|
Post by havelock on Sept 10, 2010 13:02:00 GMT 1
This where I read about it, Havelock. cfc.geologist-1011.net/ It looks well referenced. Is it wrong? I was not out of order, surely, in questioning why the last big "environmental" scare story prior to AGW had dropped from the public consciousness? Is the ozone hole still there? Is it "dangerous"? That's just another blog - not a science journal. The home page states "Of all the pseudoscience that denies the basic tenets of geology, the sheer volume that can be traced back to so-called "environmentalism" outstrips all other sources put together. I examine the consequences of climate change based on an actualistic assessment of geological history. I review the history of science related to the evolution of the "Hothouse Effect" as an idea that underpins the claimed anthropogenic cause of climate change. Blah, blah, blah" So - just another blog. Did you look at any of the links I gave? - one of which specifically states " As stratospheric chlorine declined in response to enactment of the Montreal Protocol, the first stage of ozone recovery began"I think that answers your last question.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 10, 2010 13:09:48 GMT 1
But the ozone hole is still there? It always was, apparently. Is it doing any harm except to fair skinned folk who choose to live in unsuitable places in the southern hemisphere and sunbathe?
It was another scare story, just the media and the scientists limbering up for AGW and the demonisation of CO2, wasn't it?
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 10, 2010 13:17:42 GMT 1
It was another scare story, just the media and the scientists limbering up for AGW and the demonisation of CO2, wasn't it? No
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 23, 2010 13:38:27 GMT 1
ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/ozone_maps/images/Y2006/M09/ozone_2006-09-24.tifozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.htmlThe blue and purple colors are where there is the least ozone, and the greens, yellows, and reds are where there is more ozone. Latest Information: The largest ozone hole ever observed occurred on 24 September 2006. So after all that scare-mongering over CFCs no “healing of the hole”? I guess it was always there and always will be, nothing to do with us naughty humans with our refridgeration at all. We just did not have the means of measuring it ! And when we did we assumed it was something new! How very chicken-licken of us.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 23, 2010 13:57:14 GMT 1
Incidentally, in his book "The Great Global Warming Blunder", Dr Roy Spencer recalls a conversation with our very own home-grown alarmist, Bob Watson, in the early 1990s who was then chief environmental scientist to the Clinton/Gore administration and prime mover of the IPCC. (He later became Chair of the IPCC 1997-2002, only to be replaced by Pachauri.)
Watson was choughed that CFCs had been banned and told Dr Roy the next goal was to get CO2 regulated. The policy goal was obviously already formulated that far back amongst the IPCC insiders! They had already decided mankind was to blame for warming! They just had to get the research in to justify their political conclusions!
The rest is history.
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Sept 23, 2010 13:57:45 GMT 1
We just did not have the means of measuring it ! And when we did we assumed it was something new! How very chicken-licken of us. Yes we did from www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/Ozone/history.html"Ground based measurements of Ozone were first started in 1956, in at Halley Bay, Antarctica. Satellite measurements of ozone started in the early 70's, but the first comprehensive worldwide measurements started in 1978 with the Nimbus-7 satellite. "
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 24, 2010 9:28:26 GMT 1
"the first comprehensive worldwide measurements started in 1978 with the Nimbus-7 satellite. "
Did I say something that contradicted this, enquirer? You must be very young if you think three decades of measurement of the ozone hole is a long time!
I merely stated "We just did not have the means of measuring it ! And when we did we assumed it was something new! How very chicken-licken of us."
The ozone hole reached its greatest extent in 2006 according to the NASA link I gave above, despite the Montreal 1987 and Copenhagen 1992 protocols towards the abolition of manmade CFCs being hailed as a success story.
"Ozone depletion" scare-mongering has been overtaken by CO2-induced "global warming" scare-mongering but the "rationale" (if you can call it that) behind both is that mankind is somehow to blame.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 24, 2010 10:15:50 GMT 1
It has never been a "hole". It is just slightly lower concentrations of a trace gas in the upper atmosphere. If there even is lower concentrations. The alarmists have fabricated too many scare stories for me to take them seriously ever again.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 24, 2010 10:36:33 GMT 1
I have seen it described as a natural seasonal variation connected to the long periods of winter darkness at the poles, Mr Smith.
|
|
|
Post by helen on Sept 24, 2010 10:54:04 GMT 1
The expression 'ozone hole' was coined by the mainstream media, atmospheric scientists have never claimed there to be a hole, solely that the concentration of ozone in the high stratosphere in the southern hemisphere and to a lesser extent in the northern hemisphere was falling and that this was a cause for concern. Ozone may be a trace gas, it's concentration being many orders of magnitude lower than the concentration of CO2 but it is very important for life on Earth. It absorbs harmful (to almost all life on Earth) UV radiation from the sun reacing the surface of the Earth( I'll not go into the physical and chemical mechanisms here) and it was very quickly demonstrated that this high altitude ozone was being destroyed by seemingly inert chemicals that do not occur naturally and were used as an alternative to ammonia as refrigerants and in many other industrial applications; we know them as chlorofluorocarbons. Since the moratorium on the production and disposal of these substances by the Montreal Protocol, there has been a measurable recovery in the concentration of stratospheric ozone.
The 'scare' stories were real and that without the ozone layer high in the atmosphere life on Earth would change radically and skin cancer would become as common as catching a cold. However R-Smith, if you want to learn more about the science behind such 'scare' stories you might find it edifying to look beyond newspapers!
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Sept 24, 2010 10:55:31 GMT 1
I have seen it described as a natural seasonal variation connected to the long periods of winter darkness at the poles, Mr Smith. Of course it's seasonal - duh It's the interaction of sunlight and CFCs that breakdown the ozone so of course it varies with the seasons. Only a complete idiot would use this as a reason to explain why the concentrations vary over winter/summer. It's like saying that the amount of ice at the North Pole is seasonal - tell us something we don't know. www.theozonehole.com/"Each spring in the stratosphere over Antarctica (Spring in the southern hemisphere is from September through November.), atmospheric ozone is rapidly destroyed by chemical processes. As winter arrives, a vortex of winds develops around the pole and isolates the polar stratosphere. When temperatures drop below -78°C (-109°F), thin clouds form of ice, nitric acid, and sulphuric acid mixtures. Chemical reactions on the surfaces of ice crystals in the clouds release active forms of CFCs. Ozone depletion begins, and the ozone “hole” appears. Over the course of two to three months, approximately 50% of the total column amount of ozone in the atmosphere disappears. At some levels, the losses approach 90%. This has come to be called the Antarctic ozone hole. In spring, temperatures begin to rise, the ice evaporates, and the ozone layer starts to recover." The point is that it is only the action of CFCs that cause this depletion and that man is the primary source for the levels of CFCs that are in the atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 24, 2010 11:11:53 GMT 1
"The point is that it is only the action of CFCs that cause this depletion and that man is the primary source for the levels of CFCs that are in the atmosphere."
What about the NATURALLY occurring ozone-depleting gases in the atmosphere?
Explain to us about them, please, enquirer.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 24, 2010 11:12:21 GMT 1
The expression 'ozone hole' was coined by the mainstream media, atmospheric scientists have never claimed there to be a hole, solely that the concentration of ozone in the high stratosphere in the southern hemisphere and to a lesser extent in the northern hemisphere was falling and that this was a cause for concern. Ozone may be a trace gas, it's concentration being many orders of magnitude lower than the concentration of CO2 but it is very important for life on Earth. It absorbs harmful (to almost all life on Earth) UV radiation from the sun reacing the surface of the Earth( I'll not go into the physical and chemical mechanisms here) and it was very quickly demonstrated that this high altitude ozone was being destroyed by seemingly inert chemicals that do not occur naturally and were used as an alternative to ammonia as refrigerants and in many other industrial applications; we know them as chlorofluorocarbons. Since the moratorium on the production and disposal of these substances by the Montreal Protocol, there has been a measurable recovery in the concentration of stratospheric ozone. The 'scare' stories were real and that without the ozone layer high in the atmosphere life on Earth would change radically and skin cancer would become as common as catching a cold. However R-Smith, if you want to learn more about the science behind such 'scare' stories you might find it edifying to look beyond newspapers! Helen darling, I have looked closely at the "science" behind the scare stories. It clearly shows that the ozone concentrations worldwide have only very recently been measured and that the concentration is highly variable. As is the norm in Environmental "science", a worrying trend has been detected and we're all going to fry...FRY dya hear! Rollocks.
|
|
|
Post by jonjel on Sept 24, 2010 15:30:57 GMT 1
Mr Smith.
A word of advice:
Helen really does know what she is taking about. She has an ology or two.
And if you insist on calling her darling then on your own head be it...
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 24, 2010 15:50:19 GMT 1
Hang on, before You all start tearing lumps out of each other, draw some perspective. The 'ozone' loss was brought to notice in a different time. Scientists were respected for their decisions, and the discussions and the outcome went through without much of a murmer. That was then, now, after adecade of general deceit and misinformation, almost on a par with politburo/KGB/GRU, plus better communications, , we now see a different picture. [for AGW]
mod added [for AGW]
|
|