“Powerful” Junk Science

A new study claims that CFC’s not only destroyed the Ozone layer, but they also overheated the Arctic.

Closing the Ozone Hole Helped Slow Arctic Warming – Scientific American

The authors believe that a 0.3 w/m² increase in downwelling longwave radiation caused this. That is less than 0.1% of the total DLWR.

Substantial twentieth-century Arctic warming caused by ozone-depleting substances | Nature Climate Change

IFL Science says that CFC’s caused ice loss between 1955 and 2005.

Your Grandparents’ Refrigerator Added To A Huge Amount Of Arctic Warming | IFLScience

Had they done any actual research, they would have known sea ice was at the century low in 1955.

Projecting the climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide 

1990 IPCC Report

The New York Times reported massive ice loss in 1958, and predicted an ice-free Arctic within a generation.

The Changing Face of the Arctic; The Changing Face of the Arctic – The New York Times

Arctic temperatures take huge swings and are cyclical, they have nothing to do with greenhouse gases.

V2 Measured

29 Sep 1939 – What is The World Coming To? – Trove

Current Melting of Greenland’s Ice Mimicks 1920s-1940s Event | NSF – National Science Foundation

31 May 1947 – MELTING ICE CAP DANGER – Trove

Climate alarmists want people to believe that the large amount of multi-year ice in the early 1980s were normal.

But in 1922, the ice between the north pole and Alaska was “thin, rotten, young” ice.

29 Jan 1922, Page 35 – The St. Louis Star and Times at Newspapers.com

Arctic temperatures correlate with the AMO, not greenhouse gases.

Reykjavik GISS V2             AMO

And the Ozone Hole was just as big a scam as global warming.

Rutan, Lovelock & Branson | Watts Up With That?

All junk science, all the time.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to “Powerful” Junk Science

  1. T. Erickson says:

    The sad thing is it seems like all science is becoming “junk science”. When the peer reviews are in an echo chamber all sorts of “science” sounding stuff comes out.


    Don’t forget the “science” sounding stories that these guys did.


    So it brings us to todays world if you have real news that doesn’t fit the narrative then the name calling starts. So much for science, and three cheers for “science”.

  2. Rosco says:

    An extra 0.3 W/m2 would cause a temperature increase in the atmosphere of almost 1 Kelvin per annum for every year the anomaly existed.

    This rough calculation is based on Q=mass x C(p ) x δT.

    δT =Q/(mass x C_p ) = (0.3 J/(m^2 sec ) x 5.101 x 〖10〗^14 m^2)/(5.148 x 〖10〗^(18 ) kg x 1005 J/(kg°C) )

    = (2.96 x 〖10〗^(-8)°C)/(sec ) .

    There are (60 x 60 x 24 x 365 sec)/annum = (31,536,000 sec)/annum

    Therefore (2.96 x 〖10〗^(-8)°C)/(sec ) x (31,536,000 sec)/annum = (~0.933°C)/annum .

    Clearly this did not happen.

  3. Alex Kouvolo says:

    I have been asking for about 30 years where the notion that CO2 is a greenhouse gas came from. Anyplace I have asked gives mostly BS that it is well known. Do you know any experiments that show this greenhouse effect of CO2?

Leave a Reply to Rosco Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.