Thursday, December 15, 2011

CFC fraud

Popular saying: "Man is the only animal that trips twice on the same stone"

Although we are not animals, we can become like beasts.

Only ignorants ignore history. Not learning from errors, means repeating them.

Remember the CFC psychosis on the ozone layer? It was all a fraud! Just like the climate change.

Chemists poke holes in ozone theory

Reaction data of crucial chloride compounds called into question.

The hole in the ozone layer (blue) over Antarctica results from chemicals such as CFCs.The hole in the ozone layer (blue) over Antarctica does not necessarily result from chemicals such as CFCs.NASA/AP
As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.
Long-lived chloride compounds from anthropogenic emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are the main cause of worrying seasonal ozone losses in both hemispheres. In 1985, researchers discovered a hole in the ozone layer above the Antarctic, after atmospheric chloride levels built up. The Montreal Protocol, agreed in 1987 and ratified two years later, stopped the production and consumption of most ozone-destroying chemicals. But many will linger on in the atmosphere for decades to come. How and on what timescales they will break down depend on the molecules' ultraviolet absorption spectrum (the wavelength of light a molecule can absorb), as the energy for the process comes from sunlight. Molecules break down and react at different speeds according to the wavelength available and the temperature, both of which are factored into the protocol.
Cl2O2 is key to ozone (O3) depleting reactions such as this one, in which photolysis results in a chlorine radical (Cl•) that reacts with O3.Cl2O2 is not key to ozone (O3) depleting reactions such as this one, in which photolysis results in a chlorine radical (Cl) that reacts with O3.
So Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw 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 ago2 (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, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.
Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. “Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart,” says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.
“Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely,” agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. “Now suddenly it's like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.”
The measurements at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory were overseen by Stanley Sander, a chemist who chairs a NASA panel for data evaluation. Every couple of years, the panel recommends chemical kinetics and photochemical data for use in atmosphere studies. Until the revised photolysis rate has been evaluated, which won't be before the end of next year, “modellers must make up their minds about what to do,” says Sander. One of the problems with checking the data is that the absorption spectra of chloride compounds are technically challenging to determine. Sander's group used a new technique to synthesize and purify Cl2O2. To avoid impurities and exclude secondary reactions, the team trapped the molecule at low temperatures, then slowly warmed it up.
“Reactions in experimental chambers are one thing — the free atmosphere is something else,” says Joe Farman, one of the scientists who first quantified the ozone hole over Antarctica3. “There's no doubt that ozone disappears at up to 3% a day — whether or not we completely understand the chemistry.” But he adds that insufficient control of substances such as halon 1301, used as a flame suppressor, and HCFC22, a refrigerant, is a bigger threat to the success of the Montreal Protocol than are models that don't match the observed losses.

Hot topic

Meanwhile, atmosphere researchers have started to think about how to reconcile observations of ozone depletion with the new chemical models. Several thermal reactions, or combinations of reactions, could fill the gap. Sander's group has started to study possible candidates one by one — but so far without success.
Rex thinks that a chemical pathway involving a Cl2O2 isomer — a molecule with the same atoms but a different structure — might be at play. But even if the basic chemical model of ozone destruction is upheld, the temperature dependency of key reactions in the process could be very different — or even opposite — from thought. This could have dramatic consequences for the understanding of links between climate change and ozone loss, Rex says.
The new measurements raise “intriguing questions”, but don't compromise the Montreal Protocol as such, says John Pyle, an atmosphere researcher at the University of Cambridge. “We're starting to see the benefits of the protocol, but we need to keep the pressure on.” He says that he finds it “extremely hard to believe” that an unknown mechanism accounts for the bulk of observed ozone losses.
Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question, Rex stresses. “Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions.” 
  • References

    1. Pope, F. D., Hansen, J. C., Bayes, K. D., Friedl, R. R. & Sander, S. P. J. Phys. Chem. A 111, 4322–4332 (2007). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
    2. Molina, L. T. & Molina, M. J. J. Phys. Chem. 91, 433–436 (1987). | Article | ISI | ChemPort |
    3. Farman, J. C., Gardiner, B. G. & Shanklin, J. D. Nature 315, 207–210 (1985). | Article | ISI | ChemPort |

The CFC Ban: Global Warming's Pilot Episode

Although it has been only a little over twenty years since the Montreal Protocol, which effectively created a global ban on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the interesting history of the ozone hole has slipped under the radar, largely eclipsed by the much greater story of the anthropogenic global warming fraud. It's interesting to revisit the CFC/ozone depletion scam and note the striking similarities to the current campaign against CO2.

Chlorofluorocarbons were primarily used as refrigerants, propellants, and in fire control systems. They were uniquely well-suited to these applications. CFCs are non-toxic, chemically inert, non-corrosive, non-flammable and roughly four times heavier than air. Their physical characteristics makes them ideal refrigerants. Because they are so chemically inert, non-toxic, and non-flammable, they are excellent aerosol propellants. They are inexpensive to produce and easy and safe to handle. CFCs made modern refrigeration and air conditioning affordable and widely available.

Back in the early '70s, chemists at the University of California began studying CFCs in the atmosphere. They theorized that eventually, CFCs could migrate to the upper atmosphere. After fifty to a hundred years, they could be broken down by UV radiation, releasing a reactive chlorine atom which could catalyze the degradation of ozone (O3). It is significant to note that this was not proven, but was based on other work that showed the potential of nitric oxide (NO) to catalyze ozone. It was theory only, and it was hotly disputed by scientists working for CFC manufacturers at the time. In reality, it remains theory to this day. Note: To date, the concept of man-made CO2 emissions causing global warming remains theory only. There exists no empirical evidence to support the theory.

Then, in 1985, the journal Nature (sound familiar?) published an article by some British researchers who reported observing a greater degree of thinning of the Antarctic ozone layer than expected. Thus was born the "ozone hole." To appreciate this, one must understand a little about atmospheric ozone. Ozone is a very unstable form of oxygen that consists of three oxygen atoms per molecule. When atmospheric oxygen (O2) reacts with UV radiation, two unstable atoms of highly reactive oxygen (O) are produced. These will rapidly react to form either stable O2 or unstable O3. Ozone is constantly being created and destroyed in the upper atmosphere. Its creation is dependent upon sunlight and high-energy UV radiation. Ozone "holes" over Arctic and Antarctic regions have been well-known by atmospheric scientists for many decades. These areas of stratospheric thinning of O3 concentrations are associated with winter (i.e., no sunlight). Upper atmospheric ozone is important, as it absorbs UV-B radiation (280-320 nm). Strangely, the most significant thinning of the ozone layer has been observed over the Antarctic. Most CFC use has been in the northern hemisphere.

So two theories came together. Man-made CFCs could theoretically hasten destruction of stratospheric ozone, and British researchers observed greater thinning of Antarctic ozone than they "expected" (although at the time, this phenomenon was poorly understood, and no one knew what to "expect"). Almost immediately, human health threats erupted, most notably the threat of an increased incidence of malignant melanoma. This is interesting, as melanoma is not influenced by UV-B radiation, but rather UV-A radiation (which is not blocked by ozone). In the early '90s, the EPA estimated an additional 200,000 cancer deaths by 2050. But even before this, the scam had found a voice and a message. Mankind was sowing the seeds of its own destruction. Does this sound familiar?

The other significant coincidence that happened about this same time was that DuPont, a major CFC manufacturer, was poised to lose its patent on one of the most widely-used CFCs. Three Canadian investors who owned 25% of the company led the campaign to ban CFCs. DuPont initially fought the CFC phase out, but the company finally acquiesced when it had secured a patent on a CFC substitute. After all, billions of dollars were at stake.

The media never seemed to report the real economic impact of the CFC ban. Replacing CFCs was not at all easy. There really are no suitable, safe, and affordable replacements for Halon fire control systems. Most propellants were not too difficult to replace (although many are flammable). One notable exception is the CFC propellant used in metered dose inhalers of asthma medication. CFCs were ideal for this application because they are both chemically and biologically inert. Eventually, the pharmaceutical industry found a solution: hydrofluoroalkanes (HFA). Of course, this new delivery method meant that previously inexpensive generic drugs (e.g., albuterol) suddenly became expensive proprietary drugs. The CFC ban effectively tripled the cost of managing asthma. 

From the time the "Freon phase out" began, virtually hundreds of millions of refrigeration systems worldwide had to be replaced. This included automobiles, homes, businesses, and food and medical refrigerators. The systems still functioned, but they could not be economically recharged with CFCs (does this sound familiar?). This enormous cost continues to be silently passed on to consumers. It is important to recognize that the alternatives to CFCs are many orders of magnitude more expensive than CFCs themselves. This is roughly analogous to comparing the cost per kwh of electricity produced by coal versus solar or wind.

In the end, a global ban on CFCs was enacted based on a theory that continues to be challenged to this day. Chemists remain uncertain of the rate and extent of ozone depletion due to chlorine. In fact, the exact role of atmospheric CFCs remains uncertain. It appears that the primary catalyst of ozone depletion is atmospheric chlorine, and the most atmospheric chlorine by far is out-gassed from the oceans or emitted by volcanoes. Mankind's contribution is miniscule (does this sound familiar?). Further, natural processes have by far the greatest influence on the ozone layer (e.g., solar influence).

The CFC ban was a perfect pilot for the anthropogenic global warming fraud. It established all the characters: the eco-left NGOs, the environmental "scientists" (both real and self-proclaimed), and big industry poised to make huge profits and political control over human choices and behavior. It had buy-ins by governments all over the planet. It was based on an unproven (and probably unprovable) hypothesis. Many industries stood to gain at the expense of consumers. To this day, research continues to be funded to study CFCs in the atmosphere. Most significantly, the "ozone hole" hasn't changed appreciably. It remains if we ever really knew what "stable" was.

The CFC ban empowered and emboldened the eco-left. It paved the way for their next big scam. The environmentalists scored a big win when they finally banned DDT and doomed millions to a bleak death. Their subsequent eco-scares were not so successful. They were never able to affect global action in their belief in zero population growth. Widespread starvation and scarcity of resources has not happened. Pesticides and herbicides have proven not to be deadly to children. Acid rain has not resulted in widespread deforestation. High power transmission lines do not cause cancer. The use of chlorine produces more safe, potable water than any other intervention. The CFC ban gave them a "win," and it was based on some of the most specious, tenuous science one can imagine. But it proved a point: Proven science need not trump environmental ideology.

Their next target -- perhaps the ideal target of CO2 -- was in their sights. Noise about global warming started in the late '80s, but it didn't really get much traction until the mid- to late '90s...right after the CFC ban was a done deal.

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Global warming sect vs. Science

Just as the CFC fraud, did you know that science has never ever proven man-induced Global Warming?

That's why the worshipers of the "green godess Gaia" changed the name to "Climate change".

For a balanced opinion, you'd better watch 2 excellent scientific documentaries:

Global cooling: a scientific fact

Global warming: Do we have any information?

Why are serious scientists censored by UN Climate panel? Check this interview:

You deal with the Geophysical Institute of inertial motion sun. English SIM (Solar Inertial Motion). Can you tell what it is?
It is the movement of the Sun around the center of gravity (barycentre) solar system, which is due to the changing distribution of planets, especially the giant planets.  Already Sir Isaac Newton wrote, intuitively, in his Principia (1687) the following sentence: "As the focus of the solar system is constantly at rest , the influence of the sun transforming the distribution of planets constantly move, but never from the center of gravity too much farther. "This is not negligible, the Sun moves in the area with a diameter of 4.3 solar radii, ie 0.02 AU or 3,000,000 km . It is interesting that the average speed of the sun is around 50 km / h. As cars in the village. The first paper on the subject written by SIM PD Jose in 1965.
You are the author of a breakthrough in this field. What?
In 1987 I began to notice after periodicity and geometry of movement and I managed to split the movement of the sun into two basic types, the trio arranged in accordance with the Jupiter-Saturnian system and disordered (chaotic). This created a precise, homogeneous base, to which it has become possible to study solar-terrestrial and climatic variability. Reassuring is that whether the sun spinning however, returns to three-leaf path always for 179 years. And the important thing is that the chaotic movement of the sun agrees to long-term lows in solar activity such as the minimum Wolf (1270-1350), Spörerovo (~ 1430-1520), Maunder (~ 1620-1710) and Dalton (~ 1790-1840 ). During shamrocks are ST-stable phenomena - solar cycles have a length of 10 years, volcanic activity is muted amid trefoil is thermal maximum.  Later I found in the movement of the sun and cycle 2402 years. With this step, the sun enters the interval when, after a period of almost 370 years after the three-leaf still moving path. It was in the last 158 years BC. to 208.5 AD. In this period, the natural condition stable, the long-term thermal maximum. Symmetry of movement is trefoil in 25 AD. Scientists from NASA named cycle 2402 years as "Charvátová cycle." Movement of the sun can be calculated in the future (celestial mechanics), it opened and use predictive capabilities. Meanwhile predict behavior based on the same events with the same movement of the sun. (Weather height of solar cycle 23 came from all over the world just me.) Own physical mechanisms are not yet known.
UN panel whole research is not taking into account or solar-terrestrial phenomena (ie solar, geomagnetic, volcanic activity, etc.) and takes into account only the temperatures since 1860. In Europe, we have a number of continuous instrumental temperature series, which dates back to the mid-18th century. These ranges we worked with a colleague, to show their relationship to the movement of the sun, and published an article about it in the journal Climatic Change, Stanford University. The temperature in the mid-18th century was as high as in 1940 (both middle trefoil). Where was he when what industry fumes? Neither the reconstruction of climate (temperature proxy data) widths of tree-ring isotopes 18 O and 10 Be in ice layers, etc., which are already at the disposal of very deep into the past, at least for good quality Holocene." 
File:Sunspot Numbers.png 
studies say that the present level of solar activity is historically high as determined by sunspot activity and other factors. Solar activity could affect climate either by variation in the Sun's output or, more speculatively, by an indirect effect on the amount of cloud formation. Solanki and co-workers suggest that solar activity for the last 60 to 70 years may be at its highest level in 8,000 years

Internal radiative forcing

Roy Spencer hypothesized in 2008 that there is an "internal radiative forcing" affecting climate variability,[128][129]
[...] mixing up of cause and effect when observing natural climate variability can lead to the mistaken conclusion that the climate system is more sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions than it really is. [...] it provides a quantitative mechanism for the (minority) view that global warming is mostly a manifestation of natural internal climate variability.
[...] low frequency, internal radiative forcing amounting to little more than 1 W/m2, assumed to be proportional to a weighted average of the southern oscillation and Pacific decadal oscillation indices since 1900, produces ocean temperature behavior similar to that observed: warming from 1900 to 1940, then slight cooling through the 1970s, then resumed warming up to the present, as well as 70% of the observed centennial temperature trend.
700 scientist's research contradicts human caused global warming: 
List of scientists with study citations 

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming


Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate

History, Ideology, and U.S. Climate Policy: Beyond the Orthodoxies of Left and Right

Climate Policy Holy Wars 

UN Climate Panel and 'Extreme Weather'

Unknown Volcanoes Caused the Little Ice Age 

A Call For Light Bulb Sanity

Two Climate Change Wrongs Don't Make a Right

New Study Affirms Natural Climate Change

Why Not the Sun?

Germans Tried To Warn Us of Climate Fraud

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years 
Climate Alarm
Presentation on Climate v. Climate AlarmRichard S. Lindzen, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Abstract: The public perception of the climate problem is somewhat schizophrenic. On the one hand, the problem is perceived to be so complex that it cannot be approached without massive computer programs. On the other hand, the physics is claimed to be so basic that the dire conclusions commonly presented are considered to be self-evident.  Consistent with this situation, climate has become a field where there is a distinct separation of theory and modeling. Commonly, in fluid mechanics, theory provides useful constraints and tests when applied to modeling results. This has been notably absent in current work on climate.

Climate Models
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)
NIPCC vs. IPCC Addressing the Disparity between Climate Models and Observations: Testing the Hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)S. Fred Singer is Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia and chairman of the Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP).
Abstract: This booklet updates NIPCC report Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (2008) and contains new results: 1. It defends NIPCC against false claims that IPCC climate models are "consistent" with observed temperature trends. The central issue is the cause of global warming: Is it natural or is it manmade? [This issue is of crucial importance for both climate science and for climate policy.] 2. It demonstrates that because of their chaotic character none of IPCC's climate models can be validated against observations and used to predict future temperatures. 3. It presents new thinking on Climategate, Hockeystick graph -- and multiple evidence against the claimed surface warming underlying the IPCC conclusion of AGW. [Is the reported 1979-1997 warming real?]

Chaotic Behavior
Overcoming Chaotic Behavior of Climate ModelsS. Fred Singer and Christopher Walter Monckton of Brenchley
Abstract: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC: Meehl et al., 2001) acknowledges that, mathematically speaking, the climate is a complex, non-linear, chaotic object and that, therefore, the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The parameters describing the model's initial state must be known to a precision that is unattainable in practice. Accordingly, any comparison of modeled with observed temperature trends cannot be done satisfactorily without an understanding of the chaoticity of a climate model. A synthetic experiment, using two distinct procedures, demonstrates that no fewer than about 20 simulations run on a typical IPCC general-circulation model are a prerequisite for determining useful constraints upon chaos-induced climatic uncertainties.

Temperature Trends
Modeled v. Observed
Lack of Consistency Between Modeled and Observed Temperature TrendsS Fred Singer (USA)
Abstract: The US Climate Change Science Program [CCSP, 2006] reported, and Douglass et al. [2007] and NIPCC [2008] confirmed, a potentially serious inconsistency between modeled and observed trends in tropical surface and tropospheric temperatures. However, Santer et al. [2008: hereafter Santer ], though sharing several co-authors with CCSP [2006], offered new observational estimates of [tropical] surface and tropospheric temperature trends , concluding that there is no longer a serious discrepancy between modelled and observed trends. Santer s key graph [shown here as Fig. 5] misleadingly suggests an overlap between observations and modeled trends. His new observational estimates conflict with satellite data. His modeled trends are an artifact, merely reflecting chaotic and structural model uncertainties that had been overlooked. Thus the conclusion of consistency is not supportable and accordingly does not validate model-derived projections of dangerous anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
The Recent Temperature and CO2 Disconnect
Huge swings in temperature show no correlation with CO2. 

Is Only Nation Where Climate Scientists Face Organized Harassment 

Criticism of theories of anthropogenic global warming

Klaus, second president of the Czech Republic, is a vocal critic of the theories that any global warming is anthropogenic. He has also criticized the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a group of politicized scientists with one-sided opinions and one-sided assignments. He has said that some other top-level politicians do not expose their doubts about global warming being anthropogenic because "a whip of political correctness strangles their voices."[39]
In addition he says, "Environmentalism should belong in the social sciences" along with other "isms" such as communism, feminism, and liberalism. Klaus said that "environmentalism is a religion" and, answering questions of U.S. Congressmen, a "modern counterpart of communism" that seeks to change peoples' habits and economic systems.[40]
In a June 2007 Financial Times article, Klaus called ambitious environmentalism "the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, market economy and prosperity". He hinted at present political and scientific debates on environment issues as a design to suppress freedom and democracy, and asked the readers to oppose the term "scientific consensus", adding that "it is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority".[41] In an online Q&A session following the article he wrote "Environmentalism, not preservation of nature (and of environment), is a leftist ideology... Environmentalism is indeed a vehicle for bringing us socialist government at the global level. Again, my life in communism has made me oversensitive in this respect."[42] He reiterated these statements at a showing of Martin Durkin's The Great Global Warming Swindle organised by his think tank CEP in June 2007.[43]
In November 2007 BBC World's Hardtalk Klaus called the interviewer "absolutely arrogant" for claiming that a scientific consensus embracing the bulk of the world had been reached on climate change. He added that he was "absolutely certain" that in 30 years people would look back and express their thanks to him for his stands.[44]
At a September 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference, Klaus spoke of his disbelief in global warming, calling for a second IPCC to be set up to produce competing reports, and for countries to be left alone to set their priorities and prepare their own plans for the problem.[45]
In 2007, Klaus published a book titled Modrá, nikoli zelená planeta (literally "Blue planet – not green"). The book has been translated from the Czech into various languages.[46] The title in English, which is not a direct translation, is "Blue Planet in Green Shackles". It claims that "The theory of global warming and the hypothesis on its causes, which has spread around massively nowadays, may be a bad theory, it may also be a valueless theory, but in any case it is a very dangerous theory."
At the September 2009 UN Climate Change Conference, Klaus again voiced his disapproval, calling the gathering "propagandistic" and "undignified."[47]
On 26 July 2011 at the National Press Club Address, Klaus pronounced himself again against global warming calling it "a communist conspiracy".[48]
On 21 May 2012 Klaus addressed the climate sceptic Heartland Institute’s Seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-7).[49]
And how about the Climategate email scandal?
Who is making money out of this?
Government contractors! 
Do politicians get some kick backs? Are thay freemasons as well as the contractors?
Why is there so much Government and Corporate money for grants in this particular shaky field?
An image is worth a thousand words:

CO2 up, NOT temperature
Doesn't it ring a bell? Remember the CFC fraud on the ozone layer:

The scam is getting worse. And it will cost us billions of dollars, jobs, health plans, education, etc.
Before it was the commies. Now, the greenies are comin!