Remember me
▼ Content

The Complexity of Climate Change



Page 2 of 4<1234>
27-03-2017 00:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13301)
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.


How do you know, Mr Oracle of All That Is Holy?


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
27-03-2017 00:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13301)
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


Q.E.D. You lost.


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
27-03-2017 00:49
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
27-03-2017 16:40
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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.
27-03-2017 18:59
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
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.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
27-03-2017 20:42
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
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.


Of course you are,



And anything else you are daydreaming about as well.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
27-03-2017 20:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13301)
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.


The discussion is about the ozone layer.

Radio signals are reflected by ozone.


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
27-03-2017 20:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13301)
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.


You could not pass an FCC exam with that attitude. They DO test you on this stuff you know, for certain licenses.


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
27-03-2017 20:52
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
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.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
27-03-2017 21:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13301)
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.


Another typical argument of the Stone by you. Just DENY it, attack the guy who said it, and hope you win the argument that way.

Moron.


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
27-03-2017 21:15
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
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.
27-03-2017 22:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13301)
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.


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
27-03-2017 23:11
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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!
27-03-2017 23:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13301)
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?


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
Edited on 27-03-2017 23:24
27-03-2017 23:26
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
27-03-2017 23:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13301)
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?


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
28-03-2017 00:02
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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?

It is you who seems to have problems following scientific arguments. Any material that reflects radio waves must have mobile free charges. In the ionosphere, these are ions and electrons resulting from ionisation of the constituent molecules. In metals, they are the delocalised electrons. The ozone layer has very few mobile free charges, so it does not reflect radio waves.

Edit: My PhD was in Plasma Physics, so I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to radio waves and ionised gases! You, clearly, don't.
Edited on 28-03-2017 00:14
28-03-2017 00:08
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
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.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-03-2017 01:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13301)
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!


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
28-03-2017 12:02
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
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.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
28-03-2017 22:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13301)
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.


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.


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
29-03-2017 00:26
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
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?




IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
29-03-2017 00:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13301)
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.


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
29-03-2017 01:02
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
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.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
29-03-2017 01:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13301)
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.


Nope. Try again. You are using Marconi's name 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
29-03-2017 01:27
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
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.
29-03-2017 02:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13301)
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.


Because you are illiterate.


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
29-03-2017 04:17
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
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


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
29-03-2017 17:22
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]spot wrote:

It's gender-bender "robbie the robot" dressed up for the Saturday dance.
29-03-2017 21:28
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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
Edited on 29-03-2017 21:39
29-03-2017 22:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13301)
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.


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
31-03-2017 21:40
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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.
01-04-2017 00:13
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
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
Edited on 01-04-2017 00:15
01-04-2017 18:40
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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.
01-04-2017 20:55
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@All,
One reason why this is a "wait and see" type thing is because I am hoping a Dr. Guzman (https://chem.as.uky.edu/users/migu222) is willing to work with me on this. I have also asked a local newspaper editor to take an interest in this as well. One reason why is that all climate change models have CO2 as a constant and if it can be shown that atmospheric forcing does happen then all existing climate change models will need to be reconsidered as more becomes known about what role co2 and water actually play in our environment.
And if Dr. Guzman decides to become involved with this then we would be sharing credit for the experiment.

Jim
01-04-2017 21:53
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
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.


That is an exciting possibility. However, many places where the aquifers are depleted are also places that have low humidity. Perhaps you are only referring to surface ground water.
01-04-2017 22:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13301)
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.


You think that will make the ozone behave as you describe?

Sorry dude, it is what it is. No amount of research on my part is going to change that.


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
01-04-2017 22:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13301)
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


It is unfortunate that you are directly affected by the Ozone Tax and regulations. All to prevent nothing from happening.


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
01-04-2017 22:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13301)
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.


They suck it up in the usual way, when they need it.


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
02-04-2017 17:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7472)
spot wrote:Of course you are,

And anything else you are daydreaming about as well.

Your envy is transparent, as is your fear for your faith.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 2 of 4<1234>





Join the debate The Complexity of Climate Change:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact