Comments on: Why the Ozone Hole Prompted Global Action—and Why Climate Change Hasn’t

By: Gabriel Atega

Gabriel Atega — Wed, 26 May 2010 02:21:43 +0000

The science community is making scarecrows out of greenhouse gasses. Methane as soon as it gets to the atmosphere is already open for processing by bacteria in forests for conversion into CO2, and the CO2 produced gets absorbed by the forest.

The levels of CO2 even if it gets to 400 ppm cannot explain for the warming that is required considering thermodynamics in the atmosphere. It should be considered that 999,600 ppm of nitrogen, oxygen and water vapor cannot be warmed up the 400 ppm of CO2.

Water vapor increase resulting from deforestation is the real culprit. The increase in water vapor in the atmosphere is the cause of severe storms, heavy snowfall, and heavy flooding that are all outcomes of weather changes, are all connected to the quantity of water in the atmosphere. The the large shift in the volume of water from liquid to ice and to vapor is the main cause of thermal maximums and ice age peaks. It is the forest with bacteria and marine flora that is crucial to putting greenhouse gasses including water to a healthy equilibrium with the other gasses. Scientists should focus on global deforestation because it represents loss of CO2 and H2O absorption capacities on land. In fact the alleged increase in CO2 levels tracks closely with increase in deforestation as well as with industrial emissions. The problem here is the lack of science to determine and separate the contributions to the increase in CO2 by loss of greenhouse gas absorption capacity or by the increase in greenhouse gas production.

If there was no deforestation, and despite the industrialization, all greenhouse gasses produced today are all absorbable by the forests including the increase in water vapor in the atmosphere, if the forests have remained intact. Without this kind of determination, the claims for CO2 caused global warming and climate changes remain doubtful.

By: John Burton

John Burton — Fri, 14 May 2010 16:03:05 +0000

If the wobbling of our planet is valid as claimed by Astronomers, and causes freezing and thawing of the icecaps, thus releasing huge amounts of methane from the tundra and the oceans, how can we alter the CO2 enough ?? Methane is said to be twelve times more destructive of the ozone layer than CO2. Makes one wonder if our planet is going through a one time phase that permits life to flourish. Life comes and then it is extinguished to make way for new forms of life. The Lord acts in strange and mysterious ways. It is vexing. J B

By: Lance Green

Lance Green — Wed, 12 May 2010 16:11:03 +0000

Don’t forget the interesting and profitable connection between the two issues: replacing the source of one problem with a contribution to the other. Going from CFCs to HFCs brought us out of the frying pan of ozone-depletion into the fire of global warming. With a little forsight (realization of this wrong direction, and not jumping into the easiest solutions) we could have gone directly to much earth-wiser replacements. Glad the European Union is forcing the issue by bannning HFCs in car air conditioners next year.

By: m

Mon, 10 May 2010 11:22:45 +0000

nicely said carddan.

especially given that we know CO2 is not a “warming gas”. add to the fact that none of the enviro-nazi studies i’ve seent thus far account for water vapour.

The ozone problem was real, measurable, and stood up to basic physics.

global warming magically creates energy without mass. i love it!!

abracadabra

By: carddan

carddan — Mon, 10 May 2010 03:17:54 +0000

Most people know that Earth’s climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years without any influence by man. Radical shifts between hot and cold are the “norm” when time periods of millions of years are examined. Throw in arrogance and hubris and the issue seems in doubt. When one side or both, insult the intelligence of the other, the motives become questionable.

By: rabidmob

rabidmob — Fri, 07 May 2010 19:19:02 +0000

CW says “Because it was a lot easier to give up styrofoam cups and CFC-causing aerosols than it is to give up fossil fuels?”

Much, much more then fossil fuels cause climate change.

By: Warren Emerson

Warren Emerson — Fri, 07 May 2010 15:14:37 +0000

I agree with Brian except to add that since the industry had a ready replacement, they also made millions if not billions replacing CFCs with flouracarbons. Sure it was a good move, but money made it more attractive.

By: Matt T

Matt T — Fri, 07 May 2010 14:56:34 +0000

Yeah…we’ve done a great job of giving up styrofoam.
The only thing the article leaves out was covered by Brian Too (post #1). The same dynamic is being displayed in this comments section.

By: CW

CW — Fri, 07 May 2010 12:59:28 +0000

“Why the Ozone Hole Prompted Global Action—and Why Climate Change Hasn’t” — Because it was a lot easier to give up styrofoam cups and CFC-causing aerosols than it is to give up fossil fuels?

By: Mer-mer

Mer-mer — Fri, 07 May 2010 09:42:57 +0000

I think we should never stop driving. I love to drive with my lovely boyfriend at the wheel. What this means for the global warming, I do not know…

By: wow

wow — Fri, 07 May 2010 03:16:35 +0000

The vicious attackers are even here… Go back to your TMZ or Fox and let the smart people talk.

By: prp

prp — Fri, 07 May 2010 03:00:12 +0000

nut up or shut up? What and listen to YOUR opinion. I would guess ‘nut up’ would mean grab some balls, pay for the problem, change our lifestyles, and I would guess ‘shut up’ would mean shut up, let the government grab our balls, force us to pay for it, change our lifestyles. If that’s the case then your opinion sucks.

By: Aaron Kaminsky

Aaron Kaminsky — Fri, 07 May 2010 00:36:24 +0000

The decision to ban CFC was a clear cut initiative, and it really didn’t involve any lifestyle change for the average citizen. Climate change however is not a clear cut solution, it requires an integrated approach to change the way we view and use energy as a civilization. It will require people to change many things in their lives, and will also cause radical changes in our economy.

That said it needs to be done. So, humanity, nut up or shut up.

By: Doug Watts

Doug Watts — Fri, 07 May 2010 00:05:29 +0000

Simple.

1. CFCs were not a gigantic worldwide industry, fuelling the entire world economy. Substitutes were easy to find, at little conversion cost to industry.

2. See no. 1.

By: Brian Too

Brian Too — Thu, 06 May 2010 23:12:53 +0000

Good question, very good indeed.

Back in the middle 80′s, there was no Web, no blogging. People were still willing to defer to authority figures. Now everyone’s opinion appears to have the same value, the Web is largely anonymous, and we don’t have good mechanisms to filter/collate all those opinions all shouting heedlessly, demanding attention.