An inconvenient truth

[Hippikos]

Not in heavy UV light they aren't.

CFCs measured at about 35 km altitude is about 0,1 parts per trillion (ppt), and that's because CFCs are about 4,5 times heavier than air. The UV radiation with the necessary energy for splitting the CFCs molecules are well above the 45 kms, where no CFCs are found. That UV radiation is known as UV-C. But even if those 0,1 pppt of CFCs release their chlorine atoms, the they cannot react with ozone due to the gaseous phase of chemistry.

Weather patterns. You might as well ask why water collects in puddles, when the rain coats an area evenly.

Nice try, but incorrect. Chlorine cathalytic reaction allegedly responsible for destroying ozone in the infamous layer has never been demonstrated in any lab essays. They tried many times, but nothing happened. It all relates to the "gaseous phase" of chemical reactions: chlorine only reacts with ozone over the solid surface of ice crystal in the polar clouds over Antarctica. Ask your chemistry professor.

It's a bad UV-A filter, a good UV-B filter, and an excellent UV-C filter.

UV radiation with the energy enough to split the highly stable CFC molecule is found well above the 40 km mark, the region where oxygen (although one of the strongest gas molecules –along with nitrogen- it is not as stable as the CFC molecule) absorbs almost all the UV-C radiation that could dissociate the CFC molecules.

Now, if you want to blame something, someone about the ozone hole over the Antarctic, blame the Mother Earth, it produces a hundred thousand times more chlorine than man every year. It's a natural phenomenon, already noticed back in the 50's.

[Hippikos]

This is where the connection to man comes in. It ties in with the Industrial Revolution.

This corrolation is unproven*. The fact that it started at the same time doesn't mean it was caused by the industrial revolution. How can you explain the sudden drop in temperature between the 40's and 70's (scientists predicteda new ice age those days, remember?) when Industrial Activity was a zillion times higher than a century before?


(*another corrolation: 70% of school killers use chewing gum, therefore it's proven that chewing gum causes school killings...)

We also talked about the ozone hole over Antarctica. Did you realise that it is now at its second largest size? This also affects the Earth's climate.

It's another natural phenomenon.

PS: The only evidence for a role of Carbon dioxide in climate was the hockeystick theory, which has been declared dead by now.

[headsplice]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
We won't have proof until the 'experiment' is complete. That is, until there's conclusive proof that we're causing major climatic change. Unfortunately, in all likelihood that will mean it's too late to do anything and everyone will be a BAD position (worst-case scenario: all of life on the planet dies). Now, we know that lots of particulate emissions are bad (they're bad for us breathing, in specific). So, if we can reduce the amount of particulate emissions in the atmosphere, while potentially saving ourselves from extinction, then why err on the side of extinction?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by headsplice

...why err on the side of extinction?

Because, as long as it doesn't happen in our lifetimes, it's not our problem.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by headsplice

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
We won't have proof until the 'experiment' is complete. That is, until there's conclusive proof that we're causing major climatic change. Unfortunately, in all likelihood that will mean it's too late to do anything and everyone will be a BAD position (worst-case scenario: all of life on the planet dies). Now, we know that lots of particulate emissions are bad (they're bad for us breathing, in specific). So, if we can reduce the amount of particulate emissions in the atmosphere, while potentially saving ourselves from extinction, then why err on the side of extinction?

At what cost is break point for determining imposed restrictions?
Make a rule/rules governing how much dirt you can generate?
People in favor will probably already be below the specified limit.
People that are not, will ignore or circumvent the rule.
What about people not in your juristiction?.....Third World countries or emerging economies?
Implementation of noble causes is always the problem with them.

Can we impact on the climactic changes that are already in motion?
If we have in fact caused it, is the pooch already screwed?
Are we kidding ourselves by saying if we do this we'll save mankind, when in fact we should have done that?

Face it, Global Warming isn't likely to kill me or you. Look at the time frames in the predictions....common numbers are 2050AD and 2100AD for milestones in changes..... even further for catastrophic events. What we're looking at is the future of the human race, not ourselves.

Now look around and ask yourself.......are they worth saving?

OK, I'm kidding..... but seriously, imposing changes because they make you feel warm and fuzzy, without knowing if the changes are actually doing any good, will meet stiff resistance.

[Hippikos]

If that's true, it makes a big difference because the oceans don't vary nearly as much as the air and change much slower. I've got to look into this.

Bruce, have a look at this site.. It shows a number of Earth water temperature stats. Like these:

[Hippikos]

I am under the impression that variation in that antarctic hole is pretty much out of our control once halocarbons were addressed. Not so?

CFCs/halocarbons are inert, so they can't react with ozone. Has anyone asked him/herself why there's only a hole over Antarctica, when halocarbons were released all over the world?

Another fact is that from the produced CFC's only 1% was released whose chlorine content is about 7,500 tons. Mother Nature produces 650 MILLION ton chlorine annually, 90% comes from the sea.

Besides ozone is a lousy UV filter, oxygen and nitrogen filter 99%, ozone: 0,000003%. I remember Al Bore saying the lambs in Patagonia got blind because the ozone hole...

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

CFCs/halocarbons are inert, so they can't react with ozone.

Not in heavy UV light they aren't.

Has anyone asked him/herself why there's only a hole over Antarctica, when halocarbons were released all over the world?

Weather patterns. You might as well ask why water collects in puddles, when the rain coats an area evenly.

Besides ozone is a lousy UV filter, oxygen and nitrogen filter 99%, ozone: 0,000003%.

It's a bad UV-A filter, a good UV-B filter, and an excellent UV-C filter.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yeah, I'd also read it's importance was as a UV-C filter.

[Happy Monkey]

It's the reason we don't even bother mentioning UV-C on our sunblock.

[bluesdave]

NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center has just put up a new web site which shows the current SST over the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic coast. It should be interesting for you guys living on the East Coast.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center has just put up a new web site which shows the current SST over the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic coast. It should be interesting for you guys living on the East Coast.

Thank you.

[xoxoxoBruce]

tw, your a lying motherfucker, saying I said things I never said, stating positions I never took, and putting me in groups I don't agree with.
It's obvious you don't know jack shit and are just mimicking the sky is falling predictions from your precious magazines. This has nothing to do with Bush, Bin Laden, Iraq, Viet Nam, North Korea or Rush Limbaugh.
I posted Lindzen's speech because he was cited in the original article. I never said I agreed with him or the original article, only that I couldn't find the flaw.
I tried learned the facts and posted them, whereas all you've got is a graph that doesn't show a god damn thing significant and the testimony before Congress of a politician. Yeah, a former scientist turned politician, that's what the President, National Academy of Sciences, is. You would know that if you had read the statement by the IPCC, on time consumption of reports. Do you really think being President on the NAS and UC Dept. Chairman, plus coordinating scientists and politicians, leaves any time for research?

The IPCC process demands a significant time commitment by members of the scientific community.
As a result, many climate scientists in the United States and elsewhere choose not to participate at the level of a lead author even after being invited. Some take on less time-consuming roles as contributing authors or
reviewers. Others choose not to participate. This may present a potential problem for the future. As the commitment to the assessment process continues to grow, this could create a form of self-selection for the
participants. In such a case, the community of world climate scientists may develop cadres with particularly strong feelings about the outcome: some as favorable to the IPCC and its procedures and others negative about the use of the IPCC as a policy instrument. Alternative procedures are needed to ensure that participation in the work of the IPCC does not come at the expense of an individual's scientific career.

If you don't have anything to contribute besides the sky is falling, don't bother with the bullshit rhetoric.

[Hippikos]

Science does not stand still. New evidence appears constantly, and opinions change. Hippikos, you are entitled to hold onto your opinion, and you have obviously gone out of your way to do your own reading on the topic. Even though we disagree, I tip my hat to you for showing an interest.

Respect is mutual bluesdave. Fact is that I never see Earth´s own production of chlorine (100,000 times more) coming into the equation by the depletionists, neither the fact that CFC´s are 4,5 heavier than air, so how can they show up 40-50 km up in the air?

There´s no such thing as a "hole", just a mere decrease in ozone levels at some altitude over the South Pole. Some years it is bigger and other years is much smaller, following the sun's activity, or the QBO direction.

Note that the CSIRO started measuring ozone levels in 1956, but the hole as such was not discovered until the 1970s. Dobson's work is well recognised, and appreciated, but research has continued, and new light has been shed on the topic.

NOAA states that the ozone hole was discovered in the 80´s, so take your pick.

Science does not stand still. New evidence appears constantly,

I´m interested to learn these. CFC and PCB´s are banned for decades, still ozone holes occur, exclusively over the Antarctic.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

NOAA states that the ozone hole was discovered in the 80´s, so take your pick.I´m interested to learn these. CFC and PCB´s are banned for decades, still ozone holes occur, exclusively over the Antarctic.

I stand corrected. The decrease in ozone levels was being hilighted through the 70s and the "hole" actually discovered in the early 80s. It will take at least 50 years for the lost ozone to be replaced, and that is assuming that the developing world does not spew out CFCs and halons.

Here is a quote explaining how the hole occurs:

Why does the ozone hole occur over Antarctica?
Human emissions of CFCs occur mainly in the Northern Hemisphere. Gases such as CFCs which are insoluble in water and relatively unreactive are mixed within a year or two throughout the lower 10 kilometres of the atmosphere (the troposphere). The CFCs then rise from the lower atmosphere into the stratosphere, mainly in the tropics. Winds then move this air poleward - both North and South - from the tropics. The meteorologies of the two polar regions are very different. The South Pole is part of a very large land mass that is completely surrounded by ocean. These conditions produce a very cold stratosphere which leads to the formation of clouds. The clouds that form lead to chemical changes that promote rapid ozone depletion. The North Pole lacks the land/ocean symmetry of the South Pole. As a consequence the stratospheric air is much warmer and fewer clouds form. Therefore the ozone depletion in the Arctic is very much less than in the Antarctic.