By saying what I did about the R-12, I was joking. At the time the big controversy over R-12 was going on, the worry was it was going to cause an ice age, due to global cooling.

The earth goes through cycles of heat and cold, no stopping that.

In the mid 60s to 70s, all we read about; was the Earth going into another Ice Age.
Absolutely, there is no stop to those natural cycles.

 

What's the best way to conclude global warming?

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/local-news/i-94-east-closed-for-multi-vehicle-crash-1-dead


The majority of these victims, would probably say it's Global Cooling.

 

If you look at the average global temperature for the last century or so, it would appear that we are into a global warming trend. How much of that is man-made is the big question, of course.

 

By saying what I did about the R-12, I was joking. At the time the big controversy over R-12 was going on, the worry was it was going to cause an ice age, due to global cooling.

The earth goes through cycles of heat and cold, no stopping that.

I always heard that Du Pount's patent was expiring so they made the claim that R-12 destroyed the ozone.
Funny thing is R134a has around 12% R-12 in it.

 

If you look at the average global temperature for the last century or so, it would appear that we are into a global warming trend. How much of that is man-made is the big question, of course.

We've only had accurate recordings of temperatures for a much shorter time than that.

Prior to that there were too few monitoring stations and antiquated equipment to compare to the new figures.

To me, it's like an old industrial oven that has kept roughly the right temperature since the 1950's. Then some new Uni punk with a newfangled high precision datalogger comes along, starts logging the oven and its temperature and says; "OMG! The temperature is rising 0.02'C every hour, this oven is experiencing "warming" and we really need to deal with this before it gets TOO HOT".

The fact that some small change may be occurring now is NOT proof of; 1. it will continue, or 2. we caused it, or 3. we can stop it.

The ONLY thing it proves is; 4. A very small change is occurring NOW.

 

I fully intend to start a little warming trend inside this house of mine tonight.

Just put some fuel in the space heater and cranked up the central air/heat unit to 70º F. Am looking forward to the high temp of 65º tomorrow then awaiting the arrival of the next sub freezing weather pattern latter in the week.

It is MY opinion that all heat and cold patterns on this little rock are a DIRECT result of solar output. The sun in now in a very quiet phase and we are experiencing a cooling trend due to that. Whatever you think would be your opinion and I'm kinda fond of mine. Spew away and if I get back to this topic for some reason(like I might get lost) I may read about it.



Damn I'm cold.

 

I always heard that Du Pount's patent was expiring so they made the claim that R-12 destroyed the ozone.
Funny thing is R134a has around 12% R-12 in it.

Then there is the other little problem that for those types of refrigerants to react with ozone they need a fair amount of heat and pressure to do their thing.

The last time I heard the ozone layer is very cold and at a very low atmospheric pressure.

They may then react in a catalytic effect but just like the catalytic converter in your car they don't readily react until a certain amount of heat and or pressure is present.

 

From the photos I've seen of melting/disappearing glaciers, I'd say the World is warming.

Unless, all those photos are Photoshopped.

They don't shrink back for miles, from Global cooling.

 

From the photos I've seen of melting/disappearing glaciers, I'd say the World is warming.

But there is an interesting little bit about the glaciers receding that most people don't catch.

The media claims that glaciers have melted back to where they were thousands of years ago but as has been seen in the news reports that things left behind in WWI are becoming exposed now.

How exactly does that work that that items and even people that got buried in the glacial snows ~100 years ago are now being exposed but the media says that the melt back is reaching places that are thousands of years old?

If stuff that got left on the glaciers surface and got buried is now being exposed wouldn't that suggest that perhaps that was the top of the glacier 100 years ago?

Also if the glaciers movements rates are taken into account wouldn't those items that are now exposed at a lower elevations have had to have been left behind further up the glacier than where their present positions put them? That is to say that if said glacier moved 20 feet a year for 100 years wouldn't those items have had to have been left 2000 feet further up the ice field and to have been left there 100 years ago wouldn't that had to have been the top of the glacier then?

Just asking.

 

Ice flows, like water, but much slower. More than that I won't speculate.

 

Restart the R-12 freon plants, and just let them vent to the atmosphere. Never even heard about "global warming" until R-12 was banned/made illegal.

R12 was banned in 1994. I've been reading about global warming since the 80's.