about that hole in the ozone

[atomicdad]

You're welcome,

me and the wife have been on a gluten free diet for over a year now.

[Mikey]

One similarity is that some of the same scientists that raised the alarm over CFCs were also some of the first to be concerned with greenhouse gases and global warming.

In the late 70s and early 80s there was a similarly vitirolic, though maybe not quite as widespread, outcry from the anti-science luddite crowd claiming that the science was inconclusive and that banning CFCs would ruin not only the economy but our entire air conditioned deodorant sprayed way of life.

Instead, the phaseout of CFCs led to additional jobs for people developing alternative refrigerants and propellants, and also kept us all from dying of skin cancer.

When this man, who passed away last year, won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry it was very sweet vindication over certain chemical manufacturers and their lobbyists.

[R-Jack]

You're welcome,

me and the wife have been on a gluten free diet for over a year now.

Word.
I've scaled back to almost zero wheat products, so I'm almost GF by proxy. I'm almost an emission free vehicle at this point.

[BSmack]

You're welcome,

me and the wife have been on a gluten free diet for over a year now.

What prompted that?

[mvscal]

The science of ozone depletion as a function of chloro-fluorocarbon emissions is pretty rock solid. And the decreasing size of the "ozone hole" is fairly good evidence that the ban on CFC's was a good idea and is working.

100% bullshit. If CFC's are the problem, why is "hole" over Antarctica? If CFCs are the problem, why was the "hole" discovered long before CFCs were in widespread usage?

The ozone "hole," which isn't really a hole but rather a thinning, is a seasonal phenomenon with no proven connection to the use of CFCs whatsoever.

[Mikey]

The science of ozone depletion as a function of chloro-fluorocarbon emissions is pretty rock solid. And the decreasing size of the "ozone hole" is fairly good evidence that the ban on CFC's was a good idea and is working.

100% bullshit. If CFC's are the problem, why is "hole" over Antarctica? If CFCs are the problem, why was the "hole" discovered long before CFCs were in widespread usage?

The ozone "hole," which isn't really a hole but rather a thinning, is a seasonal phenomenon with no proven connection to the use of CFCs whatsoever.

You might want to read up on the research but I guess that might take too much effort and shoot holes in your knee-jerk bullshit.

[Mikey]

I'll take your word on the chemical industry and their lobbyists fighting the replacement of CFC's with other compounds (I worked at DuPont in the 1980's, albeit not in the CFC division, and do not recall too much opposition, particularly since DuPont had come up with replacements for CFC's and no longer had any patents covering them - but I digress). But before you go slobbering on the dead dude's johnson, you should probably make yourself aware of recent data that suggests that the CFC's might be responsible for most of the "climate change" observed during the past 50 years (changes in solar intensity accounting for the rest), and that the CO2 explanation you and other alarmists trumpet has more holes than Swiss cheese:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.1498.pdf

Not slobbering on anybody's johnson here. His son has been one of my best friends since our first year in college and I knew the man since 1972. Probably the most brilliant and dedicated person I've ever met. I can remember when he first started talking about CFCs and the ozone in the mid-70s and thought it might be a major problem. When they started doing additional research and went pubic he was accused of being a charlatan, an enviro-whacko and a lot worse things, and actually got some anonymous phoned-in death threats.

Probably the world's leading atmospheric chemist he actually did field research, including many trips near Antarctica to collect air samples, and probably knew even more about it than mvscal. He was also the first person to mention global warming to me and I trust his knowledge a lot more than I trust even most people on T1B. He WAS pretty much an environmentalist, but a pragmatic one that formed his opinions through solid science. He had actually started advocating increased nuclear power as a way to decrease GHGs.

I haven't read your link, andI don't doubt that CFCs were and are a major GHG contributor, but that doesn't mean that carbon is not. There are many other gases that contribute to global warming. Methane is one that has a much higher GHG potential than CO2. Make all the cow fart jokes you want but there are also a lot of man-made sources of methane out there and a lot of them are already being controlled to a much higher degree than they once were.

[mvscal]

You might want to read up on the research.

I'm not into fiction right now. Good job ducking simple questions what with all this awesomely cut and dried "settled science" at your disposal, though.

[Mikey]

If CFCs are the problem, why was the "hole" discovered long before CFCs were in widespread usage?

OK, so when do you "think" the ozone hole was discovered?

[Smackie Chan]

If CFC's are the problem, why is "hole" over Antarctica? If CFCs are the problem, why was the "hole" discovered long before CFCs were in widespread usage?

Not claiming any of the science here is "settled," and I'm sure you have sources that will contradict this, but...

When was the ozone hole discovered?

The discovery of the annual depletion of ozone above the Antarctic was first announced in a paper by Joe Farman, Brian Gardiner, and Jonathan Shanklin which appeared in Nature in May 1985. Later, NASA scientists re-analyzed their satellite data and found that the whole of the Antarctic was affected.


Why does the ozone hole form over Antarctica?

The answer is essentially 'because of the weather in the ozone layer'. In order for rapid ozone destruction to happen, clouds (known as PSCs, Stratospheric Clouds, Mother of Pearl, or Nacreous Clouds) have to form in the ozone layer. In these clouds surface chemistry takes place. This converts chlorine or bromine (from CFCs and other ozone depleting chemicals) into an active form, so that when there is sunlight, ozone is rapidly destroyed. Without the clouds, there is little or no ozone destruction. Only during the Antarctic winter does the atmosphere get cold enough for these clouds to form widely through the centre of the ozone layer. Elsewhere the atmosphere is just too warm and no clouds form. The northern and southern hemispheres have different 'weather' in the ozone layer, and the net result is that the temperature of the Arctic ozone layer during winter is normally some ten degrees warmer than that of the Antarctic. This means that such clouds are rare, but sometimes the 'weather' is colder than normal and they do form. Under these circumstances significant ozone depletion can take place over the Arctic, but it is usually for a much shorter period of time and covers a smaller area than in the Antarctic.

Does the Greenhouse effect cause the ozone hole?

The Greenhouse Effect (producing global warming) and ozone depletion are two separate problems, however there are links between them. Warming at the earth's surface is caused by certain gases in the atmosphere which can trap energy from the sun. An increase in the amount of these gases produces an increase in the surface temperature. The largest increase is in carbon dioxide from burning coal, oil, gas and forests, but other gases such as methane (from cattle and rice fields) play a part. A link with ozone depletion is that CFCs are gases which also contribute to greenhouse warming.

A further link is that although the Greenhouse Effect warms the surface, it allows the higher atmosphere, where ozone is present, to cool. This means that more stratospheric clouds may form and so make the ozone hole worse.

Even if the problem of ozone depletion is solved, global warming will still remain. It will cause a rise in sea-level and change the regions where crops can be grown. The issue will be harder to tackle than ozone depletion, but is one which concerns everyone on our planet.

Well, not everyone.

http://www.theozonehole.com/askthescientist.htm

[mvscal]

The seasonal variation in ozone density was first observed with the first set of measurements in 1956. The fluctuations in size and column density bear no correlation to CFC usage.

[Smackie Chan]

I'll defer to those with more expertise on the subject

Thanks. We'll take it from here.

[Imus]

fluctuations in size and column density

~swoon~

sig

AP

[Felix]

The seasonal variation in ozone density was first observed with the first set of measurements in 1956. The fluctuations in size and column density bear no correlation to CFC usage.

so you're saying the ozone layer was not being depleted by CFC's?
say, you wouldn't like to make a wager on that would you?

[mvscal]

The seasonal variation in ozone density was first observed with the first set of measurements in 1956. The fluctuations in size and column density bear no correlation to CFC usage.

so you're saying the ozone layer was not being depleted by CFC's?

There is no evidence to support that conclusion.

[atomicdad]

You're welcome,

me and the wife have been on a gluten free diet for over a year now.

What prompted that?

there are also a lot of man-made sources of methane out there and a lot of them are already being controlled to a much higher degree than they once were.

Need I expound?

[Mikey]

The seasonal variation in ozone density was first observed with the first set of measurements in 1956. The fluctuations in size and column density bear no correlation to CFC usage.

so you're saying the ozone layer was not being depleted by CFC's?

There is no evidence to support that conclusion.

Pretty much the only response this deserves is

[LTS TRN 2]

The seasonal variation in ozone density was first observed with the first set of measurements in 1956. The fluctuations in size and column density bear no correlation to CFC usage.

so you're saying the ozone layer was not being depleted by CFC's?

There is no evidence to support that conclusion.

What's the point of bouncing this little punk around like a cheap plastic basketball?


The ozone layer can be depleted by free radical catalysts, including nitric oxide (NO), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydroxyl (OH), atomic chlorine (Cl), and atomic bromine (Br). While there are natural sources for all of these species, the concentrations of chlorine and bromine have increased markedly in recent years due to the release of large quantities of man-made organohalogen compounds, especially chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and bromofluorocarbons. These highly stable compounds are capable of surviving the rise to the stratosphere, where Cl and Br radicals are liberated by the action of ultraviolet light. Each radical is then free to initiate and catalyze a chain reaction capable of breaking down over 100,000 ozone molecules.

I'm sure 1-malt is on board with Rubio's deer-in-the-headlights approach to science and denial , etc.

[Mikey]

The ozone layer can be depleted by free radical catalysts, including nitric oxide (NO), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydroxyl (OH), atomic chlorine (Cl), and atomic bromine (Br). While there are natural sources for all of these species, the concentrations of chlorine and bromine have increased markedly in recent years due to the release of large quantities of man-made organohalogen compounds, especially chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and bromofluorocarbons. These highly stable compounds are capable of surviving the rise to the stratosphere, where Cl and Br radicals are liberated by the action of ultraviolet light. Each radical is then free to initiate and catalyze a chain reaction capable of breaking down over 100,000 ozone molecules.

Prove it.

sin
mezcal

[Wolfman]

Wasn't that one of the chem labs we did in college?

[smackaholic]

.... it was very sweet vindication over certain chemical manufacturers and their lobbyists.

And who might that be?

It sure the fukk wasn't DuPont. Their patent on freon had run out and they held the one on R-134. All this was a coincidence, I'm sure. And now that scientists have discovered that R-134 is going to kill us also, it is going to be banned and replaced by a new chemical. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/ ... fo-1234yf/

And guess who has that patent?

What a bunch of fukking chumps we are.

[Felix]

It sure the fukk wasn't DuPont. Their patent on freon had run out and they held the one on R-134. All this was a coincidence, I'm sure. And now that scientists have discovered that R-134 is going to kill us also, it is going to be banned and replaced by a new chemical. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/ ... fo-1234yf/

And guess who has that patent?

What a bunch of fukking chumps we are.

yes yes, it's all a giant conspiracy organized by the Dupont Company to line their pockets with money....never mind all of the scientific evidence produced by non-dupont scientists, a good conspiracy story outweighs science every time....

maybe you should read some scientific journal articles about experiments and observations produced by scientists and reviewed by their peers for accuracy in their testing methods.....I know it's not quite as exciting as the thought that this is a giant fraud being perpetrated by some big conglomerate in an effort to separate us from our cash....