Stupid Gobal Warming Alarmists - Page 24

**astralis** · 10-17-2006, 14:09 PM

gunnut,

Quote:

Ever calculated the molecular weight of a CFC molecule? It's a lot heavier than N2/O2 mixture of our atmosphere. How does something that heavy, coming out of our spray cans and air conditioner at sea level, rise up to above the stratosphere?

air currents (winds) mix the CFCs up into the atmosphere a good deal faster than CFC's molecular weight sinks it down.

gunnut · 10-17-2006, 14:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astralis

gunnut,

air currents (winds) mix the CFCs up into the atmosphere a good deal faster than CFC's molecular weight sinks it down.

I don't know... Most weather happen in the troposphere which is below 3000m. Jet stream is in the stratosphere at 10000m. The ozone layer is above that. I think it's hokey.

**astralis** · 10-17-2006, 15:12 PM

gunnut,

well, we still have winds right on ground level.

that and mixing into the atmosphere makes it relatively easy for molecules to travel vertically; after all, we have seen winds carry things rather larger than molecules (volcanic ash, plant life, etc etc) to fairly great heights both vertically and horizontally.

in any case, the ozone hole has been getting smaller, simply because CFCs were phased out. it seems to be a fairly direct connection.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/c...995/press.html

i suppose if you want more details, look into molina and rowland's work. i'm not an atmospheric scientist.

gunnut · 10-17-2006, 17:16 PM

So the hole in the ozone layer getting smaller is directly connected to phasing out CFC?

How big was the hole in 1900? 1800? 1700? 500BC? Maybe this is a cyclical thing. A mechanism that we don't quite understand yet, or even thought of.

We can only draw correlations. And weak ones at that. I for one am not conviced that the ozone layer was ever in danger, or we contributed in shrinking the hole.

highsea · 10-17-2006, 17:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astralis

...in any case, the ozone hole has been getting smaller, simply because CFCs were phased out. it seems to be a fairly direct connection.

I don't buy that one either. All the claims were that it would take 100 years. And that even though they were banned in 1986 or something, the damage would still accumulate for years before the levels of chlorine began to decrease.

The hole is a seasonal phenomenon, increasing in the spring and decreasing in the fall, due to the varying amount of UV hitting it from the sun.

**Parihaka** · 10-17-2006, 17:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highsea

I don't buy that one either. All the claims were that it would take 100 years. And that even though they were banned in 1986 or something, the damage would still accumulate for years before the levels of chlorine began to decrease.

The hole is a seasonal phenomenon, increasing in the spring and decreasing in the fall, due to the varying amount of UV hitting it from the sun.

The southern ozone hole is at its largest recorded level.

highsea · 10-17-2006, 17:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parihaka

The southern ozone hole is at its largest recorded level.

Well then, it hasn't been getting smaller as claimed, right?

Edit to add:

Quote:

6 October2006 British Antarctic Survey

Ozone Bulletin Ozone levels across Antarctica dropped rapidly in September and are now near their minimum. Lowest levels are currently near 100 DU over parts of Antarctica. The polar vortex is shrinking, but remains significantly larger than average for this time of year. Temperatures within it are generally below the normal for the time of year.

The ozone hole grew rapidly from mid August and reached nearly 28 million square kilometres in size at the equinox. It was the largest on record for the week preceding the equinox, although not an absolute record in size and it is now shrinking. The ozone hole has become much more elliptical and the edge of the ozone hole is making passes over the tip of South America. The next pass is expected from October 7 to 10. It also crosses South Georgia and here the next pass is expected from October 9 to 12.

http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonehole2006.htm

The record is 30.3 million KM^2 in 2000. It does fluctuate from year to year, as well as seasonally-in 1987 it peaked at 22.4 Million KM^2, and in 1998 only 14.7 Million KM^2.

gunnut · 10-17-2006, 19:13 PM

I have another question.

Some say CFC, eventhough is much heavier than the atmosphere, will rise up to the upper stratosphere due to wind current or whatever that moves it up.

I heard smog is largely ozone, or a significant amount of smog consists of ozone.

Why doesn't this ozone rise up to the upper atmosphere like how CFC does, and thus replace the alleged losses of ozone up there?

**Parihaka** · 10-17-2006, 19:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highsea

Well then, it hasn't been getting smaller as claimed, right?

That would be right. Being right however is small consolation to my fair skinned daughter who'se spent the last month being lathered up with spf15 to stop her skin from blistering after 10 minutes outside

ArmchairGeneral · 10-17-2006, 20:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

I have another question.

Some say CFC, eventhough is much heavier than the atmosphere, will rise up to the upper stratosphere due to wind current or whatever that moves it up.

I heard smog is largely ozone, or a significant amount of smog consists of ozone.

Why doesn't this ozone rise up to the upper atmosphere like how CFC does, and thus replace the alleged losses of ozone up there?

I think it would rise up, but not in sufficient quantities. The ozone layer is pretty narrow, I believe, and the ozone would not migrate there preferentially. If you created enough ozone at ground level to replenish the ozone layer, we'd all be dead from ozone poisoning.

I don't know the chemistry of CFCs and ozone, but I believe that the CFCs act as catalysts for the degradation of ozone. Of course, the wonderful thing about catalysts is that you don't need much catalyst to do a lot of work, and they last a long, long time. So just a few CFCs getting into the ozone layer will be enough to use up a lot of ozone.

So it's quite possible that more ozone than CFCs are getting into the ozone layer from pollution, but the CFCs destroy far more ozone than comes in.

**astralis** · 10-17-2006, 20:56 PM

gunnut,

Quote:

I have another question.

Some say CFC, eventhough is much heavier than the atmosphere, will rise up to the upper stratosphere due to wind current or whatever that moves it up.

I heard smog is largely ozone, or a significant amount of smog consists of ozone.

Why doesn't this ozone rise up to the upper atmosphere like how CFC does, and thus replace the alleged losses of ozone up there?

ozone is a very reactive gas (O3 config)- sunlight energy breaks it up before it reaches the upper atmosphere.

CFCs, on the other hand, are rather non-reactive, which is why we used to use it. however, its chlorine will react with the unstable O3 ozone molecule.

gunnut · 10-18-2006, 17:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astralis

gunnut,

ozone is a very reactive gas (O3 config)- sunlight energy breaks it up before it reaches the upper atmosphere.

CFCs, on the other hand, are rather non-reactive, which is why we used to use it. however, its chlorine will react with the unstable O3 ozone molecule.

OK. More questions:

If ozone is that reactive, breakind down from sunlight before it reaches into the upper atmosphere, then how can the ozone already up there stay in any appreciable quantity, given the intense sunlight up there?

Also, if ozone is that reactive, why do we still have smog? We should use more CFC spray cans to destory ground level ozone.

**astralis** · 10-18-2006, 22:44 PM

gunnut,

remember, there is actually very little ozone. IIRC from my science days there are only 3 ozone molecules / 10,000,000 O2 molecules up in the ozone layer.

and also, remember that ozone up there is constantly forming and getting destroyed. it's in a dynamic equilibrium. sometimes O2 will be hit by light and break down into individual oxygen molecules (O). however, O by itself is quite reactive, and can react with other O2 molecules to form O3, or ozone.

that's how the dynamic equilibrium is formed. the introduction of chlorines into the atmosphere upset this equilibrium, simply because there isn't that much ozone to begin with.

as for smog, it doesn't just consist of ozone molecules but other molecules such as nitrates and aldehydes, especially nitrogen oxides...so i don't think fighting smog with CFCs is a great idea

**Parihaka** · 10-19-2006, 22:02 PM

Quote:

WASHINGTON This year's Antarctic ozone hole is the biggest ever, U.S. government scientists said Thursday.

The so-called hole is a region where there is severe depletion of the layer of ozone — a form of oxygen — in the upper atmosphere that protects life on Earth by blocking ultraviolet rays from the sun.

Scientists say human-produced gases such as bromine and chlorine damage the layer causing the hole. That is the reason many compounds such as spray-can propellants have been banned in recent years.

"From September 21 to 30, the average area of the ozone hole was the largest ever observed, at 10.6 million square miles (27.4 million square kilometers)," said Paul Newman, atmospheric scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. That is larger than the area of North America.

In addition satellite measurements observed a low reading of 85 Dobson units of ozone on Oct. 8. That is down from a thickness of 300 Dobson units in July.

The ozone hole is considered to be the area with total column ozone below 220 Dobson Units. A reading of 100 Dobson Units means that if all the ozone in the air above a point were brought down to sea-level pressure and cooled to freezing it would form a layer 1 centimeter thick. A reading of 250 Dobson Units translates to a layer about 1 inch (2.54 centimeters) thick.

In a critical layer of air between eight miles (13 kilometers) and 13 miles (21 kilometers) above the surface the measurement was only 1.2 Dobson unit, down from 125 in July.

"These numbers mean the ozone is virtually gone in this layer of the atmosphere," said David Hofmann, director of the Global Monitoring Division at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Laboratory. "The depleted layer has an unusual vertical extent this year, so it appears that the 2006 ozone hole will go down as a record-setter."

The size and thickness of the ozone hole varies from year to year, becoming larger when temperatures are lower.

Because of international agreements banning ozone-depleting substances researchers calculated that these chemicals peaked in Antarctica in 2001 and have been declining. However, many of them have extremely long lifetimes once released into the air.

While there are year-to-year variations, scientists expect a slow recovery of the ozone layer by the year 2065.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/...Ozone_Hole.php

Defcon 6 · 10-20-2006, 15:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

I watched An Inconvenient Truth on the plane back from China. Now I'm convinced more than ever before that global warming is a hoax.

More than 90% of the data presented by Al in the movie was taken after 1940, with a great majority of them after 1970.

If I take a random sample of recorded earth temperature, let's say we have a time machine and can go back in time, I can formulate my data to say anything I want. I can pick from the year 940 to 990 and say the earth will burn up in the year 1300, if the current trend continues. Or I can take a 50 year sample from the year 1780 to 1830, and say the earth will freeze in a few hundred years and the next ice age will be upon us.

Here's an unrelated question: whatever happed to that hole in the ozone layer? It was all the rage in the late 80s and the early 90s. Everyone thought the hole will get bigger and bigger and eventually the ultraviolet ray from the sun will hit the earth surface unimpeded and give us all skin cancer. I don't see that cult any more. Do you? Perhaps they changed the "hole in the ozone layer" to "global warming" and the "climate change?"

My question for the "hole in the ozone layer" cult is how do they know that hole hasn't always been there? Did they send up a balloon or a weather satellite in the year 738 to find it was much smaller than present day?

Actually that hole is still there and is monitored on a daily basis by NASA. Yeah, some cult. Ozone depletion is a totally different issue from global warming by the way.

And for the record, global warming is a fact.

Through Astronomy, I can tell you that Venus (the planet) has 700 degree temperatures because of thick CO2 clouds. It's a greenhouse effect gone wild. Point in case, Venus is so hot because of those greenhouse gasses.

10-17-2006, 15:12 PM	#348 (permalink)
astralis *Foreign Service* Moderator Lei Feng Protege Join Date: 08-23-05 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 2,932 Country:	gunnut, well, we still have winds right on ground level. that and mixing into the atmosphere makes it relatively easy for molecules to travel vertically; after all, we have seen winds carry things rather larger than molecules (volcanic ash, plant life, etc etc) to fairly great heights both vertically and horizontally. in any case, the ozone hole has been getting smaller, simply because CFCs were phased out. it seems to be a fairly direct connection. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/c...995/press.html i suppose if you want more details, look into molina and rowland's work. i'm not an atmospheric scientist. Last edited by astralis : 10-17-2006 at 15:15 PM.

10-18-2006, 22:44 PM	#358 (permalink)
astralis *Foreign Service* Moderator Lei Feng Protege Join Date: 08-23-05 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 2,932 Country:	gunnut, remember, there is actually very little ozone. IIRC from my science days there are only 3 ozone molecules / 10,000,000 O2 molecules up in the ozone layer. and also, remember that ozone up there is constantly forming and getting destroyed. it's in a dynamic equilibrium. sometimes O2 will be hit by light and break down into individual oxygen molecules (O). however, O by itself is quite reactive, and can react with other O2 molecules to form O3, or ozone. that's how the dynamic equilibrium is formed. the introduction of chlorines into the atmosphere upset this equilibrium, simply because there isn't that much ozone to begin with. as for smog, it doesn't just consist of ozone molecules but other molecules such as nitrates and aldehydes, especially nitrogen oxides...so i don't think fighting smog with CFCs is a great idea __________________ Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present. -Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Global Warming, A Good Thing?	brokensickle	Science & Tech	388	06-30-2007 04:33 AM
The Great Global Warming Swindle	Canmoore	Science & Tech	86	06-30-2007 04:32 AM
Antarctic air is warming faster than rest of world	Parihaka	Science & Tech	13	04-01-2006 12:20 PM
The Basic Laws of Human Stupidty	sparten	World Affairs Board Pub	0	03-08-2006 08:44 AM
10 Most Stupid questions (courtsey PDF)	sparten	World Affairs Board Pub	2	07-24-2005 23:28 PM

10-17-2006, 17:16 PM	#349 (permalink)
gunnut *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-27-06 Location: DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 9,353 Country:	So the hole in the ozone layer getting smaller is directly connected to phasing out CFC? How big was the hole in 1900? 1800? 1700? 500BC? Maybe this is a cyclical thing. A mechanism that we don't quite understand yet, or even thought of. We can only draw correlations. And weak ones at that. I for one am not conviced that the ozone layer was ever in danger, or we contributed in shrinking the hole.

10-17-2006, 19:13 PM	#353 (permalink)
gunnut *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-27-06 Location: DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 9,353 Country:	I have another question. Some say CFC, eventhough is much heavier than the atmosphere, will rise up to the upper stratosphere due to wind current or whatever that moves it up. I heard smog is largely ozone, or a significant amount of smog consists of ozone. Why doesn't this ozone rise up to the upper atmosphere like how CFC does, and thus replace the alleged losses of ozone up there?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)