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

[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".

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.

His graphs are only looking at total energy...not the particular wavelengths that are responsible for the production of O3..his graphs are good enough to fool him...hell he doesn't even know why they are useless when you are talking about variations in particular wavelengths in the UV band.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Researchers study fluctuations in solar radiation

clip: That is why Krivova's model SATIRE (Spectral And Total Irradiance Reconstruction) also takes the fluctuations in the UV light into account. "Although the UV light makes up just 8 percent of the total solar irradiance," she says, "the fluctuations are considerable,

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate | Science Mission Directorate

Of particular importance is the sun's extreme ultraviolet (EUV) radiation, which peaks during the years around solar maximum. Within the relatively narrow band of EUV wavelengths, the sun’s output varies not by a minuscule 0.1%, but by whopping factors of 10 or more. This can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.

Sun Cycles and Climate Change

Lean assumes that the change in UV output from the Sun must have been 6 times larger than that of visible light (a fact which, if true, holds interesting implications for the history of the ozone layer)


https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0095-00/fs-0095-00.pdf

However, bright regions surrounding the sunspots, called faculae, cause the sun to brighten at peak activity (Lean and Foukal, 1988). Lean and others (1995a) estimated that during the Maunder Minimum, total solar irradiance was reduced by 0.2 percent relative to a present quiet sun (minimum of the mid-1990’s), but total ultraviolet (UV)
radiation was reduced by 1.04 percent. This is important because it is the UV radiation that modulates ozone production, which, in turn, affects the dynam- ics and energetics of the middle and upper atmosphere through radiative processes and dynamic mechanisms involving convective Hadley cell circu- lation (Haigh, 1996).

Tell me skid mark....how do you think your graphs challenge any of the above statements? They are not looking at particular wavelengths...especially those directly responsible for creating O3...although the center set of charts do show a downward trend in UV although it doesn't look at particular wavelengths.

 

[mamooth]

Thread summary:

Those who fall for one conspiracy theory tend to fall for bunches of conspiracy theories, due to their lack of critical thinking ability.

Thus, most global warming deniers tend to fall for all kinds of other conspiracy theories. For example, it's hard to find any of them who don't rave about the "deep state".

 

[Crick]

Chem-trails, ozone depletion, socialism, immigrant invasions, liberal control freaks, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

 

[SSDD]

Thread summary:

Those who fall for one conspiracy theory tend to fall for bunches of conspiracy theories, due to their lack of critical thinking ability.

Thus, most global warming deniers tend to fall for all kinds of other conspiracy theories. For example, it's hard to find any of them who don't rave about the "deep state".

Note: The hairball isn't providing any evidence whatsoever....just a mewling logical fallacy..

How completely unsurprising is that? Fine demonstration of how you came to be a dupe...

 

[SSDD]

Chem-trails, ozone depletion, socialism, immigrant invasions, liberal control freaks, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Still waiting for a piece of your "fine" research which rules out natural reasons for the variation in the ozone layer before jumping straight to man made catastrophe...any luck? Didn't think so...

 

[Crick]

Still waiting for the evidence from you that a "natural reason" is the cause of the ozone depletion. As I've stated before, correlation may not prove cause and effect, but you will not have cause and effect without it. You have NONE. and you lied about it.

 

[SSDD]

Still waiting for the evidence from you that a "natural reason" is the cause of the ozone depletion. As I've stated before, correlation may not prove cause and effect, but you will not have cause and effect without it. You have NONE. and you lied about it.

Already gave you several...The fact that O3 readily reacts with N2 present at 780,000ppm....The fact that O3 readily reacts with natural NO, present at 1 to 4ppm...the fact that output in UV wavelengths from the sun vary wildly from year to year...The fact that O3 readily reacts with natural chlorine and bromine compounds in the stratosphere present in concentrations measured in parts per million, as contrasted with the parts per BILLION CFC's are measured in...didn't even see any discussion about the fact that the ozone "hole" is seasonal.....

Didn't see any of those factors presented, discussed, or examined in the bullshit which, by your own admission, is good enough to fool you.

 

[Crick]

But, as noted several times now, NONE of those factors correlate with the observed ozone depletion. CFCs do. You cannot have cause-and-effect without correlation.

 

[jc456]

But, as noted several times now, NONE of those factors correlate with the observed ozone depletion. CFCs do. You cannot have cause-and-effect without correlation.

dude, it's why he asked you for the evidence to back that statement up. Cause 3 parts billion is CFC's and 780,000 parts per million are all of the other natural gases to interfere. so which is larger or more likely to contribute? BTW correlate doesn't mean jack shit. let's just get that out there.

 

[SSDD]

But, as noted several times now, NONE of those factors correlate with the observed ozone depletion. CFCs do. You cannot have cause-and-effect without correlation.

Of course they do...the very fact that the hole is seasonal tosses your CFC hypothesis in the trash...

 

[SSDD]

But, as noted several times now, NONE of those factors correlate with the observed ozone depletion. CFCs do. You cannot have cause-and-effect without correlation.

dude, it's why he asked you for the evidence to back that statement up. Cause 3 parts billion is CFC's and 780,000 parts per million are all of the other natural gases to interfere. so which is larger or more likely to contribute? BTW correlate doesn't mean jack shit. let's just get that out there.

He is a parrot...someone gives him an opinion and he simply voices it...if you challenge what he believes, he resets to the original opinion he was given...he has lost and now is just mewling hoping that someone will believe him...who knows, someone as easily fooled as him may happen along.

 

[Crick]

How many times have I challenged you to provide us UV data that would correlate with the ozone depletion observed over the last few decades and, of those challenges, to how many have responded? The answer is ZERO.

 

[SSDD]

How many times have I challenged you to provide us UV data that would correlate with the ozone depletion observed over the last few decades and, of those challenges, to how many have responded? The answer is ZERO.

How many times have I challenged you to provide a rational, scientific explanation for how a molecule present at 3 parts per BILLION might represent a greater threat to the ozone layer than the natural catalysts present at 1 to 4 parts per million, and the natural reactants present at 780,000 parts per million?

Got any sort of answer yet? Your pseudoscientific papers certainly didn't discuss it. Want to just make something up?

 

[mamooth]

Already gave you several...The fact that O3 readily reacts with N2 present at 780,000ppm....

Directly addressed in post #264. As I explained, and as the science points out, yes, the O3 is constantly breaking down into O2 and O ... and then it immediately reforms into O3.

Being a stupid liar, you left out the reforming part. When I pointed it out, you squealed and ran, and then just repeated the same big lie later. Lying is what you do. It's all you do.

No, don't expect anyone to go easy on you just because you cry so hard. If you want everyone to stop bitch-slapping you, you need to stop being such a little bitch. Can you do that?

 

[SSDD]

Already gave you several...The fact that O3 readily reacts with N2 present at 780,000ppm....

Directly addressed in post #264. As I explained, and as the science points out, yes, the O3 is constantly breaking down into O2 and O ... and then it immediately reforms into O3.

Being a stupid liar, you left out the reforming part. When I pointed it out, you squealed and ran, and then just repeated the same big lie later. Lying is what you do. It's all you do.

No, don't expect anyone to go easy on you just because you cry so hard. If you want everyone to stop bitch-slapping you, you need to stop being such a little bitch. Can you do that?

poor hairball...not even close but feel free to make a fool out of yourself any time...

 

[Crick]

You know what would be a great way to make yourself look foolish? Put out a theory that has no support whatsoever from the science, attempt to defend it against all critics and then, weeks later, admit to your buddy that you're still looking for some supporting data.

 

[SSDD]

You know what would be a great way to make yourself look foolish? Put out a theory that has no support whatsoever from the science, attempt to defend it against all critics and then, weeks later, admit to your buddy that you're still looking for some supporting data.

Actually, I said that I would like to see the data since your pseudoscientific bullshit papers certainly never looked at any of the natural causes of ozone depletion....Does the concept of honesty ever even enter your mind or are you so accustomed to lying you yourself in an effort to believe in the pseudoscience of AGW that you become blind to the difference between honesty and dishonesty?

Did you ever find a single paper in which the natural factors were carefully considered?

Of course, there is a good reason that the numbers aren't being discussed...getting grant money to do a study that may well blow the whole alarmist narrative would be completely out of the question in today's academic environment. But hey....like you say..it's good enough to fool you.

 

[SSDD]

Guess that's a no...You never found any of your pseudoscientific alarmist papers which seriously looked at all of the natural causes of ozone depletion..and you never found an actual paper which looked at them because funding for a study that might shoot down the whole alarmist narrative would never happen...

but by your own admission...pseudoscience is good enough to fool you.

 

[Crick]

As I have stated on numerous occasions, there are no proofs in the natural sciences. Your suggestion that before some phenomenon can be suggested as the cause of some effect, ALL other possible causes must be eliminated, only shows the paucity of your actual education and how deeply you've bought in to pseudoscience bullshit.