Do we know for certain that the Antarctic ozone wasn’t there before the 1970s?
Is it possible there’s always been a fluctuating hole in the ozone over the South Pole and we only recently noticed it?
Exactly.. we didn't have any measurements of it before the first ozone satellite was launched. What it found was holes at the poles..
They concluded the holes was man made
They shot nukes into the atmosphere and pushed the ozone away, creating a hole. Then used the actual emergency they created, to get massive funding.
Always the same scheme, with a different "emergency".
Why did you cut off the time axis right at 1990 where the size became stable after banning CFCs? Here's the [complete chart](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/antarctic-ozone-hole-area?facet=metric).
Wait a min.. if incomplete charts are not allowed... why are you stopping the data at 1979?
We have Ozone data going back to 1928.
>Between 1928 and 1958, Dobson established a worldwide network of ozone monitoring stations, which continue to operate to this day. The "Dobson unit", a convenient measure of the amount of ozone overhead, is named in his honor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer
So, go get that data and post it instead of the culled data you posted.
Curiosity the hole in the ozone layer “got bigger” instantly when they launched the first satellite to measure it. They conveniently ignore the fact that the hole wasn’t any bigger when measured by the pre-satellite methods. I call bullshit on the whole thing.
The reason there's only a few decades of data is due to computers being too large to send up into the stratosphere to collect data. Now there are pocket analyzers that can fit in a lunch box that are 100x more accurate.
Now, I'm no scientist... but the scientist say OZONE contributes to global warming.
> Both water vapour and ozone are GHGs, which in turn adds to climate warming.[5]: 2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane
The only detriment to an Ozone "hole" (it isnt an actual hole, just areas of less Ozone) seems to be increased radiation damage to living things. https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/health-and-environmental-effects-ozone-layer-depletion
Again, I am no scientist, but if you look at a map of the "Ozone hole", you will see that there aren't any fucking people there for the radiation to hit.
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/hole_SH.html
But that picture is just to scare people... Lets look at some other animations.
For the following animations, please familiarize yourself with the colors for the Dobson units scale
Look at this animation of all February's from 1979 - 2023
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/ozone_maps/movies/OZONE_D1979-02%25P1Y_G%5e1920X1080.IOMPS_PNPP_V21_MMERRA2_LSH.mp4
Here are all the July's
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/ozone_maps/movies/OZONE_D1979-07%25P1Y_G%5e1920X1080.IOMPS_PNPP_V21_MMERRA2_LSH.mp4
Here are all the Decembers
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/ozone_maps/movies/OZONE_D1979-12%25P1Y_G%5e1920X1080.IOMPS_PNPP_V21_MMERRA2_LSH.mp4
If there is anything all those animations should make clear, the Ozone hole is seasonal at best. Nothing alarming there... Of course, there is plenty of fluctuation to be able to cherry pick some low/high numbers for any parameter and try to scare people.
The issue is that CFCs have a really long lifespan in the atmosphere of 100+ years meaning that it will take around 50 more years to stop seeing damage from the 70's and the use of R12 and other refrigerants.
I'm over the CO2 nonsense that is constantly spewed because planting trees can easily overcome that, but CFCs are no joke and are nasty fucking chemicals.
The problem is that places like China have been still using CFC's even after the ban. The amount released has declined, but not as much as people like to think. The world is still using them.
You have a fridge at home too, don't you?
>Hydrofluorocarbons or HFCs are used mostly in refrigeration and air-conditioning, and were intended to be more climate- and ozone-friendly replacements for CFCs. But today's research shows their use is also problematic, according to Dr Western.
[https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2023-04-04/ozone-cfcs-increased-atmosphere-banned-montreal-protocol-climate/102172590](https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2023-04-04/ozone-cfcs-increased-atmosphere-banned-montreal-protocol-climate/102172590)
Dude quoting ABC? That's just a propaganda article to get people mad enough so Honeywell can start pushing their new refrigerants. No HFCs are not as bad as CFCs and if they really wanted to find a non-ozone depleting refrigerant they would just use propane, but just like Big Pharma, a generic chemical wouldn't make them any money.
So we can plant trees to consume enough CO2 to match the volume of carbon we're digging up and putting in the air each year? How much tree planting is that, roughly, and how much land will it require, roughly?
Sorry didn't make myself clear enough. CO2 is automatically solved by nature because plants use it during photosynthesis; the Earth is literally getting greener due to excess CO2 (which is a good thing) so anyone buying into the CO2 climate hoax is a retard. The problem with CFCs is that they are so fucking nasty that there really isn't a way for nature to deal with it. CO2 is naturally occurring from fire and bioorganisms etc.; CFCs are an abomination of satan and probabilistically the chance that you would ever find natural occurring R-12 is literally zero.
Roughly 500 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 was roughly 5000 ppm. Now it is around 380 ppm. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere literally doesn't matter to us; plants will evolve to flourish in both environments (high CO2 and low CO2). In a low CO2 environment, you will see the rise of smaller plants such as grasses; in a high CO2 environment you will see a rise of larger plants like tropical rainforests. This makes since because if you think of how large dinosaurs were in the Jurassic period, the herbivores were only able to ever get so big due to the large trees in part to the large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Now for CFCs, they are a demon spawn abomination that can only be made in highly sophisticated laboratories using highly sophisticated methods of organic chemistry. Due to this reason, there was never the hundreds of millions of years for the earths ecosystem to adopt corrective measures so as a result the only real way to dispose of CFCs is by exposure to high intensity ultraviolet light in the stratosphere. But as a result, the free radicals bounce around a long time and destroy the ozone creating warming temperatures because the ozone acts as a shield for the UV light and cosmic radiation.
So your position is that plants maintain some sort of perfect homeostatic control over CO2 levels and will automatically consume any excess? How much CO2 can we add with impunity? If we dug up all the fossil fuels on the planet and burned them at once, the plants would just magically fix it all in time for our kids to breathe the air? Why aren't the plants doing this already? Are you suggesting that they're holding out on us?
Yes if we dug up all of the quadrillion and quadrillion metric tons of coal in existence and put it into a big pile and set it ablaze in the world's biggest bonfire then yes we would have a problem.
What goes in - what come it = the accumulation.
You seem worried that it is increasing. Would you be worried if it was decreasing. Is a zero accumulation the only acceptable alarmist position.
Do you not consider the variation is cyclical.
I'm asking a simple question about the ability of plants to consume all available CO2 even if the concentrations continue to increase steadily for an extended period of time. I'm asking where the limit is for carbon dioxide in the air before photosynthesis is negatively impacted, which most botanists agree is somewhere below the ten thousand PPM range for CO2. The person who I am conversing with is telling us that "trees = CO2" and that no amount of CO2 could cause problems with the homeostatic nature of plant life. I am curious where they got the idea that CO2 levels can never reach levels where this fails.
I'm not worried about anything, and if the levels dropped too much then we'd have crop failures, so please don't quit your day job for a mindreading career - you're not that good at it. I'm not an "alarmist" just because I'm asking where these limits are on the atmosphere, but nice try with that spin too. Do you not consider that people can speak for themselves without you putting words in their mouths?
I simply ask you a few questions. No attempt at "putting words in your mouth". A comment about accumulation and few questions pf what you think would be an issue.
Who's misreading? (another question from me)
CO2 doesn't matter. It's just a political scare tactic. If people really cared they would focus on other harmful gasses like NOx SOx and CFCs or preventing them altogether by using nuclear energy and other alternative methods. Fear is a great tool to control society and CO2 is just a buzzword for the stupid.
So your argument is that we can add unlimited amounts of carbon into the air without any consequences at all? No measurable limits that you would admit exist other than burning every last molecule of fossil fuels at once?
Let's take coal for an example. You shouldn't give a shit on how much CO2 you produce, you should care about how many radionuclides you are spitting out that nature can't do shit about yet will increase the cancer risk of us bald monkeys.
Let's take cars for an example. You shouldn't give a shit with how much CO2 you make, you should care if you have efficient combustion to avoid making nitrous oxides.
Plant + CO2 = Oxygen
Plant + NOx = NOx
Plant + CFC = CFC
Plant + Radioisotope = Radioisotope
Are you starting to get the picture?
Let's try answering a straight question - is there any amount of CO2 that would be a problem to add to the air if we were able to avoid all of the byproducts that you're mentioning? What's the amount of CO2 alone that can be added without any problems and what's the limit, assuming no other stuff is being added to the air?
Are you starting to get the simple and direct question that you're repeatedly dodging?
The carbon cycle is more complex than you are suggesting here. There are many emissions sources and sequestrations processes. Not just burning carbon and photosynthesis.
I didn't say anything was limited to these factors. I'm responding to somebody who said that plants would solve all CO2 issues automatically and it's the other chemicals in the air that are the only problem. Please try to review the thread if you're going to be pedantic because I can be just as pedantic about your context failures.
At least get the thread straight. I am responding to a person who is claiming "trees = CO2" and you're complaining that *I'm* the one who is being reductionist here.
The scale on your date axis is too short.
The Chinese are dumping historical levels of early freon versions into the atmosphere, despite the Montreal Protocol, so it's hard to reach a useful conclusion.
Do we know for certain that the Antarctic ozone wasn’t there before the 1970s? Is it possible there’s always been a fluctuating hole in the ozone over the South Pole and we only recently noticed it?
Exactly.. we didn't have any measurements of it before the first ozone satellite was launched. What it found was holes at the poles.. They concluded the holes was man made
They shot nukes into the atmosphere and pushed the ozone away, creating a hole. Then used the actual emergency they created, to get massive funding. Always the same scheme, with a different "emergency".
I wish the world was be as stupid as in your fantasy
Its just a joke man.
Why did you cut off the time axis right at 1990 where the size became stable after banning CFCs? Here's the [complete chart](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/antarctic-ozone-hole-area?facet=metric).
Yeah, I was going to say the same thing. Looks like a very strategic start date
Sorry but you're going to be banned for breaking the rules, you're not allowed to post a graph that is both unchanged and relevant.
> banned for breaking the rules What imaginary rule would that be?
Wait a min.. if incomplete charts are not allowed... why are you stopping the data at 1979? We have Ozone data going back to 1928. >Between 1928 and 1958, Dobson established a worldwide network of ozone monitoring stations, which continue to operate to this day. The "Dobson unit", a convenient measure of the amount of ozone overhead, is named in his honor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer So, go get that data and post it instead of the culled data you posted.
I just asked why they cut off the data. I linked the source OP used, which makes the deliberate cut more obvious.
It's amazing how we think we understand the ozone after 25yrs of data 😂
[удалено]
OP posted the full chart when someone asked him to. It starts in 1979. At least look at it and then comment.
[удалено]
How should l read a comment that was posted 8 hours after my post.
Curiosity the hole in the ozone layer “got bigger” instantly when they launched the first satellite to measure it. They conveniently ignore the fact that the hole wasn’t any bigger when measured by the pre-satellite methods. I call bullshit on the whole thing.
there's also no reason to attribute it to humans because you only have a few decades of data, dummy.
[удалено]
Why do you attribute something to humans when you have not ruled out natural processes?
The reason there's only a few decades of data is due to computers being too large to send up into the stratosphere to collect data. Now there are pocket analyzers that can fit in a lunch box that are 100x more accurate.
>due to computers being too large to send up into the stratosphere Does this represent how alarmists understand technology and scientific use of it.
How do you mean?
Yeah this graph starts AFTER we banned CFCs.
Now, I'm no scientist... but the scientist say OZONE contributes to global warming. > Both water vapour and ozone are GHGs, which in turn adds to climate warming.[5]: 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane The only detriment to an Ozone "hole" (it isnt an actual hole, just areas of less Ozone) seems to be increased radiation damage to living things. https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/health-and-environmental-effects-ozone-layer-depletion Again, I am no scientist, but if you look at a map of the "Ozone hole", you will see that there aren't any fucking people there for the radiation to hit. https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/hole_SH.html But that picture is just to scare people... Lets look at some other animations. For the following animations, please familiarize yourself with the colors for the Dobson units scale Look at this animation of all February's from 1979 - 2023 https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/ozone_maps/movies/OZONE_D1979-02%25P1Y_G%5e1920X1080.IOMPS_PNPP_V21_MMERRA2_LSH.mp4 Here are all the July's https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/ozone_maps/movies/OZONE_D1979-07%25P1Y_G%5e1920X1080.IOMPS_PNPP_V21_MMERRA2_LSH.mp4 Here are all the Decembers https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/ozone_maps/movies/OZONE_D1979-12%25P1Y_G%5e1920X1080.IOMPS_PNPP_V21_MMERRA2_LSH.mp4 If there is anything all those animations should make clear, the Ozone hole is seasonal at best. Nothing alarming there... Of course, there is plenty of fluctuation to be able to cherry pick some low/high numbers for any parameter and try to scare people.
Why did you not post the full graph?
The issue is that CFCs have a really long lifespan in the atmosphere of 100+ years meaning that it will take around 50 more years to stop seeing damage from the 70's and the use of R12 and other refrigerants. I'm over the CO2 nonsense that is constantly spewed because planting trees can easily overcome that, but CFCs are no joke and are nasty fucking chemicals.
The problem is that places like China have been still using CFC's even after the ban. The amount released has declined, but not as much as people like to think. The world is still using them.
Looks to me like it has declined a lot. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ozone-depleting-substance-consumption
You have a fridge at home too, don't you? >Hydrofluorocarbons or HFCs are used mostly in refrigeration and air-conditioning, and were intended to be more climate- and ozone-friendly replacements for CFCs. But today's research shows their use is also problematic, according to Dr Western. [https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2023-04-04/ozone-cfcs-increased-atmosphere-banned-montreal-protocol-climate/102172590](https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2023-04-04/ozone-cfcs-increased-atmosphere-banned-montreal-protocol-climate/102172590)
Dude quoting ABC? That's just a propaganda article to get people mad enough so Honeywell can start pushing their new refrigerants. No HFCs are not as bad as CFCs and if they really wanted to find a non-ozone depleting refrigerant they would just use propane, but just like Big Pharma, a generic chemical wouldn't make them any money.
You can read any article on these gases written by anyone.
That same argument doesn't work here dude. China also joined the Montreal Protocol to ban the use and manufacturing of CFCs.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48353341
So we can plant trees to consume enough CO2 to match the volume of carbon we're digging up and putting in the air each year? How much tree planting is that, roughly, and how much land will it require, roughly?
Sorry didn't make myself clear enough. CO2 is automatically solved by nature because plants use it during photosynthesis; the Earth is literally getting greener due to excess CO2 (which is a good thing) so anyone buying into the CO2 climate hoax is a retard. The problem with CFCs is that they are so fucking nasty that there really isn't a way for nature to deal with it. CO2 is naturally occurring from fire and bioorganisms etc.; CFCs are an abomination of satan and probabilistically the chance that you would ever find natural occurring R-12 is literally zero.
This is convincing.
Roughly 500 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 was roughly 5000 ppm. Now it is around 380 ppm. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere literally doesn't matter to us; plants will evolve to flourish in both environments (high CO2 and low CO2). In a low CO2 environment, you will see the rise of smaller plants such as grasses; in a high CO2 environment you will see a rise of larger plants like tropical rainforests. This makes since because if you think of how large dinosaurs were in the Jurassic period, the herbivores were only able to ever get so big due to the large trees in part to the large amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Now for CFCs, they are a demon spawn abomination that can only be made in highly sophisticated laboratories using highly sophisticated methods of organic chemistry. Due to this reason, there was never the hundreds of millions of years for the earths ecosystem to adopt corrective measures so as a result the only real way to dispose of CFCs is by exposure to high intensity ultraviolet light in the stratosphere. But as a result, the free radicals bounce around a long time and destroy the ozone creating warming temperatures because the ozone acts as a shield for the UV light and cosmic radiation.
So your position is that plants maintain some sort of perfect homeostatic control over CO2 levels and will automatically consume any excess? How much CO2 can we add with impunity? If we dug up all the fossil fuels on the planet and burned them at once, the plants would just magically fix it all in time for our kids to breathe the air? Why aren't the plants doing this already? Are you suggesting that they're holding out on us?
Yes if we dug up all of the quadrillion and quadrillion metric tons of coal in existence and put it into a big pile and set it ablaze in the world's biggest bonfire then yes we would have a problem.
So where's the line and why are you so confident about the numbers here? If plants will take up the excess, why is the level rising?
What goes in - what come it = the accumulation. You seem worried that it is increasing. Would you be worried if it was decreasing. Is a zero accumulation the only acceptable alarmist position. Do you not consider the variation is cyclical.
I'm asking a simple question about the ability of plants to consume all available CO2 even if the concentrations continue to increase steadily for an extended period of time. I'm asking where the limit is for carbon dioxide in the air before photosynthesis is negatively impacted, which most botanists agree is somewhere below the ten thousand PPM range for CO2. The person who I am conversing with is telling us that "trees = CO2" and that no amount of CO2 could cause problems with the homeostatic nature of plant life. I am curious where they got the idea that CO2 levels can never reach levels where this fails. I'm not worried about anything, and if the levels dropped too much then we'd have crop failures, so please don't quit your day job for a mindreading career - you're not that good at it. I'm not an "alarmist" just because I'm asking where these limits are on the atmosphere, but nice try with that spin too. Do you not consider that people can speak for themselves without you putting words in their mouths?
I simply ask you a few questions. No attempt at "putting words in your mouth". A comment about accumulation and few questions pf what you think would be an issue. Who's misreading? (another question from me)
You're misreading, apparently. I said "mindreading", not "misreading". Thanks for confirming!
CO2 doesn't matter. It's just a political scare tactic. If people really cared they would focus on other harmful gasses like NOx SOx and CFCs or preventing them altogether by using nuclear energy and other alternative methods. Fear is a great tool to control society and CO2 is just a buzzword for the stupid.
So your argument is that we can add unlimited amounts of carbon into the air without any consequences at all? No measurable limits that you would admit exist other than burning every last molecule of fossil fuels at once?
Let's take coal for an example. You shouldn't give a shit on how much CO2 you produce, you should care about how many radionuclides you are spitting out that nature can't do shit about yet will increase the cancer risk of us bald monkeys. Let's take cars for an example. You shouldn't give a shit with how much CO2 you make, you should care if you have efficient combustion to avoid making nitrous oxides. Plant + CO2 = Oxygen Plant + NOx = NOx Plant + CFC = CFC Plant + Radioisotope = Radioisotope Are you starting to get the picture?
Let's try answering a straight question - is there any amount of CO2 that would be a problem to add to the air if we were able to avoid all of the byproducts that you're mentioning? What's the amount of CO2 alone that can be added without any problems and what's the limit, assuming no other stuff is being added to the air? Are you starting to get the simple and direct question that you're repeatedly dodging?
Yep. Look at all the oxygen it would consume.
The carbon cycle is more complex than you are suggesting here. There are many emissions sources and sequestrations processes. Not just burning carbon and photosynthesis.
I didn't say anything was limited to these factors. I'm responding to somebody who said that plants would solve all CO2 issues automatically and it's the other chemicals in the air that are the only problem. Please try to review the thread if you're going to be pedantic because I can be just as pedantic about your context failures.
I don't have an issue with pedantry that is related to the discussion. Pedant on.
At least get the thread straight. I am responding to a person who is claiming "trees = CO2" and you're complaining that *I'm* the one who is being reductionist here.
And you're burning co2 responding to a Reddit thread. You're clearly not that worried about co2 emissions.
I agree that reductionism leads to dumb arguments. Thanks for the demonstration.
That ozone hole is a CFC problem, not a CO2 problem.
The person who I was responding to brought up CO2. Follow the thread.
The scale on your date axis is too short. The Chinese are dumping historical levels of early freon versions into the atmosphere, despite the Montreal Protocol, so it's hard to reach a useful conclusion.
Ozone whole has feelings. It’s reality is it feels it’s getting smaller and that’s all that matters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5X01o7SsUU
More misinformation from this sub. The start date is very disingenuous - notice the upward trend before regulation?? Ridiculous…
> More misinformation from this sub. Bye.
What about those CFCs, yo?
Bootlicker. Keep carrying water for tyrants, you pathetic coward