I'm catching up on my podcasts, listening to NPR in the background... Apparently, researchers, scientists and entrepreneurs have recently extracted ancient yeast spores (captured in amber) and are making a new type of beer out of it.
formatting link
First, you got to like the Company name. Very cool. I've not tried it yet (and will probably make sure other drinkers don't turn into "Bruneldfly" first).
For those of your who believe the world is only 6,000 years old (Sarah Palin?), this Bud's probably NOT for you!
This is typical rhetoric from the "scientific" crowd who hide their beliefs behind a lab jacket. Fact is that there are way too many variables in global weather for anyone to claim knowledge.
Why don't we hear about the ozone layer dissapearing anymore? How about acid rain? Remember in the 70's it was global cooling that was going to do us in. All these predicted catastrophies by "scientific" individuals are now all forgoten. I guess we don't hear about them anymore because
The political agenda attached to these doomsday predictions were accomplished
They became too hard to defend, so they just kind of melted away.
Here is a list of complete idiots for you to peruse:
formatting link
If oil gets more expensive because the market cannot deliver it, then so be it. I have a problem with oil becoming more expensive because liberal politicians feel it needs to be more expensive (of course because of global warming) . They therefore limit the drilling of oil
- all to save the planet of course (They are such noble people).
Buleg finds that "there are way too many variables in global weather for anyone to claim knowledge." The world's best climatologists have a different opinion.
I think I'll go with the climatologists - Buleg isn't a name that appears in the peer-reviewed literature on the subject.
We've vastly reduced the amount of ozone-destroying fluorcarbons being injected into the atmosphere, and the ozone holes are shrinking. Problem solved.
Coal burning power stations now have scrubbers in their smoke stacks to take out the sulphur dioxide that was causing the acid rain. Problem solved.
It wasn't global cooling, but North Atlantic cooling. There are still anxieties about the Gulf Stream - if the Greenland ice-cap melts too fast, the extra fresh water pouring into the North Atlantic could turn off the Gulf Stream and make the Northern atlantic and the surrounding countries a lot cooler for a while. Since the 1970's the Gulf Stream has been examined in some detail and while it has slowed down a bit, there doesn't seem to be any immediate risk that it will turn off completely and bring on an Even Younger Dryas
formatting link
You don't hear about them any more because you are the kind of ill- informed twit who doesn't listen in the right places.
Here is a climatologist that does not believe in Global Warming.
formatting link
Frome the article: _________________
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. __________________
And this guy has a Phd in climatology!
And here is an article of a couple of heretics in the religion of Global Warming that are going to lose their jobs.
formatting link
-warming-doubts
(If this doesn't look like the "scientific" equivelant of burning at the stake, well - ha)
Why did the networks stop carrying Apollo feeds starting with Apollo
13, until a catastrophe occurred? People get tired of hearing the same news that changes only slightly annually.
Not really shrinking, but not getting worse at least...
formatting link
... seems like we just got through with "record low ozone levels" at both poles, so it might be a big premature to say "problem solved". Espcially since there is still a good bit of trade in "illicit" R-12 still.
In this case, that is not a statement that a post-1979 record was recently set, but what the recording of annual data since 1979 has been.
In terms of amount of area area having ozone depleted to less than "220 Dobson Units", 2008 did indeed set a post-1979 high by a small margin, breaking the previous one of 2006. 1998 was only negligibly worse than
2006. In terms of "Dobson units" for the most-depleted point in the ozone hole, the worst year was 1998.
It does appear to me that the ozone hole's rate of worsening started to slow down in 1992, and the ozone hole had close to zero long term worsening since 1994.
formatting link
mentions that peak concentration of "equivalent chlorine" in surface level atmosphere had peaked sometime in the range of 1992-1994.
The main graph there says global EECL ("quivalent chlorine"?) is down from its peak by about 7%, as of what appears to me to be 2004. EECL sharply leveled off in 1992-1993, with the peak in 1994 according to that graph.
Problem with that is, there was never a problem in the first place.
The ozonists apparently don't even know where ozone COMES from - it's the result of O2 being dissociated by a UV photon, stopping the photon. The ozone is just a side effect of having all that free atomic oxygen in the air.
And, of course, the reasons that there is a "hole" at the poles are (1) very little sunlight, so very little ozone is being created. (2) solar wind/auroras, which will aggressivly accelerate ozone's natural breakdown process.
And what do they think causes CFCs, which weigh many times more than air, miraculously levitate to the upper atmosphere, and travel all the way to Antarctica to do its dirty work? And why don't they break down the smog ozone on their way?
I notice the antismokerists, even though they won all those concessions and successfully ripped off the tobacco companies for billions, are still preaching.
Has anyone noticed that, while fewer people are smoking these days, that cancer rates have been rising?
It always made me laugh when they acted so......earnest about the hole in the ozone layer at the south pole. Exactly where you would expect to find one, right there where particles stream down the magnetic pole and slam in to the atmosphere. Bet there is one over the northern magnetic pole too. Another one of those DUH things the alarmists use to control those that don't know better.
The Antarctic ozone hole is centered, by a large margin, much closer to the geographic pole than to the magnetic pole.
An Arctic hole has weakly turned up at times. Ozone holes are mainly an Antarctic problem due to colder temperatures and to winds blowing more steadily along latitude lines than in/near the Arctic.
When an Arctic hole does shows up, it will be in an Arctic polar vortex, which could be over/near northern Canada or over Siberia because the land is colder than the Arctic Ocean. The Antarctic polar vortex gets better defined and generally sticks close to the geographic pole.
You could not be more wrong. Go and read the peer reviewed literature.
The truth is that even fluorine chemists like to be able to live on the surface of the Earth. That is why we have the Montreal protocol.
The peak time for damage in the Antarctic polar region is when strong sunlight returns in Spring (ie now) and the polar vortex is still very cold with ultra high polar stratospheric clouds which hugely accelerate the ozone depletion by providing reaction sites for the chlorine from the CFCs. They are very beautiful although damaging to the ozone layer.
formatting link
formatting link
The North pole doesn't suffer quite so badly as the continents usually stop an isolated very cold vortex from forming. However, last year was exceptional for displays of PSCs in Finland. Whenever and wherever these clouds appear in sunlight the ozone layer cripples very quickly.
I guess geography isn't one of the dittoheads strong points but in the mid summer one pole is in continuous sunshine (and the other is in darkness).
The ozone hole was and still is very real. AGW by trapping more heat in the troposphere is cooling the stratosphere to an extent that the polar stratospheric clouds which provide the catalysis sites are becoming more common even at temperate latitudes. The CFCs are slowly dissipating but their lifetime in the atmosphere is extremely long. It is because they are so stable that the problem arises. The last time there was a serious hole over Europe was in the PSC display of Nov 1999. The last small one over the UK in February this year.
MOre details on the British Antarctic Site (which isn't responding today) so here is a reference to Google cache
Remains to be disproven, however. A mechanism has been shown, and the stuff has been observed in "atmospheric location in question".
Not exactly. The concentration of ozone at any given time and place is a complex balance of UV exposure, oxygen concentration, water vapor concentration, temperature, plus any additonal compounds (if any) that either destroy ozone, or take water vapor out of the mix. And diffusion from adjacent areas.
*No* short wave UV, having been passed obliquely through atmosphere.
Yep.
I don't believe this, and never have. Particle accelerators *make* large amounts of ozone, to very high concentrations. What cosmic rays do, is act as seeds for clouds. Water vapor destroys ozone, not in seconds... but much faster than ozone's natural decay rate. Pure liquid ozone has a half-life of "about a week".
They have been observed there. Ozone is heavier than air too. Diffusion does not care.
They do help, except the photoactivated state that destroys ozone is very short lived in the lower atmosphere. Tropospheric ozone is "gone" before the Sun goes down.
You really need to retire this straw man argument:
formatting link
the increase in lung cancer has largely disappeared, as those people that did smoke die over some period of time, and do not "heal" the instant they stop smoking.
The ozone hole isn't confined within the Antarctic and Artic circles; no ozone at the poles is associated with reduced ozone levels closer to the equator.
Less ozone means more UV-B which means more skin-cancers. The more common skin cancers are easy to treat, but malignant melanoma is a killer.
You'd laugh on the other side of you sun-burnt face if you found that kind of change in a wart or mole.
I just want to let it be known that transparency of gaseous 02 to UV gets good when wavelength gets much past 200 nm. Wavelengths much longer than 220 nm don't have much chance of producing ozone if there is already much ozone in the way.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.