Though we don't like to talk about that becasue you cannot blame volcanos on the "1%" we like to blame for everything. That is also why we cannot talk about how much CO2 is emitted by volcanoes. It does not fit the nanny state narrative.
There never was a hole in the ozone layer, just an area of thinning which is due to natural cycles that we are only now beginning to perceive, just like climate change. ENVIRONMENTALISM HAS ALWAYS BEEN PROPELLED BY FEAR MONGERING AND BAD SCIENCE
Look how we've been "had" by this "ozone depletion" scam: "In other words, CFCs probably have NOTHING to do with Antarctic ozone." th-cam.com/video/lBu3vltczRw/w-d-xo.html
You can but under the Montreal protocol you will be liable to a £10,000 fine and five years in prison. You can fill the hillsides with bird blenders though that is considered environmentally friendly.
You better get the Correct permits first. The Stuff is Still Banned. And We all have to admit. This Ban was not only a good thing to do. But. It was the right thing to do.And! And it worked. Perfectly.
Freon is heavier than air and does not rise. Those holes are around the poles where sunlight is not needed and remains dark 6mo out of the year. So freon is supposed to find a way to the poles and rise? Right? Dupont had lost it's patent, so anyone could make it, THAT is what this was all about. Money! Dupont the sole distributor made billions on a cheap, effective and safe substance. Now we pay 20X more and Dupont has new patents.
These pseudo science channels always put out half truths. Thanks for putting this in as I thought the the exact same explanation you put forward. Its the damn magnetic field! I am surprised these millenial geniuses don't believe the earth is flat. They also really need to stop calling light a particle, it is not. Tons of papers writin about it.
@@jahbabyeon Light is not a particle that is dualistic in nature. There is a ton of literature on this subject. Please check out theroria apophasis channel ie Ken Wheeler. He gives many many examples about this. Nicola Tesla, Walter Russel and many other geniuses talked about this in great detail. Ken Wheeler also has a free down load of his book 'Understanding the secrets of magnetism'. I am surprised this info isn't more mainstream, no this isn't a conspiracy just hardcore science. Keep in mind every time you see a new discovey about a new particle it will be followed by the term 'quantum' coined by Richard Feynman the god father of quantum mechanics. Quantum is just a pseudonym put in place for 'I don't know'. Just search the video 'Richard Feynman magnets' that aired on the BBC. The interviewer asks what should be a simple question to a quantum brain like him and he actually gets mad about the prospect of trying to explain something he knows nothing about. Please search these people I mentioned, I originally accepted the possibility of light being a particle and I no longer think that. I would be interested if you could get back to me with anything you have found 👍
@@pinchewey7 Your're right kim and I do apologize for that, it's very frustrating to see this kind of science still being taught this way. I always tell people to search the work of Ken Wheeler but their are so many others out there.
there was actually never a "hole" in the ozone. they are extremely thin spots which allow for more uv radiation throught.... so basically a hole but not actually a hole.
@@galaxya6406 I said in widespread use 90% of released CFC's were from aerosol sprays...not widely used until the 60's on a large scale and refrigerators were not that numerous either.
Robert Oschler the oxygen (02) absorbs some of the uv rays and breaks down into singular oxygen and then those singular oxygens combine with the remaining 02 and form the ozone (03). That's what he meant that it breaks down 02 into 03
because ozone is heavier than air - if you make it near the surface it stays there and causes trouble (it's toxic). If you try to transport it to to stratosphere, it will just fall down if you release it too fast. It is just not economically viable to artificially rebuild ozone layer.
KingKeeper99 It is extremely diluted in normal air (10 pars per million) so the force of gravity is overwhelmed by brownian motion. Similar to how clouds are capable of staying up even though they are made of tiny ice-crystals, which are much heavier and denser than air molecules.
How can it decrease from the year 2000 but be at its largest recorded size in 2015? Plus didn't they find out that planes were causing a fare greater problem to the ozone than CFCs were? If so how has it decreased in size as neither national or international flights have been stemmed.
You maje some good points. the ozone "hole" was proven to only exist 3 months a year, over a decade ago. Why would the hole only exist 3 months out of the year? Cfcs are to heavy to float up to the ozone layer by themselves. However, 3 months out of the year, fantastic winds are powerful enough to push the cfcs up to the ozone layer. Natural chlorine cannot survive the trip up to the ozone layer, but cfcs can because they are much more durable. So, outside of those three months of the year, the ozone hole is non existent. This theory makes the most sense, especially when you consider that the ozone hole is only above the antarctic. Without the arctic winds, cfcs would not be able to reach the ozone layer. Even if they could reach the ozone layer without antarctic winds, there would not be much of an impact because the cfcs would evenly distrbut le throughout the ozone layer. The removal of cfcs was a good move, because as more cfcs were produced, less and less ozone would be in the ozone "hole" for 3 months out of the year. However, America rushed the ban of cfcs, causing a lack of good refrigeration for a period of time. In 3rd world country's, slot of food spoiled because of this lack of refrigeration, causing loss of life.
PrimeMiner well to be fair people weren't sure back then all they knew was that it was thinking and fast besides who knows if we didn't do anything maybe more than a couple million people would have died
Why did the hole in the Ozone form over the Antarctic and not in the Northern Hemisphere where there are more industrial countries that would have used CFCs?
CONTINUED (2): So this is what the supposed "hole" in the Ozone Layer is: For years scientists took several measurements on the atmosphere. They concentrated on pole poles. At the poles, the Sun will stay below the horizon for months, & also will stay above the horizon for months. This directly influences the average (key word: average) amount of Ozone in the Troposphere. Earth has negative feedback systems engineered in nature to counteract things as circumstances change. One of which is the average concentration of Ozone over the poles. When the Sun stays above the horizon for several months, the average Ozone concentration will increase to counteract the increased exposed to UV radiation. The inverse is true when the Sun stays below the horizon for months...the average Ozone concentration will decrease because that area of Earth is not being exposed to UV radiation. Other things also influence the average Ozone concentration, such as the Sun's weather (ie Solar Storms that release CMEs) So science academia purposely decided to measure average Ozone concentration levels over both the North & South poles when the Sun was below the horizon for months....when the average Ozone concentration would be low. They did this for years. Now average Ozone concentration is all over the map elsewhere on Earth for many reasons. So of which are: The Sun rises above & sets below the horizon everyday throughout the year at lower latitudes. Electrical storms create Ozone. & lightning discharges all over the Earth several times a second, 24/7. Electrical discharges create Ozone. With the exception of diesel engines, spark plugs in gasoline engines create Ozone. Over populated areas with gasoline engines spew Ozone round the clock. Yes, this Ozone typically wont get in the upper Troposphere, but It does influence Earth's natural cycles & the atmosphere in general. These are just a few reasons why average Ozone concentration levels are all over the map throughout the globe below the North pole & above the South pole. There are many more reasons. Ok, so science academia purposely gets the low Ozone concentration averages over the poles; that they are wanting to get. Then they take averages throughout the test of the globe. Then they compare the averages over the poles, to the averages throughout the rest of the globe. So of course the contrast of averages are going to persuade you to believe that there is/are an anomaly(ies) over 1 or both poles. The data was collected in a way so that it persuades you to believe what they want you to believe. It would be like me showing you on a chalk board that 2 + 2 = 4, but I present to you the total in a clever way to try to persuade you that the number 4 is bad. Have I lied about the math?...No. The data is the data. The math is correct. But its the way I am presenting it that involves my deceit. Now science academia purposefully coined the phrase "hole in the Ozone Layer" to mislead the public. Science academia knows that you can't have a hole in a fluid of gases, because the surrounding pressure will immediately fill the so called "hole" with more of the surrounding gases. But they purposely chose the misnomer of "hole" to cause concern & panick. Think of it like this: Let's say you paint a wall in your house. For whatever reason, after the paint dries I come along & start taking a measurement of the average thickness of paint in each 1 foot square section of the wall. & I find that a the average thickness of the coating of paint in a few square foot sections are about one 10 thousanth of an inch less, in contrast to all the other 1 foot square averages of the rest of the wall. I come to you & say, "You have a hole in your wall!" & I show you a color coded map of the contrasting averages throughout the 1 foot square sections of the wall. The area of the so called "hole" is a red color, & the rest of the wall's averages all fall in the blue range. I point to the red area & say to you, "Right there! That's the hole in your wall. This is the data. The math is correct. If you deny there is a hole in you're wall, then YOU are a science denier & YOU are irresponsible & part of the problem!" -This is EXACTLY what is going on with the lie about the supposed "Hole in the Ozone Layer". As you can clearly see, its cooked up. Its deception. I'll discuss WHY the public has been told this lie in my next post. TO BE CONTINUED AGAIN...
the holes in the ozone actually disappeared in the nineties the amount of ozone was found to always have been in a state of flux ,holes or thinning occuring then reversing .
A prime example of how large corp's LOVE regulation, and use the ignorance of the left, and the heavy boot of the government to eliminate competition. Funny, once DuPont secured the monopoly on refrigerant all coverage of the ozone hole disappeared.
No one cares because it's on Antarctica, if it did reach human's then it would be so diffused it would do any harm, well not anymore harm then acid rain does.
Yes and that has destroyed parts of the ozone layer Pretty sure it was like that.they did a lot of testing also in the Pacific ocean. The hole in Ozone layer was manmade through nuke bombing tests.
Yeah, the tail always seems top "wag the dog" and our D.C. government is now setting the stage for a NUCLEAR WW3 (read Isaiah 33:8-10 and see for yourself: (Michael Cohen for Secretary of Defense against rampant porn queens). No SHIT.
The whole concept of CFC depleting the ozone layer doesn't make any sense. Air, like any other substance in the universe,is bound by the principles of gravity. So heavier air always descends down tothe surface while lighter gases rise up to the top. Lighter = less denselypacked low molecular weight gases (ex: Helium - ever seen helium balloons fly?) If this is so then how does CFC, a molecule that weight 43.0198 g/mol get into the stratosphere. It just doesn't add up.
Brownian motion and mass transport through weather systems. We're also talking about a very small percentage of the CFCs making their way into the stratosphere. With the huge amount that was being used during the time there was a lot available in the atmosphere to be taken up. If the atmosphere was not a dynamic system with large amounts of turbulence then you would be quite correct. I suppose a good example to think about if you need a physical thing to think it through would be shaking a snow globe, or shaking one of those oil/water toys.
+Kong Moua -> Lol a whole damn lot of those Chinese speaking people are peasants living in the 3rd world though, not much value in learning their language. English is the language spoken by the most prosperous and powerful countries in the world, much more valuable to know. The free market is testament to this as English dominates global business communications.
As a testament of you argument, most of the major Swedish companies like Spotify, Skype and other technological giants have established English as the official language of companies, further proving that the influences of foreign culture is a major part of the forming of Swedish culture.
1:50 It's cool to hear the actual chemistry behind ozone destruction. I knew that ozone was O3, but never heard how CFCs were responsible for it's depletion.
Although CFC aerosols were banned in the West, there is probably more CFC going into the atmosphere now than before. When will they ever learn that correlation is not causation.
I feel so warm and fuzzy right now. Just knowing that somehow the ozone layer is getting better just made my Friday the 13th glow with happiness. In fact I am going to share this with my FB friends and maybe, just maybe, brighten their day too. Thank you Seeker!!!
if we can reduce CFC usage as recommended by scientists I'm not sure why it's even a debate why we should reduce Carbon emissions (which is also recommended by the scientific community).
CFCs were not a big deal and were on there way out when the ban went into effect.The "hole" was/is likely a result of the largest areas with no oxygen being emitted by plants. In contrast the man-made AGW through carbon emissions are not scientifically sound. Given the stagnant air temperature change we've seen in the last 18 years, no change to carbon policy is required.
Air temperature is not the only indicator of temperature rise. The ocean's are also warming. Interesting how you picked the one year from the 1990's that is tied with 2002 as one of the top ten hottest as your benchmark. Yes there has only been a .23C rise if you use 1998. How about we use 1996 or 1999. The difference between them and 2015 respectively is .52C and .44C
wmpratt2010 No it is not a margin of error. It is one half degree in less than 20 years. So another 80 years gives us another 2C. Climate scientists do not predict 10 year trends they predict 100 year trends. And so far they are bang on!
CoolDudeClem from another comment thread, I believe they figured it out to be most global wind currents meet in Antarctica, making it have the biggest concentration
I appreciate you explaining that photonic energy breaks apart the freon first and those dissociated Cl ions are then free to rise where they interact with O3. The common argument against this is that freon is to heavy to get the stratosphere. They don't understand the sequence. Thanks again!
They won't listen. It's a good thing we addressed the ozone hole back then. If it had happened now, today's conservatives would have never believed it. There's no such thing as indisputable science in their eyes.
I am sympathetic to wanting to protect the planet, but without burning fossil fuels hundreds of millions will starve. The obama administration threw a bunch of money at solar panels with nothing to show for it, so it's not like we haven't tried. Fossil fuels are not going to be around forever, if anyone can show that we will destroy the planet BEFORE we run out of fossil fuels, I would support it more. But no one knows how much fossil fuels are left, let alone what earth will be like at the end.
Me thinks if we might be able to kill two burns w/ 1 stone. We could use the stone (billions and billions of dollars, not ideal, I know) and find alternate energy sources that are renewable like gravity and sunlight or something else. I think that this is one of America's biggest problems atm. Gravity is the only limitless energy source that I know of.
That is the whole problem. Everyone expects instant results, instant gratification, and if a problem is not 100% solved in the short term, then why bother even trying? And when you mention something will take 50-100 years, they say "that won't affect me, so why should I care?" ... this is why such people shouldn't be allowed to breed, because not only would their idiocy be a toxic influence upon their children and grandchildren,... but they willingly and purposefully ensure suffering of these same children and grandchildren in the future. "Do you want your grandchildren growing up in a world where they would have to wear oxygen masks to breathe, and extreme SPF sunblock to walk across the street?" "I don't care, it doesn't involve me" DENIED!!!!
The hole is still there and getting bigger according to NASA. It was 10 million square miles last time I checked. Not sure where they got their info about it getting smaller.
First: this science was only ever theorized second: China did not stop using CFC's until 2005 and I am willing to bet they and third world countries are still using them. Third the replacement is still ozone depleting and still being used around the world. Fourth the chlorine is said to remaim in the atmosphere for 50-100years. Fifth Dupont jumping on board was because they saw an opportunity to secured the patents to the replacement. And yet clowns wants to tell you that it is magically fixing itself!!!!!! And you all eat it up because it fits your narrative.
Toby Blair they don't, the scientific evidence was done in a lab. Its like homeboy said, DuPonts patton was about to run out they made a new refrigerent and the old one was made illlegal....same thing is happening now btw as we go from r-134 to i forget lol but its called something like y1234 or someshing. All business
so heres the kicker. "freon" a CFC is heavier than air. as a matter of fact there are "sniffers" that can find a freon leak by holding it close to the ground. if released and sprayed straight up into the air, it will fall back to earth and fall to the ground, and accumulate in low lying areas. in times of high wind, its not whipped around much as its much heavier than air, and tends to stay together. once it does break up the elements remain heavier than air and close to the ground. they also are non toxic when they break up.
'Cept dat... we didn't learn the lesson from ozone that big companies put their own short term profits ahead of the long term health of people and the planet. So it's the same old shit just a new molecule and a much greater risk. The denial is the same and surly the climate deniers will point to ozone and say "see, it's not an issue" but it is an issue and if we don't change our energy policy we will be sweating under water.
You do realize corporations like DuPont (the largest CFC producing company) were at the forefront of finding replacements and funding this research right?
Saying 'You Do Realize' doesn't influence grown ups, especially when you obviously didn't research the facts. -In 1978, when CFC bans were being considered as law, DuPont formed a lobby, "Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy" to fight the ban. -In 1986, DuPont developed a new formula that would reduce the ozone depleting effects, called HCFC. -Upon receiving a patent for these, DuPont immediately reversed course, stopped lobby against the ban, and began a public awareness campaign of the dangers of CFCs, calling for safer replacements...like HCFCs. Just facts, no silly attempts at authoritarian speech , just What Happened.
Freight Train "didn't research the facts"... Do you even know why DuPont lobbied against the ban? Because there was no direct evidence of CFC's impacting ozone depletion back in the 70's. Only in 1985 when Joseph C. Farman provided crucial research with raw data did it prove that CFC's were directly impacting the ozone layer. I don't think i need to provide further research on what happened after the researches release, as you would know that it wasn't only DuPont that was researching for alternatives beyond this point. Neither were their single patent holders for HCFC'S and HFC's. More than 17 company's started producing substitutes at the same time. Also let's not forget DuPont was the first and perhaps the only company in the late 70's to actually look for substitutes to CFC's while all other companies ignored it. You make DuPont sound like the bad guy, when in reality when they could've founded an alliance with other CFC producers to lobby and limit the impact of the Montreal protocol (signed 1987 btw), they formed an alliance to find substitutes and replacements... They are heralded as a key by scientists and government officials alike to be the first company to stretch their industrial power to battling CFC production. Sources: static1.squarespace.com/static/538a0f32e4b0e9ab915750a1/t/538db61ee4b0f4bbdccb70fb/1401796126905/Falkner_2005_Business_Ozone_Layer_Protection.pdfmon eng.ucmerced.edu/people/awesterling/SPR2014.ESS141/Assignments/DuPont P.S. The "Alliance for Responsible CFC policy" was formed in 1980;s. It would also be wise not to quote greenpeace on such matters. As they were famous for spreading nonsensical propaganda against all corporations back in the 80's and 90's. For example: Nuclear power...
Not greenpeace. Wikipedia. Hey, at least you have some references for your side of it. Which is unusual for TH-cam comments standards :) Where is the pdf originally from, the one hosted on Squarespace. I will read it just wondering where it was originally from, looks re-hosted here. There are example of responsible corporations, for sure. This sure didnt sound like it from the research I did, but maybe it is an exception. I will read your references, and I appreciate the intelligent debate.
Freight Train I know it sounds unreasonable that a big corporation would comply. It also took them a long time to comply, i don't fully thank them but they did play a major contribution in making people stand for the Montreal protocol. They at least acted when we needed them is the part, instead of ignoring and just bribing through it. The pdf is from a book: mitpress.mit.edu/books/business-global-environmental-governance You can try to get access or buy it. I know the reference is Wikipedia, who reference it from a greenpeace article from the 80's, i think these are the 2 main articles referenced in Wikipedia: www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1991/10/doyle.html web.archive.org/web/20120406093303/archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/greenfreeze/moral97/6dupont.html As someone based in the scientific field i fail to grasp and believe in literature pieces without proper citations. I would totally be willing to believe in the first article of the above references but its "Harvard business said this" but where did it say this becomes the problem.. Its good to know someone is actually taking time to read references i'm putting out. Because the last time i had a debate about megalodons on a youtube thread, someone called a journal of science article phony and internet bullshit....
There was no hole to begin with. It's a natural area of thinning. It's mainly over the poles and has more to do with light exposure and temperature. Where does the sun shine the most light? Where on the globe is it warmest? Where is the thickest part of the Ozone? Answer those 3 simplest questions and you'll get the answer to: How is O3 formed? BTW, the Molar Mass of Chlorine(Cl2 = 70.9 g/mol) is much higher than O3(43 g/mol). Most of the Chlorine gas lingers well below the O3 layer. If anyone bothered looking up the real science behind the interactions they'd quickly see the whole Ozone depletion thing was a Dupont scam to sell R134a in it's place(cost less to produce but they can sell it for more). But hey, lets keep selling that fake science to make Big Energy and Big Chemical Co.'s more money eh?
WTF? Scientists devote their life into their research by continued studying and observations. Have you read the research or the explanations as to why this happened? Have you studied the atmosphere, chemistry, or fluid dynamics? There are much more factors than those 3 questions you stated, you idiot. Just plainly reading articles in the net doesn't make you better than scientists and doesn't make you "educated enough" to figure out something. LOL
As a child my Dad would use Carbontetracloride for cleaning tuners and electronic equipment.We didn't know any better then.We actually used many other things that were environmentally unsafe
There's a question that's bugging me about the ozone hole. The ozone hole is over Antarctica. However, unless I miss my guess, CFC use would have been most concentrated in the developing world--which is mostly in the _Northern Hemisphere_. So, how did we conclude that the ozone hole was caused by human intervention and that it was not a natural phenomenon? Wouldn't CFC use in the Northern Hemisphere have instead caused a more generalized decrease in the ozone layer over the Northern Hemisphere?
The reaction needs very cold conditions to take place. Even though there are more CFCs being released at lower latitudes, the ozone cant be broken apart easily where the air is warmer.
Oxygen when mated with another molecule in an ionic bond takes on a negative charge. Oxygen mated with oxygen mated with oxygen is a whole lot of negative in one molecule. The magnetic sphere has it's negative pole in the south. Negatives attracts negative therefore attracting negative oxygen molecules. That is my thought process though I am not an expert...yet, I'm in university studying to be a scientist. Why isn't other molecules like water attracted to the south pole you ask? Well because in that hydrogen bond the Oxygen does indeed take on a negative charge, however, the two hydrogens take on positive charges, therefore canceling out the effect
Plot holes bigger than the ozone hole are revealed when the right questions are asked. Consider the claim that a drafted agreement called the Montreal Protocol is credited for the fix by phasing out CFCs. Their was no Federal agency created to enforce the ban and investigate continued use of CFCs, so their is no way of confirming the discontinued use of CFCs. Even if such an agency existed it would fail. The DEA was created to enforce prohibition on drugs and eradicate them. They can't even cause a shortage on drugs. So are we to believe that every country that signed a treaty will be 100% compliant when no measures of enforcement exist.Are we to believe that Dupont who stood to lose millions in profit so easily dropped their opposition because they were convinced by the science? How does the use of CFCs.in the Northern hemisphere cause a reaction on the other side of the world? That is like saying a meteor that landed in Kansas caused a crater in Greenland. Consider all the nuclear accidents that have occurred. By comparison CFCs seem a lot less likely to cause global damage. Plot holes in a story point to it being a work of fiction. I don't know what the real story is, but the official story is full of holes.
Autumnal Vernal I'm not sure, all I heard was that O2 molecules combine into O3 when in 'contact' with lightning bolts, but I'm not really sure about it, but I couldn't find that information anywhere on the internet.
That is actually part of the natural ozone cycle. Most ozone is produced in the upper atmosphere where solar and to some extent cosmic radiation provides the energy needed to produce ozone.
well let's see: in 1980 it was fine, then the CFC came, and in 1984 a fucking hole apeared that was getting bigger every year. Than we have the Montreal business, the time industries fought to continue producing CFC, then the time to substitute the gas in the production line and people buing new refrigerators and dumping the old ones. and then we saw, year after year, an stabilize in the hole an then it's diminution. So by 1+1 = 2, we can deduce that the production stop of CFC is directly correlated with the normalization of ozone in upper atmosfere just like we could deduce it is CFC the culprit ofr the hole in the first place
For short, we started to throw around the word "Hole" to describe it in a simple way. We know it's not a literal hole, it's named that for the sake of simplicity.
I mentioned this in one of my stand-up comedy acts. "The hole in the ozone layer will kill us all! Never mind, we're bored with that now, but global warming!"
Cubed But we didn't go out of our way to fix it. The media just stopped talking about it, and while no one was looking, a few environmental regulatory agencies made a few minor policy changes, which over time, made a difference. "We" didn't do anything, and no one in the news media bothered to inform us that this was no longer a serious problem. Result: We were told about a big dangerous thing that we should all be scared of, and then we never heard about it again.
Both phrases are completely acceptable. The was a time when some of the models were predicting extreme cooling, so we started calling it climate change. Given that global average temperatures are continuing to climb at an unprecedented rate, global warming is an acceptable term.
Also, what do you mean by "holy word". Science is not a belief system. I should know: I am a physics student at my university, and I also adhere to a religion (Christianity). For me, the two have nothing to do with each other. Science is not a belief system. Mind-boggling amounts of evidence, from a variety of scientific disciplines, have shown with >95℅ certainty that it's happening and >90% certainty that greenhouse gas emissions from human activity is causing it. Some people say that because it's not 100℅, that the science isn't there, but the odds are worse than playing Russian roulette with 5 loaded chambers in a six-shooter.
Josh Ruzicka Please don't be hostile: You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. Metaphorically, not literally. Actual flies prefer vinegar (I've heard balsamic works best), and honey causes them to choke.
Do your own homework. I'll get you started, research O3 and what natural process forms it(Hint: Heat and UV Light). Now ask yourself, what part of the planet has the most UV light and heat?
what is the natural process that explains a drop in ozone? less uv from the sun? has someone run the numbers on a decrease in UV from the sun that can account for this better than free radical Cl removing ozone?
of course it has nothing to do with Dupont having the patent expire just as that accord was signed , but then Dupont comes along to save us all with a new product to save the planet (Al Gore would be so thankful) .
Actually Dupont was for getting rid of freon. But since none of what you are saying has actually been proven scientifically why worry yourself with truth.
You should see the explanation they came up with for how the CFCs that are 6x as dense as air get into the stratosphere while, at the same time, the tons and tons of chlorine gas that are produced by the action of UV light on the oceans and that is way lighter than air, somehow don't... It's convoluted to say the least. If you brought the "ozone layer" down to sea-level it would be about 1 to 2 millimetres thick. Yeah, ozone is better at absorbing UV than diatomic oxygen, but it's not the millions of times better it would need to be for the ozone layer to be significant. NOAA has charts of ozone layer concentration over time and charts of UV intensity at the surface over time, and if you put them together it's immediately obvious that there is no measurable correlation between the two. The whole CFC ban was based on one study, funded by the company that produced the freon replacement. The new stuff is more toxic, less stable, and more difficult to build refrigeration units to use, but once they convinced major governments to ban freon it made them a bundle, and by the time we got to where we could launch atmospheric composition study satellites and get a good read on what's actually in the upper atmosphere, and discover that there's no freon up there (even though it *is* still in use in various places around the globe) everyone has moved on, so we'll be stuck with the ban for the rest of eternity.
It's not likely. NASA are a private company, they pay staff to research and publish their findings so they can profit and keep their staff employed. No company is going to hand out their hard work to a third party and give them the green light to profit from it.
TheDarkToes There are two categories organizations fall under. Public and private. Basically, public means it's funded by or operated by a government. Private means it's under the authority of someone else. Since NASA is a government agency, it can't be a private company. Google it.
You do realize corporations like DuPont (the largest CFC producing company) were at the forefront of finding replacements and funding this research right?
for the record, fridges and Ac's STILL use FREON and it is absolutely still a CFC and i don't know why they're allowed to still use it if we're taught in schools they're not. my dad fixes appliances and even new appliances still use the same freon....
Jaspii no, they aren't hoaxes, the hoaxes are the effect they have and the actual causes. These political scientists lie and use half truths to milk $$ out of people and even harm actual scientific studies in these areas.
Science and Truth 2 Rock Business is always changing. Whichever company pays more gets higher priority. It's why lobbying can accomplish just about anything with enough payoffs.
Science and Truth 2 Rock regulations forced through BY LAW. Trade Sanctions. Punishing anyone trading with people not doing what they're told. The entire system is a business, you're delusional if you think otherwise.
Man i remember hearing about this all the time when I was younger. I always wondered what was really going on, if it was BS. I didn't know how the cfc's broke down, r-12 refrigerant, etc... I'm so glad they stopped making it such a debacle and now things are looking up..
I don't understand, what about the natural chlorine in the ozone? Why would it go away from changing freon ingredients but not with the massive amount that naturally occurs?
If you pay attention the ozone layer 'hole' was only in Antarctica. Because the CFC was trapped in the ice and swept up to the layer for that to happen. Also it only happened in summer when Antarctica is the most violent. Honestly CFC can still be a thing if you think about it.
wait... what? he said in 2015 the whole in the ozone was at it's peak in size.... but after that he said in 2000 they saw a decrease in size....? how do that work?
How much duct tape did they use to fix it?
kontde ur wrong they used glue
about 2 rools
Dysfunctional Bat AHEM! it's actually Harambe's finest...
HI friend
3 duct tape.
so why doesn't the good news ever go mainstream? why only the bad stuff about all the depressing destruction?
because it sells
Cory Louis That is so true. We need news on the positive realised, and positive realisable, to help motivate and focus our collective creativity.
Cory Louis Because that means people stop investing in the liberal agenda, and they really don't want to lose power.
Cory Louis I'd prefer people to focus on the stuff that needs to be fixed instead (i.e the depressing stuff) than to focus on something else.
Because cultural marxism
Before Ozone:
Hey can we go on land?
*No*
Why?
*The sun is a deadly laser*
Oh
*Not anymore there’s a blanket :D* (Ozone)
I see you've watched the history of the world to
Same here
I'm confused. Trace said the hole was largest in 2015 yet its been decreasing since the year 2000? What do i believe?
It was larger 2015 only because of a volcanic activity spike. It fixed again fairly quickly for now.
AAAhhhAAAhhhAbullshitchoooo. Sorry, I had to sneeze.
Though we don't like to talk about that becasue you cannot blame volcanos on the "1%" we like to blame for everything. That is also why we cannot talk about how much CO2 is emitted by volcanoes. It does not fit the nanny state narrative.
It was a bigger hole but not as weak
Keep illegal volcanic demons out.
Rayquaza would have fixed it way faster...
Lol
There never was a hole in the ozone layer, just an area of thinning which is due to natural cycles that we are only now beginning to perceive, just like climate change.
ENVIRONMENTALISM HAS ALWAYS BEEN PROPELLED BY FEAR MONGERING AND BAD SCIENCE
Jeffrey
You my friend ,are right
#FuckCurrentScientist
Tatsusama you deserve my like😂
DAT ASS Not only do I like your comment but also your picture. Seven Deadly Sins is great!
They filled it up with hopes and dreams.
They filled it up with thoughts and prayers every time a mass shooting occurs.
@@ironmantis25 Here's a fact most people will never be able to understand. - Mass Shootings only happen in Gun Free Zones - For Officer Safety.
LOL. That was one of the best DNews intros yet.
yeah lol i rewatched like three times before i even watched the rest of the video lol
yeh well i rewatched it 4 times so fight me
I know
The Globe is a LIE.
THE EARTH IS A BROAD PLANE NOT A SPINNING PLANET!!!!
WAKE UP JUDGEMENT IS COMING!!!!
nothing will surpass shirtless trace, NOTHING!!
I'm so early that the hole in the ozone later is still here!
ayeee
I want that kitty
but why is ur later broken?
layer ...it's *LAYER*
JK
I like your shirt where can I get one
I was born in a refrigerator FOR I AM SULPHUR DIOXIDE
Sulphur Dioxide hi!
I'm pink therefore I'm spam.
Look how we've been "had" by this "ozone depletion" scam:
"In other words, CFCs probably have NOTHING to do with Antarctic ozone."
th-cam.com/video/lBu3vltczRw/w-d-xo.html
@@hg2. They say after the montreal protocol where we stop using CFC
@@galaxya6406
???
There's been no change in South pole ozone.
We've been had by their cr*p.
finally, i can release this CFC fart ive been holding in since 1996.
Randall Lobo yikies
Hmmm...
Yikes!
Liam Divine zoinks
You can but under the Montreal protocol you will be liable to a £10,000 fine and five years in prison.
You can fill the hillsides with bird blenders though that is considered environmentally friendly.
You better get the Correct permits first. The Stuff is Still Banned.
And We all have to admit. This Ban was not only a good thing to
do. But. It was the right thing to do.And! And it worked. Perfectly.
Dude in Virginia it's 80 degrees Fahrenheit and it's September... it's legit usually 60 degrees right now, some shit is happening
dude, in Houston right now it's 5 degrees below average that means nothing is happening.
it's called a heatwave, and that's not even how global warming is proposed to work. You are caught up in apocalyptic hysteria. calm the fuck down.
Stephan Phillips Bitch why would a heatwave happen in the fucking fall time on the east coast? You're dumb as shit
you do understand what a heatwave is, right? you know a heatwave can come in winter, right? of course not.
also, 80 is well within the average range.
Freon is heavier than air and does not rise. Those holes are around the poles where sunlight is not needed and remains dark 6mo out of the year. So freon is supposed to find a way to the poles and rise? Right? Dupont had lost it's patent, so anyone could make it, THAT is what this was all about. Money! Dupont the sole distributor made billions on a cheap, effective and safe substance. Now we pay 20X more and Dupont has new patents.
These pseudo science channels always put out half truths. Thanks for putting this in as I thought the the exact same explanation you put forward.
Its the damn magnetic field!
I am surprised these millenial geniuses don't believe the earth is flat.
They also really need to stop calling light a particle, it is not. Tons of papers writin about it.
@@SupraNaturalTT Whoah don't diss our whole generation for a few conspiracy nut fools lol
SupraNaturalTT
M8, light is a particle. Photons
@@jahbabyeon Light is not a particle that is dualistic in nature. There is a ton of literature on this subject. Please check out theroria apophasis channel ie Ken Wheeler. He gives many many examples about this. Nicola Tesla, Walter Russel and many other geniuses talked about this in great detail. Ken Wheeler also has a free down load of his book 'Understanding the secrets of magnetism'.
I am surprised this info isn't more mainstream, no this isn't a conspiracy just hardcore science.
Keep in mind every time you see a new discovey about a new particle it will be followed by the term 'quantum' coined by Richard Feynman the god father of quantum mechanics.
Quantum is just a pseudonym put in place for 'I don't know'.
Just search the video 'Richard Feynman magnets' that aired on the BBC. The interviewer asks what should be a simple question to a quantum brain like him and he actually gets mad about the prospect of trying to explain something he knows nothing about.
Please search these people I mentioned, I originally accepted the possibility of light being a particle and I no longer think that.
I would be interested if you could get back to me with anything you have found 👍
@@pinchewey7 Your're right kim and I do apologize for that, it's very frustrating to see this kind of science still being taught this way.
I always tell people to search the work of Ken Wheeler but their are so many others out there.
That's a big hole
That's what I said.
For you.
Right, extremely hazardous to every sunbathing enthusiast in Antarctica...
Not as big as Hillary's. Believe me!
No one cared about it until it put the hole on
there was actually never a "hole" in the ozone. they are extremely thin spots which allow for more uv radiation throught.... so basically a hole but not actually a hole.
And also the 'thin spot' was recorded in 1957 or thereabouts before CFC's were in widespread use...it's another big business con.
Your a hole 😛
Geo-engineering has been going on for over 75 years, which shoots your theory all to hell.
@@prairledoggedrez4758 He say in the video they invented CFC in 1928 and 1977 was the time they realized about the ozone hole
@@galaxya6406 I said in widespread use 90% of released CFC's were from aerosol sprays...not widely used until the 60's on a large scale and refrigerators were not that numerous either.
The Sun is a Deadly lazer
Human is deadly animal
now anymore theres a blanket
(that broke)
I said it in the voice.
when day breaks
One day,Scientists will work on getting humans to fart out Oxygen...For others to breath..
By putting #LungAlgae,and *Gut Bacteria* into the populations ofcertain peoples....The Lungus and BaGut will produce Air..
Gemeral dis Sure those scientist got paid by the Global Banker Eltes, shadow government agents... They are full of pretty much lots of bulls
Gemeral dis
That’s what plants are for. We breathe CO2 and which they inhale, then they exhale some Os for us to breathe
Well we already turn pee into drinkable water so maybe they will
I think we call that politics
One might say our society needed the "hole" truth.... eeeeyyy
Good anal gaping joke.
lambmaster I get it
Truth is like a big penis; once it forces itself in you, you're would never forget it.
"Breaks up Oxygen from O2 into O3..." - that could use some explaining. 3:10
Robert Oschler the oxygen (02) absorbs some of the uv rays and breaks down into singular oxygen and then those singular oxygens combine with the remaining 02 and form the ozone (03). That's what he meant that it breaks down 02 into 03
Turn the 02 to the 03 gods plan
Uv breaks up O2 into O which can later combine with O2 forming O3.
O3 breaks down into O2 on contact with the sun's radiation or chlorine
TH-cam Red yup that's what he meant.
Is trace the only host now?
Right? Like, where the heck are the other hosts?
it's cool i like trace the best anyway
+Tixij ikr Trace is the D
Canster Meat D?
everyone else vanished, with out a Trace....
We have the ability to create ozone in multiple ways. Why not do that and speed up the process of repairing the hole?
because ozone is heavier than air - if you make it near the surface it stays there and causes trouble (it's toxic). If you try to transport it to to stratosphere, it will just fall down if you release it too fast. It is just not economically viable to artificially rebuild ozone layer.
wut!? and how does normal-naturally created ozone stays up there? does it falls with time?
KingKeeper99 It is extremely diluted in normal air (10 pars per million) so the force of gravity is overwhelmed by brownian motion. Similar to how clouds are capable of staying up even though they are made of tiny ice-crystals, which are much heavier and denser than air molecules.
KohuGaly ohhh cool, thanks for answering me!! now it makes sense.
TIL
How can it decrease from the year 2000 but be at its largest recorded size in 2015? Plus didn't they find out that planes were causing a fare greater problem to the ozone than CFCs were? If so how has it decreased in size as neither national or international flights have been stemmed.
th-cam.com/video/3Ry_cACDWyY/w-d-xo.html
Wow!! I❣the way you think !!☺
Volcanos. A bunch of 'em.
You maje some good points. the ozone "hole" was proven to only exist 3 months a year, over a decade ago. Why would the hole only exist 3 months out of the year? Cfcs are to heavy to float up to the ozone layer by themselves. However, 3 months out of the year, fantastic winds are powerful enough to push the cfcs up to the ozone layer. Natural chlorine cannot survive the trip up to the ozone layer, but cfcs can because they are much more durable. So, outside of those three months of the year, the ozone hole is non existent. This theory makes the most sense, especially when you consider that the ozone hole is only above the antarctic. Without the arctic winds, cfcs would not be able to reach the ozone layer. Even if they could reach the ozone layer without antarctic winds, there would not be much of an impact because the cfcs would evenly distrbut le throughout the ozone layer. The removal of cfcs was a good move, because as more cfcs were produced, less and less ozone would be in the ozone "hole" for 3 months out of the year. However, America rushed the ban of cfcs, causing a lack of good refrigeration for a period of time. In 3rd world country's, slot of food spoiled because of this lack of refrigeration, causing loss of life.
PrimeMiner well to be fair people weren't sure back then all they knew was that it was thinking and fast besides who knows if we didn't do anything maybe more than a couple million people would have died
Why did the hole in the Ozone form over the Antarctic and not in the Northern Hemisphere where there are more industrial countries that would have used CFCs?
I think it has something to do with wind patterns, not sure.
I think what V is trying to say is that there are fewer large areas of vegetation in the southern hemisphere to produce ozone.
Because the earth is flat and they don't want people venturing there.
It has something to do with the temperature. O3 is easier to break up in colder temperatures. The best mix of CFCs and cold is there.
*****
Yea I think it must be a lot of factors
Hey Trace, you folks at DNews do great work. I share your videos with my 10yr old all the time. Thank you for the lil bits of science education.
CONTINUED
(2):
So this is what the supposed "hole" in the Ozone Layer is:
For years scientists took several measurements on the atmosphere. They concentrated on pole poles.
At the poles, the Sun will stay below the horizon for months, & also will stay above the horizon for months.
This directly influences the average (key word: average) amount of Ozone in the Troposphere.
Earth has negative feedback systems engineered in nature to counteract things as circumstances change.
One of which is the average concentration of Ozone over the poles.
When the Sun stays above the horizon for several months, the average Ozone concentration will increase to counteract the increased exposed to UV radiation.
The inverse is true when the Sun stays below the horizon for months...the average Ozone concentration will decrease because that area of Earth is not being exposed to UV radiation.
Other things also influence the average Ozone concentration, such as the Sun's weather (ie Solar Storms that release CMEs)
So science academia purposely decided to measure average Ozone concentration levels over both the North & South poles when the Sun was below the horizon for months....when the average Ozone concentration would be low.
They did this for years.
Now average Ozone concentration is all over the map elsewhere on Earth for many reasons. So of which are:
The Sun rises above & sets below the horizon everyday throughout the year at lower latitudes.
Electrical storms create Ozone. & lightning discharges all over the Earth several times a second, 24/7.
Electrical discharges create Ozone.
With the exception of diesel engines, spark plugs in gasoline engines create Ozone. Over populated areas with gasoline engines spew Ozone round the clock.
Yes, this Ozone typically wont get in the upper Troposphere, but It does influence Earth's natural cycles & the atmosphere in general.
These are just a few reasons why average Ozone concentration levels are all over the map throughout the globe below the North pole & above the South pole. There are many more reasons.
Ok, so science academia purposely gets the low Ozone concentration averages over the poles; that they are wanting to get.
Then they take averages throughout the test of the globe.
Then they compare the averages over the poles, to the averages throughout the rest of the globe.
So of course the contrast of averages are going to persuade you to believe that there is/are an anomaly(ies) over 1 or both poles.
The data was collected in a way so that it persuades you to believe what they want you to believe.
It would be like me showing you on a chalk board that
2 + 2 = 4, but I present to you the total in a clever way to try to persuade you that the number 4 is bad.
Have I lied about the math?...No.
The data is the data. The math is correct. But its the way I am presenting it that involves my deceit.
Now science academia purposefully coined the phrase "hole in the Ozone Layer" to mislead the public.
Science academia knows that you can't have a hole in a fluid of gases, because the surrounding pressure will immediately fill the so called "hole" with more of the surrounding gases.
But they purposely chose the misnomer of "hole" to cause concern & panick.
Think of it like this:
Let's say you paint a wall in your house.
For whatever reason, after the paint dries I come along & start taking a measurement of the average thickness of paint in each 1 foot square section of the wall.
& I find that a the average thickness of the coating of paint in a few square foot sections are about one 10 thousanth of an inch less, in contrast to all the other 1 foot square averages of the rest of the wall.
I come to you & say, "You have a hole in your wall!" & I show you a color coded map of the contrasting averages throughout the 1 foot square sections of the wall.
The area of the so called "hole" is a red color, & the rest of the wall's averages all fall in the blue range.
I point to the red area & say to you, "Right there! That's the hole in your wall. This is the data. The math is correct. If you deny there is a hole in you're wall, then YOU are a science denier & YOU are irresponsible & part of the problem!"
-This is EXACTLY what is going on with the lie about the supposed "Hole in the Ozone Layer".
As you can clearly see, its cooked up. Its deception.
I'll discuss WHY the public has been told this lie in my next post.
TO BE CONTINUED AGAIN...
It was my favorite hole...
Get a gf. And you will find some new favorite holes.
Catsexual I need something more spacious.
lomafhhaa!
Like a glory hole.
Try blackholes
thank you for making this video.
the holes in the ozone actually disappeared in the nineties the amount of ozone was found to always have been in a state of flux ,holes or thinning occuring then reversing .
Tobe Jonsson Like I who's the scientist said (fart), yes its that fart that closed open and closed it...
It will be a shame if this news got out
A prime example of how large corp's LOVE regulation, and use the ignorance of the left, and the heavy boot of the government to eliminate competition. Funny, once DuPont secured the monopoly on refrigerant all coverage of the ozone hole disappeared.
nobody is worried about hydrochloric acid raining from the sky.
Yeah, but its better than loosing the ozone layer.
No one cares because it's on Antarctica, if it did reach human's then it would be so diffused it would do any harm, well not anymore harm then acid rain does.
What do you prefer? Having you skin burned by acid rains or by UV light? :D
at least you can shelter yourself from acid rains. Thats what indoors and umbrellas are for?
HYDRA Studios depends on the acid and the material your using to stop it. If it's an Alien bleeding out above you then you are fooked
Before 1963, us government was testing nukes in the upper atmosphere and space.
77thekey glad someone mentioned that!! what results came of that?!
Not good ones lmao
Operation fish bowl
Yes and that has destroyed parts of the ozone layer
Pretty sure it was like that.they did a lot of testing also in the Pacific ocean. The hole in Ozone layer was manmade through nuke bombing tests.
Yeah, the tail always seems top "wag the dog" and our D.C. government is now setting the stage for a NUCLEAR WW3 (read Isaiah 33:8-10 and see for yourself: (Michael Cohen for Secretary of Defense against rampant porn queens). No SHIT.
The whole concept of CFC depleting the ozone layer doesn't make any sense. Air, like any other substance in the universe,is bound by the principles of gravity. So heavier air always descends down tothe surface while lighter gases rise up to the top. Lighter = less denselypacked low molecular weight gases (ex: Helium - ever seen helium balloons fly?) If this is so then how does CFC, a molecule that weight 43.0198 g/mol get into the stratosphere. It just doesn't add up.
Brownian motion and mass transport through weather systems. We're also talking about a very small percentage of the CFCs making their way into the stratosphere. With the huge amount that was being used during the time there was a lot available in the atmosphere to be taken up. If the atmosphere was not a dynamic system with large amounts of turbulence then you would be quite correct. I suppose a good example to think about if you need a physical thing to think it through would be shaking a snow globe, or shaking one of those oil/water toys.
man... I'm brazilian and I'm not that okay about listening in english but your pronounce is so good that I understand 80% of everything you said 👍
Put on subtitle it'll help too
it's better to learn chinese than it is english more people speak chinese than they do english
+Kong Moua -> Lol a whole damn lot of those Chinese speaking people are peasants living in the 3rd world though, not much value in learning their language. English is the language spoken by the most prosperous and powerful countries in the world, much more valuable to know. The free market is testament to this as English dominates global business communications.
its american english not english
As a testament of you argument, most of the major Swedish companies like Spotify, Skype and other technological giants have established English as the official language of companies, further proving that the influences of foreign culture is a major part of the forming of Swedish culture.
1:50
It's cool to hear the actual chemistry behind ozone destruction. I knew that ozone was O3, but never heard how CFCs were responsible for it's depletion.
Although CFC aerosols were banned in the West, there is probably more CFC going into the atmosphere now than before.
When will they ever learn that correlation is not causation.
I feel so warm and fuzzy right now. Just knowing that somehow the ozone layer is getting better just made my Friday the 13th glow with happiness. In fact I am going to share this with my FB friends and maybe, just maybe, brighten their day too. Thank you Seeker!!!
I wonder, did cancer peak when the ozone hole was at its biggest?
Interesting question..
Thank you!
If you lived in Antarctica where the hole is located.
yes I live in new Zealand and we have some of the highest percentages of skin cancerin the world due to being so close to the ozone layer.
And cuz all the white people. I see
The hole has been closed for a while now, you're a tad bit late
Hello from New Zealand, Thank you America for that hole in our Ozone layer. Those atomic tests were fully worth it!
United States, Operation Fishbowl
if we can reduce CFC usage as recommended by scientists I'm not sure why it's even a debate why we should reduce Carbon emissions (which is also recommended by the scientific community).
more money involved. CFC's were big, but not the entire oil and coal industry big.
CFCs were not a big deal and were on there way out when the ban went into effect.The "hole" was/is likely a result of the largest areas with no oxygen being emitted by plants. In contrast the man-made AGW through carbon emissions are not scientifically sound. Given the stagnant air temperature change we've seen in the last 18 years, no change to carbon policy is required.
Air temperature is not the only indicator of temperature rise. The ocean's are also warming. Interesting how you picked the one year from the 1990's that is tied with 2002 as one of the top ten hottest as your benchmark. Yes there has only been a .23C rise if you use 1998. How about we use 1996 or 1999. The difference between them and 2015 respectively is .52C and .44C
Keith Durant So your entire rebuttal is built on one half of a degree Celsius? An obvious margin of error. Call me when it actually warms.
wmpratt2010
No it is not a margin of error. It is one half degree in less than 20 years. So another 80 years gives us another 2C. Climate scientists do not predict 10 year trends they predict 100 year trends. And so far they are bang on!
What I've never understood is _how_ the depletion of the ozone layer has made a hole in it rather than just making it thinner all around.
CoolDudeClem from another comment thread, I believe they figured it out to be most global wind currents meet in Antarctica, making it have the biggest concentration
I appreciate you explaining that photonic energy breaks apart the freon first and those dissociated Cl ions are then free to rise where they interact with O3. The common argument against this is that freon is to heavy to get the stratosphere. They don't understand the sequence. Thanks again!
This guy is my favorite character on Big Bang Theory
Do they check new chemical concoctions to determine if they're destructive to O3 before approving them for mass manufacture?
Thank you. I remembered the ole ozone layer today. My kids have prob never heard of it. Lol
To those people who think we can't do anything to stop global warming, i gesture frantically at this video to them.
They won't listen. It's a good thing we addressed the ozone hole back then. If it had happened now, today's conservatives would have never believed it. There's no such thing as indisputable science in their eyes.
If all green house gas emissions from humans stopped, global warming would still be occuring, just not nearly as rapidly
I am sympathetic to wanting to protect the planet, but without burning fossil fuels hundreds of millions will starve. The obama administration threw a bunch of money at solar panels with nothing to show for it, so it's not like we haven't tried. Fossil fuels are not going to be around forever, if anyone can show that we will destroy the planet BEFORE we run out of fossil fuels, I would support it more. But no one knows how much fossil fuels are left, let alone what earth will be like at the end.
Me thinks if we might be able to kill two burns w/ 1 stone. We could use the stone (billions and billions of dollars, not ideal, I know) and find alternate energy sources that are renewable like gravity and sunlight or something else. I think that this is one of America's biggest problems atm. Gravity is the only limitless energy source that I know of.
That is the whole problem. Everyone expects instant results, instant gratification, and if a problem is not 100% solved in the short term, then why bother even trying? And when you mention something will take 50-100 years, they say "that won't affect me, so why should I care?" ... this is why such people shouldn't be allowed to breed, because not only would their idiocy be a toxic influence upon their children and grandchildren,... but they willingly and purposefully ensure suffering of these same children and grandchildren in the future.
"Do you want your grandchildren growing up in a world where they would have to wear oxygen masks to breathe, and extreme SPF sunblock to walk across the street?"
"I don't care, it doesn't involve me"
DENIED!!!!
I'm so happy mother earth is repairing.
I seriously feel so good and satisfied right now and little bit tension free.
SDD525 atleast in some terms.
Thank God for that news... Now I can have an added wink of blissful sleep.
The Earth is resilient.
Dispel Illusions. Very true but humans aren't..kinda like frogs...
The hole is still there and getting bigger according to NASA. It was 10 million square miles last time I checked. Not sure where they got their info about it getting smaller.
Pro Tech well it’s common knowledge that NASA is one big money-making scam corporation so maybe they will keep trying to feed the sheep bullshit.
First: this science was only ever theorized second: China did not stop using CFC's until 2005 and I am willing to bet they and third world countries are still using them. Third the replacement is still ozone depleting and still being used around the world. Fourth the chlorine is said to remaim in the atmosphere for 50-100years. Fifth Dupont jumping on board was because they saw an opportunity to secured the patents to the replacement. And yet clowns wants to tell you that it is magically fixing itself!!!!!! And you all eat it up because it fits your narrative.
Joe Hemsworth so are you saying we should spend more tax money to fix it or that it never existed cause you proved one or the other
It's good to see not everyone is a sheep.
Joe, I'm glad to see someone else not drinking out of the punch bowl.
And aren't CFC's heavier than air? How then do they get into the stratosphere?
Toby Blair they don't, the scientific evidence was done in a lab. Its like homeboy said, DuPonts patton was about to run out they made a new refrigerent and the old one was made illlegal....same thing is happening now btw as we go from r-134 to i forget lol but its called something like y1234 or someshing. All business
there is still a hole above new Zealand
Asher b who cares bout new zealand?
LwMark 561 the people who live their dumbass
LwMark 561 fam 4m people live in new Zealand
Asher b get the duct tape then
LwMark 561
Who cares bout you?
so heres the kicker. "freon" a CFC is heavier than air. as a matter of fact there are "sniffers" that can find a freon leak by holding it close to the ground. if released and sprayed straight up into the air, it will fall back to earth and fall to the ground, and accumulate in low lying areas. in times of high wind, its not whipped around much as its much heavier than air, and tends to stay together. once it does break up the elements remain heavier than air and close to the ground. they also are non toxic when they break up.
Woo we're gonna live hell yea
'Cept dat... we didn't learn the lesson from ozone that big companies put their own short term profits ahead of the long term health of people and the planet. So it's the same old shit just a new molecule and a much greater risk. The denial is the same and surly the climate deniers will point to ozone and say "see, it's not an issue" but it is an issue and if we don't change our energy policy we will be sweating under water.
Jon Jacoby o un hell yea
when i read that that whoo hell yea just seemed so fake lol
Nope! In fact we’re probably going to go extinct... within the 2000’s to 2100
NiD0 Ravensbeard by us nuking ourselves*
Ya. Studies are showing our efforts to save the planet are paying off.
It’s going down to -1* F in Philadelphia! Not only do I not believe the is warming up, but I don’t see why this would be a bad thing.
The corporations fought against overwhelming scientific evidenice and LOST ... let's hope it's a trend.
You do realize corporations like DuPont (the largest CFC producing company) were at the forefront of finding replacements and funding this research right?
Saying 'You Do Realize' doesn't influence grown ups, especially when you obviously didn't research the facts.
-In 1978, when CFC bans were being considered as law, DuPont formed a lobby, "Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy" to fight the ban.
-In 1986, DuPont developed a new formula that would reduce the ozone depleting effects, called HCFC.
-Upon receiving a patent for these, DuPont immediately reversed course, stopped lobby against the ban, and began a public awareness campaign of the dangers of CFCs, calling for safer replacements...like HCFCs.
Just facts, no silly attempts at authoritarian speech , just What Happened.
Freight Train
"didn't research the facts"... Do you even know why DuPont lobbied against the ban? Because there was no direct evidence of CFC's impacting ozone depletion back in the 70's. Only in 1985 when Joseph C. Farman provided crucial research with raw data did it prove that CFC's were directly impacting the ozone layer. I don't think i need to provide further research on what happened after the researches release, as you would know that it wasn't only DuPont that was researching for alternatives beyond this point. Neither were their single patent holders for HCFC'S and HFC's. More than 17 company's started producing substitutes at the same time. Also let's not forget DuPont was the first and perhaps the only company in the late 70's to actually look for substitutes to CFC's while all other companies ignored it.
You make DuPont sound like the bad guy, when in reality when they could've founded an alliance with other CFC producers to lobby and limit the impact of the Montreal protocol (signed 1987 btw), they formed an alliance to find substitutes and replacements... They are heralded as a key by scientists and government officials alike to be the first company to stretch their industrial power to battling CFC production.
Sources: static1.squarespace.com/static/538a0f32e4b0e9ab915750a1/t/538db61ee4b0f4bbdccb70fb/1401796126905/Falkner_2005_Business_Ozone_Layer_Protection.pdfmon
eng.ucmerced.edu/people/awesterling/SPR2014.ESS141/Assignments/DuPont
P.S. The "Alliance for Responsible CFC policy" was formed in 1980;s. It would also be wise not to quote greenpeace on such matters. As they were famous for spreading nonsensical propaganda against all corporations back in the 80's and 90's. For example: Nuclear power...
Not greenpeace. Wikipedia. Hey, at least you have some references for your side of it. Which is unusual for TH-cam comments standards :)
Where is the pdf originally from, the one hosted on Squarespace. I will read it just wondering where it was originally from, looks re-hosted here.
There are example of responsible corporations, for sure. This sure didnt sound like it from the research I did, but maybe it is an exception. I will read your references, and I appreciate the intelligent debate.
Freight Train I know it sounds unreasonable that a big corporation would comply. It also took them a long time to comply, i don't fully thank them but they did play a major contribution in making people stand for the Montreal protocol. They at least acted when we needed them is the part, instead of ignoring and just bribing through it.
The pdf is from a book: mitpress.mit.edu/books/business-global-environmental-governance
You can try to get access or buy it.
I know the reference is Wikipedia, who reference it from a greenpeace article from the 80's, i think these are the 2 main articles referenced in Wikipedia:
www.multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1991/10/doyle.html
web.archive.org/web/20120406093303/archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/greenfreeze/moral97/6dupont.html
As someone based in the scientific field i fail to grasp and believe in literature pieces without proper citations. I would totally be willing to believe in the first article of the above references but its "Harvard business said this" but where did it say this becomes the problem..
Its good to know someone is actually taking time to read references i'm putting out. Because the last time i had a debate about megalodons on a youtube thread, someone called a journal of science article phony and internet bullshit....
There was no hole to begin with. It's a natural area of thinning. It's mainly over the poles and has more to do with light exposure and temperature. Where does the sun shine the most light? Where on the globe is it warmest? Where is the thickest part of the Ozone? Answer those 3 simplest questions and you'll get the answer to: How is O3 formed? BTW, the Molar Mass of Chlorine(Cl2 = 70.9 g/mol) is much higher than O3(43 g/mol). Most of the Chlorine gas lingers well below the O3 layer. If anyone bothered looking up the real science behind the interactions they'd quickly see the whole Ozone depletion thing was a Dupont scam to sell R134a in it's place(cost less to produce but they can sell it for more). But hey, lets keep selling that fake science to make Big Energy and Big Chemical Co.'s more money eh?
Agree with you. I suspect this scare was purely based on political pseudo science.
Perhaps Congress will introduce a bill regulating how often volcanos are allowed to erupt, that'll show em.
offcourse it is, like many other things, but people love to jump on band wagons and bitch
Well said
WTF? Scientists devote their life into their research by continued studying and observations. Have you read the research or the explanations as to why this happened? Have you studied the atmosphere, chemistry, or fluid dynamics? There are much more factors than those 3 questions you stated, you idiot. Just plainly reading articles in the net doesn't make you better than scientists and doesn't make you "educated enough" to figure out something. LOL
As a child my Dad would use
Carbontetracloride for cleaning tuners and electronic equipment.We didn't know any better then.We actually used many other things that were environmentally unsafe
There's a question that's bugging me about the ozone hole.
The ozone hole is over Antarctica. However, unless I miss my guess, CFC use would have been most concentrated in the developing world--which is mostly in the _Northern Hemisphere_. So, how did we conclude that the ozone hole was caused by human intervention and that it was not a natural phenomenon? Wouldn't CFC use in the Northern Hemisphere have instead caused a more generalized decrease in the ozone layer over the Northern Hemisphere?
The reaction needs very cold conditions to take place. Even though there are more CFCs being released at lower latitudes, the ozone cant be broken apart easily where the air is warmer.
I'm not a hundred percent sure but it's something about the temp.
Don't quote me on that
Oxygen when mated with another molecule in an ionic bond takes on a negative charge. Oxygen mated with oxygen mated with oxygen is a whole lot of negative in one molecule. The magnetic sphere has it's negative pole in the south. Negatives attracts negative therefore attracting negative oxygen molecules. That is my thought process though I am not an expert...yet, I'm in university studying to be a scientist.
Why isn't other molecules like water attracted to the south pole you ask? Well because in that hydrogen bond the Oxygen does indeed take on a negative charge, however, the two hydrogens take on positive charges, therefore canceling out the effect
tadakuni yoshitake
How would that make the hole concentrated in Antarctica? It's a hole not an extra thick sheet of ozone.
Plot holes bigger than the ozone hole are revealed when the right questions are asked. Consider the claim that a drafted agreement called the Montreal Protocol is credited for the fix by phasing out CFCs. Their was no Federal agency created to enforce the ban and investigate continued use of CFCs, so their is no way of confirming the discontinued use of CFCs. Even if such an agency existed it would fail. The DEA was created to enforce prohibition on drugs and eradicate them. They can't even cause a shortage on drugs. So are we to believe that every country that signed a treaty will be 100% compliant when no measures of enforcement exist.Are we to believe that Dupont who stood to lose millions in profit so easily dropped their opposition because they were convinced by the science? How does the use of CFCs.in the Northern hemisphere cause a reaction on the other side of the world? That is like saying a meteor that landed in Kansas caused a crater in Greenland. Consider all the nuclear accidents that have occurred. By comparison CFCs seem a lot less likely to cause global damage. Plot holes in a story point to it being a work of fiction. I don't know what the real story is, but the official story is full of holes.
Does lightning convert O2 into O3 ?
are u talking about electrolysis?
Autumnal Vernal I'm not sure, all I heard was that O2 molecules combine into O3 when in 'contact' with lightning bolts, but I'm not really sure about it, but I couldn't find that information anywhere on the internet.
Yes, as does intense UV light in the upper atmosphere. Ozone is responsible for that "electrical" smell in the air after a thunderstorm....
That is actually part of the natural ozone cycle. Most ozone is produced in the upper atmosphere where solar and to some extent cosmic radiation provides the energy needed to produce ozone.
Thank you for the response :)
Just checked the current state of the O-Zone Layer via the link you mentioned in the description box. IT IS MUCH WORSE!
How do you "know" it was primarily due to the Montreal accords.
Sean Haggard Yeah. I was wondering the same thing. I'm four months late, but still.
well let's see: in 1980 it was fine, then the CFC came, and in 1984 a fucking hole apeared that was getting bigger every year. Than we have the Montreal business, the time industries fought to continue producing CFC, then the time to substitute the gas in the production line and people buing new refrigerators and dumping the old ones. and then we saw, year after year, an stabilize in the hole an then it's diminution. So by 1+1 = 2, we can deduce that the production stop of CFC is directly correlated with the normalization of ozone in upper atmosfere just like we could deduce it is CFC the culprit ofr the hole in the first place
It's apparent you've been drinking Kool-Aid to even attempt to correct this line of thought.
One of "laws of logic" i have been learning about in school is that if A happned before B, it does not prove that A caused B.
Cody131Coops But why did the ozone layer only thin near the poles?
Ozone is a gas, it doesn't get a hole, it thins out from time to time in certain areas.
For short, we started to throw around the word "Hole" to describe it in a simple way. We know it's not a literal hole, it's named that for the sake of simplicity.
Remember that the majority of people (voters) only received a government regulated public education.
You got that right !
I'm glad there are people to figure this out, because I am completely lost.
I mentioned this in one of my stand-up comedy acts. "The hole in the ozone layer will kill us all! Never mind, we're bored with that now, but global warming!"
It wont kill us because we went out of our way to fix it. It's not hard to understand
+Cubed To conservatives, it is.
Your joke implies that we deal with environmental issues cause we're bored and they don't really matter. Am I the only one interpreting it like this?
Jonas Gabriel Tysk I meant that we STOP dealing with things that really DO matter because we get bored with them.
Cubed But we didn't go out of our way to fix it. The media just stopped talking about it, and while no one was looking, a few environmental regulatory agencies made a few minor policy changes, which over time, made a difference. "We" didn't do anything, and no one in the news media bothered to inform us that this was no longer a serious problem. Result: We were told about a big dangerous thing that we should all be scared of, and then we never heard about it again.
Someone forgot to tell this guy global warming is done. The new holy word is climate change
Both phrases are completely acceptable. The was a time when some of the models were predicting extreme cooling, so we started calling it climate change. Given that global average temperatures are continuing to climb at an unprecedented rate, global warming is an acceptable term.
Also, what do you mean by "holy word". Science is not a belief system. I should know: I am a physics student at my university, and I also adhere to a religion (Christianity). For me, the two have nothing to do with each other.
Science is not a belief system. Mind-boggling amounts of evidence, from a variety of scientific disciplines, have shown with >95℅ certainty that it's happening and >90% certainty that greenhouse gas emissions from human activity is causing it. Some people say that because it's not 100℅, that the science isn't there, but the odds are worse than playing Russian roulette with 5 loaded chambers in a six-shooter.
+Darkfox Bill In lamen's term Global warming melts Ice, Ice fucks up marine currents. Heat distrubution is fucked up climate changes. Both are linked.
Josh Ruzicka Please don't be hostile: You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. Metaphorically, not literally. Actual flies prefer vinegar (I've heard balsamic works best), and honey causes them to choke.
Take a science class, please
I attended a refrigeration program and CFC or the band for use so now the ozone layer was healed. .
let me think of a joke
what type of car does Yoda drive
a toyoda mmmmmfunny joke
that is sad
very sad
+Fede Widder your mom
honda civic
Game grumps :)
When I was a kid I had a Toy Luke Skywalker, but not a Toy Yoda.
Adorable how they gloss over natural processes causing almost the entirety of the variation in the ozone layer.
do go on and cite some shit.
Do your own homework. I'll get you started, research O3 and what natural process forms it(Hint: Heat and UV Light). Now ask yourself, what part of the planet has the most UV light and heat?
what is the natural process that explains a drop in ozone? less uv from the sun? has someone run the numbers on a decrease in UV from the sun that can account for this better than free radical Cl removing ozone?
He said it at 2:44. They're not denying natural processes causes ozone depletion
Apple, don't let facts confound the confused. People believe this leftists BS and are stuck on stupid.
When referring to CFCs you showed a picture of refrigerant 410A. An HFC. Just to clarify.
You mean DuPont didnt want the world to be destroyed? Gee You think that would be bad for business?
of course it has nothing to do with Dupont having the patent expire just as that accord was signed , but then Dupont comes along to save us all with a new product to save the planet (Al Gore would be so thankful) .
Actually Dupont was for getting rid of freon. But since none of what you are saying has actually been proven scientifically why worry yourself with truth.
classic humans destroying the world so we can make food cold, gotta love em
Francis Zhao Keeping food cold slows down the spoiling; it's not just for frill.
Francis Zhao classic dumbass talking about humans in the third person as if you are not a human yourself.
Big talk from a guy "destroying the world" just so you can comment on how people are destroying the world :D
I don't think you've ever had warm beer before.
It was fake!!!! Jesus Christ you people believe anything. It was about power! Just like global warming. It gives the government the power to tax more.
I live in new Zealand and its still there just saying
Hamish Feast can you see it?? XD
Nope we just get sunburn in like 7 minutes
Hamish Feast sounds like a weak skin prob. Just kiddin
You should see the explanation they came up with for how the CFCs that are 6x as dense as air get into the stratosphere while, at the same time, the tons and tons of chlorine gas that are produced by the action of UV light on the oceans and that is way lighter than air, somehow don't... It's convoluted to say the least.
If you brought the "ozone layer" down to sea-level it would be about 1 to 2 millimetres thick. Yeah, ozone is better at absorbing UV than diatomic oxygen, but it's not the millions of times better it would need to be for the ozone layer to be significant. NOAA has charts of ozone layer concentration over time and charts of UV intensity at the surface over time, and if you put them together it's immediately obvious that there is no measurable correlation between the two.
The whole CFC ban was based on one study, funded by the company that produced the freon replacement. The new stuff is more toxic, less stable, and more difficult to build refrigeration units to use, but once they convinced major governments to ban freon it made them a bundle, and by the time we got to where we could launch atmospheric composition study satellites and get a good read on what's actually in the upper atmosphere, and discover that there's no freon up there (even though it *is* still in use in various places around the globe) everyone has moved on, so we'll be stuck with the ban for the rest of eternity.
2:27 so if methan drags the clorreen out of the ozoen :-\ so then.....
everyone let it ripp XD
Caleb Hill methane* chlorine* ozone*
Then methane is a greenhouse gas
You basically quoted from the NASA site. Plagerism at its finest.
Did you even stop to think that maybe NASA gave them the go ahead to make this video!? Idiot.
It's not likely.
NASA are a private company, they pay staff to research and publish their findings so they can profit and keep their staff employed.
No company is going to hand out their hard work to a third party and give them the green light to profit from it.
+tanker9987 NASA is an independent agency of the executive branch of the US government, not a private company.
+Todd. they ARE a private company.
thank you for supplying that evidence and not realizing it.
idiot. ha
TheDarkToes There are two categories organizations fall under. Public and private. Basically, public means it's funded by or operated by a government. Private means it's under the authority of someone else. Since NASA is a government agency, it can't be a private company. Google it.
Every school boy knows why there's air. It's to inflate footballs, basketballs and beach balls.
Another case where corporations tried to discredit scientists trying to give a damn about the Earth... sound familiar?
Meghesanabi
You do realize corporations like DuPont (the largest CFC producing company) were at the forefront of finding replacements and funding this research right?
youwishyouwereme ! They remain more trustworthy than you
Tell God to cook us up another Ozone layer
King G Why can't you do that?
for the record, fridges and Ac's STILL use FREON and it is absolutely still a CFC and i don't know why they're allowed to still use it if we're taught in schools they're not. my dad fixes appliances and even new appliances still use the same freon....
gotta love political scientists creating panic to further a money fueled agenda.
Because the hole in the ozone layer and global warming are totally a hoax, even though there are countless studies proving it.
Jaspii no, they aren't hoaxes, the hoaxes are the effect they have and the actual causes.
These political scientists lie and use half truths to milk $$ out of people and even harm actual scientific studies in these areas.
Science and Truth 2 Rock Business is always changing. Whichever company pays more gets higher priority. It's why lobbying can accomplish just about anything with enough payoffs.
***** WHAT? You are talking GLOBAL here. Are they going to lobby EVERY government on the entire planet?
What the hell is WRONG with you people?
Science and Truth 2 Rock regulations forced through BY LAW. Trade Sanctions. Punishing anyone trading with people not doing what they're told. The entire system is a business, you're delusional if you think otherwise.
BS
Confused, the website shows that it's been pretty fixed since 89? explain?
Never was a hole to begin with its just propaganda
Bertie Blue hes not wrong. It was a thinning.
Teru Rozu - Oh it was only a thinning? That’s good news. Let’s keep pumping shit out into the atmosphere then.
Station dont misconstrue my words. It wasnt a hole. Also, it was in an area with no pollution. Theres nobactual known cause.
As real as global warming bahaha
Pineapple 1 ummm we can prove final warming
Man i remember hearing about this all the time when I was younger. I always wondered what was really going on, if it was BS. I didn't know how the cfc's broke down, r-12 refrigerant, etc... I'm so glad they stopped making it such a debacle and now things are looking up..
How do you get freon/cfc weighing 3x times as much as atm.air up in +15km height??
I don't understand, what about the natural chlorine in the ozone? Why would it go away from changing freon ingredients but not with the massive amount that naturally occurs?
If you pay attention the ozone layer 'hole' was only in Antarctica. Because the CFC was trapped in the ice and swept up to the layer for that to happen. Also it only happened in summer when Antarctica is the most violent. Honestly CFC can still be a thing if you think about it.
The internet is freaking me out lol.. I was just thinking about "what happened to the ozone layer?" But never asked/said anything to anyone!! 🤔🤔😅😅
Thanks, i feel relieved👀
Thank you everyone at D NEWS for this
wait... what? he said in 2015 the whole in the ozone was at it's peak in size.... but after that he said in 2000 they saw a decrease in size....? how do that work?
Ozone hole is referrred to actually thinning of ozone layer in atmosphere and not actually disappearing of it as a whole.
Even though the whole is closing,,how’s the overall thickness of the ozone layer,,very important,,
I always found it interesting that the 2000+ nuclear weapons tests were never associated with the "ozone hole".
It's quite convenient that ozon layer is there in the first place.
+Seeker
why right before it rains, there is a certain smell in the air, all my life people told me it is the ozone. Is that true?
Where is the hole located and how did they measure it?
I'm happy to see the Ozone is coming back slowly, but surely.
I miss this era of seeker