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

[Crick]

Same Shit, you've yet to come up with anything even approaching a reasonable cause to the observed ozone depletion data. CFCs on the other hand, fit the data and work via a fully understood reaction sequence. Your argument that they're just too few of them to have any effect is speciously ignorant. It has been a speciously ignorant argument every time you've attempted to use it.

 

[SSDD]

We aren't talking about botulism.

It's a metaphor.

I think you mean analogy...in either case it is a piss poor one.

metaphor -a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is notliterally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance

analogy -a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based

 

[SSDD]

Same Shit, you've yet to come up with anything even approaching a reasonable cause to the observed ozone depletion data. CFCs on the other hand, fit the data and work via a fully understood reaction sequence. Your argument that they're just too few of them to have any effect is speciously ignorant. It has been a speciously ignorant argument every time you've attempted to use it.

Of course I have...since O3 production in the stratosphere is entirely dependent upon incoming UV...and the holes only appear during times when incoming UV is at a low point...and the UV output of the sun in any given frequency varies wildly from year to year, there is every reason to believe that solar output is behind ozone depletion..

It certainly makes more sense than a molecule present at 3 parts per BILLION scattered among other active reactants and catalysts for O3 present at more than 780,000 parts per million being the culprit...

 

[Crick]

You've presented ZERO data to even suggest that incoming solar UV radiation has fluctuated in a manner that could have produced the O3 depletion observed.

 

[SSDD]

You've presented ZERO data to even suggest that incoming solar UV radiation has fluctuated in a manner that could have produced the O3 depletion observed.

And you are a complete ignoramus if you were unaware of the fact...how completely uninformed can you possibly be?

Researchers study fluctuations in solar radiation

clip: That is why Krivova's model SATIRE (Spectral And Total Irradiance Reconstruction) also takes the fluctuations in the UV light into account. "Although the UV light makes up just 8 percent of the total solar irradiance," she says, "the fluctuations are considerable,

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate | Science Mission Directorate

Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.

Sun Cycles and Climate Change

Lean assumes that the change in UV output from the Sun must have been 6 times larger than that of visible light (a fact which, if true, holds interesting implications for the history of the ozone layer)


https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0095-00/fs-0095-00.pdf

However, bright regions surrounding the sunspots, called faculae, cause the sun to brighten at peak activity (Lean and Foukal, 1988). Lean and others (1995a) estimated that during the Maunder Minimum, total solar irradiance was reduced by 0.2 percent relative to a present quiet sun (minimum of the mid-1990’s), but total ultraviolet (UV)
radiation was reduced by 1.04 percent. This is important because it is the UV radiation that modulates ozone production, which, in turn, affects the dynam- ics and energetics of the middle and upper atmosphere through radiative processes and dynamic mechanisms involving convective Hadley cell circu- lation (Haigh, 1996).


Do you never tire of having your ass handed to you? Why don't you take some time to read rather than simply making the completely wrong assumption that you are right...Face it skid mark...you have been duped....CFC's don't represent any threat at all to the ozone layer...they never did...it was a scam, perpetrated by 3M and some bought and paid for politicians to get freon off the market in favor of a more expensive, less effective refrigerant...

 

[SSDD]

This goes to your lack of critical thinking skills...if O3 depends on incoming UV from the sun..and there is a change in the amount of O3...the first place a thinking person looks is to the source of the energy necessary to create O3...not to some molecule present at a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION...how f'ing stupid is that...

It takes about 30 seconds to look up the fact that the amount of UV the sun produces from year to year fluctuates wildly..a thinking person immediately wonders whether those fluctuations have anything to do with the changes in O3 concentrations...a stupid f'ing alarmist jumps right to man made...and his useful idiots never bother to think on their own so they just go with whatever the alarmist has said....never bothering to think a single thought on their own...you are pitiful skid mark...f'ing pitiful...

 

[jc456]

State-to-state relaxation rates have been determined for ozone in collisions with itself and with nitrogen by two different methods. A theoretical model of collisional broadening of ozone lines, the quantum Fourier transform theory with improved dynamics, was adapted to compute state-to-state inelastic contributions to the pressure-broadened halfwidths for ozone-nitrogen collisions. These quantities were then determined experimentally using time-resolved infrared double resonance spectroscopy and a kinetic model for relaxation. Comparisons of kinetic model simulations and experimental double-resonance signals confirmed a propensity for first-order dipolar transitions, but also clearly demonstrated the importance of higher-order interactions leading to large changes in J in single collisions. Simple energy and angular-momentum-scaling laws were found to be inadequate to represent the experimental data.

I told you it was more complex than you think, and that it involved knowing more about inelastic collisions.

give it up....you can't offer a rational scientifically valid reason that CFC's might represent more of a threat to the ozone than the natural reactants and catalysts that exist all around it in far greater concentrations...

The bottom line is that there is no, and never was a threat to the ozone...you were duped by pseudoscience which is why you are thrashing around now wishing you could explain how CFC's represent a real threat to the ozone...

follow the money. It will always be about the cash!!!

 

[jc456]

Same Shit, you've yet to come up with anything even approaching a reasonable cause to the observed ozone depletion data. CFCs on the other hand, fit the data and work via a fully understood reaction sequence. Your argument that they're just too few of them to have any effect is speciously ignorant. It has been a speciously ignorant argument every time you've attempted to use it.

dude, again, what is bigger 3 parts per billion or 780,000 parts per million? why won't you answer? hint, cause you know the answer and it doesn't back your story. too fking funny. I love it when someone won't answer the most basic a question because they know it will destroy their argument. We keep repeating it for all to see. answer the question Crickster!!!!

 

[SSDD]

Same Shit, you've yet to come up with anything even approaching a reasonable cause to the observed ozone depletion data. CFCs on the other hand, fit the data and work via a fully understood reaction sequence. Your argument that they're just too few of them to have any effect is speciously ignorant. It has been a speciously ignorant argument every time you've attempted to use it.

dude, again, what is bigger 3 parts per billion or 780,000 parts per million? why won't you answer? hint, cause you know the answer and it doesn't back your story. too fking funny. I love it when someone won't answer the most basic a question because they know it will destroy their argument. We keep repeating it for all to see. answer the question Crickster!!!!

Guess they aren't going to talk about the topic any more..What do you bet that if someone else started another thread about ozone...they would be right there with the same arguments that got smashed on this thread.

 

[SSDD]

Interesting how the conversation cut off so abruptly when the last objection, that of variations in the sun's UV output not having an effect on O3 production.

It is at that point, that the conversation could either get deeper into the sun and its effect on O3 production, or why a crisis was manufactured, and continues to be supported when the evidence is pretty clear that no such crisis existed.

 

[Crick]

Same Shit, you've yet to come up with anything even approaching a reasonable cause to the observed ozone depletion data. CFCs on the other hand, fit the data and work via a fully understood reaction sequence. Your argument that they're just too few of them to have any effect is speciously ignorant. It has been a speciously ignorant argument every time you've attempted to use it.

dude, again, what is bigger 3 parts per billion or 780,000 parts per million? why won't you answer? hint, cause you know the answer and it doesn't back your story. too fking funny. I love it when someone won't answer the most basic a question because they know it will destroy their argument. We keep repeating it for all to see. answer the question Crickster!!!!

Guess they aren't going to talk about the topic any more..What do you bet that if someone else started another thread about ozone...they would be right there with the same arguments that got smashed on this thread.

I am still waiting for you to supply data showing a variation in UV that matches the observed depletion of ozone. You keep talking about it, but you have not produced anything. If I missed it, please put up the thread and post number.

 

[SSDD]

Same Shit, you've yet to come up with anything even approaching a reasonable cause to the observed ozone depletion data. CFCs on the other hand, fit the data and work via a fully understood reaction sequence. Your argument that they're just too few of them to have any effect is speciously ignorant. It has been a speciously ignorant argument every time you've attempted to use it.

dude, again, what is bigger 3 parts per billion or 780,000 parts per million? why won't you answer? hint, cause you know the answer and it doesn't back your story. too fking funny. I love it when someone won't answer the most basic a question because they know it will destroy their argument. We keep repeating it for all to see. answer the question Crickster!!!!

Guess they aren't going to talk about the topic any more..What do you bet that if someone else started another thread about ozone...they would be right there with the same arguments that got smashed on this thread.

I am still waiting for you to supply data showing a variation in UV that matches the observed depletion of ozone. You keep talking about it, but you have not produced anything. If I missed it, please put up the thread and post number.

I have established that the amount of UV the sun produces varies wildly from year to year...O3 production in the stratosphere is entirely dependent upon that UV..

You, on the other hand, have yet to even begin to explain how a molecule present at 3 parts per BILLION represents any threat at all to the ozone layer when natural reactants and catalysts are present in concentrations of 780,000 parts per million.. Got any ideas?

 

[Crick]

YOU established? Then let us see the data.

 

[jc456]

YOU established? Then let us see the data.

Dude, he asked you a question. Answer it? You completely deflected

 

[SSDD]

YOU established? Then let us see the data.

See post 405

 

[SSDD]

YOU established? Then let us see the data.

Dude, he asked you a question. Answer it? You completely deflected

You don't really EVER expect an answer do you? He knows full well...or should, if he is even 1/100 as smart as he thinks he is that a molecule at a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION is no threat to the ozone layer...not when compared to the natural reactants and catalysts present at 780,000 parts per million...they will shuck and jive, and dodge and weave and keep pointing to their paper which didn't even mention the natural reactants and catalysts to O3 present in such overwhelming quantity...

 

[jc456]

YOU established? Then let us see the data.

Dude, he asked you a question. Answer it? You completely deflected

You don't really EVER expect an answer do you? He knows full well...or should, if he is even 1/100 as smart as he thinks he is that a molecule at a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION is no threat to the ozone layer...not when compared to the natural reactants and catalysts present at 780,000 parts per million...they will shuck and jive, and dodge and weave and keep pointing to their paper which didn't even mention the natural reactants and catalysts to O3 present in such overwhelming quantity...

Nope, never. It’s the only thing that is consistent with them. Never answer

 

[Crick]

How many studies have been provided here concluding that CFCs were responsible for the depletion of ozone? Do you think the Montreal Protocol would have been signed without evidence? Look, you, Same Shit, have brought up an alternative explanation. Good science. Now try to make it work. Show us the UV data that you claim has caused the depletion. You've said you have it. Present it. If not, we can only assume that you do NOT have it.

 

[SSDD]

How many studies have been provided here concluding that CFCs were responsible for the depletion of ozone? Do you think the Montreal Protocol would have been signed without evidence? Look, you, Same Shit, have brought up an alternative explanation. Good science. Now try to make it work. Show us the UV data that you claim has caused the depletion. You've said you have it. Present it. If not, we can only assume that you do NOT have it.

Show me one that mentions wide fluctuations in the very wave lengths of UV coming in from the sun from year to year...show me one that mentions the presence of natural catalysts for O3 present at 1 to 4 parts per million and natural reactants to O3 present at 780,000 parts per million. Show me one that suggests that anything is breaking down ozone in appreciable quantities other than sunlight and CFC's.

Do you think leaving out natural factors such as wide variations in UV from the sun in the very wavelengths that are needed to form O3.....and leaving out the fact that O3 readily reacts with N2 present at a concentration of 780,000ppm...and that naturally occurring NO is a catalyst for O3 and is present at 1 to 4 parts per million is good science? Really? You think jumping to the man made solution without even discussing the natural factors that can heavily effect O3 is good science?

Your "papers" are alarmist clap trap that don't even look at reality...they are the product of modeling data in a manner meant to create alarm.

 

[Crick]

Finding evidence that changes in solar UV is responsible for the depletion is YOUR job as it is YOUR assertion. Many sources tell us what factors break down ozone, including UV. None of them presented here show what you claim is the case. Many show the increasing levels of catalytic CFCs and corresponding drops in ozone, concluding a cause and effect relationship.

That you have claimed UV is responsible but have presented NO data despite numerous requests indicates to me (and likely others) that you have found reality lacking in its ability to support your contentions.