Ozone layer destruction driving global warming

[Ecocharger + 1,459]

On 9/11/2021 at 1:52 PM, Ecocharger said:

Here are the numbers for greenhouse gas potency (Global Warming Potential), showing the low greenhouse-effect strength of CO2 compared to other gases. The production of these more potent other gases can be controlled without turning the economy upside down and suppressing the most cost-efficient forms of energy deployment.

Atmospheric lifetime and GWP relative to CO
2 at different time horizon for various greenhouse gases

Gas name	Chemical formula	Lifetime (years)[27]	Radiative Efficiency (Wm−2ppb−1, molar basis)[27]	Global warming potential (GWP) for given time horizon
				20-yr[27]	100-yr[27]	500-yr[47]
Carbon dioxide	CO 2	(A)	1.37×10−5	1	1	1
Methane	CH 4	12	3.63×10−4	84	28	7.6
Nitrous oxide	N 2O	121	3×10−3	264	265	153
CFC-12	CCl 2F 2	100	0.32	10 800	10 200	5 200
HCFC-22	CHClF 2	12	0.21	5 280	1 760	549
Tetrafluoromethane	CF 4	50 000	0.09	4 880	6 630	11 200
Hexafluoroethane	C 2F 6	10 000	0.25	8 210	11 100	18 200
Sulfur hexafluoride	SF 6	3 200	0.57	17 500	23 500	32 600
Nitrogen trifluoride	NF 3	500	0.20	12 800	16 100	20 700
(A) No single lifetime for atmospheric CO2 can be given.

CF4 is estimated to be 50,000 times per volume more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2. 

This throws off the standard calculations used by Green Dreamers and climate alarmists to try to panic the planet. 

The major problem facing us now is to attempt to construct a solid climate model which includes all of the relevant variables.

Edited September 13, 2021 by Ecocharger

[specinho + 467]

On 9/5/2021 at 11:57 PM, mplcpa said:

Reports form ScienceDaily.com indicated discovery of massive leaks of banned chemicals CFC, (Eastern China, May 2019), and Carbon Tetrachloride (South America, October 2018). Such chemicals destroy the earth's protective ozone layer, which disperses ultraviolet light energy into the upper atmosphere. The effect of those chemicals presumably have contributed to the rapidly accelerating temperatures and melting polar sea ice, notable since these reports, yet are ignored while all efforts are going into carbon reduction. Why are politicians focussing on carbon elimination when the matter of the ozone field attenuation is immediately affecting higher global temperatures? Petroleum is critical to global GDP therefore a seemingly lower priority than removing leaks of banned CFCs and Carbon Tetrachloride, which contribute marginal economic benefits but are vastly more destructive to climate stability. Urgency in combating renegade environmental polluters outweighs restricting oil producers, who should be a secondary priority to the former. Those companies should be encouraged to seek carbon emissions reduction technology using tax-based incentives, while polluters should be imprisoned to make an example to would be polluters.

this piece of info might be old school........ But an older version might be this:

ozone < = > oxygen

this might mean, ozone dissociates to provide oxygen required by activities of living things, breathing, burning etc.  Ozone hole is created when this balance is tipped, besides those chemicals mentioned.

Excessive oxygen, e.g. from trees, in turn, will be converted into ozone......

Therefore, immediate cut back from

1. heavy concrete construction (concrete gathers heat during the day, releases and retains heat at night) ,

2. massive deforestation (forest provides oxygen required for the earth to heal),

3. reduce population ( the impact is multiple faceted e.g. lower land requirement, lower rate of deforestation, lower rate of concreted areas, lower rate of agricultural land, food and oxygen consumption, lower pressure on all productions which could improve quality and longevity of things etc)

These would help to tip it back.

Reduce burning is considered optional since the ozone still has the ability to grow back with the existing condition. The key immediate actions that can be done easily might still be the three factors mentioned..

As climate is cooling for one and a half year near the tropic during covid pandemic, temperature should not be that high to drive excessive rain. Therefore, recent severe flood and storm might be driven by massive forest fire in the respective areas, heat retained by concrete forests, besides the lightning test to drive rain by the middle east..........

On 9/6/2021 at 11:53 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Buddy ol' pal... the EARTH cools via the north/south pole and OZONE buddy is part of the insulation blanket over the earth.  

So, buddy ol' pal, if you REMOVE a blanket do you get WARMER, or COLDER....

I'll let you ask your 3 year old to get the CORRECT answer. 

Apparently moronsciencedaily.com can't be bothered with science. 

this might be tricky........... ozone is merely deflecting harmful high energy ray e.g. UV. The rest of the energy rays before it still go through. The warmth is retained by water molecules in the form of cloud. Clouds, on the other hand, also shield earth from excessive ray... This prevents excessive heat up in areas with clouds.

without ozone, high energy ray hits the earth directly. Warms it quickly and may be cools it quickly?

Edited September 17, 2021 by specinho

[mlisacpa + 2]

On 9/5/2021 at 11:57 AM, mplcpa said:

Reports form ScienceDaily.com indicated discovery of massive leaks of banned chemicals CFC, (Eastern China, May 2019), and Carbon Tetrachloride (South America, October 2018). Such chemicals destroy the earth's protective ozone layer, which disperses ultraviolet light energy into the upper atmosphere. The effect of those chemicals presumably have contributed to the rapidly accelerating temperatures and melting polar sea ice, notable since these reports, yet are ignored while all efforts are going into carbon reduction. Why are politicians focussing on carbon elimination when the matter of the ozone field attenuation is immediately affecting higher global temperatures? Petroleum is critical to global GDP therefore a seemingly lower priority than removing leaks of banned CFCs and Carbon Tetrachloride, which contribute marginal economic benefits but are vastly more destructive to climate stability. Urgency in combating renegade environmental polluters outweighs restricting oil producers, who should be a secondary priority to the former. Those companies should be encouraged to seek carbon emissions reduction technology using tax-based incentives, while polluters should be imprisoned to make an example to would be polluters.

The UK Daily Mail and msnNow confirmed today 9/17/21 that the ozone hole over the South pole has increased since last year at a tremendous rate say +10% in 1 year. Repeat: Ozone destruction is increasing not decreasing(!) as some suggest. The article further posits the comment of the scientist in charge that despite the increase in ozone depletion over the S. Pole, the expert expects the problem to resolve itself naturally in 30 years. The proof of ongoing depleting chemicals melting the polar ice caps is linked indisputably and undeniably, accordingly. Again the focus imho should be on preserving the ozone layer and the future emphasis should be fixed on carbon reduction. That is, while global officials are willing to tolerate the 2 largest countries in Asia to increase carbon and coal consumption, developed countries are expected to disinvest in energy and go all in on EV prospective technology. But carbon is the long term objective, while the shrinking polar ice masses will wreak havoc on coastal populations immediately, viz. Florida etc.

 

On 9/7/2021 at 10:15 PM, mlisacpa said:

 

 

[Ecocharger + 1,459]

On 9/17/2021 at 3:12 PM, mlisacpa said:

The UK Daily Mail and msnNow confirmed today 9/17/21 that the ozone hole over the South pole has increased since last year at a tremendous rate say +10% in 1 year. Repeat: Ozone destruction is increasing not decreasing(!) as some suggest. The article further posits the comment of the scientist in charge that despite the increase in ozone depletion over the S. Pole, the expert expects the problem to resolve itself naturally in 30 years. The proof of ongoing depleting chemicals melting the polar ice caps is linked indisputably and undeniably, accordingly. Again the focus imho should be on preserving the ozone layer and the future emphasis should be fixed on carbon reduction. That is, while global officials are willing to tolerate the 2 largest countries in Asia to increase carbon and coal consumption, developed countries are expected to disinvest in energy and go all in on EV prospective technology. But carbon is the long term objective, while the shrinking polar ice masses will wreak havoc on coastal populations immediately, viz. Florida etc.

 

 

This current increase in ozone destruction suggests that CFC-related gases are continuing to increase in defiance of international agreements. Those CFC related gases are extremely potent greenhouse gases, and may account for all of the greenhouse effect which currently exists. The current climate models cannot distinguish between greenhouse effects from CFC related gases and CO2, so the political disposition refuses to acknowledge the greenhouse effect of the CFC basis. This is bad science and ultimately bad politics.

It also causes governments to implement an energy crisis and economic self-strangulation, which if continued would drastically reduce world living standards and bring about widespread starvation and lack of medical services. 

Bottom line: we need to pay attention to the flaws in our current science on climate, and incorporate the effects of CFC related gases, plus solar cycle data, both of which provide more potent explanations for climate change than the misguided CO2 models.