T1B

atomicdad wrote:You're welcome,

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

atomicdad wrote:You're welcome,

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

88 wrote: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.

mvscal wrote:

88 wrote: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.

88 wrote:
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

Mikey wrote:You might want to read up on the research.

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

mvscal wrote: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?

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.

KC Scott wrote:I'll defer to those with more expertise on the subject

fluctuations in size and column density

mvscal wrote: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.

Felix wrote:

mvscal wrote: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?

BSmack wrote:

atomicdad wrote:You're welcome,

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

What prompted that?

Mikey wrote: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 wrote:

Felix wrote:

mvscal wrote: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.

mvscal wrote:

Felix wrote:

mvscal wrote: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.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:
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.

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

smackaholic wrote:

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.