August 15th, 2007, 10:22 PM
Also, I'm not sure why you feel the need to point out what the first C in CFC's stands for, I know the appropriate nomenclature. Maybe you're confused by fluorocarbons? After all it's more than just chlorinated fluorocarbons which cause the problem.
Again, there was no hole back then, only the problem of dissapearing ozone. Many things have been assumed to be natural until science catchs up. Logic isn't always solid, many times it's fuzzy and produces a tickling sensation.
Any idea how small that amount is? Any idea how much damage even a small amount can do? How vague....
You don't have any idea how long CFC's can last do you? It is their reactivity which is the problem. They can last up to 100 years, though in most cases they will survive for only two in the stratosphere, and be thankful for that! Afterall it is that very principle which made them excellent chemicals for use in the wide range of products they spanned.
Cl + O3 ---> ClO + O2
Now, the problem here is that oxygen is not octet happy, that is it does not have a filled outer shell of electrons, which it wants. Here's how it fixes that:
ClO + O ---> Cl +O2
That single chlorine atom has broken one ozone molecule apart, and prevented one from forming. Not only that, it is left as a free radical to start the sequence all over again. Science fiction, I think not...
As I said earlier, we can thank the Montreal Protocol that things aren't worse. If you think chlorine is bad, be thankful bromine costs more than chlorine, the problem could have been much worse still.
Quote:
The holes were not discovered in the 50's, the disappearance was discovered. I gave you the standard definition of a hole, and a timeline for the measured Dobson units. It's free data which can be found in many places. 1957 was the International Geophysical Year, when governments around the world funded many programs aimed at better scientific understanding, including a network for measuring ozone. Since that time, the measurements have been made and reported. completely ignoring the fact that I had already said that the holes were a natural occurrence discovered in 1956, clearly indicating that they were already there. Somehow you felt the need to tell me something I’d just said. My conclusion could only be that you hadn’t read my post very well. Oh, and we call them “chlorofluorocarbons”, you know, the “C” in CFC.
Also, I'm not sure why you feel the need to point out what the first C in CFC's stands for, I know the appropriate nomenclature. Maybe you're confused by fluorocarbons? After all it's more than just chlorinated fluorocarbons which cause the problem.
Quote:
Well, since they were discovered in 1956 and analyzed in 1958 as a natural annual event, it seems a logical assumption. At least, that’s what was assumed until the ozone hysteria became popular.
Again, there was no hole back then, only the problem of dissapearing ozone. Many things have been assumed to be natural until science catchs up. Logic isn't always solid, many times it's fuzzy and produces a tickling sensation.
Quote:
Well, in CFC form they won’t fall as acid rain, but once released, the chlorine portion will. You’re assuming that these 4 – 8 times heavier than are compounds rise rapidly into the stratosphere, while in actual fact, experiments have demonstrated if you pour them from a container onto the ground they will pool at the lowest point of ground where they’ll be decomposed. A very small amount of molecules will be carried upward by air currents and eddies, but not the amount that could do harm.
Any idea how small that amount is? Any idea how much damage even a small amount can do? How vague....
Quote:
You’re suggesting they rise to the stratosphere as CFC’s and break down there? Not too many of them will make it that high, and when they break down and release the chlorine (or chloride) what happens to the rest of the molecule? No breakdown products from freon have been observed in the stratosphere and nearly 200 chemical reactions and nearly 50 photochemical reactions have been identified in the stratosphere, NONE involving CFC’s.
You don't have any idea how long CFC's can last do you? It is their reactivity which is the problem. They can last up to 100 years, though in most cases they will survive for only two in the stratosphere, and be thankful for that! Afterall it is that very principle which made them excellent chemicals for use in the wide range of products they spanned.
Quote:
Winds and global circulation mix the atmosphere up, even as high as the upper stratosphere. Again, due to the unreactive nature of fluorocarbons and the fact that they are insoluable in water, means that they have no problems riding the air cuurents to the upper atmosphere. Now there's another question, how all these much-heavier-than-air gasses got all the way from the northern hemisphere down to the antarctic stratosphere. Mystery of mysteries.
Quote:
Not really, not for someone who understands chemistry. Here's a quick tutorial. Seeming as how you understand how UV reacts with chemicals, I'll skip that part. Let's jump right to the point where the Cl is broken free. Here's how the reaction you seem to have problems understanding works: Yes Ozone is unstable, and it is constantly forming and unforming. As long as there is O2 and UV, there will be Ozone. O3 is quite happy to bond with Chlorine to produce compounds, but the scenario you describe comes right out of science fiction.
Cl + O3 ---> ClO + O2
Now, the problem here is that oxygen is not octet happy, that is it does not have a filled outer shell of electrons, which it wants. Here's how it fixes that:
ClO + O ---> Cl +O2
That single chlorine atom has broken one ozone molecule apart, and prevented one from forming. Not only that, it is left as a free radical to start the sequence all over again. Science fiction, I think not...
Quote:
Doomsayers have been predicting the demise of the human race as long as I can remember, and none of them ever comes true. When I was your age I tended to believe in them. Now I'm tired of hearing about the next end of the world (there's always another one) and have long since realized that it's politics by unscrupulous malefactors deluding gullible people.
As I said earlier, we can thank the Montreal Protocol that things aren't worse. If you think chlorine is bad, be thankful bromine costs more than chlorine, the problem could have been much worse still.
Electoral Member
Posts: 682 
Location: Prince George, BC
Location: Prince George, BC
August 15th, 2007, 11:31 PM
1. There have been doomsday predictions since before you were born.
Rachel Carson - the birds are all going to die.
Paul Ehrlich, the Population Bomb - we're going to run out of everything in the 1970's, make that the 1980's, no the 1990's....someday .
Global cooling - fossil fuel consumption is creating an ice age and civilization is doomed.
2. Remember the Global Warming Scare and everything about it.
If, as the scientists who study the sun are correct (and it seems they are) and we are indeed on the cusp of a 50 year global cooling period (similar to the last one from the early '40's to the early '70's) if they are correct, then 30 years from now there will be a whole new generation who have grown up without experiencing the global warming scare. The warming scare will have fizzled away, and a lot of embarassed movie stars and politicians will have done their best to forget their participation. Not the environmentalists though. Likely they'll be worrying about the global cooling problem brought on by burning fossil fuels. I wonder if enough people will remember the past. I wonder if they'll try to tell them it's all been done before, both cooling and warming panics.
At that time, remember. And experience what it's like trying to get through to those people.
I may still be alive, though I'll be 90 by then. If my memory still works, and if this forum is still up, I might just come here to tell you I told you so.
Quote:
The definition seems to have been changed to fit the theory. The original definition, by convention, was a 50% reduction. Since the ozone fluctuates so much (up to 40%) in the normal scheme of things, a fixed amount wasn't considered reliable. And Dobson discovered it in 1956. The holes were not discovered in the 50's, the disappearance was discovered. I gave you the standard definition of a hole, and a timeline for the measured Dobson units. It's free data which can be found in many places. 1957 was the International Geophysical Year, when governments around the world funded many programs aimed at better scientific understanding, including a network for measuring ozone.
Quote:
Because you seemed compelled to do the same earlier, as if you were talking down: Also, I'm not sure why you feel the need to point out what the first C in CFC's stands for, I know the appropriate nomenclature.
Quote:
I thought I might add my 2 cents worth in the same vein. The majority of the ozone depleting chemicals are MANMADE, we call them fluorocarbons.
Quote:
Yeah, there was. And the characteristics, the fluctuations, and the causes were the same then as today. Again, there was no hole back then, only the problem of dissapearing ozone.
Quote:
Well, let's see. Since production peaked at 750,000 tons (about 1000th the volume of the natural stuff) it must be considerably less now, and since most of it never gets into the stratosphere.....let's be generous and assume that one millionth of the volume up there comes from CFC's, and the rest is natural. And although they've managed to get it to happen in a lab, and they've detected about 250 other chemical reactions taking place up there, but not this one, I'd say............not much damage at all. Since they've managed to create the reaction in the lab it's reasonable to assume it occurs in nature. But the evidence would indicate it doesn't happen to any great extent, and since the bad stuff is, by a gigundous amount, natural, there's nothing to worry about. Any idea how small that amount is? Any idea how much damage even a small amount can do?
Quote:
Yeah, quite true. Not to mention dirt (dust from rocks) water and all kinds of stuff that's heavier than air can get up there. Except how does it get through that annual polar vortex? The ozone can't even get through from the surrounding latitudes, except for one time when the vortex divided in two for some reason. NASA showed time-lapse film of the two ozone-free vorticies spinning side by side while directly over the south pole there was lots of ozone. How does chlorine gas, which weighs more than air reach the stratosphere? Winds and global circulation mix the atmosphere up, even as high as the upper stratosphere. Again, due to the unreactive nature of fluorocarbons and the fact that they are insoluable in water, means that they have no problems riding the air cuurents to the upper atmosphere.
Quote:
Now here's the problem with that. Two molecules. You said earlier 100,000. I suppose with enough time it could keep doing it over and over till it reached that number, and more. But what happens to the millions of O2 and O3 in the air around it while this is going on? The chlorine just breaks it apart. They'll form back together again. And if the UV passes through (with no O3 to stop it) it will encounter more and more O2 to form into O3. The ozone layer isn't really a layer eveloping the atmosphere. It's just oxygen in the atmosphere. Most of the O3 is created between 20 and 40 km above the earth because that's where the UV is strongest. By the time it's through that it's too dim to have nearly the same effect. If it does keep coming it will only encounter more and more O2, and the process will continue. Cl + O3 ---> ClO + O2
Now, the problem here is that oxygen is not octet happy, that is it does not have a filled outer shell of electrons, which it wants. Here's how it fixes that:
ClO + O ---> Cl +O2
That single chlorine atom has broken one ozone molecule apart, and prevented one from forming. Not only that, it is left as a free radical to start the sequence all over again.
Now, the problem here is that oxygen is not octet happy, that is it does not have a filled outer shell of electrons, which it wants. Here's how it fixes that:
ClO + O ---> Cl +O2
That single chlorine atom has broken one ozone molecule apart, and prevented one from forming. Not only that, it is left as a free radical to start the sequence all over again.
Quote:
Well here's what I want you to do. Remember. For the next 30 years remember. Most times you don't remember all that much for 30 years unless it's something momentous but see if you can remember the following: If you think chlorine is bad, be thankful bromine costs more than chlorine, the problem could have been much worse still.
1. There have been doomsday predictions since before you were born.
Rachel Carson - the birds are all going to die.
Paul Ehrlich, the Population Bomb - we're going to run out of everything in the 1970's, make that the 1980's, no the 1990's....someday .
Global cooling - fossil fuel consumption is creating an ice age and civilization is doomed.
2. Remember the Global Warming Scare and everything about it.
If, as the scientists who study the sun are correct (and it seems they are) and we are indeed on the cusp of a 50 year global cooling period (similar to the last one from the early '40's to the early '70's) if they are correct, then 30 years from now there will be a whole new generation who have grown up without experiencing the global warming scare. The warming scare will have fizzled away, and a lot of embarassed movie stars and politicians will have done their best to forget their participation. Not the environmentalists though. Likely they'll be worrying about the global cooling problem brought on by burning fossil fuels. I wonder if enough people will remember the past. I wonder if they'll try to tell them it's all been done before, both cooling and warming panics.
At that time, remember. And experience what it's like trying to get through to those people.
I may still be alive, though I'll be 90 by then. If my memory still works, and if this forum is still up, I might just come here to tell you I told you so.
Duration_Improvate
Posts: 625
Location: Nearby yet far away
Location: Nearby yet far away
August 16th, 2007, 11:51 AM
I know global warming exsist. If global warming completely kills people, it's in the data of death due to temperatures. End of the world? Not the end of the earth. Close to the end of humanity. As civilizations are easily destroy by the environment.
For example, ancient places were destroyed because they remove too much topsoil. Without the topsoil, the people cannot eat. Then they die because they do not hunt. Their relics is all around the world. You can ask an archeologist.
I know global warming exsist. If global warming completely kills people, it's in the data of death due to temperatures. End of the world? Not the end of the earth. Close to the end of humanity. As civilizations are easily destroy by the environment.
For example, ancient places were destroyed because they remove too much topsoil. Without the topsoil, the people cannot eat. Then they die because they do not hunt. Their relics is all around the world. You can ask an archeologist.
August 16th, 2007, 09:31 PM
Extra, well a number of things to address. I'm not arguing that there isn't any natural phenomena also at work here, quite the opposite. I've only been trying to show you how the manmade portion works. Dobson discovered the waxing and waning of the ozone concentrations in 1956. I remind you now that at that point in time, the fluorocarbons had been in production for nearly thirty years. Theres no question that natural chlorine will do exactly the same as fluorocarbons inside the stratosphere, that is what those reactions I showed you were. The problem is, natural chlorine can and will react before it reaches the stratosphere, though of course not all. As you said earlier it will form acid rain, amongst the many other compounds it can form. Remember that chlorine is highly reactive, flurocarbons are severly unreactive, save for contact with ultraviolet radiation.
To go back to the reactions, I did say 100,000 earlier, do you not see how that could work? I only showed two reactions for the sake of simplicity and space, but if you prefer:
Cl + O3 ----> ClO + O2
ClO + O ----> Cl + O2
Cl + O3 ----> ClO + O2
ClO + O ----> Cl + O2
Cl + O3 ----> ClO + O2
ClO + O ----> Cl + O2
Cl + O3 ----> ClO + O2
ClO + O ----> Cl + O2
The process is repeating, the free radical end product will start the same process that the UV did by breaking the chlorine free from the fluorocarbon. That is how one molecule of fluorocarbon can be reponsible for such large numbers of destroyed ozone, much like any naturaly emitted chlorine which manages to reach the stratosphere.
When you say production peaked at 750,000 tonnes, do you mean that as the highest production in one year or the running total for all CFC's, which I remind you are a portion of the total fluorocarbons. The numbers I found through to 1993, are about double the number you have quoted, for only CFC-11 and 12.
Global warming, the sun, thirty more years you say, don't count your chickens yet. The evidence has grown stronger, and if you search out some information on climate equilibrium, you will find that we have some warming accrued and yet to arrive.
Extra, well a number of things to address. I'm not arguing that there isn't any natural phenomena also at work here, quite the opposite. I've only been trying to show you how the manmade portion works. Dobson discovered the waxing and waning of the ozone concentrations in 1956. I remind you now that at that point in time, the fluorocarbons had been in production for nearly thirty years. Theres no question that natural chlorine will do exactly the same as fluorocarbons inside the stratosphere, that is what those reactions I showed you were. The problem is, natural chlorine can and will react before it reaches the stratosphere, though of course not all. As you said earlier it will form acid rain, amongst the many other compounds it can form. Remember that chlorine is highly reactive, flurocarbons are severly unreactive, save for contact with ultraviolet radiation.
To go back to the reactions, I did say 100,000 earlier, do you not see how that could work? I only showed two reactions for the sake of simplicity and space, but if you prefer:
Cl + O3 ----> ClO + O2
ClO + O ----> Cl + O2
Cl + O3 ----> ClO + O2
ClO + O ----> Cl + O2
Cl + O3 ----> ClO + O2
ClO + O ----> Cl + O2
Cl + O3 ----> ClO + O2
ClO + O ----> Cl + O2
The process is repeating, the free radical end product will start the same process that the UV did by breaking the chlorine free from the fluorocarbon. That is how one molecule of fluorocarbon can be reponsible for such large numbers of destroyed ozone, much like any naturaly emitted chlorine which manages to reach the stratosphere.
When you say production peaked at 750,000 tonnes, do you mean that as the highest production in one year or the running total for all CFC's, which I remind you are a portion of the total fluorocarbons. The numbers I found through to 1993, are about double the number you have quoted, for only CFC-11 and 12.
Global warming, the sun, thirty more years you say, don't count your chickens yet. The evidence has grown stronger, and if you search out some information on climate equilibrium, you will find that we have some warming accrued and yet to arrive.
Electoral Member
Posts: 682
Location: Prince George, BC
Location: Prince George, BC
August 16th, 2007, 11:27 PM
Scientists tell us that the interglacial periods all seem to have been somewhat warmer than this one, sometimes quite a bit warmer. Warm enough for forests to grow on Greenland, where there's an ice cap now.
And we have the historical and archeological records that tell us that only 800 years ago Greenland was able to support an agricultural settlement, during the time historians call the "Medieval Climate Optimum" when the world was much warmer than now.
Historically, global warming has meant times of plenty. Global cooling has meant times of disease, starvation and war.
Quoting typingrandomstuff
Certainly global warming exists. So does global cooling. It's called climate change. I've lived through two such cycles. The climate was cooling when I was born in 1947 and continued to cool until the early 1970's when the global cooling scare became the big story of the day. Then the warming trend began and the fearmongers switched to global warming for the next 25 years. Since 1998 it seems we may again be in a cooling phase.
I know global warming exsist. If global warming completely kills people, it's in the data of death due to temperatures. End of the world? Not the end of the earth. Close to the end of humanity. As civilizations are easily destroy by the environment.
For example, ancient places were destroyed because they remove too much topsoil. Without the topsoil, the people cannot eat. Then they die because they do not hunt. Their relics is all around the world. You can ask an archeologist.
For example, ancient places were destroyed because they remove too much topsoil. Without the topsoil, the people cannot eat. Then they die because they do not hunt. Their relics is all around the world. You can ask an archeologist.
Scientists tell us that the interglacial periods all seem to have been somewhat warmer than this one, sometimes quite a bit warmer. Warm enough for forests to grow on Greenland, where there's an ice cap now.
And we have the historical and archeological records that tell us that only 800 years ago Greenland was able to support an agricultural settlement, during the time historians call the "Medieval Climate Optimum" when the world was much warmer than now.
Historically, global warming has meant times of plenty. Global cooling has meant times of disease, starvation and war.
Electoral Member
Posts: 682
Location: Prince George, BC
Location: Prince George, BC
August 16th, 2007, 11:44 PM
Quoting Tonington
More than just that, but why belabor the point.
Dobson discovered the waxing and waning of the ozone concentrations in 1956.
Quote:
Yup, but not widely used in the world.
I remind you now that at that point in time, the fluorocarbons had been in production for nearly thirty years.
Quote:
Some will react, some won't. But since the amount of chloride calculated to be in the stratosphere at any one time is calculated to be 50 times higher than the entire annual output from CFC’s, it's plainly obvious that the amount that does reach the stratosphere is gi-hugic, completely dwarfing the amount available from CFC's.
The problem is, natural chlorine can and will react before it reaches the stratosphere, though of course not all.
Quote:
Yeah, I see it. I also am aware that it's turning it into O2, which is then available to be turned back into O3, along with another billion or so O2 molecules for every Cl molecule, most of which are there from natural sources anyway.
To go back to the reactions, I did say 100,000 earlier, do you not see how that could work?
The process is repeating, the free radical end product will start the same process that the UV did by breaking the chlorine free from the fluorocarbon. That is how one molecule of fluorocarbon can be reponsible for such large numbers of destroyed ozone, much like any naturaly emitted chlorine which manages to reach the stratosphere.
The process is repeating, the free radical end product will start the same process that the UV did by breaking the chlorine free from the fluorocarbon. That is how one molecule of fluorocarbon can be reponsible for such large numbers of destroyed ozone, much like any naturaly emitted chlorine which manages to reach the stratosphere.
Quote:
No, the number was refering to the chloride availble from the CFC's, not the CFC's themselves.
When you say production peaked at 750,000 tonnes, do you mean that as the highest production in one year or the running total for all CFC's, which I remind you are a portion of the total fluorocarbons. The numbers I found through to 1993, are about double the number you have quoted, for only CFC-11 and 12.
Quote:
Then how come the planet has been apparently cooling for the last 9 years?
Global warming, the sun, thirty more years you say, don't count your chickens yet. The evidence has grown stronger, and if you search out some information on climate equilibrium, you will find that we have some warming accrued and yet to arrive.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Posts: 6,549 
Videos: 5
Location: Newfoundland!
Videos: 5
Location: Newfoundland!
August 17th, 2007, 10:33 AM
A couple of notes from a chemist:
- Tonington is correct with his equations, although there are more, but the net result of all of them is that Chlorine radicals destroy ozone and produce oxygen, while still regenerating themselves repeatedly.
-chloride and chlorine radicals are not the same thing. Chloride is a negative chlorine ion. an atom of chlorine which has lost an electron. It has 6 electrons in its outer shell. Chlorine radicals are simply chlorine atoms. Halogens by their nature are short of one electron, meaning that in their atomic state, they have one unpaired electron. Chlorine gas usually exists as two chlorine atoms sharing their unpaired electrons in a covalent bond.
A couple of notes from a chemist:
- Tonington is correct with his equations, although there are more, but the net result of all of them is that Chlorine radicals destroy ozone and produce oxygen, while still regenerating themselves repeatedly.
-chloride and chlorine radicals are not the same thing. Chloride is a negative chlorine ion. an atom of chlorine which has lost an electron. It has 6 electrons in its outer shell. Chlorine radicals are simply chlorine atoms. Halogens by their nature are short of one electron, meaning that in their atomic state, they have one unpaired electron. Chlorine gas usually exists as two chlorine atoms sharing their unpaired electrons in a covalent bond.
Duration_Improvate
Posts: 625
Location: Nearby yet far away
Location: Nearby yet far away
August 17th, 2007, 02:16 PM
I guess I have to give you the whole picture all over again.
The earth is cooling in its center because it is lossing its magnetic properties each year by 10%. If you do not believe what I am typing, research electromagnetic loss. There should be an article in national geographics and couple of others.
According to the Humphrey-model of electromagnetics, this is also a time of rain. Rain clouds cools down the earth. In truth, I think the global warming (on the surface caused by human activity) is very severe. The earth tries to balance it out somehow. The balancing properties let people feel the earth cooler.
I guess I have to give you the whole picture all over again.
The earth is cooling in its center because it is lossing its magnetic properties each year by 10%. If you do not believe what I am typing, research electromagnetic loss. There should be an article in national geographics and couple of others.
According to the Humphrey-model of electromagnetics, this is also a time of rain. Rain clouds cools down the earth. In truth, I think the global warming (on the surface caused by human activity) is very severe. The earth tries to balance it out somehow. The balancing properties let people feel the earth cooler.
Duration_Improvate
Posts: 625
Location: Nearby yet far away
Location: Nearby yet far away
August 17th, 2007, 02:28 PM
Global warming:
Possible benefits: a longer time in the dieing earth for people, plants which can endure all weather will thrive.
Negative: Burning and killing overboard, UV rays damage, and acute cancer causes, no outdoor activities, how will outdoor ventilations work, deaths, e.t.c
Central Cooling:
Positive: Less emphasis on global warming
Negative: No heat, no rock recycling. How will people live? Without the rock recyling, no mountains. No mountains, no minerals. No minerals, No steel, copper, jewlery, items, special devices.
Situation: Fourtunately, we are sort of at the tip of the start of the central cooling and at the very middle of global warming. Rain helps to cool and drive down global warming temperatures.
Global warming:
Possible benefits: a longer time in the dieing earth for people, plants which can endure all weather will thrive.
Negative: Burning and killing overboard, UV rays damage, and acute cancer causes, no outdoor activities, how will outdoor ventilations work, deaths, e.t.c
Central Cooling:
Positive: Less emphasis on global warming
Negative: No heat, no rock recycling. How will people live? Without the rock recyling, no mountains. No mountains, no minerals. No minerals, No steel, copper, jewlery, items, special devices.
Situation: Fourtunately, we are sort of at the tip of the start of the central cooling and at the very middle of global warming. Rain helps to cool and drive down global warming temperatures.
It is more correct to say our oil is running out and we need an energy source that last long, and it cannot be too much mechanical aspects.
Duration_Improvate
Posts: 625
Location: Nearby yet far away
Location: Nearby yet far away
August 17th, 2007, 02:41 PM
Each planet must have a life span. At the center of the core, there is an amount that the earth can burn and chrun to stay alive. For planets with an atmosphere, the amount can last for a lot of time before the planet dies. It lasts a long time because it can recycle and reuse the energy. During reusage, some of the energy is not completely recycled and lost. By that lost, the earth will slowly die. Usually this death takes billions of years.
People uses a lot of minerals and that disrupts the earth's ability to recycle. People um. they um. take the mineral and turn the mineral into something else. This leads to the earth to have less life span and the people too. If people too recycles, they do not need to mine, and they can distrub less of the materials. The less distrubance of materials leads to less death of earth. Thus, the people save the earth and themselves.
Cooling reason:
People break the recycle parts and the earth usuage of the center's fuel is slowly used up. When people break the recycle parts, less fuel for earth to recycle; without recycling, the earth's fuel to be alive decrease and the earth become cooler.
I can be wrong. If you do not believe me.
Each planet must have a life span. At the center of the core, there is an amount that the earth can burn and chrun to stay alive. For planets with an atmosphere, the amount can last for a lot of time before the planet dies. It lasts a long time because it can recycle and reuse the energy. During reusage, some of the energy is not completely recycled and lost. By that lost, the earth will slowly die. Usually this death takes billions of years.
People uses a lot of minerals and that disrupts the earth's ability to recycle. People um. they um. take the mineral and turn the mineral into something else. This leads to the earth to have less life span and the people too. If people too recycles, they do not need to mine, and they can distrub less of the materials. The less distrubance of materials leads to less death of earth. Thus, the people save the earth and themselves.
Cooling reason:
People break the recycle parts and the earth usuage of the center's fuel is slowly used up. When people break the recycle parts, less fuel for earth to recycle; without recycling, the earth's fuel to be alive decrease and the earth become cooler.
I can be wrong. If you do not believe me.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Posts: 6,549
Videos: 5
Location: Newfoundland!
Videos: 5
Location: Newfoundland!
August 17th, 2007, 02:47 PM
TRS, you are confusing an already complex issue by introducing a billion-year mechanism to cloud the facts relating to the hundred-or-less-year mechanism of global warming, which may or may not be caused by mankind.
Specifically we're talking about the effect of chlorine radicals on the ozone layer. Kindly don't tell us about the cooling of the planet, which is immeasurably slow and irrelevant to the subject.
TRS, you are confusing an already complex issue by introducing a billion-year mechanism to cloud the facts relating to the hundred-or-less-year mechanism of global warming, which may or may not be caused by mankind.
Specifically we're talking about the effect of chlorine radicals on the ozone layer. Kindly don't tell us about the cooling of the planet, which is immeasurably slow and irrelevant to the subject.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Posts: 6,549
Videos: 5
Location: Newfoundland!
Videos: 5
Location: Newfoundland!
August 17th, 2007, 03:32 PM
I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say we're on the right "tract".
I'm supposed to ask for an explanation, although I'm dreading it.
Quoting typingrandomstuff
Any cooling on the scale of 9 years is NOTHING to do with the billion year process of cooling within the earth.
Okay. I'm just answer why cold and warm weather occur together for :
"Then how come the planet has been apparently cooling for the last 9 years?"
Chlorine:
Um. You guys are on the right tract.
"Then how come the planet has been apparently cooling for the last 9 years?"
Chlorine:
Um. You guys are on the right tract.
I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say we're on the right "tract".
I'm supposed to ask for an explanation, although I'm dreading it.
August 18th, 2007, 12:24 AM
You just aren't getting it. If fluorocarbons yield a self repeating process which kills ozone (which it would not do if we hadn't released it in the first place) and prevents another oxygen atom from bonding to a diatomic oxygen( to make more ozone), and in the end leaves that chlorine atom as a free radical( said repeating process begins), then it doesn't matter that most of the world has stopped use. This is a longterm effect, though not as long as some of our other more "ingenious" technologies.
Perhaps you aren't aware, but there are still human made products which are on the rise. Halon, containing bromine which I mentioned is much more potent than it's CFC cousins, is still on the rise, though it has been phased out since 1996 under the Montreal Protocol.
Global warming and the ozone issue do not even belong in the same thread. Perhaps this thread should be split. Irregardless, 9 years of temperature data do not on the scale of this issue make for a reliable trend. If you look at the temperature record, it isn't smooth. The climate responds to all sorts of perturbation, and the recent trend( the last 150 years or so) shows an expected and definite warming. Volcanoes don't only produce chlorine, they also produce aerosols which add a cooling forcing to the overall climate. This is but one of the many known natural phenomena incorporated by the many disciplines which contribute to climate study.
Quoting Extrafire
...
Some will react, some won't. But since the amount of chloride calculated to be in the stratosphere at any one time is calculated to be 50 times higher than the entire annual output from CFC’s, it's plainly obvious that the amount that does reach the stratosphere is gi-hugic, completely dwarfing the amount available from CFC's.
Yeah, I see it. I also am aware that it's turning it into O2, which is then available to be turned back into O3, along with another billion or so O2 molecules for every Cl molecule, most of which are there from natural sources anyway.
No, the number was refering to the chloride availble from the CFC's, not the CFC's themselves.
Then how come the planet has been apparently cooling for the last 9 years?
Some will react, some won't. But since the amount of chloride calculated to be in the stratosphere at any one time is calculated to be 50 times higher than the entire annual output from CFC’s, it's plainly obvious that the amount that does reach the stratosphere is gi-hugic, completely dwarfing the amount available from CFC's.
Yeah, I see it. I also am aware that it's turning it into O2, which is then available to be turned back into O3, along with another billion or so O2 molecules for every Cl molecule, most of which are there from natural sources anyway.
No, the number was refering to the chloride availble from the CFC's, not the CFC's themselves.
Then how come the planet has been apparently cooling for the last 9 years?
You just aren't getting it. If fluorocarbons yield a self repeating process which kills ozone (which it would not do if we hadn't released it in the first place) and prevents another oxygen atom from bonding to a diatomic oxygen( to make more ozone), and in the end leaves that chlorine atom as a free radical( said repeating process begins), then it doesn't matter that most of the world has stopped use. This is a longterm effect, though not as long as some of our other more "ingenious" technologies.
Perhaps you aren't aware, but there are still human made products which are on the rise. Halon, containing bromine which I mentioned is much more potent than it's CFC cousins, is still on the rise, though it has been phased out since 1996 under the Montreal Protocol.
Global warming and the ozone issue do not even belong in the same thread. Perhaps this thread should be split. Irregardless, 9 years of temperature data do not on the scale of this issue make for a reliable trend. If you look at the temperature record, it isn't smooth. The climate responds to all sorts of perturbation, and the recent trend( the last 150 years or so) shows an expected and definite warming. Volcanoes don't only produce chlorine, they also produce aerosols which add a cooling forcing to the overall climate. This is but one of the many known natural phenomena incorporated by the many disciplines which contribute to climate study.
Electoral Member
Posts: 682
Location: Prince George, BC
Location: Prince George, BC
August 18th, 2007, 11:35 PM
It's a problem that doesn't exist.
Quoting hermanntrude
Thanks for the lesson. However it's all of limited relevance. Theories that conflict with the evidence are flawed. Yes it's been done in the lab, which means it's reasonable to assume it occurs in nature too. Yes it turns ozone into oxygen (which then promptly turns back into ozone). Problem is, it would have to do it billions of times, there's just way too many oxygen molecules. And we have the evidence of increasing ozone levels at the very time that CFC's were increasing the fastest.
A couple of notes from a chemist:
- Tonington is correct with his equations, although there are more, but the net result of all of them is that Chlorine radicals destroy ozone and produce oxygen, while still regenerating themselves repeatedly.
-chloride and chlorine radicals are not the same thing. Chloride is a negative chlorine ion. an atom of chlorine which has lost an electron. It has 6 electrons in its outer shell. Chlorine radicals are simply chlorine atoms. Halogens by their nature are short of one electron, meaning that in their atomic state, they have one unpaired electron. Chlorine gas usually exists as two chlorine atoms sharing their unpaired electrons in a covalent bond.
- Tonington is correct with his equations, although there are more, but the net result of all of them is that Chlorine radicals destroy ozone and produce oxygen, while still regenerating themselves repeatedly.
-chloride and chlorine radicals are not the same thing. Chloride is a negative chlorine ion. an atom of chlorine which has lost an electron. It has 6 electrons in its outer shell. Chlorine radicals are simply chlorine atoms. Halogens by their nature are short of one electron, meaning that in their atomic state, they have one unpaired electron. Chlorine gas usually exists as two chlorine atoms sharing their unpaired electrons in a covalent bond.
It's a problem that doesn't exist.
