Two Theories

[elektra]

So you are a troll and no more, mamooth can not even quote the post, mamooth simply holds a frail hope and flames away.

Is English your first language?

That's not an insult. I'm just looking for a possible reason as to why you're getting everything so wrong.

Wow, you think much of yourself to think that your nonsense is insulting. I am more than happy to see you run from your own comments, where is that link to, "nuclear radiation". Technically you are over your head, feel free to flame away though. It's been fun.

 

[SSDD]

(half life in the atmosphere measured in minutes)

So according to SSDD, the ozone completely vanishes every night on the dark side of the earth, since there's no sunlight to keep replenishing it.

Pretty close to reality...not that that would have any effect on your position.

in reality, the half-life of ozone varies wildly depending on concentrations and whatever other substances are around. When dissolved in water, it decays in minutes. Down in the troposphere at low concentrations, the half-life is more like 20 days. Up in the stratosphere away from all the other gases that react with ozone, the half-life is around 5 years. At least it was in the pre-CFC days.

Ozone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a sealed chamber, with fan moving the gas, ozone has a half-life of approximately a day at room temperature

Half-life time of ozone as a function of air movement and conditions in a sealed container - ResearchGate

The focus of this study was to determine HLT of ozone in air as a function of airflow (0, 0.028, 0.051, 0.10 m3/s), temperature (4, 24, 40 °C) and relative humidity (0, 30, 80%) in a sealed plexiglass cylinder equipped with a combination temperature/humidity sensor and fan. HLT was as high as 1524 min (25.4 h) in still air at 24 °C and zero humidity, which was substantially longer than previously published data (i.e., 30–40 min). As airflow, temperature and humidity increased, HLT decreased to as low as 39 min.

NOTE: That is in a sealed container not being bombarded by high energy UV.

Ozone for Beginners Guide

Ozone is an unstable molecule which quickly changes back to oxygen. The half life (time for half the ozone in air to decompose) is 20 to 60 minutes depending on the temperature and humidity of the ambient air.

Water Treatability Database | US EPA

Due to its short half-life, typically less than 30 minutes, a residual is not maintained in downstream processes;

http://www.tersano.com/pdf/AJIC_OzoneGasEffective.pdf

Ozone is known to have antibacterial activity,13-16 can be gener- ated cheaply, and, although toxic, rapidly dissociates to oxygen, with a half-life of about 20 minutes.

Ozone stored at -35 in a sealed container...in the dark has a half life of about 20 days, but not out in the wild.....so yes, mammoth, most of the ozone that was present in the atmosphere when the sun was shining is gone before the sunrise the next day. Of course it is regenerated almost immediately upon the reapplication of sunlight.

In fact, when the party that first proved the ozone "hole" went to the south pole to research, they fully expected to find a hole, precisely because that would be where the least sunlight was hitting the atmosphere.

of Antarctic ozone go back to the 1957. There was no ozone hole in 1957. Oops. So much for your story.

There have always been ozone holes due to the way ozone is created in the upper atmosphere. Very little direct sunlight + very short half life = ozone hole over whichever pole is experiencing winter, and less ozone even during the summer.

Here is a 9 month video of the ozone hole over Antarctica. Notice how the ozone decreases as winter wears on and as the dead of winter approaches there is little, if any ozone present. The same thing happens at the north pole.



The hoaxers tend to select the images taken at, or near the dead of winter and don't bother to mention that it is to be expected because there is little if any sunlight present to produce ozone.

that you'll let actual data interfere with your beliefs. Your cult demands that you also declare ozone depletion is a myth, hence you are required to find some new creative way to declare the data was obviously faked.

I couldn't help but notice that it is you who ignored actual data. You provided half life times for ozone in sealed containers shielded from UV and in the 20 day instance, refrigerated in its sealed container.

Yet one more hoax you have fallen victim to. How proud you must be.

 

[mamooth]

(half life in the atmosphere measured in minutes)

So according to SSDD, the ozone completely vanishes every night on the dark side of the earth, since there's no sunlight to keep replenishing it.

Pretty close to reality...not that that would have any effect on your position.

I think you surprised everyone here, in that we didn't think you could get crazier than your thermodynamics theories. We were wrong.

Needless to say, the ozone layer does not vanish every night.

What is SSDD missing? That one of the things ozone likes to react with is ozone. Hence, in a container of high-concentration ozone, the ozone decays quickly. Out in the atmosphere, that few ppm of ozone doesn't have other ozone around to react with, so it decays much more slowly. That would by why I pointed out concentration was a factor.

 

[mamooth]

Wow, you think much of yourself to think that your nonsense is insulting. I am more than happy to see you run from your own comments, where is that link to, "nuclear radiation". Technically you are over your head, feel free to flame away though. It's been fun.

Why on earth do you keep babbling about links to nuclear radiation?

Your voices seem to be steering you in a very peculiar direction. You might want to tell them to pipe down.

 

[jc456]

Wow, you think much of yourself to think that your nonsense is insulting. I am more than happy to see you run from your own comments, where is that link to, "nuclear radiation". Technically you are over your head, feel free to flame away though. It's been fun.

Why on earth do you keep babbling about links to nuclear radiation?

Your voices seem to be steering you in a very peculiar direction. You might want to tell them to pipe down.

Well from an outsider reading the thread, it appears he believes you said there was nuclear radiation. Did you actually state that or not?

 

[mamooth]

Well from an outsider reading the thread, it appears he believes you said there was nuclear radiation. Did you actually state that or not?

Nope. All I said was that he knew jack shit about all types of radiation. At that point, Elektra started going off about nuclear radiation and demanding that I post links to the topic.

Looking at it more, I'm guessing he was trying to disprove my point by showing he knows a little about nuclear radiation. However, he hasn't done that yet. He'll have to define "jack shit" first to prove that his small amount of displayed knowledge surpasses the "jack shit" level.

 

[Kosh]

And still no links to datasets with source code that proves CO2 drives climate as the AGW lore teaches.

How can so many believe in something without any real scientific proof?

 

[Crick]

Oh my GOD. You are HILARIOUS. You know what they call that? They call that being a one-trick pony. Just for jollies, let's pretend I just send you a link to a temperature vs lat/lon/ht dataset and the source code for a program in C - using an open source math library - that would use that dataset to calculate the average global temperature over time.

What are you going to do with it?

 

[SSDD]

What is SSDD missing? That one of the things ozone likes to react with is ozone.

O3 reacts with O3 to create more O3? Really? Describe that chemical reaction admiral hairball. What might the catalyst be? What does that sort of reaction look like?

Never taken a chemistry course have you admiral?

 

[mamooth]

You just keep getting dumber. It never seems to end.

O3 + O3 => O2 + O2 + O2

Need I type it slower?

 

[Crick]

By the way, ozone blocks UV. Do you know how much ozone in the atmosphere it takes to block all the UV coming through?

Another fundamental error from the side that claims to have a monopoly on science. I suppose you think the beach keeps the waves from washing over the entire land as well. Like the beach, ozone is a result, not a cause. Chemically, in the upper atmosphere, ozone is formed when UV radiation breaks apart O2 molecules. The O molecules then bond to O2 molecules and form O3. It is the dissipation of energy used in breaking O2 molecules that, in reality, protects us from UV. Of course, O3 blocks some small amount of UV as well, but since it is a very unstable molecule (half life in the atmosphere measured in minutes) it requires much less energy to be broken. The ozone layer is the result of O2 saving us from harmful UV.

Another interesting thing about the ozone layer... Since sunlight reacting with O2 results in the formation of O3, where would you expect there to be an ozone shortage? Three guesses. At the poles during their respective winters is where there would be the least ozone since there is the least direct sunlight there.

In fact, when the party that first proved the ozone "hole" went to the south pole to research, they fully expected to find a hole, precisely because that would be where the least sunlight was hitting the atmosphere. As they passed through England on their way to the north pole to observe the hole form there during its winter, they mentioned what they found to the press and the rest is hysterical handwaving history.

Rather than report that the team found the hole they expected to find for the completely natural reason it was there the press reported "WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE"...and algore took advantage and outlawed freon in favor of a "substitute" that one of his largest campaign contributors just happened to manufacture. From there, research money became available and the hoax lives on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone

Ozone is a powerful oxidizing agent, far stronger than O2. It is also unstable at high concentrations, decaying to ordinary diatomic oxygen. It has a varying length half-life (meaning half as concentrated, or half-depleted), depending upon atmospheric conditions (temperature, humidity, and air movement). In a sealed chamber, with fan moving the gas, ozone has a half-life of approximately a day at room temperature[13] Some claims have been stated that ozone can have a half life as short as a half an hour in atmospheric conditions, although this claim is not verified by this reference:[14]
2 O3 → 3 O2
This reaction proceeds more rapidly with increasing temperature and increased pressure [just the sort of conditions one finds in the stratosphere]

Ozone Layer

Location and production
The highest levels of ozone in the atmosphere are in the stratosphere, in a region also known as the ozone layer between about 10 km and 50 km above the surface (or between about 6 and 31 miles). However, even in this "layer" the ozone concentrations are only two to eight parts per million, so most of the oxygen there remains of the dioxygen type.

Ozone in the stratosphere is mostly produced from short-wave ultraviolet rays (in the UVC band) but it can be also produced from x-rays reacting with oxygen:

O2 + photon (radiation &#955; < 240 nm) &#8594; 2 O
O + O2 + M &#8594; O3 + M
&#945; + &#946;&#8722; + O2 &#8594; He + O3

where "M" denotes the third body that carries off the excess energy of the reaction. The thus produced ozone is destroyed by the reaction with atomic oxygen:

O3 + O &#8594; 2 O2

The latter reaction is catalysed by the presence of certain free radicals, of which the most important are hydroxyl (OH), nitric oxide (NO) and atomic chlorine (Cl) and bromine (Br). In recent decades the amount of ozone in the stratosphere has been declining mostly because of emissions of CFCs and similar chlorinated and brominated organic molecules, which have increased the concentration of ozone-depleting catalysts above the natural background.

Importance to surface-dwelling life on Earth

Ozone in the ozone layer filters out sunlight wavelengths from about 200 nm UV rays to 315 nm, with ozone peak absorption at about 250 nm.[22] This ozone UV absorption is important to life, since it extends the absorption of UV by ordinary oxygen and nitrogen in air (which absorb all wavelengths < 200 nm) through the lower UV-C (200&#8211;280 nm) and the entire UV-B band (280&#8211;315 nm). The small unabsorbed part that remains of UV-B after passage through ozone causes sunburn in humans, and direct DNA damage in living tissues in both plants and animals. Ozone's effect on mid-range UV-B rays is illustrated by its effect on UV-B at 290 nm, which has a radiation intensity 350 million times as powerful at the top of the atmosphere as at the surface. Nevertheless, enough of UV-B radiation at similar frequency reaches the ground to cause some sunburn, and these same wavelengths are also among those responsible for the production of vitamin D in humans.

[The comments here, particularly those showing different wavelengths absorbed by ozone than by diatomic oxygen, indicate that OZONE ABSORBS UV independently of oxygen.]

The ozone layer has little effect on the longer UV wavelengths called UV-A (315&#8211;400 nm), but this radiation does not cause sunburn or direct DNA damage, and while it probably does cause long-term skin damage in certain humans, it is not as dangerous to plants and to the health of surface-dwelling organisms on Earth in general (see ultraviolet for more information on near ultraviolet)

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

So, as has been the case with almost every single scientific pronouncement SSDD has ever made here, he is factually incorrect on all points.

 

[SSDD]

You just keep getting dumber. It never seems to end.

O3 + O3 => O2 + O2 + O2

Need I type it slower?

I don't think it makes any difference how quickly you type...typing gibberish will result in gibberish no matter how quickly you type it.

You claimed:

[mqmooth]That one of the things ozone likes to react with is ozone. Hence, in a container of high-concentration ozone, the ozone decays quickly.

Clearly, you didn't read the links to the research I provided....preferring to stick with your fantasy.

Half-life time of ozone as a function of air movement and conditions in a sealed container - ResearchGate

That paper is specifically about ozone in a sealed container.

The focus of this study was to determine HLT of ozone in air as a function of airflow (0, 0.028, 0.051, 0.10 m3/s), temperature (4, 24, 40 °C) and relative humidity (0, 30, 80%) in a sealed plexiglass cylinder equipped with a combination temperature/humidity sensor and fan. HLT was as high as 1524 min (25.4 h) in still air at 24 °C and zero humidity, which was substantially longer than previously published data (i.e., 30–40 min). As airflow, temperature and humidity increased, HLT decreased to as low as 39 min.

In the controlled conditions of a sealed container, O3 decays less quickly. Precisely the opposite of what you claim. As conditions get more chaotic, O3 decays more quickly. Hence, up in the atmosphere, it has a short half life. It doesn't decompose quickly because of reaction with other O3 molecules, it decomposes quickly because it is a very unstable molecule.

Ozone for Beginners Guide

Ozone is an unstable molecule which quickly changes back to oxygen. The half life (time for half the ozone in air to decompose) is 20 to 60 minutes depending on the temperature and humidity of the ambient air.

So again, since O3 decays quickly into diatomic oxygen out in the atmosphere and there is no UV on the dark side of the earth what exactly do you think supports the ozone "layer" at night?

 

[Crick]

That halflife of ozone at room temperature is roughly 12 hours and with lower pressures and temperatures one would find in the stratosphere, it gets longer.

Ozone blocks UV above and beyond UV turning O2 into O3.

Human emissions of polychlorinated fluorocarbons (CFCs) increased the breakdown of O3 and thinned the Ozone Layer and seriously reduced the column ozone over Antarctica. The worldwide ban on CFCs is beginning to correct this problem.

If you think O3+O3 => O2+O2+O2 is gibberish, maybe you ought to get past high school chemistry before rejoining the conversation. Actually, 7th grade physical science would have covered this. Have you ever had ANY science education at all? At just what point did you drop out of the public school system?

As is becoming tiresomely the case, your claims, though made with your usual angry bitterness, are completely invalid. You just don't know what the fuck you're talking about. About pretty much EVERYTHING.

 

[SSDD]

This reaction proceeds more rapidly with increasing temperature and increased pressure [just the sort of conditions one finds in the stratosphere]

I said that ozone decays quickly in the atmosphere....mamooth claimed that it doesn't.

B]Importance to surface-dwelling life on Earth[/B]

Ozone in the ozone layer filters out sunlight wavelengths from about 200 nm UV rays to 315 nm, with ozone peak absorption at about 250 nm.[22] This ozone UV absorption is important to life, since it extends the absorption of UV by ordinary oxygen and nitrogen in air (which absorb all wavelengths < 200 nm) through the lower UV-C (200–280 nm) and the entire UV-B band (280–315 nm). The small unabsorbed part that remains of UV-B after passage through ozone causes sunburn in humans, and direct DNA damage in living tissues in both plants and animals. Ozone's effect on mid-range UV-B rays is illustrated by its effect on UV-B at 290 nm, which has a radiation intensity 350 million times as powerful at the top of the atmosphere as at the surface. Nevertheless, enough of UV-B radiation at similar frequency reaches the ground to cause some sunburn, and these same wavelengths are also among those responsible for the production of vitamin D in humans.

OK abe, refer back to your wiki reference with regard to how ozone is formed and then look at the statement above regarding how ozone protects us. Maybe you will see how terribly lacking you are where critical thinking skills are concerned.

According to your reference ozone absorbs UV from 200 -315. It then goes on to say that "oxygen and nitrogen in air (which absorb all wavelengths < 200 nm) through the lower UV-C (200–280 nm) and the entire UV-B band (280–315 nm)."

Your own source says that oxygen and nitrogen absorb in the wavelengths from <200 to 315nm. Therefor oxygen and nitrogen are what protect us from UV....ozone is a result of the radiation being absorbed by oxygen and nitrogen. Ozone in turn absorbs some small amount of UV, but since it is such an unstable molecule, it takes little energy to break it apart. Even if no O3 were present, O2 and N would still absorb incoming UV from <200 - 315 and the end result would be the same. The radiation would penetrate slightly further into the atmosphere but other than that, there would be no change. O3 is a result, not a cause.

 

[SSDD]

That halflife of ozone at room temperature is roughly 12 hours and with lower pressures and temperatures one would find in the stratosphere, it gets longer.

Ozone blocks UV above and beyond UV turning O2 into O3.

Human emissions of polychlorinated fluorocarbons (CFCs) increased the breakdown of O3 and thinned the Ozone Layer and seriously reduced the column ozone over Antarctica. The worldwide ban on CFCs is beginning to correct this problem.

If you think O3+O3 => O2+O2+O2 is gibberish, maybe you ought to get past high school chemistry before rejoining the conversation. Actually, 7th grade physical science would have covered this. Have you ever had ANY science education at all? At just what point did you drop out of the public school system?

As is becoming tiresomely the case, your claims, though made with your usual angry bitterness, are completely invalid. You just don't know what the fuck you're talking about. About pretty much EVERYTHING.

I didn't say that O3 + O3 did not equal O2+O2+02. I said that O2 decays quickly because it is an unstable molecule and would decay as quickly whether there were other O3 molecules around or not.

And again, O and N absorb UV from <200 - 315nm so it is O2 and N that protect us from harmful UV...O3 is the result of that absorption...not the primary protector.

 

[mamooth]

That one of the things ozone likes to react with is ozone. Hence, in a container of high-concentration ozone, the ozone decays quickly.

Still absolutely correct, and that paper reinforces it. It says ozone half-life decreases with increasing temp and airflow, which is exactly what one expects if ozone is reacting with ozone. Increasing temp and airflow means more ozone molecules bumping into each other.

Now, that paper did not explore changing ozone concentrations, but since lower concentrations mean fewer collisions, lower concentrations mean a longer ozone half-life.

This:

Ozone for Beginners Guide

is nonsense. That is, it's a pamphlet from a company selling ozone water puriification systems. Grabbing one-liners from it to compare to a scientific paper is apples-to-oranges nonsense.

Ozone is not unstable in the manner of a radioactive nucleus. A single ozone molecule in a dark vacuum won't decay at all. Ozone needs something to react with in order to decay.

In a flask full of ozone, it reacts with other ozone molecules and can have a half life of minutes.

In the lower troposphere where it has very low concentrations, it doesn't have other ozone to react with. It does have organic stuff and metals to oxidize, so it reacts that way, having that 20 or so day half life.

In the stratosphere where there's almost nothing around to react with (assume no CFCs), the ozone has a 5 year half-life.

So again, since O3 decays quickly into diatomic oxygen out in the atmosphere and there is no UV on the dark side of the earth what exactly do you think supports the ozone "layer" at night?

The 5 year half-life would mean it's not decaying at night. This paper from 1962 mentions it, page 372. Note that 1962 is way before ozone depletion theory appeared, so you can't handwave it away as part of the conspiracy.

Global ozone budget and exchange between stratosphere and troposphere - JUNGE - 2010 - Tellus - Wiley Online Library

 

[SSDD]

Now, that paper did not explore changing ozone concentrations, but since lower concentrations mean fewer collisions, lower concentrations mean a longer ozone half-life.

You are assuming that collisions are the only cause for the molecule to decay and not the weak bonds holding it together. I know you will never accept the fact that the ozone hoax is a hoax.

:

Ozone for Beginners Guide

is nonsense. That is, it's a pamphlet from a company selling ozone water puriification systems. Grabbing one-liners from it to compare to a scientific paper is apples-to-oranges nonsense.

So feel free to provide a scientific paper that proves them wrong. The statements made there are based on the available research. The one paper that claimed that ozone half life could be extended to more than 1000 minutes under highly controlled and specific conditions is the only paper to make such claims... the rest put the half life of an O3 molecule at less than an hour.

is not unstable in the manner of a radioactive nucleus. A single ozone molecule in a dark vacuum won't decay at all. Ozone needs something to react with in order to decay.

Not true. The molecule is unstable because of very weak bonds. It is itching to come apart from the time it is formed.

the stratosphere where there's almost nothing around to react with (assume no CFCs), the ozone has a 5 year half-life.

Pure bullshit...but feel free to prove it if you care to try.

5 year half-life would mean it's not decaying at night. This paper from 1962 mentions it, page 372. Note that 1962 is way before ozone depletion theory appeared, so you can't handwave it away as part of the conspiracy.

There is no five year half life...there is a half life measured in minutes....and as to your model...it is just a model and models associated with climate science are known to be terribly flawed.

 

[mamooth]

I know you will never accept the fact that the ozone hoax is a hoax.

True, I don't share your cult's religious beliefs.

Notice how nobody wants to join you here? This latest crazy train of yours is so nutty, even other deniers don't want to jump on.

 

[jc456]

I know you will never accept the fact that the ozone hoax is a hoax.

True, I don't share your cult's religious beliefs.

Notice how nobody wants to join you here? This latest crazy train of yours is so nutty, even other deniers don't want to jump on.

Note, I'm not an expert, I can't get into that argument, however, I do believe the ozone thing was a hoax. I now believe that more today just based on what I read between the two of you. I trust SSDD

 

[SSDD]

I know you will never accept the fact that the ozone hoax is a hoax.

True, I don't share your cult's religious beliefs.

Notice how nobody wants to join you here? This latest crazy train of yours is so nutty, even other deniers don't want to jump on.

Unlike you I'm not a follower and could give a shit what people think. Right is right and I am right

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk