Attenborough scaremongering?

gozunda

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's a hobby for some.

Too true sadly. But there you go....

xckjoo wrote: »

Here you go sweet cheeks. I'll save Akrasia the effort of reposting it. Maybe give the Word of the Day calendar a break too.

No need thanks - I've read it already and it's irrelevant btw -you may notice what was posted is an older article to the WMO bulletin I detailed. Very interesting reading those wmo bulletins btw. I'd recommend taking a read - if you are interested in the science and discussing it? Thanks for the input though - you're very good. Altogether. Now back to the discussion to Mr Attenborough - climate change and scaremongering.

Dakota Dan

We better change our ways fast because the new climate models are predicting much faster warming than previously though. Pure drama. Meanwhile they are thinking of drawing co2 from the air using fans and converting it to petrol.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/sputniknews.com/amp/environment/201904191074271992-New-Climate-Models-Predict-Earth-Getting-Hotter/

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/06/07/carbon-engineering-and-harvard-find-way-to-convert-co2-to-gasoline.html

Dohnjoe

Dakota Dan wrote: »

We better change our ways fast because the new climate models are predicting much faster warming than previously though. Pure drama. Meanwhile they are thinking of drawing co2 from the air using fans and converting it to petrol.

Pure drama, meaning it doesn't have any basis or .. ?

xckjoo

gozunda wrote: »

Too true sadly. But there you go....



No need thanks - I've read it already and it's irrelevant btw -you may notice what was posted is an older article to the WMO bulletin I detailed. Very interesting reading those wmo bulletins btw. I'd recommend taking a read - if you are interested in the science and discussing it? Thanks for the input though - you're very good. Altogether. Now back to the discussion to Mr Attenborough - climate change and scaremongering.

I'm interested in a discussion but you're posts show you're more interested in antagonising so no point in engaging or even assuming you're genuine in your expression of a desire to discuss. TBH as soon as I saw you attack everyone elses posts and then cry about personal attacks on yourself when they responded, I stopped giving anything you had to say more than a quick glance. You've relegated yourself to just another angry stranger on the internet who can't have a rational discussion.

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

This is the relevant discussion and the use of slur of 'denier' because you wouldnt believe any other opinion - science based or otherwise .

And heres the WMO bulletin (2016) provided in reply stating just that:

Note*: The paper you posted was not 'newer' btw - it was published in 2013.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110042389&postcount=513

Hold up of promised hands? Yeah right.

And counting - waiting for yet another round of gratuitous as hominim :pac:

Thanks but you're on your own.

You didn't actually give a link to that paper in your original post, I googled the phrase and found the 2010 paper "Contributions of stratospheric water vapor to decadal changes in the rate of global warming" which included that exact phrase in its abstract. The reference in the paper you cited was lifted directly from the 2010 paper.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1219.full

So the actual study was before the study I referred to.

In the IPCC AR5 they refer to stratospheric water vapour as follows

Anthropogenic emissions do have a significant impact on water vapour in the stratosphere, which is the part of
the atmosphere above about 10 km. Increased concentrations of methane (CH4) due to human activities lead to
an additional source of water, through oxidation, which partly explains the observed changes in that atmospheric
layer. That stratospheric water change has a radiative impact, is considered a forcing, and can be evaluated. Stratospheric concentrations of water have varied significantly in past decades. The full extent of these variations is not
well understood and is probably less a forcing than
a feedback process added to natural variability. The
contribution of stratospheric water vapour to warming, both forcing and feedback, is much smaller than
from CH4 or CO2.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

So the IPCC confirm that
1. Water vapour in the troposphere is entirely a feedback and not a driver/forcing.
2. Human emissions of water vapour have essentially nothing to do with changes to stratospheric water vapour
3. Even the water vapour in the stratosphere is primarily a feedback in that concentrations are temperature dependent
4. Where water vapour is a forcing in the stratosphere, it is because of oxidation of Methane which causes the formation of water in the stratosphere, which can be considered a forcing, but it's a secondary impact of human activity, this is because of emissions of methane, not water vapour.


All of this is the reason I'm not ceeding the argument to your silly and misinformed claim that because water vapour is the main greenhouse gas, protesters should be protesting human emissions of water vapour, which is a ridiculous thing to say from someone who claims to be both a 'qualified scientist', and informed on climate science

Akrasia

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Pure drama, meaning it doesn't have any basis or .. ?

The new model data from the CMiP 6 project are not published yet so we should wait until they have confirmed the results before we go nuts, but the preliminary reports are deeply concerning if they are true

Dakota Dan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Pure drama, meaning it doesn't have any basis or .. ?

Meaning they are hyping it up.

Grayson

xckjoo wrote: »

The weird thing is there's nearly a discussion going on but one side is more interested in antagonising and trying to show off their "superior intellect".

There's one side that have facts, data and science. The other side have name calling.

The evidence for anthropogenic climate change is overwhelming. The predictions are based on pretty solid analysis. I say pretty solid because they do change a bit but the gist is still the same.

It reminds me of holocaust denial. On you side you have academics who debate details about the holocaust. They may argue figures a bit because evidence may point to 6 million deaths. Another academic believes it points to 6.5 million. Sure they have a difference of opinion but they are on agreement with all the major points. And over time as they find more evidence those differences become less and less.

Climate scientists are the same. they are all on agreement on the major points but they may disagree on the precise effects. Will it be a 10 cm rise in sea level or a 12 cm rise in sea level? Over time as modeling gets better, as the science improves, they can get more accuracy and the differences lessen.

And just like holocaust deniers the climate change deniers jump on some of the small differences to say there isn't a consensus.

maccored

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Meaning they are hyping it up.

hyping it up? Mass extinction is on the way and you think that can be hyped?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/10/earths-sixth-mass-extinction-event-already-underway-scientists-warn

Dohnjoe

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Meaning they are hyping it up.

In your non-expert opinion the experts are wrong? in what way exactly?

gozunda

xckjoo wrote: »

I'm interested in a discussion but you're posts show you're more interested in antagonising so no point in engaging or even assuming you're genuine in your expression of a desire to discuss. TBH as soon as I saw you attack everyone elses posts and then cry about personal attacks on yourself when they responded, I stopped giving anything you had to say more than a quick glance. You've relegated yourself to just another angry stranger on the internet who can't have a rational discussion.

Yeah I see the comments. Theres a discussion going on and posters have different opinions. Then someone drops in and bombs some snarky comments but no discussion and thats good? Hey man not going to let such stupidity rile btw. Idiotic ad hominem always obvious no matter how its dressed up. But hey there you go. Over and out.

gozunda

Grayson wrote: »

There's one side that have facts, data and science. The other side have name calling.
The evidence for anthropogenic climate change is overwhelming. The predictions are based on pretty solid analysis. I say pretty solid because they do change a bit but the gist is still the same.It reminds me of holocaust denial. On you side you have academics who debate details about the holocaust. They may argue figures a bit because evidence may point to 6 million deaths. Another academic believes it points to 6.5 million. Sure they have a difference of opinion but they are on agreement with all the major points. And over time as they find more evidence those differences become less and less. Climate scientists are the same. they are all on agreement on the major points but they may disagree on the precise effects. Will it be a 10 cm rise in sea level or a 12 cm rise in sea level? Over time as modeling gets better, as the science improves, they can get more accuracy and the differences lessen.
And just like holocaust deniers the climate change deniers jump on some of the small differences to say there isn't a consensus.

The thing I see is a conflation between a bunch of people waving flags and genuine scientific research. Much of what is being pushed bears little relation to the actual reseach. Much of what is being pushed is hyperbole and misinformation. Then anyone pointing this out is a cursed or sidelined as being a 'denier' (sic). You couldn't make it up tbh.

Some level of rational skepticism is always good btw. Even scientific reseach is held up by other scientists, queried and examined. I've seen peer reviewed and researched published scientific papers being shown to have been flawed and then rejected by other scientist working in the same field. And that is a normal part of empirical reseach. Outside that through evident misinterpretation of the science there is sudden mass hysteria. I see the name calling and any criticism of misinformation or misinterpretation of the science and pointing out anything about that becomes a witch hunt. And that's not healthy no matter what way it is dressed up tbh.

xckjoo

gozunda wrote: »

Yeah I see the comments. Theres a discussion going on and posters have different opinions. U drop by and drop some snarky comments but no discussion and thats good? Hey man not going to let such stupidity rile btw. Idiotic ad hominem always obvious no matter how its dressed up. But hey there you go. Over and out.

Not all people are worth having a discussion with.

But I've just noticed your signature and realised I shouldn't engage. Posting angry rants on the internet isn't going to give you the help you need though. It'll just lead you further down the hole.

gozunda

xckjoo wrote: »

Not all people are worth having a discussion with. But I've just noticed your signature and realised I shouldn't engage. Posting angry rants on the internet isn't going to give you the help you need though. It'll just lead you further down the hole.

Still hoping you are going to actually discuss the topic at hand? - guess that may be being hopeful tbh. No matter if actual discussion scares or otherwise you then that's ok - I dont have any issue with that tbh. Btw theres nothing wrong with a robust exchange of views - it's when things get down to name calling the other poster that things become stupid. There's a difference criticising a movement / how things are being presented and making things personal. But I reckon you know that. But there you go. Thanks.

Dohnjoe

gozunda wrote: »

T

Some level of rational skepticism is always good btw.

Fully agreed. One key problem is misplaced skepticism

To use the Holocaust analogy from an earlier post - historians are constantly debating the figures, however the historical consensus is fairly solid

Denialists carefully sidestep the consensus and use (abuse) the every-day debate among experts as an attempt to project that there is uncertainty and thus they can use that as a fulcrum to sow doubt into the consensus itself

All the while claiming it's just "healthy skepticism"

A lot.. a lot of that goes on with the whole climate change debate

Healthy skepticism good, unhealthy faux skepticism not so good

Dakota Dan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

In your non-expert opinion the experts are wrong? in what way exactly?

Plenty scientists disagree also. The U.N. history of predicting disaster isn’t great but you still believe they are experts. Here’s what they were saying in 1989, that worked out well. The thing is nobody can predict the future especially climate.

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

maccored

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Plenty scientists disagree also. The U.N. history of predicting disaster isn’t great but you still believe they are experts. Here’s what they were saying in 1989, that worked out well. The thing is nobody can predict the future especially climate.

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

they seemed bang on with that.

Dohnjoe

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Plenty scientists disagree also.

Was referring to the latest climate change models

Just so we're straight, do you believe that man-made climate change is happening or not happening or what?

gozunda

Akrasia wrote: »

You didn't actually give a link to that paper in your original post, I googled the phrase and found the 2010 paper "Contributions of stratospheric water vapor to decadal changes in the rate of global warming" which included that exact phrase in its abstract. ...All of this is the reason I'm not ceeding the argument to your silly and misinformed claim that because water vapour is the main greenhouse gas, protesters should be protesting human emissions of water vapour, which is a ridiculous thing to say from someone who claims to be both a 'qualified scientist', and informed on climate science

I did btw. See:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110040482&postcount=480

Its a WMO bulletin published in 2016 which brings together many relevant findings with regard to this issue. It is a very well written update from the World Meteorological Organization. Really not sure why you have a problem with it tbh and trying to prove the WMO wrong?

All the information is there if you care to look btw. I had read the references as well - and the bulletin brings all that data together.

You pointedly asked for a single scientific reference to water vapour, warming etc. and cast all kinds of aspertions about character based on the fact you didnt believe any such findings existed (which you do again lol).

I provided the link and funny enough that strangely made no difference . I dont care if anyonec 'ceeds' anything tbh. However presenting a front of supposedly putting up of hands when you are wrong lol. And in this case yes what you claimed was wrong. It really makes no difference tbh. I do need to ask do you have any background in science or are you just an interested amateur? No matter if you do not wish to answer. Just curious. Btw the point I clearly made previously was that this is an area that needs further research and investigation. And yeah people should at least be aware of this fact. That is not in doubt.

Funnily enough much of this is probably fairly relevant to the whole scaremongering thing. There is a real danger of the science being badly misinterpreted and being poorly used. Not saying that of Attenborough btw. He appears to have an excellent background in zoology and is an expert in his field evidently etc but as he says himself he is no climate scientist. And I know saying that alone will bring down the hail of hell. We all need to be careful and mindfull interpreting what is in effect highly complex data. But hey there you go.

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

Still hoping you are going to actually discuss the topic at hand? - guess that may be being hopeful tbh. No matter if actual discussion scares or otherwise you then that's ok - I dont have any issue with that tbh. Btw theres nothing wrong with a robust exchange of views - it's when things get down to name calling the other poster that things become stupid. There's a difference criticising a movement / how things are being presented and making things personal. But I reckon you know that. But there you go. Thanks.

You have no problem calling people a 'doomsday cult' with all the obvious negative connotations that go along with this term, but when people are called 'climate change deniers' or 'science deniers' then suddenly you are so offended and outraged that you lose the ability to engage in any posts other than to accuse people of being nasty and mean.

I asked you before what you consider the plausible worst case scenario so we can compare the evidence for that and what the climate change protesters are claiming as their worst case scenario and you ignored that post. You only seem interested in arguing about the character of the people involved in speaking about climate change and have consistently avoided discussion on the evidence and science behind the claims that those people are making.

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

I did. See:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110040482&postcount=480

Its a WMO bulletin published in 2016 which brings together relevant findings with regard to this issue. It is a very well written update from the World Meteorological Organization
Not sure why you have a problem with it tbh.

All the information is there if you care to look btw. I had read the references as well - and the bulletin brings all that data together.

You pointedly asked for a single scientific reference to water vapour, warming etc. and cast all kinds of aspertions about character based on the fact you didnt believe any such findings existed.

I provided the link and funny enough that made no difference to you. I dont care if you 'ceed' anything tbh. Just you presented a front of supposedly putting your hands up when you are wrong. And in this case yes what you claimed was wrong. But no matter. I do need to ask do you have any background in science or are you just an interested amateur? No matter if you do not wish to answer. Just curious.

Btw the point I clearly made previously was that this is an area that needs further research and investigation. That is not in doubt.

Further research and investigation is always beneficial. But there comes a point when we have enough evidence to act and the science denial paper I linked to said that one of the key properties of a science denier is to always focus on the uncertainties and demand impossible standards of scientific certainty.

You also made the point that because water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas, that protesters should be demanding that we reduce those emissions.

Do you stand by that?

Dakota Dan

maccored wrote: »

they seemed bang on with that.

Did you read it? By now we should be all dead and no ice ii the North Pole, just keep those blinker on.

Dakota Dan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Was referring to the latest climate change models

Just so we're straight, do you believe that man-made climate change is happening or not happening or what?

I already answered that, do you believe that the media and news outlets are exaggerating it?

Dohnjoe

Dakota Dan wrote: »

I already answered that,

Okay maybe I missed that, for my own laziness what is your opinion on it?

do you believe that the media and news outlets are exaggerating it?

Not really, but that's a subjective view. My only concern is the actual problem itself, and for that there's a heavy consensus

I'm old enough to remember the huge deal over the Ozone hole, which ultimately was warranted. Thankfully the internet didn't really exist back

xckjoo

gozunda wrote: »

Still hoping you are going to actually discuss the topic at hand? - guess that may be being hopeful tbh. No matter if actual discussion scares or otherwise you then that's ok - I dont have any issue with that tbh. Btw theres nothing wrong with a robust exchange of views - it's when things get down to name calling the other poster that things become stupid. There's a difference criticising a movement / how things are being presented and making things personal. But I reckon you know that. But there you go. Thanks.

lol. So much for "over and out". Can't not have the last word no? Your weak attempts at goading are not effective here. I actually think you might have some valid points to make, but it's not worth wading through your pages of antagonistic waffle to determine if you do. Some people just aren't worth engaging with.

maccored

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Did you read it? By now we should be all dead and no ice ii the North Pole, just keep those blinker on.

they said we'd see issues - we are seeing issues. Your ilk were the kind in 1989 saying everything would be grand and its all scaremongering

gozunda

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Fully agreed. One key problem is misplaced skepticism
To use the Holocaust analogy from an earlier post - historians are constantly debating the figures, however the historical consensus is fairly solid. Denialists carefully sidestep the consensus and use (abuse) the every-day debate among experts as an attempt to project that there is uncertainty and thus they can use that as a fulcrum to sow doubt into the consensus itself. All the while claiming it's just "healthy skepticism"A lot.. a lot of that goes on with the whole climate change debate
Healthy skepticism good, unhealthy faux skepticism not so good

The thing about 'Holocaust' appropriation is that many of those who were directly affected by the actual holocaust are rightly fairly pissed at it being used as a descriptor by others.

Expressions such as the “Abortion Holocaust” or the “Climate Holocaust” are typical of those involving both Trivialization and Universalization of the Holocaust.

http://jcpa.org/article/the-multiple-distortions-of-holocaust-memory/

The appropriation of such language also means that it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish these accusations from medievel type heresy-hunting

Being sceptical about various claims made by populist type movements which bear little resemblence to what climate scientists are actually saying is not climate 'denial' (sic) no matter how it is looked at...

gozunda

Akrasia wrote: »

You have no problem calling people a 'doomsday cult' with all the obvious negative connotations that go along with this term, but when people are called 'climate change deniers' or 'science deniers' then suddenly you are so offended and outraged that you lose the ability to engage in any posts other than to accuse people of being nasty and mean.I asked you before what you consider the plausible worst case scenario so we can compare the evidence for that and what the climate change protesters are claiming as their worst case scenario and you ignored that post. You only seem interested in arguing about the character of the people involved in speaking about climate change and have consistently avoided discussion on the evidence and science behind the claims that those people are making.

Because as stated above - that:

Expressions such as the “Abortion Holocaust” or the “Climate Holocaust” are typical of those involving both Trivialization and Universalization of the Holocaust.

http://jcpa.org/article/the-multiple-distortions-of-holocaust-memory/

Maybe bring the use of such language up with the people with the primary right to object to it.

Specifically - throwing the phrase 'denier' at those you disagree with iin a discussion is as low as one can go tbh. Especially when they can show what they're saying is based on referenced fact.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110062696&postcount=296

On the other hand the term 'doomsday cult' is normally applied " cults who believe in apocalypticisma and millenarianism..."

Not just me who are saying the movement is a cult. Don't believe me again? Here's an example:

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/04/19/extinction-rebellion-the-new-millenarian-cult/

Btw I believe I've pointed out previously that objective debate generally avoids making obsessive personal type remarks about those involved in the discussion. So no I wont engage with that. Thanks all the same.

Criticism of the movement or what is being pushed as part of a populist movement is not the same as pointing out various ad hominems being thrown at participants of a discussion - no matter how anyone looks at it.

Dohnjoe

gozunda wrote: »

Being sceptical about various claims made by populist type movements which bear little resemblence to what climate scientists are actually saying is not 'climate denial' no matter how it is looked at...

Not something I've noticed, but perhaps, give an example, and what are the repercussions of that example

Most would rather a genuine threat be over-played than under-played

gozunda

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Not something I've noticed, but perhaps, give an example, and what are the repercussions of that example
Most would rather a genuine threat be over-played than under-played

Not to derail this thread but yes that very topic was discussed in the thread about extinction rebellion. As for repercussions- that was also detailed and included amongst other things a child of someone known to him being frightened out of their wits as related by a climate scientist. I believe something similar happened to Ms Thungbeg who details how at just 11 years of age, and as a result of what she was being told - stopped eating and became clinically depressed. These are just some examples btw.

Too much overlaying, exaggeration or hyperbole helps no one tbh.

xckjoo

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I'm old enough to remember the huge deal over the Ozone hole, which ultimately was warranted. Thankfully the internet didn't really exist back

There really wasn't the same issues with the hole in the Ozone Layer back in the day. Was there no conspiracies about it?

inhaler16

xckjoo wrote: »

There really wasn't the same issues with the hole in the Ozone Layer back in the day. Was there no conspiracies about it?

They found out the ozone hole was a natural seasonal event. Then shut up about it pretty sharp.

Dakota Dan

maccored wrote: »

they said we'd see issues - we are seeing issues. Your ilk were the kind in 1989 saying everything would be grand and its all scaremongering

Not many in Ireland in 1989 even heard of global warming, acid rain was the only thing mentioned in Ireland back then.

maccored

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Not many in Ireland in 1989 even heard of global warming, acid rain was the only thing mentioned in Ireland back then.

Ireland? Its not an Irish thing - it's worldwide.

Dakota Dan

maccored wrote: »

Ireland? Its not an Irish thing - it's worldwide.

You know fcuking we’ll what I meant but carry on with the silly replies.

Dohnjoe

inhaler16 wrote: »

They found out the ozone hole was a natural seasonal event. Then shut up about it pretty sharp.

Ozone depleting chemicals like CFC's were the main case (which is why they were banned) Since the ban it has stabilized and has since started to recover

Charles Ingles

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Ozone depleting chemicals like CFC's were the main case (which is why they were banned) Since the ban it has stabilized and has since started to recover

Allegedly

gozunda

xckjoo wrote: »

lol. So much for "over and out". Can't not have the last word no? Your weak attempts at goading are not effective here. I actually think you might have some valid points to make, but it's not worth wading through your pages of antagonistic waffle to determine if you do. Some people just aren't worth engaging with.

So much for not "engaging" then I do have to laugh though tbh - turned up like a spectator at a match and started screaming that you didnt like how just one player on the other team was playing the ball lol - all the while completely ignoring the fouls going on right left and centre. Anyway I'm glad to see in on the discussion now - well done

Dohnjoe

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Allegedly

No allegedly about it

maccored

Dakota Dan wrote: »

You know fcuking we’ll what I meant but carry on with the silly replies.

I dont .

The original point I was making was that theres always been naysayers - yet the climate is changing and the animal and insect population are already starting to die off, so I really have no idea how you reckon it's all bull****

gozunda

maccored wrote: »

Ireland? Its not an Irish thing - it's worldwide.

Hmmm - not sure that the current source is worldwide tbh ...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/09/mysterious-source-of-illegal-ozone-killing-emissions-revealed-say-investigators

gozunda

maccored wrote: »

I dont .

The original point I was making was that theres always been naysayers - yet the climate is changing and the animal and insect population are already starting to die off, so I really have no idea how you reckon it's all bull****

Well the thing is that what's referred to as the sixth great extinction has been ongoing for quite a while. And overpopulation and overconsumption have been firmly targeted as the principal agent ...

This was posted by someone else a little while back ....

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/10/earths-sixth-mass-extinction-event-already-underway-scientists-warn?CMP=share_btn_tw

Scientists analysed both common and rare species and found billions of regional or local populations have been lost. They blame human overpopulation and overconsumption for the crisis ...

Nearly half of the 177 mammal species surveyed lost more than 80% of their distribution between 1900 and 2015

inhaler16

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Ozone depleting chemicals like CFC's were the main case (which is why they were banned) Since the ban it has stabilized and has since started to recover

Nope If I recall the hole is still the same size and not the only one. CFC's banning was good but the ozone layer regenerated faster than it was destroyed by CFC. Hence they shut up about it.

Dohnjoe

inhaler16 wrote: »

Nope If I recall the hole is still the same size and not the only one. CFC's banning was good but the ozone layer regenerated faster than it was destroyed by CFC. Hence they shut up about it.

Who's "they"?

It's the smallest it's been since the late eighties

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/11/03/the-earths-ozone-hole-is-shrinking-and-is-the-smallest-its-been-since-1988/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5beefa456b94

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/antarctic-ozone-hole-healing-fingerprints/

maccored

gozunda wrote: »

Hmmm - not sure that the current source is worldwide tbh ...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/09/mysterious-source-of-illegal-ozone-killing-emissions-revealed-say-investigators

ah right - pollution and a collapsing environment isnt worldwide. of course :rolleyes:

maccored

gozunda wrote: »

This was posted by someone else a little while back ....

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/10/earths-sixth-mass-extinction-event-already-underway-scientists-warn?CMP=share_btn_tw

hmmm .. who was that 'someone'? Go check (it was me)

branie2

I don't think so

xckjoo

gozunda wrote: »

So much for not "engaging" then I do have to laugh though tbh - turned up like a spectator at a match and started screaming that you didnt like how just one player on the other team was playing the ball lol - all the while completely ignoring the fouls going on right left and centre. Anyway I'm glad to see in on the discussion now - well done

Lol. Dude it's just you I'm not engaging in a discussion with because you don't know how. So much for you not engaging with me either, like you claimed you were going to do many posts ago. Ego is fragile on this one I think.

Dakota Dan

inhaler16 wrote: »

Nope If I recall the hole is still the same size and not the only one. CFC's banning was good but the ozone layer regenerated faster than it was destroyed by CFC. Hence they shut up about it.

And all the cfc’s migrated to NZ to make one big hole rather than all small holes all over the globe.

gozunda

maccored wrote: »

ah right - pollution and a collapsing environment isnt worldwide. of course :r:

Was referring to the source of present emissions of CFCS as per the article ... but I think you knew that. No worries.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/09/mysterious-source-of-illegal-ozone-killing-emissions-revealed-say-investigators[/quote]