By Kevin Roeten:
The So-Called ‘Hockey Stick’ Temperature Curve and Its Corrected Version
The thin line is the “hockey stick” curve, allegedly showing recent temperatures (the handle of the stick is at right) as the highest since 1400. Authors of the curve, M.E. Mann et al., claimed that “temperatures in the latter half of the 20th Century were unprecedented,” and that the 1990s was “likely the warmest decade.” The IPCC adopted the Mann et al. analysis, calling 1998 the “warmest year” of the millennium.
The bold line is the corrected curve, which is derived from the same data set, showing the 20th Century temperatures to be colder than those of the 15th Century.
Thermometers at the earth’s surface, correctly placed in clean, standardized white, louvered boxes with good air circulation, over a meter above ground, measure the ambient air temperature. A small fraction of the globe is accurately measured by such thermometers, and there is little reason to conclude the readings are actually representative of the Earth’s average temperature. Moreover, yearly changes in average temperature do not reflect year-to-year changes in the average temperature of the entire Earth.
Atmospheric Dynamics Rule Ozone
Actually, atmospheric dynamics, not chemistry, is the driving factor for thickness of the ozone. Now, hundreds of scientists predict ‘Global Cooling’ is just around the corner. New scientific evidence continues to show the ozone depletion models and the resulting ban on CFCs are based on a huge lie. Rogelio Maduro, expounds in “The Holes in the Ozone Scare”, .
It should be cautioned introducing anything into the atmosphere may have unanticipated consequences. Stratospheric chemistry isextremely complicated. Much is incomprehensible. New satellite ozone data and atmospheric studies based on actual measurements, confirm ozone is not homogeneous. The scientific research eliminates any credibility from claims of the ozone depletion theorists. The dramatic new satellite ozone data revealed the Crista-Spas info, which wasn’t available from spaceborne satellites in that time period. The Crista team announced its first results in 1995, but results were not increases in temperature due to [CO2] increases.
Not the Real Story
Actually, Rowland and Molina’s version of the atmospheric chemistry involved was totally false. The alleged threat to the ozone is based on a set of flawed axioms and assumptions fed into computer models spewing out doomsday scenarios, not actual predictions. The required sequence of chemical reactions has never been observed in the laboratory.
This theory neither predicted, nor explained the existence of the ozone hole over Antarctica. Many old ‘AGWers’ decided they had to manufacture another new theory to explain Antarctica’s climate. Since these axioms and assumptions underlying the ozone depletion theory have been proven wrong, the entire theory is false.
The ozone depletion theory assumes seven specific conditions:
- No natural sources of chlorine
- No sinks of for CFCs other than the stratosphere
- No influence on the ozone layer from solar phenomena, including solar proton events
- No long-term influence from atmospheric dynamics
- No influence from atmospheric electricity and electrochemical reactions in the stratosphere
- No influence from geomagnetic fields
- Increasesin [UV-B], not[UV-A], causes an increase in malignant melanoma skin cancers
Instead of a uniform distribution of ozone along constant latitude, as the computer models predict, Crista showed a patchwork of large and small structures in ozone distribution. Results show photochemical models alone do not adequately describe the condition of the atmosphere. Dynamic processes must be considered, for which temperatures, waves, and turbulences show themselves responsible.
Dr. Ulrich Grossman, leader of the Crista project summarized results:
When the modelers “talk about zonally averaged values, it is useless.” The ozone layer “is very, very structured. All these structures are moving around, like what you see in the weather map…” American Geophysical Union published a scientific paper by scientists from Norwegian and Russian institutes showing thickness of the ozone over Russia is determined by meteorology, not chemistry two different altitudes. They discovered changes in the ozone layer were directly caused by the horizontal and vertical movement of air masses, or wind dynamics. A analysis showed chemistry had nothing to do with it.
Scientists Kjell Henriksen and Valentin Roldugin analyzed one year of daily samples from six Soviet measuring stations at various locations. Scientific papers have confirmed ozone depletion is wrong. A thorough review of ozone science by Henriksen, presented the ozone was thinner in the 1940s, than today. In Norway, ozone analyzes starting in the 1940s. Norway had several ozone measuring stations operating continuously at the Dombaas research center in 1940-46 and 1978-94.
Henriksen describes the history of ozone research went through a thinning process in the 1940s. Norway has some of the best, consistent data for a historical analysis of ozone trends. Henriksen revealed after is anaysis, “the ozone layer over southern Norway was thinner in the period between 1940 to 1946 than it is today.”
Nothing unusual is happening with the newly-altered term, ‘Climate Change.’ The alleged name has just been changed fromAnthropogenic Global Warming. The scare about global warming is overdone, according to over 40 scientific papers published in thefirst three months of 2018. What their charts clearly show: “nothing climatically unusual is happening.” In the chart below, we see 20th century warming is perfectly normal in a long-term historical context. It was no warmer, but slightly cooler than either the Roman Warming Period or the Medieval Warming Period.
What we also learn is these warming periods were global – not, as alarmists like to claim to support their scaremongering thesis, local: A number of strident ‘global warming’ scientists prefer to dismiss the significance of Europe’s temperature record, claiming it is local in nature and does not tell us what is really happening globally. However, other papers fully contradict this. For example, we find out the warming today in South Africa also is nothing unusual.
Temperature Reconstructions Show It’s Worldwide
Temperature reconstructions show the same is true in Southeast Australia, Northern Alaska, the Tibetan Plateau, South Korea, andAntarctica, citing just a few among dozens of others. In further bad news for climate alarmists, it seems two of the particulars of global warming doom, Greenland and Antarctica, are cooling, not warming. Actually, Greenland’s recent warm spell in its historical context for over 150 years wasn’t unusual. Temperatures now, are cooler than they were in the 1930s.
Much to the surprise of ‘AGWers,’ Greenland temperatures have been falling since 2000. At the South Pole, new findings confirm the large increase in the southern hemisphere sea ice and believe Greenland temperatures have been falling since 2000. Westergaard-Nielsen et al., 2018 show “climate-modes and their long-term trends”. Additionally, it’s obvious a progressive cooling has affected the year-to-year climate of the sub-Antarctic since the 1990s, and the sea ice shows continued annual growth during Spring and Summer over the last several years.
Dr Mears’ results are summarized in Fig. T1:
Dr Mears admits growing discrepancy between the RSS data and the models: “Recently, a number of articles in the mainstream press have pointed out…there appears to have been little or no change in globally averaged temperature over the last two decades.”
In fact, the spike in temperatures caused by the Great el Niño of 1998 is largely offset in the linear-trend calculation by two factors: the spike of the 2010 el Niño, and the sheer length of the Great Pause itself. The length of the Great Pause in global warming is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the far less exciting real-world temperature change being observed.
CFCs: The Safest Chemicals Ever Manufactured
The CFC Story
CFCs were the “perfect” man-made chemicals for almost any application because of their favorable thermodynamic properties, non-corrosivity to any mechanical components, and totally safe to humans because they were non-toxic and nonflammable.
Until 1996 CFCs were benign to the environment and harmless to humans, and were used widely in residential and transportation air conditioning, industrial and commercial refrigeration, energy-efficient insulation, foam blowing, cleaning solvents for manufacturing processes and electronic components, and fire extinguishing. The most highly used CFCs in the 20th century were CFC-11, CFC-12 and CFC-113.
But Sherwood and Molina ripped chlorofluorocarbons to shreds by postulated highly speculative ozone depletion theory. Which was completely false. They capitalized by taking advantage of a theory having no basis in science. But why were so many ripe to jump on the bandwagon?????
Trichlorofluoromethane [CCl3F], Freon-11 & CFC-11, was the first widely used refrigerants and was once the propellant for half of all the aerosol cans used in the world. Dichlorodifluoromethane [CCl2F2] Freon-12 was used as a refrigerant for home and vehicle air conditioners, and trichloro-trifluoroethane [C2Cl3F3], Freon-113 was used as a solvent.
The industrial synthesis of CFCs, particularly CFC-11 and CFC-12, is a relatively easy process. For many decades it was also profitable to the industry and the price of CFC-11 and CFC-12 was inexpensive, 5O cents/lb in the 1980’s. DuPont used a CFC synthesis based on the halogen substitution of methane chemically reacted with chlorine to produce carbon tetrachloride [CCl4] which is then reacted with anhydrous hydrogen fluoride [HF] in the presence of antimony chloride [SbCl5] catalyst to produce Freon production yields of CFCs have been carried out in industrial plants with high yields exceeding 99%.
In retrospect, almost all refrigerants made today are much more expensive, much less efficient, and much more hazardous than any before the alleged ozone crisis. Original “Freons” were the most non-toxic materials ever made.
In retrospect, the author probably breathed Freon for years. It is important to note the ozone layer is essentially a self-correcting system because if more ultraviolet radiation is able to penetrate deeper into the atmosphere it confronts more free oxygen. This explains the negligible variation in the [UV] levels reaching the surface of the earth.
Cost in Retrospect
Cost of refrigerants have more than quintupled since Roland and Molina have circumcised the refrigerant market. Major players for ChloroFluoroCarbons [CFCs] were few. Their names included John, Jim, Ken, Gunther, Kevin, with a myriad of others in a group of about 15, who had managed something of which fear gripped.
Now Freon [R134A] for one refrigerant fill is close to $100-$150 today, around 200% more than the original price. Yes, Roland and Molina changed the course of events for the future in the worst possible way—–beyond understandability.
Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@CHARTER.NET.
© Copyright by Kevin Roeten, 2018. All rights reserved.