Re: global warming true or false?
CONGRATULATIONS, the first time I've seen a concensus person admit the blithering obvious...
Ever since (Ozone) "the hole" was discovered it has been known to have got bigger each winter and smaller each summer, year after year,
it's what the rest of us know as "seasonal".
I first became aware of that by reading a page at junkscience dot com, many years ago now.
It seems consensus science can now no longer deny it.
I read the page here you linked to, yup, sun forms ozone, hence the hole gets smaller in the summer. It seems a bit peculiar though that the chemistry of how ozone is known to be broken down is put so, well definately.
The rates of breakdown and by what are definately still not decieded, there are papers I could link to that suggest some of the rates suggested for pollutants maybe out considerably, by factors of 10 if I remember correctly.
(There is not much point in me linking to an article that will either be deleted, as my introductory post appears to have been, or dismissed, or ignored for no reason, other than you do not want that point, however large discussing.)
I noted you've "covered" yourself by saying more research is required, rather than discuss the fact the natural and anthropengenic contributions have not been separated or quantified. That is at best, one sided, but nearer a misrepresentation of our understanding at present.
To be honest I get the usual impression of sites like this, that when you actually read what is written it often does not make much sense, or stand up to scrutiny. I'll quote an example from your link,
" By the time spring arrives and the sun comes back after the long polar night, the ozone levels are severely depleted around the Antarctic continent causing the "ozone hole". Unfortunately, there then follows a particularly long period of high sunshine and long days, just to make the effect of the ozone hole worse. "
Hmm, I would of thought the sunlight made Ozone, which repairs the hole...
One last thing of note regarding ozone, and it's hole. What was the size of the hole before it was discovered, how much did it vary, perfectly naturally..
No one knows as far as I'm aware. So the constant reference to worst ever, etc, etc, in the linked to page, again, is at best, misleading.
Worst ever, for clarity presumeably means since satelites measured the phenomenon, which at the absolute most only goes back to 1979.
Given there may well be other natural factors effecting processes we are not aware of at present, your whole premise, and direction is biased and alarmist.
The Arctic (Yes, I know that's the North pole area, but it's apprpriate) seems, for example, to be cooling rapidly at present, maybe that is the 70 year cycles (oceanic current cycles probably) that has caused the change around...AND, no polar bears are not dying out, or even endangered, just like they were not in the Holocene maximum - otherwise they wouldn't be there today would they.
Scaremongering, would seem to sum up your link in all honesty.
Now, how about the Thermohaline circulation, you seem to have avoided that subject so far. Though I see you have said the Antarctic is effectively separated from the global climate....
I doubt the annually melting sea ice, (approx area of said ANNUALLY melting ice is one and half times larger than the USA...) that presumably sinks and powers the said circulation, at least partially, can really be said to be separated from the global climate...Albeit delayed by about 800 to 1000 years apparently.
It seems you have explained much, with the intension of dismissing natural processes, or just plain deny they exist.
Mind you I doubt you would release atmospheric CO2 level measurement figures untill they were "processed" would you...
NB - Please substitute "this site" if, as, or where required for "you".