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

[jc456]

Finding evidence that changes in solar UV is responsible for the depletion is YOUR job as it is YOUR assertion. Many sources tell us what factors break down ozone, including UV. None of them presented here show what you claim is the case. Many show the increasing levels of catalytic CFCs and corresponding drops in ozone, concluding a cause and effect relationship.

That you have claimed UV is responsible but have presented NO data despite numerous requests indicates to me (and likely others) that you have found reality lacking in its ability to support your contentions.

so you're saying there is no basis for evidence that CFC's do what you say? so you can merely pronounce something as bad without evidence that it is? is that what you're trying to sell here? let me laugh in your fking face. And to date, you still haven't answered the question about 3 billion parts vs 780,000 million parts. Why? That is mathematical question, one to which you value, so why not answer? I know it is a rhetorical question, but you failing to answer merely proves your point as useless. but hey, thanks for playing.

 

[SSDD]

Finding evidence that changes in solar UV is responsible for the depletion is YOUR job as it is YOUR assertion. Many sources tell us what factors break down ozone, including UV. None of them presented here show what you claim is the case. Many show the increasing levels of catalytic CFCs and corresponding drops in ozone, concluding a cause and effect relationship.

That you have claimed UV is responsible but have presented NO data despite numerous requests indicates to me (and likely others) that you have found reality lacking in its ability to support your contentions.

I am just pointing out how completely shitty the papers you call science are...no mention of very important natural factors...nothing but alarmist propaganda...and as usual...undeniable evidence of how easy it is to fool you.

The idea that other factors might be at work other than your molecule at 3 party’s per BILLION never entered that thick skull of yours...you just accepted the alarmist claptrap without question...That would be because your bias makes you stupid.

 

[Crick]

I disagree with your characterizations but, more importantly, you still have presented ZERO supporting data for your claim that UV is responsible for the observed ozone depletion. And I'm terribly sorry, but your attempt to shortcut around science by throwing out big numbers fails as a falsification.

 

[jc456]

I disagree with your characterizations but, more importantly, you still have presented ZERO supporting data for your claim that UV is responsible for the observed ozone depletion. And I'm terribly sorry, but your attempt to shortcut around science by throwing out big numbers fails as a falsification.

But where is the evidence that CFCs did? See stupid fk, you failed to prove your point. why? you think you get a pass cause your slick crick?

 

[Crick]

But where is the evidence that CFCs did?

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/1999RG900008

Nitrous Oxide (N2O): The Dominant Ozone-Depleting Substance Emitted in the 21st Century

A meta-analysis of plant field studies simulating stratospheric ozone depletion

Banning chlorofluorocarbons: epistemic community efforts to protect stratospheric ozone | International Organization | Cambridge Core

The Evolution of Policy Responses to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion on JSTOR

Mount Pinatubo Aerosols, Chlorofluorocarbons, and Ozone Depletion

Increased polar stratospheric ozone losses and delayed eventual recovery owing to increasing greenhouse-gas concentrations

https://www.nature.com/articles/35071047

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/v74-233

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/v74-233

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/1999JD901128

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/014070079090003F

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JD094iD09p11465

and many, many more

 

[jc456]

But where is the evidence that CFCs did?

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/1999RG900008

Nitrous Oxide (N2O): The Dominant Ozone-Depleting Substance Emitted in the 21st Century

A meta-analysis of plant field studies simulating stratospheric ozone depletion

Banning chlorofluorocarbons: epistemic community efforts to protect stratospheric ozone | International Organization | Cambridge Core

The Evolution of Policy Responses to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion on JSTOR

Mount Pinatubo Aerosols, Chlorofluorocarbons, and Ozone Depletion

Increased polar stratospheric ozone losses and delayed eventual recovery owing to increasing greenhouse-gas concentrations

Removal of chlorofluorocarbons by increased mass exchange between the stratosphere and troposphere in a changing climate

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/1999JD901128

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/014070079090003F

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JD094iD09p11465

and many, many more

i said evidence. not prophecies of what someone thought happened. actual evidence, where CFC were tested and proven as causing the affect observed.

BTW 3 parts per billion or 780,000 parts per million? which is it kid? which one is bigger?

Do suns UV rays create Ozone? yes or no?

 

[Crick]

Now you're being unreasonable. You're rejecting the scientific method. If that's actually your position, there's no point in continuing our discussions.

 

[SSDD]

But where is the evidence that CFCs did?

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/1999RG900008

Nitrous Oxide (N2O): The Dominant Ozone-Depleting Substance Emitted in the 21st Century

A meta-analysis of plant field studies simulating stratospheric ozone depletion

Banning chlorofluorocarbons: epistemic community efforts to protect stratospheric ozone | International Organization | Cambridge Core

The Evolution of Policy Responses to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion on JSTOR

Mount Pinatubo Aerosols, Chlorofluorocarbons, and Ozone Depletion

Increased polar stratospheric ozone losses and delayed eventual recovery owing to increasing greenhouse-gas concentrations

Removal of chlorofluorocarbons by increased mass exchange between the stratosphere and troposphere in a changing climate

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/1999JD901128

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/014070079090003F

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JD094iD09p11465

and many, many more

So in which of those do you believe the natural factors were thoroughly examined? I saw a mention of NO2 which more or less said by the way, NO2 is also natural but saw no examination of how much is natural or how much is man made....or really, even how much there was and how it varied...lots of models...some mention of volcanoes, but nothing even remotely like an examination of all the factors that regulate the ozone layer....in short...alarmist clap trap aimed at supporting a narrative....nothing there even remotely resembling an unbiased look at all the factors.

But as you said...good enough to fool you.

 

[SSDD]

Now you're being unreasonable. You're rejecting the scientific method. If that's actually your position, there's no point in continuing our discussions.

Which part of that steaming pile do you believe represents the scientific method? The scientific method is completely ignored in all of those papers...the scientific method requires a null hypothesis wherein whatever is being observed could be entirely caused by natural processes...I didn't see a hint of that in any of those papers. The scientific method requires that all known factors be thoroughly examined...didn't see that in any of those papers either...brief passing remarks about this being natural, or volcanic eruptions and then back on track with the narrative that man is to blame are not how the scientific method works.

But then once again...by your own admission...good enough to fool you.

 

[SSDD]

But where is the evidence that CFCs did?

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/1999RG900008

Nitrous Oxide (N2O): The Dominant Ozone-Depleting Substance Emitted in the 21st Century

A meta-analysis of plant field studies simulating stratospheric ozone depletion

Banning chlorofluorocarbons: epistemic community efforts to protect stratospheric ozone | International Organization | Cambridge Core

The Evolution of Policy Responses to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion on JSTOR

Mount Pinatubo Aerosols, Chlorofluorocarbons, and Ozone Depletion

Increased polar stratospheric ozone losses and delayed eventual recovery owing to increasing greenhouse-gas concentrations

Removal of chlorofluorocarbons by increased mass exchange between the stratosphere and troposphere in a changing climate

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/1999JD901128

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/014070079090003F

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JD094iD09p11465

and many, many more

i said evidence. not prophecies of what someone thought happened. actual evidence, where CFC were tested and proven as causing the affect observed.

BTW 3 parts per billion or 780,000 parts per million? which is it kid? which one is bigger?

Do suns UV rays create Ozone? yes or no?

He believes that steaming pile of bullshit represented the scientific method...what a laugh.
The scientific method is a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

I didn't see anything in any of his papers that examined the known wildly fluctuating UV output of the sun from year to year in the wavelengths responsible for creating ozone...nor did I see anything about N2, present at 780,000ppm readily reacting with ozone, nor did I see anything about NO, a natural catalyst for ozone present at 1 to 4 ppm present, nor did I see any comparison between the amounts of naturally occurring NO2 and man made NO2...not did I see any comparison between the amounts of any man made chlorine or bromine compound and the amount of naturally occurring chlorine or bromine compound...nor did I see any real mention of the fact that the ozone "holes" are seasonal and only happen during the darkness of winter..and disappear soon after the sun rises over the arctic and antarctic.

What I saw was an ongoing narrative that neglected all possible natural factors that can effect the ozone layer and focused like a laser on the possibility that a molecule present at 3 parts per billion was the primary source of "ozone depletion"...

 

[Crick]

I believe the proper conclusion to be drawn from the absence of studies looking at UV or nitrogen having caused ozone depletion is that no one with an actual scientific education believes either one could be responsible.

 

[jc456]

I believe the proper conclusion to be drawn from the absence of studies looking at UV or nitrogen having caused ozone depletion is that no one with an actual scientific education believes either one could be responsible.

well the ozone gets a hole in it every year. still to this day. we removed the CFCs and yet we still get a hole. why?

 

[SSDD]

I believe the proper conclusion to be drawn from the absence of studies looking at UV or nitrogen having caused ozone depletion is that no one with an actual scientific education believes either one could be responsible.

Of course you would...that is because you are quite stupid....a series of papers thoroughly examining the various possible natural reasons for varying ozone levels from season to season (season to season should be a clue to anyone who is not stupid) and finding that they were not in fact, the cause would be in line with the scientific method...jumping straight to a molecule present at 3 parts per billion in a mixture of gasses that also react with O3 present at 780,000 parts per million without any examination of the variation from season to season and year to year of the very forces that create ozone is alarmist claptrap....

But like you said...it is good enough to fool you.

 

[SSDD]

I believe the proper conclusion to be drawn from the absence of studies looking at UV or nitrogen having caused ozone depletion is that no one with an actual scientific education believes either one could be responsible.

well the ozone gets a hole in it every year. still to this day. we removed the CFCs and yet we still get a hole. why?

And the hole is seasonal...at its largest when the least UV from the sun is entering the polar atmosphere...imagine, jumping to the conclusion that it is a molecule present at 3 parts per billion causing seasonal changes.

 

[jc456]

I believe the proper conclusion to be drawn from the absence of studies looking at UV or nitrogen having caused ozone depletion is that no one with an actual scientific education believes either one could be responsible.

well the ozone gets a hole in it every year. still to this day. we removed the CFCs and yet we still get a hole. why?

And the hole is seasonal...at its largest when the least UV from the sun is entering the polar atmosphere...imagine, jumping to the conclusion that it is a molecule present at 3 parts per billion causing seasonal changes.

Yes it is seasonal based on the tilt of the globe. BTW, I knew he wouldn't answer me.

 

[Crick]

It often amazes me how often you come up with a criticism that seems to presuppose that only one factor can affect or control a phenomenon.

Here is some UV trend data

https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4975572

None of these support your contention. Since, despite repeated requests, you have declined to provide any data to support your claim, I have to conclude that you saw these same data and chose not to, though you also chose to continue making your claim. That would be what we might call "being dishonest".

 

[jc456]

It often amazes me how often you come up with a criticism that seems to presuppose that only one factor can affect or control a phenomenon.

Here is some UV trend data

View attachment 240442

https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4975572

None of these support your contention. Since, despite repeated requests, you have declined to provide any data to support your claim, I have to conclude that you saw these same data and chose not to, though you also chose to continue making your claim. That would be what we might call "being dishonest".

I like how you post up graphs without any explanation as to what it is your expecting us to see. so please, what is it you see that you want us to see?

And is 3 parts per billion more or less than 780,000 parts per million? come on crickster, you still haven't answered.

 

[Crick]

It was aimed at SSDD, the prior poster, and his claim that the ozone depletion which triggered the adoption of the Montreal Protocol was actually caused by increasing levels of UV from the sun. When asked to present data supporting that claim, he has consistently declined to do so. So I did it for him. And, surprise, surprise, surprise, the data utterly fails to support his contention.

 

[jc456]

It was aimed at SSDD, the prior poster, and his claim that the ozone depletion which triggered the adoption of the Montreal Protocol was actually caused by increasing levels of UV from the sun. When asked to present data supporting that claim, he has consistently declined to do so. So I did it for him. And, surprise, surprise, surprise, the data utterly fails to support his contention.

you should learn to use the quote on the tool. makes it easier to know who you are barking at. Since I was actually the previous poster to your post. but hey, following guidelines ain't your thingy.

 

[SSDD]

It often amazes me how often you come up with a criticism that seems to presuppose that only one factor can affect or control a phenomenon.

Here is some UV trend data

View attachment 240442

https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4975572

None of these support your contention. Since, despite repeated requests, you have declined to provide any data to support your claim, I have to conclude that you saw these same data and chose not to, though you also chose to continue making your claim. That would be what we might call "being dishonest".

Maybe you didn't notice but none of those look at particular wavelengths in the UV band...which is precisely what the sources I provided to you said varied wildly from year to year...again...you are only demonstrating what is good enough to fool you...nothing there even begins to challenge what I said...