|
Post by helen on Sept 24, 2010 16:45:59 GMT 1
The chemistry of stratospheric ozone, whilst not fully understood has been studied in situ and modeled with ground based experiments replicating the conditions found at altitude such that seasonal variations can be described that match well with observations and the assumption that these cycles have been on going for centuries maybe even millenia. The introduction ino the atmosphere of wholly unatural substances such as CFCs and others have been shown experimentally and in the field to interfere with the natural cycles (much as the increase in the formation of (poisonous) ground based ozone is a result of the action of sunlight on antropogenic nitrogen oxides and unspent petrochemical pollution from internal combustion engines in unventilated city centres). The result being a reduction in stratospheric ozone and a lag in it's natural reformation through the different seasons. These are facts R-Smith and M, not scare stories. The action taken globally since the Montreal Protocol is demonstrably ameliorating the damage done to the stratospheric ozone layer to the benefit of all living things on Earth.
If you want an understanding of the photolysis and the catalytic recombination of ozone in the stratosphere through the various seasons I'll happily supply a link but I rather get the feeling that as you appear to fly an anti-intellectual flag I can only guess that you're not really interested in the science - If it's not common sense it's not right eh guys?
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 24, 2010 17:09:28 GMT 1
There seems to be a confusion between the 'science of the ozone' and the 'politics of modern day AGW'.. To answer the original question, at the last interest generally shown by the press, the leglislation seemed to have worked to a moderate degree. Some countries have ignored and continue to use CFC's. The problem seems to have been held 'more at bay'. ie. now acceleration is somewhat slowed. The 'politics' seems to be to drag this 'success' into the AGW arena, as an example of when science was correct and how this should be 'extrapolated' to the arguments put forward for AGW. Frankly...NAH! The boy cried 'wolf' too often in an inferior 'political' setting.
This piece was later dubbed, by Helen [« Reply #35 Today at 18:39 GMT »] as '(and I believe Stuarts argument that there is a thread connecting the amelioration of the ozone problem with the AGW question is entirely specious promulgated by only the shallowest of thinkers)'
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 24, 2010 17:34:33 GMT 1
My, helen darling, that was a bit lofty. The comment I posted was an attack on the terminology which is, at best, misleading. The deterioration of science reporting and indeed science itself has led me to view all environmental "science" with great distrust. Can't you understand this wholly reasonable position?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 24, 2010 17:46:51 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... I'm quite used to discussing science amongst people with "ology's" coming out of their rear ends. I'm blessed with a reasonable level of intelligence and an enquiring mind. It's probably why I continue to be a successful fisherman.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 24, 2010 18:32:20 GMT 1
Uh-oh!
Why does this remind me of similar claims about "understanding" the behaviour of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Your "models" are not believed any more, Helen, for very good reason - models are based on assumptions and assumptions can be wrong. GIGO.
The ozone hole was a try-out for how far the credulity of the public could be stretched re man's impact on the climate. It was claimed as a success story for regulation. Now it seems nothing has changed as a result of the "regulation". 2006 saw the largest "hole" ever. Could that be because the manmade CFCs were not the "cause" after all?
One would not mind if speculation were tentative but it never is these days, is it? It's always "mankind is to blame" - a stupid religious mantra coupled with "look no further, boys!"
So tell us. please, the lady with the ologies, about the NATURALLY occurring ozone-depleting gases. Let her show she has an open mind for a change rather than the usual unfounded "science is settled certainty".
|
|
|
Post by helen on Sept 24, 2010 19:39:53 GMT 1
This is not the place to describe the chemistry and physics of ozone in the stratosphere, there are plenty of places where this is discussed in great detail. As for the actualité, whilst there is is very little dissent regarding the chemistry and physics of the effects of unatural substances on stratospheric ozone, there is still a great deal of research on going - the science is never settled! The case of ozone depletion and it's returning to natural levels and cycling in lieu of the Montreal Protocol is well documented....what does this demonstrate M? Naturally occurring gases and particles that are party to the depletion of stratospheric ozone as part of annual cycling are well known, studied and documented; the addition of manmade and more importantly unatural ozone depleting substances have been shown to disrupt this natural cycle. This is nothing to do with AGW and climate change (and I believe Stuarts argument that there is a thread connecting the amelioration of the ozone problem with the AGW question is entirely specious promulgated by only the shallowest of thinkers). CFCs interfered, to the detriment of life on Earth, with the cycling of ozone in the stratosphere. It's a fact. Despite there being small quantities still extant in industry, the moratorium after Montreal has proved effective in restoring the natural ozone cycle. Why do you have such a problem with this. Mary, this business with the depletion of stratospheric ozone had little to do with climate. Do some research!
|
|
|
Post by helen on Sept 24, 2010 19:45:12 GMT 1
I ask again Mary, that you learn some chemistry and physics before commenting, damning or whatever it is you do to denigrate science and scientific methods. This anti-intellectual stance that you take is does nothing to progress any argument.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 24, 2010 20:06:31 GMT 1
'(and I believe Stuarts argument that there is a thread connecting the amelioration of the ozone problem with the AGW question is entirely specious promulgated by only the shallowest of thinkers)' ThankYou for that perfectly adorable sideways swipe. 'Illegal shipments of chlorofluorocarbons to countries where their use is banned or regulated through high tariffs and taxes is viewed as a serious and growing problem. A U.S. participant noted that smuggling of chlorofluorocarbons was viewed as the second most lucrative criminal smuggling operation after illegal drugs.' www.inece.org/4thvol2/mpws.pdfStats on useage... www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_cfc_con-environment-cfc-consumption---- FACTOID # 2: Japan's water has a very high dissolved oxygen concentration - but not enough to prevent drowning in the bath.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 24, 2010 20:20:01 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 24, 2010 23:06:38 GMT 1
"The case of ozone depletion and it's returning to natural levels and cycling in lieu of the Montreal Protocol is well documented..."
We don't know what the "natural level" is, helen. How can we with such a short period of record starting only in 1979?
Same as with the other climatic variable records that only start in the late 1970s. The assumption that this period demonstrates trends that is either "typical", "abnormal" or "natural" varies with what is supposedly being demonstrated! We can only be sure one one thing - that everything relating to earth's climate is cyclical. We cannot take the period post 1979 as indicative of anything at all until we have a much longer period for comparison.
|
|
|
Post by helen on Sept 25, 2010 16:14:46 GMT 1
Agreed, our assessment of the annual cyclic nature and the chemistry of stratospheric ozone can be little more than conjecture merely estimates based on measurements made since the the 1950's (!). Now here's the thing. The chemistry of ozone in the stratosphere has been well understood for decades and the influence of its presence in the upper atmosphere and influence on life on Earth has been documented for over a hundred years. The effect of ozone depletion on the biosphere, especially oceanic zoo- and phytoplankton in the Southern ocean is well documented as are the results documenting the return to pre 1980's levels in the Southern Ocean since the the implementation of the Montreal Protocol. It's a short term fix you may say, the removal of unatural substances from the natural environment albeit over the short term: but this fix appears to be sorting the problem well enough. Your argument Mary that we don't know enough about the cyclic nature of large scale atmospheric systems and man's influence on them.....from you you is both disingenuous and specious in extremis!
Sorry Stuart, didn't mean to disparage your argument; ok CFCs are still being used but compared to their use prior to the late eighties: A few fire extinguishers and what not is small beer to the quantities being used in high power electrical switching gear; transformers and industrial refrigerators prior to the late eighties! The only loosers here seem to be the manufacturers of CFCs and the general population through the unfortunate burgeoning use of them in the twentifirst century. Will we ever learn? Not whilst common sense replaces science..... consider past times where anti-science and common sense prevailed. Look at Haiti - am loathe to quote the big twentieth century anti-intellectual projects!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 25, 2010 17:34:23 GMT 1
Helen If you are a scientist, it really does no good to diparage those that are not Try putting yourself in this position:
you are a scientist looking for funding, and the non-scientists are politicians who control science grants. You have to persuade them of your case else you'll get no cash.
It will not help you one little bit if you call them anti-intellectual, specious, disingenuous etc. It is necessary for professionals to be able to persuade non-professionals of the integrity of their case.
I am afraid that if you approiahed politicians as you approach people here, not only would you not get funding but you'd be out of a job!
It's no use at all treating intelligent , inquisitive people as if they are idiots
But then you are noit really a scientist as you simply teach science. Real scientists do research and need MONEY to do it and to get that money they must be persuasive, not dismissive.
It is only the fact that you do not need money (because you do not do science) that allows you to be arrogantly dismissive.
The same lesson could be learned by Olmy and STA.
|
|
|
Post by helen on Sept 25, 2010 18:17:05 GMT 1
Quantify our point about the variation in the concentration of the ozone layer Naymissus? You have erected a number of strawmen arguments here and you clearly have the wherewithall to demolish them and no end of non-sequitiurs to baffle the uninitiated. Typical of the school of anti-intellectualism burgeoning in right wing politics this past few years - it is nigh on impossible to pursuade politicians and civil servants with firsts in PPE that there is any any significance in science unles it might make a pound for somebody. Treating intelligent and inquisitive people as if they are idiots is perfectly valid if they are not prepared to learn anything new! Where's the science in your argument Naymissus about the reduction of man made CFCs being released untrammelled into the atmosphere? That is nature of this thread!
I'm not a real scientist because I teach science so who do you suppose should teach science? Theology graduates? I'll repeat again for your sake. I graduated with a combined honours degree in geology and chemistry from Liverpool University and have post graduate qualifications in related subjects; spent several years working as a research scientist in the oil industry, found that my life wasn't fulfilled here so turned to education where I have been teaching general science and chemistry up to A-level. I've spent all my working life in science, what do you know other than being a rather reactionary WUM? Correct me if I'm wrong!
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 25, 2010 18:48:40 GMT 1
Quantify our point about the variation in the concentration of the ozone layer Naymissus? You have erected a number of strawmen arguments here and you clearly have the wherewithall to demolish them and no end of non-sequitiurs to baffle the uninitiated. Typical of the school of anti-intellectualism burgeoning in right wing politics this past few years - it is nigh on impossible to pursuade politicians and civil servants with firsts in PPE that there is any any significance in science unles it might make a pound for somebody. Treating intelligent and inquisitive people as if they are idiots is perfectly valid if they are not prepared to learn anything new! Where's the science in your argument Naymissus about the reduction of man made CFCs being released untrammelled into the atmosphere? That is nature of this thread! I'm not a real scientist because I teach science so who do you suppose should teach science? Theology graduates? I'll repeat again for your sake. I graduated with a combined honours degree in geology and chemistry from Liverpool University and have post graduate qualifications in related subjects; spent several years working as a research scientist in the oil industry, found that my life wasn't fulfilled here so turned to education where I have been teaching general science and chemistry up to A-level. I've spent all my working life in science, what do you know other than being a rather reactionary WUM? Correct me if I'm wrong! Ah well! Never mind You just go on calling everyone that questions you whatever springs to your feverish mind FYI , a scientist is one who does research or filters research or reviews research. You were a scientist, but have dropped out, maybe because you do not have the skills to persuade anyone to give you funding.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 25, 2010 20:33:21 GMT 1
Helen, when? in this country, did "consider past times where anti-science and common sense prevailed" exist. Who recommended CFC's in the first place? I detect a frantic diatribe fully supporting science as the 'virgin all dressed in white'. You can't divorce science from the rest of society. It was recommended, and then oops!, unrecommended. All fair enough. We have all become a little more discerning as the years pass, some become really discerning, but they can affort it. [best of luck to them] Here's an extreme example of science(ists) Aspirin, next time You see some in the s'market, still a trade name in some parts, and not in others, why?. Why do I mention this all of a sudden in the discussion, because there are endless examples of good ideas, inventions, discoveries [or so they seem at the time] Then somebody comes along and says they're not, then another [later] yes it is. [nuclear power]. How many silly so-and-so's [& quite a few with other agendas] went on various marches [e.g.Aldermaston] only in later life to take an opposite view. Anyway I've 'banged on' enough, for the moment. You require us to learn the science in order to understand, so why not apply some understanding with the science for Your part. Stuart
|
|