell you that my climate change skepticism is not a coping mechanism or the result of stupidity or insanity. Okay?

I reject the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis because it's wrong. I reject it because the science is junk. The "proof" is junk.

The best case that was ever made for anthropogenic global warming (Mann et al, the "hockey stick") turned out to be fraudulent and the guy responsible is still considered a viable "expert".

I reject it because there is no incontrovertible evidence supporting it; it is not "proven" or even "demonstrated". If you look at the graphs you see that carbon dioxide concentrations trail, not lead, temperature increases.

No one can agree how much warming we can expect from what concentration of carbon dioxide. No one can put historic data into climate models and replicate natural climate changes which took place before we used fossil fuels. No computer model includes albedo changes as the result of cloudiness because we don't understand how temperature affects cloudiness.

We don't know enough about the atmosphere or the Earth's climate history to say we know ANYTHING definitive about global warming or "climate change".

Except that climate change is happening all the time and has since the Earth even had a climate. But we don't know why the Earth's climate changes, we don't know what drives it, and we don't know how it remains even as stable as it has.

I reject anthropogenic climate change because I don't think changing 3% of 0.78% of our atmosphere is enough to drive it out of its metastable condition. I reject anthropogenic climate change because I know that the Earth has been much warmer and much cooler than it is right now even in historic times and it had nothing to do with using fossil fuels.

I reject anthropogenic climate change because the only thing the "experts" have to offer is fearmongering, and the only solution they offer is to put all human activity under strict government control.

It has nothing to do with me being "afraid" of climate change. I don't care if it gets hot or we have another ice age: bring it on. I'm a human being and I WILL ADAPT.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.