The Salesmen of the Green New Deal

Something, something, something Jesus?

This a perfect example of the inability of fundies to comprehend science. Science is not static. Science changes. The sources you cite are from 1990 and 1968. The atmosphere and the understanding of the science has changed dramatically since then,
Bible bangers like you refuse to understand that scientific understanding changing is a good thing.
All that aside you are extremely and very wrong about almost everything in this post. I will start pointing things out but I am sure I will get tired quickly as there is so much wrong. This is like a super strawman. Global climate change and the "ozone" hole are different things. There is no direct relation other than the fact that both are the result of human behavior and both can be resolved by changing human behavior. Have you heard of the word metaphor? Do you know what a metaphor is? So Jesus can be dismissed as the in your "holy" books he is metaphorically called "lamb of god"?
From NASA.

quote:

---

As the images show, the word hole isn’t literal; no place is empty of ozone. Scientists use the word hole as a metaphor for the area in which ozone concentrations drop below the historical threshold of 220 Dobson Units. Using this metaphor, they can describe the hole’s size and depth. These maps show the state of the ozone hole each year on the day of maximum depth—the day the lowest ozone concentrations were measured.

---

World of Change: Antarctic Ozone Hole This is pure unadulterated bullshit. You seem to reference to the Non estimable Hugh Elsaesser. Hugh was (I assume he is dead now) was a meteorologist. IHis expertise was weather. He might have been very good with weather but he was seemingly always wrong about climate. The source I reference above clearly shows the metaphorical hole completely over all of Antarctica and at times extending as far as the tip of South America. South America is further north than Antarctica. Also, the ozone "hole" has direct effects on Australia.

quote:

---

The Antarctic polar vortex is a stratospheric wind pattern. It blows strongly around the earth at about the latitude of the Antarctic coast. It is strongest in the colder times of the year and is driven by the temperature difference between the cold pole and the warmth of the lower latitudes.

​

Unlike the northern polar vortex, the Antarctic polar vortex has a very consistent shape. This is because the northern hemisphere has big mountain ranges at the right latitudes to stir the air and interrupt the flow (the Rockies, the Alps and the Urals). The flatness of the southern hemisphere mid latitudes allows the polar vortex to hold its shape.

​

The lack of disturbance in the southern polar vortex has a consequence for our lives in Australia. The consistent shape of the polar vortex holds springtime ozone depleted air in place and is the reason there is a southern hemisphere ozone hole and not a northern hemisphere one. Then, when the ozone hole breaks up and its remnants pass over us, it is time for extra sunscreen.

---

From the katabatic to the polar vortex – Australian Antarctic Program
Do you have the text of Mr Elsaesser's talk to National Council of State Garden Clubs? I am sure it is riveting and full of lots of science.Hugh W. Ellsaesser - DeSmogTired now. Too exhausting to deal with this much propaganda, lies and disinformation this early.
Damn. Sucked in again.Who are Robinson, Clemitshaw and Apkarian? What are their credentials. What other papers have they written? How was this paper received by their peers?
Here is the modern science.
Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2022: Twenty Questions and Answers About the Ozone Layer

quote:

---

Natural sources of chlorine and bromine. There are a few halogen source gases present in the stratosphere that have large natural sources. These include methyl chloride (CH3Cl) and methyl bromide (CH3Br), both of which are emitted by oceanic and terrestrial ecosystems. In addition, very short-lived source gases (defined as compounds with atmospheric lifetimes typically less than 0.5 year) containing bromine such as bromoform (CHBr3) and dibromomethane (CH2Br2) are also released to the atmosphere, primarily from biological activity in the oceans. Only a fraction of the emissions of very short-lived source gases reaches the stratosphere because these gases are efficiently removed in the lower atmosphere. Volcanoes provide an episodic source of reactive halogen gases that sometimes reach the stratosphere in appreciable quantities.

​

Other natural sources of halogens include reactive chlorine and bromine produced by evaporation of ocean spray. However, these reactive chemicals play no role in stratospheric ozone depletion because they readily dissolve in water and are removed in the troposphere.

​

In 2020, natural sources contributed about 17% of total stratospheric chlorine and about 56% of total stratospheric bromine (see Figure Q6-1). The amount of chlorine and bromine entering the stratosphere from natural sources is known to be fairly constant over time and, therefore, cannot be the cause of the ozone depletion observed since the 1980s.

---

So, you are not going to defend your OP, just repeat the lies and bullshit. Good to know.
Good day, Sir.

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.

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.

Source? Reference? Troll?

Are you going to respond to any of the questions presented to you?

-- Uncalled for slur (or something like that) "hidden".Take any complaints to Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0Adminnemooseus --

Present his research. The science shows he was wrong. I assume he is dead by now.

Are you stupid? I posted data from NASA showing changes in the size of the "southern anomaly". You ignored it. Do you always ignore evidence that is contrary to your assertions?

And it has been shown that, that 34 year old claim was incorrect. Stil lying I see.

I asked similar questions in Message 39, which you ignored. Are you going to continue to ignore questions?
How would it have been different? Please explain to us how halon would have changed the outcome on 9/11 and HI. How would halon have helped? Did the NYFD have large quantities of halon prior to the ban? How would they have used the halon? How did they use it prior to the ban?
Actual facts and data please. No whatifs or bullshit. How would halon have helped? How would they have used halon?Did any fire departments use halon in large quantities to suppress fires prior to the ban? If so, how? If not, why? How would halon be used in a suppressing a fire in which the firefighters cannot get close due to heat or physical limitations?Do you know anything about firefighting? Do you know how and why halon and its successors are used? Do you know how and why water is still the primary suppressant?

I am no firefighting expert. I do know some though. In the 50's, 60's, 70's my grandfather was a prominent small town fire chief in MA. I still have some contacts. So far neither of them can conceive how halon could have been used on 9/11 or the HI fire. They are curious to see what this yahoo comes up with.

I was told by one of the fire fighters I know that there are/were only two types of halon extinguishers.
This site explains both.

quote:

---

Types Of Halon Fire Extinguisher
Halon 1211 is used only in portable extinguishers and is a streaming agent. A halon fire extinguisher extinguisher has a limited range, usually 4 to 6 feet.
Halon 1301 is used only in fixed extinguisher installations and is a total flooding agent. This type of extinguisher is commonly found in computer server rooms and clean rooms.

---

Halon Fire Extinguisher: How It Works And Its LimitationsTell us how these would have been used in HI and on 9/11.