My morning double take: "Arctic on the verge of record ozone loss"

Mike came through. Very testable as to his statement. He used the word “confirmed”. I read the article. No such confirmation found as to the human footprint on Earth rotation due to AGW temperature change.
“Since scientists know air temperature can’t affect movements of Earth’s core or Earth’s length of day to the extent observed, one possibility is the movements of Earth’s core might disturb Earth’s magnetic shielding of charged-particle (i.e., cosmic ray) fluxes that have been hypothesized to affect the formation of clouds. This could affect how much of the sun’s energy is reflected back to space and how much is absorbed by our planet. Other possibilities are that some other core process could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously.”

Mike;
NASA Study Goes to Earth’s Core for Climate Insights>>>
Ya know, I actually done read that there article. Let me see if I can walk you through it. These here scientists noticed a 60 to 85 year long fluctuation in earth temperature. Yup, its really evident if you gots a good temperature record, like one what was printed out before Hansen adjusted most of them fluctuators down the swirly bowl. Oh wait, that was NH that matched so good, the SH not so much, longer cycle…but I digress.
Anyhoo, these totaly bright scientists done come up with a way to indirectly measure fluctuators in the earth’s molten core. Then they compared that to the earth’s temperature record and said Gaaaalllllleeeee gee willikers, they’s about the same. Now I got me a problem with “about” but let’s ignore that for about 4 milliseconds. Why 4 mS? Glad ya done asked. Cuz that’s the variation in the length of the day supposedly caused by there here fluctuators in the earth’s core. Now gimme a second….I mean 4 mS and I’ll grab me a calculamator. Letsee, that’s a change of about .000004% give or take an order of magnitude. If we round off to say 4 decimal places, that’s zero.
Now, if they’d included some explanation of how that causes a natural 0.2 C change, I’d at least listen. But all they said was, it couldn’t be the oceans or the atmosphere, so it must be the molten core causing it. Maybe by messing with magnetic fields and cosmic rays…or somethin’ else maybe that molten cores mess with. Now I got some problems already with “about” correlates, and I got more with a whole 4mS change in the length of the day rounded to 4 decimal places = 0, but there’s a lot of cosmic ray data what’s been collected from all sorts of places, mostly by NASA…. hey wait, don’t this bunch work for NASA? Yup, says so right there on their web site. So you woulda thought how much work would it have been to go take a quick peek and see if that “about” correlates too? Cause if it did, ya gotta be thinkin’ Nobel. But they didn’t, they just said can’t be nothin’ else, maybe its doin’ something to cosmic rays or somethin’ else.
OK, so here’s where I gotta say to that young lady what done the study, sorry dear, you gots none of them thar credibility chips so far, and now you and your buddy Mikey are gonna lose a few more which will kinda put you in a deficit position. See, correlation ain’t causation, and cause and effect gets tangled up plenty too. Don’t suppose you asked if hmmm…maybe what ever causes the motlen core fluctuation ALSO causes the temperature fluctuation? So let’ see if there be any clues what points us in that direction.
Now one thing I noticed kinda peculiar like is how the temperature record started to diverge in about 1930 from them thar models what’s they got, and so they figured ha! About correlates, so what’s left over must be human’s spreadin’ their evil across the planet and doing things like building houses and growing food and shipping it places where there ain’t no food and having fun in 4×4’s and we all know havin’ ANY kind of fun is bad for the planet, just like raising food is. Like I said though “about” doesn’t cut it for me, not to mention…phase delay. You would think such a teeny thing would correlate but run maybe a few years or decades behind? Never mind that too.
So, what happened in 1930 what we know about that could be big enough to slop that good old molten core around a slightly different way. They already said it ain’t the oceans or the atmosphere, they ain’t got the mass, and on that, I kinda gotta agree. But that’s the nature of human beings, we got tunnel vision. Once we start peering down into the depths of the earth, we forget to maybe look over our shoulder a bit. Let’s have a looksee.
Well, there’s that big yella thing, but folks been studying the heck out of that, don’t remember anything special about that time frame. What else? Oh hey…whats that other orb in the sky? The moon? How big is it? 1/6 mass of earth? Huh. Pretty darn big, and you know, it ain’t spread out like oceans and atmosphere it only pulls from one side at a time. But its in orbit, just a big circle, right. Nah! Its got a perhelion and an inclination and a bunch of other fluctuators of different lengths. They kinda hit mins and maxes around 60 to 85 years or so, funny that almost correlating? Let’s see, when was the last time they coincidentalized? Gosh darn it, right toward the end of 1929. ya suppose the moon might changes how the oceans slosh around too? YA THINK? Maybe?
Now that ain’t no proof. Stock market crashed in 1929 too. Can’t rule these things out, all them stock brokers plummeting from the windas and hitting the dirt mighta stirred things up.
Personaly, frankly, I don’t think its the moon either. But its a pretty freakin’ more plausible explanation than cosmic rays nobody measured against the flucuations in the molten core that changed the length of a day by 0.0000 %.

@Alan the Brit
Smart Arse Eco-Lawyers & CO,
Shouldn’t that be Smart Arse Eco-Lawyers & CO2? (or CO3)
/Mango
I don’t deny climate changes, I know climate changes

Mike;
Thus, rational people go with the preponderance of the evidence.>>>
You read my rant and focus on a minor detail which you figure discredits the rest of what I said? Then have the moxey to complain that rational people go with the preponderance of the evidence? Well let’s just be rational for a moment then, shall we?
The link you provided is to science that present an effect and assumes a cause in the absence of any other explanation, provides not a single bit of evidence to that could be easily obtained to show that their theory correlates to the suggested physical cause (cosmic rays) nor do they present any other rational that would provide for sufficient physics to suggest that the changes observed in the magnetic field could result in at least some sort of process affecting temperature within the right order of magnitude. Shoddy science on a good day. Assuming correlation is causation should be embarrasing enough, but they go right one yipping about cause and effect without bothering to even try and show any evidence of cause and effect nor looking for alternate possibilities. Then you jump right in and accuse me of having blinders on because I misread one tiny thing? Go read it again, then read what I wrote, paying attention to all the things I got exactly right. Talk about wilfully blind!
But since you are on the topic, let me straighten you out on something. I have no problem at all saying that CO2 increases the temperature of the planet. I even have an article on own blog explaining how that works, and I’m frequently on this site dueling with skeptics screaming about perpetual motion and how the laws of thermodynamics are being broken. I tell them I’m a skeptic, and they are wrong.
Now here’s where you are wrong. That science you pointed to is in fact shoddy. They present as being possible something they have no evidence to support, do nothing to find supporting evidence, and fail to consider, let alone eliminate alternate possibilities. As for your prescious GHG’s and human finger prints, sorry, CO2 is logarythmic. It is subject to the law of diminishing returns, and if you bother to take a look at the IPCC scenarios and work them backwards, you’ll discover that the amount of oil we’d need to burn to get anywhere near the scenarios they present as “likely” would make Saudi Arabia look like just a pile of sand.
Its one thing to claim that GHG’s can warm the planet. It is another entirely to to claim that the order of magnitude is significant, or ignore that the rapid decline in the effect of any additional CO2 makes the whole discussion moot anyway. THAT’s what the preponderance of the science says if you get off your high horse and read the fine print right in the IPCC reports. No, don’t start with me about feebacks either, that’s even easier to debunk.

Dan
All I can say as an Aussie is that if my taxes are paying for you, then I have even more cause to weep.
As I posted much earlier Professor Gordon Dobson’s book “Exploring the Atmosphere” was my textbook on atmospheric science at high school in the mid- Sixties. Unlike the fairy stories on the internet (and I presume in textbooks today) Professor Dobson’s main interest in ozone was to only allow him to prove the existence of, and plot the direction of upper atmospheric air currents.
Professor Dobson set up his Dobson Spectrophotometer down in Antarctica NOT because he had some passing interest in ozone, but because he KNEW that there should not be any ozone there at the end of the winter season (no sunlight = no ozone), and yet there was. He postulated it was being brought in from elsewhere.
So, far from “no ozone holes prior to the Seventies” as you claim, back then ozone depletion at the poles at the end of winter was a known and fully understood fact: the natural result of a lack of sunlight to elevate O2 to the point where it could dissociate and reform as the more energetic, albeit unstable O3.
The “ozone holes” were suddenly “discovered” as such, despite formerly being a perfectly natural and predicted and observed phenomena, in the 1980’s when it became politically expedient (and highly profitable) to do so.
Let me put it to you another way Dan:
If the bulk of global ozone forms when sunlight hits oxygen how on earth do you explain its formation when the sun is absent for several months during the Polar winters?
And if it can’t form in the first place how on earth can it get “depleted” by CFC’s – or anything else?
To summarise:
O2 + sunlight = ozone
NO O2 or NO sunlight = NO ozone. It really is that simple.
So, despite your alleged qualifications and alleged work experience, let me finish by saying:
You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Oops sorry. Corrected:
“ozone in the stratosphere absorbs infrared ultraviolet radiation from the sun and heats the stratosphere”

Yes Tonyb, of course. Charge a humungous fee, some dumb bureaucrat will pay, of course it won’t be my money, it’ll be taxpayers money. OT, ever noticed how when governments want to impress the people & claim credit, they say “they” are spending millions on a project, but when they don’t want to spend money on something, they call it “taxpayers” money, not theirs? Interesting!

Good heavens Mike (Mike says: March 15, 2011 at 10:45 pm), you just scored one for the opposition. Do you not realize that when you got the ball again, you ran down the court and slam dunked a two-pointer for skeptics?
But just to be sure (because I am gobsmacked here and I may have misunderstood your confirmation statement made earlier), please state again whether or not you believe the article states that atmospheric temperature change can affect rotation.

I guess I fell for the ‘CFC’s causes ozone loss’ fraud, when in reality it’s been cold air all along.
Here’s what James Lovelock (the Gaia guy) said recently about the ozone thing:
“I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”
And we continue to pay today.

Ah, but of course.
1. ALARMA!!!
2. It’s worse then we thought.
3. It’s is very complicated, in fact it is so complicated even we don’t fully understand it.
4. Therefor we need to conduct further research to find out whats what.
5. Got spare change?