Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[Kawasicki]

Gadgetmac said:

You ignore the data from 99% of the published pallets on climate change but this one is correct?

Give me a break.

Does the data (not opinion) in the other papers contradict the chart above?

I trust the chart I posted, it is from a legitimate source. Are you saying you don’t?

[Kawasicki]

Why do we have Ozone holes forming for the first time in the Arctic?

What about all the good work we did with CFCs?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...

[Gadgetmac]

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

You ignore the data from 99% of the published pallets on climate change but this one is correct?

Give me a break.

Does the data (not opinion) in the other papers contradict the chart above?

I trust the chart I posted, it is from a legitimate source. Are you saying you don’t?

You don't trust the data from NASA and various other scientific institutes and thousands of other individual scientists on almost anything they publish but this one you'll resolutely support.

Why is that?

[Kawasicki]

Gadgetmac said:

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

You ignore the data from 99% of the published pallets on climate change but this one is correct?

Give me a break.

Does the data (not opinion) in the other papers contradict the chart above?

I trust the chart I posted, it is from a legitimate source. Are you saying you don’t?

You don't trust the data from NASA and various other scientific institutes and thousands of other individual scientists on almost anything they publish but this one you'll resolutely support.

Why is that?

What data from Nasa? You haven't posted any.

[Gadgetmac]

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

You ignore the data from 99% of the published pallets on climate change but this one is correct?

Give me a break.

Does the data (not opinion) in the other papers contradict the chart above?

I trust the chart I posted, it is from a legitimate source. Are you saying you don’t?

You don't trust the data from NASA and various other scientific institutes and thousands of other individual scientists on almost anything they publish but this one you'll resolutely support.

Why is that?

What data from Nasa? You haven't posted any.

I've posted bucket loads from NASA over the years on climate change.

[Kawasicki]

Gadgetmac said:

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

You ignore the data from 99% of the published pallets on climate change but this one is correct?

Give me a break.

Does the data (not opinion) in the other papers contradict the chart above?

I trust the chart I posted, it is from a legitimate source. Are you saying you don’t?

You don't trust the data from NASA and various other scientific institutes and thousands of other individual scientists on almost anything they publish but this one you'll resolutely support.

Why is that?

What data from Nasa? You haven't posted any.

I've posted bucket loads from NASA over the years on climate change.

But you also agree with statements that the ozone hole is repairing itself when the scientific data (data remember, not opinions) shows that may not actually be the case.

Three whopper holes in a row down south and a new, never seen before, huge hole formed up north doesn't really sound like a success story to me.

Some scientific data you like, others not so much?

[Gadgetmac]

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

You ignore the data from 99% of the published pallets on climate change but this one is correct?

Give me a break.

Does the data (not opinion) in the other papers contradict the chart above?

I trust the chart I posted, it is from a legitimate source. Are you saying you don’t?

You don't trust the data from NASA and various other scientific institutes and thousands of other individual scientists on almost anything they publish but this one you'll resolutely support.

Why is that?

What data from Nasa? You haven't posted any.

I've posted bucket loads from NASA over the years on climate change.

But you also agree with statements that the ozone hole is repairing itself when the scientific data (data remember, not opinions) shows that may not actually be the case.

Three whopper holes in a row down south and a new, never seen before, huge hole formed up north doesn't really sound like a success story to me.

Some scientific data you like, others not so much?

You mean how you don't like the science of climate change which now encompasses almost all currently published science?

I agree that the last 3 years have been odd but it's a waxing and waning system where even your own link says "despite the signs of recovery of the ozone layer"...and that "the last 3 years are quite distinctly different from the previous 40 years".

Not sure that you can call that a trend just yet.

[Gadgetmac]

Hole in the ozone layer has grown for a 3rd year in a row — but scientists aren’t concerned.

https://www.livescience.com/ozone-hole-biggest-sin...

Extract:

The ozone hole is the largest it's been since 2015, but overall it's still decreasing.

The ozone hole that forms yearly over Antarctica has grown for the third year in a row. At nearly 10 million square miles (26.4 million square kilometers), the ozone hole is the largest it's been since 2015.

But despite that growth, scientists say that the hole's size is still on a downward trend overall.

"All the data says that ozone is on the mend," Paul Newman, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center's chief Earth scientist, told the Associated Press.

Trends eh?

[Kawasicki]

Gadgetmac said:

Hole in the ozone layer has grown for a 3rd year in a row — but scientists aren’t concerned.

https://www.livescience.com/ozone-hole-biggest-sin...

Extract:

The ozone hole is the largest it's been since 2015, but overall it's still decreasing.

The ozone hole that forms yearly over Antarctica has grown for the third year in a row. At nearly 10 million square miles (26.4 million square kilometers), the ozone hole is the largest it's been since 2015.

But despite that growth, scientists say that the hole's size is still on a downward trend overall.

"All the data says that ozone is on the mend," Paul Newman, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center's chief Earth scientist, told the Associated Press.

Trends eh?

But you haven’t posted any data, you just posted an opinion.

Here is some data from Copernicus…

https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/clima...





Trends, eh?

[Gadgetmac]

From your link...

In 2000, the ozone hole reached its maximum extent since 1979 and has stopped increasing in size in subsequent years, which is attributable to the phasing out of ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal Protocol (for more information, see the EEA indicator 'Consumption of ozone-depleting substances'). Since 2001, with ODS emissions in check, the ozone layer is showing signs of healing with variations in size between years that are strongly driven by stratospheric temperature, with warmer temperatures leading to a smaller ozone hole, such as in 2019 (for more information, visit the website of the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service).

So that's a downward trend and it clearly states that it's showing signs of healing.

Do you actually read what you post?

[Kawasicki]

Gadgetmac said:

From your link...

In 2000, the ozone hole reached its maximum extent since 1979 and has stopped increasing in size in subsequent years, which is attributable to the phasing out of ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal Protocol (for more information, see the EEA indicator 'Consumption of ozone-depleting substances'). Since 2001, with ODS emissions in check, the ozone layer is showing signs of healing with variations in size between years that are strongly driven by stratospheric temperature, with warmer temperatures leading to a smaller ozone hole, such as in 2019 (for more information, visit the website of the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service).

So that's a downward trend and it clearly states that it's showing signs of healing.

Do you actually read what you post?

Yes, I read what I post.
Did you see the graph - the one with the upwards trend?

[Gadgetmac]

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

From your link...

In 2000, the ozone hole reached its maximum extent since 1979 and has stopped increasing in size in subsequent years, which is attributable to the phasing out of ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal Protocol (for more information, see the EEA indicator 'Consumption of ozone-depleting substances'). Since 2001, with ODS emissions in check, the ozone layer is showing signs of healing with variations in size between years that are strongly driven by stratospheric temperature, with warmer temperatures leading to a smaller ozone hole, such as in 2019 (for more information, visit the website of the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service).

So that's a downward trend and it clearly states that it's showing signs of healing.

Do you actually read what you post?

Yes, I read what I post.
Did you see the graph - the one with the upwards trend?

3 years is hardly a trend otherwise your own link would agree with your assertion that..

Kawasicki said:

The last 3 years of ozone hole area and mass deficit contradicts the assertion that the ozone hole is repairing itself…

It doesn't...it directly contradicts that as does NASA's expert.

Once again you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Kawasicki]

Ok, let’s stop arguing and just agree that in the last three or so years the Antarctic ozone hole area seems to be trending up… meanwhile in the same time period we have also experienced the first ever real hole in the Artic ozone layer.

Other than those two facts scientists state there is much to be pleased about…

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

But you haven’t posted any data, you just posted an opinion.

Here is some data from Copernicus…

https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/clima...





Trends, eh?

hmm the wagging tail of the endpoint..

That sort of fit to the data would have produced an uptick in 2015 as well I expect

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

hmm the wagging tail of the endpoint..

That sort of fit to the data would have produced an uptick in 2015 as well I expect

What’s good for the goose

[Gadgetmac]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

But you haven’t posted any data, you just posted an opinion.

Here is some data from Copernicus…

https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/topics/in-depth/clima...





Trends, eh?

hmm the wagging tail of the endpoint..

That sort of fit to the data would have produced an uptick in 2015 as well I expect

It's taken from the 'TB school of data misrepresentation'. The one where because 2021 was ever so slightly cooler globally than 2020 the temps trend is down.

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

kerplunk said:

hmm the wagging tail of the endpoint..

That sort of fit to the data would have produced an uptick in 2015 as well I expect

What’s good for the goose

huh?

[Kawasicki]

“The IPCC Report on the Impacts of Climate Change is Depressing
But not for the reasons you might think“

https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-agricultur...

[mko9]

A roundabout way of saying "everything he says is absolutely correct", so I will malign the messenger instead.

[Gadgetmac]

The Breakthrough Institute is a think tank that focuses on promoting technological innovation in agriculture (amongst other things) so I would expect its research and reporting to reflect/promote that agenda at every opportunity. This blog does not disappoint in that respect whatever the merits of some of the other points mentioned in the post as there is indeed some promotion of future technological innovation 'yet to come' in the agriculture sector.

As a self-styled 'environment friendly' outfit they rather oddly have form for this kinda "sniping from the sidelines" and they are yet another organisation who's funding is "opaque". They also appear to have links to Natural Gas interests.

So really your blog-link should've been posted in the other thread where I'm sure it will receive a customary warm welcome from der fuhrer.

Interesting blog though, I'll give you that.