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

[SSDD]

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.

I didn't ask for proof...I asked for one of your pseudoscientific papers which took a serious look at all the natural reasons for variations in O3 in the troposphere....Did you find any at all? Everything you posted jumped straight to the anthropogenic cause without taking anything like a serious look at natural causes.

You are correct that ALL other possible causes must be eliminated...I didn't see anything like that in any of your papers...all I saw was an alarmist narrative that suggested that a molecule present at 3 parts per billion was responsible.

 

[Crick]

You demanded that I show that no other cause could be responsible. Sorry, but that's bullshit. Show us how much effort has been expended making certain that gravity isn't being caused by the chanting of mantichores in the 11th dimension of the fourth planet of Beelzebub.

 

[SSDD]

You demanded that I show that no other cause could be responsible. Sorry, but that's bullshit. Show us how much effort has been expended making certain that gravity isn't being caused by the chanting of mantichores in the 11th dimension of the fourth planet of Beelzebub.

Are you so stupid you can't read or is lying the only way you communicate? I only asked for a paper in which the natural causes for variations in O3 levels were seriously considered...you couldn't provide any...Incoming UV should be the first place any serious paper regarding variations in O3 should look since UV is the cause of O3. All you provided was papers that went straight to the alarmist narrative...

 

[Crick]

You and I know very well what the fuck you were doing: Lying about what was covered in the literature

 

[SSDD]

You and I know very well what the fuck you were doing: Lying about what was covered in the literature

Prove me wrong skidmark...I said that the natural causes for variations in O3 in the stratosphere were not seriously considered...care to show me any of your pseudoscientific papers in which the natural causes...especially the very UV that is responsible for O3 production in the stratosphere were seriously considered and ruled out?

Didn't think so...Alas, skidmark, you are the liar here...and it has been proven over and over. When you can't support your beliefs, I suppose lying would be your go to response to most challenges.

By the way..here is what I said...and once again, it proves that you were lying when you said that I demanded proof of anything.

Show me one that mentions wide fluctuations in the very wave lengths of UV coming in from the sun from year to year...show me one that mentions the presence of natural catalysts for O3 present at 1 to 4 parts per million and natural reactants to O3 present at 780,000 parts per million. Show me one that suggests that anything is breaking down ozone in appreciable quantities other than sunlight and CFC's.

Do you think leaving out natural factors such as wide variations in UV from the sun in the very wavelengths that are needed to form O3.....and leaving out the fact that O3 readily reacts with N2 present at a concentration of 780,000ppm...and that naturally occurring NO is a catalyst for O3 and is present at 1 to 4 parts per million is good science? Really? You think jumping to the man made solution without even discussing the natural factors that can heavily effect O3 is good science?

 

[Crick]

The "natural" causes for ozone depletion were known before there was any issue regarding ozone depletion. Levels of those agents WERE examined and found incapable of having produced the observed changes. You fools are so locked into "this is all normal", this is all just another cycle" that you seem incapable of actually detecting any form of change. That would be part and parcel of what makes you all profoundly conservative
.

 

[SSDD]

The "natural" causes for ozone depletion were known before there was any issue regarding ozone depletion. Levels of those agents WERE examined and found incapable of having produced the observed changes. You fools are so locked into "this is all normal", this is all just another cycle" that you seem incapable of actually detecting any form of change. That would be part and parcel of what makes you all profoundly conservative
.

Didn't see that in any of your papers...care to point out where that topic was discussed?

Didn't think so...just more fake facts pulled out of your ass. Is there anything you don't lie about?

 

[Crick]

Do you remember when you claimed that changes in UV were the obvious cause of the observed increase in ozone depletion? Do you remember what happened when you went looking for actual evidence to back that up? There wasn't any. Not from no one looking. Lots of people had looked. There was just no evidence that any increase in UV had taken place. The same is true of all your other "natural causes". For any of them to have caused a change in ozone depletion, their levels would have to have increased. But they didn't. There is no problem finding data on the levels of those factors over the pertinent time span. None of those data, however, show changes that would correlate with the observed ozone changes. Nothing changed except CFCs.

Go try something else.

 

[SSDD]

Do you remember when you claimed that changes in UV were the obvious cause of the observed increase in ozone depletion? Do you remember what happened when you went looking for actual evidence to back that up? There wasn't any. Not from no one looking. Lots of people had looked. There was just no evidence that any increase in UV had taken place. The same is true of all your other "natural causes". For any of them to have caused a change in ozone depletion, their levels would have to have increased. But they didn't. There is no problem finding data on the levels of those factors over the pertinent time span. None of those data, however, show changes that would correlate with the observed ozone changes. Nothing changed except CFCs.

Go try something else.

Since the holes only appear during the dark of winter....it is a no brainer. The fact that UV from the sun is required to create O3 and there is none during the dark of the winter is also a no brainer...sorry that you lack the intellectual wattage to figure that one out...then you went into variations throughout the year...not simply during the time when there is no incoming UV and the holes appear...at that point, all you could produce was alarmist narratives that didn't take a serious look at any of the natural causes for O3 variation....Are you to stupid to remember the course of the discussion, or are you just such a liar that you must lie, even when the truth is right there in black and white? I vote for both.

 

[Crick]

The holes worsened with no corresponding increase in UV or any other natural causation. End of story.

 

[SSDD]

The holes worsened with no corresponding increase in UV or any other natural causation. End of story.

Got any evidence to support your claims regarding UV...or any other natural causation? Any at all? Didn't think so. The papers you provided failed to examine anything other than the go to man made cause with any rigor at all. Yet more fake facts simply pulled out of your ass.

 

[Crick]

The UV data I posted here show no changes that might have brought about the ozone depletion observed. As I've said before, correlation may not prove cause-and-effect, but you don't get cause-and-effect without it.

 

[jc456]

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.

and still no response from you on what is more prevalent 3 parts per billion or 780,000 parts per million. Why not?

 

[SSDD]

The UV data I posted here show no changes that might have brought about the ozone depletion observed. As I've said before, correlation may not prove cause-and-effect, but you don't get cause-and-effect without it.

Putting your ignorance on display again? Your UV data don't speak to any particular wavelength...a fine example of exactly what it takes to fool you...idiot.

Here is a graph that does..not that you can read a graph.. It describes EUV...the wavelengths responsible for O3 production in the stratosphere...it only goes to 2007, but the sun has been doing nothing since 07 but going more quiet...my bet is that the numbers would be even lower than that by now.

 

[Crick]

Eleven year sunspot cycle. One cycle shows nothing.

 

[SSDD]

Eleven year sunspot cycle. One cycle shows nothing.

It is because you are looking at TSI...not variations in particular wavelengths of UV and EUV...this has been pointed out to you several times? Do you not understand that TSI does not mean individual wavelengths?

 

[SSDD]

Want to tell me that you don't see any corelation between those two graphs for the 10 years between 19 and 06? Again....the sun has been going more quiet since 07...so one could reasonably expect the UV and EUV to continue to decrease.

 

[Crick]

No. I do not see any correlation between those two graphs. And there are much better UV data available.

 

[SSDD]

No. I do not see any correlation between those two graphs. And there are much better UV data available.

Figures...After all..you can't read a graph. And if you have better UV and EUV data, by all means, lets see it...rather than your miserable graphs that don't even begin to display particular wavelengths.

Here is a bit of that "better" UV data...

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...s-measured-by-the-Thermosphere_fig9_252757255

Guess you can't see a correlation there either. Willful ignorance or abject stupidity? Which is it skid mark?

Do you really believe a sun going quiet is not going to produce less high energy UV and EUV? Really?

 

[Crick]

I think you should read the captioning under your graphic. I don't think you understand what you've actually posted here. No one is arguing that UV does NOT deplete ozone. The argument is that there were no changes in UV sufficient to have caused the observed depletion. The Montreal Protocol was in effect by the time of the data you have posted here and most of that data are radiation from CO2 and NO going outward - you know, the sort of thing you claim doesn't exist.