# The "OZONE HOLE" scam was the pre-curser to the Global Warmists movement.



## MarathonMike (Nov 23, 2018)

The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.

New Ozone Hole Scare Won't Save the Great Climate Hoax | PSI Intl


----------



## Rambunctious (Nov 23, 2018)

Frightening the populous is as old as dirt....governments have been doing this for power and control since the beginning of time...the difference this time is it was pushed into the young minds via public schools...so supposed educated people have sucked it up and believe it....


----------



## beautress (Nov 23, 2018)

Well, I think that's just naughty.


----------



## JLW (Nov 23, 2018)

The idea that the treaty negotiated and enacted by George HW Bush was a precursor to the global warming movement  whatever that means is so totally whacked as to defy logic and a rational excuse.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 23, 2018)

MarathonMike said:


> The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.
> 
> New Ozone Hole Scare Won't Save the Great Climate Hoax | PSI Intl


And now we know that O-Zone is coupled with solar output.. It comes and goes cyclically like every other system on earth...

Its been a scam and continues to be a scam.... They expanded on it..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 23, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> The deterioration of the conservative mind continues.  I  think there must be a mind wasting disease that affects only conservatives.  It has to be the answer to this plethora of insipid posts and theories.


The deterioration of the liberal hive mind continues.  I  think there must be a mind wasting disease that affects only liberal hive idiots.  It has to be the answer to this plethora of insipid posts and failed theories.


Much better... Corrected the sentence...


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> The deterioration of the conservative mind continues.  I  think there must be a mind wasting disease that affects only conservatives.  It has to be the answer to this plethora of insipid posts and theories.



Did you know that the team that "discovered" the ozone hole actually went down there to prove that it existed.  They predicted the hole would be there as a result go there being less incoming solar radiation over the south pole?  They also predicted a lesser hole over the northern polar region.

Do you have ant idea why the ozone layer is there or why the holes have always been, and will always be there?


----------



## JLW (Nov 24, 2018)

The Montreal Protocol worked and that is what truly scares the bejeesus out of conservatives.  The Protocol which has been very successful reduced ozone emissions which led to the recovery of the ozone layer.  The reason it scares conservatives is because  it is a precursor of a frame work that can work to fight climate change.

Given how anti-science and anti-fact the conservative movement has become, the  Montreal Protocol would never, or at least be nearly impossible, to implement today  to our detriment. At least then there were still rational conservatives like George HW Bush.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> The Montreal Protocol worked and that is what truly scares the bejeesus out of conservatives.  The Protocol which has been very successful reduced ozone emissions which led to the recovery of the ozone layer.  The reason it scares conservatives is because  it is a precursor of a frame work that can work to fight climate change.
> 
> Given how anti-science and anti-fact the conservative movement has become, the  Montreal Protocol would never, or at least be nearly impossible, to implement today  to our detriment. At least then there were still rational conservatives like George HW Bush.



I can't help but notice that you completely dodged the science...this tells that your position on the topic is political...were it scientific, toy would have used the scientific facts rather than a political narrative to defend your position.


By the way..the montreal protocol was aimed at CFC emissions, not O3 emissions as you stated.  The whole topic is clearly over yourr head so you are just voicing someone elses opinion and not an informed opinion of your own.


----------



## JLW (Nov 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > The Montreal Protocol worked and that is what truly scares the bejeesus out of conservatives.  The Protocol which has been very successful reduced ozone emissions which led to the recovery of the ozone layer.  The reason it scares conservatives is because  it is a precursor of a frame work that can work to fight climate change.
> ...


With all due respect, the idea of revisiting the science on Chlorofluorocarbons is beyond ludicrous.  There is no debate on it anymore except in the minds of anti-science and anti-fact conservatives. The protocol worked as the ozone layer is recovering.

In the American conservative movement today, apparently there are no facts, all science is false and everything is subjective.  Gawd, what happened to conservatives is beyond me?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> With all due respect, the idea of revisiting the science on Chlorofluorocarbons is beyond ludicrous.  There is no debate on it anymore except in the minds of anti-science and anti-fact conservatives. The protocol worked as the ozone layer is recovering.



Did i mention flourcarbons?  I asked if you know why the ozone layer is there or why the holes have always been there?  If you can't even speak to the basics regarding the ozone layer, then as i said, you are voicing someone else opinion, not an informed opinion of your own.

You call me anti science, but actually, i am all about the science,,,it is you who doesn't eve have a handle on the basics.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 24, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > The Montreal Protocol worked and that is what truly scares the bejeesus out of conservatives.  The Protocol which has been very successful reduced ozone emissions which led to the recovery of the ozone layer.  The reason it scares conservatives is because  it is a precursor of a frame work that can work to fight climate change.
> ...


He's a  NWO/SOCIALIST PARROT. Nothing more..


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2018)

Clearly...


----------



## JLW (Nov 24, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...


For someone with a no whining avatar, you Billy Boob, are the biggest whiner on this board.  Whine and talk trash with no support whatsoever. Your motto should be "Whine, baby, whine", and when that fails, "Lie, baby, lie".

Of course when your ideology, Trumpism, is as bankrupt as your "science", I would expect    nothing less from you.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Still not talking about the science.  Do you even know why there is an ozone layer?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 24, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Please tell me why we have an O-Zone layer and then tell me why the sun is what allows it to build or decline...  I'll wait...(this ought to be good for a laugh)


----------



## SSDD (Nov 24, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I always get a chuckle from these guys who decide which side of a scientific debate is correct cased on political philosophy...no science involved in their decision.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2018)

So johnlaw how does that tail feel tucked so firmly between your legs?


----------



## JLW (Nov 25, 2018)

Personally, I will not get bated into a debate with those who pull facts from thin air.  Be that as it   may, as I said the idea of revisiting the  Montreal Protocols and the role of CFCs in damaging the ozone layer is over.  It is a waste of time.  Like debating flat earthers. No matter how many pictures of the earth you show them, they still insist the earth is flat. BTW what is your opinion? I bet you're a flat earther.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Personally, I will not get bated into a debate with those who pull facts from thin air.  Be that as it may, as I said the idea of revisiting the  Montreal Protocols and the role of CFCs in damaging the ozone layer is over.  It is a waste of time.  Like debating flat earthers.  BTW, what is you opinion? I bet you're a flat earther.



And yre, here you are.

Still no science?  Do you know what causes the ozone layer and why the holes have always been there?  Or are you content...or perhaps limited to being a useful idiot...spewing someone else's opinion?

Distain is poor camoflage for fear of being shown up...

And by the way, unlike you, I can back up my position with actual science.  Maybe it is best for you to tuck that tail and run..and keep running.


----------



## JLW (Nov 25, 2018)

You have yet to post one iota of actual science.  Feel free to post. I'm not stopping you. Knock yourself out.

As I said, the fear conservatives have of the Montreal Protocols is that they are working.  Their fear, as irrational as it is, is that it shows the world can work together to cure global issues.

Healing the ozone layer: A ray of hope for planet Earth?

I have  been around long enough to remember the same conservative claptrap, about clean air regs, clean water regs, acid rain, lead in gas, tobaccoand on and on and on.

So excuse me if I have disdain for your type of argument because I have heard it all before, and nearly every time the conservative alarmist have been proven wrong. By alarmist, I mean the same argument of how taking action  will destroy the economy, it will make us uncompetitive, the science is unsettled,  etc.

 The cause of ozone layer depletion has been identified and action taken.  We know it worked.  The ozone layer is recovering. The Montreal Protocol was a success.

Move on.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> You have yet to post one iota of actual science.  Feel free to post. I'm not stopping you. Knock yourself out.



I know why the ozone layer is there and why the holes have always been there.  I am waiting to see if you know the first thing about the topic and are just voicing an entirely political opinion on a scientific issue.  You have made claims about one side's scientific knowledge...do you know enough about the topic to have any idea whether that scientific knowledge is right or wrong?

And again, distain doesn't camouflage your fear of having your ignorance regarding the ozone layer put on public display.


----------



## JLW (Nov 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > You have yet to post one iota of actual science.  Feel free to post. I'm not stopping you. Knock yourself out.
> ...


LOL.. So you won't post your science because your say you know about the ozone layer and expect me to believe you.  Post away and  impress me with your knowledge. I am waiting.


----------



## JLW (Nov 25, 2018)

BTW, I don't claim to be an expert on the Ozone Layer, but what I do know is that the Montreal Protocols worked.  Other than this forum, yesterday, I have never read otherwise.   The burden is on you to tell me why CFCs and other ozone depleting gasses should not have been banned? Do tell. Do you think the ozone hole was a made up conspiracy by "globalist" as the OP infers? I am waiting.


----------



## cnm (Nov 25, 2018)

MarathonMike said:


> The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey.


Only if one wasn't affected by it.

_When the Antarctic ozone hole breaks up each year, the ozone-depleted air drifts out into nearby regions. Decreases in the ozone level of up to 10 percent have been reported in New Zealand in the month following the breakup of the Antarctic ozone hole,[37] with ultraviolet-B radiation intensities increasing by more than 15 percent since the 1970s.[38][39]
Ozone depletion - Wikipedia_​


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> BTW, I don't claim to be an expert on the Ozone Layer, but what I do know is that the Montreal Protocols worked.  Other than this forum, yesterday, I have never read otherwise.   The burden is on you to tell me why CFCs and other ozone depleting gasses should not have been banned? Do tell. Do you think the ozone hole was a made up conspiracy by "globalist" as the OP infers? I am waiting.



Worked to do what?


----------



## JLW (Nov 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, I don't claim to be an expert on the Ozone Layer, but what I do know is that the Montreal Protocols worked.  Other than this forum, yesterday, I have never read otherwise.   The burden is on you to tell me why CFCs and other ozone depleting gasses should not have been banned? Do tell. Do you think the ozone hole was a made up conspiracy by "globalist" as the OP infers? I am waiting.
> ...


Healing the ozone layer. Stop playing games. Answer my questions.


----------



## cnm (Nov 25, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> You have yet to post one iota of actual science.


Well it is SSDD after all.


----------



## polarbear (Nov 25, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> You have yet to post one iota of actual science.  Feel free to post. I'm not stopping you. Knock yourself out.
> 
> As I said, the fear conservatives have of the Montreal Protocols is that they are working.  Their fear, as irrational as it is, is that it shows the world can work together to cure global issues.
> 
> ...


So you think the Montreal Protocol was a success?
Read this:
China 'home foam' gas key to ozone mystery
_Cut-price Chinese home insulation is being blamed for a massive rise in emissions of a gas, highly damaging to the Earth's protective ozone layer. 
The Environmental Investigations Agency (EIA) found widespread use of CFC-11 in China, even though the chemical was fully banned back in 2010. 
Scientists have been extremely puzzled by the mysterious rise in emissions. 
But this report suggests the key source is China's home construction industry. 
Just two months ago, researchers published a study showing that the expected decline in the use of CFC-11 after it was completely banned eight years ago had slowed to a crawl. 
There were suspicions among researchers that new supplies were being made somewhere in East Asia. 
*What can be done about this?*
As China is a signatory of the Montreal Protocol that governs the use of ozone-depleting substances, it should be possible to put trade sanctions in place. However, since the protocol was signed in 1987, this weapon of last resort has never been used and it's not expected in this case.
_
Nothing but crickets about it on the Clinton News Network, so it must be fake news, right?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2018)

Since it is clear that you don't know anything about the ozone layer, it is clear that you don't know whether the protocols have done anything.

Let me see if i can make this easy to under stand...for starters lets start with an analogy...the ocean, the surf, and the beach.  The area where the ocean meets the beach is called the surf, and in the upper atmosphere, the area where the sunlight meets the air is termed the ozone layer, because in that region ozone is produced as a result of the UV breaking O2 molecules into O molecules some of which reform into O3 molecules,

The surf is a result...it doesn't protect the land from being flooded by the ocean, just as the ozone layer is a result.  it is there as a result of harmful UV being dissipated by breaking O2 into O...Some of the O molecules then reform into O3.  Ozone is a result, not a cause.

O3 is the result of the photo-chemical process between oxygen and UV light. But it is the photo-chemical process itself which protects us; the ozone is a mere by-product.If you could snap your fingers and make every single last molecule of ozone disappear, it would have absolutely no bearing on the amount of UV light reaching the Earth.  The ozone layer would "recharge" for lack of a better word as soon as the next UV radiation was expended breaking down O2 molecules...some of which would then reform onto O3...this process would take milliseconds.

Now that you know how O3 is formed, there are two places on earth where the angle at which incoming solar radiation is oblique and much of it reflects off into space, and there is little oxygen being moved to the upper atmosphere by warm rising currents...Not much incoming solar radiation and not much O2 for what does make in into the atmosphere to break down into O some of which then would reform into O3.  Can you guess where those regions are?

The "holes" vary in size from summer to winter over each pole with them being larger during each respective winter...and the "hole" is always larger over the south pole because it receives less solar energy than the north due to the tilt of the earth.

So what did the protocols do?

Now to make a prediction...with the solar output dropping due to the solar minimum...i predict that the "holes" will increase in size as the solar minimum progresses and deepens without regard to the montreal or any other protocol.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2018)

cnm said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > You have yet to post one iota of actual science.
> ...



I never make claims i can't back up...unlike you.


----------



## JLW (Nov 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Since it is clear that you don't know anything about the ozone layer, it is clear that you don't know whether the protocols have done anything.
> 
> Let me see if i can make this easy to under stand...for starters lets start with an analogy...the ocean, the surf, and the beach.  The area where the ocean meets the beach is called the surf, and in the upper atmosphere, the area where the sunlight meets the air is termed the ozone layer, because in that region ozone is produced as a result of the UV acting breaking O2 molecules into O molecules some of which reform into O3 molecules,
> 
> ...


So let's cut to the chase, do you think the ozone hole is a contrived scam by globalists?  Do you think it was a mistake to ban CFCs and other ozone depletion gasses?  Those were my questions which you did not answer.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Since it is clear that you don't know anything about the ozone layer, it is clear that you don't know whether the protocols have done anything.
> ...



Of course...it was first made political by a young senator named al gore...His largest campaign contributor...3M had a very expensive CFC free replacement for freon.

And since O3 replenishes immediately, what do you believe the protocols did...it is like trying to protect the land by keeping surfers off the surf for fear of wearing it down.


----------



## JLW (Nov 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


That is weird.  The first finding that CFCs were causing ozone depletion was in 1976 in a report by the United States National Academy of Sciences. It was at that time that the US began making efforts to move away from aerosol spray cans.  The US banned the use of CFCs in 1978.  I remember that myself.  Al Gore was barely out of law school and was about to enter the Congress as a first term member of the House.

In 1983 the Reagan Administration signed the Vienna Convention of the Protection of the Ozone Layer.  Once again that was before Al Gore was elected senator.  In 1987 the Montreal Protocols were signed.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...



Not being the political sort, it would seem that I have my politics wrong....the science, however, is not.  So what do you think the protocols have done?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2018)

A quick look at think progress indicates that I wasn't that far off.. 

We Saved The Ozone Layer. We Can Save The Climate.

clip: _Congress held hearings under the bipartisan leadership of Senators Max Baucus, John Chafee, and Al Gore, and Representatives Henry Waxman and Sherwood Boehlert, keeping the danger in the public eye. And the news media covered the story, without giving equal time to marginal skeptics.

The discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole added new urgency. By 1986, even the chemical industry acknowledged CFC limits were needed._

The chemical industry being 3m who made billions on their CFC free freon replacement...abd those marginal skeptics were pointing out that the holes were always there and talking about the science of the ozone layer and how it couldn't be destroyed so long as there was O2 in the stratosphere and UV coming in from the sun.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2018)

by the way, on the think progress site, there is a NASA video of the ozone "hole"  watch it form as winter wears on and less and less sunlight is entering the atmosphere over the pole.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2018)

Funny in a way to think that the chemical industry hijacked the environmental movement in order to make billions on a new, less effective refrigerant.  al gore laughed all the way to the bank.


----------



## JLW (Nov 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The protocols phased out the use of CFCs and HFCs.  Based on what I have read, since the Protocols went into effect the ozone layer has started recovering and will be completely recovered by 2050 or so.  To the best of my knowledge,  even the former manufacturers of CFCs do not dispute that CFCs resulted in ozone layer depletion.

What I can't understand why this is an issue now.  It has been 31 years since the protocols.

The protocols and the actions that led to it were implemented during the Reagan and  Bush years.  So, the idea that the protocols were some type of liberal conspiracy, perhaps not by you, but by others like the OP, is just hogwash.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> The protocols phased out the use of CFCs and HFCs.  Based on what I have read, since the Protocols went into effect the ozone layer has started recovering and will be completely recovered by 2050 or so.  To the best of my knowledge,  even the former manufacturers of CFCs do not dispute that CFCs resulted in ozone layer depletion.



I suggest that you might look at solar output over those "healing" years...since the sun is what makes it...and as i said, the solar minimum is going to result in less ozone formation so watch the holes grow....I predict that government scientists will be "deeply troubled" and suggest more research money into a "problem" they know full well doesn't, and never did exist.

I will put it on my radar and be sure to keep you updated...the only way to stop being a dupe is to first realize that you have been duped.

Actually, the conspiracy was between al gore and 3m....and billions upon billions were made...as a capitalist, i can appreciate what 3M did, but as a consumer and tax payer, i don't appreciate it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 25, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...


A political solution to a non problem..  This is the norm for the UN and its useful idiots..


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2018)

Relate the size of the holes to solar output in october for those years...note how much larger it got between 2014 and 2018 as the sun began to go quiet.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 25, 2018)

Oh look...scientists "surprised that the ozone hole is not healing...another year into the solar minimum and they will be "troubled"

Scientists Surprised: Ozone Layer Not Healing | Climate Dispatch


----------



## Sunsettommy (Nov 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> A quick look at think progress indicates that I wasn't that far off..
> 
> We Saved The Ozone Layer. We Can Save The Climate.
> 
> ...



The Ozone "hole" was known back in the 1950's, when Dobson measured low values in the late 1950's, he was the same man who PREDICTED low O3 numbers back in the 1920's with his research.


----------



## cnm (Nov 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The "holes" vary in size from summer to winter over each pole with them being larger during each respective winter...and the "hole" is always larger over the south pole because it receives less solar energy than the north due to the tilt of the earth.


JFC. His very very own 'science'. So it's the tilt, eh? What a fucking joke.



SSDD said:


> I never make claims i can't back up...unlike you.


----------



## cnm (Nov 25, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I suggest that you might look at solar output over those "healing" years...since the sun is what makes it.


And there's more sun at the Arctic, right, that's why the 'hole' there is smaller?


----------



## 12icer (Nov 25, 2018)

Ozone is in fact AN ion there is a reason for it not collecting at the negative pole of the earth. Get two magnets and figure it out. This is something only kindergartners and grammar school scientist can investigate. Dimshits need not attempt they will suffer brain explosions. Solar activity and electrical activity both cause massive changes in ozone production and diffusion. All natural and cyclical always have been always will be.


----------



## cnm (Nov 26, 2018)

Hilarious. Same Shit, Different Dimwit.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 26, 2018)

cnm said:


> Hilarious. Same Shit, Different Dimwit.




You know what's the same shit?...you guys denying actual science with nothing to support your ridiculous fantasies.  I will be sure to keep you posted as the "holes" grow as the solar minimum progresses.  See how effective your protocols are in the face of nature.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 26, 2018)

beautress said:


> Well, I think that's just naughty.


nor nice


----------



## MarathonMike (Nov 26, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> The deterioration of the conservative mind continues.  I  think there must be a mind wasting disease that affects only conservatives.  It has to be the answer to this plethora of insipid posts and theories.


I take it you find it more plausible that CFCs sprayed from cans made their way to the North pole and carved a "hole" in the Ozone and only banning them allowed the "hole" to close. It's people like you that made the ultimate snake oil salesman Al Gore a mega Millionaire.


----------



## JLW (Nov 26, 2018)

MarathonMike said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > The deterioration of the conservative mind continues.  I  think there must be a mind wasting disease that affects only conservatives.  It has to be the answer to this plethora of insipid posts and theories.
> ...


See Post 37.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 26, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Personally, I will not get bated into a debate with those who pull facts from thin air.


LOL..  You wouldn't know a scientific fact if it hit you in the damn head... All you are is a parrot who doesn't have a clue...


----------



## Crick (Nov 26, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.
> ...




So, Billy Boy, the self-proclaimed atmospheric physicist rejects the relationship between CFCs and the Ozone Hole.  Will wonders never cease. Yes, Momma, he really is that stupid.


----------



## JLW (Nov 26, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I will not get bated into a debate with those who pull facts from thin air.
> ...


I know enough that the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer ratified by the US Congress in 1985 and signed by 197 nations and which led to the Montreal Protocols was among the  most successful agreements in history. I further know that those who call this agreement a scam or who say this agreement was a fraud perpetuated  by  Al Gore or has enriched Al Gore are fools without credibility, especially since Al Gore was not even in Congress when the first studies of CFC damage to the ozone were first reported.

Yeah, I'll take the word of the scientific world over a few politically biased amateur scientists who post on internet forums.


----------



## polarbear (Nov 26, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...


If it was so successful then why is China making and using it on a massive scale?
You choose to ignore reality "the Montreal Protocols was among the  most successful agreements in history." even though it`s already been posted that China does not give a rat`s ass about the Montreal Protocol. So  I`ll post it again:
China 'home foam' gas key to ozone mystery
_Cut-price Chinese home insulation is being blamed for a massive rise in emissions of a gas, highly damaging to the Earth's protective ozone layer.
The authorities have banned CFC-11 but enforcement of the regulation is poor. 

"We were absolutely gobsmacked to find that companies very openly confirmed using CFC-11 while acknowledging it was illegal," Avipsa Mahapatra from EIA told BBC News. 

"The fact that they were so blasé about it, the fact that they told us very openly how pervasive it is in the market, these were shocking findings for us." 
*What can be done about this?*
As China is a signatory of the Montreal Protocol that governs the use of ozone-depleting substances, it should be possible to put trade sanctions in place. However, since the protocol was signed in 1987, this weapon of last resort has never been used and it's not expected in this case._
*Now tell me again that the Montreal Protocols was among the  most successful agreements in history.*


----------



## Crick (Nov 27, 2018)

China vows greater efforts to curb ozone-depleting chemicals | Reuters

Chinese action on Montreal Protocol violators

China moves to outlaw CFCs | Reuters

China’s efforts to protect the ozone layer | Letters


Yes, it is one of the most successful agreements in history.  And I'm curious as to whether you believe Chinese violators are evidence of the agreement being a scam.  This whole thread seems to be just another of the many unsubstantiated assertions for which global warming deniers have become famous.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 27, 2018)

SSDD said:


> .If you could snap your fingers and make every single last molecule of ozone disappear, it would have absolutely no bearing on the amount of UV light reaching the Earth.



Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo...

SSDD is literally denying that ozone absorbs UV light. That's literally on a level with round-earth denial. I'm just trying to decide if that's the dumbest thing he's ever typed. Given how many stupid things he's said over the years, it's hard to decide.



> ...this process would take milliseconds.



Oh, do show us your science backing up your claim that the ozone layer would reform in milliseconds if removed.



> and the "hole" is always larger over the south pole because it receives less solar energy than the north due to the tilt of the earth.



There's another dumb-off contender! According to the SSDD theory, the south pole in its winter receives less solar energy that the north pole in its winter. Why? Something about tilt. He apparently thinks earth's axial tilt varies on the short term.



> ...i predict that the "holes" will increase in size as the solar minimum progresses and deepens without regard to the montreal or any other protocol.



As the holes have been shrinking as the solar minimum develops, such a prediction is already proven wrong. That was easy.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 27, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> The Ozone "hole" was known back in the 1950's, when Dobson measured low values in the late 1950's,



Yes. But not nearly as low as they later got. Very dishonest of you to leave that out. Such dishonesty is standard behavior for cultists.

Denialism isn't the actual cult. Right-wing-crank authoritarianism is the actual cult. Ozone depletion denial, global warming denial and DDT harm denial are just some of the many kook conspiracy theories that the cultists are mandated to believe.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Nov 27, 2018)

mamooth said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > The Ozone "hole" was known back in the 1950's, when Dobson measured low values in the late 1950's,
> ...



Bla bla bla, your inner ugliness spills out vividly.

What I said was correct and you know it since you didn't say it was wrong at all.

You act like a miserable human being.


----------



## Crick (Nov 27, 2018)

You act like a liar who failed 7th grade physical science class.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Nov 27, 2018)

SSDD said:


> A quick look at think progress indicates that I wasn't that far off..
> 
> We Saved The Ozone Layer. We Can Save The Climate.
> 
> ...




Ahem..actually it was DuPont, but ok. 

Yes, that was political and it fucked over just about every refrigeration tradesman in the nation.


----------



## 007 (Nov 27, 2018)

Geee... where's our global warming?

11th coldest November to date


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 27, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> The idea that the treaty negotiated and enacted by George HW Bush was a precursor to the global warming movement  whatever that means is so totally whacked as to defy logic and a rational excuse.



You seem to have missed the entire point entirely. The theory about "being a model for the GW movement" is secondary to the SCIENCE and the data telling us that the "Ozone hole"  fright was NEVER REALLY FIXED.  The leadership of the world went on a wild goose chase with brand new satellite toys in the 70s and 80s and created a WORLD WIDE CRISIS where the CFC production went to ZERO -- but the ozone hole never DECREASED. 

They just declared victory and moved on. All the lemmings and the lemming leaders. Because THAT science was FAR from settled as well.  STILL IS.. All because we suddenly (35 yrs) was able to measure something for the FIRST TIME from space and saw it INCREASING and thought we should "fix it".... 






Does that look "fixed" to you? With no ZERO CFCs being released and a 2 yr transit time from storage in the troposphere into the "hole"????


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 27, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> The protocol worked as the ozone layer is recovering.



Nope..  Fake news.  See NASA chart above..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 27, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > The idea that the treaty negotiated and enacted by George HW Bush was a precursor to the global warming movement  whatever that means is so totally whacked as to defy logic and a rational excuse.
> ...


What i find amusing is the hole was well on its way to developing long before we even began using CFC's and now its not responding to near zero interference as the sun output wains..

Do you ever feel like you got the stick placed in unpleasant places?  I know the folks who made CFC's do..


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 27, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...



I know the heat exchanger that the govt designed for me with inferior refrigerants and "efficiency" barely produces any heat at below 35F..  It's 28DegF outside right now and it's gone thru 2 defrost cycles in the past hour and the "emergency heat" light is on.. Thats what I know. 

Actually, I know more. All that UV we were worried about is increasing in historic levels as the Sun slides into a possible "grand" solar minimum.. 

With the NEW Ozone holes opening in the Northern Hemi as the article says..


----------



## SSDD (Nov 28, 2018)

mamooth said:


> Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo...



What causes the formation of an O3 molecule ...and how long does that formation take.



mamooth said:


> SSDD is literally denying that ozone absorbs UV light. That's literally on a level with round-earth denial. I'm just trying to decide if that's the dumbest thing he's ever typed. Given how many stupid things he's said over the years, it's hard to decide.



Ozone is the result of O2 absorbing UV.  O3 absorbs some UV but because it is so unstable, The molecule breaks before it has absorbed anywhere as much energy as it takes to break an O2 molecule to allow the formation of O3.  But do feel free to prove me wrong hairball.



mamooth said:


> Oh, do show us your science backing up your claim that the ozone layer would reform in milliseconds if removed.



Step on up and prove me wrong.



> ...i predict that the "holes" will increase in size as the solar minimum progresses and deepens without regard to the montreal or any other protocol.





mamooth said:


> As the holes have been shrinking as the solar minimum develops, such a prediction is already proven wrong. That was easy.




Sorry hairball...i already posted nasa data that proves you wrong...


----------



## SSDD (Nov 28, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



Yep..she is one of the most bitter, miserable people I have encountered on these forums, and there are some real doozies out there.


----------



## mamooth (Nov 28, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> You seem to have missed the entire point entirely. The theory about "being a model for the GW movement" is secondary to the SCIENCE and the data telling us that the "Ozone hole"  fright was NEVER REALLY FIXED.  The leadership of the world went on a wild goose chase with brand new satellite toys in the 70s and 80s



So, satellites are part of the conspiracy. Can you explain exactly how that works? Are satellites faking data? Is the money to launch them going into Soros' pocket? Please be specific.



> and created a WORLD WIDE CRISIS where the CFC production went to ZERO -- but the ozone hole never DECREASED.



Don't be absurd. CFC production didn't go to zero, other ozone munchers were still being produced, and the atmospheric residence time of those gases is way long. You're failing at the basics of the science again.

CFC breakdown products, of which there are no natural sources, found in high concentrations in the areas of ozone depletion. That's a smoking gun. Your "It's natural!" theory fails to account for that, so your "it's natural" theory is wrong. It is that simple. You're trying to invent a reality which is contradicted by hard data.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Nov 28, 2018)

"omission" 





mamooth said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Bla bla bla, your inner ugliness spills out vividly.
> ...



Ha ha ha, here is my FIRST post YOU replied to:

"The Ozone "hole" was known back in the 1950's, when Dobson measured low values in the late 1950's, he was the same man who PREDICTED low O3 numbers back in the 1920's with his research."

No lies or name calling attack in it.

Your reply.... snicker...……,

"Yes. But not nearly as low as they later got. Very dishonest of you to leave that out. *Such dishonesty is standard behavior for cultists.*

* Denialism isn't the actual cult. Right-wing-crank authoritarianism is the actual cult. Ozone depletion denial, global warming denial and DDT harm denial are just some of the many kook conspiracy theories that the cultists are mandated to believe. "*

_bolding mine
_
My next reply:

"Bla bla bla, your inner ugliness spills out vividly.

What I said was correct and you know it since you didn't say it was wrong at all.

You act like a miserable human being."

No lies or name calling attack in it.

your dishonest reply:

"Something about heat and kitchens comes to mind. If you're going to be so free with insults, don't whine about getting them back.

Now, care to address the point you tried to run from? That point was your dishonesty-by-omission. The ozone hole was much less severe in the 1950's. That's not debatable. Yet you chose to leave that very pertinent fact out. Was your dishonesty-by-omission due to ignorance, or was it deliberate attempt at deception?"

I didn't lie or insult you at all. I responded about *YOUR WORDS* only. Can't you tell?

You insistence of omission isn't even credible since all I said that low ozone levels in the late 1950's were recorded by Dobson, which is true. That is what YOU keep overlooking to promote your dishonest "omission" narrative.
_
_


----------



## Dale Smith (Nov 28, 2018)

_*The common enemy of humanity is man.*
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, *we came up*
*with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming*,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
*The real enemy then, is humanity itself*_*.*“
– *Club of Rome*,


----------



## Dale Smith (Nov 28, 2018)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Ozone is the result of O2 absorbing UV.  O3 absorbs some UV but because it is so unstable,
> ...


i

Mamooth, you were sucked into a plan that was in the making back in the late 60s.........SUCKER!


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 28, 2018)

mamooth said:


> So, satellites are part of the conspiracy. Can you explain exactly how that works? Are satellites faking data? Is the money to launch them going into Soros' pocket? Please be specific.



Either you're intentionally stupid and purposely misinterpret what I say. Or looking for pity because you ARE that stupid. I'll go with #1 to give you the benefit of the doubt.

*I said NOTHING about satellites "being a problem"..*  Have your special ed tutor explain my posts to you..  And leave me out of your taunting and delusions..


----------



## cnm (Nov 29, 2018)

mamooth said:


> There's another dumb-off contender! According to the SSDD theory, the south pole in its winter receives less solar energy that the north pole in its winter. Why? Something about tilt. He apparently thinks earth's axial tilt varies on the short term.


Amazing, isn't it?


----------



## cnm (Nov 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I don't see you [Crick] challenging anything I said.



What point? You didn't respond to queries on this claim of yours even after your vainglorious boasting...


SSDD said:


> The "holes" vary in size from summer to winter over each pole with them being larger during each respective winter...and the "hole" is always larger over the south pole because it receives less solar energy than the north due to the tilt of the earth.





SSDD said:


> I never make claims i can't back up...unlike you.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2018)

mamooth said:


> Don't be absurd. CFC production didn't go to zero, other ozone munchers were still being produced, and the atmospheric residence time of those gases is way long. You're failing at the basics of the science again.



You know what one of the main ozone "munchers" is that your priests probably never told you about?  Good old nitrogen, and hydrogen, and other compounds that are released naturally..  Ay 780,000 ppm, compared to somewhere between 5 and 20 ppm for CFC's, which do you think breaks down more ozone?

Ozone

_"Because ozone and free oxygen atoms are highly unstable, they react very easily with nitrogen, hydrogen, chlorine, and bromine compounds that are found naturally in Earth's atmosphere"_



mamooth said:


> CFC breakdown products, of which there are no natural sources, found in high concentrations in the areas of ozone depletion.



Well that's bullshit isn't it.  Nitrogen exists in ozone "depletion areas" at a concentration of 780,000ppm.  Then there the other natural compounds named above in various concentrations...compare that to the 20ppm pr less of CFC's that are present.



mamooth said:


> That's a smoking gun. Your "It's natural!" theory fails to account for that, so your "it's natural" theory is wrong. It is that simple. You're trying to invent a reality which is contradicted by hard data.



Actually, when you look at the facts, it is your fantasy that falls apart.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2018)

cnm said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see you [Crick] challenging anything I said.
> ...



So you have nothing...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 29, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> The Montreal Protocol worked and that is what truly scares the bejeesus out of conservatives.  The Protocol which has been very successful reduced ozone emissions which led to the recovery of the ozone layer.  The reason it scares conservatives is because  it is a precursor of a frame work that can work to fight climate change.
> 
> Given how anti-science and anti-fact the conservative movement has become, the  Montreal Protocol would never, or at least be nearly impossible, to implement today  to our detriment. At least then there were still rational conservatives like George HW Bush.




How the fuck do you know it hasn't always been there?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Nov 29, 2018)

MarathonMike said:


> The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.
> 
> New Ozone Hole Scare Won't Save the Great Climate Hoax | PSI Intl



Except that there was hole in the ozone, there still is to a certain extent.






This is what it looked like in 2006






This is what it looked like 3 days ago. 

Big difference. Why?


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2018)

The Montreal Protocol, of course


----------



## SSDD (Nov 29, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.
> ...




My bet is that the upper pic was taken in the winter when there isn't much solar energy coming entering the atmosphere over the pole...the lower picture is taken during the summer when there is more incoming solar energy.  Here is an animation over the course of a year...notice how there is not much of a hole during the antarctic summer and when it gets dark in the winter, the hole gets bigger.  Do Keep in mind that when it is summer in the northern hemisphere it is winter in the south.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Nov 29, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.
> ...



Link please.


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2018)

I find this.  These are from Time Magazine






This from the Telegraph





The Washington Post





NASA JPL (an animation but the board won't let me put it in as media)
2018 ozone hole image - Google Search:


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Ozone is the result of O2 absorbing UV. O3 absorbs some UV but because it is so unstable, The molecule breaks before it has absorbed anywhere as much energy as it takes to break an O2 molecule to allow the formation of O3. But do feel free to prove me wrong hairball.



Largest ozone creation factory on this planet is lightning.  Not UV.. 

NASA - Top Story - SURPRISE! LIGHTNING HAS BIG EFFECT ON ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY - March 19, 2003


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 29, 2018)

Crick said:


> I find this.  These are from Time Magazine
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So -- it really did NOT get fixed --- did it? The graph I posted makes that very clear.


----------



## Crick (Nov 29, 2018)

The graph I posted and that you quoted also appears to show no improvement.  The animation at the link I provided, however, shows that it has low periods during the course of a year.  Ozone depletion takes place at a greater rate with lower temperatures, so there is an annual cycle to the depletion.  FCT, are you getting ready to join the local "Montreal-Was-A-Scam" bandwagon hereabouts?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 30, 2018)

Crick said:


> The graph I posted and that you quoted also appears to show no improvement.  The animation at the link I provided, however, shows that it has low periods during the course of a year.  Ozone depletion takes place at a greater rate with lower temperatures, so there is an annual cycle to the depletion.  FCT, are you getting ready to join the local "Montreal-Was-A-Scam" bandwagon hereabouts?



That would be due to less solar energy in the stratosphere over the poles during their respective winters.  The holes are almost non existent towards the end of the polar summer and by the end of the polar winter, they are at their maximum...that would be because if you have less sunlight, you have less O3.

The ozone holes are a scam...always were a scam...and always will be a scam.  If you can't look at the images, and note the time of year they were made, then relate that to the amount of solar energy entering the atmosphere, then you can't grasp a photograph any more than you can read a graph.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 30, 2018)

flacaltenn said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Ozone is the result of O2 absorbing UV. O3 absorbs some UV but because it is so unstable, The molecule breaks before it has absorbed anywhere as much energy as it takes to break an O2 molecule to allow the formation of O3. But do feel free to prove me wrong hairball.
> ...




Not in the stratosphere...Your article is talking about the troposphere...UV is responsible for the "ozone layer"


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 30, 2018)

frigidweirdo said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.
> ...





frigidweirdo said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.
> ...




What it looked like in 1969


----------



## xband (Nov 30, 2018)

MarathonMike said:


> The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.
> 
> New Ozone Hole Scare Won't Save the Great Climate Hoax | PSI Intl



Freon opened up the Ozone Hole but only in the Southern Hemisphere and I could give a hoot less about the Southern Hemisphere. Freon was banned world wide in the eighties which made the hole smaller but not disappear. Use ammonia rather than Freon. Ammonia is natural and not man made.


----------



## Crick (Nov 30, 2018)

So, an admitted hemispherist.  You need to broaden your horizons.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2018)

Crick said:


> . Ozone depletion takes place at a greater rate with lower temperatures, so there is an annual cycle to the depletion.



Actually, there is an annual cycle to the formation of ozone...at least at the poles.  Less is formed as the amount of solar energy entering the atmosphere decreases.  Think, you idiot...what causes the formation of ozone?  Answer, solar energy breaking apart O2 molecules some of which then form O3...what might cause less of it to form?  Answer, fewer O2 molecules being broken and therefore less opportunity for O3 to form.  Do you ever use your brain or does your cultish belief demand that you don't since it might call said beliefs into question?


----------



## Crick (Dec 1, 2018)

And, on a percentage basis, how much has solar input changed in the last 40 years?




Looks like 1366.8 Wm^-2 to 1366.9 Wm^-2 or
*a 0.0073105% INCREASE*

Idiot


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2018)

Crick said:


> And, on a percentage basis, how much has solar input changed in the last 40 years?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You really are an idiot skidmark....and one of the most dishonest people I have ever spoken to...let's see those those solar insulation figures and their seasonal variations over the poles.

What's the matter skidmark?  Can't bring yourself to admit how O3 is formed?  Can't bring yourself to acknowledge that when there is less solar entering the upper atmosphere over the poles during the winter, less O3 is being formed?  Don't want to acknowledge that because O3 is a highly unstable molecule that readily reacts with Nitrogen, hydrogen and various natural compounds in the air it begins to degrade very quickly as the darkness wears on?  Don't want to admit that N2 at 780,000ppm destroys far more than the 5 to 20ppm your CFC boogie man molecules break down?

You are a putz...easily fooled, and very very very slow to realize that you have been duped.


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2018)

Why don't YOU show us that data?  You were the one who claimed that changes in solar insolation were entirely repsonsible for ozone changes.  It is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence of your claims.  My inability to locate such material is hardly proof that it exists.

Asshole


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2018)

Crick said:


> Why don't YOU show us that data?  You were the one who claimed that changes in solar insolation were entirely repsonsible for ozone changes.  It is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence of your claims.  My inability to locate such material is hardly proof that it exists.
> 
> Asshole




Amazing that you are oblivious to such basic facts.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/twentyquestions/Q2.pdf

 Clip: _ Stratospheric ozone. Stratospheric ozone is formed naturally by chemical reactions involving solar ultraviolet radiation (sunlight) and oxygen molecules, which make up 21% of the atmosphere. In the first step, solar ultraviolet radiation breaks apart one oxygen molecule (O2) to produce two oxygen atoms (2 O) (see Figure Q2-1). In the second step, each of these highly reactive atoms combines with an oxygen molecule to produce an ozone molecule (O3). These reactions occur continually whenever solar ultraviolet radiation is pres- ent in the stratosphere. As a result, the largest ozone produc- tion occurs in the tropical stratosphere.
_
Of course, being NASA, and in the business of duping all the potential useful idiots out there, they promoted man made chemicals that destroy ozone, but failed to mention the naturally occurring ones, in much greater volumes than CFC's that also react with O3 molecules and in doing so, destroy them.

Ozone


Clip:  Natural forces can alter the amount of ozone. Remember, ozone is very unstable. It reacts easily with other atoms, and will easily donate that free oxygen atom (O1) to nitrogen gas (N2), hydrogen gas (H2), or chlorine (Cl). These atoms have always existed in the stratosphere, and they are released from a wide variety of sources (volcanoes, oceans, etc.)
Nitrogen, hydrogen, chlorine, and other natural compounds in the air are something over  780,000ppm in the atmosphere..CFC's are something less than 20ppm.

Another thing that they don't tell you, but that you should be able to figure out for yourself if you have any critical thinking skills at all is that the bulk of the work in absorbing incoming short wave radiation is done by O2.  Oxygen being a very stable molecule requires a great deal of energy to break it down...O3 on the other hand is a very unstable molecule which requires very little to break it down.  Sure it absorbs some UV before it breaks, but nothing like the amount absorbed by O2. And if you could make all the O3 disappear in an instant, as soon as the next short wave UV hit the next O2 molecules and broke them apart, O3 would start to reform.....O3 is a result, not a cause.


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2018)

The gap was not in the involvement of sunlight in the production of ozone.  The data you claim but have still failed to produce is a significant change in the insolation of the polar regions responsible for changes in the pole's ozone levels.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2018)

Crick said:


> The gap was not in the involvement of sunlight in the production of ozone.  The data you claim but have still failed to produce is a significant change in the insolation of the polar regions responsible for changes in the pole's ozone levels.



So you believe just as much solar radiation enters the atmosphere over the poles during their winter as enters the atmosphere in the lower latitudes?  Is that what you are claiming skidmark? 

  Say it skidmark...Say it on the record before I shove your ignorance and stupidity down your throat with the facts.  Or maybe you just might be able to work up enough intellectual wattage to check for yourself and then slink away before I heap even more public embarrassment on you.


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2018)

I doubt there is anyone with an education above the 4th grade who believe seasonal changes are significant in this conversation.  The data I posted covered 41 years.  This is obviously bullshit you're putting out in an attempt to admit that you cannot present us data that show significant changes in polar insolation and might be CORRELATED with the changes brought about by the Montreal Protocol on chlorofluorocarbons.

Has it not occurred to you that if you've fooled ANYONE on this board with your nonsense, they are so patently stupid that to bask in their admiration is to mark yourself a fool?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2018)

Crick said:


> I doubt there is anyone with an education above the 4th grade who believe seasonal changes are significant in this conversation.  The data I posted covered 41 years.  This is obviously bullshit you're putting out in an attempt to admit that you cannot present us data that show significant changes in polar insolation and might be CORRELATED with the changes brought about by the Montreal Protocol on chlorofluorocarbons.
> 
> Has it not occurred to you that if you've fooled ANYONE on this board with your nonsense, they are so patently stupid that to bask in their admiration is to mark yourself a fool?



You are a complete dolt crick....so stupid that there is probably no hope for you.  To think, that you believe that figure you provided applies evenly across the surface of the earth.

The climate of the Antarctic and its variability - ACCE

Clip: Because of the lack of incoming solar radiation, the Antarctic stratosphere in winter is extremely cold. A strong temperature gradient develops between the continent and mid-latitudes (Figure 1.13), isolating a pool of very cold air above Antarctica.

Ride your ignorance and stupidity right over the cliff.  Again skid mark....what causes O3 to form in the upper atmosphere?  What happens if there is less of it reaching the upper atmosphere?  

Which is it skidmark?  Are you to stupid to grasp that less UV entering the upper atmosphere equals less O3 formation, or is it that you just can't bear to have me hand you your ass again?  Well, it's to late for that now, isn't it.  So do you learn something or do you just keep on digging that hole trying in vain to save some measure of face?...because that is what it is about now...isn't it?


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2018)

There is NOTHING in your link discussing solar variability or any relation of such variability to ozone levels.  You still fail.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2018)

Crick said:


> There is NOTHING in your link discussing solar variability or any relation of such variability to ozone levels.  You still fail.




Only to someone to stupid to see it...What's the matter crick...NASA themselves said that O3 is formed in the stratosphere when incoming UV breaks apart O2 molecules allowing O3 to form...Then I gave you a perfectly respectable source that stated in terms so simple that even an idiot like you could understand that there is a lack of incoming solar radiation in the antarctic stratosphere in the winter.  Here, let me put it in very simple terms that even one as simple minded as you should be able to grasp.  I will even write it in crayon for you.  Bright colors seem to impress you.

*1.  UV in the upper atmosphere is formed by incoming UV from the sun breaking O2 molecules, allowing O3 to form*

*2.  In the winter, over the poles, there is less UV entering the stratosphere.  With less incoming UV, there are **fewer O2 molecules being broken and therefore less opportunity for O3 to form.*

*3.  The "hole's" in the ozone are larger during the winter months....this is because O3 production is reduced because there is less UV entering the stratosphere over the poles during the winter.*

Be an idiot skidmark...hang on to your beliefs even when the evidence to the contrary is right there in front of you.  Stay stupid....stay ignorant...remain a dupe...you deserve no less.


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2018)

Again, we aren't talking about seasonal changes or even solar cycle changes. You claimed a long term change in polar insolation that was driving the observed changes seen in ozone levels.  WHERE IS IT FOOL?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2018)

Crick said:


> Again, we aren't talking about seasonal changes or even solar cycle changes. You claimed a long term change in polar insolation that was driving the observed changes seen in ozone levels.  WHERE IS IT FOOL?



So you can't read either?  How unsurprising.  You were the idiot who brought the long term solar insolation figures as if they were uniform across the globe...and you are the idiot who claimed that just as much solar radiation was entering the stratosphere over the poles during the winter as during the summer.

You had your ass handed to you and now are trying to weasel out of the idiotic claims you made....once more I am laughing in your stupid face skidmark...

But hey...feel free to point out where I claimed that the changes in the amount of ozone over the poles was anything other than seasonal...show that and prove that you can read for comprehension...and are not a liar.


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2018)

For the sixth time, you claimed that long changes at the pole were the actual driving force behind ozone changes.  Not CFCs, not the Montreal Protocol.  We want to see the fucking evidence asshole.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2018)

Crick said:


> For the sixth time, you claimed that long changes at the pole were the actual driving force behind ozone changes.  Not CFCs, not the Montreal Protocol.  We want to see the fucking evidence asshole.


In which post did I make that claim?


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2018)

#97


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2018)

Crick said:


> #97



So you really can't read.  It isn't even a challenge to show you to be an idiot.  In post #97 i said:



			
				ssdd said:
			
		

> You really are an idiot skidmark....and one of the most dishonest people I have ever spoken to...let's see those those solar insulation figures and their seasonal variations over the poles.
> 
> What's the matter skidmark? Can't bring yourself to admit how O3 is formed? Can't bring yourself to acknowledge that when there is less solar entering the upper atmosphere over the poles during the winter, less O3 is being formed? Don't want to acknowledge that because O3 is a highly unstable molecule that readily reacts with Nitrogen, hydrogen and various natural compounds in the air it begins to degrade very quickly as the darkness wears on? Don't want to admit that N2 at 780,000ppm destroys far more than the 5 to 20ppm your CFC boogie man molecules break down?
> 
> You are a putz...easily fooled, and very very very slow to realize that you have been duped.




In the first paragraph, I asked to see YOUR long term solar inflation figures in terms of seasonal variations over the poles.  That should tell anyone who is capable of the least bit of reading comprehension that I was interested in seasonal variations...not long term averages....  You are really stupid

Then in the second paragraph I say explicitly that decreases in O3 happen in winter when there is less solar energy entering the stratosphere over the poles.

Then in the last paragraph, I pointed out that you were a putz, and easily fooled...and slow to realize that you have been duped...lets add the fact that you can't read.

Do point out where in that post that is all about seasonal variations...specifically winter, I made claims that long term changes in solar input at the poles was causing the holes.

Which part of this statement:  "Can't bring yourself to acknowledge that when there is less solar entering the upper atmosphere over the poles during the winter, less O3 is being formed"....do you think suggests that I believe long term changes in solar variation over the poles is responsible for them?

This should be good.  You are some kind of doofus skidmark...some kind.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 2, 2018)

That's what I thought.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 2, 2018)

MarathonMike said:


> The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.
> 
> New Ozone Hole Scare Won't Save the Great Climate Hoax | PSI Intl


Ugh, what a bunch of idiots you deniers are...a bunch of uneducated slobs being led around by paid denier propagandists...not one of you would pass a 10th grade science test ...


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2018)

7th


----------



## SSDD (Dec 3, 2018)

Crick said:


> 7th




Says the guy who had his ass handed to him by someone he likes to call an idiot...if I am an idiot, how abysmally stupid does that make you, you bleating sheep.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.
> ...



Alas, it is us skeptics who are trying to discuss science while you guys can't seem to get past the politics.  I would ask you if you care to discuss the science, but you have already proven that you have no informed opinions of your own in regards to any topic on climate...you are a parrot who simply spews the views of those with whom you agree politically without regard to whether what they are telling you is correct or not.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.
> ...




Says the guy who can't figure out what sex he is..


Hint you're a boy.



.
.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 3, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > MarathonMike said:
> ...



You sure?  He supports his position like a pre pubescent panty waist.  I would guess he is a she.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




Maybe you're right he stomps around in her bunny slippers like Al Gore..always trying to shame us..

Crys like a bitch.


----------



## Crick (Dec 3, 2018)

Jesus, are you two stupid


----------



## JLW (Dec 3, 2018)

Here is how CFCs affect the ozone layer.  From the link provided below:

"Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) is an organic compound that contains carbon, chlorine, and fluorine, produced as a volatile derivative of methane and ethane. A common subclass is the hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), which contain hydrogen, as well. Freon is DuPont's brand name for CFCs, HCFCs and related compounds. Other commercial names from around the world are Algofrene, Arcton, Asahiflon, Daiflon, Eskimo, FCC, Flon, Flugene, Forane, Fridohna, Frigen, Frigedohn, Genetron, Isceon, Isotron, Kaiser, Kaltron, Khladon, Ledon, Racon, and Ucon. The most common representative is dichlorodifluoromethane (R-12 or Freon-12).

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are a family of chemical compounds developed back in the 1930's as safe, non-toxic, non-flammable alternative to dangerous substances like ammonia for purposes of refrigeration and spray can propellants. Their usage grew enormously over the years. One of the elements that make up CFCs is chlorine. Very little chlorine exists naturally in the atmosphere. But it turns out that CFCs are an excellent way of introducing chlorine into the ozone layer. The ultraviolet radiation at this altitude breaks down CFCs, freeing the chlorine. *Under the proper conditions, this chlorine has the potential to destroy large amounts of ozone. This has indeed been observed, especially over Antarctica. As a consequence, levels of genetically harmful ultraviolet radiation have increased."*







The Ozone Hole

*****************************************************

I asked these questions before with no answers:

Do CFCs damage the ozone layer?

Was it wrong to ban CFCs?


----------



## Crick (Dec 3, 2018)

You seem to have found your answers.  Yes and No.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 3, 2018)

Crick said:


> Jesus, are you two stupid



Says the poser who claims to be an engineer but can't seem to even read a straight forward statement regarding seasonal changes in O3...or figure out what causes O3 to form....or read a simple equation.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 3, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Here is how CFCs affect the ozone layer.  From the link provided below:
> 
> "Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) is an organic compound that contains carbon, chlorine, and fluorine, produced as a volatile derivative of methane and ethane. A common subclass is the hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), which contain hydrogen, as well. Freon is DuPont's brand name for CFCs, HCFCs and related compounds. Other commercial names from around the world are Algofrene, Arcton, Asahiflon, Daiflon, Eskimo, FCC, Flon, Flugene, Forane, Fridohna, Frigen, Frigedohn, Genetron, Isceon, Isotron, Kaiser, Kaltron, Khladon, Ledon, Racon, and Ucon. The most common representative is dichlorodifluoromethane (R-12 or Freon-12).
> 
> ...




The problem with your belief is that O3, or ozone also readily reacts with nitrogen...the concentration of nitrogen in the atmosphere is approximately 780,000ppm, that is seven hundred and eighty thousand parts per million while the concentration of CFC's in the atmosphere varies somewhere between 3 and 20 parts per million.  Which do you think is breaking down more ozone molecules?  You have fallen for political pseudoscience disguised as actual science for the purpose of making money (quid pro quo) in exchange for political donations.

It is funny that a large corporation could hijack the environmental movement for fun and profit and have you guys arguing their case day in and day out for decades...but since I have to pay taxes which go into that nonsense, I don't appreciate it.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 3, 2018)

Crick said:


> You seem to have found your answers.  Yes and No.



3 to 20ppm of CFC's vs 780,000ppm of nitrogen which readily reacts with O3...which is breaking down more O3...is there any limit to your stupidity and the extent to which you can be tricked?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Alas, it is us


You are no skeptic, you are a denier. Don't deign to besmirch the honorable concept of skepticism by putting your horseshit denial on the same shelf with it.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 3, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Alas, it is us
> ...



Since you don't have a clue, your opinion holds little value.  If you have any objections to what I have said with regard to ozone, how it is formed, what breaks it down, why there is less O3 over the poles than there is during other seasons, by all means state them and we can discuss the science, and what facts lead to the position I hold...

If you can't discuss the science, then like I said, your opinion means next to nothing since it isn't your own informed opinion, but one that someone gave you...someone whom you don't know whether they are being truthful or not...

Even an  idiot like crick, who certainly knows at least a bit more on the topic than you knows that he has lost the argument with me regarding ozone...anyone who knows the first thing about ozone knows that I am right, whether they care to admit it or not.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Since you don't have a clue, your opinion holds little value.


But this is just whining, as I have never asked you to take my word for anything. The open invitation stands for you to publish a shred of science that supports your goofy denial. You never have, and you never will. As such, your opinion is no less worthless than mine, as this is decided on the science.

So, welcome to the bench, ya uneducated slob. Wanna watch some science with me?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 4, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Since you don't have a clue, your opinion holds little value.
> ...



So you can't discuss the science...how completely unsurprising is that?  And why would I publish?  All the information is out there already...most of it can be readily found on official government sites...all that is required is to read it.  I haven't related a single fact regarding ozone that didn't come from a perfectly respectable source according to you warmists.

Further evidence that you know exactly jack shit about the topic and again, have no informed opinion of your own...you have an opinion that someone with a political agenda gave you...and nothing else.  How astonishingly pathetic is that?


----------



## Crick (Dec 4, 2018)

SSDD said:
			
		

> most of it can be readily found on official government sites



Nothing of yours can be found on any US government website.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 4, 2018)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You just get more stupid every day...do you just like having your ass handed to you?

Post #79 contained information from the earth observatory...NASA discussing the fact that ozone readily reacts with nitrogen, hydrogen, and other naturally occurring gases in the atmosphere

#84 featured graphics resulting from satellite images from NASA

#99 was an explanation to you on the topic of how ozone forms since you clearly didn't know..the data was from NOAA

Then #103 provided information from SCAR because you didn't know that the poles receive less solar energy during their winters...

And that about covers it...Every argument I have I have made can be supported by those government web sites...

So once again skid mark...you lied and then have had your ass handed to you because of it...  Do you never tire of having me kick your ass around this board?  I know I haven't become tired of kicking you around...even though it isn't much of a challenge...you are just so damned stupid.  

It seems like you used to be just a little bit smarter....are you taking drugs?  Is Alzheimers setting in?  Did you have someone helping you with your earlier posts who is no longer giving you a hand?


----------



## Crick (Dec 4, 2018)

I repeat: nothing of YOURS can be found on any US government webistes.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 4, 2018)

Crick said:


> I repeat: nothing of YOURS can be found on any US government webistes.



So you are just a f'ing liar...you lie right in the face of evidence to the contrary...

Nothing new...No surprise..what else would a congenital liar do?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Dec 4, 2018)

Notice that warmist/alarmists completely ignored POST 64.

Snicker...…………..


----------



## Sunsettommy (Dec 4, 2018)

Crick said:


> I repeat: nothing of YOURS can be found on any US government webistes.



False, you failed to remember those comments with *direct* NASA links in them?

#79

#99

You didn't look in the link,, is that why you missed them?


----------



## Crick (Dec 4, 2018)

I repeat again: Nothing of YOURS (the contentions of SSDD) can be found on any US government website


----------



## SSDD (Dec 5, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Notice that warmist/alarmists completely ignored POST 64.
> 
> Snicker...…………..



What they believe is in great part a function of how it makes them feel.  If they actually came to terms with the fact that eliminating CFC's didn't actually fix the ozone hole, it would be a big old buzzkill...so they just ignore the fact that their initiatives did nothing...and are blissfully unaware that a very large corporation hijacked their bleeding hearts and tricked them into pushing to end CFC's so they could sell their new, not so effective, very expensive freon replacement.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 5, 2018)

Crick said:


> I repeat again: Nothing of YOURS (the contentions of SSDD) can be found on any US government website



Still a bald faced liar...and still not surprising in the least...

You are a pathetic putz skidmark...this is what you have been reduced to...mewling about my sources not being government web sites when everything I have said is supported by clips taken from government web sites.  Even when you are given the post #'s as reference, your mewling and squalling continues.  No actual arguments against anything I have said....no actual science to back you up...you are as pitiable as fort fun...it seems that you no longer have informed opinions of your own...just those given to you by people with political agendas.


----------



## Crick (Dec 5, 2018)

I and a dozen other have refuted the creations of your bizarro-world physics over and over again.  You simply ignore it.  We repeat it for the sake of the uninitiated, who might get the mistaken impression that you've the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about.  Two way energy transfer has been shown to you in multiple textbooks and other authoritative works.  Yet you pretend you saw no such thing and insist on your absolute mumbo-jumbo interpretations for one reason and one reason only: that you can use it to attack the greenhouse theory.  You are a liar and, in my lay opinion, in dire need of psychiatric care.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 5, 2018)

Crick said:


> I and a dozen other have refuted the creations of your bizarro-world physics over and over again.  You simply ignore it.  We repeat it for the sake of the uninitiated, who might get the mistaken impression that you've the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about.  Two way energy transfer has been shown to you in multiple textbooks and other authoritative works.  Yet you pretend you saw no such thing and insist on your absolute mumbo-jumbo interpretations for one reason and one reason only: that you can use it to attack the greenhouse theory.  You are a liar and, in my lay opinion, in dire need of psychiatric care.



Actually, you have refuted nothing...you have argued with unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models and claimed that to be evidence...it isn't....especially when they don't jibe with reality.

And do feel free to step on up to the plate and prove that bastardized version of the S-B law is correct...Planck got a nobel prize for his radiation law which proved the actual version of the S-B law...the one that describes one way gross energy movement from a warmer object to its cooler background...Planck's radiation law involved a radiator emitting into a cooler background...again, one way gross energy flow...so by all means, show me where Planck's radiation law described two way energy movement.

As far as it being in a textbook...again, just goes to show you how easily you are fooled...mountains of textbooks have been thrown out because what they taught turned out to be wrong...

So my assertions still stand unchallenged by anything more than the mewling of some faith based cultists without the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support any of your beliefs.


----------



## Crick (Dec 5, 2018)

And, as before, you simply continue to lie.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 6, 2018)

Crick said:


> And, as before, you simply continue to lie.



You don't seem to be able to point out any lies...nor do you seem to be able to disprove anything I have said...what you do seem to be able to do is mewl, and squall over having your ass handed to you.  

Why does O3 exist in the stratosphere?


----------



## Crick (Dec 6, 2018)

You are attempting to argue that the ozone hole is simply the result of seasonal changes in sun.  I'm afraid that argument is simply bogus bullshit.

https://www.nap.edu/read/9042/chapter/1


----------



## SSDD (Dec 6, 2018)

Crick said:


> You are attempting to argue that the ozone hole is simply the result of seasonal changes in sun.  I'm afraid that argument is simply bogus bullshit.
> 
> https://www.nap.edu/read/9042/chapter/1




Why does O3 exist in the stratosphere?  What's the matter skidmark?  Don't know or can't bear to go down the path of considering the facts?


----------



## Crick (Dec 6, 2018)

Read the link I provided.  And despite your efforts otherwise, I am aware that ozone is produced by oxygen and ultraviolet.  Now read the fucking link.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 7, 2018)

Crick said:


> Read the link I provided.  And despite your efforts otherwise, I am aware that ozone is produced by oxygen and ultraviolet.  Now read the fucking link.



You apparently didn't read your own link...or perhaps you are unable to read and comprehend.  Here, from your own link:



> The hole lasts for only two months, but its timing could not be worse. Just as sunlight awakens activity in dormant plants and animals, it also delivers a dose of harmful ultraviolet radiation. After eight weeks, the hole leaves Antarctica, only to pass over more populated areas, including New Zealand and Australia. This biologically damaging, high-energy radiation cancause skin cancer, injure eyes, harm the immune system, and upset the fragile balance of an entire ecosystem



Two months...at a time when there is very little UV entering the upper atmosphere...as the seasons move on and there is more sunlight entering the atmosphere, the hole goes away.  How do you suppose that does anything more than confirm what I have been saying?

And the fact that you believe sites like that is hard, and indisputable evidence that you are a top shelf dupe.

The gist of that paragraph is how the hole "closes up over Antarctica" and then "travels around letting the UV blast populated areas.  What bullshit.  There are enough nasa time lapse images of the hole over periods of years, to see that the hole does not "drift" around over populated areas at the end of the Antarctic winter...More solar energy enters the atmosphere and forms ozone which then closes the hole...wherever solar energy is entering the atmosphere, O3 is forming...there is no "hole" drifting around over populated areas....

The "hole" is over antarctica and to a lesser degree over the arctic...and there it stays...the sun is always and forever north of the "hole" over antarctica, and south of the "hole" over the arctic...the idea that the sun is shining through them onto populated areas is absolutely laughable and only the most ignorant sort of dupe would even entertain such a ridiculous thought... Do give me a rational explanation as to how a hole that is south of the sun, which is north of said hole, lets harmful UV down on a land mass that is also north of the hole....don't ever tell me you are educated again, because it is nothing more than a bald faced lie and the fact that you could be taken in by such pseudoscientific bullshit says all that ever needs to be said about your "education".  You are nothing more than a useful idiot.

So now that you acknowledge that O3 forms due to solar energy entering the atmosphere...and that if there is less solar energy, there will be less O3 formation, lets talk about the things that O3 will react to...there is Nitrogen at 780,000 ppm in the atmosphere, and other naturally occurring gasses and compounds, and then there are CFC's at 5 to 20 ppm.  Tell me, which do you think breaks down more O3 molecules?  Any guesses?

Tell you what...find me a satellite video showing this hole "drifting" around over populated areas where plenty of solar energy is entering the atmosphere...if such a thing existed, you should certainly have no problem finding it...  Just more pseudoscientific bullshit designed explicitly to fool stupid little goobs like you.


----------



## Crick (Dec 7, 2018)

And so the massive and perfectly maintained globe-spanning conspiracy deniers claim grows even larger.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 7, 2018)

Crick said:


> And so the massive and perfectly maintained globe-spanning conspiracy deniers claim grows even larger.


I can’t help but notice that you didn’t provide a video showing the O-Zone whole wandering around the southern hemisphere allowing you the to burn up people and populated area’s. There are certainly plenty of videos and time lapse photos provided by NASA. Yeah if your article is true, don’t  you think there would be images to prove it.

Arguing with a logical fallacy is about your speed but not very effective. Either you can provide some evidence to support your claims or you can’t. The fax support mine. Only fantasy supports yours


----------



## Crick (Dec 7, 2018)

I can't help but notice you ignore it when someone points out that your claims are blatantly unbelievable.  There is no conspiracy.  Climate scientists are not all crooks nor all fools but you are an idiot to make the contention.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 7, 2018)

Crick said:


> I can't help but notice you ignore it when someone points out that your claims are blatantly unbelievable.  There is no conspiracy.  Climate scientists are not all crooks nor all fools but you are an idiot to make the contention.



Exactly what have I said that is unbelievable?  That UV from the sun is what causes O3 to form?  That when there is less UV, there will be less O3 formation?  What exactly is unbelievable about that?  Your article makes the claim that the ozone hole wanders around when the sun starts shining over the poles in the spring....That is unbelievable...got any evidence whatsoever to back it up?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Dec 7, 2018)

From the NOAA

"Why has an “ozone hole” appeared over Antarctica when ozone- depleting substances are present throughout the stratosphere?

Ozone-depleting substances are present throughout the stratospheric ozone layer because they are transported great distances by atmospheric air motions.  The severe depletion of the Antarctic ozone layer known as the “ozone hole” occurs because of the special atmospheric and chemical conditions that exist there and nowhere else on the globe.  The very low winter temperatures in the Antarctic stratosphere cause polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) to form.  Special reactions that occur on PSCs, combined with the relative isolation of polar stratospheric air, allow chlorine and bromine reactions to produce the ozone hole in Antarctic springtime."

This is now standard 101 stuff, get over it Crick!


----------



## Crick (Dec 8, 2018)

What is it you think I need getting over?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 8, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> From the NOAA
> 
> "Why has an “ozone hole” appeared over Antarctica when ozone- depleting substances are present throughout the stratosphere?
> 
> ...



They fail to mention that in addition to naturally occurring chlorine and bromine compounds, O3 also readily reacts with Nitrogen at 780,000ppm, and hydrogen.

Back in 2007, an article was published in nature in which  an order of magnitude sized error in molecular chemistry measurement threatened to undermine the accepted explanation that CFC's caused ozone depletion.

The author of the article stated that "our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart."    Silence followed for nearly 10 years on the topic.  Rather than admit that the molecular rate change (CFC's reacting with O3) was 10 times lower than they had claimed they simply moved on allowing the public misconception to persist.

Then in 2013 NASA says that the Ozone "hole" size is naturally determined


New Results From Inside the Ozone Hole

clip:   *The classic metrics create the impression that the ozone hole has improved as a result of the Montreal protocol. In reality, meteorology was responsible for the increased ozone and resulting smaller hole*, as ozone-depleting substances that year were still elevated. The study has been submitted to the journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

Pozzuoli et al., 2013

Clip:  *The changes in meteorology (not including stratospheric variations) and natural emissions account for 75 % of the total variability of global average surface O3 concentrations.
Regionally, annual mean surface O3 concentrations increased by 1.3 and 1.6 ppbv over Europe and North America, respectively, despite the large anthropogenic emission reductions between 1980 and 2005.*


Ivy et al., 2017


*Recent research has demonstrated that the concentrations of anthropogenic halocarbons have decreased in response to the worldwide phaseout of ozone depleting substances. Yet,* *in 2015 the Antarctic ozone hole reached a historical record daily average size in October*.

The fact is that the ozone hole being anthropogenic in origin was a scam...a large chemical company hijacked the environmental agenda for the purpose of selling a more expensive, less effective refrigerant that would not have had a market so long as freon was readily available...the scare they created in conjunction with politicians still persists even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the hole is not, and never was a anthropogenic in origin.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 8, 2018)

Crick said:


> What is it you think I need getting over?




Being a dupe...believing in the scam...having no informed opinion of your own and simply spewing one given to you by someone with a political agenda.


----------



## Crick (Dec 8, 2018)

"CFCs have a lifetime in the atmosphere of about 20 to 100 years, and consequently one free chlorine atom from a CFC molecule can do a lot of damage, destroying ozone molecules for a long time. Although emissions of CFCs around the developed world have largely ceased due to international control agreements, the damage to the stratospheric ozone layer will continue well into the 21st century."

The Ozone Hole

Dupe


----------



## SSDD (Dec 8, 2018)

Crick said:


> "CFCs have a lifetime in the atmosphere of about 20 to 100 years, and consequently one free chlorine atom from a CFC molecule can do a lot of damage, destroying ozone molecules for a long time. Although emissions of CFCs around the developed world have largely ceased due to international control agreements, the damage to the stratospheric ozone layer will continue well into the 21st century."
> 
> The Ozone Hole
> 
> Dupe



And CFC's are between 5 and 20 ppm....Nitrogen which also reacts readily with O3 is 780,000ppm....tell me skid mark, what is the lifetime of a nitrogen atom in the atmosphere?  Can you do basic math?  What are the chances of an O3 molecule encountering, and reacting with a N2 molecule compared to encountering and reacting with a CFC molecule?

There is no damage to the ozone layer...there is only seasonal variation...more and more papers are exposing the scam, pointing out that the montreal protocols have done nothing...

it is somewhat humorous that a large chemical corporation hijacked your beliefs, and tricked you into believing that freon was destroying the ozone layer so they could sell a more expensive, less effective replacement...and after all this time, they still have you fooled.  You are a top shelf goob and it appears that you are incapable of changing...even when the observable evidence makes it clear that you are wrong.

As to your laughable web site...I see no mention whatsoever of how O3 is formed...nor is their any mention of the fact that CFC's are a vanishingly small part of the atmosphere that will readily react with O3...no mention at all that O3 readily reacts with natural chlorine and bromine compounds as well as Nitrogen which is over 3/4 of the atmosphere...your site is a dupe site...designed for people with no critical thinking skills...a site for people who are unable to develop an informed opinion and need to have one handed to them.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 8, 2018)

SSDD said:


> And CFC's are between 5 and 20 ppm....Nitrogen which also reacts readily with O3 is 780,000ppm.



SSDD's deranged theory that says the ozone layer instantly disappears whenever the sun sets.

However, that doesn't happen.

Hence, the real world again says that SSDD is one deluded little bitch.

And he likes it. The "being a bitch" part, at least.


----------



## TNHarley (Dec 8, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> The Montreal Protocol worked and that is what truly scares the bejeesus out of conservatives.  The Protocol which has been very successful reduced ozone emissions which led to the recovery of the ozone layer.  The reason it scares conservatives is because  it is a precursor of a frame work that can work to fight climate change.
> 
> Given how anti-science and anti-fact the conservative movement has become, the  Montreal Protocol would never, or at least be nearly impossible, to implement today  to our detriment. At least then there were still rational conservatives like George HW Bush.


You want to fight natural earth evolution?
Lol


----------



## SSDD (Dec 9, 2018)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And CFC's are between 5 and 20 ppm....Nitrogen which also reacts readily with O3 is 780,000ppm.
> ...



Again...making up arguments and railing against them.  When there is no solar radiation incoming, there is no Ozone production...ozone is a very unstable molecule which readily reacts with nitrogen and other naturally occurring molecules...the half life of an ozone molecule out in the wild is about a day and some studies find that it is as little as 30 minutes.  If ozone is breaking down and there is no incoming solar to break O2 molecules  some of which reform into O3, what do you think is happening on the dark side of the earth...tell me about the magic that you think happens which prevents this very unstable molecule from breaking down and how it might regenerate in the absence of UV incoming from the sun which is responsible for its creation in the upper atmosphere.  Lets hear it hairball

Here:  From the favorite source of warmers:

Ozone - Wikipedia

Ozone is among the most powerful oxidizing agents known, far stronger than O2. It is also unstable at high concentrations, decaying into ordinary oxygen. Its half-life varies with atmospheric conditions such as temperature, humidity, and air movement. In a sealed chamber with a fan that moves the gas, ozone has a half-life of approximately one day at room temperature.[25] Some unverified claims assert that ozone can have a half life of as short as thirty minutes under atmospheric conditions.[26]

The reference of a half life of 30 minutes comes from the Goddard Space Flight Center

– Earth Science FAQ: Where can I find information about the ozone hole and ozone depletion?

I encourage you to keep talking hairball...I find it enjoyable bitch slapping you cultists down with facts.  And there is the added bonus of demonstrating that you have no informed opinion of your own, but are simply spewing one given to you by someone with a political agenda.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 9, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Again...making up arguments and railing against them.  When there is no solar radiation incoming, there is no Ozone production...ozone is a very unstable molecule which readily reacts with nitrogen and other naturally occurring molecules...the half life of an ozone molecule out in the wild is about a day and some studies find that it is as little as 30 minutes.



Fine. I stand corrected. You crank theory states that the ozone layer disappears _shortly after_ the sun sets, as opposed to _instantly_ after the sun sets. It's still a stupid and delusional crank theory, because the ozone doesn't disappear overnight. Come morning, most of it is still there.



> I encourage you to keep talking hairball...



Pisschugger, how do you explain the inconvenient fact that the ozone layer does not disappear overnight? You're spouting even stinkier shit than usual out of your piehole.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 10, 2018)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Again...making up arguments and railing against them.  When there is no solar radiation incoming, there is no Ozone production...ozone is a very unstable molecule which readily reacts with nitrogen and other naturally occurring molecules...the half life of an ozone molecule out in the wild is about a day and some studies find that it is as little as 30 minutes.
> ...



Use your brain just a bit hairball...If incoming UV from the sun is required to maintain the ozone in the upper atmosphere...and the half life of an ozone molecule in ideal conditions at room temperature is a day, what do you think is happening to the ozone layer when the sun sets?  Even if we give it a half life of 8 hours vs the 30 minutes or so that the Goddard space center said, how much ozone will be left when the earth spins back into the oncoming UV....use your brain if you can...I don't expect that you can, but do try...maybe you can find an adult to help you out...or maybe even a moderately bright child could help you figure this one out.  Children generally have pretty good critical thinking skills till the modern education system breaks that sort of thinking down so they can keep up their steady output of compliant little drones.


----------



## Crick (Dec 10, 2018)

A question for those of you suggesting that CFCs are not responsible for decreasing ozone levels in the stratosphere: Do you believe that chlorine and bromine do NOT catalyze the O3 > O + O2 reaction?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 10, 2018)

Crick said:


> A question for those of you suggesting that CFCs are not responsible for decreasing ozone levels in the stratosphere: Do you believe that chlorine and bromine do NOT catalyze the O3 > O + O2 reaction?



The real question skidmark...the one that really matters is "if dangerous incoming UV energy is expended breaking O2 molecules apart, exactly what is O3 doing?  It is a highly unstable molecule which doesn't take much UV energy to break compared to O2.  So, it is actually O2 which is protecting us from the vast bulk of dangerous UV...O3 is a result of that protective process.

And chlorine, and bromine are produced naturally and like CFC's are a very small part of the atmosphere...unlike nitrogen which readily reacts with O3 and is 78% of the atmosphere...780,000 ppm vs what for chlorine, bromine and man made CFC's


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 10, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > A question for those of you suggesting that CFCs are not responsible for decreasing ozone levels in the stratosphere: Do you believe that chlorine and bromine do NOT catalyze the O3 > O + O2 reaction?
> ...


So, have any of you geniuses upended the global scientific community yet?

What's that you say? No? You are publishing no science and have no education or experience on any of these fields whatsoever?

Okay, I'll check back.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Oh look...the puppet with no informed opinion of his own returns.

It is truly unfortunate that you believe science is inaccessible to anyone without a specific education in a given field.  Especially something as simple as the ozone layer.  You have been provided with all the information you could possibly need to understand the ozone layer. Here is an illustration that even a child could understand and yet, it explains the ozone layer well enough to grasp what is going on up there. The high energy UV from the sun breaks O2 molecules in to free O molecules...some of which react with O2 molecules forming O3 which is a highly unstable molecule with a half life of something between 8 hours and 30 minutes up in the open atmosphere of the stratosphere.  O2 being a very stable molecule is quite difficult to break so a great deal of UV is converted into heat in the process of breaking them.  O3 molecules are very unstable and readily react with nitrogen which is 780,000 ppm and chlorine and bromine, and of course, CFC's which exist up there at something between 5 and 20 ppm.  In addition, a much smaller amount of UV can also break them than it takes to break an O2 molecule.

In terms of energy conversion, from UV to heat, O2 is what protects us from harmful UV...O3 is a result, not a cause.  Here, is an explanation that you may be able to grasp the last few sentences of the first paragraph may be helpful..

Chapter 5 Section 3


Well, as simple as that is, it may well be way over your head.  Unfortunate.  Did you even graduate from high school?

And again, what is there to publish?  You think a person can only grasp science if they are published?  In your mind, is being published some sort of holy grail that bestows infallibility upon the author?  All of the information you need to grasp what is happening in the ozone layer can be found in a junior high level earth science book.


----------



## Crick (Dec 11, 2018)

You have not addressed the simple question.  Do you believe that chlorine and bromine in the atmosphere acts as catalyzing agents for the breakdown of ozone.  Hint: it's a fucking YES or NO question.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2018)

Crick said:


> You have not addressed the simple question.  Do you believe that chlorine and bromine in the atmosphere acts as catalyzing agents for the breakdown of ozone.  Hint: it's a fucking YES or NO question.



I count 5 posts in this thread so far where I have answered that question...What's the matter skidmark?  Can't read?


----------



## Crick (Dec 11, 2018)

I count none coward


----------



## Crick (Dec 11, 2018)

What do you think would happen to the average daily levels of O3 if you increase the levels of catalytic breakdown agents five-fold?


----------



## Crick (Dec 11, 2018)




----------



## Crick (Dec 11, 2018)




----------



## Crick (Dec 11, 2018)




----------



## SSDD (Dec 12, 2018)

Crick said:


> I count none coward



I guess that is because you really can't read.  You just get more stupid as time goes on.  Since you clearly don't have an adult around who is willing to help you read, here, let me lend you a hand.

#79  _"Because ozone and free oxygen atoms are highly unstable, they react very easily with nitrogen, hydrogen, chlorine, and bromine compounds that are found naturally in Earth's atmosphere"_

#153  "They fail to mention that in addition to naturally occurring chlorine and bromine compounds, O3 also readily reacts with Nitrogen at 780,000ppm, and hydrogen."

#156   "no mention at all that O3 readily reacts with natural chlorine and bromine compounds as well as Nitrogen which is over 3/4 of the atmosphere"

#163  " And chlorine, and bromine are produced naturally and like CFC's are a very small part of the atmosphere...unlike nitrogen which readily reacts with O3 and is 78% of the atmosphere...780,000 ppm vs what for chlorine, bromine and man made CFC's"

#165  " O3 molecules are very unstable and readily react with nitrogen which is 780,000 ppm and chlorine and bromine, and of course, CFC's which exist up there at something between 5 and 20 ppm."


You have ceased to even be interesting any more skid mark...Now you are just plain old stupid..  Hell, you don't even read.  You just look at who posted it and decide from that whether you agree or not...and as to supporting your position..you don't even get close.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 12, 2018)

Crick said:


> What do you think would happen to the average daily levels of O3 if you increase the levels of catalytic breakdown agents five-fold?



Did you look at your graph...never mind, you can't even read a graph.  Did you notice that CFC's increased from less than one to all the way up to slightly over three PARTS PER BILLION?  *PARTS PER BILLION you idiot.*

Ozone readily reacts with nitrogen which is 780,000 parts per million in the stratosphere, hydrogen at .1ppm, Natural sources of chlorine and bromine also have much greater concentrations in the atmosphere.  You are so easily fooled by the pretty colors...Try actually reading something once in a while.  Engineer...what a laugh.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 12, 2018)

Crick said:


>



Interesting, your graph has zero uncertainty range from 1964 to 1981 and then ever increasing uncertainly up to 2002....that sounds like good science in your mind?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 12, 2018)

_


Crick said:







Click to expand...


This graph just supports my arguments...Ozone production in the stratosphere is seasonal...and the fact that ozone production is driven by UV frequencies and the sun's output in any given frequency can vary from year to year, there is little surprise that there would be variations in ozone from year to year.

I took the time to find a source that provided some pretty good information regarding the formation of O3 in the upper atmosphere.  The facts of O3 production, coupled with the fact that the "hole" isn't getting appreciably smaller just don't support the alarmist narrative.

The source is the Center for Coastal Physical Oceanography at ODU

Chapter 5 Section 3

" Ultraviolet light has wavelengths of 1 nm to 400 nm. If we imagine molecules as collections of tennis balls joined together by some adhesive material, then the photon energy needed to break the adhesive bond depends on the strength of the adhesive material. In the case of oxygen molecules, the bond is quite strong (e.g., the tennis balls are joined with Krazy glue). Hence, the photon required to break this bond must be very energetic. The chemical bonds between the oxygen atoms in ozone, however, are much weaker than those found in molecular oxygen (e.g., the tennis balls are joined with Scotch tape). As a result, less energetic photons, meaning those with longer wavelengths, can break apart ozone molecules. In order to understand how photons interact with oxygen and ozone molecules, we must understand the concept of absorption cross-section."

"Here, J is the photolysis rate coefficient, and [O3] is the ozone density. The photolysis rate generally depends upon the absorption cross-section of ozone and the number of incident photons at the necessary wavelengths. The number of photons in turn depends upon a number of other parameters: altitude, latitude, season, and time of day. All four of these parameters implicitly depend on the solar zenith angle (the angle between the rays of sunlight reaching Earth's surface and the overhead direction, known as the zenith)."_

_*3.3.2 Ozone photolysis: dependence on latitude *-- The dependence of photolysis rates on latitude is really just an extension of the altitude argument above. Figure 5.08 illustrates the dependence of photolysis on latitude for two observers: one near the equator and one much further poleward. Consider the position of the Sun in the sky at noontime over both locations. The Sun appears much higher in the sky to our tropical observer than to our observer at middle latitudes. Now consider the path that a ray of sunlight must travel to reach these two observers. The path through Earth's atmosphere is much longer in the middle latitudes than in the tropics. Recall that the important quantity in the altitude dependence was the number of ozone molecules overhead which had the chance to interact with the incident radiation. The longer the path that light must travel through the atmosphere, the more molecules the light will encounter, the more photons that get absorbed. So at a given altitude, we expect the photolysis rate to decrease as you move poleward away from the tropics._

_*3.3.3 Ozone photolysis: seasonal dependence -- Since the photolysis rate depends on the angle of the Sun, it's not surprising that photolysis rates also depend upon the seasons*. The Sun is much higher in the sky overhead during the summer than during the winter, as demonstrated by Figure 5.09. The path length of light from the Sun through Earth's atmosphere will therefore be shorter in summer than winter. The shorter the path length at a given location, the less absorption of UV photons occurs, and the greater the photolysis rate. *So at a given altitude, we expect photolysis rates to have maximum values during summer when the path length is shorter and minimum values during winter when the path length is longer. A seasonal cycle is therefore observed in photolysis rates*.

This one should be particularly interesting to the hairball since she seems to think that the ozone layer maintains itself by some magical process when there is no UV entering the atmosphere on the dark side of the earth and that ozone lasts forever till a CFC molecule comes along to break it down.
_
*3.3.4 Ozone photolysis: diurnal dependence* -- Finally, a diurnal cycle must also exist, as illustrated in *Figure 5.10*.* At night when there is no sunlight, photolysis rates drop to zero.* In the morning and late afternoon, the Sun is lower in the sky than near noontime. The path lengths are therefore relatively long at sunrise and sunset and short at noontime. Not surprisingly, photolysis rates for a given altitude and latitude are faster at noontime than at sunrise and sunset.

Couple that with the time O3 molecules last in the atmosphere.

We've already defined the *lifetime* of an odd oxygen molecule as the amount of time between its creation and destruction. We will now explore the concept of the lifetime of a molecule in more detail.

_Another way of thinking about the lifetime of a molecule is to view it as the average amount of time the molecule spends in the atmosphere before it either chemically reacts with another molecule or is broken down by sunlight (photolysis). Since we've already seen that photolysis is dependent upon a number of variables (altitude, latitude, season, and time of day) and that chemical reactions are dependent upon temperature and the amount of available reactants, the lifetimes of molecules are also going to vary with changes in any of these quantities. *Using typical values for the daytime, middle latitude, lower stratosphere, we find a lifetime for O atoms of about 0.002 second and for O3 molecules of about 1000 seconds.* These short lifetimes are telling us that ozone molecules don't survive very long *(less than 20 minutes) and that O atoms are snapped up nearly the moment they are formed!*

The above discussion may prompt us to ask: if ozone molecules have such short lifetimes, why isn't the atmosphere completely depleted of ozone? When sunlight is present and energetic photons are reaching the upper atmosphere, oxygen molecules are constantly torn apart, freeing O atoms. *These O atoms react with O2 on very short timescales to form O3.* *So despite rapid photolysis of ozone, the creation of ozone is also rapid. The result is that, on average, the local amount of stratospheric ozone does not change very much.*

Similarly, O atoms have even shorter lifetimes than ozone. Although they are around for only a fraction of a second, they are constantly being formed by photolysis of O2 (slow) and O3 (fast). In our simple Chapman atmosphere, the destruction of O3 results in the creation of an O atom, while the loss of the O atom involves the creation of O3. Hence, the combined number of O and O3 (i.e., odd oxygen) molecules changes very slowly, since they are constantly being swapped. Recalling our definition of odd oxygen, Ox, we have in terms of amounts,

[Ox] = [O] + [O3]
While Ox is useful conceptually, at most stratospheric altitudes the O+O2 reaction is so fast that the [O] concentrations are very small (less than 1 percent of the total odd oxygen), and we can approximate [OX] with [O3].

The overall lifetime of Ox (either as ozone or free oxygen atom) can be computed from our Chapman chemistry. OX has a lifetime of 2 months at about 32 km in the northern middle latitudes during spring. *The lifetime of free oxygen at the same altitude is about 4/100ths of a second, while O3 has a lifetime of about 3100 seconds (nearly an hour). At 20 km, the lifetime of O3 is about 4200 seconds, while the lifetime of O is about 1/1000 of a second. *This is schematically illustrated in Figure 5.05, which shows the slow steady production of ozone on the left of the figure, and the rapid exchange between O and O3 or the right hand side of the figure._

The facts of ozone formation, the life span of ozone molecules in the open atmosphere, and the fact that ozone readily reacts with nitrogen at 780,000ppm  and your oh so deadly CFC's, according to your sources are somewhere around 3.2 PARTS PER BILLION, the alarmist narrative simply does not hold water.


----------



## Dale Smith (Dec 12, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> The idea that the treaty negotiated and enacted by George HW Bush was a precursor to the global warming movement  whatever that means is so totally whacked as to defy logic and a rational excuse.


 

That started long before GHW Bush.....try the think tank group that met convened at a military bunker known as "Iron Mountain" in Massachusetts. The "Iron Mountain Report" has been reported to be a hoax a few years after it's release in 1967. Since I have read it and seeing how this rather detailed (and extremely boring and technical in many places) with predictions that in 1967 would seem to be that of science fiction? I can (and with tremendous confidence) attest to the authenticity of the document. I am further validated by the formation of the "Club Of Rome", an offshoot of the U.N where they developed the idea for "Sustainable Development" and "Limits To Growth" agenda where the idea for Agenda 21 (Agenda for the 21st Century) was planned. 21 years later at the U.N Rio conference in 1992, this plan was passed and signed off by all leaders of the developed nations. 

Like the conclusions derived from the Iron Mountain Report, humanity would need to have a common enemy to unite against in order to persuade them that the only way to avoid extinction of humankind was to present an environmental threat. Pollution/ Climate Change/ Global Warming was declared as being the best case scenario and that it would require the acceleration of this threat by intentionally polluting the planet via clandestine means.

Don't take my word for it.....look up "Iron Mountain Report", look up the agenda of the Club of Rome and do a Google search of their quotes and in particular those of Maurice Strong.....


----------



## SSDD (Dec 12, 2018)

Dale Smith said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > The idea that the treaty negotiated and enacted by George HW Bush was a precursor to the global warming movement  whatever that means is so totally whacked as to defy logic and a rational excuse.
> ...



Guess they got their idea from Orwell's 1984 published in the 1940's...The two story lines are remarkably similar.


----------



## Crick (Dec 12, 2018)

You have zero evidence that the Club of Rome's "Limits to Growth" or the UN's Agenda 21 set the stage for the IPCC and concerns about global warming.  The central discussion of both documents is resource depletion and the increasing demands of increasing population.  I am certain all the whack jobs here who think the UN is trying to take over the world on behalf of socialist third world nations will turn a deaf ear, but we need to try.

Once again, the science doesn't care what you think.  The world is going to do what the principles of chemistry and physics say it's going to do.  In the face of increasing GHG emissions, the world will continue to warm at an unprecedented rate, sea levels will continue to rise and the mechanical, biological and ecological metasystems and infra structures on which human culture's current state of existence depend, will continue to fail.


----------



## Dale Smith (Dec 12, 2018)

Crick said:


> You have zero evidence that the Club of Rome's "Limits to Growth" or the UN's Agenda 21 set the stage for the IPCC and concerns about global warming.  The central discussion of both documents is resource depletion and the increasing demands of increasing population.  I am certain all the whack jobs here who think the UN is trying to take over the world on behalf of socialist third world nations will turn a deaf ear, but we need to try.
> 
> Once again, the science doesn't care what you think.  The world is going to do what the principles of chemistry and physics say it's going to do.  In the face of increasing GHG emissions, the world will continue to warm at an unprecedented rate, sea levels will continue to rise and the mechanical, biological and ecological metasystems and infra structures on which human culture's current state of existence depend, will continue to fail.



I have their own quotes going back to the early 70's. I can post the section of the Iron Mountain Report that specifically mentions how an environmental crisis could be used as an existential threat thus uniting them to acquiesce to a world government.

Help me, help you.......


----------



## Dale Smith (Dec 12, 2018)

Here is a post that I wrote in 2015...it's very detailed. Let me know if you have questions.....

This global/climate change is all b.s. This was a plan thought up by the think tank group that wrote the Iron Mountain Report back in the mid to late 60's. The Club Of Rome, an offshoot of the U.N was created and commissioned by the Committee of 300 to start pushing what the architects of the Iron Mountain Report said must happen if global governance was to become a reality. Here is a quote from the final draft: "It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution.However unlikely some of the possible alternate enemies we have mentioned may seem, we must emphasize that one must be found, of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration.... It is more probable, in our judgment, that such a threat will have to be invented, rather than developed from unknown conditions."

Now here is a quote from the Club Of Rome in 1972 : "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."

Maurice Strong, Club Of Rome member and a once high ranking official with the U.N had some very alarming things to say as well:“Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?”
"Current lifestyle and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning and suburban housing – are not sustainable. A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations". 

These U.N funded scientists have already been busted for fudging numbers and manipulating the numbers to try and make a case that there is an increase in temperatures when the opposite is happening due to the geo-engineering that has been going on in earnest since at least 1997. Using aerosol spraying in conjunction with ionospheric heaters, they have been creating weird weather anomalies that they then blame on "climate change" because they had to stop using "global warming" because it didn't fit the narrative. Wake up and open your eyes and realize that you are being played for a sucker and none of this will bode well for any of us if these draconian rules and regulations are placed on us and all in the name of saving "Mother Earth". I suggest that you do a little research on Agenda 21 and look at the map that they propose for America....lots of little blue squares where the serfs will be allowed to live while 50 percent of America is off limits. This is real and this is happening.
They have been using geoengineering to create these weird weather patterns by spraying nano-particulates of barium, strontium and aluminum into the upper atmosphere and then using ionospheric heaters to heat up those particles in order to manipulate the jet stream. They can only create high pressure zones but can use them to squash low pressure zones. Weather modification has been a goal of the military industrial complex since the 1940's to use it as a force multiplier. You should listen to me because I have dedicated thousands upon thousands of hours reading everything I can get my hands on and researching it.


----------



## Crick (Dec 12, 2018)

Q: What do you call someone who uses this as an argument:  "due to the geo-engineering that has been going on in earnest since at least 1997. Using aerosol spraying in conjunction with ionospheric heaters, they have been creating weird weather anomalies that they then blame on "climate change" because they had to stop using "global warming" because it didn't fit the narrative"

A: Whack-job


----------



## Dale Smith (Dec 12, 2018)

Crick said:


> Q: What do you call someone who uses this as an argument:  "due to the geo-engineering that has been going on in earnest since at least 1997. Using aerosol spraying in conjunction with ionospheric heaters, they have been creating weird weather anomalies that they then blame on "climate change" because they had to stop using "global warming" because it didn't fit the narrative"
> 
> A: Whack-job



But yet? It's happening....you can keep screaming "It's your fucking car that is killing Mother Gaia!!!! to the hills and back but you are just pissing into a rather strong breeze. Owning the weather and using it as a force multiplier for full spectrum dominance has always been something that the military industrial complex has coveted.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2018)

Dale Smith said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Q: What do you call someone who uses this as an argument:  "due to the geo-engineering that has been going on in earnest since at least 1997. Using aerosol spraying in conjunction with ionospheric heaters, they have been creating weird weather anomalies that they then blame on "climate change" because they had to stop using "global warming" because it didn't fit the narrative"
> ...




Regardless of what the skidmark says, he is glad that you stopped in to talk...it gives him an opportunity to avoid facing the fact that he had his ass handed to him on the topic of ozone.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 13, 2018)

MarathonMike said:


> The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.



Are you some kind of a retard.  

The thing was, that because we banned CFC, the damage done to the Ozone layer was reversed.  Ozone is created through a natural process of sunlight converting normal oxygen (O2) into Ozone (O3). The reason why it is thinner at the poles is that those areas get less sunlight for a large portion of the year. 

So we banned CFC's, and the problem as solved... 

You know, wow, we put aside greed and fixed a problem. This is what horrifies the right.  They think all problems can be fixed with greed and Jesus.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 13, 2018)

Dale Smith said:


> This global/climate change is all b.s. This was a plan thought up by the think tank group that wrote the Iron Mountain Report back in the mid to late 60's. The Club Of Rome, an offshoot of the U.N was created and commissioned by the Committee of 300 to start pushing what the architects of the Iron Mountain Report



Oh, is that what it is?  

So when I see that the climate here in Chicago, where we used to have really cold winters and now some winters, we are lucky if we see snow at all... this is all a conspiracy by the shadowy club of Rome or whoever you see when the medications aren't working.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.
> ...



The ozone hole is not, and was not fixed...it never was a man made issue.  While it is true that CFC's can break an ozone molecule, CFC's at the time the montreal protocols were instituted existed in the stratosphere at a concentration of a touch over 3 parts per BILLION....that according to the graph provided above...CFC's aren't the only thing ozone reacts with...ozone readily reacts with nitrogen which exists in the stratosphere at about 780,000 parts per million...now tell me, which is likely to break more ozone molecules, CFC's at 3 parts per BILLION or nitrogen at 780,000 parts per MILLION.

Like you noted, the hole exists because there is less UV entering the stratosphere at the poles during their winters..we can not fix it unless we can figure out how to flood the polar skys with UV during their winters.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The ozone hole is not, and was not fixed...it never was a man made issue. While it is true that CFC's can break an ozone molecule, CFC's at the time the montreal protocols were instituted existed in the stratosphere at a concentration of a touch over 3 parts per BILLION....that according to the graph provided above...CFC's aren't the only thing ozone reacts with...ozone readily reacts with nitrogen which exists in the stratosphere at about 780,000 parts per million...now tell me, which is likely to break more ozone molecules, CFC's at 3 parts per BILLION or nitrogen at 780,000 parts per MILLION.



AGAIN, I'll take the word of scientists over someone who listens to hate radio all day, thanks.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > This global/climate change is all b.s. This was a plan thought up by the think tank group that wrote the Iron Mountain Report back in the mid to late 60's. The Club Of Rome, an offshoot of the U.N was created and commissioned by the Committee of 300 to start pushing what the architects of the Iron Mountain Report
> ...




It is always a losing proposition to rely on your own memory for climate information.  It never fails that your short view of history will turn out to be dead wrong.  Here, have a look at the snow fall history of chicago since 1884....your short view of the snowfall history of chicago is terribly flawed.  The link below is for snowfall...if you bother to look up the temperature history of chicago, you will find that your anecdotal evidence of temperature is also quite wrong.  The seasonal temperatures in the outlying areas around chicago don't show any appreciable warming at all...in the city, a heat island effect is working due to concrete, traffic, etc.  It is a local effect however, and not to be confused with global anything.

Chicago, IL Seasonal Snowfall Amounts from 1884 to present!


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


> It is always a losing proposition to rely on your own memory for climate information. It never fails that your short view of history will turn out to be dead wrong. Here, have a look at the snow fall history of chicago since 1884....your short view of the snowfall history of chicago is terribly flawed.



again, going to believe my own eyes rather than some twit who listens to Hate Radio all day.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The ozone hole is not, and was not fixed...it never was a man made issue. While it is true that CFC's can break an ozone molecule, CFC's at the time the montreal protocols were instituted existed in the stratosphere at a concentration of a touch over 3 parts per BILLION....that according to the graph provided above...CFC's aren't the only thing ozone reacts with...ozone readily reacts with nitrogen which exists in the stratosphere at about 780,000 parts per million...now tell me, which is likely to break more ozone molecules, CFC's at 3 parts per BILLION or nitrogen at 780,000 parts per MILLION.
> ...



Not a student of history huh?  Do some reading sometime.  Historically speaking, with no scientific education whatsoever, you stand a better than even chance of being right if you choose the opposite side of a scientific arguement than that supported by the consensus in any relatively new field of science...climate science being one where the surface has barely been scratched.

And I don't listen to radio at all...so your tendency to assign some political whatever to people based on what they say to you is as wrong as your perception of that the climate has always been like in chicago.  I can back up my position on the ozone hole, and in fact, did above.  Feel free to read and perhaps, just perhaps, apply just a bit of critical thinking if you possess any of that skill at all and learn something...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It is always a losing proposition to rely on your own memory for climate information. It never fails that your short view of history will turn out to be dead wrong. Here, have a look at the snow fall history of chicago since 1884....your short view of the snowfall history of chicago is terribly flawed.
> ...



Again...I don't listen to any radio...and how smart is it to go with your very short view of history  vs long records that show clearly that you are wrong?  And you guys call us skeptics deniers...you won't even accept recorded facts if they challenge your beliefs.

Guess you don't realize that your entire position, and defense of that position has thus far been nothing but logical fallacy?  Do you have any critical thinking skills at all?


----------



## cnm (Dec 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


> *3. The "hole's" in the ozone are larger during the winter months....this is because O3 production is reduced because there is less UV entering the stratosphere over the poles during the winter.*


And you said less sun hit Antarctica in its winter than hit the Arctic in its winter. How can it get more hilarious as an explanation to the larger ozone 'hole' over Antarctica?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2018)

By the way...not that someone like you would ever research, but the whole ozone hole scam was the result of greed...dupont had a very expensive, less effective refrigerant that they couldn't sell...so they hijacked the environmental movement, bought some politicians and got freon banned so they could make billions on their freon "replacement".

It is somewhat funny that people like you think replacing a perfectly good, inexpensive refrigerant with an inferior, more expensive refrigerant was about the greed of the manufacturer of the refrigerant that got replaced...laughable..and again, shows a complete absence of critical thinking skills.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Not a student of history huh? Do some reading sometime. Historically speaking, with no scientific education whatsoever, you stand a better than even chance of being right if you choose the opposite side of a scientific arguement than that supported by the consensus in any relatively new field of science...climate science being one where the surface has barely been scratched.



Look, buddy, I know that the Koch brothers spend a lot of money getting you to ignore science and stuff, but again, I really don't have time to waste with you luddites.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2018)

cnm said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > *3. The "hole's" in the ozone are larger during the winter months....this is because O3 production is reduced because there is less UV entering the stratosphere over the poles during the winter.*
> ...



That is one factor...then there is the fact that ground level in antarctica is far higher there than in the arctic...there are multiple reasons but the fact is, the holes appear in the winters because there is less sunlight.  You guys have the strangest notions about ozone.  Look above, at the post with all the blue...and learn something about ozone...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Not a student of history huh? Do some reading sometime. Historically speaking, with no scientific education whatsoever, you stand a better than even chance of being right if you choose the opposite side of a scientific arguement than that supported by the consensus in any relatively new field of science...climate science being one where the surface has barely been scratched.
> ...



Actually, my position is based on science...I have provided plenty of it through the course of this thread to support my position...you on the other hand clearly have no informed opinion on the topic but instead, simply spew an opinion given to you by someone with a political agenda...

And you clearly don't have any time to waste learning about the nature of ozone, its formation, and what breaks it down.


----------



## cnm (Dec 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


> That is one factor.


Unbelievable. He doubled down on Antarctica receiving less sunlight than the Arctic! Because of the Earth's tilt was the explanation, as I recall!!!


----------



## cnm (Dec 13, 2018)

Right here.





SSDD said:


> The "holes" vary in size from summer to winter over each pole with them being larger during each respective winter...and the "hole" is always larger over the south pole because it receives less solar energy than the north due to the tilt of the earth.


----------



## cnm (Dec 13, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Actually, my position is based on science


My ribs, my ribs!


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2018)

cnm said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, my position is based on science
> ...




Let me guess...you are stupid enough to believe the ozone scam.


----------



## cnm (Dec 13, 2018)

You say it's 'tilted'?


----------



## cnm (Dec 13, 2018)

You won't admit your most egregious errors, let alone your more subtle ones. Science based!


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2018)

cnm said:


> You say it's 'tilted'?



Are you saying that the earth isn't tilted on its axis?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2018)

cnm said:


> You won't admit your most egregious errors, let alone your more subtle ones. Science based!



And you apparently aren't able to discuss the topic at all.  How unsurprising is that?

Ozone forms as a result of incoming UV breaking O2 molecules into O atoms...some of which form O3 molecules
The Life span of an O molecule at 20km is about 0.002 seconds and at 32 km, it is about 0.04 seconds...those O atoms become O2 again, or O3 in small fractions of a second.
When there is no incoming UV, there is no ozone formation
The life span of an O3 molecule at 20km is about 1000 seconds
The life span of an O3 molecule at 32km is about 4200 seconds
I repeat, when there is no incoming UV, there is no production of O3
Now...use your brain for just a minute if you are able.  If there is no production of O3 when there is no incoming UV and if the lifespan of an O3 molecule in the stratosphere, depending on altitude is somewhere between 1000 and 4200 seconds, How much O3 do you think is left in the atmosphere on the dark side of earth....say 20 minutes before the first UV of the day hits the atmosphere and O3 production begins again?

Now...how does that relate to the "ozone holes" over the polar regions during their respective winters?


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Let me guess...you are stupid enough to believe the ozone scam.



again, who you going to believe... Scientists or some guy who listens to whatever shit the Koch Brothers have ladeled out to him on Hate Radio. 

here's the real problem.  We solved a problem through international agreement and government regulation. We found alternatives to CFC's and we barely noticed the difference.  

You see, there used to be a time when Conservatives accepted science. Maybe they disagreed with liberals on Government vs. Free Market solutions, but they didn't pretend a problem didn't exist.

So Nixon created the EPA to stop pollution and Ronald Reagan, that Godless Commie Lover, signed the Montreal Protocol to reduce CFC's. 

That was before the Koch-Suckers took over the GOP and got into the crazy of " Well, if Science limits the ability of rich people to make an obscene profit, we oppose it!  Fuck Science!"


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> again, who you going to believe... Scientists or some guy who listens to whatever shit the Koch Brothers have ladeled out to him on Hate Radio.



Hey, it is the guy with no informed opinion of his own again.  Tell me, do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your claims regarding my radio listening habits?  Didn't think so.  



JoeB131 said:


> here's the real problem.  We solved a problem through international agreement and government regulation. We found alternatives to CFC's and we barely noticed the difference.



Which problem?  The "hole" has always been there during the polar winter.  It is a naturally occurring phenomenon.  Exactly which problem do you think we fixed?  As to hardly noticing a difference, talk to engineers in the refrigeration business.  The replacements are less efficient than freon and therefore more energy is required to do the same work as was possible with freon.  



JoeB131 said:


> You see, there used to be a time when Conservatives accepted science. Maybe they disagreed with liberals on Government vs. Free Market solutions, but they didn't pretend a problem didn't exist.



Conservatives do accept science...generally speaking though, conservatives are more informed than liberals in the sciences and as such, are better able to recognize, and separate pseudoscience from actual science...and generally, we don't confuse politics for science...and we take the time to research topics in an attempt to get to the facts of the matter.

This difference is obvious in the conversation between us.  I am perfectly willing to discuss the science, and am in fact, eager to do so because should you ever come to understand the science, you also will be skeptical of the claims in regard to the ozone holes.  You, however apparently can't discuss the science at all since the opinion that was given to you by whoever gave it to you didn't include any actual knowledge about the formation of ozone in the atmosphere, or how long an O3 molecule exists before it breaks up or anything else.  You apparently are confined to making guesses about what I do in my free time and arguing with a series of logical fallacies.



JoeB131 said:


> So Nixon created the EPA to stop pollution and Ronald Reagan, that Godless Commie Lover, signed the Montreal Protocol to reduce CFC's.



And you believe that accomplished what?  And what actual evidence do you have to support the belief?



JoeB131 said:


> That was before the Koch-Suckers took over the GOP and got into the crazy of " Well, if Science limits the ability of rich people to make an obscene profit, we oppose it!  Fuck Science!"



Again...I am perfectly willing to discuss the science...it is you who is locked in politics and is doing nothing but expressing political opinions?  And again, the montreal protocols allowed Dupont to make obscene profits selling an expensive, less efficient refrigerant that they couldn't sell at all while freon was still on the market.  The environmental movement was hijacked by Dupont for fun and profit and since you don't know the first thing about the ozone hole, you accept the scam as real, and instantly dislike anyone who points out to you the fact that you were scammed.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Hey, it is the guy with no informed opinion of his own again. Tell me, do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your claims regarding my radio listening habits? Didn't think so.



You mean other than the mindless talking points you blurt out? 



SSDD said:


> Again...I am perfectly willing to discuss the science...it is you who is locked in politics and is doing nothing but expressing political opinions? And again, the montreal protocols allowed Dupont to make obscene profits selling an expensive, less efficient refrigerant that they couldn't sell at all while freon was still on the market. The environmental movement was hijacked by Dupont for fun and profit and since you don't know the first thing about the ozone hole, you accept the scam as real, and instantly dislike anyone who points out to you the fact that you were scammed.



Naw, man, I really don't think DuPont has enough money to buy off all the scientists all over the world who agreed this was a real problem. Most of us barely noticed Freon went off the market... and my family has worked in HVAC for 70 years.  

And whenever someone talks about "vast conspiracies" then I just can't take them fucking seriously.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, it is the guy with no informed opinion of his own again. Tell me, do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your claims regarding my radio listening habits? Didn't think so.
> ...



Guess you didn't read through the thread...I have provided material from NASA, NOAA, ODU, etc...to support my position..It is you who is spewing the typical talking points about koch brothers and deniers, and whatever other political opinion you have been given.



JoeB131 said:


> Naw, man, I really don't think DuPont has enough money to buy off all the scientists all over the world who agreed this was a real problem. Most of us barely noticed Freon went off the market... and my family has worked in HVAC for 70 years.



Guess you don't know much about the history of science either...Seems you don't know much about anything..which might explain why you have to get an opinion given to you.  Scientists are supposed to be natural skeptics..hell, even today, there is a raging debate over what causes gravity.  Very little can bring a bunch of natural skeptics into agreement...at the top of the list is money...governments have a great deal of it to pass around to those who support the narrative.

Like I said, if you actually grasped any of the science, you would have your doubts about the "crisis"...but apparently you are so uneducated, that you believe even easy science like that concerning ozone is beyond your reach...to bad...



JoeB131 said:


> And whenever someone talks about "vast conspiracies" then I just can't take them fucking seriously.



Guess history isn't your thing either...You think conspiracies don't exist?  You don't think multiple tens of trillions of dollars could fuel one?  You are more naive than I first thought.

Let me know if you wan't to try and get a handle on the very basic science of ozone...who knows, a bit of actual knowledge might alter your world view.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 14, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Guess you didn't read through the thread..



No, I really don't waste time on denier talking points.  But I will happily validate to the Koch Brothers that you gave it your bet shot. 



SSDD said:


> Guess history isn't your thing either...You think conspiracies don't exist? You don't think multiple tens of trillions of dollars could fuel one? You are more naive than I first thought.



Oh, no. There are no "conspiracies', there are rich guys like the Koch brothers who figured out they can fund bullshit skeptics to keep government from acting for our survival.  So pretending that that Ozone crisis wasn't a thing was part of that.


----------



## Crick (Dec 14, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Guess you didn't read through the thread..
> ...




I am always astounded at the folks that think that every single scientist on the planet has chosen to put their careers if not risk jail time in order to obtain research funding, none of which will go into their own pockets WHILE COMPLETELY IGNORING THE MOTIVATION THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY HAS TO COUNTER CONCERNS ABOUT AGW.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Guess you didn't read through the thread..
> ...



So speaks ignorance.  Can't help you if you aren't willing to learn.




JoeB131 said:


> Oh, no. There are no "conspiracies', there are rich guys like the Koch brothers who figured out they can fund bullshit skeptics to keep government from acting for our survival.  So pretending that that Ozone crisis wasn't a thing was part of that.



So you don't think that it is possible for a large corporation to buy politicians who then act in the interest of the corporation?  You accused me of blurting out talking points, but thus far, you are the only one blurting out talking points...Unwilling to discuss the reality of ozone.  Typical of liberals to accuse others of precisely what they are doing.  Gobbels was particularly good at that particular tactic.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2018)

Crick said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You had your ass handed to you on the topic of ozone...you have been given a plethora of facts about ozone that call the whole "crisis" into question and still you choose to believe in the purity of government funded scientists.  How blind is that skidmark?

And if you were any sort of student of history, you would know that people are always willing to put their careers at risk, and take a chance at jail time in order to aquire money, power, notoriety, and the admiration of their peers.  Compare the resources of government to the resources of the evil oil companies...oil is mom and pop when compared to the resources of government...

And in case you didn't notice, oil is making plenty of money off of climate change...


----------



## mamooth (Dec 14, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Use your brain just a bit hairball...If incoming UV from the sun is required to maintain the ozone in the upper atmosphere...and the half life of an ozone molecule in ideal conditions at room temperature is a day,



See if you can figure out the obvious flaw in your argument from that sentence. Go on, give it a try.

...

...

...

No? I'll have give you a hint. What's the temperature in the stratosphere? Is it warmer or colder than room temperature?

Why yes, it's very much colder.

Ozone at the top of the stratosphere, where it's warmer, does have a short half life. Ozone at the bottom of the stratosphere, where it's frigid, lasts for months.

https://www.epj-conferences.org/articles/epjconf/pdf/2009/01/epjconf1010.pdf
---
From 40km to the stratopause, the ozone photochemical lifetime (which is defined as the «average» time a molecule exists before being destroyed by photochemical processes) is short, from a few hours to a day. In those conditions, transport processes can be neglected because they operate on much longer timescales in the stratosphere. Ozone is then in photochemical equilibrium and its concentration is determined by the ratio between its photochemical production and destruction. In contrast, in the lower stratosphere, between the tropopause and about 30km altitude, the ozone photochemical lifetime is long, from a few days to several months.
---

And that's why, contrary to your crazy claims, the ozone layer does not vanish every night. Good night, thanks for playing.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> So speaks ignorance. Can't help you if you aren't willing to learn.



No, I'm just not too keen on being lied to by rich people.  At least if they aren't paying me...  I mean, I expect to be lied to when I'm at work by rich people... that's part of the job. 



SSDD said:


> So you don't think that it is possible for a large corporation to buy politicians who then act in the interest of the corporation?



Politicians all over the world of all political stripes, and the scientists who study this thing, all of them?  Um.. no.  They could just as easily spend the money on process improvement to make their new coolant better and cheaper. Especially since DuPont ALREADY OWNED the trademark on Freon, which was replaced.   

So why they were running the evil conspiracy to get every scientist and politician in the fucking world to exaggerate the effect of a known chemical reaction, and spending what was possibly BILLIONS of dollars to buy all these people off, they ran the risk that a competitor might just create a better version that was cheaper and beat them to market.  

Nobody is more critical of Corporatism and Capitalism than I am, but this shit don't make no sense...  

So what happened was that Scientists identified a problem. Politicians put political differences aside to address the problem with the Montreal protocol, and numerous corporations developed product to meet that requirement.  CFC's were taken off the market and natural processes fixed the problem. 

THIS IS HOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK, DUMMY!!!  

What's fucked up is the approach to Global Warming.  Scientists identify a problem.  Numerous Corporations start spreading absolute BULLSHIT to influence the minds of people to dumb to understand science and pay off the politicians to NOT address the problem. 

THAT IS THE SYSTEM FAILING BADLY!!! 


Happy to have cleared that up for you.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2018)

mamooth said:


> And that's why, contrary to your crazy claims, the ozone layer does not vanish every night. Good night, thanks for playing.



This is a perfect example of why you will dammed near always be wrong hairball...like the rest of you warming cultists...you read looking for something that seems to agree with you and you stop at that point.  You don't read to actually learn something and get the facts..

Did you note that in your paper, figure 11, the author claims absolute certainty of the amount of ozone in the stratosphere from 1983 back to 1964 and then has ever increasing uncertainty ranges up to 2002?  You actually trust a model based on that sort of data?  Also, I don't guess you noticed that the basis of the author's thesis is the Chapman atmosphere which provides estimates of the total ozone that are much too high in the tropics and much to low in the polar regions.

The _Center for Coastal Physical Oceanography tells a somewhat different story about ozone and its lifetime in the stratosphere...as do numerous teaching texts found at various universities.

Stratosphere Troposphere Interactions: An Introduction
By K. Mohanakumar
_
Chapter 5 Section 3

Similarly, O atoms have even shorter lifetimes than ozone. Although they are around for only a fraction of a second, they are constantly being formed by photolysis of O2(slow) and O3 (fast). In our simple Chapman atmosphere, the destruction of O3 results in the creation of an O atom, while the loss of the O atom involves the creation of O3. Hence, the combined number of O and O3 (i.e., odd oxygen) molecules changes very slowly, since they are constantly being swapped. Recalling our definition of odd oxygen, Ox, we have in terms of amounts,

[Ox] = [O] + [O3]
While Ox is useful conceptually, at most stratospheric altitudes the O+O2 reaction is so fast that the [O] concentrations are very small (less than 1 percent of the total odd oxygen), and we can approximate [OX] with [O3].

The overall lifetime of Ox (either as ozone or free oxygen atom) can be computed from our Chapman chemistry. OX has a lifetime of 2 months at about 32 km in the northern middle latitudes during spring. The lifetime of free oxygen at the same altitude is about 4/100ths of a second, while O3 has a lifetime of about 3100 seconds (nearly an hour). At 20 km, the lifetime of O3 is about 4200 seconds, while the lifetime of O is about 1/1000 of a second. This is schematically illustrated in Figure 5.05, which shows the slow steady production of ozone on the left of the figure, and the rapid exchange between O and O3 or the right hand side of the figure.

 Isotope Effects in Visible Light Photolysis and Chemical Destruction of Ozone by 
Marion Früchtl states: 

The most efficient catalysts (X) in the upper stratosphere are nitric oxide (NO), chlorine(Cl), hydrogen (H) and the hydroxyl radial (OH).

Nitrogen is present in the stratosphere at about 780,000ppm  CFC's according to the skid mark's source are present at about 3.1 PARTS PER BILLION..CFC;s are not and never have been a problem in the ozone layer.  Simply look at the life span of an O atom before it becomes part of either an O2 or an O3 molecule.

The facts of ozone production and life span simply don't support the alarmist narrative.  It is funny though that Dupont hijacked all of you and your feel good mentality in order to sell a more expensive, less effective refrigerant and make billions in the process...in that I heartily congratulate their marketing department and also congratulate all those who purchased Dupont stock prior to the ozone scam.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> No, I'm just not too keen on being lied to by rich people.  At least if they aren't paying me...  I mean, I expect to be lied to when I'm at work by rich people... that's part of the job.



And yet, you are being led by people being funded by the richest and most powerful people in the world....



SSDD said:


> Politicians all over the world of all political stripes, and the scientists who study this thing, all of them?  Um.. no.  They could just as easily spend the money on process improvement to make their new coolant better and cheaper. Especially since DuPont ALREADY OWNED the trademark on Freon, which was replaced.



Alas, it isn't all of them...as evidenced by the scientific materials I have provided.  

Freon which was cheap and you are selling it by the truckload...but you have a product which is expensive but you can't sell...what might a good marketing department suggest should happen to the cheap product which would then allow you to sell just as much of the new, more expensive product?

If you can't figure that one out, it is little wonder that you are just a dupe.



JoeB131 said:


> So what happened was that Scientists identified a problem.



Actually, that isn't what happened at all.  The scientists who "discovered" the ozone hole went there, in fact, simply to prove that it exists.  The theory was that less sunlight at the pole during the winter would result in less ozone.  Their theory was proven..they intended to then go to the north pole to observe the same thing.  Politicians fabricated a crisis...the scientists who discovered the hole saw no problem...they were just identifying a natural phenomenon that had been there, unnoticed all the time.

You are a tool...a dupe...a useful idiot who is so uneducated that he believes that science is out of the reach of everyone but people who have scientist on a diploma.  You couldn't be more wrong.  The fact is that just as much science is done by "citizen scientists" as those educated in a particular discipline.  Unfortunate that you think that way...it makes you and people like you a perfect target for the elites of the world who are perfectly willing to use you for fun and profit.



JoeB131 said:


> to have cleared that up for you.



Wasn't necessary...people like you are so easy to see through that it is just pitiful.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> And yet, you are being led by people being funded by the richest and most powerful people in the world....



I'd be all for electing regular folks to office... but it's kind of expensive.  



SSDD said:


> Alas, it isn't all of them...as evidenced by the scientific materials I have provided.



Yup, you'll always find a flat earther out there somewhere... 



SSDD said:


> Freon which was cheap and you are selling it by the truckload...but you have a product which is expensive but you can't sell...what might a good marketing department suggest should happen to the cheap product which would then allow you to sell just as much of the new, more expensive product?
> 
> If you can't figure that one out, it is little wonder that you are just a dupe.



Guy, I've worked in manufacturing for decades... You can always find a way to make it better and cheaper...  



SSDD said:


> Actually, that isn't what happened at all. The scientists who "discovered" the ozone hole went there, in fact, simply to prove that it exists. The theory was that less sunlight at the pole during the winter would result in less ozone. Their theory was proven..they intended to then go to the north pole to observe the same thing. Politicians fabricated a crisis...the scientists who discovered the hole saw no problem...they were just identifying a natural phenomenon that had been there, unnoticed all the time.



Um, no, that's exactly what happened.  

Ozone depletion - Wikipedia

Ozone depletion and the ozone hole have generated worldwide concern over increased cancer risks and other negative effects. The ozone layer prevents most harmful UVBwavelengths of ultraviolet light (UV light) from passing through the Earth's atmosphere. These wavelengths cause skin cancer, sunburn and cataracts, which were projected to increase dramatically as a result of thinning ozone, as well as harming plants and animals. These concerns led to the adoption of the Montreal Protocol in 1987, which bans the production of CFCs, halons and other ozone-depleting chemicals.

The ban came into effect in 1989. Ozone levels stabilized by the mid-1990s and began to recover in the 2000s. Recovery is projected to continue over the next century, and the ozone hole is expected to reach pre-1980 levels by around 2075.[4] _*The Montreal Protocol is considered the most successful international environmental agreement to date.
*_
Oh, my God, absolutely horrifying... we did it right!


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 15, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You are a tool...a dupe...a useful idiot who is so uneducated that he believes that science is out of the reach of everyone but people who have scientist on a diploma. You couldn't be more wrong. The fact is that just as much science is done by "citizen scientists" as those educated in a particular discipline. Unfortunate that you think that way...it makes you and people like you a perfect target for the elites of the world who are perfectly willing to use you for fun and profit.



Hey, tell you what, next time you get cancer, i think you should go to a "Citizen" Doctor, who didn't bother getting an MD.  I'm sure she's done enough doctoring...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Yup, you'll always find a flat earther out there somewhere...



As I have pointed out, in so far as the production, and life span of an ozone molecule goes, even those promoting the crisis agree with me...unfortunately, so few people like you have any critical thinking skills at all, you are susceptible to the scam.  Unfortunate, but true.



JoeB131 said:


> Guy, I've worked in manufacturing for decades... You can always find a way to make it better and cheaper...



Guess you aren't very good at it...making it worse and more expensive is more profitable...especially if you find a way to eliminate the cheaper, better product from the market.



JoeB131 said:


> Um, no, that's exactly what happened.



Your propaganda says nothing about the team that went down to antarctica to prove the hole exists.  So you have the propaganda, but none of the truth.



JoeB131 said:


> Ozone depletion and the ozone hole have generated worldwide concern over increased cancer risks and other negative effects.....



Again...failure of critical thinking skills.....the hole only exists at the poles, and the hole at the north pole is so small as to be insignificant.  The hole at the south pole is larger, but only exists during the darkness of winter.  After all, if there were enough UV entering the atmosphere, there would be no hole.

Aside from that...the sun is forever and always north of the ozone hole over antarctica...who exactly are the harmful UV rays falling upon?  Any populated area is north of the hole and south of the sun...by what magic does the UV enter the hole from the north, and then shine upon land masses to the north of the hole?

Use your brain.



JoeB131 said:


> The ban came into effect in 1989. Ozone levels stabilized by the mid-1990s and began to recover in the 2000s.



Stabilized, based on what?  We have no actual history and therefore have no idea whether what we are seeing is completely natural or not.  The facts of the formation of O3 and the sheer insignificance of the amount of CFC's in the stratosphere....3.1 PARTS PER BILLION simply do not support the alarmist narrative.

Since ozone production does not happen when the sun is not shining on the atmosphere...and an ozone molecule in the stratosphere survives for between 1000 and 4200 seconds, how much ozone do you suppose is left on the dark side of the earth half an hour or so before the first UV radiation of the morning hits the stratosphere.  Do you have enough education to figure out how long in minutes 1000 and 4200 seconds are?  If not, I will help you out.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Guess you aren't very good at it...making it worse and more expensive is more profitable...especially if you find a way to eliminate the cheaper, better product from the market.



well, if the cheaper product is going to KILL US ALL, then it's not better. 



SSDD said:


> As I have pointed out, in so far as the production, and life span of an ozone molecule goes, even those promoting the crisis agree with me...


.
Again, i'll take the word of real scientists over some guy who plays one on the internets..


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > You won't admit your most egregious errors, let alone your more subtle ones. Science based!
> ...


*You are wrong in your model of ozone distribution.*

These four points you give seem that you are implying that the ozone quickly disappears after 17 to  70 minutes after night fall.

When there is no incoming UV, there is no ozone formation
The life span of an O3 molecule at 20km is about 1000 seconds
The life span of an O3 molecule at 32km is about 4200 seconds
I repeat, when there is no incoming UV, there is no production of O3
Look at either of the two videos at this NASA site. Blow it up to full screen so you can see the legend to the right better.
Hyperwall: Ozone Minimum Concentrations, 1979-2017
You will notice that away from the poles, the ozone is around 300 to 400 Dobson units at lower latitudes. Towards the equator it drops to 275 units, mostly likely because of Lambert's cosine law for steep angles.

If your four points are correct, half of the hemisphere should be colored black (zero). It is not. If you are trying to model the ozone distribution, you failed. We should rely on the observed, repeatable, measured data of the NASA videos, not your estimate.


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Dec 16, 2018)

MarathonMike said:


> The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.
> 
> New Ozone Hole Scare Won't Save the Great Climate Hoax | PSI Intl


The scams used by the Liberals are many in number:  The old Race card, the Ozone card, The Polar bear card, the Illegal border jumpers card. the Child Card, Pot is Good Card, open border card, drive 55 card, they have more card then a deck of cards.


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Dec 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > You have yet to post one iota of actual science.  Feel free to post. I'm not stopping you. Knock yourself out.
> ...


Everything is connect in some manner.  I have suspected that the (I can't spell it) electrical discharge near the North Pole put Ozone into the air and this is where the ozone comes from  Freon has nothing to do with this.  I know that no real science is connected with but it is just my own idea.  It could be right.  Ever smell ozone after a lighting strike this is where I got the idea.


----------



## Dan Stubbs (Dec 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...


Thank you for the information I did check it out and found it very interesting.  How about my idea, any possibility it could have any truth.?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 16, 2018)

So, checking back in:

Have any of you armchair blogger "scientists" published any science to back up your goofy denial?

No?

And,what's that you say? Nobody else is, either?

Wow, how frustrating for you this must be. I'll check back later.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 16, 2018)

Dan Stubbs said:


> Thank you for the information I did check it out and found it very interesting. How about my idea, any possibility it could have any truth.?



The Aurora Borealis (I think that is what you were talking about. I had to look up spelling) bombardment of electrons, can ionize any molecules they encounter, which of course is obvious from the glow. And yes, they would certainly ionize oxygen which would combine with O2 to form ozone. I would guess that it does add to the ozone, but how important that process is compared to the sun UV, I have no idea.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> well, if the cheaper product is going to KILL US ALL, then it's not better.



Got any actual evidence that was going to happen?  Didn't think so.  You guys aren't to big on actual evidence.



JoeB131 said:


> Again, i'll take the word of real scientists over some guy who plays one on the internets..



Of course you will...what choice do you have...even the most basic science is out of your reach.  Of course, you have no idea who is funding the scientist whose word you are taking, and no idea whether his research is reaching a pre determined result...or anything that might result in having an informed opinion of your own...but if being a tool and a useful idiot is what you aspire to...congratulations....you made it.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Look at either of the two videos at this NASA site. Blow it up to full screen so you can see the legend to the right better.



Those are monthly composites covering years...not much chance of resolving a single evening on the dark side of the earth there...you are so easily fooled by practically anything..aren't you?

Here is a clip from a paper describing NASA's TOMS (total ozone mapping project)

"Normally the scans begin when the satellite enters daylight at the southern terminator and end when it enters darkness in the north"  

Interesting..don't you think?  The satellite certainly is capable of observing ozone in the dark...why do you suppose they would stop scanning when it enters the dark?  Wouldn't be very good for the alarmist narrative if it were common knowledge that a large percentage of the ozone disappeared between sunset and sunrise...would it?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So, checking back in:
> 
> Have any of you armchair blogger "scientists" published any science to back up your goofy denial?
> 
> ...



It is already published..has been for quite some time...I provided plenty.  Unfortunate that you are so uneducated that it is out of your reach and you are left not having an informed opinion of your own...just one given to you by someone with a political agenda.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Look at either of the two videos at this NASA site. Blow it up to full screen so you can see the legend to the right better.
> ...



For God's sake. You are always guessing "facts". Read the caption. It is a period of one day. As far as your other "facts". This is from Ozone Chapter 8. 

_Ozone in the lower atmosphere (i.e. the troposphere and lower stratosphere,..) has a long lifetime, on the order of months to years.

Note that the typical daily variations are 10-20 Dobson Units or about 5%. The largest changes up or down from one day to the next are about 50 DU or 15%. _​
You are becoming worthless as a source of science on this forum.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You are becoming worthless as a source of science on this forum.



Alas wuwei, it is you who is useless due to your habit of reading simply to try and find something that looks like it might support your position, rather than actually trying to learn something.

I suggest that you read about ozone in the middle to upper stratosphere, rather than in the lower stratosphere and troposphere....that is where the work is done.  

From your link:

_There are several types of short-term variability that affect ozone photochemical process rates in the upper stratosphere. These include diurnal variations, variations in solar ultraviolet radiation, temperature driven variations, and particle precipitation events that originate from electromagnetic storms on the Sun._

_In the upper stratosphere, above 40 km, where PRTs are less than 1 day, variations in ozone occur with the daily rising and setting of the Sun. These variations are usually termed "diurnal" because they happen each day_.

_Photodissociation of ozone molecule by UV light into O2 and O -- Once formed, the O3 molecule is stable until it is split apart once sunlight is present by solar ultraviolet radiation of wavelength shorter than about 310 nanometers (in a process called photodissociation) back to O2 and O by light. The reaction is given by_

_ O3 + h f (l < 310nm) --> O2 + O 
The PRT for this process is about 1000 seconds in the upper stratosphere in the presence of sunlight.
_
This process will be a bit slower in the dark...nitrogen, hydrogen, chlorine or bromine compounds are still at work catalyzing O3.  Your source acknowledges that nitrogen as well as the other compounds mentioned catalyze O3, but then they go on to suggest that this apparently doesn't happen at night.  Simply not true but then, they have a narrative to support, so what else would you expect.  Some truth..some pseudoscience...some outright bullshit.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 16, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You are becoming worthless as a source of science on this forum.


Well, no kidding. He has zero education or experience in any of these fields, and has never even sniffed a scientific research team, much less produced/published any science. That is why he is hanging out here among non-scientists, instead of getting laughed out of the room in the company of actual scientists.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The PRT for this process is about 1000 seconds in the upper stratosphere in the presence of sunlight.


This sentence is contrary to what you are trying to "prove". It says the Photo Replacement Time, PRT, is 1000 sec *in the sunlight*. That means ozone production is quickly enhanced. A different process occurs at night, so the day to night changes are about 15%. Not 100% as you said.



SSDD said:


> Your source acknowledges that nitrogen as well as the other compounds mentioned catalyze O3, but then they go on to suggest that this apparently doesn't happen at night. Simply not true but then, they have a narrative to support, so what else would you expect. Some truth..some pseudoscience...some outright bullshit.


Back to your usual method of science "investigation": post the sentences in some article that you agree with and say the rest is bullshit.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 16, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Here is a clip from a paper describing NASA's TOMS (total ozone mapping project)
> 
> "Normally the scans begin when the satellite enters daylight at the southern terminator and end when it enters darkness in the north"
> 
> Interesting..don't you think? The satellite certainly is capable of observing ozone in the dark...why do you suppose they would stop scanning when it enters the dark? Wouldn't be very good for the alarmist narrative if it were common knowledge that a large percentage of the ozone disappeared between sunset and sunrise...would it?



You are using the usual out of context gambit that trolls use. The reason the satellite system stops scanning at night is because it uses backscatter of ozone from the sun. It's probably the word "backscattered" that rubbed  you wrong. That is why the instrument is not capable of observing ozone in the dark.  Here is what you omitted.

_TOMS-EP measured total ozone by observing both incoming solar energy and backscattered ultraviolet (UV) radiation at six wavelengths. ’Backscattered’ radiation is solar radiation that has penetrated to the Earth’s lower atmosphere and is then scattered by air molecules and clouds back through the stratosphere to the satellite sensors_.​
You do that time and again. You take something out of context; do a faulty interpretation of something you don't understand; create a fake conspiracy theory, and then call those who are more educated than you dupes, or uneducated.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2018)

Yep...I point out problems with your references and you call out your poor intellect and drag it through the sewer in an attempt to defend your position.  The fact remains that I provided more credible sources than you that support my argument....you are left trying to support your position with pal reviewed alarmist papers trying to both tel enough truth to get published, but still supporting the bogus crisis narrative.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well, no kidding. He has zero education or experience in any of these fields, and has never even sniffed a scientific research team, much less produced/published any science. That is why he is hanging out here among non-scientists, instead of getting laughed out of the room in the company of actual scientists.



Unfortunate to be so uneducated that you think science is out of the reach of people who aren't educated in specific fields.

What is particularly funny is that you are apparently in agreement with the "science" that another non scientist is providing...you have no idea which of us is right and are choosing sides based entirely upon your political inclinations.  Chalk up yet another failure to think critically.  If you were not a bald faced hypocrite, you would also be chiding the folks presenting science that apparently supports your position since by your own admission, it is all out of your intellectual reach.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Got any actual evidence that was going to happen? Didn't think so. You guys aren't to big on actual evidence.



You mean other than thousands of scientists and all the governments of the world signing the Montreal Protocol?  Yup they were all making it up because they had stock in DuPont, which already owned the trademark on the product that was being replaced. 



SSDD said:


> Of course you will...what choice do you have...even the most basic science is out of your reach. Of course, you have no idea who is funding the scientist whose word you are taking, and no idea whether his research is reaching a pre determined result...or anything that might result in having an informed opinion of your own...but if being a tool and a useful idiot is what you aspire to...congratulations....you made it.



Yeah, here's the thing.  I wish government funded science to the degree it should be funded... we don't. 

We used to, but then we realized that rich people need their dressage horses.  

This was a case where even the rich realized that their dressage horses wouldn't protect them if we lost the Ozone layer... so they didn't fight it the way they fight AGW.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Yep...I point out problems with your references and you call out your poor intellect and drag it through the sewer in an attempt to defend your position. The fact remains that I provided more credible sources than you that support my argument....you are left trying to support your position with pal reviewed alarmist papers trying to both tel enough truth to get published, but still supporting the bogus crisis narrative.


Nope. Your model of ozone physics doesn't cut it. I thought you don't believe in models. My references have no problem. You have nothing left but your conspiracy theory.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 17, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Got any actual evidence that was going to happen? Didn't think so. You guys aren't to big on actual evidence.
> ...




Prove to us the ozone layer was there in 1820 , pal


.




.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 17, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> You mean other than thousands of scientists and all the governments of the world signing the Montreal Protocol?  Yup they were all making it up because they had stock in DuPont, which already owned the trademark on the product that was being replaced.[;/quote]
> 
> Unfortunate to be one of those poor dupes who has to believe what you are told based on how many people told you it was true.  My bet is that you also believed the entire medical community when they told you that high cholesterol caused heart disease....or the tens of thousands of doctors who said that salt causes high blood pressure....or the hundreds of thousands of doctors over the decades who said that stomach ulcers were caused by stress.  3 examples right off the top of my head where the entire body of a particular science was wrong because they were stating what they believed and didn't have any actual evidence to support the claim.
> 
> ...






JoeB131 said:


> Yeah, here's the thing.  I wish government funded science to the degree it should be funded... we don't.



The best and brightest don't work for government...and government can't afford them...government works on the lowest bid and those are the people you trust?  You really are a dupe...aren't you?



JoeB131 said:


> This was a case where even the rich realized that their dressage horses wouldn't protect them if we lost the Ozone layer... so they didn't fight it the way they fight AGW.



No..this was a case where the rich hijacked the feel good environmental movement for fun and profit...and they made billions laughing at you guys all the way to the bank...truth be told, they are probably surprised the scam has lasted this long.

You didn't answer my question...who exactly is being effected by the ozone hole?  There certainly is no problem with ozone over the rest of the earth..the "holes" are the only problem...who is being effected by them?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 17, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


and yet, you haven't provided one iota of evidence to support any fake news you post.  Answer the question asked by SSDD,_ if you know why the ozone layer is there or why the holes have always been there?_


----------



## jc456 (Dec 17, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Personally, I will not get bated into a debate with those who pull facts from thin air.  Be that as it   may, as I said the idea of revisiting the  Montreal Protocols and the role of CFCs in damaging the ozone layer is over.  It is a waste of time.  Like debating flat earthers. No matter how many pictures of the earth you show them, they still insist the earth is flat. BTW what is your opinion? I bet you're a flat earther.


no, you won't.  cause you can't debate it.  too fking funny.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 17, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...


LOL, you want him to give you the answer?  too fking funny.  SSDD is much brighter than you will ever imagine to be.  Just saying, you couldn't debate a wet sock, puppet.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 17, 2018)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > MarathonMike said:
> ...


what is that relationship old wise one?  let's hear your explanation on how CFC's eat sunlight.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 17, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...


she is.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 17, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Unfortunate to be so uneducated that you think science is out of the reach of people who aren't educated in specific fields.


You have 0 education or experience in any of these fields. You keep repeatedly saying things that are wrong. You parrot debunked denier myths. You are the 90 lb weakling claiming that you can beat up Mike Tyson.

Guess who science is not out of the reach of? Scientists. Guess who is producing exactly zero evidence to back up your goofy denial? Scientists.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 17, 2018)

SSDD said:
			
		

> You don't read to actually learn something and get the facts..



Ah, the sweet irony.



> Did you note that in your paper, figure 11,



Let's skip past your shrieking evasions that have nothing do with the topic, and get right to the heart of the matter.




> The overall lifetime of Ox (either as ozone or free oxygen atom) can be computed from our Chapman chemistry. OX has a lifetime of 2 months at about 32 km in the northern middle latitudes during spring.



Thank you for going to all that effort to show I was right. I appreciate you doing the work for me. I also appreciate the comedy of how you didn't understand you were proving me right. 

So, it's settled. The lifetime of ozone in the lower stratosphere is measured in months. If someone claims the ozone vanishes overnight, that person is hopelessly inept at the science, to a point where they should stop bothering the grownups with their childish babbling.


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 17, 2018)

bear513 said:


> Prove to us the ozone layer was there in 1820 , pal



Sure. People didn't die of UV radiation and keel over from Skin Cancer at 30.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 17, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Prove to us the ozone layer was there in 1820 , pal
> ...




Well that post didn't make sense, 30 was old age back then .


----------



## jc456 (Dec 17, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunate to be so uneducated that you think science is out of the reach of people who aren't educated in specific fields.
> ...


So what is it you think you have as evidence rather than name calling leftist?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Dec 17, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Personally, I will not get bated into a debate with those who pull facts from thin air.  Be that as it   may, as I said the idea of revisiting the  Montreal Protocols and the role of CFCs in damaging the ozone layer is over.  It is a waste of time.  Like debating flat earthers. No matter how many pictures of the earth you show them, they still insist the earth is flat. BTW what is your opinion? I bet you're a flat earther.



Of course you do.

It's what allows you to side step the argument and keep bleating like an underfed sheep.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You have 0 education or experience in any of these fields. You keep repeatedly saying things that are wrong. You parrot debunked denier myths. You are the 90 lb weakling claiming that you can beat up Mike Tyson.[/qiopte]
> First...you have no idea what my education consists of...second, I don't see you posting anything that contradicts me.  All I have ever seen from you is you posting the opinion someone with a political agenda gave you.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2018)

mamooth said:


> Let's skip past your shrieking evasions that have nothing do with the topic, and get right to the heart of the matter.



Translation:  Lets skip past the part that proves I am wrong and get back to talking points.




> The overall lifetime of Ox (either as ozone or free oxygen atom) can be computed from our Chapman chemistry. OX has a lifetime of 2 months at about 32 km in the northern middle latitudes during spring.



Thank you for going to all that effort to show I was right. I appreciate you doing the work for me. I also appreciate the comedy of how you didn't understand you were proving me right.[/quote]

Poor hairball...just can't ever be right.  Ox is either an O3 molecule, or an O atom, ....it may be either   Ox is speaking to the residence time of any given O atom or molecule in the troposphere at 32km.  At some point, it is either moved on to some other location in the atmosphere, or it becomes part of a molecule that will not be broken by UV freeing it to again become part of the O, O2, O3 cycle.  Say...when an O3 molecule reacts with one of the natural chlorine or bromine compounds or a CFC molecule.  

They go on to explain explicitly that when you get to specifics, the lifetime of an O atom is about 4/100ths of a second..that is, before it becomes part of an O2 or an O3 molecule.  Free oxygen doesn't hang around long...then they go on to say that O3 at 32km has a life time of 1000 seconds, but when you drop down to the lower stratosphere, it has a life time of about 4200 seconds.....that is because most of the heavy lifting (work) is done in the upper stratosphere.




> The lifetime of free oxygen at the same altitude is about 4/100ths of a second, while O3 has a lifetime of about 3100 seconds (nearly an hour). At 20 km, the lifetime of O3 is about 4200 seconds, while the lifetime of O is about 1/1000 of a second.



Funny how you take a single sentence talking about an Ox molecule and post it as proving your point and leave out the following sentences that are talking specifically about O3, which prove my point.  You are just a bitter, cherry picking, bald faced liar hairball.



mamooth said:


> So, it's settled. The lifetime of ozone in the lower stratosphere is measured in months. If someone claims the ozone vanishes overnight, that person is hopelessly inept at the science, to a point where they should stop bothering the grownups with their childish babbling.



The only thing that is settled is that you aren't very bright hairball....read the entire passage again...the lifetime of an Ox molecule is measured in months...the lifetime of an O3 molecule, anywhere in the stratosphere is measured in seconds.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Prove to us the ozone layer was there in 1820 , pal
> ...



I asked you earlier....who exactly is being affected by the ozone hole...it is over antarctica...the sun is always north of antarctica...exactly how does the sun shine from the north through the hole and bombard people north of the hole with harmful UV?  Describe that magic for me.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2018)

bear513 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Because people were keeling over of all sorts of things at 30...including all sorts of cancers which remained undiagnosed.  The hole has always existed...


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The best and brightest don't work for government...and government can't afford them...government works on the lowest bid and those are the people you trust? You really are a dupe...aren't you?



More than I trust corporate assholes... 



SSDD said:


> You didn't answer my question...who exactly is being effected by the ozone hole? There certainly is no problem with ozone over the rest of the earth..the "holes" are the only problem...who is being effected by them?



You mean other than people at higher latitudes that had a higher risk of skin cancer?  

Here was a great example of how we identified a problem and corrected it..


----------



## JoeB131 (Dec 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I asked you earlier....who exactly is being affected by the ozone hole...it is over antarctica...the sun is always north of antarctica...exactly how does the sun shine from the north through the hole and bombard people north of the hole with harmful UV? Describe that magic for me.



The idea was to make sure the "hole" (actually a thinning) didn't get bigger to cover areas where more people live. 

We did that. Yeah for us. Because even the rich realized that they couldn't live on a burned out cinder.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> More than I trust corporate assholes...



For the low bid, you get what you get..and government works on the low bid...and let me guess, you don't consume anything that comes from a corporation?  My bet is that you take medicines and literally put your life in the hands of products produced by corporations every day...and then you say you don't trust them?  Do you ever think through anything before you say it?...or do you just automatically spit out the opinion given to you whenever your string is pulled?



SSDD said:


> You mean other than people at higher latitudes that had a higher risk of skin cancer?



Are you now saying that UV travels in a southbound direction through the ozone hole and then turns north to burn people in higher latitudes?  How does that work?



SSDD said:


> Here was a great example of how we identified a problem and corrected it..



Keep telling yourself that...those of us who are capable of critical thinking know that it was a great example of a corporation hijacking the green movement and a few politicians to make a killing fixing a non problem...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 18, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> The idea was to make sure the "hole" (actually a thinning) didn't get bigger to cover areas where more people live.



Do you have any actual observed, measured evidence which suggests that it would ever have, or ever has extended beyond the darkness over the poles during their winter?  Any at all?



JoeB131 said:


> We did that. Yeah for us. Because even the rich realized that they couldn't live on a burned out cinder.



Still waiting for some evidence that the "hole" was ever, or could ever extend beyond the poles during the darkness of their winter...any at all?  Got any?  Got anything at all beyond the opinion that someone with a political agenda gave you?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 19, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have any actual observed, measured evidence which suggests that it would ever have, or ever has extended beyond the darkness over the poles during their winter? Any at all?
> ...



So that would be a no...there is no actual observed, measured evidence to support the claim.  Someone you perceive as smarter than yourself told you something and you just accepted it...That is what I have been saying all along..you know so little about the science, that you have no idea which side is right, so you chose a side based entirely on your politics.  

So of what value, exactly is your opinion on a scientific topic?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 19, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have any actual observed, measured evidence which suggests that it would ever have, or ever has extended beyond the darkness over the poles during their winter? Any at all?
> ...


yep, post them up!!!


----------



## SSDD (Dec 19, 2018)

JoeB131 said:


> Yeah, pretty much.



Must suck to perceive yourself as that stupid.



JoeB131 said:


> YOu see, I'm having another conversation on another thread by someone who INSISTS the Sandy Hook shooting didn't happen.



And you think that means what to me?  That is an observable, measurable, event..and there is observable measurable evidence to support the claim...to bad there isn't observable, measurable evidence to support the ozone claims.

I guess I should ask...do you believe you have to be a cop, or a crime scene investigator, or a coroner in oder to determine that people were actually killed as the result of gunshot wounds?



JoeB131 said:


> You can always find a nut on the internet who thinks he's the smartest guy in the room by repeating whatever horseshit that he's heard from other nuts on the internet.



That is precisely what you are doing...I have taken the time to actually become acquainted with the science...how ozone forms...what it does, how long the molecules exist before they are destroyed etc...you are simply repeating the horse shit you got from alarmists on the internet... To bad you can't equate the behavior of the nut claiming there was no shooting to your own...you are both doing the same thing...neither of you has taken the time to actually investigate the issue, you are both simply accepting the word of people you believe you can trust and then presenting their opinion as your own.  You and the other nut you speak of are the same person...just talking about different issues.


----------



## Crick (Dec 19, 2018)

Too bad you can't admit what happens when you add a destructive catalyst to a system in equilibrium.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 19, 2018)

Crick said:


> Too bad you can't admit what happens when you add a destructive catalyst to a system in equilibrium.



read the hairball's reference...it states that the life time of an Ox molecule is roughly 3 months...that would mean that it takes any given O molecule about 3 months before it gets bound up in a compound that removes it from the O, O2, O3 cycle.  

And again, O3 readily reacts with nitrogen, hydrogen, and the natural bromine and chlorine compounds...which can all can be found in the stratosphere and measured in parts per million...CFC's are measured in parts per BILLION...and according to your source, barely over 3 parts per BILLION.  The chances are astronomical that any given O3 molecule will encounter a CFC molecule when compared to the chances it will encounter a nitrogen, hydrogen or natural bromine or chlorine compound.  

The reality is that CFC's are not, and never were a danger to the Ozone layer and the hole is a result of lack of incoming UV on a seasonal basis and a couple of other factors, none of which are CFC"s.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The lifetime of free oxygen at the same altitude is about 4/100ths of a second, while O3 has a lifetime of about 3100 seconds (nearly an hour). At 20 km, the lifetime of O3 is about 4200 seconds, while the lifetime of O is about 1/1000 of a second.



Do you understand the fundamental nature of your faceplant there? Obviously not. You never do.

You're assume the O3 turns into O2 alone. It doesn't. It turns into O2 and O, and then that free O combines right back with another O2 to make another O3. So, no ozone lost. The life of an individual ozone molecule isn't relevant to the half-life of the ozone as a whole, which is months in the stratosphere.

So, you pooched it yet another time. If you had class, you'd admit that, thank me for educating you on the basics again, and apologize for having been such a raging human shitstain.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 19, 2018)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The lifetime of free oxygen at the same altitude is about 4/100ths of a second, while O3 has a lifetime of about 3100 seconds (nearly an hour). At 20 km, the lifetime of O3 is about 4200 seconds, while the lifetime of O is about 1/1000 of a second.
> ...



Sorry hairball...wrong again...but then you are an idiot...and will apparently say anything in an effort to support your belief...even when the text is right there in front of you.  Of course they are talking about the expected lifespan of any given O atom, or O2, or O3 molecule...  

I can't help but notice, however, that you just made the argument that there is no problem with the ozone layer....and that the whole crisis is simply not supported by the facts of how ozone comes to exist in the first place.  The rapidity at which it is replaced in the presence of UV means that its very short life span is irrelevant.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 19, 2018)

mamooth said:


> Sadly, even after I've explained the basics to you in small words, you still can't understand it. As it's not possible to dumb it down any further, I won't be able to get you to understand.



let me guess....you think this immediate replacement is happening even when there is no incoming UV...face it hairball...the life span of any given O3 molecule is measured in seconds...and when there is no incoming UV...and those seconds are ticking by, the amount of O3 in the stratosphere is rapidly decreasing....but not to worry....as soon as the earth rotates around, and there is UV, there will be O3

Face it hairball...you lost your point...as you always will because you just aren't very bright...if you were half as bright as you are bitter, you would need a room for all your nobel prizes.


----------



## Crick (Dec 19, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Too bad you can't admit what happens when you add a destructive catalyst to a system in equilibrium.
> ...



Because you're smarter than anyone on Earth and thousands and thousands of scientists are involved in a massive and perfect conspiracy to lie to the pulbic.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 19, 2018)

This is from Ozone Chapter 8. 

_Ozone in the lower atmosphere (i.e. the troposphere and lower stratosphere,..) has a long lifetime, on the order of months to years.

Note that the typical daily variations are 10-20 Dobson Units or about 5%. The largest changes up or down from one day to the next are about 50 DU or 15%. _


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2018)

Crick said:


> Because you're smarter than anyone on Earth and thousands and thousands of scientists are involved in a massive and perfect conspiracy to lie to the pulbic.



No actual argument...nothing at all except yet another logical fallacy.  Try using your brain...or maybe get someone with more intellectual horsepower at their disposal than you...if O3 readily reacts with nitrogen, hydrogen, and natural bromine and chlorine compounds which exist in the stratosphere and can be measured in parts per million, what are the chances that any given O3 molecule will react with one of those before it reacts with a CFC molecule, which according to your sources are measured in parts per billion?

Let me see if I can make it a bit simpler for you....San Jose, California has a population of just over a million...If I pick 3 at random, and set you down in some random point in that city, what are the chances you will encounter and have any sort of meaningful exchange with any of them within a month?..six months?...a year?...a decade?....your life time?

Now, if I pick 780,000 at random,  and set you down in some random point in that city, what are the chances that you will encounter and have any sort of meaningful exchange with any one of them in a month?....six months?...a year?....a decade?....your life time?

CFC's at 3 parts per billion are not, never have been, nor never will be any sort of threat to the equilibrium of the ozone layer.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> This is from Ozone Chapter 8.
> 
> _Ozone in the lower atmosphere (i.e. the troposphere and lower stratosphere,..) has a long lifetime, on the order of months to years.
> 
> Note that the typical daily variations are 10-20 Dobson Units or about 5%. The largest changes up or down from one day to the next are about 50 DU or 15%. _



You keep talking about the lower ozone layer.. We aren't discussing the ozone on the border of the stratosphere and troposphere...we are talking about the ozone which exists up in the high stratosphere...


----------



## Crick (Dec 20, 2018)

*Stratospheric Ozone Variability

4.4.1 CFC impact on upper stratospheric ozone* -- The most important influence on the long-term variability of stratospheric ozone is the introduction of significant amounts of chlorine into the upper stratosphere from industrially produced chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) compounds (see Chapter 10 for more detailed information). The initial predictions of effects of chlorine from CFCs indicated that the change in ozone would be a maximum in the upper stratosphere near 40 km altitude. This change was predicted to result from a relatively simple set of reactions that form the chlorine, bromine, nitrogen, and hydrogen catalytic cycles for ozone destruction. Observations over the past 20 years indicate that these decreases are indeed occurring (see Chapter 9).

_*5.4.1 CFC impact on lower stratospheric ozone*_ -- Chlorofluorocarbons (or CFCs) were developed in 1928 as a benign and inert chemical compound for refrigeration, replacing toxic and flammable refrigerants like ammonia. CFCs quickly gained enormous usage over the next several decades as coolants and spray propellants. Seventy years later, manmade CFCs today represent the most important influence on the long term variability of lower stratospheric ozone. They also represent the most serious threat to the the ozone layer, which shields the Earth's surface from biologically destructive ultraviolet light emitted by the sun. Chapters 1 and 10 give additional background on CFCs, while Chapter 11 discusses in great depth the "ozone hole" problem that has developed over Antarctica as a result of CFCs.

How do CFC compounds impact lower stratospheric ozone? In brief, the stable CFC molecule rises into the lower stratosphere, where intense UV light breaks down the molecule, liberating chlorine. This chlorine is then free to react in catalytic cycles to destroy ozone, especially in the presence of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs). These catalytic cycles represent more complicated photochemistry than the simple oxygen chemistry discussed so far. Chapters 5 and 11 detail these reactions.

Consequences on lower stratospheric ozone have been dramatic at certain times of the year over Antarctica. It is there that exceptionally cold winter conditions permit widespread PSC formation. Total column amounts of ozone in spring over the Antarctic have fallen by over 50 percent (see Chapter 1). Overall in the lower stratosphere, ozone concentrations have declined by smaller amounts over the last 20 years (see Chapter 9).

The primary driver for expected photochemical change is chlorine from CFC's. They were calculated to induce a nearly linear downward trend in the total global ozone amount starting in 1970 and continuing until about 1995. Because the provisions of the Montreal Protocol (see Chapter 10) have begun to take effect, this linear decrease in ozone is now predicted to flatten out and eventually turn around. *Figure 8.09* shows a model calculation for the effect on ozone of increasing chlorine, the solar cycle, and volcanic activity. The model calculations project into the future using assumptions about the release of CFCs and other source gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.

In nearly all studies of long-term ozone trends it has been assumed that a linear trend is synonymous with the photochemical trend. This was a reasonable assumption for the period 1970 through the present, but it will no longer be true for future analyses, as the models predict that the recovery process should now be in its early stages. One analysis question that will now be asked is, "Do we see any evidence for the beginning of the recovery?".


----------



## SSDD (Dec 20, 2018)

Crick said:


> *Stratospheric Ozone Variability
> 
> 4.4.1 CFC impact on upper stratospheric ozone* -- The most important influence on the long-term variability of stratospheric ozone is the introduction of significant amounts of chlorine into the upper stratosphere from industrially produced chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) compounds (see Chapter 10 for more detailed information). The initial predictions of effects of chlorine from CFCs indicated that the change in ozone would be a maximum in the upper stratosphere near 40 km altitude. This change was predicted to result from a relatively simple set of reactions that form the chlorine, bromine, nitrogen, and hydrogen catalytic cycles for ozone destruction. Observations over the past 20 years indicate that these decreases are indeed occurring (see Chapter 9).
> 
> ...




You can post all of that bullshit you like skidmark...in fact I encourage you to...it only shows how poor your thinking skills are and how easily you are duped...once again...O3 reacts readily with nitrogen, hydrogen, and naturally occurring bromine and chlorine molecules found in the stratosphere and measured in parts per million...CFC's according to your own source exist in the stratosphere at a concentration of just over 3 parts per billion...

You appear as stupid as wuwei refusing to simply state what an equation says....what's the matter, are you completely unable to use your brain?  Or are you unsure about whether the probability is that an O3 molecule will be more likely to react with nitrogen which is 780,000ppm in the atmosphere or a CFC molecule which exists at a concentration of 3 parts per billion?  Is that to tough for you?  I laid it out in simple terms..  Wasn't it simple enough for you?  

Your paper is bullshit...in the first paragraph they claim significant amounts of CFC"s into the stratosphere...in what fantasy world is 3 parts per billion in the stratosphere significant?  Are you not bright enough to even grasp the fundamental problem there?  O3 readily reacts with nitrogen which is 780,000ppm and you believe that CFC's at 3 parts per billion represents a significant threat to the ozone layer?  

Really skidmark...just how stupid are you?  Do you have no critical thinking skills whatsoever?  In your own words, describe the "threat" that 3 parts per billion of CFC molecules represent to the ozone layer when O3 readily reacts with nitrogen at 780,000ppm...This should be priceless....lets see how far you will drag your intellect through the sewer trying to defend that indefensible steaming pile of manure.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 20, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You can post all of that bullshit you like skidmark..



... and it won't help. Like I keep pointing out, you're a profoundly stupid human being, far too stupid to understand the topics being discussed. Trying to educate you is like trying to teach calculus to a monkey. No matter how bright the teachers are -- and we are all extremely bright -- it just can't be done.

So, in your monkey style, you can proceed with your feces-flinging now. Now that's something you have skill at.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 20, 2018)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You can post all of that bullshit you like skidmark..
> ...


it won't cause it's all bullshit.  it's what he said.  force feeding bullshit is still force fed bullshit.


----------



## Crick (Dec 20, 2018)

It is the result of large amounts of research, the conclusions of which you do not like.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2018)

Crick said:


> It is the result of large amounts of research, the conclusions of which you do not like.




What's the problem skidmark...can't actually use your brain or are you just afraid that if you do, it will challenge what you believe?

No answer other than yet another logical fallacy?  Like I said, you aren't even a challenge any more skidmark...just another dupe who is unable to actually think...how boring.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2018)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You can post all of that bullshit you like skidmark..
> ...



Maybe you can answer the questions I put to the skidmark which he is afraid to even consider...how about you hairball?  Are you able to use your brain or are you just a mouthpiece for whoever gave you your opinion?

O3 reacts readily with nitrogen, hydrogen, and naturally occurring bromine and chlorine molecules found in the stratosphere and measured in parts per million...CFC's according to the skid mark's  source exist in the stratosphere at a concentration of just over 3 parts per billion...that is BILLION...

the probability is that an O3 molecule will be more likely to react with nitrogen, hydrogen, or one of the naturally occurring bromine, or chlorine molecules which, together are a bit over 780,000ppm in the atmosphere or a CFC molecule which exists at a concentration of 3 parts per billion?

Lets hear it hairball...how much danger is a CFC molecule in concentrations of 3 parts per BILLION, when O3 readily reacts with nitrogen, hydrogen, and naturally occurring chlorine and bromine molecules which exist in concentrations of over 780,000ppm?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2018)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Those two aren't even able to think...they believe CFC molecules at atmospheric concentrations of 3 parts per BILLION represent more of a threat to ozone molecules than 780,000 parts per million of nitrogen, hydrogen and naturally occurring chlorine and bromine molecules which ozone also readily reacts with.  That's how it goes with cultists...they can't even turn their minds towards anything that might challenge what their leaders have told them.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


It's math,  they don't know the difference in magnitude. It's a shame.


----------



## Crick (Dec 21, 2018)

You haven't the math skills to criticize a kindergartener.

And there's also the wee point that apparently neither of you know the difference between a reactant and a catalyst.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 21, 2018)

Crick said:


> You haven't the math skills to criticize a kindergartener.
> 
> And there's also the wee point that apparently neither of you know the difference between a reactant and a catalyst.



You are nothing if not predictable skid mark...and anyone can predict that you will be all stupid all the time.  Let me tell you a little story about chemistry and sunlight..it involves UV, and oxygen and nitrogen.  Energetic UV, as I suppose you know, breaks apart O2 molecules...it also breaks apart N2 molecules...some of these free O and N atoms become NO or nitric oxide. NO is one of the three most abundant nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere.  

What you clearly didn't know is that NO is a catalyst in the breakdown of O3.  Nitric oxide exists in the stratosphere at something between 1ppm and 3ppm..

So you have a naturally occurring catalyst at 2 to 3 ppm and your CFC's at 3 parts per billion...

Still waiting for you to describe how an ozone layer crisis is possible...the natural destroyers of O3 molecules so completely overwhelm any damage done by CFC's that the damage done by CFC's is insignificant...


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > This is from Ozone Chapter 8.
> ...


The air in the high stratosphere is at only 5 mbar. Not much ozone nor anything else compared to the lower stratosphere. 
Besides that there is no diurnal variation in the stratosphere. This is from the source I cited.

*4.1 Short-Term Variability in the Upper Stratosphere*
......
_While ozone is produced and destroyed on a time scale of one day or less at altitudes greater than 40 km altitude, this does not in itself lead to a diurnal variation of ozone. This is because when sunlight is present, production and loss are balanced (as given by the steady state approximation in the upper stratosphere). *When the sun sets, both production and loss are turned off and the ozone concentration increases slightly* as O atoms are converted to ozone molecules in three body reactions involving O, O2, and M._​
It looks like your model of daily variation of ozone doesn't hold water. The ozone in the troposphere and lower atmosphere drops at most by 15% at night. And the ozone in the upper stratosphere increases slightly at night.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 23, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



I guess your source believes that the reactions between O3, nitrogen, hydrogen, natural chlorine and bromine molecules, and yes, even what few CFC's there are all stop at night, or during the arctic winter.

The things you will believe if someone just prints it for you and it seems to agree with what you believe.

I am still waiting for one of you wackos to tell me how you think CFC's at a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION, are a threat to the ozone layer when O3 readily reacts with nitrogen, hydrogen, natural chlorine and bromine molecules which together amount to something over 780,000 parts per MILLION..  The skid mark thought that it was because CFC's are a catalyst, but NO is also a catalyst and exists in the stratosphere at something between 1 and 3 parts per million as opposed to CFC's which are 3 parts per billion...

So lets hear it.  How are CFC's a threat to the ozone layer?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 23, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Read the article yourself, I'm not going to do your research. You always disparaged models by physics experts, but yet you build your own.model, and you are far from understanding physics. You challenged the author. Write him an email.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 23, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You challenged the author. Write him an email.
> ...



SSDD actually did that. He contacted a Prof Raeder, at MIT if I remember correctly. SSDD's questions were bland, so SSDD interpreted Raeder's reply to be verification of one way energy flow. Tod contacted the same professor and, well it's a long story. I forgot which thread it's on, but it was absolutely hilarious.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 23, 2018)

I did a search and found this as SSDD's question to Prof Raeder,
The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

This is Todd's letter to the same professor:
The Heart of the AGW Premise Fails Empirical Review.

There is more follow-on correspondence between the professor and both SSDD and Todd. SSDD really shot himself in the foot.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Dec 25, 2018)

ELSEVIER

The Antarctic ozone depletion caused by Erebus volcano gas emissions

V.V.ZuevabcN.E.ZuevaaE.S.SavelievaaV.V.Gerasimovab

2015

*Abstract*
Heterogeneous chemical reactions releasing photochemically active molecular chlorine play a key role in Antarctic stratospheric ozone destruction, resulting in the Antarctic ozone hole. Hydrogen chloride (HCl) is one of the principal components in these reactions on the surfaces of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs). PSCs form during polar nights at extremely low temperatures (lower than −78 °C) mainly on sulfuric acid (H2SO4) aerosols, acting as condensation nuclei and formed from sulfur dioxide (SO2). However, the cause of HCl and H2SO4 high concentrations in the Antarctic stratosphere, leading to considerable springtime ozone depletion, is still not clear. Based on the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data over the last 35 years and by using the NOAA HYSPLIT trajectory model, we show that Erebus volcano gas emissions (including HCl and SO2) can reach the Antarctic stratosphere via high-latitude cyclones with the annual average probability P&#xAF;ann.'>P¯ann. of at least ∼0.235 (23.5%). Depending on Erebus activity, this corresponds to additional annual stratospheric HCl mass of 1.0–14.3 kilotons (kt) and SO2 mass of 1.4–19.7 kt. Thus, Erebus volcano is the natural and powerful source of additional stratospheric HCl and SO2, and hence, the cause of the Antarctic ozone depletion, together with man-made chlorofluorocarbons.


----------



## Crick (Dec 27, 2018)

From your post:  "... *together with man-made chlorofluorocarbons*."


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 27, 2018)

Rambunctious said:


> Frightening the populous is as old as dirt....governments have been doing this for power and control since the beginning of time...the difference this time is it was pushed into the young minds via public schools...so supposed educated people have sucked it up and believe it....



_Politics under democracy consists almost wholly of the discovery, chase, and scotching of bugaboos. The statesman becomes, in the last analysis, a mere witch-hunter, a glorified smeller and snooper, eternally chanting "Fe, Fi, Fo, Fum!" It has been so in the United States since the earliest days. The whole history of the country has been a history of melodramatic pursuits of horrendous monsters, most of them imaginary: the red-coats, the Hessians, the monocrats, again the red-coats, the Bank, the Catholics, Simon Legree, the Slave Power, Jeff Davis, Mormonism, Wall Street, the rum demon, John Bull, the hell hounds of plutocracy, the trusts, General Weyler, Pancho Villa, German spies, hyphenates, the Kaiser, Bolshevism. The list might be lengthened indefinitely; a complete chronicle of the Republic could be written in terms of it, and without omitting a single important episode. _

_It was long ago observed that the plain people, under democracy, never vote for anything, but always against something. The fact explains in large measure, the tendency of democratic states to pass over statesmen of genuine imagination and sound ability in favour of colorless mediocrities. The former are shining marks, and so it is easy for demagogues to bring them down; the latter are preferred because it is impossible to fear them._

_- H. L. Mencken - _


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 27, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...


Of course there is debate.  The idea that chlorofluorocarbons caused the so-called ozone hole.  For one thing, they are 3-4 times denser than the gases in our atmosphere.  How would chlorofluorocarbons sprayed from a can of hairspray get into the stratosphere?  It strains credulity to believe such a thing is even possible.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 27, 2018)

The fact that this thread was not immediately moved to the conspiracy theory section tells us a lot about the message board and its moderation.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 27, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The fact that this thread was not immediately moved to the conspiracy theory section tells us a lot about the message board and its moderation.


It tells you that you leftwing morons can't bamboozle everyone.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 27, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that this thread was not immediately moved to the conspiracy theory section tells us a lot about the message board and its moderation.
> ...


Actually, this is the work of the global scientific community. Any one of you uneducated fools is invited to present an actual challenge to any of it at any time. No, crying your little eyes out and pulling on each other's Taffy on a message board is not an actual challenge to scientific knowledge.

A thread that claims the global scientific community has ganged up to lie to America's trailer park dwellers is an embarrassing conspiracy theory and should be treated as such.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 27, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


ROFL!  By the "global scientific community" you mean all the shameless posers on the government payroll.

There Never Was a Hole in the Ozone  Tim Ball Teaches You the Science - BRAINFEED.TV


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 27, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


No, I meant the global scientific community.  And no, I'm not going to click yet another one of your links you never watched or read and don't understand, then spoonfeed it back to you. I'm not your mommy.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 27, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


----------



## Sunsettommy (Dec 27, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



Notice that warmists ignore the fact that the rest of the worlds ozone cover outside of the polar region hardly changed at all the whole time. I doubt they even know about the EXISTENCE of monitoring stations that measures Ozone on a daily basis.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 27, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



These so-called "scientists" had no clue what the ozone layer looked like before they discovered this "hole."  That was the first time they had measured it.


----------



## Crick (Dec 27, 2018)

Patrick!  Long time no see.  How have you been?  Where have you been?  When have you been there?  Still angry?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 28, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> Of course there is debate.  The idea that chlorofluorocarbons caused the so-called ozone hole.  For one thing, they are 3-4 times denser than the gases in our atmosphere.



So, by your very peculiar physics, all of the argon in the atmosphere must have sunk down and collected at the surface, because it's heavier than the other atmospheric gases.

However, since we all haven't suffocated due to the argon displacing all the oxygen, it would appear your version of reality is totally wrong. In the real world, there's this thing called "wind" which mixes gases most effectively.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 28, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Notice that warmists ignore the fact that the rest of the worlds ozone cover outside of the polar region hardly changed at all the whole time. I doubt they even know about the EXISTENCE of monitoring stations that measures Ozone on a daily basis.



Why did you think it should change significantly? That's not what the science says should happen, after all.

As is always the case, you failed at the basics. But then, your conspiracy cult commands you to get everything wrong, and you serve the cult admirably.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Dec 29, 2018)

Crick said:


> From your post:  "... *together with man-made chlorofluorocarbons*."



It Is clear you didn't read the paper, they make a case that Mt. Erebus was the most significant contributor of O3 depletion, and only in a short period of time of the year. CHC's doesn't deplete much O3 outside of the SAME short period of time, which is why the entire O3 hole scaremongering was misleading and dishonest.

Here is a paragraph that explains why there is negligible depletion outside of Antarctica springtime:

"Generally, ozone holes appear over Antarctica in springtime due to the following factors: 1) winter–spring formation of a stable polar vortex, which isolates the Antarctic stratosphere and cools it to extremely low temperatures (lower than −78 °C); 2) PSCs formation on condensation nuclei (H2SO4 aerosols) at these temperatures; and 3) ozone destruction in reactions (1)–(5) (Finlayson-Pitts and Pitts, 2000, Newman, 2010)."


----------



## Crick (Dec 29, 2018)

Samples from the Antarctic stratosphere all contain CFCs.  Erebus has not erupted violently in 700,000 years and the NO2 formed on the surface of its lava lakes, unlike CFCs, is water soluble and thus gets flushed out by precipitation.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2018)

Still waiting on one of you hand waving alarmists to explain how CFC's which exist in the stratosphere in concentrations of about 3 parts per BILLION represent a threat to the ozone layer.  The skid mark claimed that it was because CFC's are a catalyst, but he was clearly unaware of the fact that a natural catalyst (NO) exists in the stratosphere at a concentration of 1 to 3 parts per million...in addition to the abundant natural reactants...nitrogen, hydrogen, and natural chlorine and bromine compounds...

How does this 3 part per BILLION chemical represent a threat to the ozone layer when the other agents which also react with O3 exist in concentrations of slightly more than 780,000 parts per million?

Come on geniuses...are you unable to use your brain, or do you just accept whatever pseudoscientific nonsense is handed to you in the format of a scientific paper?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > From your post:  "... *together with man-made chlorofluorocarbons*."
> ...




Still waiting on them to say now a molecule that exists in the stratosphere in concentrations of 3 parts per BILLION represents a threat when O3 readily reacts with naturally occurring molecules which exist in the stratosphere in concentrations of 780,000ppm and NO, which is a naturally occurring catalyst exists in the stratosphere in concentrations of 1 to 3 ppm.

And then there is the blatant elephant in the room...the hole only exists over the poles during their sunless winters...I guess if you are an alarmist, there is nothing to be gleaned from that bit of information...


----------



## Crick (Dec 29, 2018)

You keep attempting to imply there has been no loss of ozone.  Do you have some data to back that up?  We have this:


----------



## Sunsettommy (Dec 29, 2018)

Crick said:


> Samples from the Antarctic stratosphere all contain CFCs.  Erebus has not erupted violently in 700,000 years and the NO2 formed on the surface of its lava lakes, unlike CFCs, is water soluble and thus gets flushed out by precipitation.



Ha ha, you didn't read the part where it says the Volcano keeps adding the gases in sufficient concentration to *MAINTAIN* the corrosive effect of the O3 layer. Not only that they say the Volcano began to erupt in 1972 and became high emissions in the early 1980, just the very time the O3 began to decline significantly to a lower level than usual:

"Erebus volcano (77°32′ S, 167°09′ E, summit elevation 3794 m) located on Ross Island, Ross Sea, is known to be the only burning volcano in Antarctica and one of the most active volcanoes on the Earth. The volcanic activity restarted in 1972 and is ongoing at the present time. *At the beginning of the 1980s, the activity was extremely high, and therefore, degassing volumes were considerably higher compared to the present-day ones *(Rose et al., 1985, Kyle et al., 1994, Zreda-Gostynska et al., 1993). *Erebus volcano is noted for its persistent and permanent gas and aerosol emissions mostly occurring via lava lake degassing *(Oppenheimer and Kyle, 2008). The predominant components of Erebus volcano gas emissions are H2O, CO2, CO, SO2, HF and HCl (Oppenheimer and Kyle, 2008). Note that Erebus gas emissions have high HCl/SO2 mass ratio of 0.28–0.92 (Zreda-Gostynska et al., 1993, Oppenheimer and Kyle, 2008, Wardell et al., 2008), one of the highest in the world (Boichu et al., 2011)."

_bolding  and enlargement mine_

Here is what they say about CFC's:

"CFCs are *assumed *to be the main source of inert chlorine reservoir molecules HCl and ClONO2. After entering the equatorial (tropical) stratosphere, the CFCs are photolyzed by UV radiation, releasing Cl (Newman, 2010). In the middle and upper stratosphere, Cl atoms are converted into HCl via..."

_bolding mine_

There is more in the paper you are avoiding/ignoring, don't continue your dishonest replies.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Dec 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Crick keeps ignoring the fact that O3 levels everywhere else in the world during the year doesn't change very much, only in the Antarctic region and only for a few weeks due to the extreme cold, a CRUCIAL catalyst to set up the erosion of O3:

*"Generally, ozone holes appear over Antarctica in springtime due to the following factors: 1) winter–spring formation of a stable polar vortex, which isolates the Antarctic stratosphere and cools it to extremely low temperatures (lower than −78 °C)*; 2) PSCs formation on condensation nuclei (H2SO4 aerosols) at these temperatures; and 3) ozone destruction in reactions (1)–(5) (Finlayson-Pitts and Pitts, 2000, Newman, 2010)."

_bolding mine
_
The idiot keeps ignoring the TWO CRITICAL factors that sets up the decline, without them there would be very little change no matter how much of the destructive gases there are available.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 29, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...


Well....

They do blame CO2 for something that water vapor is actually doing and they ignore it as well..  Might be a pattern from our crop of pseudo-scientists here..


----------



## Crick (Dec 29, 2018)

Mt Erebus is hitting Bouder, Colorado hard.




















Belsk, 1963 - 2008


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2018)

Crick said:


> You keep attempting to imply there has been no loss of ozone.  Do you have some data to back that up?  We have this:



The production of O3 is reliant on shortwave UV...compare the chart you provided with solar output in the UV for the same years.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Here is what they say about CFC's:
> 
> "CFCs are *assumed *to be the main source of inert chlorine reservoir molecules HCl and ClONO2. After entering the equatorial (tropical) stratosphere, the CFCs are photolyzed by UV radiation, releasing Cl (Newman, 2010). In the middle and upper stratosphere, Cl atoms are converted into HCl via..."
> 
> ...



And terms like "main source" are relative terms...the assumed "main source" is providing about 3 parts per billion.....hardly a threat.


----------



## Crick (Dec 29, 2018)

Thus one tells the difference between real science and pseudo science.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2018)

Crick said:


> Thus one tells the difference between real science and pseudo science.



Still waiting for an explanation for how a molecule that is 3 parts per billion is a threat to the ozone when natural molecules that also readily react with O3 are present in concentrations of about 780,000ppm.  Does your pseudoscience not give you answers to such questions?


----------



## Crick (Dec 29, 2018)

I'm not inclined to produce ANYTHING for you, so why don't you hold your breath till that explanation shows up spontaneously?  Okay?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 29, 2018)

Crick said:


> I'm not inclined to produce ANYTHING for you, so why don't you hold your breath till that explanation shows up spontaneously?  Okay?



Don't worry skidmark...I never expected it.  I only made the challenge to bring your inability to think for yourself into sharp relief.  Of course you couldn't explain why a molecule at a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION would pose no threat to a molecule that is under constant assault by molecules at a concentration of something over 780,000ppm.  No rational person would make such a suggestion...only an alarmist looking for funding would suggest such nonsense, and seeing that would require critical thinking skills that you obviously don't possess.


----------



## Crick (Dec 29, 2018)

The data I have put up here repeatedly show ozone levels dropping over a matter of years.  Please explain how your hypothesis or that of the Mt Erebus people fit into those observations.

Asshole


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 29, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Still waiting on them to say now a molecule that exists in the stratosphere in concentrations of 3 parts per BILLION represents a threat when O3 readily reacts with naturally occurring molecules which exist in the stratosphere in concentrations of 780,000ppm and NO, which is a naturally occurring catalyst exists in the stratosphere in concentrations of 1 to 3 ppm.





SSDD said:


> Still waiting for an explanation for how a molecule that is 3 parts per billion is a threat to the ozone when natural molecules that also readily react with O3 are present in concentrations of about 780,000ppm. Does your pseudoscience not give you answers to such questions?



Shame on you. Crick has observed, measured, repeatable data. You only have a model. Remember you always said observation should be believed over models.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting on them to say now a molecule that exists in the stratosphere in concentrations of 3 parts per BILLION represents a threat when O3 readily reacts with naturally occurring molecules which exist in the stratosphere in concentrations of 780,000ppm and NO, which is a naturally occurring catalyst exists in the stratosphere in concentrations of 1 to 3 ppm.
> ...



Crick has a measurement, but nothing but an assumption based on models as to why the measurement changed...much like you guys have some measured warming, but nothing more than an assumption based on models as to why the warming happened.  In short, he has an unsubstantiated hypothesis with no actual observed, measured evidence as to why the change happened.  I am sure that both of you see the measurement as actual evidence of why the change happened even though you only have evidence of a change and nothing as to the reason why...It is that lack of critical thinking that had made you into dupes.

As I already pointed out...O3 production is dependent upon the UV output from the sun...it is well known that while TSI is at least moderately constant, output in particular wavelengths of UV vary wildly from year to year and decade to decade.  I would be interested in seeing the amount of O3 compared to the UV output in particular wavelengths during the time period in question...and as a side note...I would not be surprised at all to see the numbers dropping even further as we move into a grand solar minimum.

It is typical of you people to jump to the manmade scenario before you even scratch the surface of natural causes. 

Now, if you want to get into the why of the change...and you want to lean towards the manmade scenario....lets hear a rational, scientifically valid explanation as to how a molecule that is present at a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION represents more of a threat to the ozone layer than a naturally occurring molecule that is also a catalyst for O3 reactions that is present in concentrations of between 1 and 3 parts per MILLION and reactants to O3 are present in concentrations of slightly more than 780,000 parts per MILLION.

Every one of you alarmists should familiarize yourselves with the scientific method before you jump to unsupportable conclusions as to the cause of an observed, measured event.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick has a measurement, but nothing but an assumption based on models as to why the measurement changed...much like you guys have some measured warming, but nothing more than an assumption based on models as to why the warming happened. In short, he has an unsubstantiated hypothesis with no actual observed, measured evidence as to why the change happened. I am sure that both of you see the measurement as actual evidence of why the change happened even though you only have evidence of a change and nothing as to the reason why...It is that lack of critical thinking that had made you into dupes.
> 
> As I already pointed out...O3 production is dependent upon the UV output from the sun...it is well known that while TSI is at least moderately constant, output in particular wavelengths of UV vary wildly from year to year and decade to decade. I would be interested in seeing the amount of O3 compared to the UV output in particular wavelengths during the time period in question...and as a side note...I would not be surprised at all to see the numbers dropping even further as we move into a grand solar minimum.
> 
> ...



You are still talking about your model. You often said you didn't believe in models of physics.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> You are still talking about your model. You often said you didn't believe in models of physics.




Your interpretation again...I am fine with models that can be tested against measurable, repeatable observations..


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> I am fine with models that can be tested against measurable, repeatable observations.


Does that now mean that you no longer think Quantum Mechanics is fairy dust?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I am fine with models that can be tested against measurable, repeatable observations.
> ...



The barest tip of QM has been experimentally verified.....in 100 years, QM will bear as much resemblance to QM today as medicine of 100 years ago does to medicine today.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The barest tip of QM has been experimentally verified.....in 100 years, QM will bear as much resemblance to QM today as medicine of 100 years ago does to medicine today.


That is total bullshit. The measurements are valid to parts per billion and that is good enough for all physics on earth. A new theory will not change those numbers.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The barest tip of QM has been experimentally verified.....in 100 years, QM will bear as much resemblance to QM today as medicine of 100 years ago does to medicine today.
> ...



You believe all of QM has been measured to parts per billion?  Every aspect of QM has been verified to that degree?  Are you really so stupid that you believe that?

And by the way...QM has made a couple of predictions verifiable to that accuracy...nothing more.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> You believe all of QM has been measured to parts per billion? Every aspect of QM has been verified to that degree? Are you really so stupid that you believe that?


Quantum ElectroDynamics has NEVER failed an experimental test. That's like someone asking you if every aspect of the second law has been verified. Think about it.


----------



## Crick (Dec 30, 2018)

The obvious conclusion here is that Same Shit knows absolutely squat about QM.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You believe all of QM has been measured to parts per billion? Every aspect of QM has been verified to that degree? Are you really so stupid that you believe that?
> ...



Try reading some time....

Inherent Differences between Bound and Radiation Fields
Clip:   The recent failure of quantum electrodynamics to explain the electron and the muon data of the proton charge radius supports this conclusion.

Tests of quantum electrodynamics in few-electron very high-Z ions (Conference) | OSTI.GOV
Clip:   A possible failure of quantum electrodynamics (QED) to predict accurate radiative corrections to bound states at Z= 92 is not ruled out by its success at low Z.

The incredible shrinking proton

#70: The Proton Gets Small(er)  | DiscoverMagazine.com
Clip:  In quantum physics, a 4 percent mistake is a mighty error. “Either there’s a problem with quantum electrodynamics,” Knowles says, “or there’s some funny physics going on that no one understands yet.”

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/13432/1/PhD Bacelar Valente redux.pdf

It isn't like you have to look far to find problems with QM...if you are a thinking person that is...it would probably never occur to a bot like you to even look...such is your faith.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2018)

Crick said:


> The obvious conclusion here is that Same Shit knows absolutely squat about QM.



Apparently more than you skidmark....


----------



## Crick (Dec 30, 2018)

If you did, you would not have made such an ignorant remark.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 30, 2018)

Crick said:


> If you did, you would not have made such an ignorant remark.




You have become comic relief...how does it feel to have let someone get so completely under your skin that you are reduced to that?


----------



## Crick (Dec 30, 2018)

So what is your explanation for a decrease in ozone taking place over decades?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 30, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Tests of quantum electrodynamics in few-electron very high-Z ions (Conference) | OSTI.GOV
> Clip: A possible failure of quantum electrodynamics (QED) to predict accurate radiative corrections to bound states at Z= 92 is not ruled out by its success at low Z.


That was done in 1986. Things have changed. They didn't mention a failure in their single sentence conclusion:
_In conclusion, we have measured the Lamb shift in uranium. Our final value of 70.4 (8.1) is in agreement with the theoretical value of 75.3(0.4) eV. _​


SSDD said:


> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/13432/1/PhD Bacelar Valente redux.pdf


This reference did not say there was any failure in QED. It was mainly about the historic failures of QM before QED came about.



SSDD said:


> Inherent Differences between Bound and Radiation Fields
> Clip: The recent failure of quantum electrodynamics to explain the electron and the muon data of the proton charge radius supports this conclusion.
> 
> Tests of quantum electrodynamics in few-electron very high-Z ions (Conference) | OSTI.GOV
> ...



These three references are about the protons size discrepancy found in 2010. Several experiments were done between then and 2017 which did not resolve the discrepancy in two different methods of measurement.

However that is not a failure of QED. The proton size is fuzzy and too complex for QED to calculate so far. The puzzle is an experimental measurement discrepancy. Thank you for the reference. I wasn't aware of that measurement problem.

I stand by my statement that QED has not failed any experimental test especially in the area that is relevant to earth sciences. But of course you don't believe QM anyway.

.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Crick said:


> So what is your explanation for a decrease in ozone taking place over decades?



I have given you a good place to start already...we know that ozone production in the stratosphere is entirely dependent upon incoming UV...we also know that while the sun's TSI is moderately stable from year to year, output in specific bands of UV can vary wildly over the same time span...a small change in the 100 to 400nm wavelengths could have a profound effect on the amount of O3 that is produced...especially over the poles during their respective winters.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

[QUOTE="Wuwei, post: 21495223, member: 54364"

I stand by my statement that QED has not failed any experimental test especially in the area that is relevant to earth sciences. But of course you don't believe QM anyway.

.[/QUOTE]

Of course you do...and I am sure that you will stand by it to the bitter end...even as QM is modified to the point that it is barely recognizable as the same theory we have today should you live that long.

By the way...for all your faith in QM, are you aware that Newtonian physics remains the core of study in the vast majority of physics programs...that should tell you something about the faith that actual physicists have that the theory is set in stone and will remain unchanged as time and technology progress.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Of course you do...and I am sure that you will stand by it to the bitter end...even as QM is modified to the point that it is barely recognizable as the same theory we have today should you live that long.


Fool. As soon as an experiment finds QED wrong. I will stand by any new theory that is supported by all experiments. All the physics of any new theory will still have to abide by all current experiments to parts per billion. This accuracy is by far all that's needed for events that affect the ozone layer, the subject of this thread. 



SSDD said:


> By the way...for all your faith in QM, are you aware that Newtonian physics remains the core of study in the vast majority of physics programs...that should tell you something about the faith that actual physicists have that the theory is set in stone and will remain unchanged as time and technology progress.



Fool. Of course Newton's theory is taught and will always be taught. The theory is all that's needed to plan flights to the moon or Pluto. Einsteins theory becomes Newton's theory to a very high degree of accuracy since rockets don't go anywhere near the speed of light. Any calculation involving ozone (the subject of this thread) will not need relativity either. Why did you bring that diversion up?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Fool. As soon as an experiment finds QED wrong. I will stand by any new theory that is supported by all experiments. All the physics of any new theory will still have to abide by all current experiments to parts per billion. This accuracy is by far all that's needed for events that affect the ozone layer, the subject of this thread.



You are absolutely laughable...Q.E.D. can tell us about electron anomalous magnetic moment to a certainty of parts per billion...and it will predict proton-to-electron mass ratios to parts per billion..  Now do apply QED to what is happening in the ozone layer....

You are always good for a laugh...I have to hand that to you.  



Wuwei said:


> Fool. Of course Newton's theory is taught and will always be taught.



Not just taught...it is the core of most physics programs.  You are not aware that post modern physics is in a crisis because it is your religion...nothing can go against your religion...you are as blind to problems within physics as the catholic church was to pedophile priests....


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2018)

Pure trolling


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Crick said:


> Pure trolling



You have become a bitter old woman just like the hairball....I do enjoy watching you get your panties in a twist and start the name calling when you have no rational response....

wuwei said:  "All the physics of any new theory will still have to abide by all current experiments to parts per billion. This accuracy is by far all that's needed for events that affect the ozone layer, the subject of this thread."

To which I said:  " Q.E.D. can tell us about electron anomalous magnetic moment to a certainty of parts per billion...and it will predict proton-to-electron mass ratios to parts per billion.. Now do apply QED to what is happening in the ozone layer...."

Care to explain how that is trolling?  I'm sure you can't since all you do is say crap you can't back up...I do enjoy watching you get your panties in a twist when I put questions and challenges to you that you simply can not answer...


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Now do apply QED to what is happening in the ozone layer...
> 
> You are always good for a laugh...I have to hand that to you.


QED shows ozone is and behaves like a green house gas.



SSDD said:


> Not just taught...it is the core of most physics programs. You are not aware that post modern physics is in a crisis because it is your religion...nothing can go against your religion...you are as blind to problems within physics as the catholic church was to pedophile priests...



Newtonian mechanics is the core of high school physics classes, not college classes. It's now even more obvious you didn't get any physics in college. A college course in Newtonian mechanics is an abstraction that would be way way over your head. Post modern physics is not in a crisis. You only think so because you don't understand it.

Your anger seem always comes when you are totally wrong and posting crap. You never learn that it really makes you look petulant and stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> QED shows ozone is and behaves like a green house gas.



And that answers the question of whether CFC's represent a real threat to the ozone layer how exactly?



Wuwei said:


> Newtonian mechanics is the core of high school physics classes, not college classes. It's now even more obvious you didn't get any physics in college. A college course in Newtonian mechanics is an abstraction that would be way way over your head. Post modern physics is not in a crisis. You only think so because you don't understand it.



Sorry guy...I was talking about college curriculum...

And google "physics in crisis"  you will get about 40 million hits...peruse the links and you will see just how little modern physicists agree on anything about anything...if your faith can handle that sort of thing that is.



Wuwei said:


> Your anger seem always comes when you are totally wrong and posting crap. You never learn that it really makes you look petulant and stupid.



Think that explains crick following me around mewling troll...troll...troll?  You guys are positively laughable.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> And that answers the question of whether CFC's represent a real threat to the ozone layer how exactly?


I already gave you a link.



SSDD said:


> Sorry guy...I was talking about college curriculum...
> And google "physics in crisis" you will get about 40 million hits...peruse the links and you will see just how little modern physicists agree on anything about anything...if your faith can handle that sort of thing that is.


Newtonian mechanics is not the basis of a college curriculum.

I was curious and looked at the sites that came up. The "crises" are the usual that have been known for over a decade. Basically the last undiscovered bit of QED has been found. The "Standard Theory", which includes QED, (a relativistic version of Schroedinger's work) is a done deal as far as it was conceived. But it never had a method of combining with general relativity. It had no mechanism to predict the masses of particles. The "crises" in the first 6 hits are summarized below. Those potential theories have not been resolved yet.

1. The crisis is that the last QED unknown is solved. Physicists have to figure out a new direction.

2 Unification of gravity and QED not resolved.

3. Supersymetry and String Theory don't work yet.

4. Need fundamental theory for particle masses.
String theory doesn't work
Higgs particle is light.
Supersymmetry not found

5. Particle physics has reached a climax with the Higgs boson. What new areas shall physicists go from there.

6. Haven't found a supersymetry concept yet.​
None of that has any bearing on the physics of the various aspects of the earth.

That was interesting to me, but is far afield from this thread. Can we drop the frontiers of physics now?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I already gave you a link.



Why lie about something so trivial?  In which post did you give me a link that explained how QED answers the question of whether CFC's are a threat to the ozone?



SSDD said:


> Newtonian mechanics is not the basis of a college curriculum.



Sorry, but it is...and for most physics programs.


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > So what is your explanation for a decrease in ozone taking place over decades?
> ...




But you have no such trend to show us.  You'd just like us to believe it took place.  You have NOTHING to explain the behavior of ozone in the Earth's atmosphere aside from rising levels of CFCs.  This whole thread is a manufactured piece of Grade AAAA shit.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



And you have no trend to show otherwise...but rather than look for the most likely cause, you leap immediately to the knee jerk alarmist, idiotic claim that a molecule which exists in the stratosphere at a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION is a threat to the ozone layer when naturally occurring catalysts for O3 exist in the stratosphere at a concentration of 1 to 5 parts per million, and naturally occurring reactants exist in the stratosphere at a concentration of 780,000 parts per million...and you can't even begin to explain how that molecule at 3 parts per billion represents the more serious threat...or any real threat at all.


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2018)

The literature is filled with data of increasing CFCs in the atmosphere up until the Montreal Protocol. The effect of those levels on ozone is understood. There is no vast and perfect conspiracy among scientists to lie to the public. Ask your friend Billy Boy who claims to now be an active climate researcher.  His workmates would be virtually required to be involved in your conspiracy.  Has he caught them at it?  Has it come out in water cooler chats?  Has he gone out drinking with them and heard the real scoop.

You are a stupid, lying troll.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Crick said:


> The literature is filled with data of increasing CFCs in the atmosphere up until the Montreal Protocol.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Newtonian mechanics is not the basis of a college curriculum.
> ...



What college for retards have you been to? That is total BS for any major university.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 31, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> What college for retards have you been to? That is total BS for any major university.



Me?  I graduated from that hick school in Gainsville, Fl.

Your lack of education is showing....again.  But then, what else is new.  You have no informed opinion...only one that someone else gave you..


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2018)

Too bad it's SO freakin' obvious you never took a single day of physics or any other form of STEM coursework.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 31, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Me? I graduated from that hick school in Gainsville, Fl.


I sincerely doubt it. You can't even spell the name of Gainesville correctly. Or maybe you did go there but was kicked out after a week or so before you knew where you were.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



I read the article...nothing there...mabyes...mights...coulds...no explanation as to how a molecule present at 3 parts per BILLION represents a greater threat to the ozone than naturally occurring catalysts present at 1 to 4 parts per MILLION and natural reactants that are present at 780,000 parts per million..


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Me? I graduated from that hick school in Gainsville, Fl.
> ...



Hey...caught me in a spelling error...you should try to type in a brace sometime...great fun...maybe you can find a punctuation error as well...that should make your day.


----------



## Crick (Jan 1, 2019)

What was your degree troll?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Hey...caught me in a spelling error...you should try to type in a brace sometime...great fun...maybe you can find a punctuation error as well...that should make your day.


Everyone including you and me make spelling errors and yes I realize it's a cheap shot to call one out. But when you exhibit such a poor understanding of physics and claim to come from some area that you can't automatically spell, then I won't believe you. I can only assume that you were referring to a high school in that area before your frontal lobe was mature.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 1, 2019)

Still waiting for an explanation as to how a molecule present at a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION represents any threat at all to the ozone when natural catalysts for O3 are present at 1 to 4 parts per million and natural reactants are present at a concentration slightly above 780,000 ppm...

Got one?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 1, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I read the article...nothing there...mabyes...mights...coulds...no explanation as to how a molecule present at 3 parts per BILLION represents a greater threat to the ozone than naturally occurring catalysts present at 1 to 4 parts per MILLION and natural reactants that are present at 780,000 parts per million..


The article was sure thought out better than your .mabyes...mights...coulds.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I read the article...nothing there...mabyes...mights...coulds...no explanation as to how a molecule present at 3 parts per BILLION represents a greater threat to the ozone than naturally occurring catalysts present at 1 to 4 parts per MILLION and natural reactants that are present at 780,000 parts per million..
> ...



Still waiting for an explanation...what's the matter?  Can't think of any reason CFC's might represent a threat at 3 parts per BILLION when the natural reactants and catalysts of O3 don't at 780,000 parts per million?  Didn't think so...neither did your article...  Pure alarmist clap trap with very little critical thinking involved....But then, that is all that is required to fool you into taking the alarmist position, isn't it?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


I'm laughing as write this, .  you want proof of what?  How about you prove that CFC's can do what you claim?  you know, observed, measured evidence?  You ask for something that doesn't exist, rather than proving what you post.  too fking funny


----------



## Manonthestreet (Jan 2, 2019)

Most green policy is just a reason for Corp's to upcharge with more expensive replacements for whatever is declared bbaaaddddd...veerrryyyy baaad..


----------



## Likkmee (Jan 2, 2019)

Kinda like the Stormy hole that wanted to impeach tRump


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Still waiting for an explanation...what's the matter? Can't think of any reason CFC's might represent a threat at 3 parts per BILLION when the natural reactants and catalysts of O3 don't at 780,000 parts per million? Didn't think so...neither did your article... Pure alarmist clap trap with very little critical thinking involved....But then, that is all that is required to fool you into taking the alarmist position, isn't it?



I am not going to do your research for you. If you can't find somebody else's research then treat it as a homework problem. There are several ways of going about it involving some of the concepts below that you will need to look up:
mean free path as a function of pressure
collision cross sections
partial pressures vs altitude of gases involved
integration over altitude​I would be surprised if it isn't already in the literature. Do some critical thinking and you will have your answer. 

.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Samples from the Antarctic stratosphere all contain CFCs.  Erebus has not erupted violently in 700,000 years and the NO2 formed on the surface of its lava lakes, unlike CFCs, is water soluble and thus gets flushed out by precipitation.
> ...


facts.  stop introducing facts into a discussion thread that the whackos want to go away.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for an explanation...what's the matter? Can't think of any reason CFC's might represent a threat at 3 parts per BILLION when the natural reactants and catalysts of O3 don't at 780,000 parts per million? Didn't think so...neither did your article... Pure alarmist clap trap with very little critical thinking involved....But then, that is all that is required to fool you into taking the alarmist position, isn't it?
> ...


why don't you answer the question?  3 parts per billion or 780,000 parts per million.  which is more?  That doesn't require research for most of us.  It's obvious you can't figure it out in your own little mind.  too fking funny.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> Thus one tells the difference between real science and pseudo science.





SSDD said:


> Still waiting for an explanation for how a molecule that is 3 parts per billion is a threat to the ozone when natural molecules that also readily react with O3 are present in concentrations of about 780,000ppm. Does your pseudoscience not give you answers to such questions?


----------



## Crick (Jan 2, 2019)

With every demand like this you show more and more clearly that you lack anything even faintly resembling an education in basic science.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for an explanation...what's the matter? Can't think of any reason CFC's might represent a threat at 3 parts per BILLION when the natural reactants and catalysts of O3 don't at 780,000 parts per million? Didn't think so...neither did your article... Pure alarmist clap trap with very little critical thinking involved....But then, that is all that is required to fool you into taking the alarmist position, isn't it?
> ...



I have already done the research you idiot...which is how I have managed to put a question before you that you simply can not answer with any sort of rational, scientifically valid response...

Your mewling pseudoscientific response isn't fooling anyone except perhaps your troop of fellow dupes...


----------



## Crick (Jan 3, 2019)

Your technique has become repetitive: ask a question, reject all answers given, then claim this proves the converse.  It's logical bullshit.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I have already done the research you idiot...which is how I have managed to put a question before you that you simply can not answer with any sort of rational, scientifically valid response...



You have not done the research. All you posted was some densities of gases. 
You asked for an explanation about their interaction. Reciting densities is not an explanation of anything. You need to do more research to get an explanation.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> Your technique has become repetitive: ask a question, reject all answers given, then claim this proves the converse.  It's logical bullshit.




No answer has been given...no attempt has even been made to explain  how a molecule present at 3 parts per BILLION represents a greater threat to the ozone than naturally occurring catalysts present at 1 to 4 parts per MILLION and natural reactants that are present at 780,000 parts per million..

If you could read...you would know this.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I have already done the research you idiot...which is how I have managed to put a question before you that you simply can not answer with any sort of rational, scientifically valid response...
> ...



Still waiting for that explanation....And their relative densities is precisely what brings up the question...what are the chances of any given O3 molecule being broken down by a CFC molecule present at 3 parts per billion compared to the same O3 molecule being broken down by a natural catalyst of O3 present at 1 to 4 parts per million or a natural reactant to O3 present at 780,000 parts per million?  Discuss those probabilities in the context of one being a greater threat...or any real threat at all to the ozone in comparison with the other.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Still waiting for that explanation....And their relative densities is precisely what brings up the question...what are the chances of any given O3 molecule being broken down by a CFC molecule present at 3 parts per billion compared to the same O3 molecule being broken down by a natural catalyst of O3 present at 1 to 4 parts per million or a natural reactant to O3 present at 780,000 parts per million? Discuss those probabilities in the context of one being a greater threat...or any real threat at all to the ozone in comparison with the other.


It's not as simple as you think. You need to know the cross sections for elastic and inelastic collisions of the various molecules interacting with O3 in order compare the probabilities of the decay modes. You need to look up the mean time between collisions. 

Furthermore, you seem to get your information from the weirdest places and I simply don't trust your numbers. They may OK, but I'm not going to waste time on that. 

Finally it's your hypothesis, not mine and it's your job to compute the probabilities. 

.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> It's not as simple as you think. You need to know the cross sections for elastic and inelastic collisions of the various molecules interacting with O3 in order compare the probabilities of the decay modes. You need to look up the mean time between collisions.



So you have no explanation for how a molecule present at 3 parts per BILLION represents a greater threat to the ozone than naturally occurring catalysts present at 1 to 4 parts per MILLION and natural reactants that are present at 780,000 parts per million..

That's what I said...   You just accept whatever you are told so long as it jibes with the opinion someone gave you...


----------



## Crick (Jan 3, 2019)

Has everyone noticed that when Same Shit doesn't get the explanation he's attempted to corner someone into providing, he claims that 'failure'  is proof for whatever unsupportable bullshit he's trying to push?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So you have no explanation for how a molecule present at 3 parts per BILLION represents a greater threat to the ozone than naturally occurring catalysts present at 1 to 4 parts per MILLION and natural reactants that are present at 780,000 parts per million..
> 
> That's what I said... You just accept whatever you are told so long as it jibes with the opinion someone gave you...


I'm not going to waste time to do your research for you. You have been such a liar that I don't trust any numbers you come up with. It's your hypothesis, so it's up to you to apply the molecular collision details using the elastic and inelastic cross sections. I doubt if you can do that.

Edit.
Furthermore any explanation would involve model which you abhor. 
So, the best thing for you to do is perform an observed, measurable, repeatable experiment to get your explanation of how ozone interacts.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> Has everyone noticed that when Same Shit doesn't get the explanation he's attempted to corner someone into providing, he claims that 'failure' is proof for whatever unsupportable bullshit he's trying to push?


Yeah, and another troll trick he uses is when you give an explanation that involves actual science that he doesn't like, he denies that you ever gave him and explanation.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

Crick said:


> Has everyone noticed that when Same Shit doesn't get the explanation he's attempted to corner someone into providing, he claims that 'failure'  is proof for whatever unsupportable bullshit he's trying to push?



What proof did I ask for?  I simply asked for a rational, scientifically valid explanation...you guys have been shucking and jiving now for pages rather than simply admitting that there is none...then in your frustration you lie and claim that I am asking for proof of something...you are a real piece of shitty work...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I'm not going to waste time to do your research for you.



What you are not going to do is provide any sort of rational, scientifically valid explanation..what you are going to do is what you always do...dodge and weave...shuck and jive....and hope that the question goes away..



Wuwei said:


> You have been such a liar that I don't trust any numbers you come up with.



More bullshit...all the sources have been provided by either myself or the skidmark...you are simply over a barrel...you know the studies you provided either missed, or more likely deliberately ignored some very important factors...all in the name of supporting a narrative...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Has everyone noticed that when Same Shit doesn't get the explanation he's attempted to corner someone into providing, he claims that 'failure' is proof for whatever unsupportable bullshit he's trying to push?
> ...



You girls needing a bit of mutual stroking?  Is it doing any good?  I have not asked for proof as the skid mark claims...I asked for a rational, scientifically valid explanation for a couple of things which neither of you can even come close to providing...so you start mewling about bad old SSDD and how unfair he is because he would like to see you actually support your arguments with real evidence..how terrible of him...boo hoo hoo hoo...bleat bleat mewl mewl bleat...bbbbbaaaaaahhhhhhhhh.  You are sheep with no critical thinking skills whatsoever...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not going to waste time to do your research for you.
> ...


You still won't do the research yourself. I'm not going to waste time to do your research for you. You have been such a liar that I don't trust any numbers you come up with. It's your hypothesis, so it's up to you to apply the molecular collision details. You need to use the elastic and inelastic cross sections. Do you even know what that means?


----------



## deanrd (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > The Montreal Protocol worked and that is what truly scares the bejeesus out of conservatives.  The Protocol which has been very successful reduced ozone emissions which led to the recovery of the ozone layer.  The reason it scares conservatives is because  it is a precursor of a frame work that can work to fight climate change.
> ...


 We’ve seen right wing science. Like magical creation. Hilarious!


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



I have done it...which is why I can say with perfect confidence that you can't explain how CFC's represent a greater threat to the ozone layer than the natural catalysts and reactants already there...none of your papers even mentions the fact that natural catalysts exist at far higher concentrations than CFC's and natural reactants exist at concentrations above 780,000ppm.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

deanrd said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...



That all you have?  An impotent, mewling pseudo insult?  Want to talk about the science or do you want to bleat like an insensate calf?


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I have done it...which is why I can say with perfect confidence that you can't explain how CFC's represent a greater threat to the ozone layer than the natural catalysts and reactants already there...none of your papers even mentions the fact that natural catalysts exist at far higher concentrations than CFC's and natural reactants exist at concentrations above 780,000ppm.



I told you several times you can't say what is happening with only your numbers. You must understand the elastic and inelastic cross sections. Maybe you don't understand. An elastic collision means nothing changes the chemistry of the molecules. An inelastic collision is what matters; not just the concentrations. You need both. You only supplied half.

.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I have done it...which is why I can say with perfect confidence that you can't explain how CFC's represent a greater threat to the ozone layer than the natural catalysts and reactants already there...none of your papers even mentions the fact that natural catalysts exist at far higher concentrations than CFC's and natural reactants exist at concentrations above 780,000ppm.
> ...


In other words, make it up!


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I have done it...which is why I can say with perfect confidence that you can't explain how CFC's represent a greater threat to the ozone layer than the natural catalysts and reactants already there...none of your papers even mentions the fact that natural catalysts exist at far higher concentrations than CFC's and natural reactants exist at concentrations above 780,000ppm.
> ...



And you just keep the bullshit coming...what a bleating, insensate sheep you are...


State-to-state ozone relaxation rates for O3-N2 collisions

*State-to-state relaxation rates have been determined for ozone in collisions with itself and with nitrogen by two different methods*. A theoretical model of collisional broadening of ozone lines, *the quantum Fourier transform theory with improved dynamics, was adapted to compute state-to-state inelastic contributions to the pressure-broadened halfwidths for ozone-nitrogen collisions.* These quantities were then determined experimentally using time-resolved infrared double resonance spectroscopy and a kinetic model for relaxation. Comparisons of kinetic model simulations and experimental double-resonance signals confirmed a propensity for first-order dipolar transitions, but also clearly demonstrated the importance of higher-order interactions leading to large changes in J in single collisions. Simple energy and angular-momentum-scaling laws were found to be inadequate to represent the experimental data.

The fact is that you will find more in the literature regarding inelastic collisions with Nitrogen molecules of one flavor or another than you will regarding inelastic collisions with CFC's.....So.....Still waiting for that explanation...rather than more of your pseudoscientific bullshit...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



He is making an appeal to complexity.....he knows that there is no rational, scientifically valid explanation for how CFC's at a concentration of 3 PARTS PER BILLION represent a greater threat to the ozone than N2, NO, O2 and naturally occurring chlorine, and bromine molecules that are present in the stratosphere at a concentration of greater than 780,000 PARTS PER MILLION...

He is just thrashing around hurling bullshit to the best of his ability hoping that something sticks...  It won't..


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> *State-to-state relaxation rates have been determined for ozone in collisions with itself and with nitrogen by two different methods*. A theoretical model of collisional broadening of ozone lines, *the quantum Fourier transform theory with improved dynamics, was adapted to compute state-to-state inelastic contributions to the pressure-broadened halfwidths for ozone-nitrogen collisions.* These quantities were then determined experimentally using time-resolved infrared double resonance spectroscopy and a kinetic model for relaxation. Comparisons of kinetic model simulations and experimental double-resonance signals confirmed a propensity for first-order dipolar transitions, but also clearly demonstrated the importance of higher-order interactions leading to large changes in J in single collisions. Simple energy and angular-momentum-scaling laws were found to be inadequate to represent the experimental data.


I told you it was more complex than you think, and that it involved knowing more about inelastic collisions.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> He is making an appeal to complexity....


Really? Just what are you thinking? You are the one who came up with the complexities by posting the Harvard paper.  

.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Again, he doesn't know which one has more in the atmosphere.  3 parts per billion or 780,000 per million.  still doesn't understand math.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > *State-to-state relaxation rates have been determined for ozone in collisions with itself and with nitrogen by two different methods*. A theoretical model of collisional broadening of ozone lines, *the quantum Fourier transform theory with improved dynamics, was adapted to compute state-to-state inelastic contributions to the pressure-broadened halfwidths for ozone-nitrogen collisions.* These quantities were then determined experimentally using time-resolved infrared double resonance spectroscopy and a kinetic model for relaxation. Comparisons of kinetic model simulations and experimental double-resonance signals confirmed a propensity for first-order dipolar transitions, but also clearly demonstrated the importance of higher-order interactions leading to large changes in J in single collisions. Simple energy and angular-momentum-scaling laws were found to be inadequate to represent the experimental data.
> ...


or in other words, made up conclusions.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > *State-to-state relaxation rates have been determined for ozone in collisions with itself and with nitrogen by two different methods*. A theoretical model of collisional broadening of ozone lines, *the quantum Fourier transform theory with improved dynamics, was adapted to compute state-to-state inelastic contributions to the pressure-broadened halfwidths for ozone-nitrogen collisions.* These quantities were then determined experimentally using time-resolved infrared double resonance spectroscopy and a kinetic model for relaxation. Comparisons of kinetic model simulations and experimental double-resonance signals confirmed a propensity for first-order dipolar transitions, but also clearly demonstrated the importance of higher-order interactions leading to large changes in J in single collisions. Simple energy and angular-momentum-scaling laws were found to be inadequate to represent the experimental data.
> ...



give it up....you can't offer a rational scientifically valid reason that CFC's might represent more of a threat to the ozone than the natural reactants and catalysts that exist all around it in far greater concentrations...

The bottom line is that there is no, and never was a threat to the ozone...you were duped by pseudoscience which is why you are thrashing around now wishing you could explain how CFC's represent a real threat to the ozone...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > He is making an appeal to complexity....
> ...




The harvard paper was an explanation....you are engaged in a dodge now...thrashing about trying to find some bullshit that will stick to the wall and let you off the hook for being a dupe...it isn't going to happen.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The harvard paper was an explanation....you are engaged in a dodge now...thrashing about trying to find some bullshit that will stick to the wall and let you off the hook for being a dupe...it isn't going to happen.


Nope. I think you are the one trashing about and trying to get off the hook.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The harvard paper was an explanation....you are engaged in a dodge now...thrashing about trying to find some bullshit that will stick to the wall and let you off the hook for being a dupe...it isn't going to happen.
> ...



Last chance....either explain how a molecule that exists in the stratosphere in concentrations of 3 parts per BILLION represents a threat when O3 readily reacts with naturally occurring molecules which exist in the stratosphere in concentrations of 780,000ppm and NO, which is a naturally occurring catalyst exists in the stratosphere in concentrations of 1 to 3 ppm.....or I am through discussing the topic with you...either you can explain in rational, scientifically valid terms or you can't...if you can't, then alas, you have lost the point...and remain a dupe...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Last chance....either explain how a molecule that exists in the stratosphere in concentrations of 3 parts per BILLION represents a threat when O3 readily reacts with naturally occurring molecules which exist in the stratosphere in concentrations of 780,000ppm and NO, which is a naturally occurring catalyst exists in the stratosphere in concentrations of 1 to 3 ppm.....or I am through discussing the topic with you...either you can explain in rational, scientifically valid terms or you can't...if you can't, then alas, you have lost the point...and remain a dupe...


I said it involves knowing the cross sections of elastic and inelastic collisions and mean time between collisions. The Harvard paper said pretty much the same. Contact the author.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

So you have no explanation...just some vague term which you don't understand...and the hope that it will fool someone...anyone...

got it...do let me know if you ever care to attempt to actually explain...you probably should just let it die quietly ...perhaps everyone will forget what a dupe you were with regards to ozone.

By the way doofus....we are still talking about collisions with molecules present at 3 PARTS PER BILLION versus collisions with equally reactive catalysts present at 1 to 4 PARTS PER MILLION...and ready reactants present at 780,000 PARTS PER MILLION..describe the frequency of collisions of those substances with O3 and then again, try to describe why CFC's at 3 parts per BILLION represent a grave threat...or any threat at all.

Do you understand the difference between a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION and 1 to 4 parts per million and 780,000 parts per million...I may have made the mistake of assuming that you are able to differentiate the vast differences in quantities present and the likelyhood of collisions between any of those molecules which readily break down O3 and any given O3 molecule...


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So you have no explanation...just some vague term which you don't understand...and the hope that it will fool someone...anyone...
> 
> got it...do let me know if you ever care to attempt to actually explain...you probably should just let it die quietly ...perhaps everyone will forget what a dupe you were with regards to ozone.
> 
> ...


You are awed and can't think straight with tiny numbers. It takes one millionth of a gram to kill someone with the botulism toxin. If the inelastic cross section is one millionth of the elastic cross section, your tiny numbers crumble. I'm not going to waste my time looking all that stuff up.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you have no explanation...just some vague term which you don't understand...and the hope that it will fool someone...anyone...
> ...



We aren't talking about botulism..nor are we talking about a system as compact as a human body...we are talking about the upper stratosphere...3 parts per BILLION vs equally reactive catalysts at 1 to 4 parts per million and N2 which O3 readily reacts with at 780,000 ppm...

And as you saw...N0, and N2, at 780,000ppm are part of the inelastic cross section...face it...CFC's aren't, and never were a threat to the ozone layer...you were, and continue to be duped.


----------



## Wuwei (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> We aren't talking about botulism.


It's a metaphor.


----------



## Crick (Jan 5, 2019)

Same Shit, you've yet to come up with anything even approaching a reasonable cause to the observed ozone depletion data.  CFCs on the other hand, fit the data and work via a fully understood reaction sequence.  Your argument that they're just too few of them to have any effect is speciously ignorant.  It has been a speciously ignorant argument every time you've attempted to use it.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > We aren't talking about botulism.
> ...



I think you mean analogy...in either case it is a piss poor one.

metaphor -a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is notliterally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance

analogy -a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> Same Shit, you've yet to come up with anything even approaching a reasonable cause to the observed ozone depletion data.  CFCs on the other hand, fit the data and work via a fully understood reaction sequence.  Your argument that they're just too few of them to have any effect is speciously ignorant.  It has been a speciously ignorant argument every time you've attempted to use it.



Of course I have...since O3 production in the stratosphere is entirely dependent upon incoming UV...and the holes only appear during times when incoming UV is at a low point...and the UV output of the sun in any given frequency varies wildly from year to year, there is every reason to believe that solar output is behind ozone depletion..

It certainly makes more sense than a molecule present at 3 parts per BILLION scattered among other active reactants and catalysts for O3 present at more than 780,000 parts per million being the culprit...


----------



## Crick (Jan 5, 2019)

You've presented ZERO data to even suggest that incoming solar UV radiation has fluctuated in a manner that could have produced the O3 depletion observed.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 6, 2019)

Crick said:


> You've presented ZERO data to even suggest that incoming solar UV radiation has fluctuated in a manner that could have produced the O3 depletion observed.



And you are a complete ignoramus if you were unaware of the fact...how completely uninformed can you possibly be?

Researchers study fluctuations in solar radiation

clip:  That is why Krivova's model SATIRE (Spectral And Total Irradiance Reconstruction) also takes the fluctuations in the UV light into account. "*Although the UV light makes up just 8 percent of the total solar irradiance," she says, "the fluctuations are considerable*,

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate | Science Mission Directorate

Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum.  Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more.  *This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.*

Sun Cycles and Climate Change

 Lean assumes that the change in UV output from the Sun must have been 6 times larger than that of visible light (*a fact which, if true, holds interesting implications for the history of the ozone laye*r)


https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0095-00/fs-0095-00.pdf

However, bright regions surrounding the sunspots, called faculae, cause the sun to brighten at peak activity (Lean and Foukal, 1988). Lean and others (1995a) estimated that during the Maunder Minimum, total solar irradiance was reduced by 0.2 percent relative to a present quiet sun (minimum of the mid-1990’s), *but total ultraviolet (UV) 
radiation was reduced by 1.04 percent. This is important because it is the UV radiation that modulates ozone production,* which, in turn, affects the dynam- ics and energetics of the middle and upper atmosphere through radiative processes and dynamic mechanisms involving convective Hadley cell circu- lation (Haigh, 1996).


Do you never tire of having your ass handed to you?  Why don't you take some time to read rather than simply making the completely wrong assumption that you are right...Face it skid mark...you have been duped....CFC's don't represent any threat at all to the ozone layer...they never did...it was a scam, perpetrated by 3M and some bought and paid for politicians to get freon off the market in favor of a more expensive, less effective refrigerant...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 6, 2019)

This goes to your lack of critical thinking skills...if O3 depends on incoming UV from the sun..and there is a change in the amount of O3...the first place a thinking person looks is to the source of the energy necessary to create O3...not to some molecule present at a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION...how f'ing stupid is that...

It takes about 30 seconds to look up the fact that the amount of UV the sun produces from year to year fluctuates wildly..a thinking person immediately wonders whether those fluctuations have anything to do with the changes in O3 concentrations...a stupid f'ing alarmist jumps right to man made...and his useful idiots never bother to think on their own so they just go with whatever the alarmist has said....never bothering to think a single thought on their own...you are pitiful skid mark...f'ing pitiful...


----------



## jc456 (Jan 7, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


follow the money.  It will always be about the cash!!!


----------



## jc456 (Jan 7, 2019)

Crick said:


> Same Shit, you've yet to come up with anything even approaching a reasonable cause to the observed ozone depletion data.  CFCs on the other hand, fit the data and work via a fully understood reaction sequence.  Your argument that they're just too few of them to have any effect is speciously ignorant.  It has been a speciously ignorant argument every time you've attempted to use it.


dude,  again, what is bigger 3 parts per billion or 780,000 parts per million?  why won't you answer?  hint, cause you know the answer and it doesn't back your story.  too fking funny. I love it when someone won't answer the most basic a question because they know it will destroy their argument.  We keep repeating it for all to see.  answer the question Crickster!!!!


----------



## SSDD (Jan 8, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Same Shit, you've yet to come up with anything even approaching a reasonable cause to the observed ozone depletion data.  CFCs on the other hand, fit the data and work via a fully understood reaction sequence.  Your argument that they're just too few of them to have any effect is speciously ignorant.  It has been a speciously ignorant argument every time you've attempted to use it.
> ...



Guess they aren't going to talk about the topic any more..What do you bet that if someone else started another thread about ozone...they would be right there with the same arguments that got smashed on this thread.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 11, 2019)

Interesting how the conversation cut off so abruptly when the last objection, that of variations in the sun's UV output not having an effect on O3 production.

It is at that point, that the conversation could either get deeper into the sun and its effect on O3 production, or why a crisis was manufactured, and continues to be supported when the evidence is pretty clear that no such crisis existed.


----------



## Crick (Jan 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




I am still waiting for you to supply data showing a variation in UV that matches the observed depletion of ozone.  You keep talking about it, but you have not produced anything.  If I missed it, please put up the thread and post number.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I have established that the amount of UV the sun produces varies wildly from year to year...O3 production in the stratosphere is entirely dependent upon that UV..

You, on the other hand, have yet to even begin to explain how a molecule present at 3 parts per BILLION represents any threat at all to the ozone layer when natural reactants and catalysts are present in concentrations of 780,000 parts per million..  Got any ideas?


----------



## Crick (Jan 13, 2019)

YOU established?  Then let us see the data.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> YOU established?  Then let us see the data.


Dude, he asked you a question. Answer it? You completely deflected


----------



## SSDD (Jan 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> YOU established?  Then let us see the data.


  See post 405


----------



## SSDD (Jan 13, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > YOU established?  Then let us see the data.
> ...



You don't really EVER expect an answer do you?  He knows full well...or should, if he is even 1/100 as smart as he thinks he is that a molecule at a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION is no threat to the ozone layer...not when compared to the natural reactants and catalysts present at 780,000 parts per million...they will shuck and jive, and dodge and weave and keep pointing to their paper which didn't even mention the natural reactants and catalysts to O3 present in such overwhelming quantity...


----------



## jc456 (Jan 13, 2019)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Nope, never. It’s the only thing that is consistent with them. Never answer


----------



## Crick (Jan 13, 2019)

How many studies have been provided here concluding that CFCs were responsible for the depletion of ozone?  Do you think the Montreal Protocol would have been signed without evidence?  Look, you, Same Shit, have brought up an alternative explanation.  Good science.  Now try to make it work.  Show us the UV data that you claim has caused the depletion.  You've said you have it.  Present it.  If not, we can only assume that you do NOT have it.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> How many studies have been provided here concluding that CFCs were responsible for the depletion of ozone?  Do you think the Montreal Protocol would have been signed without evidence?  Look, you, Same Shit, have brought up an alternative explanation.  Good science.  Now try to make it work.  Show us the UV data that you claim has caused the depletion.  You've said you have it.  Present it.  If not, we can only assume that you do NOT have it.



Show me one that mentions wide fluctuations in the very wave lengths of UV coming in from the sun from year to year...show me one that mentions the presence of natural catalysts for O3 present at 1 to 4 parts per million and natural reactants to O3 present at 780,000 parts per million.  Show me one that suggests that anything is breaking down ozone in appreciable quantities other than sunlight and CFC's.

Do you think leaving out natural factors such as wide variations in UV from the sun in the very wavelengths that are needed to form O3.....and leaving out the fact that O3 readily reacts with N2 present at a concentration of 780,000ppm...and that naturally occurring NO is a catalyst for O3 and is present at 1 to 4 parts per million is good science?  Really?  You think jumping to the man made solution without even discussing the natural factors that can heavily effect O3 is good science?

Your "papers" are alarmist clap trap that don't even look at reality...they are the product of modeling data in a manner meant to create alarm.


----------



## Crick (Jan 14, 2019)

Finding evidence that changes in solar UV is responsible for the depletion is YOUR job as it is YOUR assertion.  Many sources tell us what factors break down ozone, including UV.  None of them presented here show what you claim is the case.  Many show the increasing levels of catalytic CFCs and corresponding drops in ozone, concluding a cause and effect relationship.

That you have claimed UV is responsible but have presented NO data despite numerous requests indicates to me (and likely others) that you have found reality lacking in its ability to support your contentions.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> Finding evidence that changes in solar UV is responsible for the depletion is YOUR job as it is YOUR assertion.  Many sources tell us what factors break down ozone, including UV.  None of them presented here show what you claim is the case.  Many show the increasing levels of catalytic CFCs and corresponding drops in ozone, concluding a cause and effect relationship.
> 
> That you have claimed UV is responsible but have presented NO data despite numerous requests indicates to me (and likely others) that you have found reality lacking in its ability to support your contentions.


so you're saying there is no basis for evidence that CFC's do what you say?  so you can merely pronounce something as bad without evidence that it is?  is that what you're trying to sell here?  let me laugh in your fking face.   And to date, you still haven't answered the question about 3 billion parts vs 780,000 million parts.  Why?  That is mathematical question, one to which you value, so why not answer?  I know it is a rhetorical question, but you failing to answer merely proves your point as useless.  but hey, thanks for playing.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> Finding evidence that changes in solar UV is responsible for the depletion is YOUR job as it is YOUR assertion.  Many sources tell us what factors break down ozone, including UV.  None of them presented here show what you claim is the case.  Many show the increasing levels of catalytic CFCs and corresponding drops in ozone, concluding a cause and effect relationship.
> 
> That you have claimed UV is responsible but have presented NO data despite numerous requests indicates to me (and likely others) that you have found reality lacking in its ability to support your contentions.


I am just pointing out how completely shitty the papers you call science are...no mention of very important natural factors...nothing but alarmist propaganda...and as usual...undeniable evidence of how easy it is to fool you.

The idea that other factors might be at work other than your molecule at 3 party’s per BILLION never entered that thick skull of yours...you just accepted the alarmist claptrap without question...That would be because your bias makes you stupid.


----------



## Crick (Jan 14, 2019)

I disagree with your characterizations but, more importantly, you still have presented ZERO supporting data for your claim that UV is responsible for the observed ozone depletion.  And I'm terribly sorry, but your attempt to shortcut around science by throwing out big numbers fails as a falsification.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> I disagree with your characterizations but, more importantly, you still have presented ZERO supporting data for your claim that UV is responsible for the observed ozone depletion.  And I'm terribly sorry, but your attempt to shortcut around science by throwing out big numbers fails as a falsification.


But where is the evidence that CFCs did?  See stupid fk, you failed to prove your point.  why?  you think you get a pass cause your slick crick?


----------



## Crick (Jan 14, 2019)

jc456 said:
			
		

> But where is the evidence that CFCs did?



https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/1999RG900008

Nitrous Oxide (N2O): The Dominant Ozone-Depleting Substance Emitted in the 21st Century

A meta-analysis of plant field studies simulating stratospheric ozone depletion

Banning chlorofluorocarbons: epistemic community efforts to protect stratospheric ozone | International Organization | Cambridge Core

The Evolution of Policy Responses to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion on JSTOR

Mount Pinatubo Aerosols, Chlorofluorocarbons, and Ozone Depletion

Increased polar stratospheric ozone losses and delayed eventual recovery owing to increasing greenhouse-gas concentrations

https://www.nature.com/articles/35071047

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/v74-233

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/v74-233

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/1999JD901128

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/014070079090003F

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JD094iD09p11465

and many, many more


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i said evidence.  not prophecies of what someone thought happened.  actual evidence, where CFC were tested and proven as causing the affect observed.  

BTW 3 parts per billion or 780,000 parts per million?  which is it kid?  which one is bigger?

Do suns UV rays create Ozone?  yes or no?


----------



## Crick (Jan 14, 2019)

Now you're being unreasonable.  You're rejecting the scientific method.  If that's actually your position, there's no point in continuing our discussions.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2019)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So in which of those do you believe the natural factors were thoroughly examined?  I saw a mention of NO2 which more or less said by the way, NO2 is also natural but saw no examination of how much is natural or how much is man made....or really, even how much there was and how it varied...lots of models...some mention of volcanoes, but nothing even remotely like an examination of all the factors that regulate the ozone layer....in short...alarmist clap trap aimed at supporting a narrative....nothing there even remotely resembling an unbiased look at all the factors.

But as you said...good enough to fool you.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2019)

Crick said:


> Now you're being unreasonable.  You're rejecting the scientific method.  If that's actually your position, there's no point in continuing our discussions.



Which part of that steaming pile do you believe represents the scientific method?  The scientific method is completely ignored in all of those papers...the scientific method requires a null hypothesis wherein whatever is being observed could be entirely caused by natural processes...I didn't see a hint of that in any of those papers.  The scientific method requires that all known factors be thoroughly examined...didn't see that in any of those papers either...brief passing remarks about this being natural, or volcanic eruptions and then back on track with the narrative that man is to blame are not how the scientific method works.

But then once again...by your own admission...good enough to fool you.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



He believes that steaming pile of bullshit represented the scientific method...what a laugh.
The scientific method is a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

I didn't see anything in any of his papers that examined the known wildly fluctuating UV output of the sun from year to year in the wavelengths responsible for creating ozone...nor did I see anything about N2, present at 780,000ppm readily reacting with ozone, nor did I see anything about NO, a natural catalyst for ozone present at 1 to 4 ppm present, nor did I see any comparison between the amounts of naturally occurring NO2 and man made NO2...not did I see any comparison between the amounts of any man made chlorine or bromine compound and the amount of naturally occurring chlorine or bromine compound...nor did I see any real mention of the fact that the ozone "holes" are seasonal and only happen during the darkness of winter..and disappear soon after the sun rises over the arctic and antarctic.

What I saw was an ongoing narrative that neglected all possible natural factors that can effect the ozone layer and focused like a laser on the possibility that a molecule present at 3 parts per billion was the primary source of "ozone depletion"...


----------



## Crick (Jan 15, 2019)

I believe the proper conclusion  to be drawn from the absence of studies looking at UV or nitrogen having caused ozone depletion is that no one with an actual scientific education believes either one could be responsible.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 15, 2019)

Crick said:


> I believe the proper conclusion  to be drawn from the absence of studies looking at UV or nitrogen having caused ozone depletion is that no one with an actual scientific education believes either one could be responsible.


well the ozone gets a hole in it every year.  still to this day.  we removed the CFCs and yet we still get a hole.  why?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2019)

Crick said:


> I believe the proper conclusion  to be drawn from the absence of studies looking at UV or nitrogen having caused ozone depletion is that no one with an actual scientific education believes either one could be responsible.



Of course you would...that is because you are quite stupid....a series of papers thoroughly examining the various possible natural reasons for varying ozone levels from season to season (season to season should be a clue to anyone who is not stupid) and finding that they were not in fact, the cause would be in line with the scientific method...jumping straight to a molecule present at 3 parts per billion in a mixture of gasses that also react with O3 present at 780,000 parts per million without any examination of the variation from season to season and year to year of the very forces that create ozone is alarmist claptrap....

But like you said...it is good enough to fool you.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the proper conclusion  to be drawn from the absence of studies looking at UV or nitrogen having caused ozone depletion is that no one with an actual scientific education believes either one could be responsible.
> ...



And the hole is seasonal...at its largest when the least UV from the sun is entering the polar atmosphere...imagine, jumping to the conclusion that it is a molecule present at 3 parts per billion causing seasonal changes.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 16, 2019)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Yes it is seasonal based on the tilt of the globe.  BTW, I knew he wouldn't answer me.


----------



## Crick (Jan 16, 2019)

It often amazes me how often you come up with a criticism that seems to presuppose that only one factor can affect or control a phenomenon. 

Here is some UV trend data















https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4975572

None of these support your contention.  Since, despite repeated requests,  you have declined to provide any data to support your claim, I have to conclude that you saw these same data and chose not to, though you also chose to continue making your claim.  That would be what we might call "being dishonest".


----------



## jc456 (Jan 16, 2019)

Crick said:


> It often amazes me how often you come up with a criticism that seems to presuppose that only one factor can affect or control a phenomenon.
> 
> Here is some UV trend data
> 
> ...


I like how you post up graphs without any explanation as to what it is your expecting us to see.  so please,  what is it you see that you want us to see?

And is 3 parts per billion more or less than 780,000 parts per million?  come on crickster, you still haven't answered.


----------



## Crick (Jan 16, 2019)

It was aimed at SSDD, the prior poster, and his claim that the ozone depletion which triggered the adoption of the Montreal Protocol was actually caused by increasing levels of UV from the sun.  When asked to present data supporting that claim, he has consistently declined to do so.  So I did it for him.  And, surprise, surprise, surprise, the data utterly fails to support his contention.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 16, 2019)

Crick said:


> It was aimed at SSDD, the prior poster, and his claim that the ozone depletion which triggered the adoption of the Montreal Protocol was actually caused by increasing levels of UV from the sun.  When asked to present data supporting that claim, he has consistently declined to do so.  So I did it for him.  And, surprise, surprise, surprise, the data utterly fails to support his contention.


you should learn to use the quote on the tool.  makes it easier to know who you are barking at.  Since I was actually the previous poster to your post.  but hey, following guidelines ain't your thingy.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2019)

Crick said:


> It often amazes me how often you come up with a criticism that seems to presuppose that only one factor can affect or control a phenomenon.
> 
> Here is some UV trend data
> 
> ...



Maybe you didn't notice but none of those look at particular wavelengths in the UV band...which is precisely what the sources I provided to you said varied wildly from year to year...again...you are only demonstrating what is good enough to fool you...nothing there even begins to challenge what I said...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > It often amazes me how often you come up with a criticism that seems to presuppose that only one factor can affect or control a phenomenon.
> ...




His graphs are only looking at total energy...not the particular wavelengths that are responsible for the production of O3..his graphs are good enough to fool him...hell he doesn't even know why they are useless when you are talking about variations in particular wavelengths in the UV band.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 16, 2019)

Crick said:


> It was aimed at SSDD, the prior poster, and his claim that the ozone depletion which triggered the adoption of the Montreal Protocol was actually caused by increasing levels of UV from the sun.  When asked to present data supporting that claim, he has consistently declined to do so.  So I did it for him.  And, surprise, surprise, surprise, the data utterly fails to support his contention.



Researchers study fluctuations in solar radiation

clip: That is why Krivova's model SATIRE (Spectral And Total Irradiance Reconstruction) also takes the fluctuations in the UV light into account. "*Although the UV light makes up just 8 percent of the total solar irradiance," she says, "the fluctuations are considerable*,

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate | Science Mission Directorate

Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more.  *This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.*

Sun Cycles and Climate Change

Lean assumes that the change in UV output from the Sun must have been 6 times larger than that of visible light (*a fact which, if true, holds interesting implications for the history of the ozone laye*r)


https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0095-00/fs-0095-00.pdf

However, bright regions surrounding the sunspots, called faculae, cause the sun to brighten at peak activity (Lean and Foukal, 1988). Lean and others (1995a) estimated that during the Maunder Minimum, total solar irradiance was reduced by 0.2 percent relative to a present quiet sun (minimum of the mid-1990’s), *but total ultraviolet (UV) 
radiation was reduced by 1.04 percent. This is important because it is the UV radiation that modulates ozone production,* which, in turn, affects the dynam- ics and energetics of the middle and upper atmosphere through radiative processes and dynamic mechanisms involving convective Hadley cell circu- lation (Haigh, 1996).

Tell me skid mark....how do you think your graphs challenge any of the above statements?  They are not looking at particular wavelengths...especially those directly responsible for creating O3...although the center set of charts do show a downward trend in UV although it doesn't look at particular wavelengths.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 16, 2019)

Thread summary:

Those who fall for one conspiracy theory tend to fall for bunches of conspiracy theories, due to their lack of critical thinking ability.

Thus, most global warming deniers tend to fall for all kinds of other conspiracy theories. For example, it's hard to find any of them who don't rave about the "deep state".


----------



## Crick (Jan 16, 2019)

Chem-trails, ozone depletion, socialism, immigrant invasions, liberal control freaks, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Thread summary:
> 
> Those who fall for one conspiracy theory tend to fall for bunches of conspiracy theories, due to their lack of critical thinking ability.
> 
> Thus, most global warming deniers tend to fall for all kinds of other conspiracy theories. For example, it's hard to find any of them who don't rave about the "deep state".



Note:  The hairball isn't providing any evidence whatsoever....just a mewling logical fallacy.. 

How completely unsurprising is that?  Fine demonstration of how you came to be a dupe...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2019)

Crick said:


> Chem-trails, ozone depletion, socialism, immigrant invasions, liberal control freaks, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.



Still waiting for a piece of your "fine" research which rules out natural reasons for the variation in the ozone layer before jumping straight to man made catastrophe...any luck?  Didn't think so...


----------



## Crick (Jan 17, 2019)

Still waiting for the evidence from you that a "natural reason" is the cause of the ozone depletion.  As I've stated before, correlation may not prove cause and effect, but you will not have cause and effect without it.  You have NONE. and you lied about it.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 17, 2019)

Crick said:


> Still waiting for the evidence from you that a "natural reason" is the cause of the ozone depletion.  As I've stated before, correlation may not prove cause and effect, but you will not have cause and effect without it.  You have NONE. and you lied about it.



Already gave you several...The fact that O3 readily reacts with N2 present at 780,000ppm....The fact that O3 readily reacts with natural NO, present at 1 to 4ppm...the fact that output in UV wavelengths from the sun vary wildly from year to year...The fact that O3 readily reacts with natural chlorine and bromine compounds in the stratosphere present in concentrations measured in parts per million, as contrasted with the parts per BILLION CFC's are measured in...didn't even see any discussion about the fact that the ozone "hole" is seasonal.....

Didn't see any of those factors presented, discussed, or examined in the bullshit which, by your own admission, is good enough to fool you.


----------



## Crick (Jan 17, 2019)

But, as noted several times now, NONE of those factors correlate with the observed ozone depletion.  CFCs do.  You cannot have cause-and-effect without correlation.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 17, 2019)

Crick said:


> But, as noted several times now, NONE of those factors correlate with the observed ozone depletion.  CFCs do.  You cannot have cause-and-effect without correlation.


dude,  it's why he asked you for the evidence to back that statement up.  Cause 3 parts billion is CFC's and 780,000 parts per million are all of the other natural gases to interfere.  so which is larger or more likely to contribute?  BTW correlate doesn't mean jack shit.  let's just get that out there.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> But, as noted several times now, NONE of those factors correlate with the observed ozone depletion.  CFCs do.  You cannot have cause-and-effect without correlation.



Of course they do...the very fact that the hole is seasonal tosses your CFC hypothesis in the trash...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 20, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > But, as noted several times now, NONE of those factors correlate with the observed ozone depletion.  CFCs do.  You cannot have cause-and-effect without correlation.
> ...



He is a parrot...someone gives him an opinion and he simply voices it...if you challenge what he believes, he resets to the original opinion he was given...he has lost and now is just mewling hoping that someone will believe him...who knows, someone as easily fooled as him may happen along.


----------



## Crick (Jan 20, 2019)

How many times have I challenged you to provide us UV data that would correlate with the ozone depletion observed over the last few decades and, of those challenges, to how many have responded?  The answer is ZERO.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2019)

Crick said:


> How many times have I challenged you to provide us UV data that would correlate with the ozone depletion observed over the last few decades and, of those challenges, to how many have responded?  The answer is ZERO.



How many times have I challenged you to provide a rational, scientific explanation for how a molecule present at 3 parts per BILLION might represent a greater threat to the ozone layer than the natural catalysts present at 1 to 4 parts per million, and the natural reactants present at 780,000 parts per million?

Got any sort of answer yet?  Your pseudoscientific papers certainly didn't discuss it.  Want to just make something up?


----------



## mamooth (Jan 21, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Already gave you several...The fact that O3 readily reacts with N2 present at 780,000ppm....



Directly addressed in post #264. As I explained, and as the science points out, yes, the O3 is constantly breaking down into O2 and O ... and then it immediately reforms into O3. 

Being a stupid liar, you left out the reforming part. When I pointed it out, you squealed and ran, and then just repeated the same big lie later. Lying is what you do. It's all you do.

No, don't expect anyone to go easy on you just because you cry so hard. If you want everyone to stop bitch-slapping you, you need to stop being such a little bitch. Can you do that?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 21, 2019)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Already gave you several...The fact that O3 readily reacts with N2 present at 780,000ppm....
> ...





poor hairball...not even close but feel free to make a fool out of yourself any time...


----------



## Crick (Jan 22, 2019)

You know what would be a great way to make yourself look foolish?  Put out a theory that has no support whatsoever from the science, attempt to defend it against all critics and then, weeks later, admit to your buddy that you're still looking for some supporting data.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 22, 2019)

Crick said:


> You know what would be a great way to make yourself look foolish?  Put out a theory that has no support whatsoever from the science, attempt to defend it against all critics and then, weeks later, admit to your buddy that you're still looking for some supporting data.



Actually, I said that I would like to see the data since your pseudoscientific bullshit papers certainly never looked at any of the natural causes of ozone depletion....Does the concept of honesty ever even enter your mind or are you so accustomed to lying you yourself in an effort to believe in the pseudoscience of AGW that you become blind to the difference between honesty and dishonesty?

Did you ever find a single paper in which the natural factors were carefully considered?

Of course, there is a good reason that the numbers aren't being discussed...getting grant money to do a study that may well blow the whole alarmist narrative would be completely out of the question in today's academic environment.  But hey....like you say..it's good enough to fool you.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 25, 2019)

Guess that's a no...You never found any of your pseudoscientific alarmist papers which seriously looked at all of the natural causes of ozone depletion..and you never found an actual paper which looked at them because funding for a study that might shoot down the whole alarmist narrative would never happen...

but by your own admission...pseudoscience is good enough to fool you.


----------



## Crick (Jan 25, 2019)

As I have stated on numerous occasions, there are no proofs in the natural sciences.  Your suggestion that before some phenomenon can be suggested as the cause of some effect, ALL other possible causes must be eliminated, only shows the paucity of your actual education and how deeply you've bought in to pseudoscience bullshit.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 26, 2019)

Crick said:


> As I have stated on numerous occasions, there are no proofs in the natural sciences.  Your suggestion that before some phenomenon can be suggested as the cause of some effect, ALL other possible causes must be eliminated, only shows the paucity of your actual education and how deeply you've bought in to pseudoscience bullshit.



I didn't ask for proof...I asked for one of your pseudoscientific papers which took a serious look at all the natural reasons for variations in O3 in the troposphere....Did you find any at all?   Everything you posted jumped straight to the anthropogenic cause without taking anything like a serious look at natural causes.  

You are correct that ALL other possible causes must be eliminated...I didn't see anything like that in any of your papers...all I saw was an alarmist narrative that suggested that a molecule present at 3 parts per billion was responsible.


----------



## Crick (Jan 26, 2019)

You demanded that I show that no other cause could be responsible.  Sorry, but that's bullshit.  Show us how much effort has been expended making certain that gravity isn't being caused by the chanting of mantichores in the 11th dimension of the fourth planet of Beelzebub.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 26, 2019)

Crick said:


> You demanded that I show that no other cause could be responsible.  Sorry, but that's bullshit.  Show us how much effort has been expended making certain that gravity isn't being caused by the chanting of mantichores in the 11th dimension of the fourth planet of Beelzebub.



Are you so stupid you can't read or is lying the only way you communicate?  I only asked for a paper in which the natural causes for variations in O3 levels were seriously considered...you couldn't provide any...Incoming UV should be the first place any serious paper regarding variations in O3 should look since UV is the cause of O3.  All you provided was papers that went straight to the alarmist narrative...


----------



## Crick (Jan 26, 2019)

You and I know very well what the fuck you were doing: Lying about what was covered in the literature


----------



## SSDD (Jan 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> You and I know very well what the fuck you were doing: Lying about what was covered in the literature



Prove me wrong skidmark...I said that the natural causes for variations in O3 in the stratosphere were not seriously considered...care to show me any of your pseudoscientific papers in which the natural causes...especially the very UV that is responsible for O3 production in the stratosphere were seriously considered and ruled out?

Didn't think so...Alas, skidmark, you are the liar here...and it has been proven over and over.  When you can't support your beliefs, I suppose lying would be your go to response to most challenges.

By the way..here is what I said...and once again, it proves that you were lying when you said that I demanded proof of anything.



			
				SSDD said:
			
		

> Show me one that mentions wide fluctuations in the very wave lengths of UV coming in from the sun from year to year...show me one that mentions the presence of natural catalysts for O3 present at 1 to 4 parts per million and natural reactants to O3 present at 780,000 parts per million. Show me one that suggests that anything is breaking down ozone in appreciable quantities other than sunlight and CFC's.
> 
> Do you think leaving out natural factors such as wide variations in UV from the sun in the very wavelengths that are needed to form O3.....and leaving out the fact that O3 readily reacts with N2 present at a concentration of 780,000ppm...and that naturally occurring NO is a catalyst for O3 and is present at 1 to 4 parts per million is good science? Really? You think jumping to the man made solution without even discussing the natural factors that can heavily effect O3 is good science?


----------



## Crick (Jan 27, 2019)

The "natural" causes for ozone depletion were known before there was any issue regarding ozone depletion.  Levels of those agents WERE examined and found incapable of having produced the observed changes.  You fools are so locked into "this is all normal", this is all just another cycle" that you seem incapable of actually detecting any form of change.  That would be part and parcel of what makes you all profoundly conservative
.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> The "natural" causes for ozone depletion were known before there was any issue regarding ozone depletion.  Levels of those agents WERE examined and found incapable of having produced the observed changes.  You fools are so locked into "this is all normal", this is all just another cycle" that you seem incapable of actually detecting any form of change.  That would be part and parcel of what makes you all profoundly conservative
> .



Didn't see that in any of your papers...care to point out where that topic was discussed?  

Didn't think so...just more fake facts pulled out of your ass.  Is there anything you don't lie about?


----------



## Crick (Jan 27, 2019)

Do you remember when you claimed that changes in UV were the obvious cause of the observed increase in ozone depletion?  Do you remember what happened when you went looking for actual evidence to back that up?  There wasn't any.  Not from no one looking.  Lots of people had looked.  There was just no evidence that any increase in UV had taken place.  The same is true of all your other "natural causes".  For any of them to have caused a change in ozone depletion, their levels would have to have increased.  But they didn't.  There is no problem finding data on the levels of those factors over the pertinent time span.  None of those data, however, show changes that would correlate with the observed ozone changes.  Nothing changed except CFCs.

Go try something else.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> Do you remember when you claimed that changes in UV were the obvious cause of the observed increase in ozone depletion?  Do you remember what happened when you went looking for actual evidence to back that up?  There wasn't any.  Not from no one looking.  Lots of people had looked.  There was just no evidence that any increase in UV had taken place.  The same is true of all your other "natural causes".  For any of them to have caused a change in ozone depletion, their levels would have to have increased.  But they didn't.  There is no problem finding data on the levels of those factors over the pertinent time span.  None of those data, however, show changes that would correlate with the observed ozone changes.  Nothing changed except CFCs.
> 
> Go try something else.



Since the holes only appear during the dark of winter....it is a no brainer.  The fact that UV from the sun is required to create O3 and there is none during the dark of the winter is also a no brainer...sorry that you lack the intellectual wattage to figure that one out...then you went into variations throughout the year...not simply during the time when there is no incoming UV and the holes appear...at that point, all you could produce was alarmist narratives that didn't take a serious look at any of the natural causes for O3 variation....Are you to stupid to remember the course of the discussion, or are you just such a liar that you must lie, even when the truth is right there in black and white?  I vote for both.


----------



## Crick (Jan 27, 2019)

The holes worsened with no corresponding increase in UV or any other natural causation.  End of story.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> The holes worsened with no corresponding increase in UV or any other natural causation.  End of story.


Got any evidence to support your claims regarding UV...or any other natural causation?  Any at all?  Didn't think so.  The papers you provided failed to examine anything other than the go to man made cause with any rigor at all.  Yet more fake facts simply pulled out of your ass.


----------



## Crick (Jan 28, 2019)

The UV data I posted here show no changes that might have brought about the ozone depletion observed.  As I've said before, correlation may not prove cause-and-effect, but you don't get cause-and-effect without it.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> How many times have I challenged you to provide us UV data that would correlate with the ozone depletion observed over the last few decades and, of those challenges, to how many have responded?  The answer is ZERO.


and still no response from you on what is more prevalent 3 parts per billion or 780,000 parts per million. Why not?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 29, 2019)

Crick said:


> The UV data I posted here show no changes that might have brought about the ozone depletion observed.  As I've said before, correlation may not prove cause-and-effect, but you don't get cause-and-effect without it.



Putting your ignorance on display again?  Your UV data don't speak to any particular wavelength...a fine example of exactly what it takes to fool you...idiot.

Here is a graph that does..not that you can read a graph..  It describes EUV...the wavelengths responsible for O3 production in the stratosphere...it only goes to 2007, but the sun has been doing nothing since 07 but going more quiet...my bet is that the numbers would be even lower than that by now.


----------



## Crick (Jan 29, 2019)

Eleven year sunspot cycle.  One cycle shows nothing.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 29, 2019)

Crick said:


> Eleven year sunspot cycle.  One cycle shows nothing.




It is because you are looking at TSI...not variations in particular wavelengths of UV and EUV...this has been pointed out to you several times?  Do you not understand that TSI does not mean individual wavelengths?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 29, 2019)

Want to tell me that you don't see any corelation between those two graphs for the 10 years between 19 and 06?  Again....the sun has been going more quiet since 07...so one could reasonably expect the UV and EUV to continue to decrease.


----------



## Crick (Jan 29, 2019)

No.  I do not see any correlation between those two graphs.  And there are much better UV data available.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 30, 2019)

Crick said:


> No.  I do not see any correlation between those two graphs.  And there are much better UV data available.




Figures...After all..you can't read a graph.  And if you have better UV and EUV data, by all means, lets see it...rather than your miserable graphs that don't even begin to display particular wavelengths.

Here is a bit of that "better" UV data...






https://www.researchgate.net/figure...s-measured-by-the-Thermosphere_fig9_252757255

Guess you can't see a correlation there either.  Willful ignorance or abject stupidity?  Which is it skid mark?

Do you really believe a sun going quiet is not going to produce less high energy UV and EUV?  Really?


----------



## Crick (Jan 30, 2019)

I think you should read the captioning under your graphic.  I don't think you understand what you've actually posted here.  No one is arguing that UV does NOT deplete ozone.  The argument is that there were no changes in UV sufficient to have caused the observed depletion.  The Montreal Protocol was in effect by the time of the data you have posted here and most of that data are radiation from CO2 and NO going outward - you know, the sort of thing you claim doesn't exist.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 30, 2019)

Crick said:


> I think you should read the captioning under your graphic.  I don't think you understand what you've actually posted here.  No one is arguing that UV does NOT deplete ozone.  The argument is that there were no changes in UV sufficient to have caused the observed depletion.  The Montreal Protocol was in effect by the time of the data you have posted here and most of that data are radiation from CO2 and NO going outward - you know, the sort of thing you claim doesn't exist.



I understood it just fine...should have known that presenting you with a graph is about as useful as presenting a pig with a dollar bill.

You claimed that there were no changes in UV sufficient to cause O3 depletion...since UV is entirely responsible for O3 production in the stratosphere, any downward change is sufficient to cause less O3 to be produced.  

And the red graphic is what you should be paying attention to skidmark...  
*Time series of daily solar EUV flux from 0.1 to 175 nm as measured by the Thermosphere Ionosphere Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics satellite Solar EUV Experiment (SEE) instrument (red).*

As anyone who can actually read a graph would see...solar EUV flux in the wavelengths responsible for producing O3 are decreasing..and have been for some time...


----------



## Crick (Jan 30, 2019)

Yet in the period of that data, ozone levels were increasing or remaining steady.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 30, 2019)

Crick said:


> Yet in the period of that data, ozone levels were increasing or remaining steady.



Look at your graph doofus...O3 was all over the map...


----------



## Crick (Jan 30, 2019)

Here is what you need to find: UV levels increasing dramatically over this time period during which ozone was being depleted and holes were forming.






Since the Montreal Protocol went into effect, CFC levels in the atmosphere have fallen but only slightly






and ozone levels have steadied or climbed


----------



## SSDD (Jan 31, 2019)

Crick said:


> Here is what you need to find: UV levels increasing dramatically over this time period during which ozone was being depleted and holes were forming.



Ozone holes have always formed over the poles during their winters...it is nothing new and will continue so long as it is dark at the poles during the winter...






Crick said:


> and ozone levels have steadied or climbed
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Crick (Jan 31, 2019)

Do you actually think you are the only one aware of seasonal ozone variations?  Your ego knows no bounds.  Ozone holes were observed to INCREASE in size during the 50s, 60s and 70s.  Unfortunately for you, UV did not increase during that time frame.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 31, 2019)

Crick said:


> Do you actually think you are the only one aware of seasonal ozone variations?  Your ego knows no bounds.  Ozone holes were observed to INCREASE in size during the 50s, 60s and 70s.  Unfortunately for you, UV did not increase during that time frame.


so you admit holes are there and not caused by cfc's even today!  too fking funny.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 31, 2019)

Crick said:


> Do you actually think you are the only one aware of seasonal ozone variations?  Your ego knows no bounds.  Ozone holes were observed to INCREASE in size during the 50s, 60s and 70s.  Unfortunately for you, UV did not increase during that time frame.



Got any hard data on UV and EUV in the specific wavelengths responsible for O3 formation from the 50's 60's and 70's?  Didn't think so....just more fake facts pulled out of your ass... Who do you think you can fool with that sort of bullshit claim?  They say that you can only make up lies that you believe would be good enough to fool you...that bar is set pretty damned low.


----------



## Crick (Jan 31, 2019)

You are the one with the extraordinary claim.  It is YOUR responsibility to produce data on UV levels that would make it a candidate for the observed ozone depletion.  I have already posted several UV datasets covering that period and none of them show the appropriate characteristics.  So, your turn Same Shit


----------



## jc456 (Jan 31, 2019)

Crick said:


> You are the one with the extraordinary claim.  It is YOUR responsibility to produce data on UV levels that would make it a candidate for the observed ozone depletion.  I have already posted several UV datasets covering that period and none of them show the appropriate characteristics.  So, your turn Same Shit


dude, he did. why are you so disingenuous?


----------



## Crick (Jan 31, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You are the one with the extraordinary claim.  It is YOUR responsibility to produce data on UV levels that would make it a candidate for the observed ozone depletion.  I have already posted several UV datasets covering that period and none of them show the appropriate characteristics.  So, your turn Same Shit
> ...




No, he has not.  I am not surprised you should think so.  Within what post do you believe he did so?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 31, 2019)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Most all his exchanges with you and waweii


----------



## Crick (Jan 31, 2019)

Sorry, no.  The only UV data he has posted started well after the Montreal Protocol went into effect.  He needs to show UV data that might be responsible for the growing Antarctic ozone hole.  This he has not done.  I posted up 3 or 4 such sets and none were increasing as would be required.  See post #436 in this thread; came up on page 44 on my screen.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jan 31, 2019)

deanrd said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...


How many genders are there, douchebag?


----------



## Crick (Feb 1, 2019)

We are still waiting, at least two weeks since my first request, for Same Shit Different Day to produce UV data that correlates with the depletion of ozone first noted in 1985 by Farmer, Gardiner and Shanklin.  Without such correlated data, his claim that UV changes are responsible for ozone changes is specious (false).  

As to his oft repeated question how a small constituent catalyst like ozone can have such large effects:

*Why does the ozone hole form over Antarctica ?*

The answer is essentially 'because of the weather in the ozone layer'. In order for rapid ozone destruction to happen, clouds (known as PSCs, Stratospheric Clouds Mother of Pearl or Nacreous Clouds) have to form in the ozone layer. In these clouds surface chemistry takes place. This converts chlorine or bromine (from CFCs and other ozone depleting chemicals) into an active form, so that when there is sunlight, ozone is rapidly destroyed. Without the clouds, there is little or no ozone destruction. Only during the Antarctic winter does the atmosphere get cold enough for these clouds to form widely through the centre of the ozone layer. Elsewhere the atmosphere is just too warm and no clouds form. The northern and southern hemispheres have different 'weather' in the ozone layer, and the net result is that the temperature of the Arctic ozone layer during winter is normally some ten degrees warmer than that of the Antarctic. This means that such clouds are rare, but sometimes the 'weather' is colder than normal and they do form. Under these circumstances significant ozone depletion can take place over the Arctic, but it is usually for a much shorter period of time and covers a smaller area than in the Antarctic.
The Ozone Hole


----------



## SSDD (Feb 18, 2019)

The wait continues, skidmark, for you to post up a single one of your alarmist articles or papers in which the natural causes of ozone depletion are seriously considered...   Clearly that is never going to happen because what are the chances of getting funding for a study which would show the whole ozone crisis to have been a scam perpetrated by a large chemical company and a few bought and paid for politicians in order to sell a very expensive, less effective refrigerant?


----------



## Crick (Feb 18, 2019)

The wait continues Shit, for you post up a single one of your non-existent scientific studies that concludes ozone depletion is the result of natural variation among natural causes.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2019)

Crick said:


> The wait continues Shit, for you post up a single one of your non-existent scientific studies that concludes ozone depletion is the result of natural variation among natural causes.




Sorry skidmark....you just keep getting more and more stupid....is it drugs?...early onset dementia?.....head injury?

I provided ample evidence of the wide swings in solar output of UV in the bands responsible for the formation of O3...I provided evidence of decreasing UV output...I provided evidence that the "holes" are seasonal...now you claim the wait continues for data from research that hasn't even been done?

That is the point skid mark...the research looking at the natural factors which have profound effects on the production of O3 has not been done...all the drivel you provided indicated that quite clearly...the natural factors were ignored and the publications simply assumed that a molecule present at 3 parts per billion was responsible...moron...The wait continues for some actual, serious research to be done....good luck to the people wanting to do that in this academic environment...research which could expose the scam...and the shoddiness of the pseudoscience which came before...


----------



## Crick (Feb 19, 2019)

No one is ignoring factors. You had no problem assembling the data with which to make your bullshit claims.  You didn't produce that on your own.  It has been shown here repeatedly that none of the natural ozone breakdown factors changed levels in a manner that might account for the increased ozone depletion.  You've been told this before yet you carry on. 

That makes you a fucking TROLL.  Fuck off TROLL


----------



## jc456 (Feb 19, 2019)

Crick said:


> No one is ignoring factors. You had no problem assembling the data with which to make your bullshit claims.  You didn't produce that on your own.  It has been shown here repeatedly that none of the natural ozone breakdown factors changed levels in a manner that might account for the increased ozone depletion.  You've been told this before yet you carry on.
> 
> That makes you a fucking TROLL.  Fuck off TROLL


yo crckster, did you ever answer this from SSDD?

"How many times have I challenged you to provide a rational, scientific explanation for how a molecule present at 3 parts per BILLION might represent a greater threat to the ozone layer than the natural catalysts present at 1 to 4 parts per million, and the natural reactants present at 780,000 parts per million?"


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2019)

Crick said:


> No one is ignoring factors. You had no problem assembling the data with which to make your bullshit claims.  You didn't produce that on your own.  It has been shown here repeatedly that none of the natural ozone breakdown factors changed levels in a manner that might account for the increased ozone depletion.  You've been told this before yet you carry on.
> 
> That makes you a fucking TROLL.  Fuck off TROLL



So then you can provide a published paper in which the natural factors were seriously considered and shown to not be an issue?  Is that what you are claiming...So lets see the paper...prove that you aren't a lying troll...show me the paper where UV output by the sun was seriously considered...and the other natural factors that have a profound effect on O3 production....you made the claim...now you get to back it up...I look forward to seeing some published work which is not just the same old alarmist claptrap that you already brought here...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > No one is ignoring factors. You had no problem assembling the data with which to make your bullshit claims.  You didn't produce that on your own.  It has been shown here repeatedly that none of the natural ozone breakdown factors changed levels in a manner that might account for the increased ozone depletion.  You've been told this before yet you carry on.
> ...



His pseudoscientific priests didn't give him an answer for that, so no answer will be forthcoming.


----------



## Crick (Feb 19, 2019)

The answer is that you are a lying troll and should be booted for all time.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 19, 2019)

Crick said:


> The answer is that you are a lying troll and should be booted for all time.


and still no answer.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2019)

Crick said:


> The answer is that you are a lying troll and should be booted for all time.



Panties in twist bucky?  Still stinging over having your ass handed to you?  

You claimed that the natural factors that have profound effects on O3 formation were thoroughly studied and that the molecule at 3 parts per billion was responsible...where are the studies where the natural causes of O3 depletion are seriously considered...all you have put up so far is alarmist clap trap that ignores nature and jumps straight to claiming man.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The answer is that you are a lying troll and should be booted for all time.
> ...



Never will be...he has been reduced to doing nothing more than mewling that the people he can't win an argument against should be banned...his feelings are stinging...and he is suffering from a terrible case of panty twist...


----------



## Crick (Feb 19, 2019)

The ozone hole is the product of human CFC emissions.  

Poster SSDD (Same Shit, Different Day) is the absolute epitome of a TROLL and should be banned from this site.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> The ozone hole is the product of human CFC emissions.
> 
> Poster SSDD (Same Shit, Different Day) is the absolute epitome of a TROLL and should be banned from this site.




So the bottom line is that you can't post up any serious published paper in which the various natural factors which have profound effects on ozone production have been studied with anything like vigor and discounted.  That is what I though...and what I have been saying.  You have been dodging that fact for the entire time..I have provided support for my claims and the last of my claims is that no serious paper has been published in which the natural causes of ozone depletion, or formation have been studied with any thing like investigative vigor and, in turn, discounted.  Here is your chance to put at least one of my claims to bed by posting just such a paper rather than your usual fare of papers which ignore natural causes and jump straight to a molecule that exists in the stratosphere at 3 parts per billion.

We both know that isn't going to happen...what is going to happen is that you are going to mewl and pewl some more, twisting your panties into an ever tighter wad while not producing any paper in which the natural factors effecting ozone depletion and formation are seriously examined.


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2019)

What I am not going to do is respond to the bullshit demands of a TROLL.

CFCs are responsible for the ozone holes.  Your contention is simply another version of the massive conspiracy fantasy and the "I'm smarter than all the scientists on the planet" bullshit that your TROLLING requires.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> What I am not going to do is respond to the bullshit demands of a TROLL.
> 
> CFCs are responsible for the ozone holes.  Your contention is simply another version of the massive conspiracy fantasy and the "I'm smarter than all the scientists on the planet" bullshit that your TROLLING requires.


at 3 parts per billion?


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2019)

I'm curious, Shit.  If no one has ever studied the natural causes of ozone breakdown before, where did you find the information about it on which you base your hypothesis?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> I'm curious, Shit.  If no one has ever studied the natural causes of ozone breakdown before, where did you find the information about it on which you base your hypothesis?


wow.  

all you had to do was answer his question, 3 parts per billion or 780,000 parts per million.  which is greater?  and you avoid that answer like the plague.  too funny.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> What I am not going to do is respond to the bullshit demands of a TROLL.
> 
> CFCs are responsible for the ozone holes.  Your contention is simply another version of the massive conspiracy fantasy and the "I'm smarter than all the scientists on the planet" bullshit that your TROLLING requires.



Of course you won't...and you will call me a troll to ease your distress over the fact that, once again, I have zeroed in on the inherent weakness of your position and asked for studies which we both know do not exist...you made claims that you can't support and now must do whatever mental masturbatory dance you do in order to convince yourself that you have saved face.

You have no research in which the natural causes of ozone depletion and formation were seriously considered and proven to not be factors....all you have is alarmist claptrap and that is good enough to fool you..you are a dupe...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> I'm curious, Shit.  If no one has ever studied the natural causes of ozone breakdown before, where did you find the information about it on which you base your hypothesis?



Basic chemistry for one, and studies of the solar output which mentioned particular wavelengths...and the researchers themselves made note of the ramifications their research might have on ozone studies..but those studying ozone aren' interested in the actual cause...they are interested in funding and maintaining a narrative...

Anyone capable of critical thinking will look for more rational explanations than a molecule which exists at 3 parts per billion when natural catalysts exist in the same zone of the atmosphere at 4 to 6 parts per million.

Only a dupe would believe alarmist clap trap absent real studies of the natural factors that effect ozone depletion and formation...The first thing real science would do is systematically eliminate all the natural factors before jumping to the conclusion that man is to blame...it is the standard climate pseudoscience MO...blame man and don't bother thoroughly examining all possible natural causes...


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2019)

So all the scientists studying the ozone holes are dupes.  But not you.  Got it.

You're a TROLL.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> So all the scientists studying the ozone holes are dupes.  But not you.  Got it.
> 
> You're a TROLL.


dude, you don't get it.  You can't be that slow.  can you?  you're just magnifying that you got nothing.


----------



## Crick (Feb 20, 2019)

You're a troll.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> You're a troll.


Projecting again


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2019)

Crick said:


> So all the scientists studying the ozone holes are dupes.  But not you.  Got it.
> 
> You're a TROLL.



So all you have is name calling...and alarmist narrative....does someone have to hang a sign around your neck before you get the memo that you have lost this discussion because you can't support your claims?  At least wuwei had the sense to get out when it became clear that you guys just couldn't support your claims...you just keep on not being able to support your argument and somehow in your mind that equals a win?  How stupid are you skidmark?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 20, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The answer is that you are a lying troll and should be booted for all time.
> ...


So, did you overturn the accepted theories or the consensus yet, with mountains of published science?

No?

I'll check back in.... never


----------



## SSDD (Feb 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



When you do...bring a study with you where solar output in the UV bands responsible for O3 formation, natural catalysts present at 4 to 6 parts per million, and natural reactants present at 780,000 parts per million are ruled out in favor of a lonely, man made molecule present at 3 PARTS PER BILLION....  Can you do that bucky?  Didn't think so...


----------



## Crick (Feb 21, 2019)

Why do deniers so frequently attempt to presume false dichotomies?  If we spend money on A we can't spend it on B.  If photons are flowing to the left they cannot be flowing to the right.  If water vapor is absorbing some IR, CO2 cannot.  If natural compounds are breaking down ozone, CFCs cannot.

CFCs break down ozone in a catalytic reaction.  For those of you with no chemistry, that means that the CFCs act as an accelerant to the reaction but are not themselves consumed by it.  It is the same way in which the few grams of platinum, palladium and rhodium in your catalytic converter enable the conversion of hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of NO, CO and hydrocarbons that pass through it.*

* 2.5 liter at 3,500 RPM consumes 2.5 * 3500/2 = 4,375 liters per minute or 4.375 m^3/min
If we drive that car 12,500 miles/year at 37.5 mph, the engine runs 333.33 hours or 20,000 minutes.  That would consume 87,500 cubic meters of air/year.  Has anyone here ever had to replace a catalytic converter?  Didn't think so.  Let's assume it functions for 8 years.  That totals 700,000 cubic meters of air.  A cubic meter of air masses 1.293 kg.  Our total would mass 905,100 kg.  The 5 gms of catalyst in the converter then represents  5.52425 PPB


----------



## jc456 (Feb 21, 2019)

Crick said:


> Why do deniers so frequently attempt to presume false dichotomies?  If we spend money on A we can't spend it on B.  If photons are flowing to the left they cannot be flowing to the right.  If water vapor is absorbing some IR, CO2 cannot.  If natural compounds are breaking down ozone, CFCs cannot.
> 
> CFCs break down ozone in a catalytic reaction.  For those of you with no chemistry, that means that the CFCs act as an accelerant to the reaction but are not themselves consumed by it.  It is the same way in which the few grams of platinum, palladium and rhodium in your catalytic converter enable the conversion of hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of NO, CO and hydrocarbons that pass through it.*
> 
> ...


still unanswered.  hmmmmmm afraid to face the facts eh crickster?


----------



## Crick (Feb 23, 2019)

It'd be awfully nice to have this debate with someone who actually understands what I'm saying.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 23, 2019)

Crick said:


> It'd be awfully nice to have this debate with someone who actually understands what I'm saying.


Dude you’re on an island


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> It'd be awfully nice to have this debate with someone who actually understands what I'm saying.




Nah...you lost...when you tried to argue the issue with me.  The problem is that I already knew what you would and wouldn't be able to produce when you started talking...all I had to do was wait for you to make the inevitable unsupportable claims and then call you on them...you can't support them so you lose...you lost before you ever started...


----------



## Crick (Feb 24, 2019)

I produced data on the various natural breakdown agents (which certainly shows someone was looking at them) and there was ZERO correlation between any of them and the increase in ozone depletion.  That was NOT the case with CFCs.

So now is where you display your ignorance re catalytic reactions.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 24, 2019)

Trump Tweets That Midwest Cold Front Shows Climate Change and Global Warming Aren't Real


----------



## Crick (Feb 24, 2019)

And the White House's central air conditioning system proves that CFCs don't breakdown ozone.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> I produced data on the various natural breakdown agents (which certainly shows someone was looking at them) and there was ZERO correlation between any of them and the increase in ozone depletion.  That was NOT the case with CFCs.
> 
> So now is where you display your ignorance re catalytic reactions.



Like I already said...there are no studies in which the natural causes for O3 formation or depletion were given serious consideration...if you think the cursory mention natural causes got in the papers you provided equals serious study, then the bar on what is good enough to fool you goes even lower...

I already pointed out to you that NO is a catalyst for O3 and exists in the stratosphere between 3 and 5 or 6 PPM as contrasted with your lonely molecule which exists in the stratosphere at 3 parts per BILLION.

You are the one who is completely ignorant crick...you are simply regurgitating the opinion given to you by someone with a political agenda...As I said..I already knew what you could and couldn't produce and it was a given that you would start making unsupportable claims...I just had to wait for the inevitable...


----------



## Crick (Feb 24, 2019)

You learned everything you know about the breakdown of ozone by natural compounds from research done on precisely that topic.  Your complaints of no studies are another Same Shit Lie.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> You learned everything you know about the breakdown of ozone by natural compounds from research done on precisely that topic.  Your complaints of no studies are another Same Shit Lie.




So lets see a study where the natural causes of ozone production and depletion are seriously considered...lets see a comparison of how NO a catalyst of O3 breaks down O3 in an environment where it exists at 3 to 5 parts per million vs the break down of O3 by your lonely molecule which exists at 3 parts per BILLION...lets see a study by people looking at the ozone layer where UV output of the sun was studied month by month and year by year and shown to have not had as much influence as your lonely molecule at 3 parts per BILLION...lets see it skidmark...or is the claim that the natural causes have been seriously studied just another lie on your part...one more in a long string of unsupportable claims.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So lets see a study where the natural causes of ozone production and depletion are seriously considered


Look it up, dumbass!

Google Scholar

Not that you could understand a word of any of those articles, if your life depended on it.


----------



## Theowl32 (Feb 24, 2019)

MarathonMike said:


> The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.
> 
> New Ozone Hole Scare Won't Save the Great Climate Hoax | PSI Intl


I was thinking about that hole. We never hear about it anymore, do we.

LOL at the liberals and how wrong they about everything.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So lets see a study where the natural causes of ozone production and depletion are seriously considered
> ...



Nothing there...which is why I can state with perfect confidence that no such study exists...there is no chance any such article is going to pop up to embarrass me...your ignorance is on display by your suggestion that some such study might actually exist...


----------



## Crick (Feb 24, 2019)

OWL - You think that the fact that you haven't heard anything means liberals were wrong about something?  How about actually telling us who was wrong about what and why you think that to be the case.  Because you haven't yet made a case for shit.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Nothing there...


.... except for 100+ pages of links to decades of published, peer-reviewed science regarding ozone depletion and replenishment. It looks like "nothing" to you, because you couldn't understand any of it if your life depended on it.  But, that sure won't stop you from vomiting your useless thoughts on it for the rest of your life...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2019)

Crick said:


> You think that the fact that you haven't heard anything means liberals were wrong about something?  How about actually telling us who was wrong about what and why you think that to be the case.  Because you haven't yet made a case for shit.



Feel free to prove me wrong skidmark...we both know that you have been scouring the internet looking for something for some time now and have come up snake eyes....you lost this discussion the moment you joined it...the ozone hole is a fabricated alarmist scam invented for the purpose of selling a more expensive less effective refrigerant...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing there...
> ...



Go back and read through the thread a bit to catch up...you are so far behind as to be laughable...there are no studies in which the natural causes of O3 formation and depletion are seriously considered...

Tell me goober...how do you suppose a molecule present in the atmosphere at a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION is more destructive to O3 than a natural catalyst which is present at a concentration of 3 to 5 parts per million...combined with natural reactants present in the atmosphere at a concentration of 780,000 parts per million?

No idea of why I asked you?  You are admittedly ignorant of all scientific topics and have no informed opinion of your own...only the one someone with a political agenda gave you.

But do feel free to peruse that 100+ pages and bring something back in which a serious look at natural factors was considered...I will tell you ahead of time that all you will find is alarmist bullshit...probably good enough to fool you just as it was good enough to fool the skidmark...but alarmist bullshit none the less.  Prove me wrong..


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 24, 2019)

MarathonMike said:


> The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.
> 
> New Ozone Hole Scare Won't Save the Great Climate Hoax | PSI Intl




In the past, the US has been able to pull together to solve our problems and the hole in the Ozone layer was one of those times.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2019)

Luddly Neddite said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.
> ...



The "hole" in the ozone layer never was an issue...it is a naturally occurring phenomenon that happens over the poles during their winter when there is very little sunlight coming in through the atmosphere which is needed to produce ozone...no sunlight...no ozone production and ozone has a very short half life...no sun for months and all the ozone goes away..it comes right back in the spring when the sun starts shining into the atmosphere over the respective poles...

the "hole" scare was devised by the 3m corporation who had a very expensive, less effective refrigerant that they weren't going to be able to sell just as the patents were running out on freon, and a young senator named al gore who wanted campaign contributions and a couple of other politicians  who happened to be for sale at the time.....they worked out a deal...


----------



## Crick (Feb 25, 2019)

Every statement you just made is bullshit.  Freon was invented in 1928 by a General Motor researcher named Kettering.  In 1930 GM went into a partnership with DuPont.  The original patent expired in the 1950.  See R-12 Retrofitting: Are we really doing it because DuPont’s patent for Freon® ran out?.  3M does not make refrigerants.







This is the graph you need to match with something other than CFCs if you want to get real.  

You are a fucking TROLL


----------



## SSDD (Feb 25, 2019)

Pardon me for stating the wrong corporation....the fact remains that the ozone hole is a completely natural phenomenon and no paper has ever seriously considered the natural causes of the formation or depletion of ozone...should I maybe make a spelling error or two for you and maybe use a semicolon incorrectly?  Will that help repair your damaged self esteem from having your ass handed to you so often?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> At least wuwei had the sense to get out when it became clear that you guys just couldn't support your claims.


Nope. You were unable to come up with the collision cross-sections and the ratio of elastic and inelastic collisions for the interactions involved. You were only awed by numbers. No real science in that.

.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > At least wuwei had the sense to get out when it became clear that you guys just couldn't support your claims.
> ...




Got a study in which the natural causes for O3 production and depletion were seriously considered and proven to not be factors?  Any at all?  The skid mark couldn't find any and neither will you...the "science" on the topic isn't science at all...it is pseudoscientific alarmist pap...


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Got a study in which the natural causes for O3 production and depletion were seriously considered and proven to not be factors? Any at all? The skid mark couldn't find any and neither will you...the "science" on the topic isn't science at all...it is pseudoscientific alarmist pap...


I'm simply saying you have not proved your point. If you are going to buck current science on the ozone layer, it is up to you to defend your point.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 25, 2019)

Didn't think you had anything......alarmist clap trap that jumps straight to anthropogenic causes rather than thoroughly examine natural factors isn't science...  good enough to fool you and the skid mark though..right?


----------



## Wuwei (Feb 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Didn't think you had anything......alarmist clap trap that jumps straight to anthropogenic causes rather than thoroughly examine natural factors isn't science... good enough to fool you and the skid mark though..right?



Read again. I didn't say anything about any other cause. I simply said that you did not prove your point.

.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 25, 2019)

Theowl32 said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.
> ...


they all made their fortunes.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 25, 2019)

Crick said:


> OWL - You think that the fact that you haven't heard anything means liberals were wrong about something?  How about actually telling us who was wrong about what and why you think that to be the case.  Because you haven't yet made a case for shit.


how about you using quotes when you fking post. I've told you at nausea to use the quote's  feature here.  what f king loser.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing there...
> ...


well then post one of those studies.  Why can't you?  making that kind of statement is useless in a debate.  are you a rookie?  ah yes you are a baby.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


he wants us to believe he read 100+ pages of links with articles.  yeah, ok he's a francis.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 25, 2019)

Crick said:


> Indiana, you are 100% correct.  Whatever you find, SSDD will just call it bullshit and reject it.  He will NEVER admit that anyone has ever produced material he has claimed doesn't exist *because SSDD is a fucking TROLL !!!*


still can't produce one study, eh?  still waiting on the answer of what is larger.  still nothing.


----------



## ph3iron (Feb 25, 2019)

MarathonMike said:


> The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.
> 
> New Ozone Hole Scare Won't Save the Great Climate Hoax | PSI Intl


I missed where you got your climate degree?
After all, what does nasa know compared with our PhD poster here?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Got a study in which the natural causes for O3 production and depletion were seriously considered and proven to not be factors? Any at all? The skid mark couldn't find any and neither will you...the "science" on the topic isn't science at all...it is pseudoscientific alarmist pap...
> ...


well sure he's proved his point,  neither you or crickster has posted any such study that shows natural occurring O3 was considered.  not fking one!! I call that proof.  any time you wish to prove us how he's wrong will be the first.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


> well then post one of those studies.


Instead ,I posted a link to hundreds of them. As requested. If you are too lazy to click the link and too stupid to understand a scientific paper, that's a "you" problem, and it's conclusive evidence that your opinions on this topic are worth less than nothing.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 25, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.
> ...


funny, you think there are climate scientists.  not one human understands climate.  not one.  I challenge you to show the script that the earth is missing temperature readings and that shows we shouldn't have CO2 at 400 PPM.  go ahead.  be the first one in here.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > well then post one of those studies.
> ...


I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase, you post one.  go ahead, let's see the one.  pick one, your choice.  present the data.  I dare you to prove me wrong.


----------



## ph3iron (Feb 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > MarathonMike said:
> ...



You must have SO much SS time on your hand you don't quote the hundreds of organizations that support GW.
But ONE who doesn't believe we landed on the moon
"Principal Scientific International (PSI) is an organization based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a ..."


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


> I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase,


You're not going to do anything at all. You don't even read the links you post, troll.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 25, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...


so no script?  well then show the observed evidence there is an issue in our world.  why won't you?  the answer, you can't.  all you all have to do is post the evidence and make me look the fool.  and yet, you don't.  that's exhilarating.


----------



## ph3iron (Feb 25, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...


Well, you could go to UCLA
Climate Science Major | Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
You might just learn something


----------



## jc456 (Feb 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase,
> ...


correct,  I don't do wild goose chases.  you post one of the links and the material that backs your claim.  go for it, I'll read one, prove your fking point.  chicken or clueless?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 25, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


well post the quote from the link that will make me smarter. always just a link, never the actual verbiage.  Makes you a loser.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


You're not following, retard. I merely responded to another poster requesting that published science on this be posted. I was nice enough to link him to literally thousands of such studies.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


oh I get it.  you got nothing.  just like crickster has nothing.  you can't, cause it doesn't exist.  What does exist is fake shit with fake links and no material to back the claim.  tick tock.


----------



## ph3iron (Feb 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Have you seen the 100 yr graph of temperatures?
I'll try to find it for you.
As a research scientist I'm amused to see the false equivalency.
The observed evidence is Thousands of scientists on one side, a few on the other.
Same as evolution.
I go with the preponderance of scientists 
90% believe the globe is warming, 75% due to man?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


> you got nothing.


....except 1000s of published scientific studies. As requested .


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 25, 2019)

MarathonMike said:


> The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.
> 
> New Ozone Hole Scare Won't Save the Great Climate Hoax | PSI Intl



How else will those intent on achieving a "New World Order" and/or the "One World Government" that they desire get it done?  They must come up with some massive global issue that threatens all of human kind to gain our complacency and get us to fall into line and convince enough people in power to help them.  And others are more than willing to personally capitalize on the effort and rake in all that lovely money that they use for theories and 'scientific evidence' in order to make the gullible and uncurious willingly complicit in the scheme.

The process is to gradually confiscate or remove our access to our resources and personal wealth and slowly, one by one so we don't really notice and/or are not alarmed, take away our individual liberties.  Until one day we realize we are no longer a free people in control of our own destinies.

So when the opportunists are no longer able to capitalize in any way on the whole global warming schtick, they will quickly move on to something else to use for their purposes.


----------



## ph3iron (Feb 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...


Verbiage = actual education which you apparently don't have
Try this
Graphs no good?
Google "global temperatures by year."
100 yrs of data?
Do I call you a loser?
Giveaway for zero college?


----------



## ph3iron (Feb 25, 2019)

Foxfyre said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.
> ...


Omg don't forget the deep state and Hillary uranium one


----------



## ph3iron (Feb 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



So where are your thousands of studies again.?
You clearly have never been in any kind of research.
It's the preponderance of the evidence darlin.
1000 scientists on one side 10 on the other. I go with the 1000.
You can't be so sure from knees news Internet and the comfort of you double wide 
And please try to refrain from retard, moron, shit.
Does little for your argument.
Please look up the 100 yr graph and 
Scientists Agree That Climate Change Caused By Humans, Says New Report - ProCon.org


----------



## jc456 (Feb 25, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...


so nothing as usual and expected.  board sure is a waste of time when the opposition can't produce evidence to back their claim.


----------



## ph3iron (Feb 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


UCLA ??


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 25, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > MarathonMike said:
> ...



I haven't forgotten them.  They just aren't as specifically pertinent to the thread topic.


----------



## ph3iron (Feb 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Really??
No point in arguing further with a zero college rube


----------



## jc456 (Feb 25, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


so still nothing.  nothing you can quote.  yep just post a link and go, there you go.  which tells us absolutely nothing.  got nothing, you post nothing.  got it.  How warm is 20PPM of CO2?  which one of those thousands has that info?  I googled it and got Sasquatch


----------



## jc456 (Feb 25, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...


got nothing like I said.  dude, you made the claim post the information.  just adding a link isn't proving anything.  you need to post the quote from the material in the link.


----------



## ph3iron (Feb 25, 2019)

Foxfyre said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



But I'm sure are imbedded in your brain.
Together with "you can keep your plan"
Ever read the end of that sentence?"
Uranium 6 % of our supply, 9 depts involved. Hill was in ONE But she's responsible?
But omg it's all hills fault
2000 nukes not enough for you?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 25, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


are you?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 25, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...


bye


----------



## ph3iron (Feb 25, 2019)

jc456 said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


You mean you are not capable?
Just look at the graph darlin


----------



## jc456 (Feb 25, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...


i don't do wild goose chases.  I already stated that. you post your evidence.


----------



## Crick (Feb 25, 2019)

Foxfyre said:


> How else will those intent on achieving a "New World Order" and/or the "One World Government" that they desire get it done?  They must come up with some massive global issue that threatens all of human kind to gain our complacency and get us to fall into line and convince enough people in power to help them.  And others are more than willing to personally capitalize on the effort and rake in all that lovely money that they use for theories and 'scientific evidence' in order to make the gullible and uncurious willingly complicit in the scheme.
> 
> The process is to gradually confiscate or remove our access to our resources and personal wealth and slowly, one by one so we don't really notice and/or are not alarmed, take away our individual liberties.  Until one day we realize we are no longer a free people in control of our own destinies.
> 
> So when the opportunists are no longer able to capitalize in any way on the whole global warming schtick, they will quickly move on to something else to use for their purposes.



On what do you base all these ideas?

You would have to have tens of thousands of scientists from every nation on the planet (ie, with lots of different political viewpoints) all engaged in the same conspiracy (to form a New World Order, you claim) and not one has ever been caught or confessed to their actions.  Every other climate scientist - the ones who USE that data for their own work would have to either also be in the conspiracy or be perfectly fooled by these supposedly manufactured data because THEY NEVER COMPLAIN.  Your suggestion is simply meritless nonsense.

Right wing paranoid nonsense is what you've got.


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 25, 2019)

Crick said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > How else will those intent on achieving a "New World Order" and/or the "One World Government" that they desire get it done?  They must come up with some massive global issue that threatens all of human kind to gain our complacency and get us to fall into line and convince enough people in power to help them.  And others are more than willing to personally capitalize on the effort and rake in all that lovely money that they use for theories and 'scientific evidence' in order to make the gullible and uncurious willingly complicit in the scheme.
> ...



I am pretty sure all you would need are:

1.  Some scientific groups, hand picked by government officials to receive lucrative grants, and make sure they know that those grants will keep coming so long as there is or most is an AGW/climate change crisis that government needs to address.

2.  A government hand picked group of writers, most without scientific expertise, choosing what scientific opinion from those hand picked scientific groups will go into something called a "Summary for Policymakers."  It is that document that a lot of media uses for its 'expert' analysis of the AGW/ACC 'crisis'.

3.  A lot of people who desperately want that 'crisis' to be real because it is so useful to them to demonize people they don't like and further their own agendas and who will flood social media, message boards, etc. with the statement over and over and over again that the majority of scientists believe AGW/ACC is a 'crisis' that the government must address immediately.

And then the government has all the license it needs to eliminate its critics, gradually reduce resources available to the people, and one by one eliminate individual liberties.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Indiana, you are 100% correct.  Whatever you find, SSDD will just call it bullshit and reject it.  He will NEVER admit that anyone has ever produced material he has claimed doesn't exist *because SSDD is a fucking TROLL !!!*
> ...




Funny how he has started talking in big bold red all caps...he has become as unhinged as rolling thunder....goes around calling me a troll because I keep handing him his ass at every turn...what a goob....


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.
> ...



Logical fallacy...how completely unoriginal....


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > well then post one of those studies.
> ...




People who post links and don't bring the information forward are just talking out of their asses...they do that because they have no idea what is in those links...if they did, then they could bring the information forward to make their point...you never do that...because by your own admission, you are uneducated and ignorant and simply must place your trust in someone...and you place that trust in people you perceive as more intelligent than your self...you have no idea whether they are or not..but that is where you place your trust...


----------



## Crick (Feb 26, 2019)

God are you stupid.  There are stupider people out there - people who actually believe you know what you're talking about.  But you're down there.  A long ways.  Really, really, really stupid.

Everything you know about ozone came from people doing the research you claim has never been done. Now THAT is fucking stupid.  But, that's the rub when you choose to be a troll.  You've got to post stuff that makes you look like a complete flaming idiot.


----------



## ph3iron (Feb 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > MarathonMike said:
> ...



You should know.
The consensus already debated facts.
That's how you come to a concensus.
I spent a few years doing expts showing chloroform had 5 atoms.
Hours of debates but our deniers here are SO sure w/o any climate experience at all


----------



## jc456 (Feb 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


yep,  he is losing it.  when facts can't support what he wants them to and his fake can't fool us, it's all he has left.  I feel bad for him.


----------



## ph3iron (Feb 26, 2019)

SSDD said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > MarathonMike said:
> ...


Dangerous quote.
You do know Crick stole the key DNA pic from rose Franklins notebook?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 26, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...


science doesn't use consensus, nothing is ever settled in science, it is always under debate.  See, that's why you don't do science, your consensed.


----------



## ph3iron (Feb 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Nothing is settled but some things are agreed on, that's what consensus means, like choroform has 5 atoms.
Dare I look up the def of consensus?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 26, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...


not in science, nothing is ever considered consensus.  That's why it is never settled.


----------



## ph3iron (Feb 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Consensus = general agreement.?
Can we agree 99% of chemists agree chloroform has 5  atoms and it isn't settled?


----------



## jc456 (Feb 26, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...


ever hear of Fermilabs?  What do you supposed they do?Science is never settled.


----------



## ph3iron (Feb 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Of course, never settled can ever be 100%
Would you agree on 99%


----------



## ph3iron (Feb 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


I thought Fermi was a place, not a theory


----------



## jc456 (Feb 26, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...


they test theories.  they wouldn't exist if science was settled.


----------



## Crick (Feb 26, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> You do know Crick stole the key DNA pic from rose Franklins notebook?



I stole what from where?

OOOhhhh, Crick of Crick and Watson.  Sorry. It never occurred to me I was using his name.  Completely unintentional.  Oi!


----------



## mamooth (Feb 26, 2019)

jc456 said:


> ever hear of Fermilabs?  What do you supposed they do?Science is never settled.



So you think gravity might not really exist?

Interesting. I suggest you cling to railings when you walk, lest you possible float away.

The point is that, yes, much science really is settled.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> God are you stupid.  There are stupider people out there - people who actually believe you know what you're talking about.  But you're down there.  A long ways.  Really, really, really stupid.
> 
> Everything you know about ozone came from people doing the research you claim has never been done. Now THAT is fucking stupid.  But, that's the rub when you choose to be a troll.  You've got to post stuff that makes you look like a complete flaming idiot.



You are stinging all the time aren't you skidmark...reduced to following me around calling names...

And you still can't produce a single paper in which the natural factors effecting both the formation of O3 and the depletion of O3 are seriously considered and ruled out...all you can provide is alarmist claptrap which blames O3 depletion on a molecule which exists at a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION when there are natural catalysts for O3 present at 3 to 5 parts per million and natural reactants present at 780,000 parts per million, and it is well known that the output of the sun in the UV range responsible for O3 formation fluctuate wildly...

No papers examining those factors with any seriousness...they all jump straight into the alarmist narrative...SCAM is the word that describes the state of science doing the "investigation"..


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...



Really?  Lets see the resulting paper which explained how CFC molecules present in the stratosphere at a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION, represent a greater threat to the ozone layer than NO...a natural catalyst for O3 which exists in the stratosphere at a concentration of 3 to 5 parts per million.  If the consensus is based on fact, and thorough examination of the natural factors that effect O3 production and depletion, surely there are papers...lets see them.

Lets see the paper resulting from a thorough discussion of how a CFC molecule present at 3 parts per BILLION represents a greater threat to the ozone layer than N...a natural reactant for O3 present in the stratosphere at a concentration of 780,000 parts per million.  If the consensus is based on fact, and thorough examination of the natural factors that effect O3 production and depletion, surely there are papers...lets see them.

Lets see the paper resulting from a thorough discussion of the fact that the output of UV from the sun in the wavelengths responsible for he formation of O3 vary wildly...as much as a factor of 10 from year to year...lets see the paper which discusses that fact regarding the formation of O3...if it is what the consensus is based upon, then surely there are papers..




ph3iron said:


> That's how you come to a concensus.



So lets see the papers in which the natural factors effecting the formation and depletion of O3 were studied and ruled out as a cause of either the ozone hole, or ozone depletion...surely they exist if the consensus is based on a thorough study of the facts...  So far, all anyone has produced is alarmist papers which ignore the profound natural factors and jump straight to a lonely CFC molecule which is only present at a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION...not million, but BILLION.



ph3iron said:


> I spent a few years doing expts showing chloroform had 5 atoms.



And I am quite sure that there is considerable research that demonstrates quite conclusively that chloroform has 5 atoms....lets see the considerable research that ruled out the natural factors effecting the formation and depletion of O3



ph3iron said:


> Hours of debates but our deniers here are SO sure w/o any climate experience at all



I keep asking for the papers in which the natural factors that profoundly effect the formation and depletion of O3 were seriously considered and ruled out as a cause, either completely or partially for the ozone holes, or ozone depletion...No one seems to be able to produce anything at all but papers which ignore the natural factors and jump straight to an alarmist narrative claiming the lonely CFC molecule which exists at a concentration in the stratosphere of only 3 parts per BILLION.  You claim that the consensus is based on a thorough study of al the factors...lets see the studies which rule out natural variability...in real science, whenever you are looking at an occurrence in  nature, the first thing you do is either confirm or rule out natural factors...so lets see the science where that was done.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...



You really think that is a valid argument and ends the discussion on what is going on in the ozone layer?  Is that really the best you can do?  Not so long ago, there were tens of thousands of scientists on the planet who believe that cholesterol caused heart disease...that stress caused ulcers, that salt caused high blood pressure, that the earth was expanding, that there were canals on mars, that light transmitted through the universe via aether, that phrenology was real, that the universe was static, that there were strong genetic differences between the races, that Neanderthals didn't exist alongside of humans, that earth might be the only place in the solar system where water exists, that complex organisms have more genes than simple organisms like an amoeba, that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, that black holes can't exist near young stars...and I would imagine, some controversy at some time over how many atoms were in a chloroform molecule...and on and on and on...pick a scientific topic and you can bet that at one time, nearly 100% of scientists at some time were wrong on that topic....the fact that scientists "believe" it doesn't make it true.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2019)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ever hear of Fermilabs?  What do you supposed they do?Science is never settled.
> ...



Tell us hairball...what is the mechanism by which gravity operates...there are multiple hypotheses on what causes gravity...and as long as we have known about gravity...and been able to predict its effect on matter...we still are a long way from understanding what causes it....Is that really the best argument you can manage?  If so, chalk up another failure by the hairball..


----------



## jc456 (Feb 27, 2019)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ever hear of Fermilabs?  What do you supposed they do?Science is never settled.
> ...


so you're saying scientist knows how it works?  so there is no research on it?  LOL.  proves you don't know shit.

Gravity Research Foundation

First site to pop up.

We know the earth is warmed by the sun.  after that, the rest is all still not known.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> Mass deflects space-time.
> 
> F = (G x m1 x m2) x d^2
> 
> Troll



You really are one of the stupidest people I have encountered on one of these boards...You think that formula says anything at all about the fundamental mechanism of gravity?  Are you that far behind the curve? .....tell me skidmark...is the curvature of space time caused by gravity, or is it what causes gravity?  Any idea?  Surely there is a Nobel in in for someone who can answer that question...is it gravitons?   You are a moron..


----------



## ph3iron (Feb 27, 2019)

SSDD said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




I just go on the opinion in hundreds of science journals, not an old white fart forum where no one has an advanced degree.
Chloroform took months of presenting all sides, not exactly this forum.
Scientists do not blindly believe, they write thesis based on experimental facts
Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
I did point out that you quote science stealers such as Crick?


----------



## ph3iron (Feb 27, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Mass deflects space-time.
> ...


Nice foul mouth.
Trump U?


----------



## ph3iron (Feb 27, 2019)

SSDD said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Who knows what's going on in the ozone layer?
Certainly not old white fart forum boys who search desperately for items that fit their made up minds.
Scientists Agree: Global Warming is Happening and Humans are the Primary Cause.
This reminds me of the evolution debate.
Guy on one side of the table believing.
Guy on other side disbelieving
Treated as equally believable


----------



## jc456 (Feb 27, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...


all of the money thieves


----------



## mamooth (Feb 27, 2019)

Foxfyre said:


> I am pretty sure all you would need are:
> 
> 1.  Some scientific groups, hand picked by government officials to receive lucrative grants, and make sure they know that those grants will keep coming so long as there is or most is an AGW/climate change crisis that government needs to address.



If every bit of data didn't contradict you and your wild-eyed authoritarian political cult, you wouldn't have to rely entirely on such paranoid conspiracy babbling.

But it does, so you do.

This is another reason why it's good to be part of the rational side. All of the data backs us up, so we never need to fake conspiracy fables. 

If the data ever does contradict our politics, we change our politics.

If the data contradicts your politics, you try to fudge the data.


----------



## jc456 (Feb 27, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I am pretty sure all you would need are:
> ...


or not


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2019)

The same is true for retreating glaciers...about the time sea level was increasing some 36 feet, ice nearly a mile think was melting off the great lakes area..melting ice is what is to be expected when a planet exits an ice age...or even experiences a climactic optimum between glacial periods.  Again..nothing there suggests mankind is in any way responsible...

The claim of decreased snow cover is hardly accurate but climate science has a history of being quite loose with the data...but again...decreased snow cover should be expected as a planet exits an ice age...

We already looked at sea level...certainly nothing unusual about the rate of sea level increase...and nothing whatsoever to link our activities to the increase...

Declining Arctic Sea ice...refer to the graph above...there is more ice in the arctic now than there has been for most of the past 10,000 years.  Are we to blame for that as well?

There are no more "extreme" events in weather now than there have ever been...there are just more people to be effected by bad weather..If you would like a list of published papers which shred media claims associated with extreme weather, I will be happy to provide them...

Ocean acidification is one of the most ridiculous claims of all...considering that for the vast bulk of earth's history, the atmospheric CO2 levels have been in excess of 1000ppm, how do you suppose life in the oceans ever managed to survive?  

Here is what natural variability of ocean PH looks like over the long term...Hardly anything for us, or ocean life to worry about insofar as pH levels go.  pollution? that is another issue altogether.






So we see like most alarmist publications, this one doesn't mention natural variability...it takes every natural event and simply claims that mankind is to blame without offering up even a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...unfortunately, that sort of reporting is good enough to fool far to many people who perceive themselves to be less intelligent than climate scientists...

Clearly, that sort of reporting is good enough to fool you and I seriously doubt that you even noticed that they didn't present a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports their claim of man induced climate change over natural variability...




ph3iron said:


> I did point out that you quote science stealers such as Crick?



No idea what you are talking about.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Interesting..you think pointing out stupidity on a level he achieves is foul?


----------



## Crick (Feb 27, 2019)

When YOU ask stupid questions - particularly given that you're a complete and total TROLL - feel free to expect stupid answers.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2019)

ph3iron said:


> Who knows what's going on in the ozone layer?[;/quote]
> 
> What is not going on in the ozone layer is a lonely molecule that exists at a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION destroying it.
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> When YOU ask stupid questions - particularly given that you're a complete and total TROLL - feel free to expect stupid answers.




What's the matter skid mark?  Still stinging?  Sucks to keep having your ass handed to you huh...sucks to be reduced to a stalker following someone around calling them names...sucks for them to know exactly what you can and can't produce before you even make the claim doesn't it?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> Everything you know about ozone came from people doing the research you claim has never been done. Now THAT is fucking stupid. But, that's the rub when you choose to be a troll. You've got to post stuff that makes you look like a complete flaming idiot.


Exactly. This results from what I known as "backward think". This ignorant moron decided the accepted climate theories are false, based on nothing but his own fetishes, neuroses, and superstitions. So, that's his stating point, not his endpoint. Having bought into this idiotic fantasy 100%, he now must make anything and everything fit this idiot paradigm. In doing so, there is no thought given to consistency, or honesty. So, he finds himself contradicting himself every few minutes.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Everything you know about ozone came from people doing the research you claim has never been done. Now THAT is fucking stupid. But, that's the rub when you choose to be a troll. You've got to post stuff that makes you look like a complete flaming idiot.
> ...



Another post and still not a single paper in which the natural factors effecting O3 production and depletion were seriously considered and discarded....how completely unsurprising...

You guys have fun with your little circle jerk...tell each other how mean old SSDD is for not believing in your fantasy....maybe you can get some cold comfort from each other....


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 27, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Another post and still not a single paper in which the natural factors effecting O3 production and depletion were seriously considered


Except forthe hundreds i linked to earlier. And why are you posting  to me anyway,? Go publish some science! What, are you going to sit here and jerk off for the rest of your life?


----------



## Foxfyre (Feb 27, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I am pretty sure all you would need are:
> ...



When you actually have an argument to rebut mine, get back to me.  The personal insults just aren't working for you.


----------



## Crick (Feb 27, 2019)

If you actually want to see an argument to rebut yours. review "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch.  The claim that all the world's climate scientists are lying to get research grants fails about a dozen different ways.  It's the sort of argument a slow fourth-grader would make.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 27, 2019)

Foxfyre said:


> [When you actually have an argument to rebut mine, get back to me.



I just did.

In return, you pulled the same huffy act you always pull when you can't respond to a liberal, which would be every time you debate a liberal. You're completely helpless if you have to go off-script, so you invoke the huffy act as a way to retreat.



> The personal insults just aren't working for you.



If you stop relying entirely on the bizarre conspiracy theories that your cult feeds to you, I'll stop pointing it out. Deal?

Go on, try the fake huffy act again as a way to run from discussion. After all, nobody expects better from you. Just remember that I enjoy the bitter yet sweet taste of conservative tears.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Another post and still not a single paper in which the natural factors effecting O3 production and depletion were seriously considered
> ...



So you are either a top shelf liar, or bottom of the barrel stupid.  You linked to nothing with the data I asked for...but feel free to prove that you aren't either a bald faced liar, or very stupid by providing a link to a single paper which provides the data I am asking for...

We both know that isn't going to happen.  You know, humans are very good at recognizing patterns...your pattern is to make claims that you can't support then call names when you are called on your inability to support said claims.  You think people don't notice that?  

You guys are laughable...forever making claims that you can't support...that's what happens when you jump on an unsupportable pseudoscience band wagon..


----------



## SSDD (Feb 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> If you actually want to see an argument to rebut yours. review "The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch.  The claim that all the world's climate scientists are lying to get research grants fails about a dozen different ways.  It's the sort of argument a slow fourth-grader would make.



Mounds and mounds of steaming excrement and not a single shred of observed measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?

Tell me skidmark?  Do you think there is anyone on this board except for perhaps a few bottom of the barrel idiots like you who aren't fully aware that the observed, measured data you claim is there isn't?  I guess the only people on the board who still believe you are probably the hairball, abu faker, old rocks and maybe wuwei although I doubt that he actually believes you....he just doesn't want to interfere with your propaganda campaign...


----------



## Crick (Feb 28, 2019)

Do you actually believe anyone here does not know you lie with every word you speak?

Troll

*Mod Edit -- this is a warnable post.. Since it's purely personal with no topical content. You want to have a trolling fight -- take it to the Taunting Forums..  Crick  Can't have the same feuds going off in EVERY thread in this forum.. SSDD*


----------



## SSDD (Feb 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> Do you actually believe anyone here does not know you lie with every word you speak?
> 
> Troll



What people know is that you can't deliver any observed, measured evidence to support your claims...it has become painfully obvious to anyone who cares to look...you talk and talk, and make claim after claim but can't support any of it...and now you are little more than a pissed off little brat who is angry because someone is calling him out on his bullshit...well to f'ing bad...if you don't like being called out, stop pulling claims out of your ass that you can't support...


----------



## Crick (Feb 28, 2019)

And the lies never stop.

TROLL


----------



## ph3iron (Feb 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Everything you know about ozone came from people doing the research you claim has never been done. Now THAT is fucking stupid. But, that's the rub when you choose to be a troll. You've got to post stuff that makes you look like a complete flaming idiot.
> ...



And proudly quotes Crick, the guy who stole rose franklins DNA photo


----------



## Crick (Feb 28, 2019)

I've just had a read on Rose Franklin and 'Photo 51' in Wikipedia..  It was not Crick who stole Franklin's photo.  It was Maurice Wilkins, who showed it to James Watson.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> And the lies never stop.
> 
> TROLL



And still no paper....not a single one in which the natural factors which have a profound effect on O3 production and depletion were seriously considered and discounted...not a single paper...all alarmist claptrap supporting a narrative...no actual science...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 28, 2019)

SSDD said:


> So you are either a top shelf liar


Hmm,no, I'm spot on. You have zero education or experience in any of these fields, and you have published no science in any field. You honestly believe that you, an uneducated slob, has outsmarted people who have dedicated lifetimes to these fields of science. That is enough to simply laugh you out of the room all by itself. But what really seals the deal that you are an ineffectual, terminal retard is that you actually believe the global scientific community is laboring under the ignorance of its own discoveries. You are a joke,and sitting here, hiding  behind an anonymous nickname and screeching  into an empty corner of the internet, is your absolute ceiling, when it comes to this topic.

Enjoy!


----------



## Crick (Feb 28, 2019)

I think he means Crick of Crick and Watson re DNA


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Feb 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> I think he means Crick of Crick and Watson re DNA


Ah, okay.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So you are either a top shelf liar
> ...



Still no paper to support the claim...nothing but logical fallacies...how completely unsurprising is that?


----------



## SSDD (Mar 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Sorry skid mark, but a link to nothing is worth nothing.....if you believe there to be something specific there, by all means point to it...but we both know that isn't going to happen because you have already looked and found nothing...that is why you just point to the great steaming pile and suggest that I dig....


----------



## SSDD (Mar 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> The natural factors which deplete ozone were repeatedly studied for their own sake.  But as we have gone over a dozen times before, there was no increase in those factors that could have caused the increase in ozone depletion.  I have asked you REPEATEDLY to show us any of the natural factors increasing in a manner that would correlate with the increased ozone depletion.  But you have presented NOTHING.  CFCs do correlate.
> 
> So take a guess as to what conclusion a reasonable person comes?
> 
> ...



So lets see those studies in which the natural factors that deplete ozone were repeatedly studies for their own sake...I have looked and find none...most of the data I provided came from chemistry texts on the topic of O3..none of them gave particular notice to ozone holes, or depletion.......or even better, lets see references to those studies in the alarmist papers you provided?  I looked already...nothing there...the papers you provided were not real science....they were alarmist claptrap..they dove straight into CFC's being the only possible cause for O3 depletion and never gave serious mention to natural factors, nor did they reference papers which had already thoroughly examined natural factors and determined that they were not the cause of the O3 depletion we are seeing...

Once again...unsupportable claims...just making it up as you go...


----------



## SSDD (Mar 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> Again, we find deniers with no science education and, in this case, one spouting absolutely insane interpretations of fundamental physical laws, who believe they know better than PhD scientists who've spent their professional lives learning, studying and researching these very topics.  And what has Same Shit actually done that would make him so much more knowledgeable than the actual scientists?  He claims to have looked at some textbooks.  Review SSDD posts on this thread and see how many of them contain science and how many of them are simply filled with invective.  The ratio will be extreme.  And the reason for that is that Same Shit isn't looking to have a scientific debate.  He is looking to entertain himself by agitating others.  There is a name for one who exhibits such behavior.  It is
> 
> *TROLL*




So that is a no..you can't provide any paper in which the natural factors effecting O3 production and depletion were seriously considered for their own sake...and you can produce no alarmist paper which references any of those papers in which O3 was studied for its own sake. 

Like I said, there was never, nor has there ever been a serious scientific look into the ozone hole, or ozone depletion..it has all been alarmist hysteria....if real science, the first order of business is to rule out natural factors and that simply has never been done...every paper you provided jumped straight into the alarmist narrative....that is not science...that is propaganda.

And the only person being agitated here is you skid mark...and your agitation arises from not being able to support your claims and being called out on it...


----------



## jc456 (Mar 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Again, we find deniers with no science education and, in this case, one spouting absolutely insane interpretations of fundamental physical laws, who believe they know better than PhD scientists who've spent their professional lives learning, studying and researching these very topics.  And what has Same Shit actually done that would make him so much more knowledgeable than the actual scientists?  He claims to have looked at some textbooks.  Review SSDD posts on this thread and see how many of them contain science and how many of them are simply filled with invective.  The ratio will be extreme.  And the reason for that is that Same Shit isn't looking to have a scientific debate.  He is looking to entertain himself by agitating others.  There is a name for one who exhibits such behavior.  It is
> ...


He just verified your posts


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 5, 2019)

Well, we know the thread title is a debunked myth.

And we know climate theories are well supported and enjoy overwhelming consensus.

So these freaks are claiming the scientists are a liars and keeping a secret.

So why is this thread not in the Conspiracy Theory Section?


----------



## Crick (Mar 5, 2019)

Good question


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 5, 2019)

And it's an honest question.  I want to know why.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well, we know the thread title is a debunked myth.
> 
> And we know climate theories are well supported and enjoy overwhelming consensus.
> 
> ...



What we know is that the skid mark claimed that the natural factors effecting O3 production and depletion were seriously considered and discounted...what we also know is that he can't support his claim and in doing so, he supports my claim...we also know that you are a dupe who wouldn't know one way or another whether the claim is true or not...


----------



## jc456 (Mar 8, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well, we know the thread title is a debunked myth.
> 
> And we know climate theories are well supported and enjoy overwhelming consensus.
> 
> ...


No such thing as a consensus in science.  did you know that?  so your science is junk.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 8, 2019)

*This thread has been completely off the original topic of the Ozone hole for at least a dozen pages. And has degraded into a troll fight over the same GW misconceptions... Closing it... 

Each thread needs to be UNIQUE and ON TOPIC..  If you have a multi-year feud going on "marginal" opinions of GW --- DO NOT HIJACK every thread to continue that masturbation.. Moderation CAN and will enforce forum bans on people that contribute to hijacking of multiple threads.. 

Have it out in the Taunting Forum or Bull Ring.. NOT in the main forums... *


----------

