Ozone Hole fact or fiction?

An image is worth a thousand words, you say. But when it comes to ozone hole, global warming, etc, the available images are computer generated and, as you know, when it comes to computer science, the old guys used to say: GIGO! GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT!

And computer graphs are as truthful and honest as the guy behind the keyboard programming the graphs. We are walking on thin ice here, Invert_Nexus, and scientific fraud is growing, and growing, and growing. Would you like to hear the sound of a different bell on when to get your sunbath and for how long? Read <a href=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/PlaySafe.html>Play it Safe: Take Sun at Noon!</a>

And this will surprise you: this is a graph by the IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, showing a graph of ozone levels 1970-1995.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig4-8.htm

The levels were increasing between 1970 and 1995, when Rowland an Molina were saying ozone levels were going down catastrophically! They got a Nobel prize in 1995. It would make me laugh – if it were not a disgraceful evidence of how science has been politicized and corrupted.
 
You know something that's odd about some of these pictures? The graph on the side explains the color keys. Why is there a pink color down in the blues? Why don't they have a regularly gradated color scale. In fact, some of the colors when placed next to each other or surrounding each other end up looking like different colors because of optical effects. It's like another example of an attempt to confuse the image. Now, I'm not actually accusing them of trying to do any such thing, I just find it odd. Is this standard practice in images of this type?

And, yes, Edufer, I can see your point about the amount of UV reaching the ground being the issue at hand. And I can also see how these warnings are of a great importance to you, considering that you live in the affected area. Have you personally set out equipment to test uv light levels reaching the ground? I think you have made a convincing argument. And, as I said before, perhaps the greatest evidence on your behalf is that no one has picked apart your calculations. I tend to believe that if anybody was able to do so, they would. It has always been the case from what I've seen in here so far.

About Mr. Chips being an agent of the enemy (partner in deceit) or whatever you were saying, I definitely wouldn't go that far, but he attacked you first, so I'll have to bow out of that argument.

Also, I started this rehash of this thread with a quote from the <a href="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ENGLISH.html">Ecology: Myths and Frauds</a> link you gave.

"The greens would make us believe the world is small, that it is delicate and we are destroying it. I've watched their ranks swell to overflowing and heard their voices grow to a thunder. And still, there is something I know deep in my heart. They are wrong. The world is not delicate. It is strong. It is robust, it is alive, teeming with life and we are a part of it. We are not destroying the world. In fact, we are not affecting it in the smallest part."
Click to expand...

Now, as I said, I don't understand all the physics involved; but I would think that the answer lies somewhere in between. We may not be destroying it as outright as has been claimed, but I think the claim that we are not affecting it in the smallest part is a bit much. Somewhere in the center lies the answer.


You know the thing that offends me about this (if it is a hoax or exagerration) is that it's so typical of our times. Scaremongering. It's like all the "Truth" commercials on the air in the US these days. For all who haven't seen them, they are an organization that is out to tell the "Truth" about the tobacco industry. Now, it's a fact that cigarettes are bad for you. The thing that offends me is that we all know it. We all knew it when we started. And if you didn't know it, either you were a total retard or maybe you're a hundred years old and back then everyone thought it was cool. It's common sense that inhaling burning smoke into your lungs is going to mess you up. We don't need propaganda style broadcasts to inform us of this. We don't have the right to sue the tobacco company because we took our own health into our own hands. There are other correlaries as well, terrorism, drug abuse, crime statistcs. All these are portrayed in the most frightening way that they can make it. I'm sick of it. Anyway, that's my rant on fearmongering... :p

And, as to the nobel prize, Kissinger never gave his back... :p
 
Edufer: "And did you, Mr. Chips, understand anything on that website?"

Ah, no, I've been on mars for the last few years in a deep cavern with my fingers in my ears.

Edufer: "Could you comment on those scientific findings?"

mvcop24md98%@*(, (well, I guess not.)

Edufer: "Or you will just keep on your usual ad hominems attacks (about my integrity) in order to dismiss my information?"

Hello?
 
Nexus, it is 4:00 AM down here. I must "hit the sack" or obody will take me out of bed tomorrow (I mean, in four hours from now). I should have been jumping in the streets with my friends, because my soccer team (Boca Juniors) won its semifinal in the "Libertadores Soccer Cup", and will be playing for the finals next week, and on December will play against the European champion for the world cup.

Piece of cake. We won the World cup last year, and did it on 2002, and 2000. But this thread of ozone layer and the hoax behind it kept me awake.

I sympathize with all you are saying, and find you have a lot of common sense, much more than the average person. The quest for the truth is not an easy task. And the road to hell is paved with good intentions...

Kissinger not only did not return his Nobel, but he was awarded the title of Sir by Her Gracious Majesty Queen Elizabeth II "for valuable services rendered to the Crown" - as Kissinger aknowledged back in 1984 (in his speech when receiving the title), he used to inform Her Majesty before his president (Nixon). Nice guy... Admiral Alexander Haig also got his "Sir" after he gave valuable service (satelite info and "sidewinder" missiles) to the British Task Force during the Malvinas-Falkland war in 1982.

I will give you some interesting examples about the way color is used in graphs in order to disguise and confound information, giving a different meaning. People are not too inquisitive when looking at graphs, especially journalists. Wait until tomorrow and be prepared. It will make you smile.
 
I guess, Invert nexus, you saw this page http://www.theozonehole.com/ozoneholehistory.htm with pictures of the ozone hole from 1980 to 2003 next to each other? The 2003 summary by the NOAA on that page appears fairly astute and might embody all that you need to share with your friend.

The graph on this page suggests that recovery of ozone levels may not be complete until 2060 http://www.ec.gc.ca/science/sandejan99/article7_e.html as long as the ban of ozone destroying substances is continued. This site also is predominantly concerned with the Arctic hole, a newer phenomenon than the Antarctic hole.

"The incidence of skin cancer is higher in Australia than in any other country, and incidence rates are still rising." from http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih1/cancer/activities/activity5_database.htm

Skin Cancer Incidence Increases in Canada, http://www.gov.ns.ca/news/details.asp?id=20040527004

I have not read Edufer's posts above as I have found it entirely worthless to do so when encountering his zeal in other threads. I don't really care what you want to believe Invert nexus, that is your choice. I have found that often, Edufer's slurs are a reflection of his own worst fears, for example, calling me "their partner in deceit" may be something that reflects more on his voluminous posting than on me. I will not hide my opinion. I have found that Edufer ardently works to obfuscate science with lies, spin, gross exageration and ad hominems replete. I tried to get him banned once, pointing to the threads where he brings his vehemence to the point where the threads were locked down as well as his utter inability to respond to pointed examples of his lying like a dog. Edufer is an adept troll, plain and simple. He will ignore any cogent criticism of his crusades and continue on probably until the planet is blessed with his death. No bones, I do not like or trust the man at all, not at all. If he says something is true, that is reason alone for skepticism.

Ever see that Twilight Zone of a small town in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust, where an old man says he has a sage he consults about the safety of food crops and the town folk are tired of following his advice and only eating root crops? The town rises against him and goes to the cave where the "sage" lives and finds a radiation contamination analysis lab. They destroy the lab and eat the food. The last scene is the old man walking amongst the bodies of the town folk. Science is the art of sharing information. When you see someone who is unaproachably adamant about their opinions, be aware, be very aware

or not.
 
Acording to the above information gently provided by Skylark, Oxygen absorbs UV radiation between wavelengths 70 and 250 nm. So it shouldn’t be absorbing UB-V radiation between 280-315 nm, absorption left to ozone (220-320 nm), right?
Click to expand...

Yes, as the graph you supplied a few posts later clearly illustrates, oxygen does not absorb UVB radiation.

Ozone can also absorb UV-B, yes, but the amount absorbed is in proportion to its concentrations
Click to expand...

Absorption is also determined by the extinction coefficient for a given wavelength as well as the path length of the radiation through the given chemical.

So all radiation 70-320nm is absorbed. 10-70nm and 320-380nm are not absorbed. Total is 67.56% of the radiation is absorbed. Oxygen absorbs 40.54%, Ozone absorbs 18.91%, they overlap over 8.10%.
Click to expand...

If the atmosphere is made up of nothing but oxygen and ozone. (Other gases also absorb some of this radiation, nitrogen for example shows absorbance in lower wavelengths of the UVA). If the levels of radiation is constant across all wavelengths (Of the total solar UV radiation, UVA accounts for about 76%, UVB 18%, and UVC 6%). If the levels of oxygen and ozone are high enough when multiplied by thier extinction coefficients and the length of the path of radiation such that their absorption is 100% at all wavelengths in which the two chemicals are not transparent (this applies to oxygen, but not ozone). Then yes.
 
<font face=verdana size=2>
More on the phony way "sientists" publishing in Science and "respected" journal distort information, trying to show <b><font color=#0000cc>an overall warming</font></b> - while there is <b><font color=#ff0000>some small and regional warming.</font></b>

This graph, adequately colored, gives the impression that the warming is general. See the scale at the bottom, and see that <b><font color=#dd0000>"0ºC - no change"</font></b> is also <b><font color=#ff0000>colored in red</font></b>. A subtle shade of red, but gives de visual impression of "Warming", although <b><font color=#ff0000>there has not been any warming.</font></b><p><img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-5/image5A.gif"><p>
The same graph is processed by a simple paint program and shifted the color scale so <b><font color=#dd0000 size=4>NO CHANGE</font></b> falls in the dark blue color, and <b><font color=#0000cc size=4>"decreased temperatures"</font></b> in the black and green region. The <b><font color=#ff00ff size=4>0.2º C warming</font></b> region is <b><font color=>purple</font></b> while the <b>0.1º C </b>is lighter shades of blue.<p><img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-5/image5B.gif"><p> <b>Do you see GLOBAL WARMING there?</b>

Do you see now to what extent they will go in order to prove something that does not exist? But they will keep publishing their press releases with distorted graphs, and the only thing they'll prove is that they want the people not to distinguish between truth and lies.

Giving the charts a different hue is <b><font color=#ff0000>not doctoring data – is UN-doctoring data.</font></b> The data is the same, the proportions are the same, only the visual impact changes. Doctoring data is what has been done by using <b><font color=red>"doctored color schemes"</font></b> for making scale bar that induce a false visual impression.
 
I must split my posts in two or three, due to constraints imposed by the page. It does not accept too many graphs.

As a necessary introductin on the next type of "Color Schemes" (or Color Scams), I will excerpt some paragraphs from an article on Tech Central Station website, by Miceal O'Ronain - 7 July 2002:

In a story titled "<u><a href=http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/envirowrapper.jsp?PID=1051-450&CID=1051-062802B>Coloring Climate Change</a></u>" by Nick Schulz, <u><a href=http://www.techcentralstation.com/>Tech Central Station</a></u> reported that key documents, in a US government report titled "<u><a href=http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/default.htm>The National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change",</a></u> <b><font color=#ff0000>were "doctored" to distort public perceptions of climate change.</font></b> The report was published by the <u><a href=http://www.usgcrp.gov/>United States Global Change Research Program</a></u>. According to their own <u><a href=http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/GCRPINFO.html>web page</a></u>, the USGCRP coordinates the research of ten Federal departments and agencies with active global change programs and provides liaison with the Executive Office of the President. The budget of the USGCRP in fiscal year 2002 was approximately $1.7 billion US dollars.

The National Assessment report has served as the basis for parts of the 2001 National Academy of Sciences' report "<u><a href=http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10139.html?onpi_headlines_042202>Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions</a>"</u> prepared for President Bush on the state of climate science and, most recently, for the highly controversial "<u><a href=http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car/uscar.pdf>U.S. Climate Action Report – 2002</a></u>", covertly issued by climate alarmists within the <u><a href=http://www.epa.gov/>Environmental Protection Agency</a></u>, with the objective of embarrassing the Bush Presidency.

The TCS story displays two graphics, shown below. The graph on the left is the one which was circulated during the public comment period after the original draft was developed. It compares the Canadian Model with the Hadley Model for the lower 48 States for the summer months of June through August, over the next 100 years. The TCS <a href=http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/envirowrapper.jsp?PID=1051-450&CID=1051-062802B>story</a> provides additional background on the two graphs and is highly commended to your attention. Then the disparity between the two models' future forecasts, cast doubt on the predictive capacity of the Canadian and Hadley models, the USGCRP issued the final report on the right, with the color scale altered to obscure the differences between the two models.

<TABLE width=600 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>
<IMG src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-6/USGCRP_Draft.gif" width=300 border=1> </TD><TD><IMG src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-6/USGCRP_Final.gif" width=300 border=0> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER></DIV>

Continued in next post ----->
 
Last edited:
<FONT face=verdana size=2>Unfortunately for the USGCRP, the two models show the areas of warming and cooling to be occurring in widely different sections of the United States. The USGCRP's solution to this conundrum was to alter the temperature color scale by eliminating yellow and green, and extending the color orange into negative temperature ranges as low as -1.0°F, thereby implying warming,&nbsp; when in fact the models were showing no temperature change or cooling for some localities.

<DIV align=center><CENTER><TABLE width=584 border=0><TBODY><TR>
<TD width=400><IMG height=406 src=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-6/USGCRP_Animate.gif width=400 border=1></TD>
<TD width=170><FONT face=verdana size=2>When the "Draft" and "Final" copies of the USGCRP graphs are animated, employing a technique used elsewhere on this <A href=http://www.john-daly.com/press/press-01b.htm#past-usa>web site</A>, the amateurish nature of the deception becomes painfully obvious:</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> </CENTER></DIV>

Not only was the distorted temperature color scale used to obscure the next 100 years of temperature models, it was also used to change the perception of the United State's past climatic history. The page "<A href=http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/overviewlooking.htm>Overview:&nbsp; Looking at America's Climate</A>" contains a graphic titled "<A href=http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/LargerImages/OverviewGraphics/Temp.jpg>Temperature Change</A>" <FONT color=blue>(shown below)</FONT>, which attempts to minimize the significant cooling which occurred in the Southeastern United States during the 20<SUP>th</SUP> Century. This is achieved by coloring even the zero or `no change' temperatures in light orange, and blending colors in such a way as to make it almost impossible to differentiate anything between about 0° and 5°.&nbsp; Not even the IPCC has as yet stooped to this level of deception.

<center><A href=http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/LargerImages/OverviewGraphics/Temp.jpg><SPAN style="COLOR: windowtext; TEXT-DECORATION: none"><IMG height=320 src=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-6/USGCRP_Temp_Change.jpg width=553 border=0></SPAN></A></center>

On the <A href=http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/overviewlooking.htm>same web page</A>, there is another graph titled "<A href=http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/LargerImages/OverviewGraphics/Summer_WinterTemp.jpg>Summer Maximum and Winter Minimum Temperature Change</A>" <FONT color=blue>(shown below),</font> which contains the USGCRP's final version of the Canadian and Hadley 21<SUP>st</SUP> Century Summer and Winter Models, again with a choice of color scheme which blends everything from 0° to 5° into a deceptive spread of orange.&nbsp; Even areas which these models show will not change, <b><font color=#ff8000>are colored in orange.</font></b> What other purpose can this peculiar coloring scheme serve but to suggest future warming in areas where none is actually predicted by the model?

<center><A href="http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/LargerImages/OverviewGraphics/Summer_WinterTemp.jpg"><SPAN style="COLOR: windowtext; TEXT-DECORATION: none"><IMG height=323 src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-6/USGCRP_Summer_Winter_Temp.jpg" width=562 border=0></SPAN></A></CENTER>

In the <A href="http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/background/default.htm">Background Information</A> section, things become interesting. On a deeply buried page at "<A href="http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/background/scenarios/vemap/trends.html">VEMAP Trend Maps</A>" the original high resolution images, on which the draft graphics were based, can still be found. The individual graphs are: "<A href="http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/background/scenarios/images/txcstr-b.gif">CGCM1 Maximum Temperature Trend (JJA)</A>" and "<A href="http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/background/scenarios/images/txhstr-b.gif">HadCM2 Maximum Temperature Trend (JJA)</A>".

One could engage in endless speculation as to why the USGCRP went to the trouble of altering the first two sections yet failing to alter the third, which contained the most incriminating information. The two most likely explanations are: (1) the Background Information section was overlooked and (2) the USGCRP did not expect anyone to find the original graphs from the Canadian and Hadley Models. Also, on the "<A href="http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/background/scenarios/vemap/trends.html">VEMAP Trend Maps</A>" page the Canadian and Hadley Models are not compared side-by-side, so the inconsistencies between the models are not as obvious.&nbsp;

Of course, the USGCRP may not even care if the real results from the Canadian and Hadley Models are found. As long as the media continues to endlessly report only the results from the first two sections, the voices of a few skeptics can be safely ignored.&nbsp;&nbsp;</dir>
And this ends the chapter on Color Schemes on Graphs, or How to Sell a Freezer to an Eskimo.

The information and its links have been provided for further research and analysis, so Mr. 'Ad Hominem' Chips cannot accuse me of "obfuscation of science" - especially when he merely gives deprecating opinions on skeptics but very little scientific information or analysis by himself.
 
"Obfuscation," such as lots of shit having nothing to do with the subject of this thread? I have communicated before that I don't buy the global warming hypothesis though for lack of another handle, I don't mind people using it for an excuse to take action to reverse and avoid disturbing ecological balance but it has NO PLACE HERE IN THIS THREAD.

Yes, I read a bit of your recent missives, Edufer, enough to know that you are quite out of order with your usual pedantic pontificating. Call that an ad hominem if you will. I've done worse :D

My opinion is that the ozone hole is no hoax and another appears to have come about over the other pole in the last few years. The banning of ozone depleting chemicals makes sense. We will probably not see the extreme result of our abuse of the ozone for another twenty years so, keep your children close, live at low elevations and low latitudes unless you want to curtail many of your outdoor activities,

and keep on thinking free

or not.
 
Oh, it is interesting from what I study that the holes appear correlated with inordinate stratospheric cooling in which case, if you care to make the connection, that shit you just posted Edufer, may be more grist for the mill that the holes are not a hoax but it seems you have made no attempt to relate that stuff to the subject of this thread. "Confusion may be my epitaph" (King Crimson, Epitaph) but seems it's your legacy.
 
Yes, I read a bit of your recent missives, Edufer, enough to know that you are quite out of order with your usual pedantic pontificating. Call that an ad hominem if you will. I've done worse
Click to expand...
That’s right, You have done much worse, and Tristan closed a thread because of you. As you can see Nexus, if you wanted to see what happened when Mr. Chips wanted to have me banned from sciforums, you should go to this page: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35909&page=2&pp=20, and see what the rest of the people in this forum think of Mr. Chips. Going down a bit on that page, Tristan (the moderator that closed one thread because Mr. Chips went totally out of his mind) makes a post in red color that deserves to be read.

Regarding my last post as having NO PLACE HERE IN THIS THREAD, Invert Nexus had commented about how weird he found the color schemes on the bar along the ozone charts, and he wondered if it was intended to confound people. I said it was just that, and provided examples of how fraudulent they (you, prophets of Doom, ecologist guys!) will go in order to push their hoaxes.

So it is not out of the spirit of the topic, that is, hoaxes on the ozone issue, and environmentalist’s hoaxes and scientific frauds in general. But as usual, you will take any excuse to abuse me. As if I cared. What is always OUT OF TOPIC is your constant attack on me or any other dissenting opinions. You have done it before, and you will keep doing it in the future. It is in your genes.

I will not lose my sleep on your opinion on me, and it seems to me that’s you who’s always pontificating on anything at hand.

Oh, it is interesting from what I study that the holes appear correlated with inordinate stratospheric cooling in which case, if you care to make the connection, that shit you just posted Edufer,
Click to expand...
First of all, you should show some respect to other people in this forum, and keep your four letter words out of these pages. You pretend to be and "educated" man, but you are not showing it.

Second, you have earned a place in the Ignorant’s Hall of Fame. The connection has been made long ago, first by the NOZE expedition to Antarctica, back in 1987, and used later by Molina for his theory of SPCs (I hope you know that means stratospheric polar clouds) saying that ice crystals on SPCs provides the hard surface needed for chlorine to react on ozone molecules. All this was necessary because, according to the very old law in chemistry called “gaseous phase”, chlorine cannot react with ozone molecules in mid air – they need a hard surface for doing it. And SPC only forms in Antarctica’s stratosphere when its temperature goes down beyond -82º C.

That’s the reason why an ozone hole seldom opens in the Arctic’s stratosphere because temperatures there are not cold enough to allow SPC formation.

And what’s much worse, as that kind of stratospheric clouds never, but NEVER form outside the South Pole, there is no chlorine attack on ozone anywhere else in the world..

So there it goes all your ideas of ozone layer depletion. It has not happened – at least caused by chlorine, man-made or natural. The ozone layer increases and decreases following well established natural phenomena, mainly UV increase and decrease according to natural variations in the Sun’s activity.

But I hadn’t mentioned that, because I hadn’t mentioned ALL the hundreds of evidences that debunk and send the anthropogenic ozone depletion theory to the garbage can.

You are still the same ignorant on scientific matters. My Lord, and you pretend to argue with me and other people that know what they are talking about! No wonder you are not popular in these sci-forums, Chippie.
 
Whoa, hard not to read the bold. I guess truth is just not what science would have us believe. According to this site, sometimes those clouds form in lower latitudes. http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline...&issn=1520-0477&volume=055&issue=03&page=0213 Luckily we got you to straighten us out, pontificating pretentious obfuscating zealot.

So you admit that chlorine compounds do deplete ozone but you don't think it's anthropogenic (oh, did I forget pedantic?). WTF are we arguing about? Maybe I should just bow out. I really don't want to read any of your posts, Edufubar. I had assumed you would claim the global agreements for the bans were not necessary and that the hole or holes were not related to human activity. My bad. Apparently you are doing the good fight, helping people become aware of an alarming condition and the work we need to do to dispel the potential calamity. BTW, I so see some references on the web that decreasing greenhouse gases would lead to less of those cold stratospheric clouds and should be considered as a part of the strategy to stop the increasing ozone depletion. If you haven't already, you better cull the available experts and the data to find the weapons you need to support your theory that we needn't concern ourselves with greenhouse gases regarding this idea that they lead to ozone depletion. That's how science works, right, from theory to desired facts?

For links to flame wars and a limited history of the Edufer phenomenon, see the next to last post in this thread http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35909&page=1&pp=20 Read the whole thread if you want to waste some real time. Public forums have a tendency to cater to trolls and their sycophants. What else is new.
 
I guess, Invert nexus, you saw this page http://www.theozonehole.com/ozoneholehistory.htm with pictures of the ozone hole from 1980 to 2003 next to each other? The 2003 summary by the NOAA on that page appears fairly astute and might embody all that you need to share with your friend.
Click to expand...

I missed that page. That is exactly what I was looking for. I haven't totally read the page yet, but the pictures are somewhat odd. The hole seems to grow and shrink. I will check out the site more indepth, now that I have found what I wanted. And attempt to come to a conclusion. Thanks, Chips. :)

Public forums have a tendency to cater to trolls and their sycophants. What else is new.
Click to expand...

I hope you're not including me in either of those categories. I am only searching for information. And as to Edufer being a troll. I brought on those off-topic posts by commenting on the odd color scale used in the images I had seen. And I take it that you are saying that no one has refuted his science because he's a troll and why bother? Could be that, I guess. Hasn't stopped anyone from voluminously shooting down the post's of certain others I've seen around here. Maybe there's just not anyone qualified to pick apart his posts? Anyway, I'm bowing out of the troll war. :D Can't we all just get along?
 
Search around for the data of the recent and increasing hole over the Arctic. Kind of shoots this all natural cycle, "don't worry be happy" theory to death.
 
Nexus: if you go back and check the thread you'll see it was me who provided the link to "www.theozonehole.com" website. Chippie picked it up and repeated it later. Credit to where it belongs. :)

Chippie burped: “So you admit that chlorine compounds do deplete ozone but you don't think it's anthropogenic.”

Get a new prescription for your glasses. I never admitted chlorine compounds deplete the ozone layer, as there is no depletion of the ozone layer, as measured by Robertson-Berger spectrometers (only 4 of the kind in the world) installed by the National Science Foundation in Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina, and run by our CONICET (National Council of Scientific Research and Technology) along with our National Weather Service.

The chief scientist in charge of the ozone measurements, Lic. Victoria Tafuri, in the National Observatory at Villa Ortúzar, repeats every year the same statement: “There has not been any reduction in ozone levels over Buenos Aires, Argentina, during the past 30 years of measurements”. So the “ongoing ozone depletion” must be occurring in your feverish mind. As you surely ignored, ozone levels can vary up to 40% in a matter of hours, anywhere in the world. They vary from one hour to another, from day to day, week to week, month to month, year to year, and all those changes are absolutely natural.

Chippie says: “I had assumed you would claim the global agreements for the bans were not necessary and that the hole or holes were not related to human activity. ” You assumed right. The ban was unnecessary, and man has nothing to do with it.

More stupid comments coming from Chippie: ”BTW, I so see some references on the web that decreasing greenhouse gases would lead to less of those cold stratospheric clouds and should be considered as a part of the strategy to stop the increasing ozone depletion.”

Strategy employed by whom? Nature? Because man or governments can do nothing for or against global warming or ozone depletion. One, because warming or cooling are forces beyond human possibilities, and ozone depletion is something that is not happening. As MSU satellites have been reading since 1979, while CO2 and CH4 levels have been increasing (although the rate of increase is slowing down every year, with methane emission leveled off), stratospheric temperatures have been going down steadily. The stratosphere is cooling, in spite of “greenhouse gases”, so your sources are speaking bullshit. And as said before, the “increasing ozone depletion” is found only in press releases – not in Robertson-Berger spectrometers readings.

And I need not cull experts to defend my theory. There are thousand of them all over the world knowing the “man-made ozone depletion” theory is a hoax – but they lack the political power to revert the Montreal Protocol. Had you read the scientifc material exhibited in the Crista-SPAS website, you’d keep your mouth shut.

Chippie: you suck.
 
Nexus: if you go back and check the thread you'll see it was me who provided the link to "www.theozonehole.com" website. Chippie picked it up and repeated it later. Credit to where it belongs. :)
Click to expand...

Yes, you did. And I had actually perused the site before, but somehow I missed that page in particular. But you have been helpful as well. :)
 
Edufer said:
Nexus: if you go back and check the thread you'll see it was me who provided the link to "www.theozonehole.com" website. Chippie picked it up and repeated it later. Credit to where it belongs. :)

Chippie burped: “So you admit that chlorine compounds do deplete ozone but you don't think it's anthropogenic.”

Get a new prescription for your glasses. I never admitted chlorine compounds deplete the ozone layer, as there is no depletion of the ozone layer, as measured by Robertson-Berger spectrometers (only 4 of the kind in the world) installed by the National Science Foundation in Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina, and run by our CONICET (National Council of Scientific Research and Technology) along with our National Weather Service.

The chief scientist in charge of the ozone measurements, Lic. Victoria Tafuri, in the National Observatory at Villa Ortúzar, repeats every year the same statement: “There has not been any reduction in ozone levels over Buenos Aires, Argentina, during the past 30 years of measurements”. So the “ongoing ozone depletion” must be occurring in your feverish mind. As you surely ignored, ozone levels can vary up to 40% in a matter of hours, anywhere in the world. They vary from one hour to another, from day to day, week to week, month to month, year to year, and all those changes are absolutely natural.

Chippie says: “I had assumed you would claim the global agreements for the bans were not necessary and that the hole or holes were not related to human activity. ” You assumed right. The ban was unnecessary, and man has nothing to do with it.

More stupid comments coming from Chippie: ”BTW, I so see some references on the web that decreasing greenhouse gases would lead to less of those cold stratospheric clouds and should be considered as a part of the strategy to stop the increasing ozone depletion.”

Strategy employed by whom? Nature? Because man or governments can do nothing for or against global warming or ozone depletion. One, because warming or cooling are forces beyond human possibilities, and ozone depletion is something that is not happening. As MSU satellites have been reading since 1979, while CO2 and CH4 levels have been increasing (although the rate of increase is slowing down every year, with methane emission leveled off), stratospheric temperatures have been going down steadily. The stratosphere is cooling, in spite of “greenhouse gases”, so your sources are speaking bullshit. And as said before, the “increasing ozone depletion” is found only in press releases – not in Robertson-Berger spectrometers readings.

And I need not cull experts to defend my theory. There are thousand of them all over the world knowing the “man-made ozone depletion” theory is a hoax – but they lack the political power to revert the Montreal Protocol. Had you read the scientifc material exhibited in the Crista-SPAS website, you’d keep your mouth shut.

Chippie: you suck.
Click to expand...

Yes,but the reduction of ozone layer is above Antarctica.
 
Edufer said:

That’s right, You have done much worse, and Tristan closed a thread because of you. As you can see Nexus, if you wanted to see what happened when Mr. Chips wanted to have me banned from sciforums, you should go to this page: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35909&page=2&pp=20, and see what the rest of the people in this forum think of Mr. Chips. Going down a bit on that page, Tristan (the moderator that closed one thread because Mr. Chips went totally out of his mind) makes a post in red color that deserves to be read.

Regarding my last post as having NO PLACE HERE IN THIS THREAD, Invert Nexus had commented about how weird he found the color schemes on the bar along the ozone charts, and he wondered if it was intended to confound people. I said it was just that, and provided examples of how fraudulent they (you, prophets of Doom, ecologist guys!) will go in order to push their hoaxes.

So it is not out of the spirit of the topic, that is, hoaxes on the ozone issue, and environmentalist’s hoaxes and scientific frauds in general. But as usual, you will take any excuse to abuse me. As if I cared. What is always OUT OF TOPIC is your constant attack on me or any other dissenting opinions. You have done it before, and you will keep doing it in the future. It is in your genes.

I will not lose my sleep on your opinion on me, and it seems to me that’s you who’s always pontificating on anything at hand.

First of all, you should show some respect to other people in this forum, and keep your four letter words out of these pages. You pretend to be and "educated" man, but you are not showing it.

Second, you have earned a place in the Ignorant’s Hall of Fame. The connection has been made long ago, first by the NOZE expedition to Antarctica, back in 1987, and used later by Molina for his theory of SPCs (I hope you know that means stratospheric polar clouds) saying that ice crystals on SPCs provides the hard surface needed for chlorine to react on ozone molecules. All this was necessary because, according to the very old law in chemistry called “gaseous phase”, chlorine cannot react with ozone molecules in mid air – they need a hard surface for doing it. And SPC only forms in Antarctica’s stratosphere when its temperature goes down beyond -82º C.

That’s the reason why an ozone hole seldom opens in the Arctic’s stratosphere because temperatures there are not cold enough to allow SPC formation.

And what’s much worse, as that kind of stratospheric clouds never, but NEVER form outside the South Pole, there is no chlorine attack on ozone anywhere else in the world..

So there it goes all your ideas of ozone layer depletion. It has not happened – at least caused by chlorine, man-made or natural. The ozone layer increases and decreases following well established natural phenomena, mainly UV increase and decrease according to natural variations in the Sun’s activity.

But I hadn’t mentioned that, because I hadn’t mentioned ALL the hundreds of evidences that debunk and send the anthropogenic ozone depletion theory to the garbage can.

You are still the same ignorant on scientific matters. My Lord, and you pretend to argue with me and other people that know what they are talking about! No wonder you are not popular in these sci-forums, Chippie.
Click to expand...

Everyone can say everything to just not make people nervous about the end of the world and an new ice age,everything is ok,but when everything goes to hell,than we ask ourselves,why and how?
These informations you got are here,because government doesn't want to disturb people-reason is national security.
I doubt it everything you written is correct,I truly doubt,since I don't trust to anybody,but I feel it on my skin and health.
 
That's gooooooooooood Gravage. Trust your immediate feelings. There's plenty of evidence all around that us humans are blowing it in a grand way. Just wanted to note that recently, as of just a few years ago, a hole has been observed above the Arctic also which is considered as having potential to grow at least for the next couple of decades until the compounds that have been found to lead to depletion have a chance to thin out of the atmosphere, according to the best and most research to date.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top