REVIEW OF “Variability of Antarctic ozone loss in the last decade (2004-2013): high resolution simulations compared to Aura MLS observations”
This commentary began as a response to a comment on facebook. The comment itself was typical, sub-intelligent liberal regurgitation of a global warming/climate change cliché. A reference was included and I naturally, as always, going to the sources for fact and truth, found the reference and began the dissection.
The following is the reference:
There was a time when I would hesitate to challenge the apparent scientific commentary for fear I might find something solid, such as a credible argument or reference. I, occasionally looked at articles and news reports with apprehension. I am always relived and sorry at the same time: relieved my fears were nothing and the article is a fraud, and sad that there are so many frauds and cheats, liars and ignoramuses in science.
First and foremost I was always relieved that my fellow Americans of a democrat party/liberal bend did not disappoint. As always, the “article”, commentary or report is one lie after another, and, hence, easy to research, dissect and refute. As always, there is no science, very little intelligence and never a truth uttered from a credible or verifiable source.
I am always, naturally disappointed and relieved, again, that any time I look, in fact every time I have searched the sources, I find fallacious, unreliable and unscientific; even silly reporting, references and democrat/liberal stars, who are and say nothing. In this case, I was actually excited to dissect this fake news article. I did a search for the writer and found a “profile”, resume, to use the word loosely.
The following is an edited version of my response on facebook.
Has anybody ever just wondered how they, whoever they is, measured ozone? What scientist went up in an aircraft, stuck a measuring instrument out the window, and observed the ozone layer was less and depleted? Less, compared to what? Who measured ozone 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 30 years ago?
This discussion of depleted ozone layer began in the late 1970s. What references prior to that time period did “scientists” use to compare, to make the assessment that the ozone layer was less than “before”? When was the before? From the perspective of “scientists” in the 1970s, what references to measurements and data, prior to their claims, so long ago, did they reference?
Who measured anything anytime to enable a comparison? What instrument and mechanism measures ozone? Is it an ozonometer, or speculation and theory? I have never heard of an ozonometer.
The article has two authors. One is the subject of this commentary: Kuttipurath Jayanarayanan.
Jayanarayanan’s profile, resumé, is pretentious from title to last sentence. It is all sophist and rhetorical. It is one overall misnomer: an oxymoron anti-science science cliché after silly misleading-headline cliché. The report itself does not contain a single measurement or explanation of one single aspect of scientific methodology used or employed.
Not only is there no mention of a measurement or data, the report makes no apologies for drawing conclusions about the arctic when the report focuses on the Antarctic. There is not a single measurement in the arctic, but the claim includes both north and south poles. In fact there is actually no antarctic measurement either, just speculation and “models”.
Only someone with no comprehension of scientific modalities would attempt to present conclusions and effects from no measurements or causes. Not a single, “scientist” would attempt such deception.
If, as the study claims, the ozone in the Antarctic is less, or gone, where did it go? Did it breakdown or flow to other locations or planets? Is it possible all the ozone floated to the Arctic? Did anyone think of that? Did anyone check the atmosphere for remnants of ozone moving or dissipating? Is it not curious that suddenly someone, a series of nobody-someone’s, claims there is a hole in the ozone? Is that not like saying, suddenly, we have fewer polar bears when the polar bear population was never counted. Fewer than what?, is the question. Less ozone than what, is the natural query.
Did the ozone float to the Arctic? This is not an odd question, you must realize. If ozone is unique to the polar regions and it is claimed to have disappeared from the Antarctic, where did it go? Ozone surely seeks polar regions. Is it possible it floated to the Arctic? Nobody would know and the pseudo-scientists are so dumb they could not surmise, suppose or think to think. They re so bereft of science they did not even ask the question, what happened to the ozone in the Antarctic? They could not possibly ask the question of the Arctic because they had no idea ozone was there, gone, or ever existed in the Arctic. Nobody measured it, the morons just presumed it was less as well. How silly.
A real scientist would have asked innumerable questions. Try these two: What happens to ozone, does it move or breakdown? If ozone breaks down, to what does it change? Notice that cool word, “change”? Change is life, measuring change is science.
A real scientist would also ask, do we have proof, measurements or data that shows what happens to this theoretical, speculative thing that mystery-scientists call ozone?
I looked at the article, found two authors, and did a search for Kuttipurath Jayanarayanan.
Please, go yourselves and look at the silly resumé/profile:
Notice the “resumé” includes “Research areas”. What is a research area when there is no mention of research?
Next we read more seemingly scientific jargon: “Numerical modeling of Oceans and Atmosphere”
Modeling is not research. As a boy I used to build models too. I don’t know if people realize this, but models are not the real thing. Apparently the “scientist”, Jayanarayanan, or whomever created his “resumé does not know this either.
Modeling? A “scientist” is going to attach his credentials and scientific prowess to modeling? No, never would a real, honest, scientific scientist or researcher do that.
“Numerical” Is that numerical, as in counting? No, not even that. Numerical modeling? Would that be counting, measuring or collecting data? No, numerical modeling would be, either, picking numbers to make a model, or making a model and then counting the fabricated numbers. Either way numerical modeling is a big nothing.
Data would be the results of collecting, measuring, identifying in one way or another numbers from a real thing, not a model.
Numerical counting, not numerical modeling would be actually going somewhere, making observations and notes. When I built models of jets I did not go to the factory to participate in building a real jet. I modeled at home, at the kitchen table. “Numerical modeling? That sounds like sitting at the kitchen table and playing “what if” games. What if I had a job that paid 50 dollars an hour and I worked 40 hours per week? Wait, what if I had a job that paid $200 per hour, and worked 10 hours per week? That numerical speculation sure turned into reality, for everyone. Modeling? Anti-counting, sitting at the kitchen table (or desk), pretending to design something based on absolutely nothing.
So, Jayanarayanan models numerics? Is that, like, taking a bunch of numbers, and arranging them in cool flower shapes or snowflake patterns? Models? He makes models of numbers? I made models of plastic. He makes predictions based on less than anything physical?
Do you see, people, how stupid, childish, and unintelligent these attempts to lie, by pretending to be smart, by throwing impressive words together in a sentence, are? Just that one lie, I mean line, shows a complete lack of scientific knowledge.
The next “Research Area” is, wait. What is a research area? Using scientific jargon would one call a research area, expertise or field? A real scientific paper or resumé would list degrees and certifications. A PhD, for example, in Physics would read, PhD, Princeton, 2017. Papers published would be clearly referenced. One who adds irrelevant or unrelated words to create pseudo impressive titles and longer terms is assuredly trying to deceive.
One of his accomplishments is that he was “declined” 13 years ago? What kind of relevance is someone trying to fabricate? How is declined an accomplishment, relevant or impressive? It is not impressive to scientists. It is a joke to real scientists.
To augment my argument that this ozone speculation is nothing more than theory, further down the page under “Publications: 2015 -2016”, we read the first on the list, “Variability in Antarctic ozone loss in the last decade (2004–2013): high-resolution simulations compared to Aura MLS observations by Kuttippurath, J., Godin-Beekmann, S., Lefèvre, F., Santee, M. L., Froidevaux, L., and Hauchecorne, A. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 10385-10397 (2015)”
If you read this line of “Publications:” did you notice the word “simulation”?
Jaya…, whatever has a credible resume of speculation and declined awards, based on simulation. Jaya’s “Publications” section is nothing but a lot of sophist, deceptive, manipulation. But, wait for it, the big nail in NASA’s, NOAA’s and Jaya’s coffin is still to come.
I would bet my Corvette Stingray, that Jayanarayanan has no idea he is even on that resumé, or associated with that bogus study. I’ve checked NOAA, IPCC, and NASA for their so-called scientists. I have tried to contact numerous “scientists” and never has one replied or proven to have a research paper accredited to his name.
The next “area” is “Physical Oceanography” What is physical oceanography? Why does oceanography have to be physical? Is there non-physical oceanography? Yes, we call it speculation, modeling, fabrication and make believe.
Would we call non-physical oceanography, theoretical oceanography, model oceanography? Is physical oceanography just simply, oceanography? Why the pretense and sophistication at science?
The next “area”, “Climate Change and Climate Modeling”
Modeling, again? What is climate change?
We, normal living-in-reality people call climate change, climate. Realistically, considering climate is change, measurable changes in variables associated with the weather and environment, then climate change, as the global warmers call it now, is “change in weather and environment variables change”. Global warming and “climate change” is just plain stupid from the very foundation!
If temperatures, precipitation, and hours of sunlight did not change, it would not be climate. Climate is change in variables. Climate is following seasons and all kinds of cool, measurable variables: CLIMATE.
What is “Atmospheric Chemistry”? Do we call atmospheric chemistry, just atmospheric change, as in climate? Why the repetition?
The whole profile is one pretense after another.
In response to a fleeting thought I had, I did a search for Meteorological PhD. The search returned a number of results, I picked one for a well known university, The university of Arizona,
“Program/Degree Atmospheric Sciences (PHD) Program Description. The Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree is primarily a research degree. The candidate must complete at least 36 units of graduate course credit in the major field, including a core of 6 units of dynamic meteorology and 6 units of physical meteorology.”
Notice the very distinct wording, It is a Doctor of Philosophy program, and a degree in a faculty of Atmospheric Sciences. 36 units of study are required, 6 in the major field, 6 in physical meteorology. Does anyone see goofy wording, such as one finds in Jayanarayanan’s profile?
See how succinct and descriptive all the words in that brief online description are. A “Doctor of Philosophy” in a specific discipline, is mentioned quite clearly.
Again, what is “Numerical modeling of Ocean and Atmosphere”? It is not measuring, collecting data or science in the least. What is it, then?
The big exposé, however, will soon follow.
I like to spend time on the minutia sometimes just to show how childish, silly, unintelligent and manipulative these articles and global warming buffoons are.
What is a “NASA Post”? What is a doctoral fellowship? Is a doctoral fellowship a doctorate degree? This might be a little unconvincing but try the next part of that point, “JPL/NASA. What does Jet Propulsion Lab have to do with this guy? Wait for it: nothing. It is admitted right up front in the remainder of that “Research Area”, “Caltech, California, USA (declined). 2007. Does declined mean rejected and ‘did not happen’? So Jayanarayanan was offered a fellowship that was declined? Does this ‘nothing happened’ mean it could have happened except that somebody or something did not offer or did not complete the offer? Maybe Jayanarayanan declined because he wanted to pretend to have a fellowship and wanted to inform everyone he has no expertise or training in JPL/NASA. Not only is this whole thing very unprofessional; not only is the whole thing terribly communicated, but it is so childish one must wonder what grade the creator of Jayanarayanan’s profile finished in public school. Who would be so stupid to make a declaration and then admit “declined”? So, what is the award? Is the award boasting of yet another failure?
We have new information, propagated by the dumbest cheaters of congress today, AOC and a few other morons, that the earth is going to be uninhabitable in 12 years (11 by now). Is her information garnered from “articles”, numerical models and declined credentials from other sources? Yes, this is all the global hoaxers have. All that exists for the liars and cheaters of global control is fabrications, unscientific bravado, and silly childish gibberish. All the attempts to bring the masses to compliance to a global system of taxation and fear, is based on stupidity of a declined fellowship of no consequence, from 13 years ago. In this case, the pretentious science is 13 years old.
I personally like the next comedy sketch. It is so science-ignorant it is not funny. The next “award” is a CNRS Post – Doctoral Fellowship. Did Jayanarayanan get the fellowship? The “award” is so poorly written it reeks of terrible childish, grade-school writing skills. If it truly were a French Award” from a French institution of higher learning, one would expect consistency in the title of the award. The whole name of the university is in English, except for one word in French. Centre is French for center. Somebody knows very little French but thought to try to trick you, dear readers, that this is an institution with some prestige because one word is French.
In French it would be Centre Nationale Recherche Science. According to Jayanarayanan’s profile it is a fellowship for first post-doctoral study. That claim does not coincide with the claims of the “Centre”. Jayanarayanan’s claim is not an accomplishment. If it were it would read something like, Doctorate degree in…
A grant of money to do something may have been “declined”, rescinded, or the dude, Jaya….whatever, probably did not finish. Maybe he did not start. No matter the circumstances, nothing has come of it, making it a nothing, again a pretentious claim.
The biggest evidence of stupidity and non-science is the, “UGC – N ational E ligibility T est L ectureship. Is someone trying to be stupid or confusing? Is someone actually so stupid they cannot check their own work to correct major typos, or are they actually trying to be stupid? Can someone tell us what award it is Jaya…..whatever received when he received an award for being eligible for a test lectureship? What on earth is a test lectureship?
How far removed from any lectureship of an undisclosed topic is eligibility for s test of a state (ship) of an undisclosed lecture? This is a nothing of a nothing of a nothing.
What is UGC? Is it University Grants Committee? Did Jaya….whatever receive a grant, and for what, nothing? Or, as it sounds, he did not receive a grant for nothing.
I could further dissect the silly, sub-standard, mostly incoherent profile and pretentious works of Jayanarayanan but I will move on to other work.
I looked at the CNRS site and found more fabrications from nothing, and again, childish writing and understanding. Eventually I will dissect the simple words of the “missions” of that site.
Until then, I plead with you, dear readers, believe nothing, not even my words in any and all articles and commentaries I write.
Exercise your minds, please. Do more research of Jaya…whatever’s apparent professionalism. Pick a sentence or headline of the profile, break down the words and research the statements for yourselves. Find, for your own mental expansion, the contradictions and silly manipulative attempts found in every sentence and claim of the profile. I must inject there is something very important missing from Jaya….whatever’s profile. He likes holding hands and long walks on the beach. How sweet, and totally unprofessional: another black mark of reality against the totalitarian, global oppressors and plunderers of mankind.
2 thoughts on “REVIEW OF “VARIABILITY OF ANTARCTIC OZONE LOSS IN THE LAST DECADE (2004-2013): HIGH RESOLUTION SIMULATIONS COMPARED TO Aura MLS OBSERVATIONS””