CO2 is causing ozone depletion, cause of climate change?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > CO2 is causing ozone depletion, cause of climate change?

CO2 is causing ozone depletion, cause of climate change?25-11-2018 15:22
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	The graphs will show it's possible. As CO2 levels rose, ozone levels decreased. This is where if we understand logic then we can avoid fallacies like CFC's being a part of the problem. CFC's are just a buzzword used to create fear in people. It's like saying that Wall Street is Bullsh1t because of a bear market. This is where using logic allows us to simplify things. This is something people should learn. It helps to avoid unnecessary and stressful debate. That is the source of confusion, when people refuse to consider something logically they'll almost always arrive at the wrong result. It just won't be what they were expecting. The graph clearly shows that as CO2 levels rose that ozone levels declined. Logic allows us to clearly see this relationship. https://goo.gl/images/NvxxWT
26-11-2018 02:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	James___ wrote: The graphs will show it's possible. Graphs of random numbers don't show anything. James___ wrote: As CO2 levels rose, It is not possible to measure the global CO2 content of Earth. James___ wrote: ozone levels decreased. The ozone isn't being depleted. See the Chapman cycle. James___ wrote: This is where if we understand logic then we can avoid fallacies like CFC's being a part of the problem. CFC's are inert to ozone. James___ wrote: CFC's are just a buzzword used to create fear in people. No, they are a real thing. CFC stands for chloro-fluoro carbonate. It's what R12 refrigerant is made of. James___ wrote: It's like saying that Wall Street is Bullsh1t because of a bear market. No, bear and bull markets on the stock exchange are a real thing. I see you don't invest in stocks. James___ wrote: This is where using logic allows us to simplify things. You aren't using logic. James___ wrote: This is something people should learn. You might try it sometime. James___ wrote: It helps to avoid unnecessary and stressful debate. That is the source of confusion, You are the source of your own stress and confusion. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 26-11-2018 02:09
26-11-2018 03:01
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	James___ wrote: The graphs will show it's possible. As CO2 levels rose, ozone levels decreased. This is where if we understand logic then we can avoid fallacies like CFC's being a part of the problem. CFC's are just a buzzword used to create fear in people. It's like saying that Wall Street is Bullsh1t because of a bear market. This is where using logic allows us to simplify things. This is something people should learn. It helps to avoid unnecessary and stressful debate. That is the source of confusion, when people refuse to consider something logically they'll almost always arrive at the wrong result. It just won't be what they were expecting. The graph clearly shows that as CO2 levels rose that ozone levels declined. Logic allows us to clearly see this relationship. https://goo.gl/images/NvxxWT The studies show the same levels of ozone as in the past. This is a case of oxygen and high energy sunlight interacting. CO2 levels have nothing whatsoever to do with it.
26-11-2018 03:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	Wake wrote: James___ wrote: The graphs will show it's possible. As CO2 levels rose, ozone levels decreased. This is where if we understand logic then we can avoid fallacies like CFC's being a part of the problem. CFC's are just a buzzword used to create fear in people. It's like saying that Wall Street is Bullsh1t because of a bear market. This is where using logic allows us to simplify things. This is something people should learn. It helps to avoid unnecessary and stressful debate. That is the source of confusion, when people refuse to consider something logically they'll almost always arrive at the wrong result. It just won't be what they were expecting. The graph clearly shows that as CO2 levels rose that ozone levels declined. Logic allows us to clearly see this relationship. https://goo.gl/images/NvxxWT The studies show the same levels of ozone as in the past. This is a case of oxygen and high energy sunlight interacting. CO2 levels have nothing whatsoever to do with it. True. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-11-2018 04:33
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Graphs don't really mean anything, The numbers represented, usually need to be manipulated to fit, usually what you want to illustrate, not the actual raw data. I read recently (past couple of months), that the Ozone Hole has shrunk considerably. In the 70's, it was opening, do to depletion. Something isn't quite right here. Either they lied back in the 70's, they are lying about CO2, or they just lie all the time...

26-11-2018 14:27
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	HarveyH55 wrote: Graphs don't really mean anything, The numbers represented, usually need to be manipulated to fit, usually what you want to illustrate, not the actual raw data. I read recently (past couple of months), that the Ozone Hole has shrunk considerably. In the 70's, it was opening, do to depletion. Something isn't quite right here. Either they lied back in the 70's, they are lying about CO2, or they just lie all the time... Or we stopped using CFC's and other ozone depletants.
26-11-2018 18:31
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	HarveyH55 wrote: Graphs don't really mean anything, The numbers represented, usually need to be manipulated to fit, usually what you want to illustrate, not the actual raw data. I read recently (past couple of months), that the Ozone Hole has shrunk considerably. In the 70's, it was opening, do to depletion. Something isn't quite right here. Either they lied back in the 70's, they are lying about CO2, or they just lie all the time... Every southern summer the ozone "hole" reduces in size due to increased sunlight. Every southern winter it increases. While CFC's are known to increase the rates of ozone conversion to O2, this has never been enough to effect more than one percent or less of the ozone in the upper atmosphere. CFC's are large heavy molecules that have a very difficult time getting into the upper atmosphere. The ozone layer STARTS at about 15 km altitude and it is maximum at around 25 km altitude. Where is all this skepticism of obvious poorly done science when it is needed? We really should mention that there comes a northern hemisphere "hole" when the Milankovitch Cycles give a shorter northern hemisphere summer and longer winter. This is the nature of things.
26-11-2018 20:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	HarveyH55 wrote: Graphs don't really mean anything, The numbers represented, usually need to be manipulated to fit, usually what you want to illustrate, not the actual raw data. I read recently (past couple of months), that the Ozone Hole has shrunk considerably. In the 70's, it was opening, do to depletion. Something isn't quite right here. Either they lied back in the 70's, they are lying about CO2, or they just lie all the time... They lied in the 70's. The ozone hole is a natural phenomenon. It varies in size due to upper air winds. Both poles have 'holes'. Ozone is created by the action of sunlight on oxygen. 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 poles are not only land of the midnight Sun, they are land of the noontime Dark. No Sun, no ozone. Meh. The 'holes' occur in the winter of that pole, because the Sun isn't rising. Ozone naturally decays back to oxygen on it's own. It is not a stable molecule. Further, UV-C sunlight will also destroy ozone, converting it back to oxygen. This light only penetrates into the upper stratosphere and gets no further (thankfully!). It is a seriously dangerous color of UV light. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-11-2018 20:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	Tim the plumber wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Graphs don't really mean anything, The numbers represented, usually need to be manipulated to fit, usually what you want to illustrate, not the actual raw data. I read recently (past couple of months), that the Ozone Hole has shrunk considerably. In the 70's, it was opening, do to depletion. Something isn't quite right here. Either they lied back in the 70's, they are lying about CO2, or they just lie all the time... Or we stopped using CFC's and other ozone depletants. CFC's are inert to ozone. You can take a tank of ozone, put CFC's in it, and nothing happens. This whole scare was prompted by the DuPont corporation. It's patents on R-12 refrigerant were running out and they could no longer be renewed. That started a campaign to make the stuff sound dangerous. The result was successful. Everyone switched to using R-123a in their systems. Suddenly the 'ozone hole' problem went away, with the back story that the 'hole' was 'healing itself' (it hasn't changed during the entire time, either during the scare or afterwords). People bought into it never considering that the hole appears at the poles, and only during that pole's winter, rather than over the industrialized nations. Most people don't realize just how inert R-12 is. It was developed for that specific quality, making it a far safer refrigerant than the ammonia systems it replaced. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 26-11-2018 21:02
26-11-2018 21:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	Wake wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Graphs don't really mean anything, The numbers represented, usually need to be manipulated to fit, usually what you want to illustrate, not the actual raw data. I read recently (past couple of months), that the Ozone Hole has shrunk considerably. In the 70's, it was opening, do to depletion. Something isn't quite right here. Either they lied back in the 70's, they are lying about CO2, or they just lie all the time... Every southern summer the ozone "hole" reduces in size due to increased sunlight. Every southern winter it increases. It actually goes away entirely in the summer. There is also a 'hole' at the north pole during the northern hemisphere winters. Wake wrote: While CFC's are known to increase the rates of ozone conversion to O2, Nope. CFC's are inert to ozone. Wake wrote: this has never been enough to effect more than one percent or less of the ozone in the upper atmosphere. Fortunately, it doesn't take much to stop UV-C and limit UV-B light. Wake wrote: CFC's are large heavy molecules that have a very difficult time getting into the upper atmosphere. True. Even if they did, nothing would happen. Wake wrote: The ozone layer STARTS at about 15 km altitude and it is maximum at around 25 km altitude. That's about right. Wake wrote: Where is all this skepticism of obvious poorly done science when it is needed? Same place it is today. It is sacrificed to the Great God Consensus and to illiteracy. Wake wrote: We really should mention that there comes a northern hemisphere "hole" when the Milankovitch Cycles give a shorter northern hemisphere summer and longer winter. This is the nature of things. No Milankovitch cycle is necessary. There already is a hole at the north pole during that pole's winter. It's just a tad smaller due to the perihelion of Earth at that time. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
26-11-2018 22:11
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Graphs don't really mean anything, The numbers represented, usually need to be manipulated to fit, usually what you want to illustrate, not the actual raw data. I read recently (past couple of months), that the Ozone Hole has shrunk considerably. In the 70's, it was opening, do to depletion. Something isn't quite right here. Either they lied back in the 70's, they are lying about CO2, or they just lie all the time... Every southern summer the ozone "hole" reduces in size due to increased sunlight. Every southern winter it increases. It actually goes away entirely in the summer. There is also a 'hole' at the north pole during the northern hemisphere winters. Wake wrote: While CFC's are known to increase the rates of ozone conversion to O2, Nope. CFC's are inert to ozone. Wake wrote: this has never been enough to effect more than one percent or less of the ozone in the upper atmosphere. Fortunately, it doesn't take much to stop UV-C and limit UV-B light. Wake wrote: CFC's are large heavy molecules that have a very difficult time getting into the upper atmosphere. True. Even if they did, nothing would happen. Wake wrote: The ozone layer STARTS at about 15 km altitude and it is maximum at around 25 km altitude. That's about right. Wake wrote: Where is all this skepticism of obvious poorly done science when it is needed? Same place it is today. It is sacrificed to the Great God Consensus and to illiteracy. Wake wrote: We really should mention that there comes a northern hemisphere "hole" when the Milankovitch Cycles give a shorter northern hemisphere summer and longer winter. This is the nature of things. No Milankovitch cycle is necessary. There already is a hole at the north pole during that pole's winter. It's just a tad smaller due to the perihelion of Earth at that time. If you do not understand the Milankovitch Cycles why do you make such incorrect statements?
26-11-2018 22:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	Wake wrote: Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Graphs don't really mean anything, The numbers represented, usually need to be manipulated to fit, usually what you want to illustrate, not the actual raw data. I read recently (past couple of months), that the Ozone Hole has shrunk considerably. In the 70's, it was opening, do to depletion. Something isn't quite right here. Either they lied back in the 70's, they are lying about CO2, or they just lie all the time... Every southern summer the ozone "hole" reduces in size due to increased sunlight. Every southern winter it increases. It actually goes away entirely in the summer. There is also a 'hole' at the north pole during the northern hemisphere winters. Wake wrote: While CFC's are known to increase the rates of ozone conversion to O2, Nope. CFC's are inert to ozone. Wake wrote: this has never been enough to effect more than one percent or less of the ozone in the upper atmosphere. Fortunately, it doesn't take much to stop UV-C and limit UV-B light. Wake wrote: CFC's are large heavy molecules that have a very difficult time getting into the upper atmosphere. True. Even if they did, nothing would happen. Wake wrote: The ozone layer STARTS at about 15 km altitude and it is maximum at around 25 km altitude. That's about right. Wake wrote: Where is all this skepticism of obvious poorly done science when it is needed? Same place it is today. It is sacrificed to the Great God Consensus and to illiteracy. Wake wrote: We really should mention that there comes a northern hemisphere "hole" when the Milankovitch Cycles give a shorter northern hemisphere summer and longer winter. This is the nature of things. No Milankovitch cycle is necessary. There already is a hole at the north pole during that pole's winter. It's just a tad smaller due to the perihelion of Earth at that time. If you do not understand the Milankovitch Cycles why do you make such incorrect statements? I'm not talking about Milankovitch cycles. YOU are. YOU are the one that brought them up, apparently to use them as a buzzword. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 26-11-2018 22:53

Join the debate CO2 is causing ozone depletion, cause of climate change?:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..	392	01-12-2023 21:58
Proof That Too Much CO2 Is An Existential Threat	326	07-11-2023 19:16
WHY DO SELF DRIVING CARS KEEP CAUSING TRAFFIC JAMS?	15	11-05-2023 00:20
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2	533	30-01-2023 07:22
UN says ozone layer slowly healing, hole to mend by 2066	82	24-01-2023 16:35