Two Theories

[mamooth]

Use your brain for just a moment....if ozone has the long half life you claim, why is it not a well mixed gas in the atmosphere?

We'll try to start with the basics. Can you tell us why "the stratosphere" is called "the stratosphere"? I just ask because you don't seem aware of how the stratosphere works.

 

[SSDD]

Use your brain for just a moment....if ozone has the long half life you claim, why is it not a well mixed gas in the atmosphere?

We'll try to start with the basics. Can you tell us why "the stratosphere" is called "the stratosphere"? I just ask because you don't seem aware of how the stratosphere works.

It is not even a well mixed gas within the stratosphere admiral hairball. It is far more concentrated in the higher reaches of the stratosphere where most of it is formed (and then decays very quickly) and then gets less abundant further down into the stratosphere as less is formed due to there being less UV. If it had anything like the half life you claim, it would be well mixed within the stratosphere....it isn't. It is local to where it is formed because it is highly unstable and begins to decay within minutes of forming.

Like I said, you can't even use your brain if it means questioning your faith.

 

[SSDD]

I'll bite. What do YOU think caused the ocean's pH to go from 8.25 too 8.14? Oh, and let's see the math behind your claim if you please.

You say that the pH went from 8.25 to 8.14 as if it were fact. Why do I think it changed from this to that. What makes you think it changed that much? pH wasn't discovered till 1901. What would lead you to believe (as if it were fact) that it did go from 8.25 to 8.14. Let me guess...a computer model. A model based on.....what? Let me guess...a model designed to produce a specific answer.

You warmers are flatly pathetic.

 

[Crick]

It is not even a well mixed gas within the stratosphere. It is far more concentrated in the higher reaches of the stratosphere where most of it is formed (and then decays very quickly) and then gets less abundant further down into the stratosphere as less is formed due to there being less UV. If it had anything like the half life you claim, it would be well mixed within the stratosphere....it isn't. It is local to where it is formed because it is highly unstable and begins to decay within minutes of forming.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone

Location and production
The highest levels of ozone in the atmosphere are in the stratosphere, in a region also known as the ozone layer between about 10 km [which is where the stratosphere BEGINS]and 50 km above the surface (or between about 6 and 31 miles). However, even in this "layer" the ozone concentrations are only two to eight parts per million, so most of the oxygen there remains of the dioxygen type.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere

Ozone and temperature
Within this layer, temperature increases as altitude increases (see temperature inversion); the top of the stratosphere has a temperature of about 270 K (−3°C or 26.6°F), just slightly below the freezing point of water.[2] The stratosphere is layered in temperature because ozone (O3) here absorbs high energy UVB and UVC energy waves from the Sun and is broken down into atomic oxygen (O) and diatomic oxygen (O2). Atomic oxygen is found prevalent in the upper stratosphere due to the bombardment of UV light and the destruction of both ozone and diatomic oxygen. The mid stratosphere has less UV light passing through it, O and O2 are able to combine, and is where the majority of natural ozone is produced. It is when these two forms of oxygen recombine to form ozone that they release the heat found in the stratosphere. The lower stratosphere receives very low amounts of UVC, thus atomic oxygen is not found here and ozone is not formed (with heat as the byproduct).[verification needed] This vertical stratification, with warmer layers above and cooler layers below, makes the stratosphere dynamically stable: there is no regular convection and associated turbulence in this part of the atmosphere. The top of the stratosphere is called the stratopause, above which the temperature decreases with height.
*******************************************************

Ozone tends to the mid to lower portions of the stratosphere, it does NOT increase with increasing altitude and it's layered nature is NOT due to its half-life. It's predominance does NOT follow UV intensity.

 

[SSDD]

Thanks for the confirmation of my statement. Ozone is not even a well mixed gas within the stratosphere. The bulk of the ozone is found at the point where UV encounters the first high concentrations of O2. It then rapidly decays. If it had even a fraction of the half-life that admiral hairball claims, it would be well mixed within the stratosphere at least. Your graph clearly shows that it isn't.

You poor dupes have zero critical thinking skills. There is a reason it is not well mixed even within the atmospheric layer where it is formed. It decays far to quickly to become a well mixed gas. It is concentrated where it is be causes it is constantly being regenerated by UV and decaying almost immediately before it can spread through the surrounding atmosphere.

You fall for one hoax after another and another and another. All it has to do is conform to your political leanings and you are on the bandwagon whether the facts support the hoax or not.

Look at your graph abe and ask yourself why a molecule that has a half life as long as you and the admiral believe it to be would not be well mixed within the stratosphere. You might look for a graph showing O2 concentrations within the stratosphere and compare the concentration of O3 to the concentration of O2. You will find further confirmation of my claim.

 

[Crick]

Your batting record is 000 and I don't mean a thousand.

The extract I posted explained very clearly why ozone forms where it does. It's half-life is irrelevant. At high altitudes, where you claimed ozone concentration would be highest, there is virtually NONE because UV is TOO high and breaks down both O3 and O2. It doesn't form in the lower levels because UVC is too low and atomic oxygen is not present.

This reference states that the halflife of ozone is roughly 12 hours at room temperature and that it will increase with decreasing temperature and pressure. You've claimed that its halflife in the ozone layer is measured in minutes. Yet I seem to have missed you posting any reference to back up that claim. Got one

 

[SSDD]

Your batting record is 000 and I don't mean a thousand.

The extract I posted explained very clearly why ozone forms where it does. It's half-life is irrelevant. At high altitudes, where you claimed ozone concentration would be highest, there is virtually NONE because UV is TOO high and breaks down both O3 and O2. It doesn't form in the lower levels because UVC is too low and atomic oxygen is not present.

I am sure that it is irrelevant to you, since you can't bring yourself to question anything that supports your political position. If it had even a small fraction of the half life you guys claim, it would be well mixed within the stratosphere at least. It is not and you can't bring yourself to ask why. Even someone as biased as you could only come up with one reason that a gas that supposedly has a half life of weeks would not be well mixed at least within the atmospheric layer in which it forms. That answer is because the half life isn't anything like what you guys claim.

As to where I claimed it was, one would think that you would be bright enough to know that O2 concentrations would indicate where O3 concentrations would be highest. The further one goes into the stratosphere, the less O2 is available as your graph shows. You don't have an honest bone in your body, do you abe. Every time you post under the name crick, you are telling a lie and you are perfectly ok with that, aren't you?

reference states that the halflife of ozone is roughly 12 hours at room temperature and that it will increase with decreasing temperature and pressure. You've claimed that its halflife in the ozone layer is measured in minutes. Yet I seem to have missed you posting any reference to back up that claim. Got one

A refernece? While dozens of others state that the half life of an O3 molecule in the atmosphere is measured in minutes. That's like you claiming that CO2 resides in the atmosphere for centuries based on IPCC claims while dozens of other studies say that it has a residence time of less than a decade. You are the denier abe and your bias is so strong that you can't see it. Hell, even if it had a half life of 12 hours, it would be much more well mixed within the stratosphere than it is.

To acknowledge that it isn't well mixed even within the stratosphere is to admit that it doesn't have anything like that sort of half life and that is to admit that you fell for a hoax and you just can't do that, can you?

 

[Crick]

Explain how it is going to mix itself well into the upper stratosphere - where you claimed it had its highest concentration - when the intensity of UVC at that atlitude will not even allow it to exist. Feel free to use some of that critical thinking skill you believe yourself full of.

Full of something.

I'm off to work. Play with yourself.

 

[SSDD]

Explain how it is going to mix itself well into the upper stratosphere - where you claimed it had its highest concentration - when the intensity of UVC at that atlitude will not even allow it to exist. Feel free to use some of that critical thinking skill you believe yourself full of.

Full of something.

I'm off to work. Play with yourself.

Again you find that you must lie. You don't have an honest bone in your body, do you? Every time you post under the name crick you tell a lie but you are fine with that, aren't you. If you will lie about something so fundamental as your identity, you will lie about anything.

You are the one making the "upper" stratosphere caveat. I merely stated that it remains concentrated where it is formed which would be the upper limits of sufficient O2 to create a meaningful concentration of O3. Certainly not lower as UV decreases quickly as it passes through the O2 (which, along with N is what really protects us from UV). Check stratospheric concentrations of O2 and they will very closely correspond with stratospheric concentrations of O3. It doesn't move around much because it doesn't last long enough to move around before it decays and is then replenished.

So, which is it....half life so short that it hardly gets to exist before it decays or half life of more than 12 hours? You said:

That halflife of ozone at room temperature is roughly 12 hours and with lower pressures and temperatures one would find in the stratosphere, it gets longer.

How much longer? If it had a half life of 12 hours it would become a pretty well mixed gas. Clearly, it isn't. So are you now acknowledging that it does have a half life that is measured in minutes? If so, then you acknowledge the ozone hole fiasco was a meaningless hoax, if not, we are back to you trying to explain why O3 is not a well mixed gas at least in the stratosphere. If you are acknowledging a very short half life, maybe you should inform mammoth of that fact.

 

[mamooth]

A refernece? While dozens of others state that the half life of an O3 molecule in the atmosphere is measured in minutes.

Bullshit. You haven't shown us a single reference saying that, other than an offhand comment from an advertising brochure, and talk about how concentrated ozone in a flask behaves, which is a totally different thing that a few ppm of ozone in the atmosphere.

In contrast, I showed you the 1962 paper which specifically stated ozone residence time in the stratosphere was over 5 years. I specifically used that very old paper because it predates ozone depletion theory, and therefore can't be accused of having a socialist agenda. And also to show just how long this has been established science.

After you give us some actual references for the first time, you might want to explain why instruments measure ozone existing at the north and south poles during their long winters when it's completely dark. Reduced ozone, but still some. Your kook theory would predict requires that there must be zero ozone at such times, hence your kook theory is conclusively debunked.

 

[SSDD]

Bullshit. You haven't shown us a single reference saying that, other than an offhand comment from an advertising brochure.

Answer the question mammoth. If the half life of O3 is anything close to as long as you claim, why is it not a well mixed gas, at least in the stratosphere. crickham provided a chart showing concentrations by altitude and it isn't a well mixed gas. Are you claiming that the ari doesn't move up there?

It isn't well mixed because it decays so fast it has no time to become well mixed.

 

[mamooth]

That was answered in detail by Crick, and you ran from it. You always run, leaving your trademark trail of piddle behind you. Let's get back to my specific challenges, so you can run again for everyone's amusement.

Where are your references about ozone half life in the atmosphere? Given you claimed there were dozens, you should be able to find at least one.

Why are you ignoring the 1962 paper stating ozone half life is 5 years?

Why is there still ozone at the poles during the polar nights, given your theory says all the ozone must vanish?

 

[jc456]

That was answered in detail by Crick, and you ran from it. You always run, leaving your trademark trail of piddle behind you. Let's get back to my specific challenges, so you can run again for everyone's amusement.

Where are your references about ozone half life in the atmosphere? Given you claimed there were dozens, you should be able to find at least one.

Why are you ignoring the 1962 paper stating ozone half life is 5 years?

Why is there still ozone at the poles during the polar nights, given your theory says all the ozone must vanish?

So where is your proof it is there? Ah......probably don't have any, just spouting off like normal.

 

[Crick]

I'll bite. What do YOU think caused the ocean's pH to go from 8.25 too 8.14? Oh, and let's see the math behind your claim if you please.

You say that the pH went from 8.25 to 8.14 as if it were fact. Why do I think it changed from this to that. What makes you think it changed that much? pH wasn't discovered till 1901. What would lead you to believe (as if it were fact) that it did go from 8.25 to 8.14. Let me guess...a computer model. A model based on.....what? Let me guess...a model designed to produce a specific answer.

You warmers are flatly pathetic.

Someone around her is "flatly pathetic". Think for five seconds about ocean pH and calcareous sediments. Their are about a hundred ways to determine the record of ocean pH values by examination of different calcareous species found in sediment. On top of that, pH changes recently have taken place at a rate unprecedented in Earth's history. But you seem to think that means nothing.

Your rate of being wrong is really quite astounding.

And, HEY! Big Surprise! NO MODELS USED.

 

[mamooth]

So where is your proof it is there? Ah......probably don't have any, just spouting off like normal.

jc, things never turn out well for those who choose the path of the personal vendetta. Not because of anything I do, but because my stalkers usually end up self-destructing out of frustration and bitterness. Instead of obsessing about me, think about walking away from the computer and doing something useful.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO
2) from the atmosphere.[2] An estimated 30–40% of the carbon dioxide released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes.[3][4] To achieve chemical equilibrium, some of it reacts with the water to form carbonic acid. Some of these extra carbonic acid molecules react with a water molecule to give a bicarbonate ion and a hydronium ion, thus increasing ocean "acidity" (H+ ion concentration). Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[5] representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans.[6][7] Earth System Models project that within the last decade ocean acidity exceeded historical analogs [8] and in combination with other ocean biogeochemical changes could undermine the functioning of marine ecosystems and many ocean goods and services.[9]

REFERENCES
1) "Feely et al. - Evidence for upwelling of corrosive "acidified" water onto the Continental Shel". pmel.noaa.gov. Retrieved 2014-01-25.
2) Caldeira, K.; Wickett, M. E. (2003). "Anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH". Nature 425 (6956): 365–365. Bibcode:2001AGUFMOS11C0385C. doi:10.1038/425365a. PMID 14508477.
3) Millero, Frank J. (1995). "Thermodynamics of the carbon dioxide system in the oceans". Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 59 (4): 661–677. Bibcode:1995GeCoA..59..661M. doi:10.1016/0016-7037(94)00354-O.
4) Feely, R. A.; et al. (July 2004). "Impact of Anthropogenic CO2 on the CaCO3 System in the Oceans". Science 305 (5682): 362–366. Bibcode:2004Sci...305..362F. doi:10.1126/science.1097329. PMID 15256664.
5) Jacobson, M. Z. (2005). "Studying ocean acidification with conservative, stable numerical schemes for nonequilibrium air-ocean exchange and ocean equilibrium chemistry". Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres 110: D07302. Bibcode:2005JGRD..11007302J. doi:10.1029/2004JD005220.
6) Hall-Spencer, J. M.; Rodolfo-Metalpa, R.; Martin, S.; et al. (July 2008). "Volcanic carbon dioxide vents show ecosystem effects of ocean acidification". Nature 454 (7200): 96–9. Bibcode:2008Natur.454...96H. doi:10.1038/nature07051. PMID 18536730.
7) Report of the Ocean Acidification and Oxygen Working Group, International Council for Science's Scientific Committee on Ocean Research (SCOR) Biological Observatories Workshop
8) Mora, C (2013). "The projected timing of climate departure from recent variability". Nature 502: 183–187. doi:10.1038/nature12540.
9) Mora, C. et al. (2013). "Biotic and Human Vulnerability to Projected Changes in Ocean Biogeochemistry over the 21st Century". PLoS Biology 11: e1001682. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001682.
*************************************************************************

So, numbnuts, it took 30% more than was there in 1751.

and now, you stupid ass, tell us what you're going to DO with the number.

Gotta give you credit not only didn't you stop digging, you dug yourself down the Laurentian abyss.

Your articles state that 40% "of the CO2 released by humans" is what turning the oceans to gastric juice.

Don't you see its physically impossible for that to happen?

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Crick]

Gotta give you credit not only didn't you stop digging, you dug yourself down the Laurentian abyss.

Your articles state that 40% "of the CO2 released by humans" is what turning the oceans to gastric juice.

Don't you see its physically impossible for that to happen?

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

Explain yourself. Tell us why that's physically impossible.

 

[SSDD]

That was answered in detail by Crick, and you ran from it. You always run, leaving your trademark trail of piddle behind you. Let's get back to my specific challenges, so you can run again for everyone's amusement.

Where are your references about ozone half life in the atmosphere? Given you claimed there were dozens, you should be able to find at least one.

I gave you 5. That you don't like them is irrelevant.

are you ignoring the 1962 paper stating ozone half life is 5 years?

Because the observations prove that the claim is flatly impossible. If O3 even had a half life of 24 hours it would be a well mixed gas within the stratosphere at least. It isn't. Crickhams chart showed that O3 is not well mixed within even the stratosphere and when question as to why, he acknowledged that it's half life is so short that it can't become well mixed. It remains very close to where it is formed because it doesn't last long enough to move anywhere else.

is there still ozone at the poles during the polar nights, given your theory says all the ozone must vanish?

I gave you a 9 month video of the ozone "hole" over antarctica. It clearly shows the hole forming and growing as the winter progresses....precisely as I stated. No UV...no ozone.

 

[SSDD]

On top of that, pH changes recently have taken place at a rate unprecedented in Earth's history. But you seem to think that means nothing.

Of course it means something...but not what you think it means. Unprecedented in earth's history? Even when atmospheric CO2 levels were 1000ppm, 2000ppm, 3000ppm, 4000ppm, 5000ppm, 6000ppm, 7000ppm???

If the present rate of "acidification" is unprecedented at 400ppm and even surpasses "acidification" rates when atmospheric CO2 was nearly 20 times higher, then atmospheric CO2 is not the answer. If it isn't, then what is?

rate of being wrong is really quite astounding.

And your rate of being duped...and believing whatever nonsense your politically driven, bought and paid for climate scientists tell you is also astounding. How stupid do you have to be to believe anyone who tells you that the rate of "acidification:" is unprecedented in earth history due to atmospheric CO2 levels when at present, the atmosphere is positively starved for CO2 relative to earth history. You are so myopic, than you can't even see back past the ice age the earth is presently in, much less earth history. When someone tells you that anything is unprecedented due to the present CO2 concentration they are a liar since present CO2 is half of even the normal low in earth history.

 

[SSDD]

So where is your proof it is there? Ah......probably don't have any, just spouting off like normal.

jc, things never turn out well for those who choose the path of the personal vendetta. Not because of anything I do, but because my stalkers usually end up self-destructing out of frustration and bitterness. Instead of obsessing about me, think about walking away from the computer and doing something useful.

Which is why you are always getting kicked around the board. Only an idiot would claim that a gas that is not well mixed, at least within the atmospheric layer in which it is produced has a half life longer than an hour. If it were anything like what you claim, it would be well mixed and crickhams graph shows it isn't and he acknowledges that it isn't because it decays to fast to become well mixed. Sorry that bit of observational critical thinking escaped you. Perhaps if you weren't a religious zealot, you would catch on to such things.