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

[mamooth]

Notice that warmists ignore the fact that the rest of the worlds ozone cover outside of the polar region hardly changed at all the whole time. I doubt they even know about the EXISTENCE of monitoring stations that measures Ozone on a daily basis.

Why did you think it should change significantly? That's not what the science says should happen, after all.

As is always the case, you failed at the basics. But then, your conspiracy cult commands you to get everything wrong, and you serve the cult admirably.

 

[Sunsettommy]

From your post: "... together with man-made chlorofluorocarbons."

It Is clear you didn't read the paper, they make a case that Mt. Erebus was the most significant contributor of O3 depletion, and only in a short period of time of the year. CHC's doesn't deplete much O3 outside of the SAME short period of time, which is why the entire O3 hole scaremongering was misleading and dishonest.

Here is a paragraph that explains why there is negligible depletion outside of Antarctica springtime:

"Generally, ozone holes appear over Antarctica in springtime due to the following factors: 1) winter–spring formation of a stable polar vortex, which isolates the Antarctic stratosphere and cools it to extremely low temperatures (lower than −78 °C); 2) PSCs formation on condensation nuclei (H2SO4 aerosols) at these temperatures; and 3) ozone destruction in reactions (1)–(5) (Finlayson-Pitts and Pitts, 2000, Newman, 2010)."

 

[Crick]

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.

 

[SSDD]

Still waiting on one of you hand waving alarmists to explain how CFC's which exist in the stratosphere in concentrations of about 3 parts per BILLION represent a threat to the ozone layer. The skid mark claimed that it was because CFC's are a catalyst, but he was clearly unaware of the fact that a natural catalyst (NO) exists in the stratosphere at a concentration of 1 to 3 parts per million...in addition to the abundant natural reactants...nitrogen, hydrogen, and natural chlorine and bromine compounds...

How does this 3 part per BILLION chemical represent a threat to the ozone layer when the other agents which also react with O3 exist in concentrations of slightly more than 780,000 parts per million?

Come on geniuses...are you unable to use your brain, or do you just accept whatever pseudoscientific nonsense is handed to you in the format of a scientific paper?

 

[SSDD]

From your post: "... together with man-made chlorofluorocarbons."

It Is clear you didn't read the paper, they make a case that Mt. Erebus was the most significant contributor of O3 depletion, and only in a short period of time of the year. CHC's doesn't deplete much O3 outside of the SAME short period of time, which is why the entire O3 hole scaremongering was misleading and dishonest.

Here is a paragraph that explains why there is negligible depletion outside of Antarctica springtime:

"Generally, ozone holes appear over Antarctica in springtime due to the following factors: 1) winter–spring formation of a stable polar vortex, which isolates the Antarctic stratosphere and cools it to extremely low temperatures (lower than −78 °C); 2) PSCs formation on condensation nuclei (H2SO4 aerosols) at these temperatures; and 3) ozone destruction in reactions (1)–(5) (Finlayson-Pitts and Pitts, 2000, Newman, 2010)."

Still waiting on them to say now a molecule that exists in the stratosphere in concentrations of 3 parts per BILLION represents a threat when O3 readily reacts with naturally occurring molecules which exist in the stratosphere in concentrations of 780,000ppm and NO, which is a naturally occurring catalyst exists in the stratosphere in concentrations of 1 to 3 ppm.

And then there is the blatant elephant in the room...the hole only exists over the poles during their sunless winters...I guess if you are an alarmist, there is nothing to be gleaned from that bit of information...

 

[Crick]

You keep attempting to imply there has been no loss of ozone. Do you have some data to back that up? We have this:

 

[Sunsettommy]

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.

 

[Sunsettommy]

From your post: "... together with man-made chlorofluorocarbons."

It Is clear you didn't read the paper, they make a case that Mt. Erebus was the most significant contributor of O3 depletion, and only in a short period of time of the year. CHC's doesn't deplete much O3 outside of the SAME short period of time, which is why the entire O3 hole scaremongering was misleading and dishonest.

Here is a paragraph that explains why there is negligible depletion outside of Antarctica springtime:

"Generally, ozone holes appear over Antarctica in springtime due to the following factors: 1) winter–spring formation of a stable polar vortex, which isolates the Antarctic stratosphere and cools it to extremely low temperatures (lower than −78 °C); 2) PSCs formation on condensation nuclei (H2SO4 aerosols) at these temperatures; and 3) ozone destruction in reactions (1)–(5) (Finlayson-Pitts and Pitts, 2000, Newman, 2010)."

Still waiting on them to say now a molecule that exists in the stratosphere in concentrations of 3 parts per BILLION represents a threat when O3 readily reacts with naturally occurring molecules which exist in the stratosphere in concentrations of 780,000ppm and NO, which is a naturally occurring catalyst exists in the stratosphere in concentrations of 1 to 3 ppm.

And then there is the blatant elephant in the room...the hole only exists over the poles during their sunless winters...I guess if you are an alarmist, there is nothing to be gleaned from that bit of information...

Crick keeps ignoring the fact that O3 levels everywhere else in the world during the year doesn't change very much, only in the Antarctic region and only for a few weeks due to the extreme cold, a CRUCIAL catalyst to set up the erosion of O3:

"Generally, ozone holes appear over Antarctica in springtime due to the following factors: 1) winter–spring formation of a stable polar vortex, which isolates the Antarctic stratosphere and cools it to extremely low temperatures (lower than −78 °C); 2) PSCs formation on condensation nuclei (H2SO4 aerosols) at these temperatures; and 3) ozone destruction in reactions (1)–(5) (Finlayson-Pitts and Pitts, 2000, Newman, 2010)."

bolding mine

The idiot keeps ignoring the TWO CRITICAL factors that sets up the decline, without them there would be very little change no matter how much of the destructive gases there are available.

 

[Billy_Bob]

From your post: "... together with man-made chlorofluorocarbons."

It Is clear you didn't read the paper, they make a case that Mt. Erebus was the most significant contributor of O3 depletion, and only in a short period of time of the year. CHC's doesn't deplete much O3 outside of the SAME short period of time, which is why the entire O3 hole scaremongering was misleading and dishonest.

Here is a paragraph that explains why there is negligible depletion outside of Antarctica springtime:

"Generally, ozone holes appear over Antarctica in springtime due to the following factors: 1) winter–spring formation of a stable polar vortex, which isolates the Antarctic stratosphere and cools it to extremely low temperatures (lower than −78 °C); 2) PSCs formation on condensation nuclei (H2SO4 aerosols) at these temperatures; and 3) ozone destruction in reactions (1)–(5) (Finlayson-Pitts and Pitts, 2000, Newman, 2010)."

Still waiting on them to say now a molecule that exists in the stratosphere in concentrations of 3 parts per BILLION represents a threat when O3 readily reacts with naturally occurring molecules which exist in the stratosphere in concentrations of 780,000ppm and NO, which is a naturally occurring catalyst exists in the stratosphere in concentrations of 1 to 3 ppm.

And then there is the blatant elephant in the room...the hole only exists over the poles during their sunless winters...I guess if you are an alarmist, there is nothing to be gleaned from that bit of information...

Crick keeps ignoring the fact that O3 levels everywhere else in the world during the year doesn't change very much, only in the Antarctic region and only for a few weeks due to the extreme cold, a CRUCIAL catalyst to set up the erosion of O3:

"Generally, ozone holes appear over Antarctica in springtime due to the following factors: 1) winter–spring formation of a stable polar vortex, which isolates the Antarctic stratosphere and cools it to extremely low temperatures (lower than −78 °C); 2) PSCs formation on condensation nuclei (H2SO4 aerosols) at these temperatures; and 3) ozone destruction in reactions (1)–(5) (Finlayson-Pitts and Pitts, 2000, Newman, 2010)."

bolding mine

The idiot keeps ignoring the TWO CRITICAL factors that sets up the decline, without them there would be very little change no matter how much of the destructive gases there are available.

Well....

They do blame CO2 for something that water vapor is actually doing and they ignore it as well.. Might be a pattern from our crop of pseudo-scientists here..

 

[Crick]

Mt Erebus is hitting Bouder, Colorado hard.

Belsk, 1963 - 2008

 

[SSDD]

You keep attempting to imply there has been no loss of ozone. Do you have some data to back that up? We have this:

The production of O3 is reliant on shortwave UV...compare the chart you provided with solar output in the UV for the same years.

 

[SSDD]

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.

And terms like "main source" are relative terms...the assumed "main source" is providing about 3 parts per billion.....hardly a threat.

 

[Crick]

Thus one tells the difference between real science and pseudo science.

 

[SSDD]

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]

I'm not inclined to produce ANYTHING for you, so why don't you hold your breath till that explanation shows up spontaneously? Okay?

 

[SSDD]

I'm not inclined to produce ANYTHING for you, so why don't you hold your breath till that explanation shows up spontaneously? Okay?

Don't worry skidmark...I never expected it. I only made the challenge to bring your inability to think for yourself into sharp relief. Of course you couldn't explain why a molecule at a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION would pose no threat to a molecule that is under constant assault by molecules at a concentration of something over 780,000ppm. No rational person would make such a suggestion...only an alarmist looking for funding would suggest such nonsense, and seeing that would require critical thinking skills that you obviously don't possess.

 

[Crick]

The data I have put up here repeatedly show ozone levels dropping over a matter of years. Please explain how your hypothesis or that of the Mt Erebus people fit into those observations.

Asshole

 

[Wuwei]

Still waiting on them to say now a molecule that exists in the stratosphere in concentrations of 3 parts per BILLION represents a threat when O3 readily reacts with naturally occurring molecules which exist in the stratosphere in concentrations of 780,000ppm and NO, which is a naturally occurring catalyst exists in the stratosphere in concentrations of 1 to 3 ppm.

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?

Shame on you. Crick has observed, measured, repeatable data. You only have a model. Remember you always said observation should be believed over models.

 

[SSDD]

Still waiting on them to say now a molecule that exists in the stratosphere in concentrations of 3 parts per BILLION represents a threat when O3 readily reacts with naturally occurring molecules which exist in the stratosphere in concentrations of 780,000ppm and NO, which is a naturally occurring catalyst exists in the stratosphere in concentrations of 1 to 3 ppm.

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?

Shame on you. Crick has observed, measured, repeatable data. You only have a model. Remember you always said observation should be believed over models.

Crick has a measurement, but nothing but an assumption based on models as to why the measurement changed...much like you guys have some measured warming, but nothing more than an assumption based on models as to why the warming happened. In short, he has an unsubstantiated hypothesis with no actual observed, measured evidence as to why the change happened. I am sure that both of you see the measurement as actual evidence of why the change happened even though you only have evidence of a change and nothing as to the reason why...It is that lack of critical thinking that had made you into dupes.

As I already pointed out...O3 production is dependent upon the UV output from the sun...it is well known that while TSI is at least moderately constant, output in particular wavelengths of UV vary wildly from year to year and decade to decade. I would be interested in seeing the amount of O3 compared to the UV output in particular wavelengths during the time period in question...and as a side note...I would not be surprised at all to see the numbers dropping even further as we move into a grand solar minimum.

It is typical of you people to jump to the manmade scenario before you even scratch the surface of natural causes.

Now, if you want to get into the why of the change...and you want to lean towards the manmade scenario....lets hear a rational, scientifically valid explanation as to how a molecule that is present at a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION represents more of a threat to the ozone layer than a naturally occurring molecule that is also a catalyst for O3 reactions that is present in concentrations of between 1 and 3 parts per MILLION and reactants to O3 are present in concentrations of slightly more than 780,000 parts per MILLION.

Every one of you alarmists should familiarize yourselves with the scientific method before you jump to unsupportable conclusions as to the cause of an observed, measured event.

 

[Wuwei]

Crick has a measurement, but nothing but an assumption based on models as to why the measurement changed...much like you guys have some measured warming, but nothing more than an assumption based on models as to why the warming happened. In short, he has an unsubstantiated hypothesis with no actual observed, measured evidence as to why the change happened. I am sure that both of you see the measurement as actual evidence of why the change happened even though you only have evidence of a change and nothing as to the reason why...It is that lack of critical thinking that had made you into dupes.

As I already pointed out...O3 production is dependent upon the UV output from the sun...it is well known that while TSI is at least moderately constant, output in particular wavelengths of UV vary wildly from year to year and decade to decade. I would be interested in seeing the amount of O3 compared to the UV output in particular wavelengths during the time period in question...and as a side note...I would not be surprised at all to see the numbers dropping even further as we move into a grand solar minimum.

It is typical of you people to jump to the manmade scenario before you even scratch the surface of natural causes.

Now, if you want to get into the why of the change...and you want to lean towards the manmade scenario....lets hear a rational, scientifically valid explanation as to how a molecule that is present at a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION represents more of a threat to the ozone layer than a naturally occurring molecule that is also a catalyst for O3 reactions that is present in concentrations of between 1 and 3 parts per MILLION and reactants to O3 are present in concentrations of slightly more than 780,000 parts per MILLION.

Every one of you alarmists should familiarize yourselves with the scientific method before you jump to unsupportable conclusions as to the cause of an observed, measured event.

You are still talking about your model. You often said you didn't believe in models of physics.