How the GW myth is perpetuated


Curiosity
#31
I have no real knowledge about this discussion, nor do I have any interest because I am a selfish person and doubt this predicted cataclysmic event is going to affect me - ergo I just can't generate enough devotion to its cause. On a more truthful note, I dislike some of the cultish figures who have taken up the cause - especially turning weather paths into political ploy. To me that is crying fire yet again... to stir the people into a cultural/political/economic movement of fear.... Somehow I just can't get whipped up into eons of change in the earth being caused by a current president of the U.S. or some dimwit running a corporation who is more concerned with the cut of his suit and the age of his current wife.

Could anyone consider the fact that science and environmental concern and measurement and recording data are vastly more sophisticated in our times and therefore allows us to monitor fluctuations and change and the fact it has always been thus. The earth has been doing its dance without our assistance for as long as it has been a living entity.

Surely nobody believes the earth is as it once was - since the birth of mankind, explorers who wandered away from their origins were created, there were those who found new lands (trace DNA in some of the migrant people living in far flung nations).... I believe it has been agreed upon the lands were more closely joined throughout the area of the Pacific Ocean suitable for exploration which offered new living space for the early migrations. The earth is a living, moving, creation...and of course it is going to change and yes even wear out.

I don't mind enllightening discussion and offerings, but I detest that it has become a political battering ram which is a terrible failing of mankind.... making a rational concern into a divided war of 'who is right' instead of a collective intellectual discussion of what is real and what is hysteria.

I also award the newsmakers of our nations their share of turning this into a frightening event.... yet another example of a house is just a house until it catches fire ...then it becomes a news story with all the rhetorical splendor for days of use.... ending with fire prevention and finger pointing.....

As this topic always becomes... after years of reading the same old stuff.... I have seen nothing positive come out of it, but rather witnessed deep division and blame laying....which has nothing to do with temperature increase other than within the hot heads who seek to make it a political issue.
 
s_lone
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Abnormally Cold Temperatures in Texas Threaten Cotton Crop


By Noel Sheppard | August 4, 2007 - 11:59 ET
If summer heat and drought were jeopardizing crops in the Midwest, would a climate change obsessed media be having a field day (pun intended) reporting the news whilst connecting it to manmade global warming?
24 hours a day, seven days a week, right? CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC would likely have correspondents in the cornfields giving daily updates about the gravity of the situation.
Yet, further south in Texas, there's a crop very important to Americans in tremendous danger that has gotten almost no attention.
Why? Because abnormally cold summer temperatures are threatening it, and that just doesn't fit the current media agenda. As reported by the Associated Press Friday (h/t NB reader Phillip A. Smith):

Brad Heffington has farmed cotton in West Texas for nearly two decades but he and other producers in the world's largest growing patch say this year has been odd.
The weather has been cooler than Heffington can remember in his 19 years of growing the fluffy fiber, with temperatures so far failing to warm enough to optimally encourage cotton's fruit _ its bolls _ toward maturity.
"This is really an odd year," Heffington said. The cooler temperatures are "not exactly ideal for cotton. It's not a major concern right now but it could have real serious implications down the road."
The result could be reduced yields at harvest, which begins, at the earliest, at the end of September. "It could stand to be sunnier and warmer," Plains Cotton Growers spokesman Shawn Wade said.
Heat units, the measure of accumulated warmth on cotton plants throughout the growing season, are down 16 percent from normal for the three-month period that ended Tuesday, Randy Bowman, a cotton agronomist with the Texas Cooperative Extension, said.
[...]
The National Weather Service in Lubbock recorded below normal average temperatures for all but three days in July.
The AP issued its first version of this article around 5AM EST Thursday. Yet, Google News and LexisNexis searches identified almost no print coverage.
As for television news outlets, I can find no mention of this matter whatsoever.
It appears the potential for weather related crop damage is only newsworthy in America if it can be reported as evidence of anthropogenic global warming.
What a disgrace.
—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and a contributing editor to NewsBusters

That's a totally ignorant understanding of what the consquences of global warming would be. Global warming means the GLOBAL temperature is warming up. It says nothing about local weather patterns. Texas cooling down is absolutely not in contradiction with the idea the the GLOBAL temperature is rising.
 
#juan
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by s_lone View Post

That's a totally ignorant understanding of what the consquences of global warming would be. Global warming means the GLOBAL temperature is warming up. It says nothing about local weather patterns. Texas cooling down is absolutely not in contradiction with the idea the the GLOBAL temperature is rising.

You are right s_lone. Global warming is measured from thousands of weather stations around the world. Some might be reading a higher local temperature and some a lower temperature but what matters is that the average global temperature has been climbing steadily for several hundred years, and rising dramatically over the last fifty years.
 
Tonington
#34
Curio,

The entire debate has been politicized since the term was first thought up. The fact that the sides are so entrenched today is a direct result of the players in this dance whipping up friendly media outlets with their respective sides of the story. It will continue for some time I'm sure, I just don't know how it can ever stop. There's not a doubt in my mind that we've been pushing the envelope here, I mean why should the climate be any different than the other complex systems we've interfered with.

No one argues now that we didn't create the ozone hole, with some man made chemicals that numbered on the order of parts per trillion, not like the greenhouse gases we've added which is on the line of parts per million.
 
I think not
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

No one argues now that we didn't create the ozone hole, with some man made chemicals that numbered on the order of parts per trillion, not like the greenhouse gases we've added which is on the line of parts per million.

I'm so very glad you brought this up, you are right, nobody ever argues we didn't create the ozone hole. On the other hand no foundation, institution or tree hugger is pouring into the streets demanding the consumption of CFC's stop. Why? Because those who are doing the consuming aren't in the West. All countries in the West have banned the usage of CFC's (except under certain circumstances by government authorities). But the countries in the third world, like China, South Korea, Venezuela and Russia and pouring CFC's into the atmosphere like it's going out of style.

Any marches? Nope.
Any condemnations from the leftist tree huggers? Nope. Not a whining peep.
Any official UN declarations towards those countries? Nope.

Some of you ask if GW is political, of course it's political, it's the political left playing their usual game of point the finger to the "Evil West" and it's capitalist ways while allowing the poor developing countries pollute to their hearts content. When the tree huggers start treating everybody the same, then I'll listen. In the meantime I don't believe a word they say, whether it's about GW or the coming Ice Age (Think 70's).


Here's a link; http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/en...fc-consumption
 
Tonington
#36
Interestingly enough, the CFC problem was solved by a cousin of the Kyoto protocol, the Montreal protocol. Much like the Kyoto protocol, countries like China and India were left out, but I believe they are phasing out the use of CFC's to date, which explains how the long lived chemicals have largely stopped growing in atmospheric concentration and some compounds I believe are on the downward trend.

Also much like the Kyoto protocol, it's been called a toothless lion, for there are no mechanisms for dealing with treaty violation. Where it's not like the Kyoto protocol? The Montreal protocol was a success, the Montreal protocol actually had to wait for science to catch up and it was public outcry that sparked the shift.
 
#juan
#37
ITN that was the single most ignorant post you've made. You're so busy beating up the left that you lost sight of your argument...if you had one. The worst of the freons (CFCs) have been banned worldwide for years At one time freon 12 or 22 were used in almost every spray can you want to mention as well as being used in every home air conditioner. One thing about the bad CFCs is that they were all made by Dupont and when Dupont got pressured the supply dried up. New refrigerants have been developed that are much more friendly to the ozone layer The hole (s) in the ozone layer are still growing but that growth has slowed to the point where it is almost stopped, and it will stop within the next year or two.

I don't know what China may or may not be doing but they are not getting their CFCs from Dupont.
 
Curiosity
#38
Tonington

My stand on this is - there could be major threats to our planet which we are generating - but all I see is reports coming out with inflammatory rhetorical non-speak which does not reach the knowledge nor the "show me" intellect of the average person as am I.

I am willing to do more if necessary - other than having to use my air conditioner during the summer months (now a medical necessity - I used to use an evap cooler and the pool - don't have either now)...I contribute very little personally to the detriment of the planet.

Why not create a chart for individuals who can purchase the chart and keep a log of how they comply or not ... and how they can adopt some new ideas..... let individuals make those decisions for themselves .... when changes are measured positively ... they'll feel great.... they'll also save money on fuel for their autos.... (I enjoy being a six weeker now - at adding fuel to my gas tank)....

People are being criminalized to the point of absolute turn off - this message getting out now has finger pointing, ugliness and dictatorship-sounding charges leveled at the average people who are more concerned with feeding their kids and keeping a decent habitat than worrying about a far off disaster nobody can explain to them in comprehensive terminology... Most of us don't understand all the scientific logos and shorthand.... why not communicate at grocery store level conversation? So the little guys like me feel we can be a part of it instead of told how awful we are?

...now we have the blow-dries on the networks inciting even more riotious fear, along with the stumping gulag of possible 'leadership' in the U.S.A. giving their 'what the people want to hear' speeches....

If we could have perhaps a one evening per week on international television - perhaps two hours in length - discussing it at basic average guy consumer level - building up momentum as the knowledge increases..... I would be all for that....It might take six months of these programs donated by stations and facilities all over our world.... like an Olympics for the Earth.....and positive upbeat language of encouragement rather than AK47 doublespeak.

The public have to know they can make a difference - but nobody will give them the knowledge - and shoving it down throats isn't the wisest way to accomplish information delivery.

I'm all for knowing more and refusing to feel any guilt because I personally am doing exactly what I should be doing - my part in my own individual contribution - but I'll be damned I turn into a gulag-type marcher running around knocking on peoples' doors insisting they 'learn and understand and comply'...or else....
 
Avro
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by Curiosity View Post

I'm all for knowing more and refusing to feel any guilt because I personally am doing exactly what I should be doing - my part in my own individual contribution - but I'll be damned I turn into a gulag-type marcher running around knocking on peoples' doors insisting they 'learn and understand and comply'...or else....

Unfortunately the "or else" is drought, severe weather, flooding and unbreathable air....all the cost of doing nothing.
 
Curiosity
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

Unfortunately the "or else" is drought, severe weather, flooding and unbreathable air....all the cost of doing nothing.

Avro

Thank you for making my point - I experienced three bad floods while growing up in Winnipeg, where I live now the air is totally unbreathable and has been since I moved here almost 20 years ago.... severe weather.... well there have been rains and alternating cold/hot temperatures across the belly of the U.S.

How does that apply to an individual - this "or else" you threaten. Shall we start building arcs which float on dead grasses or what?
 
Tonington
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by Curiosity View Post

but I'll be damned I turn into a gulag-type marcher running around knocking on peoples' doors insisting they 'learn and understand and comply'...or else....

Now see, I don't pay any attention to those comments by the fringe eco-freaks. Most people will do what they can, because most green technologies offer incentives besides alleviating any weight from your conscience, such as lowered costs and health concerns.

The problem lies with what choices are available to you and I. My beef isn't so much with gasoline and autos as much as it is with electicity generation. Most towns and cities you can bike or use public transportation, but how much choice do you have in electric companies? Better transportation options would also become available if the electricity offered was from renewables/nuclear.
 
Curiosity
#42
Tonington ... spreading calm upon the trouble waters of my brain...

See if people were given this type of information such as you have done - as an example the power usage within a group of cities of variant sizes and areas..... they could judge for themselves to see what could be done....

This is what I am talking about - most of what people read and hear is beyond their knowledge available, nor can they find it to understand other than listening to people with an agenda spouting one side of the issue, no alternatives.... only 'die if you don't'....

Nobody wants a turnoff like that.... and I think the general rational public with an ounce of brainmanship is willing to learn and appreciate what must be done if at all possible - even without guarantee of success - because participation is a worthy activity in itself.

If people didn't want to get it insurance companies would have bellied up long ago in our modern world....

People can get many benefits in doing their part. But it is scattered all over the place and we run from 'cause to cause' not knowing if anything is beneficial or a waste of our time.
 
Avro
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by Curiosity View Post

Avro

Thank you for making my point - I experienced three bad floods while growing up in Winnipeg, where I live now the air is totally unbreathable and has been since I moved here almost 20 years ago.... severe weather.... well there have been rains and alternating cold/hot temperatures across the belly of the U.S.

How does that apply to an individual - this "or else" you threaten. Shall we start building arcs which float on dead grasses or what?


'learn and understand and comply'
 
Tonington
#44
Climate Change in a Nutshell

Some recent postings and questions have compelled me to write down what I think are some of the more crucial aspects which I feel need to be addressed, that and today is a rain day, so no work for me

I’m not really sure where to start though, kind of flying by the seat of my pants so bare that in mind if it seems a little jumbled. I’ve tried this sort of thing before, gonna give it another college try.

I guess I should start with some of the basic science. First off, there is a natural greenhouse effect. The term ‘natural’ here is what I think is being exploited most. Without the greenhouse effect, there would be zero long wave radiation absorbed, and the planet would swing daily from one temperature extreme to another. This in mind, our activities over the past 8000 years have really been changing the face of the planet, from burning of natural landscapes to grow our crops to building large cities which are the cornerstone of our civilization, these activities among other things have and continue to contribute to the greenhouse gas portion in our atmosphere. We’ve gone beyond the point of sustainable growth and presently are consuming more resources than the Earth can naturally provide.

Global climate models are the diagnostic tool scientists use in assessing how the climate will change. Routinely these models are crapped on by media outlets, but they are in fact very reliable. James Hansen of NASA GISS in 1988 used models to predict that the next twelve years would see a rise in global surface temperature with a brief cooling period due to a volcanic eruption. He made this claim before a Senate committee and time has revealed that his prediction, or rather his models prediction was remarkably accurate. Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991. If we want to focus on other climate factors besides the mean global surface temperature, models have also made astonishingly accurate predictions such as: as surface temperature increased there was a corresponding stratospheric cooling, amplified warming in the Arctic, and the difference between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infra-red radiation (also known as the radiative forcing.)

I always hesitate to bring this kind of thing up, because quite frankly it smacks of tinfoil and area 51 to me, but without question there is a powerful lobby with global scope, not only confined to domestic politics, and I feel they have been responsible for much of the confusion over this matter. Everyone by now has probably heard about the former oil lobbyist and Bush aide Phillip Cooney, who removed and adjusted government scientists findings and suggestions. Consider that one of the largest single emitters of greenhouse gases are old and even new ‘grandfathered’ coal generation plants. Consider again that coal is very abundant in many areas across the globe. Many industry leaders were members of the Global Climate Coalition, whose stated purpose was to cast doubt on the theory of Global warming, until now when the science has become much more firm, and larger partners in this coalition such as BP and DuPont dropped out.

From there, it was the late 1970’s when the first warnings from scientists came connecting heavy coal use and climate change. In the late 80’s when the Montreal Protocol began and industry learned how damaging emissions can be constrained, the war for propaganda began. Fred Palmer quipped : the Earth’s atmosphere is “deficient in carbon dioxide,” and he wanted Western Fuels, the company he was running to lead the charge to a world with 1000ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. Staggeringly stupid stuff really. These culprits have also produced such gems as the idea that more carbon makes for better crops and less world hunger, despite the fact that increased CO2 by itself does not improve growth discernibly unless there is accompanied increases in both temperature and rainfall. Even then the nutritional content of the food is much less as there are a host of other nutrients that are deficient because of our unsustainable use of soil across the globe.

There is a good website which lists many of the tired old arguments used by the “skeptics” here .I use the scare quotes there with good reason. Often they portray the scientists and the friendly media as scare mongers(and some of them are), when they themselves are guilty of that same accusation. Here’s a quote from an excellent book on this matter, Tim Flannery’s The Weather Makers:

“Scepticism is an indispensable element of the scientific inquiry, but when the intention is to mislead rather than clarify, we do not have skepticism but deceit.”

Those scare tactics used by the "skeptcs" simply aren't true. There are countries and industries fo instance, around the world that have allready slashed emissions by up to 70%, while maintaining strong economic growth. In some areas of the world, wind power is cheaper allready than conventional generation facilities on a $/MW basis, which helps explain why wind energy continues to grow at roughly 20% every year. Also consider that wind generation is expected to drop in price by a further 20-30%. So what happens when the wind isn't around? Well, one solution is to dot the region with turbines instead of putting all your eggs in one basket. Perhaps excess energy could be used to create hydrogen. How about some more bad press? Wind generation is noisy, well I can tell you that I've had a conversation standing right underneath one of those big windmills, and I could hear just fine. They're unsightly, not half as unsightly as a smoke stack. Potential hazard to birds, not now that they're sleek instead of those funky Dutch looking models. Other power generation options include, solar thermal power, and photovoltaics, for it's a good bet that if theres no wind, theres probably sunlight. There are many other options such as tidal, hydro, geothermal and some oddities( check this out,) but the best solution is a multi-faceted approach, one best suited to regional conditions.

The relationship that exists between the greenhouse gases and our civilizations don't need to be so tenacious. There are better options, and they are growing more efficient every year. It actually baffles me how someone can be so attached to a world view that ignores the consequences of our own actions. A lesson that can be learned from the Montreal protocol, public outcry is effective, very effective at initiating change. Not all change is bad, though I shudder at the thought of run away climate change.
 
Extrafire
+1
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

No one argues now that we didn't create the ozone hole, with some man made chemicals that numbered on the order of parts per trillion, not like the greenhouse gases we've added which is on the line of parts per million.

Actually, they do. The hole is a natural occurance that first was discovered in 1956, long before widespread use of odc's.

And NASA has just quietly changed its statistics to correct a mistake. They now show 1934 as the hottest year on record, not 1998 which has dropped to 2nd place. And it doesn't get mentioned much, but it appears that since 1998, temps have stopped rising and the climate may have started a cooling trend, just like scientists who study the sun have predicted.

It will be interesting to see how the doomsayers explain that.
 
Walter
-1
#46
1934 didn't have any SUV's as far as I know. Most people did use coal or wood to heat their homes though.
 
Walter
-1
#47
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0811-nasa_snafu.html

Revised top 10 lists.
 
Tonington
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire View Post

Actually, they do. The hole is a natural occurance that first was discovered in 1956, long before widespread use of odc's.

And NASA has just quietly changed its statistics to correct a mistake. They now show 1934 as the hottest year on record, not 1998 which has dropped to 2nd place. And it doesn't get mentioned much, but it appears that since 1998, temps have stopped rising and the climate may have started a cooling trend, just like scientists who study the sun have predicted.

It will be interesting to see how the doomsayers explain that.

It was 1957 when efforts to measure Ozone first began by most governments around the world, but measurements had been taking place on smaller scales before that.. An Ozone hole is defined as an area of ozone with fewer than 220 Dobson units. The measurements in the Antarctic, where the first hole appeared were 320 Dobson units in 1955, 280 dobson units by 1975 and by 1995 only 90. I'd like to know where it is you find that ozone depletion is natural Extrafire, for the science involved with CFC's and the halogenated cousins in reacting with ozone is a well known mechanism. By the way, fluorocarbons( CFC's &HFC's) were invented in 1928.
 
Extrafire
#49
The hole was first discovered in 1956 by Gordon Dobson of Oxford University. He's also the person who devised the instruments and system (Dobson units) for measuring and quantifying ozone, and is recognized as the founder of research of stratospheric ozone. He initially thought it was an anomaly but when it reappeared in 1957 he decided it was a regular natural occurance. In 1958 French scientists, Rigaud and Leroy, published their findings on the cause of the hole. Of course, back then it only interested the few people who studied that field. We knew that the "Van Allen Belt" protected us from radiation, but the doomsayers of the day were only concerned with looming nuclear war with the USSR. There was a B movie about that time called "The Day The Earth Caught Fire" about how a rocket or something had ignited the Van Allen Belt and everyone was being slowly roasted (all sci-fi movies were B back then, they couldn't do the special effects. No-one was concerned for real.

B ecause the current depletion proponents claimed that the hole appeared in 1985, Rigaud and Leroy republished their work in 1990 but it was basicly ignored.

Ozone, O3 is a form of oxygen, O2. Oxygen is a very stable molecule until it encounters UV radiation, at which point it can become unstable and break apart into atoms. If one of those atoms should contact an O2 molecule it will bond, forming O3, which is unstable down here, but very stable in the presence of UV radiation. Hence the greater the radiation from the sun, the more O3 in the upper atmosphere and vice versa. It's a great self-regulating system that allows some UV in (we couldn't live without it) but keeps excesses out. Natural annual variations range from 20 to 40%, much greater than what the depletion proponents are warning about. The hole over the Antarctic forms over the winter and disappears in spring. No doubt you're beginning to see why. There's no sunlight/radiation during the antarctic winter and the ozone re-forms to O2. Ozone from farther north is kept out by an annual winter weather pattern called the polar vortex. Thus we have the hole, a natural phenomenon. A northern hole also forms in the arctic winter, but without the vortex it is much smaller.

Ever wondered why the majority of "ozone depleting chemicals" are released in the northern hemisphere, but the hole shows up at the far side of the world? Depletion proponents realized they had a problem here, so they invented new "science" to explain it. Without any supporting evidence, they decreed that global climate change would result in much colder stratospheric temperatures, too cold for ozone to form or maintain, and Antarctica is about the coldest place on earth during it's winter.

The depletion theory rests on the ability of ODC's to bond with those random oxygen atoms and prevent them from joining with oxygen molecules. It's been done in the lab, but never observed in nature. In fact, natural observations seem to indicate that it doesn't happen at all in nature. When Mount Pinatubo erupted (when was that, '91? I'm not sure anymore) it pumped more ODC's into the upper atmosphere in one shot than produced by all human activity combined. NASA detected the gas cloud drifting toward Canada and warned that there would be massive ozone depletion over us that year. I can remember those huge black headlines. It didn't happen of course, and that fall there was a small article buried in the interior pages saying NASA scientists couldn't understand why it hadn't. They should have checked with Regaud and Leroy. NASA also predicted a while back that a hole was about to open over the US. I wonder why no-one calls them to account on these blatant examples of incompetence.

The truth of the matter is that ozone depletion isn't happening. For it to have the effect that is claimed by doomsayers, there would have to be enough ODC's to render the atmosphere toxic. Ozone levels vary considerably due to radiation variation caused by sunspot activity. This has been known for half a century. If you could check the records you would find that it was thinner in 1962 than in 1992. The "hole" has always been there, every winter, and always will, no matter what we do. It's another Chicken Little story.
 
Tonington
#50
This article is hysterically funny. When I talked of skeptics and their deceit here we have a prime example.

The most glaring is the labeling of ODC's. The majority of the ozone depleting chemicals are MANMADE, we call them fluorocarbons. By the time Pinatubo erupted the holes were already here.

The amount of chemical needed to deplete ozone would not make the atmosphere toxic. In fact the measurements were so small when James Lovelock first noticed them over the Antarctic, that he thought his work was useless, until he met Dr. Machta, a lead scientist from DuPont who with a quick calculation told Lovelovk that it ammounted to almost all of the CFC's ever made. They last a very long time in the atmosphere. The chlorine from one atom of any CFC can destroy 100,000 molecules of ozone, and due to the persistance of these chemicals, the ozone cannot replenish itself fast enough. Consider that the cousin to chlorine, bromine, is 45 times more potent than chlorine.

More omissions, the little paragraph about differences between Antarctica and the Arctic. CFC's are most destructive at temperatures below -43 C. The mean temperature over the Arctic is a mean of approximately -42 C, while over the Antarctic it is -62 C. A significant difference wouldn't you say?

Also, theres been no new science unless you consider a interdisciplinary approach new, which it isn't. For example I might do a masters in fish nutrition/molecular genetics, it's not a new science I would be part of, only new findings which is what science is all about.
 
Extrafire
#51
Quote:

The most glaring is the labeling of ODC's. The majority of the ozone depleting chemicals are MANMADE, we call them fluorocarbons. By the time Pinatubo erupted the holes were already here.

Seems like you don't read too well

The holes were always there.

The Pinatubo eruption sent huge amounts of chlorine (which is an ODC and naturally occuring emission from active volcanoes) into the upper atmosphere, an amount greater than all human emissions of ODC's combined. It drifted toward northern Canada. NASA observed it and issued a warning that it was about to eat a hole in the ozone over Canada that year . The media reported it, TV, radio and big black front page headlines in the papers. That prediction proved false, as the hole that was predicted never appeared.

I suspect you might be quite young not to remember that. It was a major news story for quite some time and prompted the government to implement the UV index reporting system a year ahead of schedule.

Quote:

They last a very long time in the atmosphere.

No they don't. Water mixed with chlorine produces acid rain (hydrochloric acid) and doesn't last long at all. Freon is 9 times heavier than air and breaks down once it touches the ground.

Quote:

The chlorine from one atom of any CFC can destroy 100,000 molecules of ozone

Maybe, one at a time. Ozone (O3) is a form of oxygen (O2). A chlorine molecule has the ability to steal one of the oxygen atoms from the ozone, turning it back to oxygen and forming chloroxide. In order for it to destroy another O3 molecule it would have to shed it's existing oxygen atom. It can't collect 100,000 of them and a bromine atom can't collect 4,500,000 of them either. Chemistry doesn't work that way.

Quote:

the ozone cannot replenish itself fast enough.

What nonsense. If an ozone molecule gets turned back into oxygen, the radiation just goes on till it hits more oxygen and converts it. You must have missed the part where I explained how ozone is made. Read my previous post again. If there was enough ODC in the air to prevent formation of ozone, what would it have to be? 21% of the atmosphere like oxygen is? Come on!

Quote:

More omissions, the little paragraph about differences between Antarctica and the Arctic. CFC's are most destructive at temperatures below -43 C. The mean temperature over the Arctic is a mean of approximately -42 C, while over the Antarctic it is -62 C.

That's the new "science" that was invented to support the theory. Funny how they could get it to work in the lab at room temperature.

Quote:

Also, theres been no new science unless you consider a interdisciplinary approach new, which it isn't.

Ah, finally some truth. No, there's been no new science. Only fraud masquerading as science. Scientists who worked in that field independant of any doomsday cult, scientists who only study facts like Rigaud and Leroy will tell you that wasn't science at all.
 
Tonington
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by Extrafire View Post

Seems like you don't read too well
Seemingly how?

The holes were always there.
Remind me again where the evidence for that is?

The Pinatubo eruption sent huge amounts of chlorine (which is an ODC and naturally occuring emission from active volcanoes) into the upper atmosphere, an amount greater than all human emissions of ODC's combined. It drifted toward northern Canada. NASA observed it and issued a warning that it was about to eat a hole in the ozone over Canada that year . The media reported it, TV, radio and big black front page headlines in the papers. That prediction proved false, as the hole that was predicted never appeared.

I suspect you might be quite young not to remember that. It was a major news story for quite some time and prompted the government to implement the UV index reporting system a year ahead of schedule.

No they don't. Water mixed with chlorine produces acid rain (hydrochloric acid) and doesn't last long at all. Freon is 9 times heavier than air and breaks down once it touches the ground.
CFC's last a long time, as they break down they release the chlorine... reading comprehension problems...To get at what you just said, the chlorine from swimming pools and other sources like volcanoes and the ocean, never reach the stratosphere, and they do fall as acid rain. CFC's are carried by global circulation currents, and due to their stability do not form acid rain.

Maybe, one at a time. Ozone (O3) is a form of oxygen (O2). A chlorine molecule has the ability to steal one of the oxygen atoms from the ozone, turning it back to oxygen and forming chloroxide. In order for it to destroy another O3 molecule it would have to shed it's existing oxygen atom. It can't collect 100,000 of them and a bromine atom can't collect 4,500,000 of them either. Chemistry doesn't work that way.
Ozone is a highly unstable form of oxygen, chlorine loves to accept protons. In the end of the reaction mechanisms, the net result is the oxygen goes back to the diatomic form of oxygen which is much more stable. If you think that chemical reactions are as simple and straightforward as the "balancing equations" we all did in high school, you ought to read better literature than this crap.

What nonsense. If an ozone molecule gets turned back into oxygen, the radiation just goes on till it hits more oxygen and converts it. You must have missed the part where I explained how ozone is made. Read my previous post again. If there was enough ODC in the air to prevent formation of ozone, what would it have to be? 21% of the atmosphere like oxygen is? Come on!
No, I ignored your bit because I know how the reaction works. When UV hits the oxygen with a wavelength less than 240 nm, it breaks the oxygen bond apart. Single atoms of oxygen are very unstable, and will bond quite readilly to other oxygen molecules. The UV responsible for breaking apart stable oxygen will also break apart stable CFC's, and the chlorine will be very reactive. You were right in that it will form ClO when reacting with the ozone, but from there the chlorine monoxide will react again with more oxygen, returning the oxygen to it's diatomic state, and leaving the chlorine atom as a free radical, which will start this process all over again. This is why it can destroy so much ozone, and more quickly than the UV can crate new ozone.

That's the new "science" that was invented to support the theory. Funny how they could get it to work in the lab at room temperature.


Ah, finally some truth. No, there's been no new science. Only fraud masquerading as science. Scientists who worked in that field independant of any doomsday cult, scientists who only study facts like Rigaud and Leroy will tell you that wasn't science at all.
Hmmm. A google search of Rigaud and Leroy, first result? www.arn.org, or the Intelligent Design perspective...which isn't science, so I don't really care much what they have to say. Do you happen to know of any other reputable scientists who've made these claims?

What doomsday cult, if you believe that you've been brainwashed. The doomsday cult is the one warning you to put down the kool aid, while Rigaud and Leroy are telling you it's fine and safe to drink.....
 
typingrandomstuff
+1
#53
"Some reporters are funded by the oil companies" says one

"It is completely possible that the news reporter is lying" says the other

I think both is the case. To control the public, some governments have special reporters to "make" news from false evidence.
 
Extrafire
#54
Quote:

Originally Posted by Extrafire
Seems like you don't read too well

Quote:

Seemingly how?


Well, you said
Quote:

The majority of the ozone depleting chemicals are MANMADE, we call them fluorocarbons. By the time Pinatubo erupted the holes were already here.

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.

Quote:

The holes were always there.

Quote:

Remind me again where the evidence for that is?



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.
Quote:

CFC's last a long time, as they break down they release the chlorine... reading comprehension problems...To get at what you just said, the chlorine from swimming pools and other sources like volcanoes and the ocean, never reach the stratosphere, and they do fall as acid rain.

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.

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.

Seawater produces 600 million tons of chloride into the atmosphere per year, plus the millions of tons from volcanic sources. (Mt. Erebus in Antarctica produces 1000 tons per day, just 16 km from McMurdo Sound, where ozone measurements are made.) The peak production of chloride in CFC’s peaked at about 750,000 tons annually. 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. Not only does chloride from a volcano reach the stratosphere, when it has a violent eruption, it reaches the stratosphere in seconds.

Quote:

CFC's are carried by global circulation currents,

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:

Ozone is a highly unstable form of oxygen, chlorine loves to accept protons. In the end of the reaction mechanisms, the net result is the oxygen goes back to the diatomic form of oxygen which is much more stable. If you think that chemical reactions are as simple and straightforward as the "balancing equations" we all did in high school, you ought to read better literature than this crap.

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.

Quote:

No, I ignored your bit because I know how the reaction works. When UV hits the oxygen with a wavelength less than 240 nm, it breaks the oxygen bond apart. Single atoms of oxygen are very unstable, and will bond quite readilly to other oxygen molecules. The UV responsible for breaking apart stable oxygen will also break apart stable CFC's, and the chlorine will be very reactive. You were right in that it will form ClO when reacting with the ozone, but from there the chlorine monoxide will react again with more oxygen, returning the oxygen to it's diatomic state, and leaving the chlorine atom as a free radical, which will start this process all over again. This is why it can destroy so much ozone, and more quickly than the UV can crate new ozone.

Not quite. I appreciate the more detailed description of the formation of O3, but once the chlorine molecule has stolen the O atom, the resulting O2 again becomes unstable in the presence of UV and forms quickly into O3 again. Action of UV on O2, remember? Billions of times more O2 than chlorine. How many O atoms are you claiming a chlorine molecule can bond with?

Quote:

Hmmm. A google search of Rigaud and Leroy, first result? www.arn.org , or the Intelligent Design perspective...which isn't science, so I don't really care much what they have to say. Do you happen to know of any other reputable scientists who've made these claims?

I have no idea why they would have been on that website (I didn’t follow up your link). Seems odd. But since you ask, yes, try Chubachi, Shigeru, and Ryoichi Kajiwara, “Total Ozone Variations at Syowa,” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 13, pp 1197 – 98. (I didn’t google them, but see what you can find out. They reached the same conclusion).

Quote:

What doomsday cult, if you believe that you've been brainwashed. The doomsday cult is the one warning you to put down the kool aid, while Rigaud and Leroy are telling you it's fine and safe to drink.....

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.

 
Tonington
#55
Quote:

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.

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.
Last edited by Tonington; Aug 15th, 2007 at 10:44 PM..Reason: formatting
 
Extrafire
#56
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.

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.

Quote:

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.

Because you seemed compelled to do the same earlier, as if you were talking down:
Quote:

The majority of the ozone depleting chemicals are MANMADE, we call them fluorocarbons.

I thought I might add my 2 cents worth in the same vein.
Quote:

Again, there was no hole back then, only the problem of dissapearing ozone.

Yeah, there was. And the characteristics, the fluctuations, and the causes were the same then as today.

Quote:

Any idea how small that amount is? Any idea how much damage even a small amount can do?

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.

Quote:

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.

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.
Quote:

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 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.

Quote:

If you think chlorine is bad, be thankful bromine costs more than chlorine, the problem could have been much worse still.

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:

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.
 
typingrandomstuff
#57
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.
 
typingrandomstuff
#58
by their actions to the environment. Sorry there.
 
Tonington
#59
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.
 
Extrafire
+1
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by typingrandomstuff View Post

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.

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.

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.
 

Similar Threads

42
History or Myth
by darkbeaver | Aug 2nd, 2009
0
The Shortage Myth
by darkbeaver | Dec 5th, 2007
35
How the Myth of Jesus came about
by Dreadful Nonsense | Oct 27th, 2007
17
The Myth of Zarqawi
by vista | Oct 24th, 2004