Recommended Posts

(edited)

NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, says that Earth’s ozone hole is now the smallest it’s been since it’s discovery. Abnormally warm weather patterns in the upper atmosphere over Antarctica dramatically limited ozone depletion in September and October 2019, resulting in the smallest ozone hole since 1982, NASA and NOAA scientists reported.

NASA says the hole is smaller due to a “rare event.” That rare event is warmer weather patterns in the upper atmosphere over Antarctica and we are constantly being told that warming is all man-made “climate change.” “It’s a rare event that we’re still trying to understand,” said Susan Strahan, an atmospheric scientist. “If the warming hadn’t happened, we’d likely be looking at a much more typical ozone hole.”

ozone-e1571745468696.jpg

The ozone layer is approximately 7 to 25 miles above the Earth’s surface and acts as a “sunscreen” for the planet, NASA added. It keeps out harmful ultraviolet radiation from the Sun that has been linked to skin cancer, cataracts, immune system suppression and can also cause damage to plants. The government agency said that the hole had shrunk to 3.9 million square miles for the remainder of September and October, according to satellite data. The peak in the hole was 6.3 million square miles, observed on Sept. 8. During normal weather conditions, the hole is usually around 8 million square miles during this time of year. -Fox News

“It’s great news for ozone in the Southern Hemisphere,” said Paul Newman, chief scientist for Earth Sciences at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in a statement on NASA’s website. “But it’s important to recognize that what we’re seeing this year is due to warmer stratospheric temperatures. It’s not a sign that atmospheric ozone is suddenly on a fast track to recovery.”

Experts tend to agree that the Antarctic ozone will recover back to levels seen in 1980 around 2070 thanks to the Montreal Protocol. The 1987 Montreal Protocol was enacted after scientists found a hole in the ozone over Antarctica and Australia in 1985. It was enacted by the United Nations Environment Program. Former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said it was ''perhaps the single most successful international agreement to date” and it has been widely regarded as successful, with the ozone continuing to recover each year.

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com  

https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/nasa-ozone-hole-now-smallest-record

This is an article, hence the link ...

DT is not a journalist. And neither are you. And not wishing to believe facts does not make them propaganda. Just sayin'

Edited by DayTrader
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m going to take a wid-assed guess and say humans did NOT have anything to do with this closure...

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

image.jpeg.fb3a5b1eb481f56c5b9a8b5fa48a0e5c.jpeg 

 image.jpeg.4c479908e98c5576e5024fb109c77da0.jpeg

image.jpeg.dd9607292245b0c279faddcc1d7002c0.jpeg

          Image result for earth                          

image.jpeg.a3a695179b61cfeba7e0e58b75a75f82.jpeg                             

 

Edited by DayTrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watch...the tree hugging crowd will claim that the CFC ban of 1996 caused the hole to shrink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha you should have said that on the messenger. They won't say it now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Just watch...the tree hugging crowd will claim that the CFC ban of 1996 caused the hole to shrink.

As you can prove repeatedly in a Lab that CFC's destroy Ozone it would be reasonable to assume they were the primary cause of ozone depletion given that their is a clear correlation between ozone depletion, CFC production, CFC ban and Ozone layer recovery. 

Or perhaps you can suggest an alternative process? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long did it take to create the hole in the ozone? Does that coincide with the production and widespread use of CFC’s?

CFC’s were the choice of fluid in air conditioning and cooling systems primarily because fluids which contained them were the most efficient to get the degree of cooling required. By banning CFC’s, with no direct link to them causing the hole in the ozone layer, environmentalists forced industry to use a less efficient fluid. Now, to get the same cooling effect required more energy. The CFC ban had the unintended consequence of generating more pollution due to the necessity of more power to achieve the same level of cooling.

CFC’s, are incredibly heavy molecules. Gravity, being what it is, would tend to suck these molecules down as opposed to allowing them to congregate at a specific location in the Southern hemisphere. It should be noted here that soil bacteria use CFC’s as a food source.

All that said, a ban 24 years ago, even if it was enforced 100%, which it was not, could not possibly have forced that hole to close in that time span.

There is no clear, UNBIASED, correlation between the CFC ban and the recovery of the ozone layer. Chemically, CFC’s deplete ozone, that does not indicate that they were present or responsible for the hole in the ozone, which miraculously only occurred at one location in the atmosphere. The ‘scientists’ simply sampled the atmosphere to quantify the concentration of ozone, the never sampled for reaction products.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

How long did it take to create the hole in the ozone? Does that coincide with the production and widespread use of CFC’s?

CFC’s were the choice of fluid in air conditioning and cooling systems primarily because fluids which contained them were the most efficient to get the degree of cooling required. By banning CFC’s, with no direct link to them causing the hole in the ozone layer, environmentalists forced industry to use a less efficient fluid. Now, to get the same cooling effect required more energy. The CFC ban had the unintended consequence of generating more pollution due to the necessity of more power to achieve the same level of cooling.

CFC’s, are incredibly heavy molecules. Gravity, being what it is, would tend to suck these molecules down as opposed to allowing them to congregate at a specific location in the Southern hemisphere. It should be noted here that soil bacteria use CFC’s as a food source.

All that said, a ban 24 years ago, even if it was enforced 100%, which it was not, could not possibly have forced that hole to close in that time span.

There is no clear, UNBIASED, correlation between the CFC ban and the recovery of the ozone layer. Chemically, CFC’s deplete ozone, that does not indicate that they were present or responsible for the hole in the ozone, which miraculously only occurred at one location in the atmosphere. The ‘scientists’ simply sampled the atmosphere to quantify the concentration of ozone, the never sampled for reaction products.

Complete A+++++ nonsense

CFC's were developed in the 1920's but mass use coincides with the widespread use of refrigeration, aerosols, fire suppression systems - particularly in air craft and as a plastics blowing agent.

The first observations of ozone depletion were made in the 1950's

Ozone destruction by CFCs can be routinely performed in a lab

The reaction products for the Chlorine are routinely measured in the atmosphere - these are HCL and Chlorine Nitrate.

Your stratification point betrays a complete lack of understanding of stratification effects in the atmosphere (its not a jam jar of air on a lab table) 

Ozone depletion is not exclusive to the poles but concentrated there - the simply reason is it is colder - the climatic conditions accelerate Ozone destruction. 

Following the ban we  saw a slow down in depletion and now the ozone layer is starting to recover. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, you win! Just goes to show what happens when your point of view differs with the smartest guy on the planet...your viewpoint is “Complete A+++++ nonsense”.

Well, I have been scolded by the Wizard so I’ll just go skulking back to the village idiot’s hovel and let you be lectured by the incredible NickW!

Enjoy yourselves!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Okay, you win! Just goes to show what happens when your point of view differs with the smartest guy on the planet...your viewpoint is “Complete A+++++ nonsense”.

Well, I have been scolded by the Wizard so I’ll just go skulking back to the village idiot’s hovel and let you be lectured by the incredible NickW!

Enjoy yourselves!

Nope - simply examining and interpreting the evidence as regards this matter. 

So what next in Dougals contrary Skool of  Science?

Acid Rain, PCB's, Dioxin, Asbestos, second hand cigarette smoke.......

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

197 countries thought ozone depletion was a danger to humanity. Trump supporters not so much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

There it is. 

30 minutes ago, Boat said:

Trump supporters not so much. 

Didn't think it would take long, especially from the NBA/China..... ''err....but Trump'' guy ... 

Supporting someone doesn't mean you agree 100% with everything they say. This isn't the case in some countries, where you have no choice but to say you agree. See the difference?

TDS a myth apparently  🤣

Edited by DayTrader
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry, R134a is being phased out for MUCH more expensive 1234YF in 2020 and earlier because.... "global warming potential"... not the actual thing, but "potential"   

Which is absolutely hilarious as 1234YF is in the exact same boat as r134a, but its "potential" is "lower" and we all get higher electricity bills(5%-->10% ) to compensate for "potential"... on every single refrigerator AND pay higher prices for the refrigerator to begin with. 

"Potential PROGRESS"...🏆

Damn, I should have bought Honeywell/Dupont stock

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, NickW said:

Nope - simply examining and interpreting the evidence as regards this matter. 

So what next in Dougals contrary Skool of  Science?

Acid Rain, PCB's, Dioxin, Asbestos, second hand cigarette smoke.......

 

Who’s ‘Dougal’, dumbass?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Boat said:

197 countries thought ozone depletion was a danger to humanity. Trump supporters not so much. 

As usual, it’s all Trump’s fault...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, it's like a disease, whatever the topic, just blurt 'Trump' out 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/24/2019 at 6:24 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Don't worry, R134a is being phased out for MUCH more expensive 1234YF in 2020 and earlier because.... "global warming potential"... not the actual thing, but "potential"   

Which is absolutely hilarious as 1234YF is in the exact same boat as r134a, but its "potential" is "lower" and we all get higher electricity bills(5%-->10% ) to compensate for "potential"... on every single refrigerator AND pay higher prices for the refrigerator to begin with. 

"Potential PROGRESS"...🏆

Damn, I should have bought Honeywell/Dupont stock

Potential as its only realised as a warming gas if its released to atmosphere hence the reason many countries have laws on refrigerator disposal. Unfortunately much of it does get released. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

18 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Who’s ‘Dougal’, dumbass?

Sorry - should have had my reading glasses on😂

 

Edited by NickW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NickW said:

Potential as its only realised as a warming gas if its released to atmosphere hence the reason many countries have laws on refrigerator disposal. Unfortunately much of it does get released. 

Its poppy cock nonsense.  Earths temperature is regulated by its albedo which is directly proportional to cloud cover(radiation to space) and the sun.  Nothing else even matters by several orders of magnitude.  Would not matter if the atmosphere was 50% CO2 and R134a. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Its poppy cock nonsense.  Earths temperature is regulated by its albedo which is directly proportional to cloud cover(radiation to space) and the sun.  Nothing else even matters by several orders of magnitude.  Would not matter if the atmosphere was 50% CO2 and R134a. 

Nurse!

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NickW said:

Nurse!

 

Basic radiative black body physics. Wouldn't matter if the atmosphere was 100% water vapor.  Black body radiation Stephan Boltzman LAW, not theory, but LAW has never been broken.  No matter how many nutter climate propaganda slanderers scream otherwise. 

Composition of atmosphere(remaining at 1 atm) matters not one whit other than how much energy is required to move the gauge 1C +/- not its energy balance. 

100% CO2 or H2O does not change the albedo of the earth other than 100% H2O would increase clouds which would cool/warm earth depending where you are.  And the biggest factor?  Cosmic rays on upper atmospheric cloud formation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Basic radiative black body physics. Wouldn't matter if the atmosphere was 100% water vapor.  Black body radiation Stephan Boltzman LAW, not theory, but LAW has never been broken.  No matter how many nutter climate propaganda slanderers scream otherwise. 

Composition of atmosphere(remaining at 1 atm) matters not one whit other than how much energy is required to move the gauge 1C +/- not its energy balance. 

100% CO2 or H2O does not change the albedo of the earth other than 100% H2O would increase clouds which would cool/warm earth depending where you are.  And the biggest factor?  Cosmic rays on upper atmospheric cloud formation.

Oh dear, what you know is worth bottling and preserving for posterity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly, but what you seem to know isn’t even worth the bottle!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

You're assuming he knows anything?

There's your first mistake. 

Edited by DayTrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/24/2019 at 10:45 PM, Boat said:

197 countries thought ozone depletion was a danger to humanity. Trump supporters not so much. 

197 countries trying to scam money through the Paris Accord said that ozone depletion was a danger to humanity - although most could not spell it.

You know, the bit in the Paris Accord that dictates each ‘developed’ nation hast to fork over USD 100 billion YEARLY to ‘undeveloped’ nations (Note: China is not considered a developed nation) so that they can do something (no plan or business model yet presented) with it to mitigate the climate change damage done to them by those dastardly developed nations.

And you wonder why the US pulled out of the Accord!!!

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.