The Salesmen of the Green New Deal

Are you stupid? I posted data from NASA showing changes in the size of the "southern anomaly". You ignored it. Do you always ignore evidence that is contrary to your assertions?

And it has been shown that, that 34 year old claim was incorrect. Stil lying I see.

"I think you are being deceptive implying that the 9-11 attacks would have turned out differently if halon fire suppression was available.
​
Are you saying that no that in 2024 there is no way to put out fires?"They would have indeed have been different if halons were available. To say so is not a deception; It is a fact. The collapse of the World Trade Center buildings and its timing was not a result of the crash alone, but also of the resulting fire, which was hot enough to weaken and bend steel, and consume everything else. Being able to put the fires out quickly and to a much larger extent would have more than likely delayed the collapse of the buildings, if not prevented them altogether, and would in either event allowed the people in the building more opportunity to leave without being burned alive, and the firefighters much more opportunity to save lives. In answer to the question, "Are you saying that in 2024 there is no way to put out fires?" the answer is sometimes yes. Without the halons, the New York City Fire Dep. was not able to put out the WTC fires before their collapse, and in Maui, Hawaii, the fire department didn't even try. If you are not aware of the fire in Maui, Hawaii, perhaps you ought to have a long, honest look, and determine whether the best fire extinguisher by far is really worth banning, in order to satisfy an unfounded conspiracy theory about the ozone layer some 50 miles above the surface of the earth.

They use Halotron now, maybe you should look into the available alternatives. The only downside is that you need a larger chemical volume for it to function properly, but then it's on par to Halon fire supression.Yet the environmental impact is much less heavy, a global warming potantial of 77 versus halon, which has a potential of 2070.Just so you know what that means, the refence is CO2, which has a global warming potential of 1, so if you had 1 kg of CO2 versus 1 kg of Halon, its ability to absorb infra red would be more than 2000 times as potent.Good thing we have Halotron now.

I asked similar questions in Message 39, which you ignored. Are you going to continue to ignore questions?
How would it have been different? Please explain to us how halon would have changed the outcome on 9/11 and HI. How would halon have helped? Did the NYFD have large quantities of halon prior to the ban? How would they have used the halon? How did they use it prior to the ban?
Actual facts and data please. No whatifs or bullshit. How would halon have helped? How would they have used halon?Did any fire departments use halon in large quantities to suppress fires prior to the ban? If so, how? If not, why? How would halon be used in a suppressing a fire in which the firefighters cannot get close due to heat or physical limitations?Do you know anything about firefighting? Do you know how and why halon and its successors are used? Do you know how and why water is still the primary suppressant?

It stopped growing.

There's no contradiction. You're just not reading carefully enough, plus you chopped off the rest of what I said. CFCs are no longer considered green house gas *emissions* because the Montreal Protocols banned them. That doesn't change the fact that they still have the quality of a greenhouse gas.You left a couple questions unanswered.The Green New Deal was a House resolution that failed to pass. Even if it had passed, it was a resolution, not a bill. Resolutions are not laws. They're aspirational. Why do you keep blaming it for anything?What is the "Rowland Molina ozone theory"?--Percy

That's quite a creative spelling effort. Congratulations! Corrected your spelling for ya. Because the size of the ozone hole changes every year, trending larger until around 2000 when it roughly stabilized, why would you expect a permanent change? Has a single molecule of anything ever been traced on its journey through any atmospheric layer? Why would you expect such a thing? But when manmade gases such as CFC's are found in the stratosphere then they could only have gotten there by passing through the tropopause. Well, you're inherent dishonesty already makes you a poor representative of Christianity, but why are you trying to mix science and religion anyway?Most of the people here accept facts and perspectives gathered and constructed using the scientific method. Your approach doesn't appear scientific at all. I would describe it as misrepresenting and distorting information while making it clear that you will insult anyone who disagrees with you.--Percy

Your message is a mess, providing no clue who said what and chopping off portions of quotes that make clear there are no contradictions. Everyone here but you sees this the same way: CFC's are a banned greenhouse gas that are one of a group of chemicals that are destructive of the ozone layer that protects the planet's surface from the most harmful of UV rays. Since the ban the ozone layer has begun to recover, for example as shown is this graph of ozone minimums over Antarctica: --Percy

You didn't even mention CFC's in Message 1, which was thoroughly rebutted. For instance: As has already been explained elsewhere, detection of the growing ozone hole season-to-season caused concerns that led to studies of the ozone layer that revealed that it was thinning. Please share away, by all means. Will this information, like your other information, be 34 or more years old and well outside any modern scientific consensus?--Percy

No, it's not a fact and it is deception. The NYFD was not able to conduct any firefighting efforts between the time the towers were hit and their collapse. The availability of halon would have made no difference, and there are modern replacements for halons, like halotron.But fighting fires 100 floors above ground level on a scale of what happened at the World Trade Center isn't really possible.--Percy

These tall skyscrapers present specific issues for fighting normal fires above certain elevations, but as far as I know, no fire suppression systems have been designed to put out fires caused by jet airliners crashing into them. Existing fire suppression systems in the buildings were destroyed by the crashes.The only way they could have delivered halon to the Twin Tower fires would have been with airliners filled with halon crashing into the tower fires. The north tower collapsed 102 minutes after the crash and the south tower collapsed 56 minutes after the crash. There may have been experts who knew the towers were going to collapse but it astonished the rest of the world when it happened.I was at work the morning of 9-11. I gave my wife a wake up call every morning at 6am (even though she was always awake by then), so she tells me an airplane has just crashed into the Trade Center and it's on fire and 3 minutes later she says another plane just crashed into the other tower and the air is full of paper! Until that moment I was thinking Piper Cub sized airplanes, I mean how could airliners accidentally crash into a building, they don't fly that low...but the second crash instantly made it clear we were under attack. Later, when I got home, I already knew the buildings had collapsed, but actually watching it over and over was an extraordinary experience, matched only in my experience with Kennedy's assassination, and the Challenger explosion.I can't imagine any suppression system that could have saved the Twin Towers and I don't think you are going to get satisfying answers to your questions from USA1776, since he]s really here to bash the evil atheist environmental movement standing in the way of the fossil fuel industry that God invented.

I am no firefighting expert. I do know some though. In the 50's, 60's, 70's my grandfather was a prominent small town fire chief in MA. I still have some contacts. So far neither of them can conceive how halon could have been used on 9/11 or the HI fire. They are curious to see what this yahoo comes up with.

The Greenhouse Effect was discovered in the mid 1800's. In 1896, Svante Arrhenius was the first to publish rough calculations for the increase in global temps as a result of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere:https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdfNo mention of ozone anywhere in that paper. No mention of CFC's. More than 100 years ago we knew how the Greenhouse Effect worked, and why increasing CO2 in the atmosphere would increase global temps. None of the facts, science, or consensus has changed since then. More CO2 in the atmosphere means more heat trapped. It's basic physics. Trying to cast doubt on the connection between ozone thinning and CFC's does nothing to change these facts.What you seem to be complaining about is the environmental movement in general. This can be traced back to the mid 1900's as industrial processes and urbanization created really bad pollution. For example, leaded gasoline was banned after shockingly high levels of lead were found in the environment. Controls for car emissions where put in place after horrendous smog in large cities. Many industrial chemicals were banned after they poisoned rivers and streams (e.g. PCB's). Do you want to return to past times with more pollution?

And he doesn't seem to realize that efforts to clean up and protect the environment predate our discovery of the ozone depletion problem. The EPA was founded in 1970, but there were efforts to clean up pollution even before that. Pittsburgh, where I went to grad school, had a small skyscraper on campus called the Cathedral of Learning which was black on the windward side due to pollution from steel mills. They would clean it every five or ten years.There are famous pictures of downtown Pittsburgh taken at midday from earlier in the century. Here's are two pictures of the Federal Building in Pittsburgh, both taken during the day, one on Black Tuesday in 1939, the other in November of 1940 after the passage of the smoke laws more than 30 years before the founding of the EPA: When they built the U.S. Steel building they used a steel material designed to rust so that the dark rust color would hide the accumulated soot.When I was recruited to attend grad school in Pittsburgh I didn't know anything about the pollution problems, but my prospective adviser felt the need to mention that I should ignore anything I heard about pollution there, that it was much better now. But if I cracked my window open at night for air then in the morning there would be a layer of soot on the window sill. This was in the mid 1970s.With the decline of the steel industry the pollution problem in Pittsburgh became less and less, and they no longer have to clean the Cathedral of Learning. USA 1776 seems to want to ignore the long history of human putting gasses into the air that are bad for the environment, and to pretend that nothing ever happened regarding ozone depletion, and to pretend that nothing is happening now regarding climate change. By the way, we'll be experiencing 4 consecutive 90 degree days this week, no records, but consistent with having more warm days during the summer.--Percy