CDZ What ever happened to the ozone layer?

[jwoodie]

Wasn't its disappearance going to kill us by now? This is the problem with climate "scientists." They are dishonest shills for the highest bidders.

 

[Rambunctious]

Wasn't its disappearance going to kill us by now? This is the problem with climate "scientists." They are dishonest shills for the highest bidders.

Its still there....but when it was proven to not be caused by man they dropped it like a hot potato.....the truth is "ozone holes" or thin areas of atmosphere can lead to warming...but the leaders of the world wanted a climate change cause they can pin on us and more importantly one they can measure...like carbon...carbon out put can be measured so it can be taxed and traded on the stock market ie carbon credits....all while we are blamed for producing it....that way they get money and power....its a hoax....Man made global climate change is a scam.....all it is is an ATM for elected leaders around the world....

 

[toobfreak]

Wasn't its disappearance going to kill us by now? This is the problem with climate "scientists." They are dishonest shills for the highest bidders.

Don't you know? Ten years of research and effort to identify and ban CFC's for the release of chlorine has slowly allowed the ozone to gradually heal. The problem is CFCs are so inert they stay around a long time. Had we not done that and the ozone gone away, no life could live above water in the unshielded UV light of the Sun.

 

[justoffal]

Wasn't its disappearance going to kill us by now? This is the problem with climate "scientists." They are dishonest shills for the highest bidders.

Its still there....but when it was proven to not be caused by man they dropped it like a hot potato.....the truth is "ozone holes" or thin areas of atmosphere can lead to warming...but the leaders of the world wanted a climate change cause they can pin on us and more importantly one they can measure...like carbon...carbon out put can be measured so it can be taxed and traded on the stock market ie carbon credits....all while we are blamed for producing it....that way they get money and power....its a hoax....Man made global climate change is a scam.....all it is is an ATM for elected leaders around the world....

BINGO.

JO

 

[SSDD]

Wasn't its disappearance going to kill us by now? This is the problem with climate "scientists." They are dishonest shills for the highest bidders.

Don't you know? Ten years of research and effort to identify and ban CFC's for the release of chlorine has slowly allowed the ozone to gradually heal. The problem is CFCs are so inert they stay around a long time. Had we not done that and the ozone gone away, no life could live above water in the unshielded UV light of the Sun.

CFC's were never a problem in the ozone layer. CFC's are present there at a concentration of about 3 parts per BILLION and were never at a concentration of more than 7 parts per BILLION. NO is a natural catalyst for ozone and it is present in the ozone layer at a concentration of 3 to 5 parts per million and N2 readily reacts with ozone and it is present in the ozone layer at a concentration of 780,000 parts per million.

Care to explain how a lonely molecule present at 3 parts per BILLION represents a greater threat than the natural catalysts and reactants to ozone which are present at more than 780,000 parts per million?

 

[toobfreak]

Wasn't its disappearance going to kill us by now? This is the problem with climate "scientists." They are dishonest shills for the highest bidders.

Don't you know? Ten years of research and effort to identify and ban CFC's for the release of chlorine has slowly allowed the ozone to gradually heal. The problem is CFCs are so inert they stay around a long time. Had we not done that and the ozone gone away, no life could live above water in the unshielded UV light of the Sun.

CFC's were never a problem in the ozone layer. CFC's are present there at a concentration of about 3 parts per BILLION and were never at a concentration of more than 7 parts per BILLION. NO is a natural catalyst for ozone and it is present in the ozone layer at a concentration of 3 to 5 parts per million and N2 readily reacts with ozone and it is present in the ozone layer at a concentration of 780,000 parts per million.

Care to explain how a lonely molecule present at 3 parts per BILLION represents a greater threat than the natural catalysts and reactants to ozone which are present at more than 780,000 parts per million?

You might want to check your data. I just watched an hour long detailed documentary on the fight two men took for a decade to get CFCs finally banned and the uphill battle it was because they were so convenient for the industry (much like MSG) and how the industry finally relented and went along once convinced of the efficacy of the data, much of which was based on painstaking research. Are you telling me you're right and all these people are lying?

 

[Slyhunter]

Wasn't its disappearance going to kill us by now? This is the problem with climate "scientists." They are dishonest shills for the highest bidders.

Don't you know? Ten years of research and effort to identify and ban CFC's for the release of chlorine has slowly allowed the ozone to gradually heal. The problem is CFCs are so inert they stay around a long time. Had we not done that and the ozone gone away, no life could live above water in the unshielded UV light of the Sun.

CFC's were never a problem in the ozone layer. CFC's are present there at a concentration of about 3 parts per BILLION and were never at a concentration of more than 7 parts per BILLION. NO is a natural catalyst for ozone and it is present in the ozone layer at a concentration of 3 to 5 parts per million and N2 readily reacts with ozone and it is present in the ozone layer at a concentration of 780,000 parts per million.

Care to explain how a lonely molecule present at 3 parts per BILLION represents a greater threat than the natural catalysts and reactants to ozone which are present at more than 780,000 parts per million?

You might want to check your data. I just watched an hour long detailed documentary on the fight two men took for a decade to get CFCs finally banned and the uphill battle it was because they were so convenient for the industry (much like MSG) and how the industry finally relented and went along once convinced of the efficacy of the data, much of which was based on painstaking research. Are you telling me you're right and all these people are lying?

Mistaken.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Wasn't its disappearance going to kill us by now? This is the problem with climate "scientists." They are dishonest shills for the highest bidders.

The argument went away because they got their money...we were never in any danger nor were we in danger of man made pollution causing another ice age in the 1970's...throw a ton of big bucks at these climate scammers and they will claim all is well now too...scam artists have been saving us from the weather since the advent/invention of money.

 

[SSDD]

You might want to check your data. I just watched an hour long detailed documentary on the fight two men took for a decade to get CFCs finally banned and the uphill battle it was because they were so convenient for the industry (much like MSG) and how the industry finally relented and went along once convinced of the efficacy of the data, much of which was based on painstaking research. Are you telling me you're right and all these people are lying?

Wow...a whole hour of opinion? Did you stay in a Holiday Inn as well? I have checked the data, which is why I posted what I did. Let me guess, you never checked the data...you watched an opinion piece and simply believed what you were told because it jibes with your political world view.


Ozone

• 
  Clip: Natural forces can alter the amount of ozone. Remember, ozone is very unstable. It reacts easily with other atoms, and will easily donate that free oxygen atom (O1) to nitrogen gas (N2), hydrogen gas (H2), or chlorine (Cl). These atoms have always existed in the stratosphere, and they are released from a wide variety of sources (volcanoes, oceans, etc.)

And CFC's were banned because the patents were about to run out on freon and Dupont (I believe) had a brand new expensive, less efficient refrigerant and al gore needed campaign money...the people who had the replacement for the newly banned freon just happened to be al gore's biggest campaign contributors...coincidence?

 

[toobfreak]

Wow...a whole hour of opinion? Did you stay in a Holiday Inn as well? I have checked the data, which is why I posted what I did. Let me guess, you never checked the data...you watched an opinion piece and simply believed what you were told because it jibes with your political world view.

No, smart ass. It was a recent 60 minute program on NOVA broadcast on PBS and gave every appearance of being factual and very well-researched. And apparently the world agreed with their findings and banned the use of CFC's long ago. So if you think they are full of hogwash, I suggest you take it up with THEM along with your proof they were wrong and make a world name for yourself as Peter Higgs did. AS to your thoughts on my "political world view" which you obviously know even less about than the topic, I suggest you take that, stick it where the Sun doesn't shine and ROTATE.

 

[sartre play]

We use to care about pollution, & we did a lot of cleaning up.

 

[SSDD]

Wow...a whole hour of opinion? Did you stay in a Holiday Inn as well? I have checked the data, which is why I posted what I did. Let me guess, you never checked the data...you watched an opinion piece and simply believed what you were told because it jibes with your political world view.

No, smart ass. It was a recent 60 minute program on NOVA broadcast on PBS and gave every appearance of being factual and very well-researched. And apparently the world agreed with their findings and banned the use of CFC's long ago. So if you think they are full of hogwash, I suggest you take it up with THEM along with your proof they were wrong and make a world name for yourself as Peter Higgs did. AS to your thoughts on my "political world view" which you obviously know even less about than the topic, I suggest you take that, stick it where the Sun doesn't shine and ROTATE.

Did they mention that the concentration of CFCs in the ozone layer is 3 parts per BILLION while natural reactants and catalysts for ozone are present in the ozone layer at a concentration of 780,000 parts per million? Did they mention anything like that? Did they mention that the ozone layer isn't "healing" even after the ban on CFC's?

Scientists Surprised: Ozone Layer Not Healing | Climate Dispatch

Note the sharp decrease in the use of CFC's but the area of the ozone hole just isn't changing much.....that would be because CFC's weren't causing the hole...the hole is a completely natural phenomenon.

Did they mention that the holes are much larger during the winter when there is very little UV radiation coming in from the sun...did they even mention that UV from the sun is what causes O3 to form?

Did they mention that the half life of ozone in the atmosphere is very short?

Ozone - Wikipedia

Ozone is among the most powerful oxidizing agents known, far stronger than O2. It is also unstable at high concentrations, decaying into ordinary oxygen. Its half-life varies with atmospheric conditions such as temperature, humidity, and air movement. In a sealed chamber with a fan that moves the gas, ozone has a half-life of approximately one day at room temperature.[25] Some unverified claims assert that ozone can have a half life of as short as thirty minutes under atmospheric conditions.[26]

The reference of a half life of 30 minutes comes from the Goddard Space Flight Center

Did they mention any of these facts?

• Ozone forms as a result of incoming UV breaking O2 molecules into O atoms...some of which form O3 molecules
• The Life span of an O molecule at 20km is about 0.002 seconds and at 32 km, it is about 0.04 seconds...those O atoms become O2 again, or O3 in small fractions of a second.
• When there is no incoming UV, there is no ozone formation
• The life span of an O3 molecule at 20km is about 1000 seconds
• The life span of an O3 molecule at 32km is about 4200 seconds

Chapter 5 Section 3

Similarly, O atoms have even shorter lifetimes than ozone. Although they are around for only a fraction of a second, they are constantly being formed by photolysis of O2(slow) and O3 (fast). In our simple Chapman atmosphere, the destruction of O3 results in the creation of an O atom, while the loss of the O atom involves the creation of O3. Hence, the combined number of O and O3 (i.e., odd oxygen) molecules changes very slowly, since they are constantly being swapped. Recalling our definition of odd oxygen, Ox, we have in terms of amounts,

[Ox] = [O] + [O3]
While Ox is useful conceptually, at most stratospheric altitudes the O+O2 reaction is so fast that the [O] concentrations are very small (less than 1 percent of the total odd oxygen), and we can approximate [OX] with [O3].

The overall lifetime of Ox (either as ozone or free oxygen atom) can be computed from our Chapman chemistry. OX has a lifetime of 2 months at about 32 km in the northern middle latitudes during spring. The lifetime of free oxygen at the same altitude is about 4/100ths of a second, while O3 has a lifetime of about 3100 seconds (nearly an hour). At 20 km, the lifetime of O3 is about 4200 seconds, while the lifetime of O is about 1/1000 of a second. This is schematically illustrated in Figure 5.05, which shows the slow steady production of ozone on the left of the figure, and the rapid exchange between O and O3 or the right hand side of the figure.

Did they mention that O3 production is entirely dependent on incoming UV from the sun in particular wavelengths? Did they mention that the sun's output in those particular wavelengths fluctuates wildly?

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).

Did they mention that the daily solar EUV flux from 0.1 tp 177nm, the very wavelengths responsible for the production of ozone have been decreasing steadily for some time? The red section of the graph represents those wavelengths...as you can see, they have been on the decrease for some time....and with the sun going quiet, those wavelengths will only continue to decrease..

Did they mention any studies that had been done in which the natural factors that have profound effects on ozone production and depletion were seriously studied and dismissed for cause? My bet is they didn't since no such studies have ever been done...

If they didn't mention any of these, or several other natural factors that have profound effects on O3 formation and depletion, then you weren't watching a scientific program..you were watching pseudoscience...you were watching the manipulation of some data, and the withholding of a great deal of other data in an effort to promote a particular narrative rather than a scientific program which was actually looking for the truth.

But hey....it was good enough to fool you...right?

 

[sakinago]

Wasn't its disappearance going to kill us by now? This is the problem with climate "scientists." They are dishonest shills for the highest bidders.

Don't you know? Ten years of research and effort to identify and ban CFC's for the release of chlorine has slowly allowed the ozone to gradually heal. The problem is CFCs are so inert they stay around a long time. Had we not done that and the ozone gone away, no life could live above water in the unshielded UV light of the Sun.

CFC's were never a problem in the ozone layer. CFC's are present there at a concentration of about 3 parts per BILLION and were never at a concentration of more than 7 parts per BILLION. NO is a natural catalyst for ozone and it is present in the ozone layer at a concentration of 3 to 5 parts per million and N2 readily reacts with ozone and it is present in the ozone layer at a concentration of 780,000 parts per million.

Care to explain how a lonely molecule present at 3 parts per BILLION represents a greater threat than the natural catalysts and reactants to ozone which are present at more than 780,000 parts per million?

You might want to check your data. I just watched an hour long detailed documentary on the fight two men took for a decade to get CFCs finally banned and the uphill battle it was because they were so convenient for the industry (much like MSG) and how the industry finally relented and went along once convinced of the efficacy of the data, much of which was based on painstaking research. Are you telling me you're right and all these people are lying?

Did you just unironically say that?

 

[fncceo]

Captain Planet saved us...

 

[toobfreak]

Did they mention that the concentration of CFCs in the ozone layer is 3 parts per BILLION while natural reactants and catalysts for ozone are present in the ozone layer at a concentration of 780,000 parts per million?

tl;dr. Like I said, they've known all along the ozone would take a long time to heal due to the slow break down of CFCs. But still, no matter. If you are right, take your story to the world not me, I don't give a shit what propellant they use in my aerosol. If CFCs were never a problem then fine, no harm done. Even bring them back! But in the end, the entire world looked at all available data of the time and agreed CFCs had to go.

 

[SSDD]

Did they mention that the concentration of CFCs in the ozone layer is 3 parts per BILLION while natural reactants and catalysts for ozone are present in the ozone layer at a concentration of 780,000 parts per million?

tl;dr. Like I said, they've known all along the ozone would take a long time to heal due to the slow break down of CFCs. But still, no matter. If you are right, take your story to the world not me, I don't give a shit what propellant they use in my aerosol. If CFCs were never a problem then fine, no harm done. Even bring them back! But in the end, the entire world looked at all available data of the time and agreed CFCs had to go.

So that would be a no....they didn't mention any of the natural factors that profoundly effect ozone formation and depletion...the didn't mention that the concentration of CFC"s in the ozone layer is 3 parts per BILLION while the concentration of natural reactants and catalysts that also break down ozone is 780,000 parts per million. Do you know the difference between a part per billion and a part per million?

And do tell...why do you think it would take a long time for the ozone layer to "heal"...every ozone molecule in the atmosphere between 20 and 30 kilometers right now has a life span between 1000 and 4200 seconds. Do you know what that means? It means that in the next 16 to 70 minutes, every molecule in the ozone layer will have been replaced by new ozone molecules. If the entire ozone layer is overturning every 70 minutes do explain why you believe it will take a long time to heal.

The fact is that you have been bamboozled by pseudoscience...you have little to no actual knowledge about the ozone layer..you have never done the research, and you are prone to believe anything that fits with your political world view.

And by the way...the entire world didn't look...it was a small group that was very interested in the very large pile of money Dupont was offering to get rid of the freon that the patent was about to run out on and to offer up their expensive, less efficient replacement.

In a way, it is quite funny...that a big old greedy corporation hijacked the environmentalist movement in order to make billions of dollars on a freon replacement that they would have never been able to sell if freon hadn't been effectively removed from the market...genius really...and I would pat them on the back if not for the fact that removing freon from the market made it more expensive for me to cool my home and more expensive for businesses to cool their space and in turn caused prices to rise in order to cover the increased energy expense.

 

[toobfreak]

Did they mention that the concentration of CFCs in the ozone layer is 3 parts per BILLION while natural reactants and catalysts for ozone are present in the ozone layer at a concentration of 780,000 parts per million?

tl;dr. Like I said, they've known all along the ozone would take a long time to heal due to the slow break down of CFCs. But still, no matter. If you are right, take your story to the world not me, I don't give a shit what propellant they use in my aerosol. If CFCs were never a problem then fine, no harm done. Even bring them back! But in the end, the entire world looked at all available data of the time and agreed CFCs had to go.

So that would be a no.....

No, that would be that it was only a 1 hour program written for the average viewer. But I'm not an average viewer, I'm a scientist with a background in physics. I'm neither refuting nor agreeing with your assertions. You've agreed with and thanked enough of my posts on the subject that you should know my position. But what I'm learning here is that you're also simply a bad loser who doesn't take to listening to the other POV because like so many on BOTH sides of the aisle, you both are totally convinced that only your side, your data can be right and that for the one to be right, the other MUST be wrong.

 

[flacaltenn]

Wasn't its disappearance going to kill us by now? This is the problem with climate "scientists." They are dishonest shills for the highest bidders.

Don't you know? Ten years of research and effort to identify and ban CFC's for the release of chlorine has slowly allowed the ozone to gradually heal. The problem is CFCs are so inert they stay around a long time. Had we not done that and the ozone gone away, no life could live above water in the unshielded UV light of the Sun.

We did this topic in the Enviro forum about a month ago... Never seen a decrease in the measured holes since the ban.. More recent thinking is that this is a "thermal safety valve" in the upper atmos.. Much like El Ninos are the safety valves for warming waters in the Pacific..

If "no life could live" with it at the time of the ban -- then we'd all be dead by now...

IN FACT -- the max diameters/depths of the holes stabilized BEFORE the ban had a considerable possible impact...

The graphs are in that other thread...

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

 

[toobfreak]

Wasn't its disappearance going to kill us by now? This is the problem with climate "scientists." They are dishonest shills for the highest bidders.

Don't you know? Ten years of research and effort to identify and ban CFC's for the release of chlorine has slowly allowed the ozone to gradually heal. The problem is CFCs are so inert they stay around a long time. Had we not done that and the ozone gone away, no life could live above water in the unshielded UV light of the Sun.

We did this topic in the Enviro forum about a month ago... Never seen a decrease in the measured holes since the ban.. More recent thinking is that this is a "thermal safety valve" in the upper atmos.. Much like El Ninos are the safety valves for warming waters in the Pacific..

If "no life could live" with it at the time of the ban -- then we'd all be dead by now...

IN FACT -- the max diameters/depths of the holes stabilized BEFORE the ban had a considerable possible impact...

The graphs are in that other thread...

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

All very possible and likely. That not disputed. At the south pole, the angle of sun and depth of atmosphere minimize the effects of UV light. Problem is that we are talking about 2019 today. Possible destruction of the Ozone layer was discovered and cogitated beginning in the 1970s. Had they been right and not taken the efforts they did then, it could be very bad for today. Better to have acted and been wrong than to have not acted and been right. We can live without CFCs.

 

[SSDD]

No, that would be that it was only a 1 hour program written for the average viewer.

And they didn't bother to mention the abundant natural factors that have a large effect on ozone formation and depletion because the average viewer is only interested in blaming the ozone hole on CFC's. Is that what you are claiming?

Don't you think the average viewer might be interested in the truth rather than a false narrative that simply doesn't make any scientific sense? Don't you think that the average viewer might be interested in the fact that the ozone "hole" hasn't gotten any smaller since CFC's were banned and we all are paying more for practically everything because of it? You don't think the average viewer would be interested in hearing the truth rather than a fantasy?

But I'm not an average viewer, I'm a scientist with a background in physics.

If that is so, then why would you believe that it is going to take a long time for the ozone "hole" to heal when all the ozone between 20 and 30 km in altitude is turning over every 70 seconds or so? And why would you even begin to believe that a molecule that is present at a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION represents any sort of threat to the ozone layer when there are plenty of natural reactants and catalysts present in the ozone layer at a concentration of 780,000 parts per million? Those two facts alone should be raising big red flags with anyone with any sort of scientific background.

But what I'm learning here is that you're also simply a bad loser who doesn't take to listening to the other POV because like so many on BOTH sides of the aisle, you both are totally convinced that only your side, your data can be right and that for the one to be right, the other MUST be wrong.

I don't like listening to propaganda put together to support an alarmist narrative. Actual science is more interested in the factors that cast doubt on a hypothesis than the factors that support it. I have been waiting since the ozone "crisis" first came into existence for any sort of serious study that carefully examined the various natural factors that have large effects on the production and depletion of ozone and then have those natural factors ruled out in favor of CFC's for the ozone holes based on some rational, scientifically valid reason. Not one such study has ever happened. Not one. When the only narrative being put forth by so called science is nothing but alarmist claptrap, I am surprised that anyone with any scientific background would be willing to listen with anything other than a great big boulder sized grain of salt.

I am perfectly willing, and in fact, eager to listen to the other side, if they are providing valid scientific reasons, that my point of view is incorrect, and studies to back them up. The ozone crisis isn't about science though...it is pure propaganda...fearmongering...and a direct jump to an assumption for cause that simply isn't based on any rational, scientifically valid reasoning...and certainly isn't supported by the actual science and field studies.