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

[Crick]

The Montreal Protocol, of course

 

[SSDD]

The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.

New Ozone Hole Scare Won't Save the Great Climate Hoax | PSI Intl

Except that there was hole in the ozone, there still is to a certain extent.

This is what it looked like in 2006

This is what it looked like 3 days ago.

Big difference. Why?

My bet is that the upper pic was taken in the winter when there isn't much solar energy coming entering the atmosphere over the pole...the lower picture is taken during the summer when there is more incoming solar energy. Here is an animation over the course of a year...notice how there is not much of a hole during the antarctic summer and when it gets dark in the winter, the hole gets bigger. Do Keep in mind that when it is summer in the northern hemisphere it is winter in the south.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.

New Ozone Hole Scare Won't Save the Great Climate Hoax | PSI Intl

Except that there was hole in the ozone, there still is to a certain extent.

This is what it looked like in 2006

This is what it looked like 3 days ago.

Big difference. Why?

Link please.

 

[Crick]

I find this. These are from Time Magazine

This from the Telegraph

The Washington Post

NASA JPL (an animation but the board won't let me put it in as media)
2018 ozone hole image - Google Search:

 

[flacaltenn]

Ozone is the result of O2 absorbing UV. O3 absorbs some UV but because it is so unstable, The molecule breaks before it has absorbed anywhere as much energy as it takes to break an O2 molecule to allow the formation of O3. But do feel free to prove me wrong hairball.

Largest ozone creation factory on this planet is lightning. Not UV..

NASA - Top Story - SURPRISE! LIGHTNING HAS BIG EFFECT ON ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY - March 19, 2003

 

[flacaltenn]

I find this. These are from Time Magazine

This from the Telegraph

The Washington Post

NASA JPL (an animation but the board won't let me put it in as media)
2018 ozone hole image - Google Search:

So -- it really did NOT get fixed --- did it? The graph I posted makes that very clear.

 

[Crick]

The graph I posted and that you quoted also appears to show no improvement. The animation at the link I provided, however, shows that it has low periods during the course of a year. Ozone depletion takes place at a greater rate with lower temperatures, so there is an annual cycle to the depletion. FCT, are you getting ready to join the local "Montreal-Was-A-Scam" bandwagon hereabouts?

 

[SSDD]

The graph I posted and that you quoted also appears to show no improvement. The animation at the link I provided, however, shows that it has low periods during the course of a year. Ozone depletion takes place at a greater rate with lower temperatures, so there is an annual cycle to the depletion. FCT, are you getting ready to join the local "Montreal-Was-A-Scam" bandwagon hereabouts?

That would be due to less solar energy in the stratosphere over the poles during their respective winters. The holes are almost non existent towards the end of the polar summer and by the end of the polar winter, they are at their maximum...that would be because if you have less sunlight, you have less O3.

The ozone holes are a scam...always were a scam...and always will be a scam. If you can't look at the images, and note the time of year they were made, then relate that to the amount of solar energy entering the atmosphere, then you can't grasp a photograph any more than you can read a graph.

 

[SSDD]

Ozone is the result of O2 absorbing UV. O3 absorbs some UV but because it is so unstable, The molecule breaks before it has absorbed anywhere as much energy as it takes to break an O2 molecule to allow the formation of O3. But do feel free to prove me wrong hairball.

Largest ozone creation factory on this planet is lightning. Not UV..

NASA - Top Story - SURPRISE! LIGHTNING HAS BIG EFFECT ON ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY - March 19, 2003

Not in the stratosphere...Your article is talking about the troposphere...UV is responsible for the "ozone layer"

 

[Wyatt earp]

The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.

New Ozone Hole Scare Won't Save the Great Climate Hoax | PSI Intl

Except that there was hole in the ozone, there still is to a certain extent.

This is what it looked like in 2006

This is what it looked like 3 days ago.

Big difference. Why?

The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.

New Ozone Hole Scare Won't Save the Great Climate Hoax | PSI Intl

Except that there was hole in the ozone, there still is to a certain extent.

This is what it looked like in 2006

This is what it looked like 3 days ago.

Big difference. Why?

What it looked like in 1969

 

[xband]

The ban on those nasty CFCs back in the 80s which closed "The Hole in the Ozone" (queue woman screaming) was a bunch of Liberal Hooey. But the success of the Ozone scam gave birth the Warmer movement and many of the same scientists that pushed the Ozone scare are the same ones pushing human caused climate change. Don't believe them, they have a reason why they use "science" to push scams just like they did with the Ozone Hole and CFCs.

New Ozone Hole Scare Won't Save the Great Climate Hoax | PSI Intl

Freon opened up the Ozone Hole but only in the Southern Hemisphere and I could give a hoot less about the Southern Hemisphere. Freon was banned world wide in the eighties which made the hole smaller but not disappear. Use ammonia rather than Freon. Ammonia is natural and not man made.

 

[Crick]

So, an admitted hemispherist. You need to broaden your horizons.

 

[SSDD]

. Ozone depletion takes place at a greater rate with lower temperatures, so there is an annual cycle to the depletion.

Actually, there is an annual cycle to the formation of ozone...at least at the poles. Less is formed as the amount of solar energy entering the atmosphere decreases. Think, you idiot...what causes the formation of ozone? Answer, solar energy breaking apart O2 molecules some of which then form O3...what might cause less of it to form? Answer, fewer O2 molecules being broken and therefore less opportunity for O3 to form. Do you ever use your brain or does your cultish belief demand that you don't since it might call said beliefs into question?

 

[Crick]

And, on a percentage basis, how much has solar input changed in the last 40 years?

Looks like 1366.8 Wm^-2 to 1366.9 Wm^-2 or
a 0.0073105% INCREASE

Idiot

 

[SSDD]

And, on a percentage basis, how much has solar input changed in the last 40 years?

Looks like 1366.8 Wm^-2 to 1366.9 Wm^-2 or
a 0.0073105% INCREASE

Idiot

You really are an idiot skidmark....and one of the most dishonest people I have ever spoken to...let's see those those solar insulation figures and their seasonal variations over the poles.

What's the matter skidmark? Can't bring yourself to admit how O3 is formed? Can't bring yourself to acknowledge that when there is less solar entering the upper atmosphere over the poles during the winter, less O3 is being formed? Don't want to acknowledge that because O3 is a highly unstable molecule that readily reacts with Nitrogen, hydrogen and various natural compounds in the air it begins to degrade very quickly as the darkness wears on? Don't want to admit that N2 at 780,000ppm destroys far more than the 5 to 20ppm your CFC boogie man molecules break down?

You are a putz...easily fooled, and very very very slow to realize that you have been duped.

 

[Crick]

Why don't YOU show us that data? You were the one who claimed that changes in solar insolation were entirely repsonsible for ozone changes. It is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence of your claims. My inability to locate such material is hardly proof that it exists.

Asshole

 

[SSDD]

Why don't YOU show us that data? You were the one who claimed that changes in solar insolation were entirely repsonsible for ozone changes. It is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence of your claims. My inability to locate such material is hardly proof that it exists.

Asshole

Amazing that you are oblivious to such basic facts.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/twentyquestions/Q2.pdf

Clip: Stratospheric ozone. Stratospheric ozone is formed naturally by chemical reactions involving solar ultraviolet radiation (sunlight) and oxygen molecules, which make up 21% of the atmosphere. In the first step, solar ultraviolet radiation breaks apart one oxygen molecule (O2) to produce two oxygen atoms (2 O) (see Figure Q2-1). In the second step, each of these highly reactive atoms combines with an oxygen molecule to produce an ozone molecule (O3). These reactions occur continually whenever solar ultraviolet radiation is pres- ent in the stratosphere. As a result, the largest ozone produc- tion occurs in the tropical stratosphere.

Of course, being NASA, and in the business of duping all the potential useful idiots out there, they promoted man made chemicals that destroy ozone, but failed to mention the naturally occurring ones, in much greater volumes than CFC's that also react with O3 molecules and in doing so, destroy them.

Ozone

• 
  Clip: Natural forces can alter the amount of ozone. Remember, ozone is very unstable. It reacts easily with other atoms, and will easily donate that free oxygen atom (O1) to nitrogen gas (N2), hydrogen gas (H2), or chlorine (Cl). These atoms have always existed in the stratosphere, and they are released from a wide variety of sources (volcanoes, oceans, etc.)

Nitrogen, hydrogen, chlorine, and other natural compounds in the air are something over 780,000ppm in the atmosphere..CFC's are something less than 20ppm.

Another thing that they don't tell you, but that you should be able to figure out for yourself if you have any critical thinking skills at all is that the bulk of the work in absorbing incoming short wave radiation is done by O2. Oxygen being a very stable molecule requires a great deal of energy to break it down...O3 on the other hand is a very unstable molecule which requires very little to break it down. Sure it absorbs some UV before it breaks, but nothing like the amount absorbed by O2. And if you could make all the O3 disappear in an instant, as soon as the next short wave UV hit the next O2 molecules and broke them apart, O3 would start to reform.....O3 is a result, not a cause.

• 
  

 

[Crick]

The gap was not in the involvement of sunlight in the production of ozone. The data you claim but have still failed to produce is a significant change in the insolation of the polar regions responsible for changes in the pole's ozone levels.

 

[SSDD]

The gap was not in the involvement of sunlight in the production of ozone. The data you claim but have still failed to produce is a significant change in the insolation of the polar regions responsible for changes in the pole's ozone levels.

So you believe just as much solar radiation enters the atmosphere over the poles during their winter as enters the atmosphere in the lower latitudes? Is that what you are claiming skidmark?

Say it skidmark...Say it on the record before I shove your ignorance and stupidity down your throat with the facts. Or maybe you just might be able to work up enough intellectual wattage to check for yourself and then slink away before I heap even more public embarrassment on you.

 

[Crick]

I doubt there is anyone with an education above the 4th grade who believe seasonal changes are significant in this conversation. The data I posted covered 41 years. This is obviously bullshit you're putting out in an attempt to admit that you cannot present us data that show significant changes in polar insolation and might be CORRELATED with the changes brought about by the Montreal Protocol on chlorofluorocarbons.

Has it not occurred to you that if you've fooled ANYONE on this board with your nonsense, they are so patently stupid that to bask in their admiration is to mark yourself a fool?