The Complexity of Climate Change

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
YiuYou seem to have confused the ozone layer with the ionosphere. A real radioman would know that radio waves are reflected by the ionosphere (parts of which do indeed disappear at night), not the ozone layer (which doesn't disappear at night).

You seem to have the idea that someone give's a shit. I will say that the last time I met a moron like you he was using a walker and couldn't look straight forward.

You don't give a shit about what is true and what is false. You're just posting here because you have been banned from everywhere else

That much we do understand.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
YiuYou seem to have confused the ozone layer with the ionosphere. A real radioman would know that radio waves are reflected by the ionosphere (parts of which do indeed disappear at night), not the ozone layer (which doesn't disappear at night).

You seem to have the idea that someone give's a shit. I will say that the last time I met a moron like you he was using a walker and couldn't look straight forward.

When your opponent gives up arguing completely and descends into pure abuse, you know you've won the argument. Well done me

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

According to this site:

http://www.lenntech.com/library/ozone/decomposition/ozone-decomposition.htm

the half-life of ozone in air at a temperature of -50°C (the approximate temperature of the ozone layer) is 3 months, not a few hours.

This actual fact rather scuppers your argument, does it not?

Not at all. The temperature of the lower part of the stratosphere, where ozone is produced, can be as low as-80degC. The top, is just below freezing, around -5degC. You also failed to account for the pressure change and the additional UV-C light I already mentioned.

The pressure makes no difference to the half-life, and there is no UV-C during the night. The ozone layer does not vanish during the night.

Yes it does. Any radioman know that and USES that fact in his work.

As soon as the Sun goes down, ozone depletion begins. During the longer winter nights, ozone depletion is almost complete, except for a thin layer at the top called the F layer.

You seem to have confused the ozone layer with the ionosphere. A real radioman would know that radio waves are reflected by the ionosphere (parts of which do indeed disappear at night), not the ozone layer (which doesn't disappear at night).

Radio waves are reflected by BOTH. The reflection is dependent on the frequency used.

A narrow band of frequencies are not reflected by EITHER. These are the so-called 'space' frequencies. They are the only frequencies available to communicate with satellites and other spacecraft.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

According to this site:

http://www.lenntech.com/library/ozone/decomposition/ozone-decomposition.htm

the half-life of ozone in air at a temperature of -50°C (the approximate temperature of the ozone layer) is 3 months, not a few hours.

This actual fact rather scuppers your argument, does it not?

Not at all. The temperature of the lower part of the stratosphere, where ozone is produced, can be as low as-80degC. The top, is just below freezing, around -5degC. You also failed to account for the pressure change and the additional UV-C light I already mentioned.

The pressure makes no difference to the half-life, and there is no UV-C during the night. The ozone layer does not vanish during the night.

Yes it does. Any radioman know that and USES that fact in his work.

As soon as the Sun goes down, ozone depletion begins. During the longer winter nights, ozone depletion is almost complete, except for a thin layer at the top called the F layer.

You seem to have confused the ozone layer with the ionosphere. A real radioman would know that radio waves are reflected by the ionosphere (parts of which do indeed disappear at night), not the ozone layer (which doesn't disappear at night).

Radio waves are reflected by BOTH. The reflection is dependent on the frequency used.

A narrow band of frequencies are not reflected by EITHER. These are the so-called 'space' frequencies. They are the only frequencies available to communicate with satellites and other spacecraft.

No, that is simply wrong.

The ozone layer has no effect on radio waves. It is the ionosphere that affects radio waves (because it is ionized by solar radiation), and it is part of the ionosphere, not the ozone layer, that is known as the F layer. The ionosphere allows radio waves with frequencies greater than about 100 MHz to pass though, but reflects or absorbs frequencies below this.

James_ wrote:
Mind if I ask what ham radios have to do with climate change ? That seems to be all you're discussing.

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Yes it does. Any radioman know that and USES that fact in his work.

As soon as the Sun goes down, ozone depletion begins. During the longer winter nights, ozone depletion is almost complete, except for a thin layer at the top called the F layer.

Fcuk me you are a radioman now.

I don't think radio waves work the way you think they work, muppet.

Yes...I am a radioman...a pilot...an aircraft builder and designer...an instrumentation engineer...a musician...an aircraft and car mechanic...a home owner...an electrical and electronics engineer...a scientist...a welder...a software engineer...a father...and a whole host of other things.

You have a problem with that...obviously.

James_ wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

According to this site:

http://www.lenntech.com/library/ozone/decomposition/ozone-decomposition.htm

the half-life of ozone in air at a temperature of -50°C (the approximate temperature of the ozone layer) is 3 months, not a few hours.

This actual fact rather scuppers your argument, does it not?

Not at all. The temperature of the lower part of the stratosphere, where ozone is produced, can be as low as-80degC. The top, is just below freezing, around -5degC. You also failed to account for the pressure change and the additional UV-C light I already mentioned.

The pressure makes no difference to the half-life, and there is no UV-C during the night. The ozone layer does not vanish during the night.

Yes it does. Any radioman know that and USES that fact in his work.

As soon as the Sun goes down, ozone depletion begins. During the longer winter nights, ozone depletion is almost complete, except for a thin layer at the top called the F layer.

You seem to have confused the ozone layer with the ionosphere. A real radioman would know that radio waves are reflected by the ionosphere (parts of which do indeed disappear at night), not the ozone layer (which doesn't disappear at night).

Radio waves are reflected by BOTH. The reflection is dependent on the frequency used.

A narrow band of frequencies are not reflected by EITHER. These are the so-called 'space' frequencies. They are the only frequencies available to communicate with satellites and other spacecraft.

No, that is simply wrong.

The ozone layer has no effect on radio waves. It is the ionosphere that affects radio waves (because it is ionized by solar radiation), and it is part of the ionosphere, not the ozone layer, that is known as the F layer. The ionosphere allows radio waves with frequencies greater than about 100 MHz to pass though, but reflects or absorbs frequencies below this.

Mind if I ask what ham radios have to do with climate change ? That seems to be all you're discussing.

spot wrote:

James_ wrote:
Mind if I ask what ham radios have to do with climate change ? That seems to be all you're discussing.

The simple reason is that ITN bought up the subject whilst going down a tangent about CFCs, To anyone with a passing knowledge of radio his views on the subject, despite his obvious confidence in his own infallibility are obviously and hilariously wrong.

Into the Night wrote:


Radio signals are reflected by ozone.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:


Radio signals are reflected by ozone.

Bwhahaahahahahaha You should ask for your money back from whatever radio school gave you your radioman certificate.

spot wrote:
Listen muppet


I know a bit more about radios then I'm letting on did I tell you I used to repair mobile phones, it's not much but its enough training to expose your bullshit. Despite whatever half remembered obscure rhetorical arguments you think I'm employing the fact is your statement was idiotic and deserving of ridicule.

Into the Night wrote:
Radio signals are reflected by ozone.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Radio signals are reflected by ozone.

That is simply wrong. You need freely mobile, charged particles to reflect radio waves, and these are only found in substantial numbers in the tenuous ionosphere. The ozone layer is far too dense for any free electrons and ions to last long before recombination. Hence the ozone layer cannot reflect radio waves!

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Radio signals are reflected by ozone.

That is simply wrong. You need freely mobile, charged particles to reflect radio waves, and these are only found in substantial numbers in the tenuous ionosphere. The ozone layer is far too dense for any free electrons and ions to last long before recombination. Hence the ozone layer cannot reflect radio waves!

Wrong, otherwise, directed antennas wouldn't work.

Oh...I forgot...you two have to gang up on me because you are COMPELLED to by the Church of Global Warming.

Any other illiterates wanting a piece of me?

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Radio signals are reflected by ozone.

That is simply wrong. You need freely mobile, charged particles to reflect radio waves, and these are only found in substantial numbers in the tenuous ionosphere. The ozone layer is far too dense for any free electrons and ions to last long before recombination. Hence the ozone layer cannot reflect radio waves!

Wrong, otherwise, directed antennas wouldn't work.

Oh...I forgot...you two have to gang up on me because you are COMPELLED to by the Church of Global Warming.

Any other illiterates wanting a piece of me?

Go on then, explain why a directed antenna wouldn't work if the ozone layer didn't reflect radio waves.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Radio signals are reflected by ozone.

That is simply wrong. You need freely mobile, charged particles to reflect radio waves, and these are only found in substantial numbers in the tenuous ionosphere. The ozone layer is far too dense for any free electrons and ions to last long before recombination. Hence the ozone layer cannot reflect radio waves!

Wrong, otherwise, directed antennas wouldn't work.

Oh...I forgot...you two have to gang up on me because you are COMPELLED to by the Church of Global Warming.

Any other illiterates wanting a piece of me?

Go on then, explain why a directed antenna wouldn't work if the ozone layer didn't reflect radio waves.

You have lost context. Do you want to try to regain it or shall we just abandon any further pretense of you following the conversation here and now?

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
Listen muppet


I know a bit more about radios then I'm letting on did I tell you I used to repair mobile phones, it's not much but its enough training to expose your bullshit. Despite whatever half remembered obscure rhetorical arguments you think I'm employing the fact is your statement was idiotic and deserving of ridicule.

Not enough training dude. You couldn't pass the FCC exam. Fortunately, you don't need to to work on mobile phone repair.

You really have no clue.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
Listen muppet


I know a bit more about radios then I'm letting on did I tell you I used to repair mobile phones, it's not much but its enough training to expose your bullshit. Despite whatever half remembered obscure rhetorical arguments you think I'm employing the fact is your statement was idiotic and deserving of ridicule.

Not enough training dude. You couldn't pass the FCC exam. Fortunately, you don't need to to work on mobile phone repair.

You really have no clue.

Although it is relatively simple I am absolutely confident that you have no idea what is necessary to repair a mobile phone.

The point is I have sufficient training to know instinctively that you are talking rubbish.

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
Listen muppet


I know a bit more about radios then I'm letting on did I tell you I used to repair mobile phones, it's not much but its enough training to expose your bullshit. Despite whatever half remembered obscure rhetorical arguments you think I'm employing the fact is your statement was idiotic and deserving of ridicule.

Not enough training dude. You couldn't pass the FCC exam. Fortunately, you don't need to to work on mobile phone repair.

You really have no clue.

Although it is relatively simple I am absolutely confident that you have no idea what is necessary to repair a mobile phone.

The point is I have sufficient training to know instinctively that you are talking rubbish.

Ooooo. I am impressed that YOU know such incredibly complicated stuff like that!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
Listen muppet


I know a bit more about radios then I'm letting on did I tell you I used to repair mobile phones, it's not much but its enough training to expose your bullshit. Despite whatever half remembered obscure rhetorical arguments you think I'm employing the fact is your statement was idiotic and deserving of ridicule.

Not enough training dude. You couldn't pass the FCC exam. Fortunately, you don't need to to work on mobile phone repair.

You really have no clue.

Although it is relatively simple I am absolutely confident that you have no idea what is necessary to repair a mobile phone.

The point is I have sufficient training to know instinctively that you are talking rubbish.

Ooooo. I am impressed that YOU know such incredibly complicated stuff like that!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You aren't impressed? I guess I need a better imagination like yours and I could be anything that I daydream.

Into the Night wrote:

I am what I said I am..though you don't believe it. That's your choice. I really suggest you go study radio propagation theory and the history of the BBC sometime though.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

I am what I said I am..though you don't believe it. That's your choice. I really suggest you go study radio propagation theory and the history of the BBC sometime though.

You are correct I don't believe you, you have not demonstrated competence in what you say you are an expert in and have shown you have no understanding, suck it up you are an internet loon.

History of the BBC? that's random but I will ask, what the hell do you think bringing that up will accomplish?

...deleted image...

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

I am what I said I am..though you don't believe it. That's your choice. I really suggest you go study radio propagation theory and the history of the BBC sometime though.

You are correct I don't believe you, you have not demonstrated competence in what you say you are an expert in and have shown you have no understanding, suck it up you are an internet loon.

History of the BBC? that's random but I will ask, what the hell do you think bringing that up will accomplish?

...deleted image...

You reveal your illiteracy by having to ask, stupid.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

I am what I said I am..though you don't believe it. That's your choice. I really suggest you go study radio propagation theory and the history of the BBC sometime though.

You are correct I don't believe you, you have not demonstrated competence in what you say you are an expert in and have shown you have no understanding, suck it up you are an internet loon.

History of the BBC? that's random but I will ask, what the hell do you think bringing that up will accomplish?

...deleted image...

You reveal your illiteracy by having to ask, stupid.

Marconi discovered the effect we are discussing before the BBC came into existence, as you well know as a radioman, or did not know till I name dropped him because you were bullshiting all the time.

spot wrote:
Well I'm never going to guess what the hell you are on about because your version of reality is different to what I know and can be confirmed.

James_ wrote:
Hi All,
Am new here but have my own thoughts based on research that I have done. And so everyone will understand my position there is what NOAA has posted on it's website and it seems or appears to be that they are quoting the IPCC.
Why this specific information is something that I find interesting is because I have been pursuing an experiment for the last couple of years that would help scientists to understand the link in Atmospheric Chemistry that is missing.
And as I think everyone knows the current belief is that Atmospheric Forcing does not occur in the tropopause. I think successfully demonstrating this would change the discussion about climate change.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases. Latitudinal and altitudinal responses are expected to vary. Note that scenarios used in IPCC consider a future with all three major greenhouse gases increasing and thus it is important to assess the net balance of these perturbations on stratospheric ozone.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html

This part is especially interesting because fluorocarbons were banned in 1987 because of how much they damaged the ozone layer.

>> The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases. <<

edited to add; this link is to some of the reasons we need to protect the ozone layer. https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/health-and-environmental-effects-ozone-layer-depletion

[b]spot wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:


There are some similarities or overlap in your work and that of Doctors Chiodo and Polvani in their paper "Reduction of Climate Sensitivity to Solar Forcing due to Stratospheric Ozone Feedback" Have you read it? I could only see the abstract.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0721.1#/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0721.1

James_ wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:


There are some similarities or overlap in your work and that of Doctors Chiodo and Polvani in their paper "Reduction of Climate Sensitivity to Solar Forcing due to Stratospheric Ozone Feedback" Have you read it? I could only see the abstract.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0721.1#/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0721.1

Frescomexico,
Conformity can be good :-)
I am glad that I am not the only person who thinks that there is more to the ozone layer than has been said.
That's where I think something like this matters and this goes back to the link that you shared. And if Doctors Chiodo and Polvani are right then this can affect glacial melt and is one reason for the experiment that I am pursuing.


Jim

edited to add a link about some of the chemicals that are harming the ozone layer. http://www.bcairquality.ca/101/ozone-depletion-causes.html

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:


There are some similarities or overlap in your work and that of Doctors Chiodo and Polvani in their paper "Reduction of Climate Sensitivity to Solar Forcing due to Stratospheric Ozone Feedback" Have you read it? I could only see the abstract.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0721.1#/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0721.1

Frescomexico,
Conformity can be good :-)
I am glad that I am not the only person who thinks that there is more to the ozone layer than has been said.
That's where I think something like this matters and this goes back to the link that you shared. And if Doctors Chiodo and Polvani are right then this can affect glacial melt and is one reason for the experiment that I am pursuing.


Jim

edited to add a link about some of the chemicals that are harming the ozone layer. http://www.bcairquality.ca/101/ozone-depletion-causes.html

None of these are harming the ozone layer. Just because a chemical has chlorine or bromine in it does not make it destructive to the ozone layer.

The ozone layer isn't depleting. It fades away each night and is rebuilt each day. As long as you have the Sun and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. You can't stop it.

James_ wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:


There are some similarities or overlap in your work and that of Doctors Chiodo and Polvani in their paper "Reduction of Climate Sensitivity to Solar Forcing due to Stratospheric Ozone Feedback" Have you read it? I could only see the abstract.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0721.1#/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0721.1

Frescomexico,
Conformity can be good :-)
I am glad that I am not the only person who thinks that there is more to the ozone layer than has been said.
That's where I think something like this matters and this goes back to the link that you shared. And if Doctors Chiodo and Polvani are right then this can affect glacial melt and is one reason for the experiment that I am pursuing.


Jim

edited to add a link about some of the chemicals that are harming the ozone layer. http://www.bcairquality.ca/101/ozone-depletion-causes.html

Frescomexico wrote:

You are way ahead of me on this ozone layer subject. I'm just a refrigeration technician. But, since the health of the layer so affects my profession, and since I live in the tropics (20 N Lat), the layer's influence on my climate is important, so I'll keep following your thread.

Thanks, Don

James_ wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

You are way ahead of me on this ozone layer subject. I'm just a refrigeration technician. But, since the health of the layer so affects my profession, and since I live in the tropics (20 N Lat), the layer's influence on my climate is important, so I'll keep following your thread.

Thanks, Don

Thanks for the compliment. Right now everything is in a wait and see mode. I have contacted scientists and the media to try to get interest in seeing an experiment performed. I am hoping a local university will get involved. At the moment atmospheric forcing is not considered to be happening and all climate change models only allow for CO2 to change through photosynthesis.
I have a medical situation that I am trying to have resolved. Once that happens then if need be I could see about doing the experiment myself.


Jim

p.s., on a different thought, the rain forest on the South American continent may have vegetation that absorbs water vapor in the atmosphere and drains it through it's root system. Because of how thick the vegetation can be, it makes me wonder how water gets to plants underneath the canopy.
If such plants exist then they may help to restore ground water in other places.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:


There are some similarities or overlap in your work and that of Doctors Chiodo and Polvani in their paper "Reduction of Climate Sensitivity to Solar Forcing due to Stratospheric Ozone Feedback" Have you read it? I could only see the abstract.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0721.1#/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0721.1

Frescomexico,
Conformity can be good :-)
I am glad that I am not the only person who thinks that there is more to the ozone layer than has been said.
That's where I think something like this matters and this goes back to the link that you shared. And if Doctors Chiodo and Polvani are right then this can affect glacial melt and is one reason for the experiment that I am pursuing.


Jim

edited to add a link about some of the chemicals that are harming the ozone layer. http://www.bcairquality.ca/101/ozone-depletion-causes.html

None of these are harming the ozone layer. Just because a chemical has chlorine or bromine in it does not make it destructive to the ozone layer.

The ozone layer isn't depleting. It fades away each night and is rebuilt each day. As long as you have the Sun and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. You can't stop it.

You need to do some research.

Frescomexico wrote:

James_ wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:


There are some similarities or overlap in your work and that of Doctors Chiodo and Polvani in their paper "Reduction of Climate Sensitivity to Solar Forcing due to Stratospheric Ozone Feedback" Have you read it? I could only see the abstract.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0721.1#/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0721.1

Frescomexico,
Conformity can be good :-)
I am glad that I am not the only person who thinks that there is more to the ozone layer than has been said.
That's where I think something like this matters and this goes back to the link that you shared. And if Doctors Chiodo and Polvani are right then this can affect glacial melt and is one reason for the experiment that I am pursuing.


Jim

edited to add a link about some of the chemicals that are harming the ozone layer. http://www.bcairquality.ca/101/ozone-depletion-causes.html

You are way ahead of me on this ozone layer subject. I'm just a refrigeration technician. But, since the health of the layer so affects my profession, and since I live in the tropics (20 N Lat), the layer's influence on my climate is important, so I'll keep following your thread.

Thanks, Don

James_ wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

You are way ahead of me on this ozone layer subject. I'm just a refrigeration technician. But, since the health of the layer so affects my profession, and since I live in the tropics (20 N Lat), the layer's influence on my climate is important, so I'll keep following your thread.

Thanks, Don

Thanks for the compliment. Right now everything is in a wait and see mode. I have contacted scientists and the media to try to get interest in seeing an experiment performed. I am hoping a local university will get involved. At the moment atmospheric forcing is not considered to be happening and all climate change models only allow for CO2 to change through photosynthesis.
I have a medical situation that I am trying to have resolved. Once that happens then if need be I could see about doing the experiment myself.


Jim

p.s., on a different thought, the rain forest on the South American continent may have vegetation that absorbs water vapor in the atmosphere and drains it through it's root system. Because of how thick the vegetation can be, it makes me wonder how water gets to plants underneath the canopy.
If such plants exist then they may help to restore ground water in other places.

spot wrote:Of course you are,

And anything else you are daydreaming about as well.