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

[Likkmee]

Kinda like the Stormy hole that wanted to impeach tRump

 

[Wuwei]

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]

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.

facts. stop introducing facts into a discussion thread that the whackos want to go away.

 

[jc456]

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.

.

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]

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]

With every demand like this you show more and more clearly that you lack anything even faintly resembling an education in basic science.

 

[SSDD]

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.

.

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]

Your technique has become repetitive: ask a question, reject all answers given, then claim this proves the converse. It's logical bullshit.

 

[Wuwei]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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..

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]

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.

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]

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..

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...

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?