For all you climate change deniers out there dismayed at John McSame's apparent embrace of global warming, you have nothing to fear:
John McCain had the eager press lined up on this one for weeks. He was going to take a stand and differentiate himself from Bush by offering his solution to climate change. And today was the momentous day. McCain made his speech and no less than the New York Times dutifully trotted out an article titled McCain Differs With Bush on Climate Change. (Devilstower at Daily Kos)
The 71% of the electorate thinks the globe is warming and of these, human activity is blamed over natural environmental cycles by more than two to one (Pew study). The difference is even greater among young people. So as campaign pandering this scores high. Why pandering? Because it's all campaign talk, not reality. McCain is George Bush redux. In the 2000 campaign George Bush also said climate change was an issue and redcing CO2 emissions the remedy. Then he blithely reversed his campaign pledge after he was "elected." Given the number of McCain's other flip flops, we can plausibly expect the same from John McSame. Consider who is advising him on this:
McCain is being advised on these issues by Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute, who just this morning put out an op-ed explaining how we can't let the environment get in the way of cheap energy. And of course the proposals McCain put forward today don't align very well with his other big push for a gas tax holiday. (Devilstower, dKos)
What is especially interesting is that this same Kevin Hassett is on record as favoring a carbon tax, not a cap and trade:
"Most economists believe a carbon tax (a tax on the quantity of CO2 emitted when using energy) would be a superior policy alternative to an emissions-trading regime," write Kenneth P. Green, Steven F. Hayward and Kevin A. Hassett, three economists at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington. "The irony is that there is a broad consensus in favor of a carbon tax everywhere but on Capitol Hill, where the "T" word is anathema." (New York Times)
Irony, indeed. He advises a candidate who advocates a less effective policy because of the "T" word. I guess if your candidate has no fixed position, you aren't obligated to have one as an advisor, either. The candidate shoots the pander arrow and you just paint the target around it.
Instead of what his own advisor thinks is a superior policy, McCain advocates a toothless cap and trade system where polluters buy and sell "pollution credits." The pros and cons of cap and trade are much debated but it is clear that of all the options it is one of the most attractive to Republicans, not just because of the alleged reliance on a market mechanism but because there are so many knobs that can be twiddled to allow certain parties to make out better in the "free" market. How do you allocate permits, what's the cap going to be, what kinds of activities will it cover, how will it be enforced, etc., etc. Those aren't market issues. McCain - Bush are in favor of a free market only as long as it isn't really free but is distorted to favor their cronies and patrons (think Halliburton, Blackwater, the oil companies and the many other no bid, tax break and subsidized elites who have enriched themselves during the Bush years). I'm not against cap and trade, per se, but it would have to be accompanied by other mechanisms, such as an emission tax, to be effective.
So if you are a climate change denier, take heart. You don't have to abandon John McSame because he isn't abandoning you. You might even consider buying stock in a water wings company or acquire future beach front property in Arizona.
Hmmm. Maybe that's McCain's plan.
- Log in to post comments
Oh America, please don't elect another knob. (And we'll try not elect another knob-facilitator here in the UK)
I have a better idea... Let the countries that are polluting buy a pollution credit from the UN that is as worthless as they come. T as you said Revere isnt just hated in the Congress. Indeed, if the taxes were worth something other than to spend away as party favors by the party in power it might mean something.
Taxes should go towards paying down the debt. But they wont. If they tax, they'll simply come up with another DOE or some other bullshit program that it will just HAVE to be spent on. Obama or Hillary would do what with the money? They would create a program, yet another mandate rather than doing something smart with the money. But its not them really, its the Congress. So it becomes a tax and spend. Spend it on WHAT?
BTW in adjusted dollars the DOE's budget has been well over 1 trillion dollars in the last 30 plus years.....Where is the energy that it was supposed to create? If they plow it into healthcare, we get more carbon footprints and quite a few that are beyond productive age for a short period of time. Then it will belly up due to costs and they will raise taxes again.
But the above is that we are doing all the polluting...and this from our own people. We aint the cause boys and girls but we sure get the blame because we make too much money and can afford more. Uh-huh. I guess thats the reason everyone was defaulting on their loans? Sure, get out that bicycle New York because its healthy.
Even I say the climate is warmer but just a tad. The dino's said it was warmer yet and it took a comet or asteroid to take them off the planet. They adapted and we will or we wont. But, if we just go out and tax and "limit" air pollution then what will be the outcome if GW people are right and we add another 500 million people in just ten years? Tip over will occur long before that if they are right. So we might as well do nothing because in the end, you have to reduce the carbon footprints...
That is if you believe that 150 years worth of viable data is enough to run a complete and total environmental program on. That data has already been debunked as wrong quite a bit and in quite a few critical areas. Plenty more things that are more important than this discussion. We could actually get something done for a change like reducing the size of government....again. If they arent there they cant affect us now can they?
Nature is taking its course now.... too many people and too many footprints. 350,000 Banda Aceh, 1 million in Darfur, 50,000 and counting in China. If the dam breaks above Chendu 1-3 million. One can only wonder about this and GW, effect or cause, or cause and effect?
But we get a Bush Bash handed over to McCain and he isnt even in office. Obama might get there if Hillary doesnt have him offed. But Peter is right, we dont need any knob facilitators, we need a Reagan or Thatcher to kick the snot out of Iran and Iraq and then come home. No rebuilding this time around . Leave it broken for a change. Pollution? Tell me what we have done that has worked successfully? Nothing according to Revere. Tell me what worked during Clinton.
I wished McCain would have just flat out told the doomsayers, and profiteers (like Gore) to stuff it. This is why I am not too keen on McCain, because he does pander. Course he is better than Obama, who is a disaster in-waiting, or Hillary, who is a disaster has been.
Leave it broken for a change. Pollution? Tell me what we have done that has worked successfully?
Protect the ozone layer.
http://www.epa.gov/Ozone/science/sc_fact.html#fact3
And to hear them talk about it Phoca, now we have a stable ozone layer.... not so.
And if you went with the "consensus" from 5 years ago, we were going to burn up because the ozone layer was depleted or we were going to cool off because it wasnt there. Lot of conjecture. So now its closing.
So now we are warmer so therefore it means that it has to be GHG's because now we have a reconstituting ozone layer and the hole is closing. Sounds like a lot of double talk to me and profiteering is fully underway with the going green.So much ethanol to produce.
Be sure to tell those guys in Darfur that they cant eat because we are pouring food into our gas tanks around the world now. And those ethanol plants are closing in Canada for the better part because they are environmental threats.
Like I said, what has worked successfully? If GW is fully underway then its not going to matter much what we do if it rises beyond say 3 degrees...that is if you believe the consensus.
We can still elect a knob though.
And to hear them talk about it Phoca, now we have a stable ozone layer.... not so.
Hmmmm...
"The ozone layer has been depleted gradually since 1980 and now is about an average of 4% lower over the globe. The average depletion exceeds the natural variability of the ozone layer. The ozone loss is very small near the equator and increases with latitude toward the poles."
From the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/2006/chapters/twentyquestions… page 28.
Oh yeah, I forgot! You're THAT M. Randolph Kruger! The one who knows more about what the experts say than the experts themselves!!!!!!one!!eleven11! Dear readers, pay no attention to what the experts actually say - we have here an expert expert who can tell us more about the experts than what they know themselves. Pay no attention to the "reality-based community." We will now all sit quietly and bask in the glow of your incredible genius.
For his next trick, MRH will show the experts that their mortal perceptions of risk bow like blades of grass before the holy god of informationless speculation:
NOAA says: "Stratospheric ozone is considered good for humans and other life forms because it absorbs ultra-violet (UV)-B radiation from the Sun (see Figure Q3-1). If not absorbed, UV-B would reach Earth's surface in amounts that are harmful to a variety of life forms. In humans, increased exposure to UV-B increases the risk of skin cancer (see Q17), cataracts, and a suppressed immune system. UV-B exposure before adulthood and cumulative exposure are both important factors in the risk." http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/2006/chapters/twentyquestions… page 5.
But his holiness MRH states: "And if you went with the "consensus" from 5 years ago, we were going to burn up because the ozone layer was depleted or we were going to cool off because it wasnt there."
C'mon, who's gonna believe those morons at NOAA when we have a random genius on the internet here? He couldn't possibly have confused the ozone depletion problem with global warming.
Like I said, what has worked successfully?
Oh yeah, the question I answered:
"The rise in effective stratospheric chlorine values in the 20th century has slowed and reversed in the last decade (top left panel). Effective stratospheric chlorine values are a measure of the potential for ozone depletion in the stratosphere, obtained by summing over adjusted amounts of all chlorine and bromine gases. Effective stratospheric chlorine levels as shown here for midlatitudes will return to 1980 values around 2050. The return to 1980 values will occur around 2065 in polar regions. In 1980, ozone was not significantly depleted by the chlorine and bromine then present in the stratosphere. A decrease in effective stratospheric chlorine abundance follows reductions in emissions of individual halogen source gases. Overall emissions and atmospheric concentrations have decreased and will continue to decrease given international compliance with the Montreal Protocol provisions (see Q15)." http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/2006/chapters/twentyquestions… page 35.
Phoca-Since you dont know my background it is in aviation. In fact the SAMP flights over the poles were coordinated through my office in the military that produced the data in the 1980s to the mid 90's. The types of aircraft that were used were ex-spyplanes. The data is totally inconclusive and may be part of a natural oscillation that is discussed just as all of the other information is. My problem with the Commissions report and that of the EPA is that they took very little into account except for CFC's and their effects when combined with Sulfur Dioxide. In particular the effects of certain types of volcanos at certain latitudes would, did and have produced different results on the ozone layer and maybe, the hole. I can send you about 50 citations from papers on just that. Its just not enough for someone to puff out and say that they are right. There is a lot of information that counters it
Many scientists including the Chinese say hold on, not so fast. The Russians are also starting to join this list. Phoca, we have only been monitoring the ozone levels effectively since the 1950's when we finally had a plane that could fly into the Tropopause. I emphasize effectively. Prior to this it was balloons and sounding rockets. Even measuring the perimeter of the hole, its depth and locations was beyond them until the 1970's. They knew it was there, but not how big. Its almost like you assert that this was on a video somewhere. You also likely didnt know that the science packages froze up on nearly every occasion. -50 C will do that at 80,000 feet. .
The hotly contested debate over the ozone hole(s) isnt just about the ones over the poles. It is about the possibility of a thinning of the ozone at the higher latitudes where people live. No one called anyone a moron here but you Phoca. I also again ask you to prove what you are saying because the EPA' report is contested by many scientists because it contains so little uncontested data. Its based upon an assumption and the assumption of the data being correct and complete... It isnt. The information you posted is an assumption. If you ask those same guys what they "know" then its opening a can of worms. They themselves said that they cannot account for the lack of ozone or why it comes and goes. One of the cites you post was for 77 scientists. Ummm... that was an invitation only program Phoca. Some two thousand other scientists were excluded... Something you missed perhaps.
Flying a weather balloon from McMurdo every day and hoping it makes it to the proper altitude does not a closure or opening of the hole make. Nor does it prove that cutting the CFC's has had an effect on the hole. Cutting the CFC's has though dropped their levels in the atmosphere like turning off the spigot in the US, Canada and the EU. Duh, if you turn it off then its not there now is it? Does that mean that its connected to the holes or is it a natural function in the cold and from So2? Some would have you believe that it is, some not. But with only just a tad over 50 years of observations, its a bit tough to draw those kinds of long term conclusions. Here is a fact. Facts are based upon the best information at the time, A fact will be claimed in an argument under the implied authority of a specific pedagogy, such as scientific facts or historical facts. Disputes arise when you define a standard that authority of the fact rests on. Use of the term often does not disclose from where the authority originates. It doesnt produce the facts, it produces the assumption based upon the information at the time.
A known thing happened this past week and it was Chaiten volcano. It is an observed occurence and the VAAC and others are watching the particulants dropping into the S. Pacific... But the So2 is different and they can monitor that from the satellites and the cloud types its being drawn into. It is close to the perimeter of the S. Polar vortex and its going into winter. So2 from that volcano is likely going to eat the shit out of the hole if history proves correct as its pulled in. So is that a fact or conjecture based upon the observation? It has in the past, and likely will this time and NOAA isnt on the scene except four times a year... Lots of information from a TR-1 but still not enough to produce anything but a limited observation. Its too expensive to fly the aircraft as it takes off in California, climbs to 35,000 feet is refueled and then runs a grid pattern until its fuel is nearly exhausted. Only four hours of data, four times a year. Its covering about 6000 square miles with something that has a wingspan of just under 105 feet, traveling at subsonic speeds and frankly there aint enough room for a huge science package. The payload empty is 14,000 pounds so even with a lot of inflight refueling its about 8,000 pounds maximum. Not a lot of science unless you are doing it every day.
My entire problem with the Greenies and the GW people is that they keep pounding the shit out of us, but do nothing in China, India or any of the other places that are polluting the atmosphere as fast as they can set up their plants. They want green? Okay, make everyone comply and all at the same time and I'll go with you. Else they get a free ride at our expense and now its catching up with both the EU and US economies. If we continue then we will be the puppets as all of the industrial bases will have coagulated in the places without regulations.
Here is another fact... those CFC's were banned right? Well they happily still produce them everywhere else and will for several years to come. The levels have dropped maybe from the US and the other countries but what do you do with the other guys? Use harsh language and send them an EPA report... I am sure they will change their ways.
But back to the hole. Now we have good science on that because a satellite has been monitoring it for almost 9 years. Its not us, its them and people like you sit around and pontificate that things are working because of reports produced here. Thats a crock of crap. When another country produces enough CO to cross the Pacific, go across the US, Hawaii, Canada, and Alaska and then on to Europe so that we dont pass our own Clean Air Act standards, then I say that the system is skewed and its not working.
Want a nice picture of just that? Its a solid year of monitoring. I also have pictures of the actual raw data of the ozone hole from about 10 years ago to now that shows an oscillation except when there was volcanic activity below the 15 degree line. So its up to you, keep dreaming and adding that 500 million new actual footprints in 30 years and you wont have to worry about reducing carbon. We might just well regulate ourselves out of our economy here. But for some, it wont matter because we are all going to make room for those 500 million new ones by reducing the US carbon and any other footprints out there that some environmentalist says we need to cut. That is if you are right.
If you are wrong, we go into a global cooling and nature takes its course. It wipes say two billion off the planet from bird flu, starvation from lack of crop production, and general cold. Somewhere in between there will be a major conflict or two over some resources (oil?) and that takes even more off the face of the blue marble. But you know Phoca.... You could always be right and because I keep an open mind unlike some, feel free to PROVE your argument. That EPA one isnt enough to do anything but start an argument. Attribute the hole closure to CFC reduction if you want, but what do you do if it opens again? Have to change the "FACTS" to meet the conclusion then most likely.
"Here is another fact... those CFC's were banned right? Well they happily still produce them everywhere else and will for several years to come. The levels have dropped maybe from the US and the other countries but what do you do with the other guys? Use harsh language and send them an EPA report... I am sure they will change their ways."
CFC production has fallen dramatically. It's not complete 0, to be sure. Some ozone-depleting chemicals will be used for many years to come (halons are still used on airplanes, for example).
However, the current CFC output is just a small fraction of 80's. And that's a success.
Also, halogen levels in the atmosphere are not measured by a few ex-spy planes. That's ridiculous. There are multiple direct and indirect ways to measure the ozone content. The most simple one: measure UV-levels on the surface.
"Cutting the CFC's has though dropped their levels in the atmosphere like turning off the spigot in the US, Canada and the EU."
Sorry, wrong. CFCs are persistent polluters with long half-lives. They won't be gone for a long time.
"But you know Phoca.... You could always be right and because I keep an open mind unlike some, feel free to PROVE your argument."
This, coming from someone who doesn't bother to provide a single source as evidence to support his claims?
You've already been shown to be wrong on multiple points. Why should anyone believe what you say?
"Phoca-Since you dont know my background it is in aviation."
Oooooooh, scary appeal to authority!
Apparently you are not aware of the logical fallacy:
Argumentum Ad Verecundium (http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html)
I notice that for some reason you think that if your background is in aviation you don't have to provide evidence to support your argument.
Phoca-I think you are deliberately trying to provoke me. If thats the case as we say down South... step outside and come to my personal email at memphisservices@bellsouth.net
You are not reading what I posted.
I have voluminous articles, pictures, cites, and actual papers if you would like to spend a lot of time reading them. I also have them set so you can receive them in large blocks in zip format. If you bothered to read anything above you'll also see that I offered to send them to you. So I have to assume you are deliberately trying to bait me.
Alex... it doesnt matter unless they are all banned to prove the point of ozone hole closure. Thats in some 14 different papers. The O-hole problem isnt just over the poles, the fear was that it would open them up over populated areas as it was getting close to doing in S. America, Australia and N. Zealand. You are right though they are long lived materials and they dont leave until they bond with the So2 and other gases as a rule and become something else. The halogen presents yet another problem if this is what is also making the hole but so is higher levels of nitrogen, chlorine, ammonia and maybe the binding key to them all which may or may not be methane. But, CFC's dont have half lives, they have long lives but you can eliminate them almost instantly with a bonding in the presence of So2 and just about any one of the other gases.
Waiting Phoca-I wont respond to the above here. Its Revere's house and I dont pee in it.
Randolph Kruger,
Two words: Fractal Wrongness.
http://imagechan.com/img/5078/Fractal%20Wrongness/
Then again maybe it's just one word, Denialism.
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/04/hello_to_scienceblogs.php
Fernando, that doesnt prove a thing and you know it.
Fractals have nothing to do with this discussion except in chaos theory. If your argument was based in fractals then you really stepped off in it and makes your point even less valid.
I have said it before Fernando. Until you prove it, the usual "denialism" bunk always comes up. The GW people say that it has to be man. Okay, then do your part and put a bullet through your skull or take a nose dive off a building. Save the planet because if you are right not one damned thing we do will have any effect if 500 million more souls are on this planet in 30 years. I personally think we will never get that far myself.
I have never said the climate isnt changing my friend. I just question if man is the main cause and culprit. Call it skepticism instead. It doesnt make you wrong or me right. This bullcrap on consensus is just that. Especially when the counter arguments were NEVER INCLUDED or the people ensconcing them invited to the party. That means to me that the bought and paid for Al Gore pushed it and even when challenged they gave him a Nobel not for being right, but only for bringing attention to a "possible" problem. Its warmer, it will have a global effect if it continues but as stated, we aint no where near warmer if the ice records are right as it was some 1000 years ago. And Greenland had a lot less ice, but Antartica was much colder. Where were the SUV's back then? CFC's? Hmmm? I want answers first before I get to secondary questions beyond the causes.
The GW people also have to start squaring things a bit because its colder suddenly.... Oops could it be an oscillation, increase in the magnetic field, La Nina/El Nino, thermohaline circuit change, or man in the moon?
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-066
And there are those that call John Christy bought and paid for... Okay thats valid as an argument. But again you have to prove that. Just because he takes funding doesnt make him a stock broker humping a stock. You just have to once again disprove it and his suggestions. So far I havent seen anything but anecdotal evidence of that and that isnt science.
http://www.gcrio.org/OnLnDoc/pdf/pdf/christy000517.pdf
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/AR20080…
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1938
These guys have Phd's in the subject and one is an Emeritus. Two of them I know from other activities Fernando. I just have doubts. Denialism is when you would see a car careening towards you and fail to step out of the way. Skepticism is seeing the same car, evaluating what its doing realizing its not going to hit you and then making a step or not, in the right direction. Science is based upon what we see today, draw information in, and create a test to prove hypotheses. So far, the test has been to screw our economy say its the baddassed old USA and then force these companies that pollute without a doubt to countries that dont give a big rats ass about pollution. Net effect therefore is zero on a world scale if GW is to be accepted. So when we pass another law or regulation here all it does is destroy our economy and they just move offshore. Those little countries that we move this stuff to are gleefully on the Al Gore wagon. Why? Because it means they are going to have jobs that by escalation will increase their standard of living incrementally and it downs the US economy.
No wonder they support GW theory. Hell its in their best interest and you worry about ExxonMobil producing reports or paying for research? Please Al, dont try that one on me. I just dont see any incontrovertible proof of what you are saying. What am I denying? Not that it got warmer. Now its getting colder. Now how to square that one up with the "consensus" is a problem.
Deny that..... Or be skeptical....it doesnt matter.
M. R. Kruger:
When someone has 50, 70, or whatever number of papers as evidence, they don't say "I have 50 papers at home if you email me." They provide a selection of citations, like this:
Lomolino, M. et al. 2001. Towards a more general species-area relationship: diversity on all islands, great and small. Journal of Biogeography, 28: 431-445.
Simberloff, D. 1976. Experimental zoogeography of islands: effects of island size. Ecology 57 (4): 629-648.
(Actually, the author, year, title, and journal name is usually sufficient - I can find the rest.)
If the article is available online a link does just fine:
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1…
You don't generally want to post your email address - there are 'bots that crawl teh intertubes looking for email addresses to add to spam lists. We may disagree, but I wouldn't wish spammers on you.
Anyway, the tactic "I've got lots of evidence I will send you if you email me direct" has about an 90% chance of meaning "there is not any evidence at all."
Phoca-You know I have been trying to be nice to you and you make it really hard so lets just cut to the chase here. You are a real pain in the ass and I have about three posts being held up for approval to be posted. You really shouldnt be trying to lecture as if you are standing on hard ground. Its not.
In addition, I am very well versed in the original language of the net and its post originations. In fact I was able to find the blog owners identities and I mean down to the ISP addresses for all of them. I chose not spill that out to the internet because that would be wrong and very disrespectful. I intercept about 2000 port scans a day, along with spyware, adware and trackware in the hundreds. No, I want everyone to know exactly who they are talking to. For some they have to not necessarily hide behind an identity, but they do because of their professional status. I have gotten hundreds of emails wanting me to out the Reveres', and that aint gonna happen. Even if I took the time to track yours Phoca and its easier than you think, I wouldnt do it... out of respect.
And its now gotten down to the respect given. You are pretty snide little blogger and if you were patient or someone who had some cajones you would indeed meet me at my company email address for a little off blog discussion. I first dont like your tone or second your attitude. I in fact go out of my way to ensure that no personal attacks are made here and that includes by my right wing friends hammering my left wing buddies because it gets out of hand.
You have made your point whatever it is, you wont take it off blog so why dont you just wait for the rest of the posts to download and everything will be fine.Then you can attack what is posted but never the people. Do try to be a little more respectful. You can make your point and post your cites as I have done and was asked not to over do it. You cant prove GW is being caused by man Phoca... its not possible with every bit of data out there.
So wait for the posts to clear down and then you will see that those were done two days ago and long before you decided to burn up bandwidth with this more than average load of horsecrap trying to lecture me about 90% of it not being there. You really only have two options. Take it off line or put your cards on the table and fold. I can cite several hundred but it only serves to rise to your bait.
Do have a nice day now, he'ah.
Phoca,
I've had email communications with MRK on occasion and have never had a problem. I've also got good protection on my computer, just as everyone should have.
It's a love, like, hate relationship with him. He's a good guy, and then there are the times that one would love to rip his face off.
He is ornery, kind, and a full time job. Have some fun, some day someone will say something to him that'll really get his goat and quite possibly change his mind. If that doesn't happen who cares?
Yep, and Lea is right someday something MIGHT change my mind which is still very open about GW and the causes. The causes if they are not man made will result in the deaths of millions quickly. If its not, we will go over a slow grille.
Post is still held up...Revere is out of town.
He is ornery, kind, and a full time job. Have some fun, some day someone will say something to him that'll really get his goat and quite possibly change his mind. If that doesn't happen who cares?
Fair enough. I suppose we'll see when his posts with evidence that the Montreal Protocol didn't reduce ozone-depleting chemicals in the atmosphere come through. :)
Phoca-didnt say that. What I said was that the reduction would pull the CFC's down in the atmosphere. If the hole enlarged after that for any reason then obviously there could be no other explanation other than CFC removal was skewed. As long as other countries are allowed under any protocol such as Montreal and/or Kyoto to manufacture or use it, then the data can only be wrong. You have to have a null value to start from. If it was removed and there was none detected then any enlargement that happens, would be from some other cause. That is my point. When the sampling first started we were in a fairly volcanic period with materials in the air that took and take years to remove from the air. So was it CFC's or was it other aerosols?
Montreal removed the production from some countries but not others. Again, this doesnt take it to a null value nor does it mean that CFC's are the sole reason for ozone depletion. It didnt hurt to remove them and slow it, but there are quite a few gases that when combined deplete ozone on their own.
Hi MRK:
You seem a bit confused. Let's create a timeline to help:
Post #2: You ask "what have we done that ever worked successfully?"
Post #4: I point out that we have successfully reduced the levels of ozone-depleting chemicals in the atmosphere.
Post #5: You say the experts are lying about the ozone layer. I don't see any evidence in this post, but I guess that's your M.O.
Post #6: I point out (rather snidely) that you are incorrect.
Post #7: Long and windy, but short on relevance. Lots of aviation discussion, not much evidence.
Post #9: I point out a logical fallacy (snidely - I guess that's my M.O. ;) )
Post #10: A lot of talking, but not much substance - it doesn't address my point about successfully dealing with ozone-depleting emissions. Some of it does talk about global warming, so you may still be confused about my point that there are things we can do successfully (I haven't actually addressed global warming in any of my posts yet.)
Post #11: I point out that you don't need to email me papers. You can provide the citations for a few here. Why don't we just pick two that you like and discuss them?
Post #13: I'm not really sure this one's constructive.
Post #18: I think you've connected with some strawmen ( http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html )- no one has said that CFCs are the only thing that depletes ozone and no one has said that their concentration has gone down to zero. I also think you mis-estimate the amount of time volcanic eruptions influence ozone for: (see http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/2006/chapters/Q14.pdf ) - we do know some things about how vulcanism affects the ozone that you seem to be pretending that we don't know.