The Salesmen of the Green New Deal

The ozone layer, 15 to 60 km above the earth's surface protects the earth from many of the sun's ultraviolet or UV rays. UV rays are good and necessary within a certain range, but in larger amounts would be harmful and a very dangerous threat to life on earth. The ozone depletion theory is the theory that chlorine from certain man-made compounds and carbon dioxide can travel up to the mesosphere and break down these ozone concentrations, bringing an increase in oxygen and allowing for more of the sun's rays to reach and affect the earth. This would lead to environmental catastrophe or "global warming". Thus when the terms such as "global warming", "greenhouse gas emissions", "climate change", are used, it is always a reference back to the Rowland and Molina ozone theory; Whether the people using those terms know this or not, may be quite another story...

If you are claiming that if the NYCFD had access to CFCs they could have prevented the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on 9-11, then I call bullshit!I am still baffled why you want to post here about any of this. What does it have to do with the evolution/creation debate?

quote:

---

The theory of "global warming" is the ozone depletion theory. They are one and the same.

---

You’d think that your Satanic masters would supply you with better lies. I realise that they want the truth suppressed, and that they want all the suffering and death that would result from inaction. The question is why you’re going along with it. Is it just because you’re ignorant, irrational and too dim to understand even the basics?

I want something beyond snipe and/or snark.Another official admin warning.Adminnemooseus

I feel for your desires, however, in a case like this there is only snipe/snark, belittle/laugh, at the utter stupidity of this opening post and its author.Moose, this is a stupidity beyond any reason of the human mind. This is demented, politically pointed, enmity for the facts. Unless this has become a church, he deserves to be slapped in both cheeks offered or not. This is the very kind of mental poison that we all see trying to undercut human progress in every area of suffering.No! We do not have to be nice. We should not be nice! Would you "be nice" to some Nazi in here talking about how many jews can fit in an oven? Not this subject either.This OP is an insult to all humanity. Let the insult of this stupidity and its proponent be voiced loud and often.

Can you show me an example of how that is the case? Because it sounds a bit like malarky to me, they're definitely two different issues. One has been mostly resolved, the other is very much ongoing.I mean, really, when was the last time that you heard about greenhouse gas emissions and it being linked to CFCs?It always talks about Carbon, Methane and Nitrous Oxide as prime examples and with good research and evidence backing those claims.Carbon in the air isn't even technically the biggest one (greenhouse gas) though it gets the brunt of the news behind it, because it takes the longest to get rid of, hundreds of years. While others remove themselves much quicker even if their short term impact is heavier.So erm, yeah, I'd love to see some evidence how this, specifically in the scientific literature or journals is linked to Rowland and Molina ozone theory.

quote:

---

The theory of "global warming" is the ozone depletion theory. They are one and the same.

---

Ozone depletion is the breakdown of ozone caused by CFCs releasing free chlorine in the lower stratosphere. This effect is regional and seasonal because it requires particular conditions for the effect t0 be more than minor.Global warming is a worldwide phenomenon where the Earth retains more heat through the greenhouse effect. While a number of gases can cause a greenhouse effect the main sources are methane and carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is the bigger problem since it is more stable and lingers for a longer time.Clearly they are different things. Anyone even vaguely informed knows that much.Global warming is already killing people - heatwaves are getting more extreme (see Message 25 for an example). Sea level rise, a consequence of global warming is already starting to cause problems. We’ve seen unusually destructive wildfires in California and Australia, because climate change is affecting conditions there. We can expect - and seem to be getting - more destructive hurricane seasons. And that is just the start it IS going to get worse. What do you propose to do about it that would be better than the Green New Deal?

Are you ignorant, stupid or just a troll?
Please provide some sort of argument and evidence backing this claim. Define "theory" as used in this context.

Provide some sort of actual basis for this claim. Did the NYFD say they wish Halon suppressors were available? Do you understand how the halon fire suppressors work? Do you understand why they would have been ineffective in the Twin towers on 9/11? Do you understand alternative systems were developed that are currently in use as halon suppression replacements.
Halon and its replacements are for fairly specific fire fighting needs. Good old water is more effective and practical in most situations.

It might help if a moderator request were extended to USA 1776 to support his claims with links to the websites he's using as his source of information. He has not as yet posted a single link. The references he provided in Message 1 (sans links) were about the ozone layer. They provided no connection to climate change.In other words, USA 1776 is repeatedly making the same claim that ozone depletion was the root cause of concern about climate change without any evidence except his say so. When every response is met by yet another unsupported repetition of this claim, what are his fellow debaters to do? Jefferson claimed that ridicule was the only proper response to unintelligible propositions.Put another way, only when USA 1776 starts making sense and treating the people here with the respect they deserve by supporting his claims by evidence and argument rather than by repetition does he deserve to be treated with respect in return.Has anyone yet examined the references he did provide? Not found anywhere on the Internet, but there were five or six webpages that referenced it, but as being from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory at 20 pages and not an address to a national garden club council. Hugh W. Elisaesser appears to have been a respected researcher.
​ There's a typo in the title. OCIO should be OClO, also expressed as ClO₂. I found it at On the relevance of OClO photodissociation to the destruction of stratospheric ozone.

Abstract:

---

The gas phase photodissociation of chlorine dioxide has been examined to elucidate its role in the destruction of stratospheric ozone. The existence of the photodissociation channel, OClO + hv → Cl + O2, which could in principle catalyze the destruction of ozone, has recently been reported (E. Rühl et al., 1990). We establish here that the quantum yield of this process, in the spectral range 359–368 nm is less than 5×10−4 and therefore too small to significantly perturb the stratospheric ozone budget.

---

This is contradicted by modern research. This is from Chlorine Dioxide | Earthdata (part of NASA):

quote:

---

ClO2, a radical, undergoes photodecomposition in the stratosphere where the products of this reaction react with ozone. Since this is a photochemical reaction it only takes place while the sun is up. Experiments over Antarctica have shown a direct relation between polar ozone loss and the increase in halocarbon chemistry, which comes from anthropogenic sources. Scientist are currently looking at the molecular behavior of chlorine dioxide in the atmosphere in order to understand its role in depletion of ozone more thoroughly.

---

This can be found at Forty Years’ Research on Atmospheric Ozone at Oxford: a History.

Abstract:

---

The development of research on atmospheric ozone at Oxford is traced from the year 1922, when one single instrument was used there to make measurements of the total ozone, to 1966, when some hundred instruments were distributed all over the world. In recent years an important advance has been made by the measurement of the vertical distribution of the ozone in the atmosphere. A digression, covering the war years, describes the measurement of the amount of water vapor in the stratosphere which, however, proved to have a bearing on the effect of the ozone on the temperature of the upper atmosphere.

---

Two of his references were 34 years old, the other 56 years old. They predate the banning of CFCs in 1994. The one from 1990 concluding that ClO₂ didn't pose a threat to the ozone layer was probably an outlyer even then, because efforts at world legislation to outlaw CFC's had already begun in 1987.--Percy

Yup. I posted about his "references" earlier. I mentioned that the science had changed drastically since the '90's. Message 18
Ellsaesser is a known climate crank. Anything he says about climate change is out of his area of expertise. Also, any research he did was decades ago. The scientific understanding has changed drastically since then.
Hugh W. Ellsaesser - DeSmog I mentioned this earlier.
He is cherry picking outdated and irrelevant sources. As I stated earlier.

First the ozone hole issue:The ozone layer helps protect us from the effects of solar radiation.The fact that we observed holes in the ozone layer caused folk to wonder what caused those holes and were they harmful.Observations over many decades showed the holes growing larger over time.SO, first experiments were done in laboratories to determine those effect and also what might cause the depletion of ozone.Note: experiment, tests, actual data.The results were that the holes did allow additional solar harmful solar radiation and identified CFCs as one thing commonly used and released into the atmosphere and a potential cause of ozone depletion.Note: experiment, tests, actual data.But could CFCs actually reach such altitudes?Next step, get samples of the atmosphere at the holes and in other locations in the Ozone layer.Note: experiment, tests, actual data.Test the sample CFCs recovered to identify if they match CFCs currently used and released.Note: experiment, tests, actual data.They matched.Note: experiment, tests, actual data.Logical next step. Stop releasing CFCs.Continue monitoring. Over time the percentage of CFCs found in the ozone layer decreased and the size of the holes stopped increasing.Basics. Learn the basics and also learn how to think.

The ozone depletion theory is behind much of the restrictions and changes that have been sold as "environmental protection". You are right in inferring that "greenhouse gas emissions" have not been mentioned in reference to CFC's lately, because CFC's, tried, charged and banned years ago, are simply one of many things implicated. In fact, I was not the one to first mention them. The user with the dragonfly beside her account name was the one that mentioned them. You are also right that chlorine is not the only stated threat to the ozone. Along with chlorine is fossil fuels, which include coal, oil and natural gas. The Green New Deal is simply a continuation/the latest version of the environmental movement of the past 30-35 years, and its negative campaign/restrictions against chlorine, fossil fuels, carbon, methane, etc. is all rooted in the Rowland Molina ozone theory. "Greenhouse gas emissions", "global warming", etc. are simply the terms used to describe the alleged results of continuing to use them.

So, your responses continue to seem to confirm that you have been in a coma for the last 40 years, which would explain your faulty memory about, well, everything.

Your responses seem to confirm that you are neither a good scientist nor a good doctor.