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

[SSDD]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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?

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]

most of it can be readily found on official government sites

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

 

[SSDD]

most of it can be readily found on official government sites

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

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]

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

 

[SSDD]

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]

Notice that warmist/alarmists completely ignored POST 64.

Snicker...…………..

 

[Sunsettommy]

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]

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

 

[SSDD]

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]

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]

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]

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]

And, as before, you simply continue to lie.

 

[SSDD]

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?