Ozone depletion theroy of global warming

[Subduction Zone]

A logical response to this news would be something like, " oh great thanks maybe they fixed the problem, let's discuss this."

What news?

 

[greatcloudlives]

That the warming were experiencing , especially in the ninties may have been attributed to the depletion of the ozone layer. The good news is that we have fixed the damage to the ozone layer and it is coming back to 1980's levels.

Warming from ozone depletion is greater than from CO2 build up.

 

[greatcloudlives]

The graphs showing warming could easily be attributed to the fact that the ozone layer was damaged.

 

[greatcloudlives]

Subduction zone , this information comes from a researcher Dr Peter Ward that I saw on YouTube. It is recently been made public.

 

[Hans Blaster]

A logical response to this news would be something like, " oh great thanks maybe they fixed the problem, let's discuss this."

It's not "news". It's some crank's website that you ran into.

 

[greatcloudlives]

See the peer reviewied paper titled-
COSMIC--RAY-DRIVEN REACTION AND GREENHOUSE EFFECT OF HALOGENATED MOLECULES: CULPRIT FOR ATMOSPHERIC OZONE DEPLETION AND GLOBAL CLIMATE
CHANGE.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Subduction zone , this information comes from a researcher Dr Peter Ward that I saw on YouTube. It is recently been made public.

On Ward's about page he has a CV. He is a geophysicist with many studies on seismology, volcanoes...

About Peter L. Ward, the Author of This Website

In his list of publications, only 2 are related to climate:

"Sulfur dioxide initiates global climate change in four ways" (2009) in the journal: "Thin Solid Films"

"Understanding volcanoes may be the key to controlling global warming" (2010) in the journal: "Society of Vacuum Coaters Bulletin"

Neither of these journals seems appropriate to the topical material of the papers.

A paper about volcanoes and climate change in a journal of a society for people who work on coating things inside vacuum chambers. No reason to think that the editors and referees of such a journal would know anything about climate or volcanoes.

A second paper, this time about SO2 and climate, in a solid state physics journal (oddly enough one where you might report on the properties of a thin film deposited in a vacuum chamber). Climate and gases are not the topics of study in solid state physics, nor are they thin solid films.

I'm not sure how he got these papers in these journals, but the fact that they were published in journals indicate that they were likely no scrutinized well before or after publication. This leaves one no faith in Ward's work on climate issues.

 

[Hans Blaster]

See the peer reviewied paper titled-
COSMIC--RAY-DRIVEN REACTION AND GREENHOUSE EFFECT OF HALOGENATED MOLECULES: CULPRIT FOR ATMOSPHERIC OZONE DEPLETION AND GLOBAL CLIMATE
CHANGE.

Don't know where that paper is found, but there is this lovely paragraph on Ward's website:

Light illuminates matter, but light itself is not visible, it is dark, until it interacts with matter. Given that Earth receives less than 5 x 10^-8 % of Sun’s radiation, there must be a lot of dark energy in space that changes in time only if the rate of conversion of mass to energy in stars and elsewhere changes locally as it interacts with matter, such as in the shadow behind a planet.

This is utter nonsense. Dark energy has nothing to do with light from the Sun that doesn't hit the Earth (it's a cosmological effect). Ward is out of his depth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That the warming were experiencing , especially in the ninties may have been attributed to the depletion of the ozone layer. The good news is that we have fixed the damage to the ozone layer and it is coming back to 1980's levels.

Warming from ozone depletion is greater than from CO2 build up.

It is such a pity that you cannot find a reliable source. How do you expect people to believe unsupported claims?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subduction zone , this information comes from a researcher Dr Peter Ward that I saw on YouTube. It is recently been made public.

Guess who else you can find on YouTube? Flat Earth believers. Though real scientists do sometimes make YouTube videos and they can be instructional, that is not where they publish their real work.

So once again, can you find a reliable source?

 

[Hans Blaster]

On Ward's about page he has a CV. He is a geophysicist with many studies on seismology, volcanoes...

Oh, this gets better...

He has a page of unpublished papers, some of which were rejected without review. Here are a couple of replies from the editors of those journals:

I have decided to decline your paper for publication in JGR- Atmospheres. Our journal only publishes original research, but much of the content in your paper is popular science. For the discussion on the role of greenhouse gases, you simply stated what you believed. You did not substantiate your arguments with rigorous quantitative calculations or analysis of measurements. This is not enough for our journal.

It is our policy to decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees so that they may be sent elsewhere without further delay. Such decisions are made by the editorial staff when it appears that papers do not meet the criteria for publication in Nature Communications. These editorial judgments are based on such considerations as the degree of support for claims made and novelty of the claims in relation to the existing literature.

In this case, while we find your theory interesting, I am afraid many of your claims have already been published and broadcast in other forms of media, undermining their novelty. Furthermore, in order to refute such a longstanding and widely accepted concept, a sufficiently compelling alternative explanation is required, which we unfortunately find lacking in the current work.

If true, the conclusions of the manuscript would be of highest scientific significance. However, I'm afraid that the basis for these conclusions is more a complete lack of
understanding of thermodynamics than actual science. Not only do you disagree with hundreds of modern climate scientists, you also challenge some findings that form the basis of modern physics and that were made by some of the greatest names in science. I should hope that in this "one against many" situation, you may at least take into account the possibility that you may be wrong and the many be right...
The paper contains so many incorrect statements that I cannot list them all here. I will just elaborate briefly on the most important error right at the start of the line of arguments presented.
...
In conclusion, I suggest to carefully read some of the cited references, plus some basic textbooks of thermodynamics, physical chemistry, or similar. If you do this, you may even be convinced that it might be wise to remove the website and restrain from publishing the book that were both mentioned in your cover letter.

 

[greatcloudlives]

My post on post #26 is a peer reviewed paper. I am using my phone and am not able to make a hyperlink to the site.

 

[greatcloudlives]

Also Waterloo professor Qing-Bin Lu a PhD in physics and astronomy 2013 wrote in his paper - CFC's and cosmic rays are mostly to blame for climate change. I am using my phone and can't make a hyperlink to the site. Look him up he was the first one to make this statement. Other scientists have also wrote the same thing.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Also Waterloo professor Qing-Bin Lu a PhD in physics and astronomy 2013 wrote in his paper - CFC's and cosmic rays are mostly to blame for climate change. I am using my phone and can't make a hyperlink to the site. Look him up he was the first one to make this statement. Other scientists have also wrote the same thing.

is that the paper in #26?

 

[greatcloudlives]

There are a number of peer reviewied papers for cosmic rays and CFC's causing climate change. I cannot link to them with my cell phone. It's well known about this theroy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My post on post #26 is a peer reviewed paper. I am using my phone and am not able to make a hyperlink to the site.

It does not look very reliable. For example the author compared a very noisy graph to one that is not and tried to claim that there was no warming from 1850 to 1930

Page 16 of this pdf:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.6844.pdf

But when I look at the graphs I can see that a curve that eliminates noise would show that temperatures did go up through that period:

There is a rather small increase in CO2 levels over that period and we see a small increase in temperature.

 

[Radagast]

See the peer reviewied paper titled-
COSMIC--RAY-DRIVEN REACTION AND GREENHOUSE EFFECT OF HALOGENATED MOLECULES: CULPRIT FOR ATMOSPHERIC OZONE DEPLETION AND GLOBAL CLIMATE
CHANGE.

CFCs cause ozone depletion, yes.

For other reasons, CFCs are also a greenhouse gas. However, their effect is very minor compared to CO2.

 

[Radagast]

For example the author compared a very noisy graph to one that is not and tried to claim that there was no warming from 1850 to 1930

Page 16 of this pdf:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.6844.pdf

But when I look at the graphs I can see that a curve that eliminates noise would show that temperatures did go up through that period:

Pretty much zero temperature increase over that period, when I look at the graph. According to NASA, net forcings did not rise over that period:

This was due to massive aerosol-generated cooling in the years after 1880:

Your other blue-and-pink graph seems suspiciously fake to me.

That said, I'm not endorsing the paper, just the claim about 1850 to 1930.

 

[greatcloudlives]

Don't know where that paper is found, but there is this lovely paragraph on Ward's website:



This is utter nonsense. Dark energy has nothing to do with light from the Sun that doesn't hit the Earth (it's a cosmological effect). Ward is out of his depth.

Dr Peter Ward was referring to the visible vs the invisible light in the light spectrum.

Dr Peter Ward retired in 2016 after 27 years in his field of study and spent time heading up a committee in congress for president Bush. After retirement he did research on topics of modern times and came up with this theroy that explains the warming trend. It's called the ozone depletion theroy. He was not the first to come up with the idea a PhD from China did, but never followed up with it. He added to it and tied it all together. He is qualified to do this because he is a good and decorated scientist , he is not being paid by anyone he is just interested.

I would like to think that your response to this would be " wow, that is interesting. You mean the problem is solved and cosmic Ray's are to blame. Thanks that means that mankind isn't even responsible for the warming."

 

[greatcloudlives]

CFCs cause ozone depletion, yes.

For other reasons, CFCs are also a greenhouse gas. However, their effect is very minor compared to CO2.

Ratagast you miss the whole point. CFCs are a greenhouse gas, but the point is that CFC's destroy ozone greatly. One atom of CFC destroys 10,000 molecules of ozone. The ozone depletion theroy says that the ozone layer was so depleted by CFC that, that is the reason for the hole in the ozone layer discovered in 1983. Also the reason for the rapid rise of temperatures in the atmosphere in the ninties. When the hole in the atmosphere began to be replenished the temperature went down. That's also the reason for the pause in the temperature record from 1998 to 2014 when the temperature trend was slightly down,. before a volcano and the 2016 El Nino year.