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

[Dan Stubbs]

The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.

New Ozone Hole Scare Won't Save the Great Climate Hoax | PSI Intl

The scams used by the Liberals are many in number: The old Race card, the Ozone card, The Polar bear card, the Illegal border jumpers card. the Child Card, Pot is Good Card, open border card, drive 55 card, they have more card then a deck of cards.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

You have yet to post one iota of actual science. Feel free to post. I'm not stopping you. Knock yourself out.

I know why the ozone layer is there and why the holes have always been there. I am waiting to see if you know the first thing about the topic and are just voicing an entirely political opinion on a scientific issue. You have made claims about one side's scientific knowledge...do you know enough about the topic to have any idea whether that scientific knowledge is right or wrong?

And again, distain doesn't camouflage your fear of having your ignorance regarding the ozone layer put on public display.

Everything is connect in some manner. I have suspected that the (I can't spell it) electrical discharge near the North Pole put Ozone into the air and this is where the ozone comes from Freon has nothing to do with this. I know that no real science is connected with but it is just my own idea. It could be right. Ever smell ozone after a lighting strike this is where I got the idea.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

You won't admit your most egregious errors, let alone your more subtle ones. Science based!

And you apparently aren't able to discuss the topic at all. How unsurprising is that?

• 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
• I repeat, when there is no incoming UV, there is no production of O3

Now...use your brain for just a minute if you are able. If there is no production of O3 when there is no incoming UV and if the lifespan of an O3 molecule in the stratosphere, depending on altitude is somewhere between 1000 and 4200 seconds, How much O3 do you think is left in the atmosphere on the dark side of earth....say 20 minutes before the first UV of the day hits the atmosphere and O3 production begins again?

Now...how does that relate to the "ozone holes" over the polar regions during their respective winters?

You are wrong in your model of ozone distribution.

These four points you give seem that you are implying that the ozone quickly disappears after 17 to 70 minutes after night fall.

• 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
• I repeat, when there is no incoming UV, there is no production of O3

Look at either of the two videos at this NASA site. Blow it up to full screen so you can see the legend to the right better.
Hyperwall: Ozone Minimum Concentrations, 1979-2017
You will notice that away from the poles, the ozone is around 300 to 400 Dobson units at lower latitudes. Towards the equator it drops to 275 units, mostly likely because of Lambert's cosine law for steep angles.

If your four points are correct, half of the hemisphere should be colored black (zero). It is not. If you are trying to model the ozone distribution, you failed. We should rely on the observed, repeatable, measured data of the NASA videos, not your estimate.

Thank you for the information I did check it out and found it very interesting. How about my idea, any possibility it could have any truth.?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, checking back in:

Have any of you armchair blogger "scientists" published any science to back up your goofy denial?

No?

And,what's that you say? Nobody else is, either?

Wow, how frustrating for you this must be. I'll check back later.

 

[Wuwei]

Thank you for the information I did check it out and found it very interesting. How about my idea, any possibility it could have any truth.?

The Aurora Borealis (I think that is what you were talking about. I had to look up spelling) bombardment of electrons, can ionize any molecules they encounter, which of course is obvious from the glow. And yes, they would certainly ionize oxygen which would combine with O2 to form ozone. I would guess that it does add to the ozone, but how important that process is compared to the sun UV, I have no idea.

 

[SSDD]

well, if the cheaper product is going to KILL US ALL, then it's not better.

Got any actual evidence that was going to happen? Didn't think so. You guys aren't to big on actual evidence.

Again, i'll take the word of real scientists over some guy who plays one on the internets..

Of course you will...what choice do you have...even the most basic science is out of your reach. Of course, you have no idea who is funding the scientist whose word you are taking, and no idea whether his research is reaching a pre determined result...or anything that might result in having an informed opinion of your own...but if being a tool and a useful idiot is what you aspire to...congratulations....you made it.

 

[SSDD]

Look at either of the two videos at this NASA site. Blow it up to full screen so you can see the legend to the right better.

Those are monthly composites covering years...not much chance of resolving a single evening on the dark side of the earth there...you are so easily fooled by practically anything..aren't you?

Here is a clip from a paper describing NASA's TOMS (total ozone mapping project)

"Normally the scans begin when the satellite enters daylight at the southern terminator and end when it enters darkness in the north"

Interesting..don't you think? The satellite certainly is capable of observing ozone in the dark...why do you suppose they would stop scanning when it enters the dark? Wouldn't be very good for the alarmist narrative if it were common knowledge that a large percentage of the ozone disappeared between sunset and sunrise...would it?

 

[SSDD]

So, checking back in:

Have any of you armchair blogger "scientists" published any science to back up your goofy denial?

No?

And,what's that you say? Nobody else is, either?

Wow, how frustrating for you this must be. I'll check back later.

It is already published..has been for quite some time...I provided plenty. Unfortunate that you are so uneducated that it is out of your reach and you are left not having an informed opinion of your own...just one given to you by someone with a political agenda.

 

[Wuwei]

Look at either of the two videos at this NASA site. Blow it up to full screen so you can see the legend to the right better.

Those are monthly composites covering years...not much chance of resolving a single evening on the dark side of the earth there...you are so easily fooled by practically anything..aren't you?

Here is a clip from a paper describing NASA's TOMS (total ozone mapping project)

"Normally the scans begin when the satellite enters daylight at the southern terminator and end when it enters darkness in the north"

Interesting..don't you think? The satellite certainly is capable of observing ozone in the dark...why do you suppose they would stop scanning when it enters the dark? Wouldn't be very good for the alarmist narrative if it were common knowledge that a large percentage of the ozone disappeared between sunset and sunrise...would it?

For God's sake. You are always guessing "facts". Read the caption. It is a period of one day. As far as your other "facts". This is from Ozone Chapter 8.

Ozone in the lower atmosphere (i.e. the troposphere and lower stratosphere,..) has a long lifetime, on the order of months to years.

Note that the typical daily variations are 10-20 Dobson Units or about 5%. The largest changes up or down from one day to the next are about 50 DU or 15%. ​

You are becoming worthless as a source of science on this forum.

 

[SSDD]

You are becoming worthless as a source of science on this forum.

Alas wuwei, it is you who is useless due to your habit of reading simply to try and find something that looks like it might support your position, rather than actually trying to learn something.

I suggest that you read about ozone in the middle to upper stratosphere, rather than in the lower stratosphere and troposphere....that is where the work is done.

From your link:

There are several types of short-term variability that affect ozone photochemical process rates in the upper stratosphere. These include diurnal variations, variations in solar ultraviolet radiation, temperature driven variations, and particle precipitation events that originate from electromagnetic storms on the Sun.

In the upper stratosphere, above 40 km, where PRTs are less than 1 day, variations in ozone occur with the daily rising and setting of the Sun. These variations are usually termed "diurnal" because they happen each day.

Photodissociation of ozone molecule by UV light into O2 and O -- Once formed, the O3 molecule is stable until it is split apart once sunlight is present by solar ultraviolet radiation of wavelength shorter than about 310 nanometers (in a process called photodissociation) back to O2 and O by light. The reaction is given by

O3 + h f (l < 310nm) --> O2 + O
The PRT for this process is about 1000 seconds in the upper stratosphere in the presence of sunlight.

This process will be a bit slower in the dark...nitrogen, hydrogen, chlorine or bromine compounds are still at work catalyzing O3. Your source acknowledges that nitrogen as well as the other compounds mentioned catalyze O3, but then they go on to suggest that this apparently doesn't happen at night. Simply not true but then, they have a narrative to support, so what else would you expect. Some truth..some pseudoscience...some outright bullshit.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are becoming worthless as a source of science on this forum.

Well, no kidding. He has zero education or experience in any of these fields, and has never even sniffed a scientific research team, much less produced/published any science. That is why he is hanging out here among non-scientists, instead of getting laughed out of the room in the company of actual scientists.

 

[Wuwei]

The PRT for this process is about 1000 seconds in the upper stratosphere in the presence of sunlight.

This sentence is contrary to what you are trying to "prove". It says the Photo Replacement Time, PRT, is 1000 sec in the sunlight. That means ozone production is quickly enhanced. A different process occurs at night, so the day to night changes are about 15%. Not 100% as you said.

Your source acknowledges that nitrogen as well as the other compounds mentioned catalyze O3, but then they go on to suggest that this apparently doesn't happen at night. Simply not true but then, they have a narrative to support, so what else would you expect. Some truth..some pseudoscience...some outright bullshit.

Back to your usual method of science "investigation": post the sentences in some article that you agree with and say the rest is bullshit.

 

[Wuwei]

Here is a clip from a paper describing NASA's TOMS (total ozone mapping project)

"Normally the scans begin when the satellite enters daylight at the southern terminator and end when it enters darkness in the north"

Interesting..don't you think? The satellite certainly is capable of observing ozone in the dark...why do you suppose they would stop scanning when it enters the dark? Wouldn't be very good for the alarmist narrative if it were common knowledge that a large percentage of the ozone disappeared between sunset and sunrise...would it?

You are using the usual out of context gambit that trolls use. The reason the satellite system stops scanning at night is because it uses backscatter of ozone from the sun. It's probably the word "backscattered" that rubbed you wrong. That is why the instrument is not capable of observing ozone in the dark. Here is what you omitted.

TOMS-EP measured total ozone by observing both incoming solar energy and backscattered ultraviolet (UV) radiation at six wavelengths. ’Backscattered’ radiation is solar radiation that has penetrated to the Earth’s lower atmosphere and is then scattered by air molecules and clouds back through the stratosphere to the satellite sensors.​

You do that time and again. You take something out of context; do a faulty interpretation of something you don't understand; create a fake conspiracy theory, and then call those who are more educated than you dupes, or uneducated.

 

[SSDD]

Yep...I point out problems with your references and you call out your poor intellect and drag it through the sewer in an attempt to defend your position. The fact remains that I provided more credible sources than you that support my argument....you are left trying to support your position with pal reviewed alarmist papers trying to both tel enough truth to get published, but still supporting the bogus crisis narrative.

 

[SSDD]

Well, no kidding. He has zero education or experience in any of these fields, and has never even sniffed a scientific research team, much less produced/published any science. That is why he is hanging out here among non-scientists, instead of getting laughed out of the room in the company of actual scientists.

Unfortunate to be so uneducated that you think science is out of the reach of people who aren't educated in specific fields.

What is particularly funny is that you are apparently in agreement with the "science" that another non scientist is providing...you have no idea which of us is right and are choosing sides based entirely upon your political inclinations. Chalk up yet another failure to think critically. If you were not a bald faced hypocrite, you would also be chiding the folks presenting science that apparently supports your position since by your own admission, it is all out of your intellectual reach.

 

[JoeB131]

Got any actual evidence that was going to happen? Didn't think so. You guys aren't to big on actual evidence.

You mean other than thousands of scientists and all the governments of the world signing the Montreal Protocol? Yup they were all making it up because they had stock in DuPont, which already owned the trademark on the product that was being replaced.

Of course you will...what choice do you have...even the most basic science is out of your reach. Of course, you have no idea who is funding the scientist whose word you are taking, and no idea whether his research is reaching a pre determined result...or anything that might result in having an informed opinion of your own...but if being a tool and a useful idiot is what you aspire to...congratulations....you made it.

Yeah, here's the thing. I wish government funded science to the degree it should be funded... we don't.

We used to, but then we realized that rich people need their dressage horses.

This was a case where even the rich realized that their dressage horses wouldn't protect them if we lost the Ozone layer... so they didn't fight it the way they fight AGW.

 

[Wuwei]

Yep...I point out problems with your references and you call out your poor intellect and drag it through the sewer in an attempt to defend your position. The fact remains that I provided more credible sources than you that support my argument....you are left trying to support your position with pal reviewed alarmist papers trying to both tel enough truth to get published, but still supporting the bogus crisis narrative.

Nope. Your model of ozone physics doesn't cut it. I thought you don't believe in models. My references have no problem. You have nothing left but your conspiracy theory.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Got any actual evidence that was going to happen? Didn't think so. You guys aren't to big on actual evidence.

You mean other than thousands of scientists and all the governments of the world signing the Montreal Protocol? Yup they were all making it up because they had stock in DuPont, which already owned the trademark on the product that was being replaced.

Of course you will...what choice do you have...even the most basic science is out of your reach. Of course, you have no idea who is funding the scientist whose word you are taking, and no idea whether his research is reaching a pre determined result...or anything that might result in having an informed opinion of your own...but if being a tool and a useful idiot is what you aspire to...congratulations....you made it.

Yeah, here's the thing. I wish government funded science to the degree it should be funded... we don't.

We used to, but then we realized that rich people need their dressage horses.

This was a case where even the rich realized that their dressage horses wouldn't protect them if we lost the Ozone layer... so they didn't fight it the way they fight AGW.

Prove to us the ozone layer was there in 1820 , pal


.




.

 

[SSDD]

You mean other than thousands of scientists and all the governments of the world signing the Montreal Protocol? Yup they were all making it up because they had stock in DuPont, which already owned the trademark on the product that was being replaced.[;/quote]

Unfortunate to be one of those poor dupes who has to believe what you are told based on how many people told you it was true. My bet is that you also believed the entire medical community when they told you that high cholesterol caused heart disease....or the tens of thousands of doctors who said that salt causes high blood pressure....or the hundreds of thousands of doctors over the decades who said that stomach ulcers were caused by stress. 3 examples right off the top of my head where the entire body of a particular science was wrong because they were stating what they believed and didn't have any actual evidence to support the claim.

So when I ask for evidence, there is a reason. The reason the majority of science has been wrong on most scientific topics through the years has been lack of evidence to support the consensus hypothesis....

So again...any actual observed, measured evidence to support the claim...and again..the answer is no.

Yeah, here's the thing. I wish government funded science to the degree it should be funded... we don't.

The best and brightest don't work for government...and government can't afford them...government works on the lowest bid and those are the people you trust? You really are a dupe...aren't you?

This was a case where even the rich realized that their dressage horses wouldn't protect them if we lost the Ozone layer... so they didn't fight it the way they fight AGW.

No..this was a case where the rich hijacked the feel good environmental movement for fun and profit...and they made billions laughing at you guys all the way to the bank...truth be told, they are probably surprised the scam has lasted this long.

You didn't answer my question...who exactly is being effected by the ozone hole? There certainly is no problem with ozone over the rest of the earth..the "holes" are the only problem...who is being effected by them?

 

[jc456]

The Montreal Protocol worked and that is what truly scares the bejeesus out of conservatives. The Protocol which has been very successful reduced ozone emissions which led to the recovery of the ozone layer. The reason it scares conservatives is because it is a precursor of a frame work that can work to fight climate change.

Given how anti-science and anti-fact the conservative movement has become, the Montreal Protocol would never, or at least be nearly impossible, to implement today to our detriment. At least then there were still rational conservatives like George HW Bush.

I can't help but notice that you completely dodged the science...this tells that your position on the topic is political...were it scientific, toy would have used the scientific facts rather than a political narrative to defend your position.


By the way..the montreal protocol was aimed at CFC emissions, not O3 emissions as you stated. The whole topic is clearly over yourr head so you are just voicing someone elses opinion and not an informed opinion of your own.

He's a NWO/SOCIALIST PARROT. Nothing more..

For someone with a no whining avatar, you Billy Boob, are the biggest whiner on this board. Whine and talk trash with no support whatsoever. Your motto should be "Whine, baby, whine", and when that fails, "Lie, baby, lie".

Of course when your ideology, Trumpism, is as bankrupt as your "science", I would expect nothing less from you.

and yet, you haven't provided one iota of evidence to support any fake news you post. Answer the question asked by SSDD, if you know why the ozone layer is there or why the holes have always been there?