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

[SSDD]

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.

So, did you overturn the accepted theories or the consensus yet, with mountains of published science?

No?

I'll check back in.... never

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]

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]

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

still unanswered. hmmmmmm afraid to face the facts eh crickster?

 

[Crick]

It'd be awfully nice to have this debate with someone who actually understands what I'm saying.

 

[jc456]

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]

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]

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]

Trump Tweets That Midwest Cold Front Shows Climate Change and Global Warming Aren't Real

 

[Crick]

And the White House's central air conditioning system proves that CFCs don't breakdown ozone.

 

[SSDD]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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.