Science magazine: "Global Warming but Antarctica Cools". Is this a joke?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Edufer, May 3, 2002.

  1. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    791
    Since this is supposed to be a forum on sciences, I thought this news released by Science magazine newsletter (sent by email to subscribers) would be of some interest.

    <b>May 2nd, 2002: "Antarctic Cooling and Ozone Losses":</b> <i>Despite an overall global warming trend, temperatures over large parts in the interior of Antarctica have exhibited a small but distinct cooling trend during the past several decades. Thompson and Solomon (p. 895; see the news story by Kerr) present evidence that high-latitude Southern Hemisphere circulation changes during the past few decades reflect a systematic trend in regional atmospheric circulation. Trends in tropospheric circulation trends can be traced to the recent cooling of the lower stratosphere caused by photochemical ozone losses".</i>

    Well, we can dismiss this <i>"Despite an overall global warming trend"</i> as a joke by Science, (as temperature records from more than 1700 meteorological stations all over the world show the opposite. See <A HREF="http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm"><B>"Still Waiting for the Greenhouse: What the stations Say"</B></A> and check for yourself, or check here if you still have some doubts about the scientific accuracy of the data). <BR><BR>
    <center><b><A HREF=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/TempWrong.html>"The Global Surface Air Temperature Record Must Be Wrong"</A><BR>
    <A HREF="http://co2science.org/temperatures/ghcn_des.htm">Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN)</A><BR>
    <A HREF="http://co2science.org/temperatures/jones_des.htm">Jones et al.</A><BR>
    <A HREF="http://co2science.org/temperatures/msu_des.htm">MSU Satellite</A><BR>
    <A HREF="http://co2science.org/temperatures/radio_des.htm">Upper-Air Radiosonde (Balloon)</A></B><BR><BR></center>
    and let's go to Science second joke: how they contradict themselves (a long record of contradictions): The Ozone Matter:

    First comes <i>"Overall warming trend"</i> and then they say <i>"...temperatures over large parts in the interior of Antarctica have exhibited <b>a small but distinct cooling trend</b> during the past several decades"</i> Now why don't they make up their minds and tell us: Cooling or Warming? Because the computer modeling (GCM) on which the Warming Scare is based say <b>the first place where the warming will be noticed are the Polar regions.</b> And they insist on this claim despite <B>ALL</b> satellite and radiosonde ballons (not to mention the 1700 stations) say there have been no such warming since scientists started to send ballons to the stratosphere, and satellites beyond it. But, what can you expect from Science magazine?, a publication by the Americaqn Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS), whose president used to be nothing less than F. Sherwood Rowland, Nobel prize and inventor of the ozone hole hoax.

    The Science newsletter finish telling us: <i>" Trends in tropospheric circulation trends can be traced to the recent cooling of the lower stratosphere <b>caused by photochemical ozone losses".</b></i> Now they are beginning to recognize that the ozone loss in Antarctica is <b>"photochemical"</b> and not only <b>"chemical"</B> as previously claimed, putting the blame on the chlorine atoms released by the infamous CFCs. It seems now that UV radiation has an effect on the ozone layer. What do you know! This has been stated for years by "skeptical scientists" all over the world, and saying that the ozone over Antarctica is periodically destroyed by the <b>physical</b> conditions there, and that chlorine has nothing to do with it.

    Another strong point made by these "skepticals" is that the "catalytic reaction" of chlorine on the ozone molecules <b>has never been demonstrated</b> in any laboratory (I guess this is because of two reasons: or this is an impossible task to perform (you cannot contain gaseous ozone in a container because it destroy itself and converts back to oxygen, or what if the experiment fails to show the catalytic reaction? It would be a flop; a blooper... So F. Sherwood Rowland et al, wrote the reaction on paper (as any lawyer can tell you, paper is happy to receive anything you like to write) and later made beautiful computer simulations (computer programmers will tell you the Golden Axiom of Programming: <b>"Garbage In, Garbage Out"</b>), scared the hell out of people and politicians and got their Nobel "Political" Prize.

    But don't fool ourselves: the Prize was given not by their scientific achievement but, as stated by the Swedish Academy of Sciences because <b>"The three researchers have contributed to our salvation from a global environmental problem that could have catastrophic consequences"</b>. (sic). This Nobel citation made French scientist Haroum Tazieff say in 1995, among other things: <i>"But there was never, to my knowledge, such amazement as the stupefaction that has touched the world of chemists. The three awards given for what is known today as the theory of the "ozone hole" are, in fact, <b>a tremendous scientific scandal</b>. The aim is to intimidate honest scientists who have tried to resist the catastrophism and the lies that have reigned for some 20-odd years on the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect".</i>

    So, what's going on with the ozone hole hoax now? Once they got CFCs banned, they are changing from "chemical action" to "dynamic action" on the ozone layer. Why? What new scam are these people trying to push? What are they trying to ban now? Mankind?
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2002
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    From what I understand there are a few points:

    The ozone doesn't stay a constant volume of a particular gase, but a mergence of gases, that over time transform from molecule bond to molecule bond.

    So in one instance we could have a global temperature rise and then next global cooling.

    The reason for this is the shear fact that pollutants have messed with the ozone's equilibrum, it's ballance. To to its ballance being shifted so severely it reacts with severity, like someone pushing down a pan on some scales and then allowing it to try and ballance out on it's own.

    There is also the point that in the Antarctic is in the south (which I'm sure you know), but it's also the Souths WINTER. So I can understand it appearing "Cooler", while the Arctic suffers nearing 24 hour daylight. (Which is bound to have a warming consequence.)
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Lesion42 Deranged Hermit Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    800
    The ironic thing is that we're about to move into a new ice age, yet we're super-heating the earth with our ozone pollution. It's gonna' screw up our environment soooooooooooo bad.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    Actually scientists have analysed ice probes from Greenland and have found tht we live in a cycles. periods of warmth and ice ages. For the last 20 million years or so. We have a long period of ice age followed by a shorter period of warm/hot weather. By global warming we have actually speeded up the warmth period :irony of nature:
     

Share This Page