Disputas om vulkaners påvirkning på klima og ozonlag live kl. 14:15

[Ex-administrator]

https://www.mn.uio.no/geo/english/research/news-and-events/events/disputations/2022/metos/brenna.html

[stjakobs]

Om det er noe som kan medvirke til ekstraordinær ozonfortynning i Antarktis, er vel vulkansk aktivitet det eneste som kan være ansvarlig. KFK-gasser er det neppe.

Paul Noel  har en betraktning om ozonhullet på Quora som jeg faktisk synes er ganske interessant.

Sitat:


"Is part of the issue with Ozone hole over Antarctica simply that Ozone is a charged particle that drifts northward in the rarefied stratosphere due to the Earth's magnetic field which is why the damage of CFCs is not so evident at the North Pole?

OK you are obviously thinking. The release of CFC's is as you note more in the Northern Hemisphere. What you may or may not know is that about 90% of all CFC release is in the North. This is sort of ipso facto a proof that CFC's have nothing to do with the claimed damages.

I sort of have an advantage over most people because the top experts on climate and weather work in Huntsville Alabama! Yes we are the best here and the rest are well laggards. I went some years ago and asked.

The story of the "ozone hole" is really nothing you have been told about. Ozone formation is the product of a photochemical reaction at low atmosphere pressure right at the edge of space. This reaction is between Oxygen (O2) and steps up due to ionization to (O3) ozone. This reaction is temperature limited. It cannot happen below -205F (-131.6C) This turns out to be the cause of the "Ozone Hole". In the region of the South Pole the upper atmosphere was getting colder than usual and it was stopping the photochemical reaction. The south polar region is actually colder than the north polar region due to the orbital distances during the seasons.
Talk about a 2′fer. This is a 2 for 1 deal. You know buy one get one free (BOGO) deal. Well this is a real BOGO. You see when you realize that this is the product not of CFC's rising but of extreme cold, you find out that not only is the claim about CFC's bogus, so is the claim of "Global Warming". No it has nothing to do with "Atomic Chlorine" and CFC's

I have pointed out to people why CFC's were selected for use. CFC's are essentially inert. As alternatively Ammonia (NH3) which is very toxic and explosive in air. Ammonia works well as a refrigerant gas actually better than Freon but it is really a nasty character. It is poisonous, toxic, explosive and under extreme pressure (800 psig) in refrigeration units. CFC's are non-corrosive and Ammonia is corrosive. (technically caustic) Freon was chosen for a reason but that wasn't the big set of reasons. Freon is heavier than air and does not form mixtures with air. AND! Freon when it is spilled falls into the earth with amazing speed and gets lost causing no obvious problems. Halon Fire Suppression systems were developed using this latter set of properties. You could literally pour it onto a fire and put it out and it was so heavy it wouldn't suffer convection removal like CO2 does.

The reality is that absolutely 100% of everything they told you about CFC's was a DAMNED LIE! I mean it CFC's were safe, reliable and non-polluting. They only had one hazard and it was possible asphyxiation risk in low collection areas of the gas. I have handled the liquid FREON used to wash computer parts. I have seen it boiling and pouring onto the ground. CFC's do nothing of what you have been told. NOTHING!

The proof for those who cannot see the truth is very simple and is contained in the format of your question. The failure of CFC's to cause many times worse of "Ozone Hole" in the northern hemisphere is the proof that they don't cause it at all! There is no reason for this South Pole Ozone Hole to exist if you believe CFC's are the problem they are accused of being.

Now for the lunatics who might read this, there is even more proof.



Notice the false color graphic above. Notice that the Ozone layer is actually thicker over the region between Australia and Antarctica. Way off the top end! The reason is very simple. The reaction when suppressed by being cold warms up, it rebounds to make more Ozone.

But the story is worse than that for the Oxone Hole freaks! The reality is that they were sure that it was causing more sunburns. Reality is that the hole formation was actually reducing UV penetration into the atmosphere. There is little or no sunlight in the Antarctic when this forms. The thicker Ozone layer north of there ... Well if it is blocking UV it would be less not more. But the real dirty story is that this layer is irrelevant. UV isn't blocked in the upper atmosphere. UV is blocked in the bottom 2 miles of the atmosphere. That is proved by Mountain Climbers needing strong sunscreens. It is proved by Aircraft glass needing to be strong sunscreens.

But it gets far far worse for the Ozone Hole Freaks. These lunatics refuse to realize that their freakout has caused massive increases in energy demand for refrigeration as the substitutes are not as efficient. They are about 30% less efficient! Unless you include the "non-Freon" freons that they call not CFC's which are CFC's in reality.

This whole Ozone Hole freakout is classing of our modern Environmentalist Wackos as they get all whipped up over something and go off and cause more trouble than if they had left well enough alone."

[Telehiv]

Om det er noe som kan medvirke til ekstraordinær ozonfortynning i Antarktis, er vel vulkansk aktivitet det eneste som kan være ansvarlig. KFK-gasser er det neppe.

Morsomt med litt sprek fagkritikk, jeg fikk noen assosiasjoner til salig Jon Hustad av Paul Noels ramsalte beskrivelse av The Ozone Hole Freaks der Hustad på sin side beskrev en vindmafia der reell kunnskap preller av som vann på gåsa. Jeg er ikke nok opplest på CFC-gasser (norsk: KFK) til å kunne vurdere godheten i Paul Noels slakt av The Ozone Hole Freaks. Men det minner unektelig mye om en rekke andre forskeres kritikk framsatt de siste par tiårene.

Uansett, KFK-utslipp til atmosfæren og tilhørende ozon-alarmisme er mer konkret miljøproblematikk rundt kjemi/fysikk enn hypotetiske/uverifiserte klimaantakelser og kan dermed vitenskapelig testes (jfr. Noels påstander om falsifisering av ozonalarmismen).

Den beste indikasjonen på at ozonalarmismen ikke har tålt tidens tann veldig godt er kanskje den påfallende stillheten rundt dette det siste tiåret?