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

[SSDD]

Yeah, pretty much.

Must suck to perceive yourself as that stupid.

YOu see, I'm having another conversation on another thread by someone who INSISTS the Sandy Hook shooting didn't happen.

And you think that means what to me? That is an observable, measurable, event..and there is observable measurable evidence to support the claim...to bad there isn't observable, measurable evidence to support the ozone claims.

I guess I should ask...do you believe you have to be a cop, or a crime scene investigator, or a coroner in oder to determine that people were actually killed as the result of gunshot wounds?

You can always find a nut on the internet who thinks he's the smartest guy in the room by repeating whatever horseshit that he's heard from other nuts on the internet.

That is precisely what you are doing...I have taken the time to actually become acquainted with the science...how ozone forms...what it does, how long the molecules exist before they are destroyed etc...you are simply repeating the horse shit you got from alarmists on the internet... To bad you can't equate the behavior of the nut claiming there was no shooting to your own...you are both doing the same thing...neither of you has taken the time to actually investigate the issue, you are both simply accepting the word of people you believe you can trust and then presenting their opinion as your own. You and the other nut you speak of are the same person...just talking about different issues.

 

[Crick]

Too bad you can't admit what happens when you add a destructive catalyst to a system in equilibrium.

 

[SSDD]

Too bad you can't admit what happens when you add a destructive catalyst to a system in equilibrium.

read the hairball's reference...it states that the life time of an Ox molecule is roughly 3 months...that would mean that it takes any given O molecule about 3 months before it gets bound up in a compound that removes it from the O, O2, O3 cycle.

And again, O3 readily reacts with nitrogen, hydrogen, and the natural bromine and chlorine compounds...which can all can be found in the stratosphere and measured in parts per million...CFC's are measured in parts per BILLION...and according to your source, barely over 3 parts per BILLION. The chances are astronomical that any given O3 molecule will encounter a CFC molecule when compared to the chances it will encounter a nitrogen, hydrogen or natural bromine or chlorine compound.

The reality is that CFC's are not, and never were a danger to the Ozone layer and the hole is a result of lack of incoming UV on a seasonal basis and a couple of other factors, none of which are CFC"s.

 

[mamooth]

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.

Do you understand the fundamental nature of your faceplant there? Obviously not. You never do.

You're assume the O3 turns into O2 alone. It doesn't. It turns into O2 and O, and then that free O combines right back with another O2 to make another O3. So, no ozone lost. The life of an individual ozone molecule isn't relevant to the half-life of the ozone as a whole, which is months in the stratosphere.

So, you pooched it yet another time. If you had class, you'd admit that, thank me for educating you on the basics again, and apologize for having been such a raging human shitstain.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Do you understand the fundamental nature of your faceplant there? Obviously not. You never do.

You're assume the O3 turns into O2 alone. It doesn't. It turns into O2 and O, and then that free O combines right back with another O2 to make another O3. So, no ozone lost. The life of an individual ozone molecule isn't relevant to the half-life of the ozone as a whole, which is months in the stratosphere.

So, you pooched it yet another time. If you had class, you'd admit that, thank me for educating you on the basics again, and apologize for having been such a raging human shitstain.

Sorry hairball...wrong again...but then you are an idiot...and will apparently say anything in an effort to support your belief...even when the text is right there in front of you. Of course they are talking about the expected lifespan of any given O atom, or O2, or O3 molecule...

I can't help but notice, however, that you just made the argument that there is no problem with the ozone layer....and that the whole crisis is simply not supported by the facts of how ozone comes to exist in the first place. The rapidity at which it is replaced in the presence of UV means that its very short life span is irrelevant.

 

[SSDD]

Sadly, even after I've explained the basics to you in small words, you still can't understand it. As it's not possible to dumb it down any further, I won't be able to get you to understand.

let me guess....you think this immediate replacement is happening even when there is no incoming UV...face it hairball...the life span of any given O3 molecule is measured in seconds...and when there is no incoming UV...and those seconds are ticking by, the amount of O3 in the stratosphere is rapidly decreasing....but not to worry....as soon as the earth rotates around, and there is UV, there will be O3

Face it hairball...you lost your point...as you always will because you just aren't very bright...if you were half as bright as you are bitter, you would need a room for all your nobel prizes.

 

[Crick]

Too bad you can't admit what happens when you add a destructive catalyst to a system in equilibrium.

read the hairball's reference...it states that the life time of an Ox molecule is roughly 3 months...that would mean that it takes any given O molecule about 3 months before it gets bound up in a compound that removes it from the O, O2, O3 cycle.

And again, O3 readily reacts with nitrogen, hydrogen, and the natural bromine and chlorine compounds...which can all can be found in the stratosphere and measured in parts per million...CFC's are measured in parts per BILLION...and according to your source, barely over 3 parts per BILLION. The chances are astronomical that any given O3 molecule will encounter a CFC molecule when compared to the chances it will encounter a nitrogen, hydrogen or natural bromine or chlorine compound.

The reality is that CFC's are not, and never were a danger to the Ozone layer and the hole is a result of lack of incoming UV on a seasonal basis and a couple of other factors, none of which are CFC"s.

Because you're smarter than anyone on Earth and thousands and thousands of scientists are involved in a massive and perfect conspiracy to lie to the pulbic.

 

[Wuwei]

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%.

 

[SSDD]

Because you're smarter than anyone on Earth and thousands and thousands of scientists are involved in a massive and perfect conspiracy to lie to the pulbic.

No actual argument...nothing at all except yet another logical fallacy. Try using your brain...or maybe get someone with more intellectual horsepower at their disposal than you...if O3 readily reacts with nitrogen, hydrogen, and natural bromine and chlorine compounds which exist in the stratosphere and can be measured in parts per million, what are the chances that any given O3 molecule will react with one of those before it reacts with a CFC molecule, which according to your sources are measured in parts per billion?

Let me see if I can make it a bit simpler for you....San Jose, California has a population of just over a million...If I pick 3 at random, and set you down in some random point in that city, what are the chances you will encounter and have any sort of meaningful exchange with any of them within a month?..six months?...a year?...a decade?....your life time?

Now, if I pick 780,000 at random, and set you down in some random point in that city, what are the chances that you will encounter and have any sort of meaningful exchange with any one of them in a month?....six months?...a year?....a decade?....your life time?

CFC's at 3 parts per billion are not, never have been, nor never will be any sort of threat to the equilibrium of the ozone layer.

 

[SSDD]

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 keep talking about the lower ozone layer.. We aren't discussing the ozone on the border of the stratosphere and troposphere...we are talking about the ozone which exists up in the high stratosphere...

 

[Crick]

Stratospheric Ozone Variability

4.4.1 CFC impact on upper stratospheric ozone -- The most important influence on the long-term variability of stratospheric ozone is the introduction of significant amounts of chlorine into the upper stratosphere from industrially produced chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) compounds (see Chapter 10 for more detailed information). The initial predictions of effects of chlorine from CFCs indicated that the change in ozone would be a maximum in the upper stratosphere near 40 km altitude. This change was predicted to result from a relatively simple set of reactions that form the chlorine, bromine, nitrogen, and hydrogen catalytic cycles for ozone destruction. Observations over the past 20 years indicate that these decreases are indeed occurring (see Chapter 9).

5.4.1 CFC impact on lower stratospheric ozone -- Chlorofluorocarbons (or CFCs) were developed in 1928 as a benign and inert chemical compound for refrigeration, replacing toxic and flammable refrigerants like ammonia. CFCs quickly gained enormous usage over the next several decades as coolants and spray propellants. Seventy years later, manmade CFCs today represent the most important influence on the long term variability of lower stratospheric ozone. They also represent the most serious threat to the the ozone layer, which shields the Earth's surface from biologically destructive ultraviolet light emitted by the sun. Chapters 1 and 10 give additional background on CFCs, while Chapter 11 discusses in great depth the "ozone hole" problem that has developed over Antarctica as a result of CFCs.

How do CFC compounds impact lower stratospheric ozone? In brief, the stable CFC molecule rises into the lower stratosphere, where intense UV light breaks down the molecule, liberating chlorine. This chlorine is then free to react in catalytic cycles to destroy ozone, especially in the presence of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs). These catalytic cycles represent more complicated photochemistry than the simple oxygen chemistry discussed so far. Chapters 5 and 11 detail these reactions.

Consequences on lower stratospheric ozone have been dramatic at certain times of the year over Antarctica. It is there that exceptionally cold winter conditions permit widespread PSC formation. Total column amounts of ozone in spring over the Antarctic have fallen by over 50 percent (see Chapter 1). Overall in the lower stratosphere, ozone concentrations have declined by smaller amounts over the last 20 years (see Chapter 9).

The primary driver for expected photochemical change is chlorine from CFC's. They were calculated to induce a nearly linear downward trend in the total global ozone amount starting in 1970 and continuing until about 1995. Because the provisions of the Montreal Protocol (see Chapter 10) have begun to take effect, this linear decrease in ozone is now predicted to flatten out and eventually turn around. Figure 8.09 shows a model calculation for the effect on ozone of increasing chlorine, the solar cycle, and volcanic activity. The model calculations project into the future using assumptions about the release of CFCs and other source gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.

In nearly all studies of long-term ozone trends it has been assumed that a linear trend is synonymous with the photochemical trend. This was a reasonable assumption for the period 1970 through the present, but it will no longer be true for future analyses, as the models predict that the recovery process should now be in its early stages. One analysis question that will now be asked is, "Do we see any evidence for the beginning of the recovery?".

 

[SSDD]

Stratospheric Ozone Variability

4.4.1 CFC impact on upper stratospheric ozone -- The most important influence on the long-term variability of stratospheric ozone is the introduction of significant amounts of chlorine into the upper stratosphere from industrially produced chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) compounds (see Chapter 10 for more detailed information). The initial predictions of effects of chlorine from CFCs indicated that the change in ozone would be a maximum in the upper stratosphere near 40 km altitude. This change was predicted to result from a relatively simple set of reactions that form the chlorine, bromine, nitrogen, and hydrogen catalytic cycles for ozone destruction. Observations over the past 20 years indicate that these decreases are indeed occurring (see Chapter 9).

5.4.1 CFC impact on lower stratospheric ozone -- Chlorofluorocarbons (or CFCs) were developed in 1928 as a benign and inert chemical compound for refrigeration, replacing toxic and flammable refrigerants like ammonia. CFCs quickly gained enormous usage over the next several decades as coolants and spray propellants. Seventy years later, manmade CFCs today represent the most important influence on the long term variability of lower stratospheric ozone. They also represent the most serious threat to the the ozone layer, which shields the Earth's surface from biologically destructive ultraviolet light emitted by the sun. Chapters 1 and 10 give additional background on CFCs, while Chapter 11 discusses in great depth the "ozone hole" problem that has developed over Antarctica as a result of CFCs.

How do CFC compounds impact lower stratospheric ozone? In brief, the stable CFC molecule rises into the lower stratosphere, where intense UV light breaks down the molecule, liberating chlorine. This chlorine is then free to react in catalytic cycles to destroy ozone, especially in the presence of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs). These catalytic cycles represent more complicated photochemistry than the simple oxygen chemistry discussed so far. Chapters 5 and 11 detail these reactions.

Consequences on lower stratospheric ozone have been dramatic at certain times of the year over Antarctica. It is there that exceptionally cold winter conditions permit widespread PSC formation. Total column amounts of ozone in spring over the Antarctic have fallen by over 50 percent (see Chapter 1). Overall in the lower stratosphere, ozone concentrations have declined by smaller amounts over the last 20 years (see Chapter 9).

The primary driver for expected photochemical change is chlorine from CFC's. They were calculated to induce a nearly linear downward trend in the total global ozone amount starting in 1970 and continuing until about 1995. Because the provisions of the Montreal Protocol (see Chapter 10) have begun to take effect, this linear decrease in ozone is now predicted to flatten out and eventually turn around. Figure 8.09 shows a model calculation for the effect on ozone of increasing chlorine, the solar cycle, and volcanic activity. The model calculations project into the future using assumptions about the release of CFCs and other source gases such as methane and nitrous oxide.

In nearly all studies of long-term ozone trends it has been assumed that a linear trend is synonymous with the photochemical trend. This was a reasonable assumption for the period 1970 through the present, but it will no longer be true for future analyses, as the models predict that the recovery process should now be in its early stages. One analysis question that will now be asked is, "Do we see any evidence for the beginning of the recovery?".

You can post all of that bullshit you like skidmark...in fact I encourage you to...it only shows how poor your thinking skills are and how easily you are duped...once again...O3 reacts readily with nitrogen, hydrogen, and naturally occurring bromine and chlorine molecules found in the stratosphere and measured in parts per million...CFC's according to your own source exist in the stratosphere at a concentration of just over 3 parts per billion...

You appear as stupid as wuwei refusing to simply state what an equation says....what's the matter, are you completely unable to use your brain? Or are you unsure about whether the probability is that an O3 molecule will be more likely to react with nitrogen which is 780,000ppm in the atmosphere or a CFC molecule which exists at a concentration of 3 parts per billion? Is that to tough for you? I laid it out in simple terms.. Wasn't it simple enough for you?

Your paper is bullshit...in the first paragraph they claim significant amounts of CFC"s into the stratosphere...in what fantasy world is 3 parts per billion in the stratosphere significant? Are you not bright enough to even grasp the fundamental problem there? O3 readily reacts with nitrogen which is 780,000ppm and you believe that CFC's at 3 parts per billion represents a significant threat to the ozone layer?

Really skidmark...just how stupid are you? Do you have no critical thinking skills whatsoever? In your own words, describe the "threat" that 3 parts per billion of CFC molecules represent to the ozone layer when O3 readily reacts with nitrogen at 780,000ppm...This should be priceless....lets see how far you will drag your intellect through the sewer trying to defend that indefensible steaming pile of manure.

 

[mamooth]

You can post all of that bullshit you like skidmark..

... and it won't help. Like I keep pointing out, you're a profoundly stupid human being, far too stupid to understand the topics being discussed. Trying to educate you is like trying to teach calculus to a monkey. No matter how bright the teachers are -- and we are all extremely bright -- it just can't be done.

So, in your monkey style, you can proceed with your feces-flinging now. Now that's something you have skill at.

 

[jc456]

You can post all of that bullshit you like skidmark..

... and it won't help. Like I keep pointing out, you're a profoundly stupid human being, far too stupid to understand the topics being discussed. Trying to educate you is like trying to teach calculus to a monkey. No matter how bright the teachers are -- and we are all extremely bright -- it just can't be done.

So, in your monkey style, you can proceed with your feces-flinging now. Now that's something you have skill at.

it won't cause it's all bullshit. it's what he said. force feeding bullshit is still force fed bullshit.

 

[Crick]

It is the result of large amounts of research, the conclusions of which you do not like.

 

[SSDD]

It is the result of large amounts of research, the conclusions of which you do not like.

What's the problem skidmark...can't actually use your brain or are you just afraid that if you do, it will challenge what you believe?

No answer other than yet another logical fallacy? Like I said, you aren't even a challenge any more skidmark...just another dupe who is unable to actually think...how boring.

 

[SSDD]

You can post all of that bullshit you like skidmark..

... and it won't help. Like I keep pointing out, you're a profoundly stupid human being, far too stupid to understand the topics being discussed. Trying to educate you is like trying to teach calculus to a monkey. No matter how bright the teachers are -- and we are all extremely bright -- it just can't be done.

So, in your monkey style, you can proceed with your feces-flinging now. Now that's something you have skill at.

Maybe you can answer the questions I put to the skidmark which he is afraid to even consider...how about you hairball? Are you able to use your brain or are you just a mouthpiece for whoever gave you your opinion?

O3 reacts readily with nitrogen, hydrogen, and naturally occurring bromine and chlorine molecules found in the stratosphere and measured in parts per million...CFC's according to the skid mark's source exist in the stratosphere at a concentration of just over 3 parts per billion...that is BILLION...

the probability is that an O3 molecule will be more likely to react with nitrogen, hydrogen, or one of the naturally occurring bromine, or chlorine molecules which, together are a bit over 780,000ppm in the atmosphere or a CFC molecule which exists at a concentration of 3 parts per billion?

Lets hear it hairball...how much danger is a CFC molecule in concentrations of 3 parts per BILLION, when O3 readily reacts with nitrogen, hydrogen, and naturally occurring chlorine and bromine molecules which exist in concentrations of over 780,000ppm?

 

[SSDD]

You can post all of that bullshit you like skidmark..

... and it won't help. Like I keep pointing out, you're a profoundly stupid human being, far too stupid to understand the topics being discussed. Trying to educate you is like trying to teach calculus to a monkey. No matter how bright the teachers are -- and we are all extremely bright -- it just can't be done.

So, in your monkey style, you can proceed with your feces-flinging now. Now that's something you have skill at.

it won't cause it's all bullshit. it's what he said. force feeding bullshit is still force fed bullshit.

Those two aren't even able to think...they believe CFC molecules at atmospheric concentrations of 3 parts per BILLION represent more of a threat to ozone molecules than 780,000 parts per million of nitrogen, hydrogen and naturally occurring chlorine and bromine molecules which ozone also readily reacts with. That's how it goes with cultists...they can't even turn their minds towards anything that might challenge what their leaders have told them.

 

[jc456]

You can post all of that bullshit you like skidmark..

... and it won't help. Like I keep pointing out, you're a profoundly stupid human being, far too stupid to understand the topics being discussed. Trying to educate you is like trying to teach calculus to a monkey. No matter how bright the teachers are -- and we are all extremely bright -- it just can't be done.

So, in your monkey style, you can proceed with your feces-flinging now. Now that's something you have skill at.

it won't cause it's all bullshit. it's what he said. force feeding bullshit is still force fed bullshit.

Those two aren't even able to think...they believe CFC molecules at atmospheric concentrations of 3 parts per BILLION represent more of a threat to ozone molecules than 780,000 parts per million of nitrogen, hydrogen and naturally occurring chlorine and bromine molecules which ozone also readily reacts with. That's how it goes with cultists...they can't even turn their minds towards anything that might challenge what their leaders have told them.

It's math, they don't know the difference in magnitude. It's a shame.

 

[Crick]

You haven't the math skills to criticize a kindergartener.

And there's also the wee point that apparently neither of you know the difference between a reactant and a catalyst.