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

[deanrd]

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.

We’ve seen right wing science. Like magical creation. Hilarious!

 

[SSDD]

I'm not going to waste time to do your research for you.

What you are not going to do is provide any sort of rational, scientifically valid explanation..what you are going to do is what you always do...dodge and weave...shuck and jive....and hope that the question goes away..

You have been such a liar that I don't trust any numbers you come up with.

More bullshit...all the sources have been provided by either myself or the skidmark...you are simply over a barrel...you know the studies you provided either missed, or more likely deliberately ignored some very important factors...all in the name of supporting a narrative...

You still won't do the research yourself. I'm not going to waste time to do your research for you. You have been such a liar that I don't trust any numbers you come up with. It's your hypothesis, so it's up to you to apply the molecular collision details. You need to use the elastic and inelastic cross sections. Do you even know what that means?

I have done it...which is why I can say with perfect confidence that you can't explain how CFC's represent a greater threat to the ozone layer than the natural catalysts and reactants already there...none of your papers even mentions the fact that natural catalysts exist at far higher concentrations than CFC's and natural reactants exist at concentrations above 780,000ppm.

 

[SSDD]

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.

We’ve seen right wing science. Like magical creation. Hilarious!

That all you have? An impotent, mewling pseudo insult? Want to talk about the science or do you want to bleat like an insensate calf?

 

[Wuwei]

I have done it...which is why I can say with perfect confidence that you can't explain how CFC's represent a greater threat to the ozone layer than the natural catalysts and reactants already there...none of your papers even mentions the fact that natural catalysts exist at far higher concentrations than CFC's and natural reactants exist at concentrations above 780,000ppm.

I told you several times you can't say what is happening with only your numbers. You must understand the elastic and inelastic cross sections. Maybe you don't understand. An elastic collision means nothing changes the chemistry of the molecules. An inelastic collision is what matters; not just the concentrations. You need both. You only supplied half.

.

 

[jc456]

I have done it...which is why I can say with perfect confidence that you can't explain how CFC's represent a greater threat to the ozone layer than the natural catalysts and reactants already there...none of your papers even mentions the fact that natural catalysts exist at far higher concentrations than CFC's and natural reactants exist at concentrations above 780,000ppm.

I told you several times you can't say what is happening with only your numbers. You must understand the elastic and inelastic cross sections. Maybe you don't understand. An elastic collision means nothing changes the chemistry of the molecules. An inelastic collision is what matters; not just the concentrations. You need both. You only supplied half.

.

In other words, make it up!

 

[SSDD]

I have done it...which is why I can say with perfect confidence that you can't explain how CFC's represent a greater threat to the ozone layer than the natural catalysts and reactants already there...none of your papers even mentions the fact that natural catalysts exist at far higher concentrations than CFC's and natural reactants exist at concentrations above 780,000ppm.

I told you several times you can't say what is happening with only your numbers. You must understand the elastic and inelastic cross sections. Maybe you don't understand. An elastic collision means nothing changes the chemistry of the molecules. An inelastic collision is what matters; not just the concentrations. You need both. You only supplied half.

.

And you just keep the bullshit coming...what a bleating, insensate sheep you are...


State-to-state ozone relaxation rates for O3-N2 collisions

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

The fact is that you will find more in the literature regarding inelastic collisions with Nitrogen molecules of one flavor or another than you will regarding inelastic collisions with CFC's.....So.....Still waiting for that explanation...rather than more of your pseudoscientific bullshit...

 

[SSDD]

I have done it...which is why I can say with perfect confidence that you can't explain how CFC's represent a greater threat to the ozone layer than the natural catalysts and reactants already there...none of your papers even mentions the fact that natural catalysts exist at far higher concentrations than CFC's and natural reactants exist at concentrations above 780,000ppm.

I told you several times you can't say what is happening with only your numbers. You must understand the elastic and inelastic cross sections. Maybe you don't understand. An elastic collision means nothing changes the chemistry of the molecules. An inelastic collision is what matters; not just the concentrations. You need both. You only supplied half.

.

In other words, make it up!

He is making an appeal to complexity.....he knows that there is no rational, scientifically valid explanation for how CFC's at a concentration of 3 PARTS PER BILLION represent a greater threat to the ozone than N2, NO, O2 and naturally occurring chlorine, and bromine molecules that are present in the stratosphere at a concentration of greater than 780,000 PARTS PER MILLION...

He is just thrashing around hurling bullshit to the best of his ability hoping that something sticks... It won't..

 

[Wuwei]

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

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

 

[Wuwei]

He is making an appeal to complexity....

Really? Just what are you thinking? You are the one who came up with the complexities by posting the Harvard paper.

.

 

[jc456]

I have done it...which is why I can say with perfect confidence that you can't explain how CFC's represent a greater threat to the ozone layer than the natural catalysts and reactants already there...none of your papers even mentions the fact that natural catalysts exist at far higher concentrations than CFC's and natural reactants exist at concentrations above 780,000ppm.

I told you several times you can't say what is happening with only your numbers. You must understand the elastic and inelastic cross sections. Maybe you don't understand. An elastic collision means nothing changes the chemistry of the molecules. An inelastic collision is what matters; not just the concentrations. You need both. You only supplied half.

.

In other words, make it up!

He is making an appeal to complexity.....he knows that there is no rational, scientifically valid explanation for how CFC's at a concentration of 3 PARTS PER BILLION represent a greater threat to the ozone than N2, NO, O2 and naturally occurring chlorine, and bromine molecules that are present in the stratosphere at a concentration of greater than 780,000 PARTS PER MILLION...

He is just thrashing around hurling bullshit to the best of his ability hoping that something sticks... It won't..

Again, he doesn't know which one has more in the atmosphere. 3 parts per billion or 780,000 per million. still doesn't understand math.

 

[jc456]

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

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

or in other words, made up conclusions.

 

[SSDD]

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

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

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

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

 

[SSDD]

He is making an appeal to complexity....

Really? Just what are you thinking? You are the one who came up with the complexities by posting the Harvard paper.

.

The harvard paper was an explanation....you are engaged in a dodge now...thrashing about trying to find some bullshit that will stick to the wall and let you off the hook for being a dupe...it isn't going to happen.

 

[Wuwei]

The harvard paper was an explanation....you are engaged in a dodge now...thrashing about trying to find some bullshit that will stick to the wall and let you off the hook for being a dupe...it isn't going to happen.

Nope. I think you are the one trashing about and trying to get off the hook.

 

[SSDD]

The harvard paper was an explanation....you are engaged in a dodge now...thrashing about trying to find some bullshit that will stick to the wall and let you off the hook for being a dupe...it isn't going to happen.

Nope. I think you are the one trashing about and trying to get off the hook.

Last chance....either explain how 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.....or I am through discussing the topic with you...either you can explain in rational, scientifically valid terms or you can't...if you can't, then alas, you have lost the point...and remain a dupe...

 

[Wuwei]

Last chance....either explain how 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.....or I am through discussing the topic with you...either you can explain in rational, scientifically valid terms or you can't...if you can't, then alas, you have lost the point...and remain a dupe...

I said it involves knowing the cross sections of elastic and inelastic collisions and mean time between collisions. The Harvard paper said pretty much the same. Contact the author.

 

[SSDD]

So you have no explanation...just some vague term which you don't understand...and the hope that it will fool someone...anyone...

got it...do let me know if you ever care to attempt to actually explain...you probably should just let it die quietly ...perhaps everyone will forget what a dupe you were with regards to ozone.

By the way doofus....we are still talking about collisions with molecules present at 3 PARTS PER BILLION versus collisions with equally reactive catalysts present at 1 to 4 PARTS PER MILLION...and ready reactants present at 780,000 PARTS PER MILLION..describe the frequency of collisions of those substances with O3 and then again, try to describe why CFC's at 3 parts per BILLION represent a grave threat...or any threat at all.

Do you understand the difference between a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION and 1 to 4 parts per million and 780,000 parts per million...I may have made the mistake of assuming that you are able to differentiate the vast differences in quantities present and the likelyhood of collisions between any of those molecules which readily break down O3 and any given O3 molecule...

 

[Wuwei]

So you have no explanation...just some vague term which you don't understand...and the hope that it will fool someone...anyone...

got it...do let me know if you ever care to attempt to actually explain...you probably should just let it die quietly ...perhaps everyone will forget what a dupe you were with regards to ozone.

By the way doofus....we are still talking about collisions with molecules present at 3 PARTS PER BILLION versus collisions with equally reactive catalysts present at 1 to 4 PARTS PER MILLION...and ready reactants present at 780,000 PARTS PER MILLION..describe the frequency of collisions of those substances with O3 and then again, try to describe why CFC's at 3 parts per BILLION represent a grave threat...or any threat at all.

Do you understand the difference between a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION and 1 to 4 parts per million and 780,000 parts per million...I may have made the mistake of assuming that you are able to differentiate the vast differences in quantities present and the likelyhood of collisions between any of those molecules which readily break down O3 and any given O3 molecule...

You are awed and can't think straight with tiny numbers. It takes one millionth of a gram to kill someone with the botulism toxin. If the inelastic cross section is one millionth of the elastic cross section, your tiny numbers crumble. I'm not going to waste my time looking all that stuff up.

 

[SSDD]

So you have no explanation...just some vague term which you don't understand...and the hope that it will fool someone...anyone...

got it...do let me know if you ever care to attempt to actually explain...you probably should just let it die quietly ...perhaps everyone will forget what a dupe you were with regards to ozone.

By the way doofus....we are still talking about collisions with molecules present at 3 PARTS PER BILLION versus collisions with equally reactive catalysts present at 1 to 4 PARTS PER MILLION...and ready reactants present at 780,000 PARTS PER MILLION..describe the frequency of collisions of those substances with O3 and then again, try to describe why CFC's at 3 parts per BILLION represent a grave threat...or any threat at all.

Do you understand the difference between a concentration of 3 parts per BILLION and 1 to 4 parts per million and 780,000 parts per million...I may have made the mistake of assuming that you are able to differentiate the vast differences in quantities present and the likelyhood of collisions between any of those molecules which readily break down O3 and any given O3 molecule...

You are awed and can't think straight with tiny numbers. It takes one millionth of a gram to kill someone with the botulism toxin. If the inelastic cross section is one millionth of the elastic cross section, your tiny numbers crumble. I'm not going to waste my time looking all that stuff up.

We aren't talking about botulism..nor are we talking about a system as compact as a human body...we are talking about the upper stratosphere...3 parts per BILLION vs equally reactive catalysts at 1 to 4 parts per million and N2 which O3 readily reacts with at 780,000 ppm...

And as you saw...N0, and N2, at 780,000ppm are part of the inelastic cross section...face it...CFC's aren't, and never were a threat to the ozone layer...you were, and continue to be duped.

 

[Wuwei]

We aren't talking about botulism.

It's a metaphor.