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

[SSDD]

A question for those of you suggesting that CFCs are not responsible for decreasing ozone levels in the stratosphere: Do you believe that chlorine and bromine do NOT catalyze the O3 > O + O2 reaction?

The real question skidmark...the one that really matters is "if dangerous incoming UV energy is expended breaking O2 molecules apart, exactly what is O3 doing? It is a highly unstable molecule which doesn't take much UV energy to break compared to O2. So, it is actually O2 which is protecting us from the vast bulk of dangerous UV...O3 is a result of that protective process.

And chlorine, and bromine are produced naturally and like CFC's are a very small part of the atmosphere...unlike nitrogen which readily reacts with O3 and is 78% of the atmosphere...780,000 ppm vs what for chlorine, bromine and man made CFC's

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A question for those of you suggesting that CFCs are not responsible for decreasing ozone levels in the stratosphere: Do you believe that chlorine and bromine do NOT catalyze the O3 > O + O2 reaction?

The real question skidmark...the one that really matters is "if dangerous incoming UV energy is expended breaking O2 molecules apart, exactly what is O3 doing? It is a highly unstable molecule which doesn't take much UV energy to break compared to O2. So, it is actually O2 which is protecting us from the vast bulk of dangerous UV...O3 is a result of that protective process.

And chlorine, and bromine are produced naturally and like CFC's are a very small part of the atmosphere...unlike nitrogen which readily reacts with O3 and is 78% of the atmosphere...780,000 ppm vs what for chlorine, bromine and man made CFC's

So, have any of you geniuses upended the global scientific community yet?

What's that you say? No? You are publishing no science and have no education or experience on any of these fields whatsoever?

Okay, I'll check back.

 

[SSDD]

A question for those of you suggesting that CFCs are not responsible for decreasing ozone levels in the stratosphere: Do you believe that chlorine and bromine do NOT catalyze the O3 > O + O2 reaction?

The real question skidmark...the one that really matters is "if dangerous incoming UV energy is expended breaking O2 molecules apart, exactly what is O3 doing? It is a highly unstable molecule which doesn't take much UV energy to break compared to O2. So, it is actually O2 which is protecting us from the vast bulk of dangerous UV...O3 is a result of that protective process.

And chlorine, and bromine are produced naturally and like CFC's are a very small part of the atmosphere...unlike nitrogen which readily reacts with O3 and is 78% of the atmosphere...780,000 ppm vs what for chlorine, bromine and man made CFC's

So, have any of you geniuses upended the global scientific community yet?

What's that you say? No? You are publishing no science and have no education or experience on any of these fields whatsoever?

Okay, I'll check back.

Oh look...the puppet with no informed opinion of his own returns.

It is truly unfortunate that you believe science is inaccessible to anyone without a specific education in a given field. Especially something as simple as the ozone layer. You have been provided with all the information you could possibly need to understand the ozone layer. Here is an illustration that even a child could understand and yet, it explains the ozone layer well enough to grasp what is going on up there. The high energy UV from the sun breaks O2 molecules in to free O molecules...some of which react with O2 molecules forming O3 which is a highly unstable molecule with a half life of something between 8 hours and 30 minutes up in the open atmosphere of the stratosphere. O2 being a very stable molecule is quite difficult to break so a great deal of UV is converted into heat in the process of breaking them. O3 molecules are very unstable and readily react with nitrogen which is 780,000 ppm and chlorine and bromine, and of course, CFC's which exist up there at something between 5 and 20 ppm. In addition, a much smaller amount of UV can also break them than it takes to break an O2 molecule.

In terms of energy conversion, from UV to heat, O2 is what protects us from harmful UV...O3 is a result, not a cause. Here, is an explanation that you may be able to grasp the last few sentences of the first paragraph may be helpful..

Chapter 5 Section 3


Well, as simple as that is, it may well be way over your head. Unfortunate. Did you even graduate from high school?

And again, what is there to publish? You think a person can only grasp science if they are published? In your mind, is being published some sort of holy grail that bestows infallibility upon the author? All of the information you need to grasp what is happening in the ozone layer can be found in a junior high level earth science book.

 

[Crick]

You have not addressed the simple question. Do you believe that chlorine and bromine in the atmosphere acts as catalyzing agents for the breakdown of ozone. Hint: it's a fucking YES or NO question.

 

[SSDD]

You have not addressed the simple question. Do you believe that chlorine and bromine in the atmosphere acts as catalyzing agents for the breakdown of ozone. Hint: it's a fucking YES or NO question.

I count 5 posts in this thread so far where I have answered that question...What's the matter skidmark? Can't read?

 

[Crick]

I count none coward

 

[Crick]

What do you think would happen to the average daily levels of O3 if you increase the levels of catalytic breakdown agents five-fold?

 

[Crick]

 

[Crick]

 

[Crick]

 

[SSDD]

I count none coward

I guess that is because you really can't read. You just get more stupid as time goes on. Since you clearly don't have an adult around who is willing to help you read, here, let me lend you a hand.

#79 "Because ozone and free oxygen atoms are highly unstable, they react very easily with nitrogen, hydrogen, chlorine, and bromine compounds that are found naturally in Earth's atmosphere"

#153 "They fail to mention that in addition to naturally occurring chlorine and bromine compounds, O3 also readily reacts with Nitrogen at 780,000ppm, and hydrogen."

#156 "no mention at all that O3 readily reacts with natural chlorine and bromine compounds as well as Nitrogen which is over 3/4 of the atmosphere"

#163 " And chlorine, and bromine are produced naturally and like CFC's are a very small part of the atmosphere...unlike nitrogen which readily reacts with O3 and is 78% of the atmosphere...780,000 ppm vs what for chlorine, bromine and man made CFC's"

#165 " O3 molecules are very unstable and readily react with nitrogen which is 780,000 ppm and chlorine and bromine, and of course, CFC's which exist up there at something between 5 and 20 ppm."


You have ceased to even be interesting any more skid mark...Now you are just plain old stupid.. Hell, you don't even read. You just look at who posted it and decide from that whether you agree or not...and as to supporting your position..you don't even get close.

 

[SSDD]

What do you think would happen to the average daily levels of O3 if you increase the levels of catalytic breakdown agents five-fold?

Did you look at your graph...never mind, you can't even read a graph. Did you notice that CFC's increased from less than one to all the way up to slightly over three PARTS PER BILLION? PARTS PER BILLION you idiot.

Ozone readily reacts with nitrogen which is 780,000 parts per million in the stratosphere, hydrogen at .1ppm, Natural sources of chlorine and bromine also have much greater concentrations in the atmosphere. You are so easily fooled by the pretty colors...Try actually reading something once in a while. Engineer...what a laugh.

 

[SSDD]

Interesting, your graph has zero uncertainty range from 1964 to 1981 and then ever increasing uncertainly up to 2002....that sounds like good science in your mind?

 

[SSDD]

This graph just supports my arguments...Ozone production in the stratosphere is seasonal...and the fact that ozone production is driven by UV frequencies and the sun's output in any given frequency can vary from year to year, there is little surprise that there would be variations in ozone from year to year.

I took the time to find a source that provided some pretty good information regarding the formation of O3 in the upper atmosphere. The facts of O3 production, coupled with the fact that the "hole" isn't getting appreciably smaller just don't support the alarmist narrative.

The source is the Center for Coastal Physical Oceanography at ODU

Chapter 5 Section 3

" Ultraviolet light has wavelengths of 1 nm to 400 nm. If we imagine molecules as collections of tennis balls joined together by some adhesive material, then the photon energy needed to break the adhesive bond depends on the strength of the adhesive material. In the case of oxygen molecules, the bond is quite strong (e.g., the tennis balls are joined with Krazy glue). Hence, the photon required to break this bond must be very energetic. The chemical bonds between the oxygen atoms in ozone, however, are much weaker than those found in molecular oxygen (e.g., the tennis balls are joined with Scotch tape). As a result, less energetic photons, meaning those with longer wavelengths, can break apart ozone molecules. In order to understand how photons interact with oxygen and ozone molecules, we must understand the concept of absorption cross-section."

"Here, J is the photolysis rate coefficient, and [O3] is the ozone density. The photolysis rate generally depends upon the absorption cross-section of ozone and the number of incident photons at the necessary wavelengths. The number of photons in turn depends upon a number of other parameters: altitude, latitude, season, and time of day. All four of these parameters implicitly depend on the solar zenith angle (the angle between the rays of sunlight reaching Earth's surface and the overhead direction, known as the zenith)."

3.3.2 Ozone photolysis: dependence on latitude -- The dependence of photolysis rates on latitude is really just an extension of the altitude argument above. Figure 5.08 illustrates the dependence of photolysis on latitude for two observers: one near the equator and one much further poleward. Consider the position of the Sun in the sky at noontime over both locations. The Sun appears much higher in the sky to our tropical observer than to our observer at middle latitudes. Now consider the path that a ray of sunlight must travel to reach these two observers. The path through Earth's atmosphere is much longer in the middle latitudes than in the tropics. Recall that the important quantity in the altitude dependence was the number of ozone molecules overhead which had the chance to interact with the incident radiation. The longer the path that light must travel through the atmosphere, the more molecules the light will encounter, the more photons that get absorbed. So at a given altitude, we expect the photolysis rate to decrease as you move poleward away from the tropics.

3.3.3 Ozone photolysis: seasonal dependence -- Since the photolysis rate depends on the angle of the Sun, it's not surprising that photolysis rates also depend upon the seasons. The Sun is much higher in the sky overhead during the summer than during the winter, as demonstrated by Figure 5.09. The path length of light from the Sun through Earth's atmosphere will therefore be shorter in summer than winter. The shorter the path length at a given location, the less absorption of UV photons occurs, and the greater the photolysis rate. So at a given altitude, we expect photolysis rates to have maximum values during summer when the path length is shorter and minimum values during winter when the path length is longer. A seasonal cycle is therefore observed in photolysis rates.

This one should be particularly interesting to the hairball since she seems to think that the ozone layer maintains itself by some magical process when there is no UV entering the atmosphere on the dark side of the earth and that ozone lasts forever till a CFC molecule comes along to break it down.

3.3.4 Ozone photolysis: diurnal dependence -- Finally, a diurnal cycle must also exist, as illustrated in Figure 5.10. At night when there is no sunlight, photolysis rates drop to zero. In the morning and late afternoon, the Sun is lower in the sky than near noontime. The path lengths are therefore relatively long at sunrise and sunset and short at noontime. Not surprisingly, photolysis rates for a given altitude and latitude are faster at noontime than at sunrise and sunset.

Couple that with the time O3 molecules last in the atmosphere.

We've already defined the lifetime of an odd oxygen molecule as the amount of time between its creation and destruction. We will now explore the concept of the lifetime of a molecule in more detail.

Another way of thinking about the lifetime of a molecule is to view it as the average amount of time the molecule spends in the atmosphere before it either chemically reacts with another molecule or is broken down by sunlight (photolysis). Since we've already seen that photolysis is dependent upon a number of variables (altitude, latitude, season, and time of day) and that chemical reactions are dependent upon temperature and the amount of available reactants, the lifetimes of molecules are also going to vary with changes in any of these quantities. Using typical values for the daytime, middle latitude, lower stratosphere, we find a lifetime for O atoms of about 0.002 second and for O3 molecules of about 1000 seconds. These short lifetimes are telling us that ozone molecules don't survive very long (less than 20 minutes) and that O atoms are snapped up nearly the moment they are formed!

The above discussion may prompt us to ask: if ozone molecules have such short lifetimes, why isn't the atmosphere completely depleted of ozone? When sunlight is present and energetic photons are reaching the upper atmosphere, oxygen molecules are constantly torn apart, freeing O atoms. These O atoms react with O2 on very short timescales to form O3. So despite rapid photolysis of ozone, the creation of ozone is also rapid. The result is that, on average, the local amount of stratospheric ozone does not change very much.

Similarly, O atoms have even shorter lifetimes than ozone. Although they are around for only a fraction of a second, they are constantly being formed by photolysis of O2 (slow) and O3 (fast). In our simple Chapman atmosphere, the destruction of O3 results in the creation of an O atom, while the loss of the O atom involves the creation of O3. Hence, the combined number of O and O3 (i.e., odd oxygen) molecules changes very slowly, since they are constantly being swapped. Recalling our definition of odd oxygen, Ox, we have in terms of amounts,

[Ox] = [O] + [O3]
While Ox is useful conceptually, at most stratospheric altitudes the O+O2 reaction is so fast that the [O] concentrations are very small (less than 1 percent of the total odd oxygen), and we can approximate [OX] with [O3].

The overall lifetime of Ox (either as ozone or free oxygen atom) can be computed from our Chapman chemistry. OX has a lifetime of 2 months at about 32 km in the northern middle latitudes during spring. The lifetime of free oxygen at the same altitude is about 4/100ths of a second, while O3 has a lifetime of about 3100 seconds (nearly an hour). At 20 km, the lifetime of O3 is about 4200 seconds, while the lifetime of O is about 1/1000 of a second. This is schematically illustrated in Figure 5.05, which shows the slow steady production of ozone on the left of the figure, and the rapid exchange between O and O3 or the right hand side of the figure.

The facts of ozone formation, the life span of ozone molecules in the open atmosphere, and the fact that ozone readily reacts with nitrogen at 780,000ppm and your oh so deadly CFC's, according to your sources are somewhere around 3.2 PARTS PER BILLION, the alarmist narrative simply does not hold water.

 

[Dale Smith]

The idea that the treaty negotiated and enacted by George HW Bush was a precursor to the global warming movement whatever that means is so totally whacked as to defy logic and a rational excuse.

That started long before GHW Bush.....try the think tank group that met convened at a military bunker known as "Iron Mountain" in Massachusetts. The "Iron Mountain Report" has been reported to be a hoax a few years after it's release in 1967. Since I have read it and seeing how this rather detailed (and extremely boring and technical in many places) with predictions that in 1967 would seem to be that of science fiction? I can (and with tremendous confidence) attest to the authenticity of the document. I am further validated by the formation of the "Club Of Rome", an offshoot of the U.N where they developed the idea for "Sustainable Development" and "Limits To Growth" agenda where the idea for Agenda 21 (Agenda for the 21st Century) was planned. 21 years later at the U.N Rio conference in 1992, this plan was passed and signed off by all leaders of the developed nations.

Like the conclusions derived from the Iron Mountain Report, humanity would need to have a common enemy to unite against in order to persuade them that the only way to avoid extinction of humankind was to present an environmental threat. Pollution/ Climate Change/ Global Warming was declared as being the best case scenario and that it would require the acceleration of this threat by intentionally polluting the planet via clandestine means.

Don't take my word for it.....look up "Iron Mountain Report", look up the agenda of the Club of Rome and do a Google search of their quotes and in particular those of Maurice Strong.....

 

[SSDD]

The idea that the treaty negotiated and enacted by George HW Bush was a precursor to the global warming movement whatever that means is so totally whacked as to defy logic and a rational excuse.

That started long before GHW Bush.....try the think tank group that met convened at a military bunker known as "Iron Mountain" in Massachusetts. The "Iron Mountain Report" has been reported to be a hoax a few years after it's release in 1967. Since I have read it and seeing how this rather detailed (and extremely boring and technical in many places) with predictions that in 1967 would seem to be that of science fiction? I can (and with tremendous confidence) attest to the authenticity of the document. I am further validated by the formation of the "Club Of Rome", an offshoot of the U.N where they developed the idea for "Sustainable Development" and "Limits To Growth" agenda where the idea for Agenda 21 (Agenda for the 21st Century) was planned. 21 years later at the U.N Rio conference in 1992, this plan was passed and signed off by all leaders of the developed nations.

Like the conclusions derived from the Iron Mountain Report, humanity would need to have a common enemy to unite against in order to persuade them that the only way to avoid extinction of humankind was to present an environmental threat. Pollution/ Climate Change/ Global Warming was declared as being the best case scenario and that it would require the acceleration of this threat by intentionally polluting the planet via clandestine means.

Don't take my word for it.....look up "Iron Mountain Report", look up the agenda of the Club of Rome and do a Google search of their quotes and in particular those of Maurice Strong.....

Guess they got their idea from Orwell's 1984 published in the 1940's...The two story lines are remarkably similar.

 

[Crick]

You have zero evidence that the Club of Rome's "Limits to Growth" or the UN's Agenda 21 set the stage for the IPCC and concerns about global warming. The central discussion of both documents is resource depletion and the increasing demands of increasing population. I am certain all the whack jobs here who think the UN is trying to take over the world on behalf of socialist third world nations will turn a deaf ear, but we need to try.

Once again, the science doesn't care what you think. The world is going to do what the principles of chemistry and physics say it's going to do. In the face of increasing GHG emissions, the world will continue to warm at an unprecedented rate, sea levels will continue to rise and the mechanical, biological and ecological metasystems and infra structures on which human culture's current state of existence depend, will continue to fail.

 

[Dale Smith]

You have zero evidence that the Club of Rome's "Limits to Growth" or the UN's Agenda 21 set the stage for the IPCC and concerns about global warming. The central discussion of both documents is resource depletion and the increasing demands of increasing population. I am certain all the whack jobs here who think the UN is trying to take over the world on behalf of socialist third world nations will turn a deaf ear, but we need to try.

Once again, the science doesn't care what you think. The world is going to do what the principles of chemistry and physics say it's going to do. In the face of increasing GHG emissions, the world will continue to warm at an unprecedented rate, sea levels will continue to rise and the mechanical, biological and ecological metasystems and infra structures on which human culture's current state of existence depend, will continue to fail.

I have their own quotes going back to the early 70's. I can post the section of the Iron Mountain Report that specifically mentions how an environmental crisis could be used as an existential threat thus uniting them to acquiesce to a world government.

Help me, help you.......

 

[Dale Smith]

Here is a post that I wrote in 2015...it's very detailed. Let me know if you have questions.....

This global/climate change is all b.s. This was a plan thought up by the think tank group that wrote the Iron Mountain Report back in the mid to late 60's. The Club Of Rome, an offshoot of the U.N was created and commissioned by the Committee of 300 to start pushing what the architects of the Iron Mountain Report said must happen if global governance was to become a reality. Here is a quote from the final draft: "It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution.However unlikely some of the possible alternate enemies we have mentioned may seem, we must emphasize that one must be found, of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration.... It is more probable, in our judgment, that such a threat will have to be invented, rather than developed from unknown conditions."

Now here is a quote from the Club Of Rome in 1972 : "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."

Maurice Strong, Club Of Rome member and a once high ranking official with the U.N had some very alarming things to say as well:“Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?”
"Current lifestyle and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning and suburban housing – are not sustainable. A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations".

These U.N funded scientists have already been busted for fudging numbers and manipulating the numbers to try and make a case that there is an increase in temperatures when the opposite is happening due to the geo-engineering that has been going on in earnest since at least 1997. Using aerosol spraying in conjunction with ionospheric heaters, they have been creating weird weather anomalies that they then blame on "climate change" because they had to stop using "global warming" because it didn't fit the narrative. Wake up and open your eyes and realize that you are being played for a sucker and none of this will bode well for any of us if these draconian rules and regulations are placed on us and all in the name of saving "Mother Earth". I suggest that you do a little research on Agenda 21 and look at the map that they propose for America....lots of little blue squares where the serfs will be allowed to live while 50 percent of America is off limits. This is real and this is happening.
They have been using geoengineering to create these weird weather patterns by spraying nano-particulates of barium, strontium and aluminum into the upper atmosphere and then using ionospheric heaters to heat up those particles in order to manipulate the jet stream. They can only create high pressure zones but can use them to squash low pressure zones. Weather modification has been a goal of the military industrial complex since the 1940's to use it as a force multiplier. You should listen to me because I have dedicated thousands upon thousands of hours reading everything I can get my hands on and researching it.

 

[Crick]

Q: What do you call someone who uses this as an argument: "due to the geo-engineering that has been going on in earnest since at least 1997. Using aerosol spraying in conjunction with ionospheric heaters, they have been creating weird weather anomalies that they then blame on "climate change" because they had to stop using "global warming" because it didn't fit the narrative"

A: Whack-job