|
Post by kiwistonewall on Nov 24, 2008 8:29:55 GMT
The solar cycle in view here is annual - Spring. "Ozone is destroyed naturally through a series of catalytic cycles involving oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen and to a lesser extent chlorine and bromine species." www.ciesin.org/docs/011-466/011-466.htmlThe Nitrogen, Chlorine and Bromine are now thought to come from melting ice. NxOx: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081107072003.htmBr & Cl : www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/01/010119080544.htmOzone destruction occurs in spring, when the sun's rays melt the ice and release compounds trapped in the ice over winter. The real point is that this obvious answer was there all the time, but nobody looked, as we all knew that it was all the mums n dads using their aerosol cans that was causing the problem!
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 1, 2009 3:58:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 1, 2009 4:16:03 GMT
The antarctic ozone hole decline has been caused by CFC emissions and other halocarbons. That's still the view of mainstream science.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 1, 2009 4:29:53 GMT
Socold, - "That's still the view of mainstream science."
not lately (ignoring whatever "mainstream" science is - that is a sure sign of medai nonsense)
The truth can come out now, since the political action to stop CFC's was successful - though meaningless. The Ozone follows the solar cycle.
BTW, it was my Masters level specialty paper in the early 70's! I DO understand the photo chemistry behind this.
There was never any real science backing up the CFC to Ozone hole, and the failure of the hole to go away is evidence of that failed theory. It isn't important anymore - the company failures, and extra costs put on consumers is all past history. There are no companies funding research to bring back CFCs!
But if you want to go waste your time fighting a battle that was won, be my guest.
It will not affect those who actually understand the science.
Meanwhile, real science is now free to study what is actually going on. Free from political and media & madness.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 1, 2009 11:06:21 GMT
I don't even consider this debatable. It's so obvious that the CFC-ozone link is still widely, if not entirely accepted in the field that how can I possibly take any debate on it seriously? All you have to do is use google to find out the position of various top scientific organizations on it. Obviously there is real science backing it up or the level of support wouldn't exist let alone dominate. In fact some of the sites lay out this real science.
You claim that "the failure of the hole to go away is evidence of that failed theory", but if you visited one of these sites you would find that reports on the matter have always expected it would take decades to slow down and grow back again.
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Mar 1, 2009 15:46:00 GMT
Of course it is debatable and whilst the greens would like to claim success in this, the whole episode was another example of alarmist claptrap changing the lives of people for the worse. Humans have had no effect on the ozone layer, one way or the other.
The sun drives the ozone layer and whilst you find any debate difficult as "the debate is over (before it began)" is the preferred green message, more and more of these things are being exposed.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Mar 1, 2009 16:17:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 2, 2009 7:40:08 GMT
If major scientific organizations had dismissed the CFC-ozone depletion link then I would to.
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Mar 2, 2009 8:09:40 GMT
Many thousands of (real) scientists have dismissed the CO2/AGW link. Does this mean you are ready to give up on this finally or do they have to be part of an "Organisation" such as the IPCC church before you will believe.
Still at least we will have lots of ozone while we freeze to death.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 2, 2009 8:26:50 GMT
yes I would require scientific organizations like nasa and noaa to turn against AGW before I did. I find that the position of these organizations is naturally in line with the overall position of scientists in the fields.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 2, 2009 10:03:18 GMT
Socold, since you think: "I don't even consider this debatable." Why do you continue to debate it! ;D
No one is asking you to.
If I say I believe in the Easter Bunny, are you going to waste your time telling me that that isn't debatable either? ;D
It isn't important for the Green movement anymore. Its finished as an issue. So now we can let the real Scientists find the truth.
The same thing will likely happen with the CO2/AGW hypothesis. After the debate isn't relevant to politics any more, Scientists will be able to explore the reality behind all this.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Mar 5, 2009 10:08:47 GMT
yes I would require scientific organizations like nasa and noaa to turn against AGW before I did. Now DERE is a right minded indivdule. "A bacteria living in the stomach, and it's causing ulcers? Balderdash! Impossible" sayeth the scientists. Ever one of em... until one day Do you think they all studied it, or just were parroting their teaching and their peers? You've been asked the question before, and I think you said only that it would require 20 years of cooling. Now we know even that wouldn't sway you. I'm officially giving you the dismissive wave.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 16, 2009 7:09:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Mar 16, 2009 9:16:42 GMT
"It'll take decades" here is another graph showing the concentration of CFCs in the atmosphere over time: www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/knutti/atmcfc_concentration.htmlWhile the levels of man made CFC's have not continued to rise, they have not fallen at all so IF they caused the ozone hole, it can never recover. Of course it's highly unlikely that made any real impact on ozone levels in the first place
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 16, 2009 20:30:59 GMT
yes I would require scientific organizations like nasa and noaa to turn against AGW before I did. Now DERE is a right minded indivdule. "A bacteria living in the stomach, and it's causing ulcers? Balderdash! Impossible" sayeth the scientists. Ever one of em... until one day You and I would have been irrational to believe it before the scientists did. It took an expert to see it. If you take life on a strategy of betting against the experts you will ocasionally make a win, but most of the time you will lose.
|
|