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

[SSDD]

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?

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.

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]

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.

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]

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?

Newtonian mechanics is not the basis of a college curriculum.

Sorry, but it is...and for most physics programs.

 

[Crick]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

The literature is filled with data of increasing CFCs in the atmosphere up until the Montreal Protocol.

Yeah..increased from zero all the way up to 3 parts per BILLION...again, lets hear a rational, scientifically valid scenario where CFC's at 3 parts per BILLION represent more of a threat to the ozone than naturally occurring catalysts for O3 at 1 to 4 parts per million and natural reactants at 780,000 parts per million.

The effect of those levels on ozone is understood.

Great...then tell me how a catalyst at 3 parts per billion is a greater threat....or any threat at all when natural catalysts for 03 are present at 1 to 4 parts per million and natural reactants are present at 780,000 parts per million.

There is no vast and perfect conspiracy among scientists to lie to the public.

I would hope not...and since the effects of CFC's are well understood, do explain how CFC's at 3 parts per BILLION represent any threat at all when viewed in the context of the other reactants present in the stratosphere at a concentration of over 780,000 parts per million

 

[Wuwei]

Newtonian mechanics is not the basis of a college curriculum.

Sorry, but it is...and for most physics programs.

What college for retards have you been to? That is total BS for any major university.

 

[SSDD]

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]

Too bad it's SO freakin' obvious you never took a single day of physics or any other form of STEM coursework.

 

[Wuwei]

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]

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...

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.

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?

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.

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]

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.

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]

What was your degree troll?

 

[Wuwei]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

Most green policy is just a reason for Corp's to upcharge with more expensive replacements for whatever is declared bbaaaddddd...veerrryyyy baaad..