Astrology (the divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects) has much in common with climate science (the divination of the supposed influences of trace gases on human affairs, atmospheric events and climate by their volume).
Beneficiaries of regulation
Other than agenda advancement, political and financial gain, has there been any positive benefit to the public or the climate in the various regulations and "pressure brought to bear" regarding the use of DDT, emissions of sulphates, NOx, N2O, CO2, O3 etc? Unless one classes increasing loss of freedom, higher costs of and lowering standards of living, reducing income, mass starvation and death and no measurable effect on the climate as improvements, no.
Considering DDT's well know product of curtailment, genocide, the minimal effects of acid rain, the loss of precipitation and warming due to clean air acts, biofuels production and combustion emission of nitrogen compounds, ozone and CO2 at tens to hundreds of times greater levels than the production and combustion of petrol causes, let alone the additional fertiliser to produce fuel crops that is enlarging the dead zone in the Mexican Gulf and elsewhere, (not forgetting deforestation) the evidence strongly implies a UNEP (a political advocacy and world government project participant) con in each case and in my opinion the scientists, the bureaucrats and the private interests such as DuPont, Enron, GE, insurance companies, banksters and other lobbyist organisations such as the WWF, WHO, Greenpeace etc need to be questioned under oath before a court and the real truth established.
The real shame lies with those politicians that give every indication that they won their position to benefit lobbyists, industry and various political factions such as globalist banksters and their eco-fascist "charities" rather than serve the public. Such should be a prosecutable offence (if not already) that would likely see Obama, many democrats and EPA heads and the Blair-Brown-Cameron-Clegg governments out of a job and before a judge.
Use of Factoids
The blackening of the reputation of CO2 by presentation of overblown opinions and hyped assumptive model products that failed and continue to fail badly to be a predictive tool is well known, the climate has made liars and a laughing stock of dogmatic believers and proselytisers such as the UN, Gore, Blair, Huhne etc. are regarded as profit motivated low brow comedians or con artists.
The fact is that IR in CO2's range emitted by the surface can not be detected escaping upward from the boundary layer and from around 370 parts per million emissions to space from the TOA have increased. That informs that the range is saturated and only the input of higher levels of solar radiation can increase the warming benefit of additions to the CO2 volume.
Total IR upward emissions at the TOA have increased as TSI reduced while albedo dropped a lesser amount than outgoing IR energy, that thoroughly confounds the GHG theory. That the CO2 range is saturated has not increased the warmth of the planet as emission to space in other parts of the IR spectrum have increased and more than compensated CO2's saturation. We can now emit any amount of CO2 with confidence that at existing levels of solar input there will be no additional detained heat from surface IR in its range and seemingly increased cooling with additions if the warmist "correlation is causation" motto is adhered to. That is fortunate as China's emissions will exceed present day global volumes by 2030, and add to that India's escalating production plus Africa's development (that genocidal globalists are attempting to thwart via its weapons of mass destruction, the UN and European Commission).
OLR Global to sep 2010.gif
OLR versus CO2 Equator 1979 to 2010
Source for both http://climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm
Accompanying text from C4U (lower pic):
Scatter plot showing outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere between 179oE and 179oW and 90oN and 90oS since June 1974, as function of atmospheric CO2. OLR data from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). CO2 data measured at the Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, reported as a dry mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of molecules of dry air (water vapour removed), multiplied by one million (ppm). The red line represent a two-degree polynomial fit, specified in the lower left corner of the diagram. As the amount of atmospheric CO2 has been increasing over the entire period (ignoring annual variations), the x-axis can be seen as as rough timeline from 1974 (left) to 2010 (right). The infrared wavelength covered is 10.5-12.5 µm (Gruber and Winston 1978). Last month shown: July 2010. Last diagram update: 21 September 2010.
As the graph to the left shows, emissions at the TOA in CO2's IR range are increasing despite CO2 density increasing. Evidence that CO2 absorbed to its limit at~370 ppm. Notable is the total silence of the warmist community that delivered us into the green hell of the UN's creation.
Sulphate emissions were also regulated by dictate of UNEP. The product was a large contribution to last century warming (that ended around 1995). Now there is talk of adding sulphates to plane fuel, spraying it directly into the air to cool the planet and it is being seriously considered by the same insane eco-fascist bureaucrats in the UN and government departments that brought in the original legislation.
DDT use although not strictly speaking legislated, was sharply curtailed by the UN's unwritten threat, use it and lose financial aid. Millions died as a result. A crime as yet untried let alone punished. The harmful effects of DDT have never been proven and that it was in recent years permitted by the murderers to be used again says everything about their guilt.
Aerosol emission is a whole other tale of deceit. I'll leave that as I haven't fully researched the consequences but it is known that precipitation fell as a result of clean air acts. Yet another UN and governmental action that added to warming.
CFCs. The stratosphere's chemical makeup and how various compounds cohabit, the warming and cooling they produce directly and indirectly and how that affects the different tropospheric layers down to the boundary layer is still frontier science. The legislation that restricted emission was thwarted by DuPont until it had a (more expensive) replacement. Then it lobbied strongly for a CFC ban. It profits from the trade of offsets as does Enron (now GE), Gore, Stern, Oxburgh, Strong, Soros, the Rothschild-Rockefeller bankster cartel and likely most proponents and supporting politicos.
Some facts on ozone, a topic I have spent a long time looking at.
The science is far from settled. Emissions of CFCs bear no relation to the variability seen in ozone. An almost perfect correlation is seen when comparing the UV index with O3 variation. Other factors include;
-Temperature in the stratosphere affects ozone formation (cooling slows it, the layer cooled at least since the 1940s).
-Volcanoes cause dramatic cooling by injecting WV, HCls, sulphates and aerosols. The initial rapid rise in T is driven by O3 depletion, WV absorption of up and downward IR radiation and aerosol absorption of solar radiation overcoming the sulphate albedo effect. The rapid crystal formation due to aerosol volume forming a base for WV condensation quickly reverses the warming influence due to the reflective properties of ice. The slow downward precipitation of the ice crystals and ozone recovery due to the loss of an H ion source and other anti O3 chemicals that attach to the crystals allows O3 to rebound, albeit slowly.
-Temperature in the troposphere affects the height of the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere that increases and decreases N ion downward precipitation into the ozone layer. The ions readily combine with O ions and O2 to form compounds that can take an O molecule from O3.
-H2O has a big influence. As water vapour its breakdown by high energy UV leaves an H ion or HO that are anti O3 chemicals, and it readily combine with other ions and compounds and form a major component of other anti O3 compounds. It is responsible for forming clouds that in polar winter provide a surface that avoids precipitation of compounds that would otherwise precipitate down, out of the O3 danger zone. In the polar spring, the clouds evaporate or sublimate leaving a high level of acids and various chemicals in a small area where a legion of O3 breakers form, (a factor in forming an ozone "hole").
-The diameter of the polar vortices also influences O3 levels within their circumference. A negative mood (high pressure, cool phase) causes their extent to expand towards the equator broadening the diameter and so slowing the wind (jet stream) by lengthening the path travelled. That is favourable for migration of O3 towards the poles. A low pressure small diameter with fast winds reduces migration. As migration is the principle source of O3, the vortices must be considered a major factor in "hole" creation. The phase (mood) of the vortices looks to be regulated by the depth of penetration of inward flowing warm currents from the Pacific and Atlantic and air current variation. The Arctic vortex was in positive mood since the 1970s and changed to negative (synch'ing with ocean oscillations) as demonstrated by the increasing winter snow cover extent of 2007-08, 08-09, 09-10 and this winter may increase the near record extent seen last year.
-Seasonal emissions from oceans of bromides, salts and chlorine and other compounds add to the stratospheric reservoir of O3 depleting compound components.
-UV is an O3 creation enabler (UVC splits O2) and destroyer (UVB) of O3. Levels determine O3 volume to a very high degree demonstrated by a very close correlation.
A product of the tangled web that deceit produces.
Global Warming Potential of Chlorofluorocarbons and Their Replacements
More recently, Fisher and McFarland (1992) recognized that impact assessment of CFC alternatives on global warming must not only include direct-emission effects based on GWP, but indirect, energy-related CO2 emissions as well in "Alternatives to CFCs and Global Warming." The authors contend that if using a particular CFC alternative requires higher fuel consumption, any benefit due to decreased GWP could be offset by increased CO2 emissions. The sum of the direct and indirect emissions associated with a particular gas has been defined as its Total Equivalent Warming Impact (TEWI). The AFEAS report Energy and Global Warming Impacts of CFC Alternative Technologies describes the methodology for determining TEWI and its application in several commercial, industrial, and household case studies (Fischer et al. 1991).
---------------------------------------Evidence is emerging that ozone holes have always formed and that as well as being a seasonal phenomenon are cyclical, driven by solar moods and short term axial precession perturbations such as nutatation. A strong case is developing that as well as the CFC science findings being hyper-inflated by biased funding, UN actions to outlaw their use were politically motivated and driven by the agenda of globalisation idealists with the complicity of sycophantic politicians demonstrated by the absence of independent cost benefit reports in any aspect of legislation pretended to be for control of atmosphere content and climate variation and temperature regulation.
So there you have it. The complicity of sycophantic politicians, scientific journals and the boards of scientific organisations (that biased funding as did the EC) with directives produced by the UN and EC (whose agenda of world government by stealth and deceit is set by their directors in the various eco-fascist think tanks) aided by the profiteering of businesses, banksters, media and by "stupid but helpful" enviro-nut campaigners have all conspired deliberately or ignorantly to bring about regulation and financially penal legislation based on biased and inflated science findings that are based on no more than unsubstantiated assumption, belief and or fabrication.
Listing of GWP Values as per Report IPCC WG1 AR4
[guesstimates excluding atmospheric H2O, overwhelmingly the most important GHG whose GWP in its various phases the IPCC and science haven't got a clue]
More values given in the pdf linked above.
_______________________________
CFCs are attributed with being overwhelmingly responsible for the presence of chlorine in the stratosphere based on circumstantial evidence - measurement of chlorine and opinion. CFCs are not measured, it is assumed that CFCs are responsible for the Cl volume in the stratosphere. Cl is not long lived as it is soluble and readily attaches to water droplets and ice that precipitate out of the layer. Volcanoes emit large volumes of HCls and we had 3 that deeply penetrated the stratosphere (intruding up to 25 miles), in 1963, '82 and '91 and a few VEI 4 to 5s from the 1940s. The stratosphere cooled rapidly and T recovery was slow. Even eruptions that don't penetrate put HCls high in the troposphere where some must be conveyed upward.
CFC emissions have no detectable correlation with ozone levels and so no significant influence. They are harmless to ozone until their chlorine is separated and "activated" by bonding with other molecules and for that it needs cloud and sunlight and tens of winters. The rise to the stratosphere is not exactly rapid either, 5 to 15 years or more according to some observations. The bonding path takes far longer than assumed by assumptive modellers if the following was proven.
[...] new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of
photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California1, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere - almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate. "This must have far-reaching consequences," Rex says. "If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being." What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear. The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago (see graphic). If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes... Source 1 Source 2
The way it happens. CFC breaks up when high energy UV breaks it down or by photolysis acting on cloud ice crystal surfaces in the polar spring. A free Cl molecule takes an O3 molecule, the ClO then meets a free O molecule (ion) or takes another from O3 that attaches to the O of the ClO and releases the Cl. The abundance of O ions and low level of UV after O2 and O3 filtration means that Cl delays the process of O3 formation only insignificantly, much bonding with other chemicals. Cl's abundance in a few hundred parts per trillion (equates to how many parts per m3?), the seasonal increase in ocean bromine and Cl compounds emission and the lowering height of the tropopause on cooling when the Sun goes down increasing the precipitation of N ions from the atm. above the O3 layer, the cooling of the stratosphere and the fact that O3 volume is tied to solar UV and proton emission and GCR volume implies that CFC bedevilment is just another con.
Also in the mix, falling levels of ozone cause increasing levels of UV in the troposphere so increasing tropospheric breakdown of CFCs and when broken down the same rules apply as for surface emissions (other than volcanic) of HCl, rapid removal from the air. CFC transport upwards in air currents that are very likely humid infers that volume decrease will increasingly occur by dissolution in water droplets with height as solubility increases as temperature decreases.
Eliminating the alleged CFC stratospheric influence would be only 50% effective as Cl suppresses nitrogen depletion.
The UN is responsible for CFC demonization based on anecdotal opinions, modelled assumption likely proved wrong by the discovery mentioned above (that appears to have been stifled) and propaganda. Politicians, DuPont, CFC offset sellers and investors are the only profiters from the hype. The UN has form. DDT due to a bird egg mentioned in a book, sulphates, and now CO2 plus any other chemical it can get paid scientists to demonize.
Given the GWP of HCFCs and the unrestrained release of them, CFCs were a much better option for the climate, business and our wallets. However even with the warming benefit of CFC replacements, the now abundant HCFCs and similar, the climate is unperturbed in its cycles.
Also, see
A Gaping Hole in the Ozone Hole,
The "Ozone Layer" - what's going on?
CFCs don't dissolve in water - a fallacy.
More evidence for very short-lived substance contribution. (That this research studied the Tropics, the flow of air being poleward infers that the levels of VSLS found are likely the lowest volumes in the atmosphere. The periods considered were unlikely to detect the presence of volcanic sourced VSLS in the stratosphere due to their rapid breakdown.)
Below is how the post began originally. I decided to add the source of the politicization and attempt by ne'er do wells to evolve "proof by consensus" of atmospheric science as an introduction as it is fundamental to the bias in scientific "proofs". Outside of fascistic and communistic dictatorships, opinion portrayal as proof (post normal science) has no justification. Politics and cash for supportive results only is in no way science.
The climate control "knob"
Volcanoes reduce ozone volume allowing UV rad to force T by warming ocean surface layers. It is what likely ended the last glacial period and the LIA. Increase in ocean floor volcanic activity, coincidental, likely caused by planetary alignment meant there was bottom up and top down warming. It probably required both to end the glacial advance. Ozone is likely the driver of short term climate control, far superior to CO2 and a direct influencer of WV volume.
SST cooling causes La Nina conditions, and top water to become denser, it sinks causing underlying warmer water to rise producing El Ninos. Volcanoes moderate ozone in terms of 2 decades.
Tropospheric aerosol density offsets volcanic warming influence (via ozone volume) on the troposphere in terms of 1-3 years. Although I don't have data I'm pretty certain the positions of other planets (by amplification of lunar influence) relative to the Earth and Sun are a major factor in varying volcanic activity.
Excerpt: "If volcanic activity continues to increase, and there is an eruption big enough to send millions of tons of ash and dust into the upper layers of the atmosphere, then the Earth's temperature would likely drop at least a degree or two from present levels. This happened in June of 1991 when Mount Pinatubo exploded in the Philippines. For the following year, the Earth's temperature dropped about 1-2 degrees before recovering several years later."
A tentative hypothesis.
Planets' positions influence the intensity of solar surface activity by gravitational tidal influence and the Earth's tectonic and volcanic activity by amplification of lunar tidal influence on the surface and plastic mantle, possibly the core too. Increased solar activity produces higher levels of UV and proton emissions. Proton levels vary the volume of N ions that precipitate down to the ozone layer, upper stratospheric ozone volume so varying UV penetration that varies ozone layer volume. A stratosphere penetrating eruption causes rapid cooling that is sustained for decades and subsequent eruptions compound cooling. Ozone forms more slowly with cooling, seasonal stratospheric polar ice clouds become more plentiful as crystal formation increases, a base for the production of ozone depleting compounds that amplify the seasonal depletion. Eruptions happening in short order amplify cooling to the point that WV, a source of H ions that break down O3, becomes scarce due to crystal formation, in turn amplified by droplet formation on erupted aerosols. Crystals reach a size that enables them to precipitate out of the stratosphere, reducing the H2O volume. As WV, H2O is a warming agent as an absorber of IR, as crystals a cooling agent due to albedo.
The loss of WV to crystals initially amplifies cooling caused by ozone depletion, dimming and sulphates from eruptions. Their precipitation removes a cooling influence and a source of H ions by sublimation of WV. The increased UV levels amplifying ozone formation produces a slow recovery, exceeding the ongoing N ion precipitation depletion source.
The loss of WV to crystals initially amplifies cooling caused by ozone depletion, dimming and sulphates from eruptions. Their precipitation removes a cooling influence and a source of H ions by sublimation of WV. The increased UV levels amplifying ozone formation produces a slow recovery, exceeding the ongoing N ion precipitation depletion source.
Consequences in the troposphere include shallow rapid warming of the oceans only slightly influenced by cloud that is mostly transparent to UV, amplification of ozone formation from human emissions and via higher isoprenes production by biomass (mainly trees, ferns and lichen), presumably the latter is a defence response.
Human intervention over centuries by deforestation has greatly depleted a strong climate moderator and in the short term, air quality controls have depleted a strong human influence on the climate as cloud forming aerosols and sulphates that have a high albedo. Now we are reducing the compensation paid to nature in the form of CO2 that speeds sapling growth and causes mature trees to add bulk as well as greening the planet at the rate of 1% every ~3 years.
Ozone is recovering. This is very likely due to the drying of the upper tropo- and stratosphere.Still remaining to fully understand; the influence of radio waves on the ionosphere, its influence and that of the declining EMF on the lower atm. layers, the relation between ozone volume, stratospheric H2O, T and air currents, especially the cells - Hadley, Ferrel and Polar, trade winds, ENSO, global SST and lower tropospheric climate.
_______________________________________________
It is all academic really, the IPCC having admitted it was always about taking your money (and here) with the climate as the excuse (see green-agenda.com as vindication snowballs) and after their deductions, giving it to someone else.
(I'll do some tidying up over the next few days because I have repeated myself in a number of places without necessity.)
Humour
A seemingly desperate, dogmatic, alarmist bit scientist prone to ad hom. berates a realist.
Listen: http://www.702.co.za/podcast/podcast_bestofredi.asp
Or download the audio file: http://www.pod702.co.za/podcast/bestofredi/20101125BESTREDI.mp3
Facebook as Clothcap
Twitter as Capofcloth
