NASA - ''Ozone Hole Is Now The Smallest On Record''

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

5 hours ago, DayTrader said:

Not Protestant haha ...

Phew,  it's all on you guys.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Pooh bear.

 

Way to go you teflon coated, sloping shouldered atheist! Not responsible for nada!

Except perhaps stock market manipulation and alien invasions....😂

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

14 hours ago, DayTrader said:

He’s nuttier than squirrel shit!

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

36 minutes ago, NickW said:

Why are you conflating the two issues. The decision to phase out CFC's was under the Montreal Protocol. The USA is a signatory to that accord. 

Because the science behind both was/is faulty. The US should pull out of the Montreal Protocol as well!

Wasn’t it you that said the hole in the ozone was concentrated at the poles die to temperature? If so, can you tell me why there has been no reported ozone depletion reported above the Arctic?

 

[NickW + 2,714]

On 10/27/2019 at 11:27 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

Because the science behind both was/is faulty. The US should pull out of the Montreal Protocol as well!

Wasn’t it you that said the hole in the ozone was concentrated at the poles die to temperature? If so, can you tell me why there has been no reported ozone depletion reported above the Arctic?

 

Anything to actually back up the first claim? 

Secondly.........

https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/research/ozone-uv/moreinfo?view=arctic-ozone-hole

Also explains why the depletion over the arctic is less than over the Antarctic

For the record:

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2011-ozone-hole.html

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/31/ozone-layer-hole-arctic-archive-1995

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/giant-ozone-hole-found-above-arctic-2364849.html

https://phys.org/news/2016-02-strong-ozone-depletion-arctic.html

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/arctic’s-first-ozone-hole

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/8429203/Ozone-depletion-over-Arctic-at-record-level-UN.html

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ozone_en

 

Edited October 28, 2019 by NickW

[NickW + 2,714]

On 10/26/2019 at 12:39 AM, 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.

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury then?

Its further away from the Sun (approx double the distance)

Its albedo reflects 90% of the light hitting it

Its day is 225 earth days long yet temperatures are fairly constant across the planet. 

 

Hmmmm - why could that be? 

 

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, NickW said:

Why is Venus hotter than Mercury then?

Its day is 225 earth days long yet temperatures are fairly constant across the planet. 

Hmmmm - why could that be? 

 

 

The ridiculous atmosphere there and Mercury's lack of one perhaps

 

[NickW + 2,714]

On 10/26/2019 at 6:03 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Oh dear, another climate nutter who can't do math.  Lets see roughly 1.74 E^17 Watts hit the earth every second.

Entire energy consumed by humanity(2017) for an entire year(assume zero renewable) from wikipedia(🙄 cuz lazy) is 1.62E17WH

So, ~one hour of sunlight hitting the earth is equal to ~100% of every joule of energy used by humanity in a year according to wikipedia..... (since I am lazy)

8766 hours per year.  So, 1/8766 extra energy to radiate to space for equilibrium. = 0.000114

So, solve in reverse for Delta T using basic 100% proven physics which have never been broken.  Stephan Boltzman Law. 

Radiative forcing due to increase temp to space goes by the 4th power of Temperature.

So, 1/8766 quad root is: = 0.1033 Delta C

So earth, assuming zero renewable(hydro, solar, wind etc) has warmed by 0.1C....

The end of the world is nigh.

This is what the climate nutters are claiming is 10X larger than reality(claiming ~1C)..... and will continually increase in an asymptotic fashion.... 

The squirrels have lost the nut.

When off by an entire magnitude via very oh so basic physics + assymptotic heating... 🤣🤣🏆

Try basic energy balance

Enjoy science

You appear to live in some sort of denial world where CO2 (and other gases) are completely transparent to infrared radiation. 

[NickW + 2,714]

4 minutes ago, DayTrader said:

The ridiculous atmosphere there and Mercury's lack of one perhaps

 

Yes - but Footeab is denying that the composition of the atmosphere can have any effect on climate. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,135]

33 minutes ago, NickW said:

You appear to live in some sort of denial world where CO2 (and other gases) are completely transparent to infrared radiation. 

You appear to live in some sort of denial world where the trace material covered in other vast majoritymaterial in question matters regarding black body radiating to space(how the earth holds its temperature via energy balance). 

I did an energy balance equation, based ENTIRELY upon extra heat generated and not converted back into hydrocarbons or CaO2 etc.  You on the other hand are arguing about emissivity not transparency. 

Emissiivity when plugged into Stephan Boltzmann equations for CO2 and partial pressures under our atmosphere said emissivity equation and if you do, you get a delta T rise of roughly 0.03K.... assuming ~380ppm.  A CO2 concentration of 600ppm gets ~0.06K.  Why?  As you pointed out, it is TRANSPARENT to a large region of IR spectrum... which means it allows just as much IR in as out but is slightly more conductive to heat.  Now water on the other hand...

[NickW + 2,714]

4 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

You appear to live in some sort of denial world where the trace material covered in other vast majoritymaterial in question matters regarding black body radiating to space(how the earth holds its temperature via energy balance). 

I did an energy balance equation, based ENTIRELY upon extra heat generated and not converted back into hydrocarbons or CaO2 etc.  You on the other hand are arguing about emissivity not transparency. 

Emissiivity when plugged into Stephan Boltzmann equations for CO2 and partial pressures under our atmosphere said emissivity equation and if you do, you get a delta T rise of roughly 0.03K.... assuming ~380ppm.  A CO2 concentration of 600ppm gets ~0.06K.  Why?  As you pointed out, it is TRANSPARENT to a large region of IR spectrum... which means it allows just as much IR in as out but is slightly more conductive to heat.  Now water on the other hand...

Calcium Dioxide? 

Anyway please explain why Venus is significantly hotter than Mercury. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,135]

35 minutes ago, NickW said:

Calcium Dioxide? 

Anyway please explain why Venus is significantly hotter than Mercury. 

Explain how center of earth is hotter than surface?  same goes for mercury vrs Venus.  Atmosphere/pressure/density.  Venus has same temp as earth at 1atm when one takes extra irradiance of sun for venus being closer.  Why one calculates partial pressures for increases in CO2 % as it is denser increasing pressure on earth. 

As for... CaCO3 is what I meant obviously.  whoops. 

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Explain how center of earth is hotter than surface?  same goes for mercury vrs Venus.  Atmosphere/pressure/density.  Venus has same temp as earth at 1atm when one takes extra irradiance of sun for venus being closer.  Why one calculates partial pressures for increases in CO2 % as it is denser increasing pressure on earth. 

As for... CaCO3 is what I meant obviously.  whoops. 

So in your world the constituent gases of the atmosphere are completely irrelevant? 

So for example if you had two planets of equal size at equal distance from the sun with the same atmospheric pressure it wouldn't matter if the atmosphere was composed entirely of CO2 or Nitrogen ?

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,135]

8 hours ago, NickW said:

So in your world the constituent gases of the atmosphere are completely irrelevant? 

So for example if you had two planets of equal size at equal distance from the sun with the same atmospheric pressure it wouldn't matter if the atmosphere was composed entirely of CO2 or Nitrogen ?

This is the Basic Physics Telephone operator:
Press #1 for Clouds in upper atmosphere

Press #2 for no Clouds in upper atmosphere

Have a nice day. 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

17 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

This is the Basic Physics Telephone operator:
Press #1 for Clouds in upper atmosphere

Press #2 for no Clouds in upper atmosphere

Have a nice day. 

 

Well I suppose you can at least spell Physics

[SERWIN + 749]

On 10/24/2019 at 1:27 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

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

No sir, it will be biden and obama claiming the aca has dramatically shrunk the hole in the ozone. They told us we would never know what all was actually in that bill so,,,,,,,they can claim anything now.

[NickW + 2,714]

50 minutes ago, SERWIN said:

No sir, it will be biden and obama claiming the aca has dramatically shrunk the hole in the ozone. They told us we would never know what all was actually in that bill so,,,,,,,they can claim anything now.

Just like that mystery of how acid rain was reduced as an environmental  problem over Europe and North America. 

[NickW + 2,714]

16 hours ago, NickW said:

Just like that mystery of how acid rain was reduced as an environmental  problem over Europe and North America. 

Serwin - I'm sure you and Dougal have an alternate view on the occurrence of acid rain from the conventional explanation. 🙄

[specinho + 440]

On 10/24/2019 at 2:27 PM, Douglas Buckland said:

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

Tree huggers might want to claim the trees that they have been hugging and replanting are the heroes.

On 10/27/2019 at 3:14 AM, remake it said:

When people post rubbish here and those many like you accept it, it's an issue for you and them, because there are thousands of real scientists who study climate and regularly publish their peer reviewed work which explains aspects of climate variability.

do not get us wrong. We love facts - unorthordox facts.

Would you mind to recall how the universities are selecting their phD students in the recent 10-20 years or more?? Anyone interested to be a PhD will be one or certs are available to be purchased in the black markets (I was approached with 10k a cert. Now I spoil my chance to be trusted in the future.. ). These graduates ended up lecturers and professors in their respective fields because who refers them not because their research have found something new nor interesting. Shall universities want all their lecturers to publish at least two papers a year, how do you think they cough out the results and findings??

Therefore, in order to show your perspectives clearly, you need to show us what exactly do you mean by what you and your peers have done. Not merely thinking by having papers approved by 3 or 5 peers from different fields and published means your findings are widely accepted as doctrine.

 

On 10/26/2019 at 7:39 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Basic radiativecs 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.

Mind me have your clarification why are we involving radiation of black body or the not so black / brown-black-white globe?? The reasons I ask are:

1 ozone depletion might not be caused by heat radiated out to the universe by the Earth but by how much oxygen is used up and be replaced by the dissociation of ozone molecules.

2. the composition of the atmosphere certainly affecting the radiative capability. Water and cloud trap heat, hence, reducing the reflective heat radiated out to the universe and reducing the intensity of incoming radiation. Other gases do not have that ability.

3. (to be formed up).....

Edited October 30, 2019 by specinho

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

10 hours ago, NickW said:

Serwin - I'm sure you and Dougal have an alternate view on the occurrence of acid rain from the conventional explanation. 🙄

Are we still at the stage where you can’t spell my name correctly?

Acid rain is well understood, it essentially is just basic chemistry in action. I would say that the occurrence of acid rain is in decline.

[NickW + 2,714]

9 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Are we still at the stage where you can’t spell my name correctly?

Acid rain is well understood, it essentially is just basic chemistry in action. I would say that the occurrence of acid rain is in decline.

Well you called me Dumbass which could be taken as offensive whereas I just mispelled your name in the rush to a response in......

The chemistry behind ozone depletion is well understood and almost universally accepted across the scientific community - the exception being the usual collection of industry contrarian shills and their fanboys😉

Of course people in Oil and particularly gas fully accepted the conventional explanation for acid rain because gas was a major beneficiary from the measures to reduce acid rain. No point trying to kill the goose that laid the golden eggs eh? 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

There was a rash of adolescents on this site playing around with peoples names in an effort to be clever. I thought this was the case when I referred to you as ‘dumbass’. Please accept my apology (and no, I am not Canadian...).

Coal was the big contributor to acid rain and I believe most would agree with that.

The chemistry behind ozone depletion is understood, the mechanism as to why it localized over Antarctica/ Tierra del Fuega is not. As you said earlier, the conditions for a ‘hole’ are present in both polar regions, yet even though much more CFC’s were in use in the Northern hemisphere, the ‘hole’ appeared in the Southern hemisphere. 

[NickW + 2,714]

11 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

There was a rash of adolescents on this site playing around with peoples names in an effort to be clever. I thought this was the case when I referred to you as ‘dumbass’. Please accept my apology (and no, I am not Canadian...).

Coal was the big contributor to acid rain and I believe most would agree with that.

The chemistry behind ozone depletion is understood, the mechanism as to why it localized over Antarctica/ Tierra del Fuega is not. As you said earlier, the conditions for a ‘hole’ are present in both polar regions, yet even though much more CFC’s were in use in the Northern hemisphere, the ‘hole’ appeared in the Southern hemisphere. 

It is well understood for people with rudimentary skills in reading and interpretation of scientific data. 

Its due to the polar vortex which forms over the antarctic and which is far more stable. This is primarily due to the fact the Antarctic is surrounded by 1000's km of ocean and not interrupted by nearby land masses as is the case with the Arctic. 

The Antarctic is much colder relative to the Arctic (partly due to the Earth being in aphelion during the southern hemisphere winter) and this further accelerates ozone destruction - the colder the conditions the faster the process. As the air over the antarctic is much more stable due to the vortex the apparent destruction of ozone is much more evident. 

Edited October 31, 2019 by NickW

[NickW + 2,714]

10 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

There was a rash of adolescents on this site playing around with peoples names in an effort to be clever. I thought this was the case when I referred to you as ‘dumbass’. Please accept my apology (and no, I am not Canadian...).

Coal was the big contributor to acid rain and I believe most would agree with that.

The chemistry behind ozone depletion is understood, the mechanism as to why it localized over Antarctica/ Tierra del Fuega is not. As you said earlier, the conditions for a ‘hole’ are present in both polar regions, yet even though much more CFC’s were in use in the Northern hemisphere, the ‘hole’ appeared in the Southern hemisphere. 

Unless you are a shill whose predominant  financing is from coal - then the issue is in complete doubt!

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

 

“It is well understood for people with rudimentary skills in reading and interpretation of scientific data. “

Right, let me take this further opportunity to apologize for my rudimentary skills in reading and interpreting scientific data. I will refrain from debating with you further as apparently your intellect is far superior to mine. Pardon me for wasting your time.

 

[NickW + 2,714]

4 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

 

“It is well understood for people with rudimentary skills in reading and interpretation of scientific data. “

Right, let me take this further opportunity to apologize for my rudimentary skills in reading and interpreting scientific data. I will refrain from debating with you further as apparently your intellect is far superior to mine. Pardon me for wasting your time.

 

You keep stating with an air of authority that the atmospheric chemistry is not understood. Well it is and its quite easy to read with the aid of the internet. 

You said there is no hole over the arctic - well there is - I posted numerous links

You said the larger hole over the antarctic doesn't make sense - well the explanation for it is well understood and I summarised it in a previous post. If you don't believe me go and do some research on the subject. 

If you have an alternate explanation for ozone depletion in the 20th century which coincides with CFC production then perhaps you can divulge rather than just dismiss the work that has been done on this issue since the 1950's. You need to offer a  counter explanation. 

As for Konspiracy theories I don't believe every nation on the planet would sign a protocol purely for the benefit of Dupont and a few other large chemical manufacturers.