The Complexity of Climate Change

James_ wrote:

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

Into the Night wrote:
Ozone's biggest threat is ozone. The stuff self destructs to oxygen after a few hours. That process is aided by UV-C sunlight at the top of the stratosphere.

The ozone layer is depleted every night. It is rebuilt every day. As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.

The CFC ban involved R-12 refrigerant, a substance that Dow Chemical was losing the patent on. They created the 'Ozone Scare' to force everyone onto R-134a, the new substance they just got a patent for.

It was Dow Chemical using the government and the news media to maintain its monopoly.

CFC's are heavier than air. They are like propane. They tend to go down, not up. They are also inert. As a CFC, they will not affect ozone. They must be broken up first.

The component supposedly that DOES affect the ozone layer in CFC's is chlorine. This is a VERY reactive substance. Free chlorine will react with something else before it gets anywhere near the ozone layer. The only 'crisis' was a politically manufactured one.

NOAA basically copies the IPCC graph. They are not capable of producing a graph of global temperatures. No one is. We don't have sufficient instrumentation to produce such a graph. We never have.

Into the Night wrote:
Ozone's biggest threat is ozone. The stuff self destructs to oxygen after a few hours. That process is aided by UV-C sunlight at the top of the stratosphere.

The ozone layer is depleted every night. It is rebuilt every day. As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.

The CFC ban involved R-12 refrigerant, a substance that Dow Chemical was losing the patent on. They created the 'Ozone Scare' to force everyone onto R-134a, the new substance they just got a patent for.

It was Dow Chemical using the government and the news media to maintain its monopoly.

CFC's are heavier than air. They are like propane. They tend to go down, not up. They are also inert. As a CFC, they will not affect ozone. They must be broken up first.

The component supposedly that DOES affect the ozone layer in CFC's is chlorine. This is a VERY reactive substance. Free chlorine will react with something else before it gets anywhere near the ozone layer. The only 'crisis' was a politically manufactured one.

NOAA basically copies the IPCC graph. They are not capable of producing a graph of global temperatures. No one is. We don't have sufficient instrumentation to produce such a graph. We never have.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Ozone's biggest threat is ozone. The stuff self destructs to oxygen after a few hours. That process is aided by UV-C sunlight at the top of the stratosphere.

The ozone layer is depleted every night. It is rebuilt every day. As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.

The CFC ban involved R-12 refrigerant, a substance that Dow Chemical was losing the patent on. They created the 'Ozone Scare' to force everyone onto R-134a, the new substance they just got a patent for.

It was Dow Chemical using the government and the news media to maintain its monopoly.

CFC's are heavier than air. They are like propane. They tend to go down, not up. They are also inert. As a CFC, they will not affect ozone. They must be broken up first.

The component supposedly that DOES affect the ozone layer in CFC's is chlorine. This is a VERY reactive substance. Free chlorine will react with something else before it gets anywhere near the ozone layer. The only 'crisis' was a politically manufactured one.

NOAA basically copies the IPCC graph. They are not capable of producing a graph of global temperatures. No one is. We don't have sufficient instrumentation to produce such a graph. We never have.

That's a fantastic post, I of course mean fantastic in the sense that it's a product of fantasy.

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Ozone's biggest threat is ozone. The stuff self destructs to oxygen after a few hours. That process is aided by UV-C sunlight at the top of the stratosphere.

The ozone layer is depleted every night. It is rebuilt every day. As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.

The CFC ban involved R-12 refrigerant, a substance that Dow Chemical was losing the patent on. They created the 'Ozone Scare' to force everyone onto R-134a, the new substance they just got a patent for.

It was Dow Chemical using the government and the news media to maintain its monopoly.

CFC's are heavier than air. They are like propane. They tend to go down, not up. They are also inert. As a CFC, they will not affect ozone. They must be broken up first.

The component supposedly that DOES affect the ozone layer in CFC's is chlorine. This is a VERY reactive substance. Free chlorine will react with something else before it gets anywhere near the ozone layer. The only 'crisis' was a politically manufactured one.

NOAA basically copies the IPCC graph. They are not capable of producing a graph of global temperatures. No one is. We don't have sufficient instrumentation to produce such a graph. We never have.

That's a fantastic post, I of course mean fantastic in the sense that it's a product of fantasy.

You simply cannot contain your ignorance can you?

"One of the founding fathers of the French ecological movement and a former minister for the prevention of major natural and technological risks, Tazieff is well qualified to talk about environmental issues. He has been adviser to most of France's environment ministers over the past decade. Despite this he asserts that Green parties are running a "campaign of deliberate, untruthful scaremongering," and the imaginary problems they espouse have led to millions of pounds being directed towards "environmental windmills" rather than the real threats of pollution. It seemed strange to Tazieff that an ozone hole situated above the Antarctic was blamed on CFC gases, when most deodorants were sprayed in the northern hemisphere. He was surprised to discover an article in the 1950 Annals of Geophysics reporting the existence of ozone holes above Norway in 1926 - years before CFC's were even dreamt of - and was astounded to find that the hole above the Antarctic was not the recent phenomenon ecologists claimed it to be. It was actually discovered as far back as 1957, he says, by the English scientist, Gordon Dobson, but it was only in the mid-eighties that satellite photos began to highlight it in a rather spectacular way.
Tazieff believes that these dramatic images have been used to hoodwink the public. He believes that the hole is due to the low levels of ultraviolet rays (which are necessary to produce ozone) over the Antarctic at the end of the year, and that the large and swift movements of air masses around the continent also play their part. On September 5, 1987, there was a relatively large reduction of 0.1 per cent in the levels of ozone over a surface of three million square kilometres near the Palmer peninsula in the Antarctic. Tazieff is convinced there is no way that the CFCs could have broken down so much ozone in such a short space of time."

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Ozone's biggest threat is ozone. The stuff self destructs to oxygen after a few hours. That process is aided by UV-C sunlight at the top of the stratosphere.

The ozone layer is depleted every night. It is rebuilt every day. As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.

The CFC ban involved R-12 refrigerant, a substance that Dow Chemical was losing the patent on. They created the 'Ozone Scare' to force everyone onto R-134a, the new substance they just got a patent for.

It was Dow Chemical using the government and the news media to maintain its monopoly.

CFC's are heavier than air. They are like propane. They tend to go down, not up. They are also inert. As a CFC, they will not affect ozone. They must be broken up first.

The component supposedly that DOES affect the ozone layer in CFC's is chlorine. This is a VERY reactive substance. Free chlorine will react with something else before it gets anywhere near the ozone layer. The only 'crisis' was a politically manufactured one.

NOAA basically copies the IPCC graph. They are not capable of producing a graph of global temperatures. No one is. We don't have sufficient instrumentation to produce such a graph. We never have.

That's a fantastic post, I of course mean fantastic in the sense that it's a product of fantasy.

You simply cannot contain your ignorance can you?

"One of the founding fathers of the French ecological movement and a former minister for the prevention of major natural and technological risks, Tazieff is well qualified to talk about environmental issues. He has been adviser to most of France's environment ministers over the past decade. Despite this he asserts that Green parties are running a "campaign of deliberate, untruthful scaremongering," and the imaginary problems they espouse have led to millions of pounds being directed towards "environmental windmills" rather than the real threats of pollution. It seemed strange to Tazieff that an ozone hole situated above the Antarctic was blamed on CFC gases, when most deodorants were sprayed in the northern hemisphere. He was surprised to discover an article in the 1950 Annals of Geophysics reporting the existence of ozone holes above Norway in 1926 - years before CFC's were even dreamt of - and was astounded to find that the hole above the Antarctic was not the recent phenomenon ecologists claimed it to be. It was actually discovered as far back as 1957, he says, by the English scientist, Gordon Dobson, but it was only in the mid-eighties that satellite photos began to highlight it in a rather spectacular way.
Tazieff believes that these dramatic images have been used to hoodwink the public. He believes that the hole is due to the low levels of ultraviolet rays (which are necessary to produce ozone) over the Antarctic at the end of the year, and that the large and swift movements of air masses around the continent also play their part. On September 5, 1987, there was a relatively large reduction of 0.1 per cent in the levels of ozone over a surface of three million square kilometres near the Palmer peninsula in the Antarctic. Tazieff is convinced there is no way that the CFCs could have broken down so much ozone in such a short space of time."

If you expose ozone to CFC's, nothing happens.

If you break up the CFC's into chlorine and fluorocarbon, the chlorine reacts to destroy ozone. It also reacts with practically everything else. The fluorocarbon component remains stable and doesn't take part in the reaction.

The biggest 'danger' to ozone is ozone itself. It naturally decomposes back to oxygen in a few hours once the energy producing it has been removed. Exposure to UV-C also destroys ozone.

Ozone is created at the bottom of the stratosphere (which is why the tropopause is so cold) by UV-B and UV-A action on oxygen. By this altitude, UV-C has been completely absorbed by the destruction of ozone at the top of the stratosphere (which is why it gets hotter as you rise in the stratosphere).

At night, no Sun, no ozone production or destruction. Decay begins immediately and progresses throughout the night. The ozone layer is rebuilt again when the Sun rises. This delay is why you burn in the late morning (you don't feel that for a few hours after the actual burn, which makes it seem like you burn in the afternoon).

As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone.

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?

Wake 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?

And all you have to look at is wikipedia to see that the boiling point is -112C and that the vapor pressure is 20C meaning that

O3 is so unstable that it would naturally decay O + O3 = 2 O2 in a day or so particularly in angled sunlight where UV is available. And in some case mere minutes.

If you rely upon computer modeling instead of actual measurements you keep getting bit in the butt.

Rather than arguing about inconsequential things surely you could put your mind to more important things. What do you do for a living? Since you are on the web continually I assume you are either retired or seeking work.

What is your real skill set? I may razz hell out of you but I certainly do not think of anything above lint picker as beneath people's respect.

Most active users
Climate-Debate.com > Users > Most active users

# / User / Posts / Posts/day
4 / Surface Detail / 1186 / 1.38
12 / Wake / 513 / 10.68

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake 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?

And all you have to look at is wikipedia to see that the boiling point is -112C and that the vapor pressure is 20C meaning that

O3 is so unstable that it would naturally decay O + O3 = 2 O2 in a day or so particularly in angled sunlight where UV is available. And in some case mere minutes.

If you rely upon computer modeling instead of actual measurements you keep getting bit in the butt.

Rather than arguing about inconsequential things surely you could put your mind to more important things. What do you do for a living? Since you are on the web continually I assume you are either retired or seeking work.

What is your real skill set? I may razz hell out of you but I certainly do not think of anything above lint picker as beneath people's respect.

Your post makes no sense whatsoever. The vapour pressure of ozone has nothing to do with its stability. And how can the vapour pressure be 20C? Those aren't even the correct units. And who mentioned computer modelling?

As for time spent on the web:

http://www.climate-debate.com/topusers.php

Most active users
Climate-Debate.com > Users > Most active users

# / User / Posts / Posts/day
4 / Surface Detail / 1186 / 1.38
12 / Wake / 513 / 10.68

Somehow, I still manage to earn a living while making an average of one and a bit posts per day to this site. And you clearly spend a lot more time here than I do.

GasGuzzler wrote:
I'm worth a million dollars also...but only if I die.

still learning wrote:

James_ wrote:

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

As per the Montreal Protocol, the production of some chlorofluorocarbons was phased out after the signing of the protocol. Some phaseout of hydrochloroflouorocarbons extended to 2030.
Hydroflourocarbons, not ozone depleting, were not originally included in the Montreal Protocol, but were later included in an amendment.
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

What does the ozone layer have to do with "Atmospheric Forcing?"

James_ wrote: I think as for myself I will continue to pursue my experiment and question the half life of stratospheric ozone. There is research that suggests that stratospheric ozone has a much longer half life.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote: I think as for myself I will continue to pursue my experiment and question the half life of stratospheric ozone. There is research that suggests that stratospheric ozone has a much longer half life.

One direction of study might be to calculate the actual temperature of ozone molecules in the upper atmosphere. Remember that they are directly heated by UV from the Sun's emissions and hence tend to have, individually a very high temperature. This hastens to half life a great deal and my guess is the half life in the ozone region to be in seconds rather than in hours. But since it is not only destroyed but formed as well it is difficult to measure and must be calculated.

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote: I think as for myself I will continue to pursue my experiment and question the half life of stratospheric ozone. There is research that suggests that stratospheric ozone has a much longer half life.

One direction of study might be to calculate the actual temperature of ozone molecules in the upper atmosphere. Remember that they are directly heated by UV from the Sun's emissions and hence tend to have, individually a very high temperature. This hastens to half life a great deal and my guess is the half life in the ozone region to be in seconds rather than in hours. But since it is not only destroyed but formed as well it is difficult to measure and must be calculated.

Wrong.

The pressure and temperature in the ozone layer are about 50 mbar and -50C respectively. Plugging those figures together with a mean molecular diameter of 2.5 nm and mass of 29 amu for air into the site below gives a collision frequency of about 2 x 10^6 per second. This means that the ozone molecules reach thermal equilibrium with the surrounding molecules within a few microseconds. At -50C, the half-life of the ozone will be about 3 months.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/frecol.html#c1

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote: I think as for myself I will continue to pursue my experiment and question the half life of stratospheric ozone. There is research that suggests that stratospheric ozone has a much longer half life.

One direction of study might be to calculate the actual temperature of ozone molecules in the upper atmosphere. Remember that they are directly heated by UV from the Sun's emissions and hence tend to have, individually a very high temperature. This hastens to half life a great deal and my guess is the half life in the ozone region to be in seconds rather than in hours. But since it is not only destroyed but formed as well it is difficult to measure and must be calculated.

Wrong.

The pressure and temperature in the ozone layer are about 50 mbar and -50C respectively. Plugging those figures together with a mean molecular diameter of 2.5 nm and mass of 29 amu for air into the site below gives a collision frequency of about 2 x 10^6 per second. This means that the ozone molecules reach thermal equilibrium with the surrounding molecules within a few microseconds. At -50C, the half-life of the ozone will be about 3 months.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/frecol.html#c1

You continue to make it clear that you are unaware of science. So perhaps you should stay out of conversations that are not directed at you.

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote: I think as for myself I will continue to pursue my experiment and question the half life of stratospheric ozone. There is research that suggests that stratospheric ozone has a much longer half life.

One direction of study might be to calculate the actual temperature of ozone molecules in the upper atmosphere. Remember that they are directly heated by UV from the Sun's emissions and hence tend to have, individually a very high temperature. This hastens to half life a great deal and my guess is the half life in the ozone region to be in seconds rather than in hours. But since it is not only destroyed but formed as well it is difficult to measure and must be calculated.

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote: I think as for myself I will continue to pursue my experiment and question the half life of stratospheric ozone. There is research that suggests that stratospheric ozone has a much longer half life.

One direction of study might be to calculate the actual temperature of ozone molecules in the upper atmosphere. Remember that they are directly heated by UV from the Sun's emissions and hence tend to have, individually a very high temperature. This hastens to half life a great deal and my guess is the half life in the ozone region to be in seconds rather than in hours. But since it is not only destroyed but formed as well it is difficult to measure and must be calculated.

Wake,
One reason for the experiment is to see if there is atmospheric forcing. Then if actual experiments can be performed in the upper troposphere, tropopause and the lower stratosphere, the results might be interesting. One reason why is if it's found that co2 and other molecules change then why it's warmer above the ozone layer than below it might get scientists to reconsider how our atmosphere works.
You see, if an app or other software gets updated it's not a problem. With science it seems to not want to update or verify previously accepted assumptions. Jim

Wake wrote:
This would mean that a measurement of temperature would be an average of the temperatures of 99.9% of the gases and O3 could easily be very much hotter than the surrounding atmosphere which as I said could drive the a continuous and quite rapid lifespan of individual ozone molecules at the very time the UV is also constructing new ones.

Into the Night wrote:
Ozone's biggest threat is ozone. The stuff self destructs to oxygen after a few hours. That process is aided by UV-C sunlight at the top of the stratosphere.

The ozone layer is depleted every night. It is rebuilt every day. As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.

The CFC ban involved R-12 refrigerant, a substance that Dow Chemical was losing the patent on. They created the 'Ozone Scare' to force everyone onto R-134a, the new substance they just got a patent for.

It was Dow Chemical using the government and the news media to maintain its monopoly.

CFC's are heavier than air. They are like propane. They tend to go down, not up. They are also inert. As a CFC, they will not affect ozone. They must be broken up first.

The component supposedly that DOES affect the ozone layer in CFC's is chlorine. This is a VERY reactive substance. Free chlorine will react with something else before it gets anywhere near the ozone layer. The only 'crisis' was a politically manufactured one.

NOAA basically copies the IPCC graph. They are not capable of producing a graph of global temperatures. No one is. We don't have sufficient instrumentation to produce such a graph. We never have.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Ozone's biggest threat is ozone. The stuff self destructs to oxygen after a few hours. That process is aided by UV-C sunlight at the top of the stratosphere.

The ozone layer is depleted every night. It is rebuilt every day. As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.

The CFC ban involved R-12 refrigerant, a substance that Dow Chemical was losing the patent on. They created the 'Ozone Scare' to force everyone onto R-134a, the new substance they just got a patent for.

It was Dow Chemical using the government and the news media to maintain its monopoly.

CFC's are heavier than air. They are like propane. They tend to go down, not up. They are also inert. As a CFC, they will not affect ozone. They must be broken up first.

The component supposedly that DOES affect the ozone layer in CFC's is chlorine. This is a VERY reactive substance. Free chlorine will react with something else before it gets anywhere near the ozone layer. The only 'crisis' was a politically manufactured one.

NOAA basically copies the IPCC graph. They are not capable of producing a graph of global temperatures. No one is. We don't have sufficient instrumentation to produce such a graph. We never have.

That's a fantastic post, I of course mean fantastic in the sense that it's a product of fantasy.

You simply cannot contain your ignorance can you?

"One of the founding fathers of the French ecological movement and a former minister for the prevention of major natural and technological risks, Tazieff is well qualified to talk about environmental issues. He has been adviser to most of France's environment ministers over the past decade. Despite this he asserts that Green parties are running a "campaign of deliberate, untruthful scaremongering," and the imaginary problems they espouse have led to millions of pounds being directed towards "environmental windmills" rather than the real threats of pollution. It seemed strange to Tazieff that an ozone hole situated above the Antarctic was blamed on CFC gases, when most deodorants were sprayed in the northern hemisphere. He was surprised to discover an article in the 1950 Annals of Geophysics reporting the existence of ozone holes above Norway in 1926 - years before CFC's were even dreamt of - and was astounded to find that the hole above the Antarctic was not the recent phenomenon ecologists claimed it to be. It was actually discovered as far back as 1957, he says, by the English scientist, Gordon Dobson, but it was only in the mid-eighties that satellite photos began to highlight it in a rather spectacular way.
Tazieff believes that these dramatic images have been used to hoodwink the public. He believes that the hole is due to the low levels of ultraviolet rays (which are necessary to produce ozone) over the Antarctic at the end of the year, and that the large and swift movements of air masses around the continent also play their part. On September 5, 1987, there was a relatively large reduction of 0.1 per cent in the levels of ozone over a surface of three million square kilometres near the Palmer peninsula in the Antarctic. Tazieff is convinced there is no way that the CFCs could have broken down so much ozone in such a short space of time."

If you expose ozone to CFC's, nothing happens.

If you break up the CFC's into chlorine and fluorocarbon, the chlorine reacts to destroy ozone. It also reacts with practically everything else. The fluorocarbon component remains stable and doesn't take part in the reaction.

The biggest 'danger' to ozone is ozone itself. It naturally decomposes back to oxygen in a few hours once the energy producing it has been removed. Exposure to UV-C also destroys ozone.

Ozone is created at the bottom of the stratosphere (which is why the tropopause is so cold) by UV-B and UV-A action on oxygen. By this altitude, UV-C has been completely absorbed by the destruction of ozone at the top of the stratosphere (which is why it gets hotter as you rise in the stratosphere).

At night, no Sun, no ozone production or destruction. Decay begins immediately and progresses throughout the night. The ozone layer is rebuilt again when the Sun rises. This delay is why you burn in the late morning (you don't feel that for a few hours after the actual burn, which makes it seem like you burn in the afternoon).

As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone.

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?

Surface Detail wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote: I think as for myself I will continue to pursue my experiment and question the half life of stratospheric ozone. There is research that suggests that stratospheric ozone has a much longer half life.

One direction of study might be to calculate the actual temperature of ozone molecules in the upper atmosphere. Remember that they are directly heated by UV from the Sun's emissions and hence tend to have, individually a very high temperature. This hastens to half life a great deal and my guess is the half life in the ozone region to be in seconds rather than in hours. But since it is not only destroyed but formed as well it is difficult to measure and must be calculated.

Wrong.

The pressure and temperature in the ozone layer are about 50 mbar and -50C respectively. Plugging those figures together with a mean molecular diameter of 2.5 nm and mass of 29 amu for air into the site below gives a collision frequency of about 2 x 10^6 per second. This means that the ozone molecules reach thermal equilibrium with the surrounding molecules within a few microseconds. At -50C, the half-life of the ozone will be about 3 months.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/frecol.html#c1

James_ wrote:
@Wake, One thing I would like to see tested is ozone in the stratosphere. Ground level ozone destroys plant life because as you pointed out, it is hot. In the ozone layer it might be a little cooler. The link says that 3 gasses do not cool when expanded using the Joules - Thompson Throttling Process.
This allows for the possibility that ozone can absorb solar radiation and then emit it towards the more excited part of our atmosphere, the upper stratosphere. This can help to explain why the upper stratosphere has been cooling as the ozone layer thinned.

http://research.omicsgroup.org/index.php/Joule%E2%80%93Thomson_effect

https://goo.gl/photos/K4Zu3xQXubnC4BX27

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Ozone's biggest threat is ozone. The stuff self destructs to oxygen after a few hours. That process is aided by UV-C sunlight at the top of the stratosphere.

The ozone layer is depleted every night. It is rebuilt every day. As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.

The CFC ban involved R-12 refrigerant, a substance that Dow Chemical was losing the patent on. They created the 'Ozone Scare' to force everyone onto R-134a, the new substance they just got a patent for.

It was Dow Chemical using the government and the news media to maintain its monopoly.

CFC's are heavier than air. They are like propane. They tend to go down, not up. They are also inert. As a CFC, they will not affect ozone. They must be broken up first.

The component supposedly that DOES affect the ozone layer in CFC's is chlorine. This is a VERY reactive substance. Free chlorine will react with something else before it gets anywhere near the ozone layer. The only 'crisis' was a politically manufactured one.

NOAA basically copies the IPCC graph. They are not capable of producing a graph of global temperatures. No one is. We don't have sufficient instrumentation to produce such a graph. We never have.

That's a fantastic post, I of course mean fantastic in the sense that it's a product of fantasy.

You simply cannot contain your ignorance can you?

"One of the founding fathers of the French ecological movement and a former minister for the prevention of major natural and technological risks, Tazieff is well qualified to talk about environmental issues. He has been adviser to most of France's environment ministers over the past decade. Despite this he asserts that Green parties are running a "campaign of deliberate, untruthful scaremongering," and the imaginary problems they espouse have led to millions of pounds being directed towards "environmental windmills" rather than the real threats of pollution. It seemed strange to Tazieff that an ozone hole situated above the Antarctic was blamed on CFC gases, when most deodorants were sprayed in the northern hemisphere. He was surprised to discover an article in the 1950 Annals of Geophysics reporting the existence of ozone holes above Norway in 1926 - years before CFC's were even dreamt of - and was astounded to find that the hole above the Antarctic was not the recent phenomenon ecologists claimed it to be. It was actually discovered as far back as 1957, he says, by the English scientist, Gordon Dobson, but it was only in the mid-eighties that satellite photos began to highlight it in a rather spectacular way.
Tazieff believes that these dramatic images have been used to hoodwink the public. He believes that the hole is due to the low levels of ultraviolet rays (which are necessary to produce ozone) over the Antarctic at the end of the year, and that the large and swift movements of air masses around the continent also play their part. On September 5, 1987, there was a relatively large reduction of 0.1 per cent in the levels of ozone over a surface of three million square kilometres near the Palmer peninsula in the Antarctic. Tazieff is convinced there is no way that the CFCs could have broken down so much ozone in such a short space of time."

If you expose ozone to CFC's, nothing happens.

If you break up the CFC's into chlorine and fluorocarbon, the chlorine reacts to destroy ozone. It also reacts with practically everything else. The fluorocarbon component remains stable and doesn't take part in the reaction.

The biggest 'danger' to ozone is ozone itself. It naturally decomposes back to oxygen in a few hours once the energy producing it has been removed. Exposure to UV-C also destroys ozone.

Ozone is created at the bottom of the stratosphere (which is why the tropopause is so cold) by UV-B and UV-A action on oxygen. By this altitude, UV-C has been completely absorbed by the destruction of ozone at the top of the stratosphere (which is why it gets hotter as you rise in the stratosphere).

At night, no Sun, no ozone production or destruction. Decay begins immediately and progresses throughout the night. The ozone layer is rebuilt again when the Sun rises. This delay is why you burn in the late morning (you don't feel that for a few hours after the actual burn, which makes it seem like you burn in the afternoon).

As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone.

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.

Surface Detail wrote:
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.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Ozone's biggest threat is ozone. The stuff self destructs to oxygen after a few hours. That process is aided by UV-C sunlight at the top of the stratosphere.

The ozone layer is depleted every night. It is rebuilt every day. As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.

The CFC ban involved R-12 refrigerant, a substance that Dow Chemical was losing the patent on. They created the 'Ozone Scare' to force everyone onto R-134a, the new substance they just got a patent for.

It was Dow Chemical using the government and the news media to maintain its monopoly.

CFC's are heavier than air. They are like propane. They tend to go down, not up. They are also inert. As a CFC, they will not affect ozone. They must be broken up first.

The component supposedly that DOES affect the ozone layer in CFC's is chlorine. This is a VERY reactive substance. Free chlorine will react with something else before it gets anywhere near the ozone layer. The only 'crisis' was a politically manufactured one.

NOAA basically copies the IPCC graph. They are not capable of producing a graph of global temperatures. No one is. We don't have sufficient instrumentation to produce such a graph. We never have.

That's a fantastic post, I of course mean fantastic in the sense that it's a product of fantasy.

You simply cannot contain your ignorance can you?

"One of the founding fathers of the French ecological movement and a former minister for the prevention of major natural and technological risks, Tazieff is well qualified to talk about environmental issues. He has been adviser to most of France's environment ministers over the past decade. Despite this he asserts that Green parties are running a "campaign of deliberate, untruthful scaremongering," and the imaginary problems they espouse have led to millions of pounds being directed towards "environmental windmills" rather than the real threats of pollution. It seemed strange to Tazieff that an ozone hole situated above the Antarctic was blamed on CFC gases, when most deodorants were sprayed in the northern hemisphere. He was surprised to discover an article in the 1950 Annals of Geophysics reporting the existence of ozone holes above Norway in 1926 - years before CFC's were even dreamt of - and was astounded to find that the hole above the Antarctic was not the recent phenomenon ecologists claimed it to be. It was actually discovered as far back as 1957, he says, by the English scientist, Gordon Dobson, but it was only in the mid-eighties that satellite photos began to highlight it in a rather spectacular way.
Tazieff believes that these dramatic images have been used to hoodwink the public. He believes that the hole is due to the low levels of ultraviolet rays (which are necessary to produce ozone) over the Antarctic at the end of the year, and that the large and swift movements of air masses around the continent also play their part. On September 5, 1987, there was a relatively large reduction of 0.1 per cent in the levels of ozone over a surface of three million square kilometres near the Palmer peninsula in the Antarctic. Tazieff is convinced there is no way that the CFCs could have broken down so much ozone in such a short space of time."

If you expose ozone to CFC's, nothing happens.

If you break up the CFC's into chlorine and fluorocarbon, the chlorine reacts to destroy ozone. It also reacts with practically everything else. The fluorocarbon component remains stable and doesn't take part in the reaction.

The biggest 'danger' to ozone is ozone itself. It naturally decomposes back to oxygen in a few hours once the energy producing it has been removed. Exposure to UV-C also destroys ozone.

Ozone is created at the bottom of the stratosphere (which is why the tropopause is so cold) by UV-B and UV-A action on oxygen. By this altitude, UV-C has been completely absorbed by the destruction of ozone at the top of the stratosphere (which is why it gets hotter as you rise in the stratosphere).

At night, no Sun, no ozone production or destruction. Decay begins immediately and progresses throughout the night. The ozone layer is rebuilt again when the Sun rises. This delay is why you burn in the late morning (you don't feel that for a few hours after the actual burn, which makes it seem like you burn in the afternoon).

As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone.

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.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Ozone's biggest threat is ozone. The stuff self destructs to oxygen after a few hours. That process is aided by UV-C sunlight at the top of the stratosphere.

The ozone layer is depleted every night. It is rebuilt every day. As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.

The CFC ban involved R-12 refrigerant, a substance that Dow Chemical was losing the patent on. They created the 'Ozone Scare' to force everyone onto R-134a, the new substance they just got a patent for.

It was Dow Chemical using the government and the news media to maintain its monopoly.

CFC's are heavier than air. They are like propane. They tend to go down, not up. They are also inert. As a CFC, they will not affect ozone. They must be broken up first.

The component supposedly that DOES affect the ozone layer in CFC's is chlorine. This is a VERY reactive substance. Free chlorine will react with something else before it gets anywhere near the ozone layer. The only 'crisis' was a politically manufactured one.

NOAA basically copies the IPCC graph. They are not capable of producing a graph of global temperatures. No one is. We don't have sufficient instrumentation to produce such a graph. We never have.

That's a fantastic post, I of course mean fantastic in the sense that it's a product of fantasy.

You simply cannot contain your ignorance can you?

"One of the founding fathers of the French ecological movement and a former minister for the prevention of major natural and technological risks, Tazieff is well qualified to talk about environmental issues. He has been adviser to most of France's environment ministers over the past decade. Despite this he asserts that Green parties are running a "campaign of deliberate, untruthful scaremongering," and the imaginary problems they espouse have led to millions of pounds being directed towards "environmental windmills" rather than the real threats of pollution. It seemed strange to Tazieff that an ozone hole situated above the Antarctic was blamed on CFC gases, when most deodorants were sprayed in the northern hemisphere. He was surprised to discover an article in the 1950 Annals of Geophysics reporting the existence of ozone holes above Norway in 1926 - years before CFC's were even dreamt of - and was astounded to find that the hole above the Antarctic was not the recent phenomenon ecologists claimed it to be. It was actually discovered as far back as 1957, he says, by the English scientist, Gordon Dobson, but it was only in the mid-eighties that satellite photos began to highlight it in a rather spectacular way.
Tazieff believes that these dramatic images have been used to hoodwink the public. He believes that the hole is due to the low levels of ultraviolet rays (which are necessary to produce ozone) over the Antarctic at the end of the year, and that the large and swift movements of air masses around the continent also play their part. On September 5, 1987, there was a relatively large reduction of 0.1 per cent in the levels of ozone over a surface of three million square kilometres near the Palmer peninsula in the Antarctic. Tazieff is convinced there is no way that the CFCs could have broken down so much ozone in such a short space of time."

If you expose ozone to CFC's, nothing happens.

If you break up the CFC's into chlorine and fluorocarbon, the chlorine reacts to destroy ozone. It also reacts with practically everything else. The fluorocarbon component remains stable and doesn't take part in the reaction.

The biggest 'danger' to ozone is ozone itself. It naturally decomposes back to oxygen in a few hours once the energy producing it has been removed. Exposure to UV-C also destroys ozone.

Ozone is created at the bottom of the stratosphere (which is why the tropopause is so cold) by UV-B and UV-A action on oxygen. By this altitude, UV-C has been completely absorbed by the destruction of ozone at the top of the stratosphere (which is why it gets hotter as you rise in the stratosphere).

At night, no Sun, no ozone production or destruction. Decay begins immediately and progresses throughout the night. The ozone layer is rebuilt again when the Sun rises. This delay is why you burn in the late morning (you don't feel that for a few hours after the actual burn, which makes it seem like you burn in the afternoon).

As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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).