|
Post by helen on Sept 25, 2010 22:53:35 GMT 1
Stuart, you call me for misunderstanding the history of science. Has it not escaped your notice that the guy who invented CFCs as a potentially inert refrigerant also invented tetraethyl lead, the petrol additive that improved your petrol engine beyond belief: Thomas Midgley, how unfortunate his great inventions ultimately proved to be a neurotoxin. It has taken millions of dollars to demonstrate the efficacy of these things and further millions, mostly in litigation to prove the harm that these cause and get tetraethyl lead banned from petrol. What does this say about about buisiness and their care for society at large? The point I'm making here is that any new discovery may have downsides. To deny that human activity has had no effect on stratospheric ozone is unfounded and that the reduction of a trace gas high in the atmosphere i.e ozone has no effect upon life on Earth is a lie.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 26, 2010 10:43:37 GMT 1
"The toxicity of concentrated TEL was recognized early; many TEL researchers and workers, including Midgley, became victims of lead poisoning, and dozens died.[11] In 1925, the sales of TEL were suspended for one year to conduct a hazard assessment.[2][9] The cases of fatal lead poisoning and serious symptoms of lead toxicity were, however, assumed to be restricted to TEL manufacture and handling. The low concentrations present in gasoline and exhaust were not perceived as immediately dangerous. A U.S. Surgeon General committee issued a report in 1926 that concluded there was no real evidence that the sale of TEL was hazardous to human health but urged further study" www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/papers/kettering.html#tetraethyl"While Dayton danced, Detroit yawned. Kettering's boss, G.M. president Alfred P. Sloan, was not enthusiastic about tetraethyl lead. An attorney for G.M. later recalled Sloan's attitude: "When Kettering found that the element iodine would do it, he [Kettering] said, this is the answer. And when he had aniline, he said, this is the answer. And when he had selenium, he said this is the answer... And so, when tetraethyl lead was discovered, Sloan thought: 'it won't be long before we get something better than this.'"51" and He [Midgley] died like this... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley,_Jr.#Later_life all a bit sad, and to have an historian say this of Him... "One historian remarked that Midgley "had more impact on the atmosphere than any other single organism in Earth's history."[1]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._McNeillWell Mr McNeill, You judge harshly and 'from a sedentry position' . This all helps make my point, I grew up with TEL, I used it daily, played with it [although mine was a browny-red powder] yes I knew it was dangerous, as I did about my vacuum test rig for testing carburettors, with its seal of mercury [open to atmosphere and me], also the fuel, in its various test forms wasn't efficacious, or when testing an engine, the con-rod breaks, taking a chunk of the engine block with it, on its way down between the legs, and finally bouncing harmlessly around the test-bed. Is there a cure for 'hindsight astigmatism'. I've got lots of other stories, how about the foam that would limit the effects of a bomb, by enclosing it. Great idea, except when You want to defuse it, and can't find it. Can You imagine being totally enclosed in foam, no see- no hear except for the continual popping of the air bubbles, never mind 'now which way is out?'. Had to be tried though. Here's a good one to research, ideal for A-level students, refrigeration and it's research, try it see what they come up with. If they don't come up with a tale with a moral or two, 'nil points'. Get back to more of the point! 'whilst not fully understood' 'the science is never settled!' 'Despite there being small quantities still extant in industry' www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_cfc_con-environment-cfc-consumption [it seems to be slow this morning] gives the statistics of use, and if they are to be believed, give an indication of use. This is all very well, but I can't find any historical data of use. I wonder if the use is not much different from prior 1980? On the simple basis of population increase since then. You will have to pardon punters like me if [nowadays] everything that is said is questioned as default, we have seen what disinformation is capable of. [eg WMD - Dr Kelly? - 'the pound in Your pocket'] Stuart What has this to do with ozone? Please take it to another thread. Joanne.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 5, 2010 18:49:05 GMT 1
November 29, 2010
The Cancun Climate Capers By S. Fred Singer
Today, Nov. 29, marks the beginning of the Cancun COP (Conference of the Parties [to the Kyoto Protocol]). This is the 16th meeting of the nearly two hundred national delegations, which have been convening annually since the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in 1997 at COP-3.
This conference promises to be another two-week extravaganza for some 20,000 delegates and hangers-on, who will be enjoying the sand, surf, and tequila-sours -- mostly paid for by taxpayers from the U.S. and Western Europe. For most delegates, this annual vacation has become a lifetime career: it pays for their mortgages and their children's education. I suppose a few of them actually believe that they are saving the earth -- even though the Kyoto Protocol (to limit emission of greenhouse [GH] gases, like CO2, but never submitted for ratification to the U.S. Senate) will be defunct in 2012 and there is -- thankfully -- no sign of any successor treaty.
But never fear: the organizers may "pull a rabbit out of a hat" and spring a surprise on the world. They will likely announce that they have conquered the greenhouse gas hydrofluorocarbon (HFC). Now, HFCs are what replaced HCFCs, which in turn replaced CFCs, thanks to the Montreal Protocol of 1987. This succession of chemical refrigerants has reduced ozone-destroying potential; but unfortunately they are all GH gases. So now HFCs must be eradicated, because a single molecule of HFC produces many thousand times the greenhouse effect of a molecule of CO2. What they don't tell you, of course, is that the total forcing from the HFCs is less than one percent of that of CO2, according to the IPCC (see page 141). So "slaying the dragon" amounts to slaying a mouse -- or something even smaller. But you can bet that it will be trumpeted as a tremendous achievement and will likely invigorate the search for other mice that can be slain.
Of course, industry has no objection to this maneuver of invoking the Montreal Protocol as a means of reducing the claimed GH-gas effects of global warming. It means more profits from patents, new manufacturing facilities, and sales -- and it will eliminate the bothersome competition from factories in India, China, and Brazil that are still manufacturing HCFCs, and in some cases even CFCs. Very likely, these nations will oppose the maneuver. But so should consumers. It will mean replacing refrigerants in refrigerators, air conditioners, and automobiles -- at huge cost and to little effect. We don't even know yet what chemical will replace HFC and how well it will work in existing equipment.
But nobody is supposed to notice this, it is hoped, amid the clamor for an international agreement, or any kind of agreement, really -- even if it means misusing the Montreal Protocol. Remember that HFCs have no effect on ozone and therefore are not covered by the 1987 Montreal Protocol.
At this point, it is worth remembering how little has been accomplished by the Montreal Protocol -- that "signal achievement" of the global environmental community. As U.S. negotiator Richard Benedick brags (in his book Ozone Diplomacy), the Montreal agreement was achieved by skillful diplomacy rather than by relying on science.
When the Montreal Protocol was negotiated and signed in 1987, there was no evidence whatsoever that CFCs were actually destroying stratospheric ozone. At that time, there were no published observations (by leading Belgian researcher Zander or by others) of any increase in stratospheric chlorine, thereby indicating that natural sources, like salt from ocean spray and volcanoes, were dominating over the human contribution of chlorine from CFCs. The scientific evidence changed only in 1988 (thanks to NASA scientist Rinsland), a year after the Montreal Protocol was signed.
Nevertheless, the hype of the Antarctic Ozone Hole (AOH), which was discovered, only by chance, in 1985, was driving global fears of a coming disaster. In the U.S., there was talk about an Arctic ozone hole opening up. There was even a scare about a "hole over Kennebunkport," President Bush's summer home. And of course, the EPA, as usual, was hyping the whole matter to the White House. No wonder that poor George Bush (the elder) agreed to phase out CFCs immediately.
And who still remembers all the lurid tales of blind sheep in Patagonia and of ecological disasters in the Southern Ocean -- all the result, supposedly, of the AOH. It turned out later that the unfortunate sheep had pink-eye.
The Montreal Protocol prohibition on manufacturing CFCs has indeed led to the reduction of the atmospheric content of these long-lived CFC molecules. But what about stratospheric ozone itself? There has been little effect on the AOH -- just annual fluctuations. And according to the authoritative reports of the World Meteorological Organization, the depletion at mid-latitudes may have been only about 4% over a period ending in 1992. There seems to have been no further depletion since 1993, even while stratospheric chlorine levels were still rising. Something doesn't quite check out here.
Whatever the cause of the observed 4% ozone depletion may be, compare this piddling amount to the natural variability of total atmospheric ozone, as measured carefully by NOAA: on the order of 100% or more from day to day, seasonal change of 30% to 50%, and an eleven-year sunspot-correlated variation on the order of 3%.
And to top it off, there has been no documented increase at all in solar ultraviolet (UV-B), the radiation that produces sunburn and can lead to skin cancer. All of the monitoring so far has shown no rise over time -- and therefore no biological effects due to ozone depletion.
And in any case, theory tells us -- and measurements agree -- that a 4% depletion amounts to an increase in solar UV equivalent to moving 50 miles to the south, at mid-latitudes. Measured UV-B values increase by 1,000% in going from the pole to equator, as the average solar zenith angle increases.
So look for a "breakthrough" announcement from Cancun, as once again our intrepid negotiators will have "saved the climate" -- maybe. In addition to timing and cost issues, some countries will insist that HFCs have no impact on the ozone layer and thus should be handled under the United Nations climate change talks rather than the Montreal Treaty.
A State Department official dismissed that as a legalistic argument and said that the ozone treaty could and should be used to achieve broader environmental objectives. "What we've found is that the Montreal Protocol has been a very effective instrument for addressing global environmental problems," said Daniel A. Reifsnyder, the nation's chief Montreal Protocol negotiator, in an interview. "It was created to deal with the ozone layer, but it also has tremendous ability to solve the climate problem if people are willing to use it that way."
Mario Molina, the Mexican scientist who shared the Nobel Prize in chemistry for his work in identifying the role of chlorofluorocarbons in depleting stratospheric ozone, said that extending the Montreal Protocol to include HFCs could reduce the threat of climate change by several times what the Kyoto Protocol proposes. (Evidently, he has not read the IPCC report in which he is listed as a lead author.) "We understand it's a stretch to use an international agreement designed for another purpose," he said. "But dealing with these chemicals and using this treaty to protect the planet makes a lot of sense."
Maybe Dr. Molina should stick to chemistry.
Atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer is Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service (now NESDIS-NOAA). His book Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1500 Years (Rowan & Littlefield, 2007) presents the evidence for natural climate cycles of warming and cooling and became a NY Times best-seller. He is the organizer of NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change) and editor of its 2008 report "Nature - Not Human Activity - Rules the Climate," and coauthor of "Climate Change Reconsidered," published in 2009, with conclusions contrary to those of the IPCC's. He pioneered upper-atmosphere ozone measurements with rockets and later devised the satellite instrument used to monitor ozone.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jan 8, 2011 18:04:07 GMT 1
New rate of stratospheric photolysis questions Ozone HolePosted on January 8, 2011 by Anthony Watts here wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/08/new-rate-of-stratospheric-photolysis-questions-ozone-hole/#more-31209By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow Dr. Will Happer of Princeton wrote “The Montreal Protocol to ban freons was the warm-up exercise for the IPCC. Many current IPCC players gained fame then by stampeding the US Congress into supporting the Montreal Protocol. They learned to use dramatized, phony scientific claims like “ozone holes over Kennebunkport” (President Bush Sr’s seaside residence in New England). The ozone crusade also had business opportunities for firms like Dupont to market proprietary “ozone-friendly” refrigerants at much better prices than the conventional (and more easily used) freons that had long-since lost patent protection and were not a cheap commodity with little profit potential” (link). Even James Lovelock agrees. James Lovelock formulated the Gaia hypothesis, which postulates that the biosphere is a self-regulating entity with the capacity to keep our planet healthy by controlling the chemical and physical environment. He later became concerned that global warming would upset the balance and leave only the arctic as habitable. He began to move off this position in 2007 suggesting that the Earth itself is in “no danger” because it would stabilize in a new state. James Lovelock’s reaction to first reading about the CRU emails in late 2009 was one of a true scientist: “I was utterly disgusted. My second thought was that it was inevitable. It was bound to happen. Science, not so very long ago, pre-1960s, was largely vocational. Back when I was young, I didn’t want to do anything else other than be a scientist. They’re not like that nowadays. They don’t give a damn. They go to these massive, mass-produced universities and churn them out. They say: “Science is a good career. You can get a job for life doing government work.” That’s no way to do science.I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science. I’m not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It’s the one thing you do not ever do. You’ve got to have standards.”On a March 2010 Guardian interview, Lovelock opined: “The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing…We do need skepticism about the predictions about what will happen to the climate in 50 years, or whatever. It’s almost naive, scientifically speaking, to think we can give relatively accurate predictions for future climate. There are so many unknowns that it’s wrong to do it.”Will Happer further elaborated: “The Montreal Protocol may not have been necessary to save the ozone, but it had limited economic damage. It has caused much more damage in the way it has corrupted science. It showed how quickly a scientist or activist can gain fame and fortune by purporting to save planet earth. We have the same situation with CO2 now, but CO2 is completely natural, unlike freons. Planet earth is quite happy to have lots more CO2 than current values, as the geological record clearly shows. If the jihad against CO2 succeeds, there will be enormous economic damage, and even worse consequences for human liberty at the hands of the successful jihadists.”LIKE GLOBAL WARMING THE DATA DOESN’T SUPPORT THE THEORY The ozone hole has not closed off after we banned CFCs. See this story in Nature: Scientific Consensus on Man-Made Ozone Hole May Be Coming Apart www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.htmlAs the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.
Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere – almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate. “This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.STILL COMING Yet like the cultists whose spacecraft didn’t arrive on the announced date, the government scientists find ways to postpone it and save their reputations (examples “Increasing greenhouse gases could delay, or even postpone indefinitely the recovery of stratospheric ozone in some regions of the Earth, a Johns Hopkins earth scientist suggests” here www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-02/agu-gwm020409.php and “Scientists Find Antarctic Ozone Hole to Recover Later than Expected” here earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?old=2006062922540 . “The warmers are getting more and more like those traditional predictors of the end of the world who, when the event fails to happen on the due date, announce an error in their calculations and a new date.” Dr. John Brignell, Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton, on Number Watch (May 1) PDF icecap.us/images/uploads/Ozone_hole.pdf
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 20, 2011 17:48:34 GMT 1
Bishop Hill says "The Ozone Hole is back" plus discussion here bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/4/20/ozone-hole-is-back.htmlIn the mid-1980′s the world decided to ban CFC chemicals, e.g. Freon, used in refrigerators and other industrial processes, due to the impact those chemicals were having to create a “hole” in the ozone layer over Antarctica. The presence of ozone filters the Sun’s ultraviolet radiation, which is dangerous to people and other life forms on this planet. Banning CFCs was said, as I recall, by scientists to be the only solution to closing the ozone hole. So they were banned and we now have less efficient (e.g. requires more energy and/or less effectiveness) refrigerators. Apparently, the ozone hole has re-appeared. I was reminded of this by a comment in Jerry Pournelle’s web site where he commented on this. I also came across a report by ABC News (USA) “Ozone Hole is Back and Big“. Is this because the world did not indeed stop using CFC’s to the extent required to stop the hole? There have been rumors of this over the years. Or, are there other causes than CFC’s in making the hole? And if the latter, how come in the mid 1980′s was it portrayed that CFC’s was the only solution? And, how “normal” is the hole as a feature of nature? What does this teach us about other “there is only one answer” to problems? Roy Schneider rmschneider.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/ozone-hole-is-back/Roy asks "And, how “normal” is the hole as a feature of nature?" ----------- Good question! I asked the same question upthread. Science's "discovery" of a phenomenon does not mean it was not always there, like America pre Columbus.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 10, 2011 12:34:49 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 22, 2011 12:12:27 GMT 1
chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/ozone-hole-gone/Interesting article with graphs and, as always, very good on detail. In Conclusion IMHO, something interesting is happening to Ozone levels and it has a lot to do with the solar changes, very little to do with freon. The major effects look to be more in line with an electrical or charged particle driven activity and not at all in line with a diffused gas activity.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on May 22, 2011 12:52:20 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 17, 2011 9:36:12 GMT 1
I am surprised you think you can so easily dispense with the BAU (BUSINESS AS USUAL) scenario, cfl.
Everyone knows that CFC concentration remains high because CFC equivalents [edit] are emitted from natural sources as well as manmade and because the refridgerant chemicals that have been introduced to replace them also share the same ozone-depleting characteristics, albeit at a lower level.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 18, 2011 10:57:08 GMT 1
Dont get too excited, cfl, over the difference to "Business as Usual" temperature projections made by regulating CFCs. The effect was trivial , if even discernible.
HFCs replaced HCFCs, which in turn replaced CFCs, thanks to the Montreal Protocol of 1987. This succession of chemical refrigerants has reduced ozone-destroying potential; but unfortunately they are all GH gases. So now HFCs must be eradicated, because a single molecule of HFC produces many thousand times the greenhouse effect of a molecule of CO2. What they don't tell you, of course, is that the total forcing from the HFCs is less than one percent of that of CO2, according to the IPCC (see page 141). - Fred Singer.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 18, 2011 13:15:00 GMT 1
'CFCs are not created in nature' That may or may not be true, however there is evidence that the reagents necessary to produce such compounds or ones with similar 'qualities' do exist in nature. Hydrogen flouride HF en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fluoride "Hydrogen fluoride is a chemical compound with the formula HF. This colorless gas is the principal industrial source of fluorine, often in the aqueous form as hydrofluoric acid, and thus is the precursor to many important compounds including pharmaceuticals and polymers (e.g. Teflon). HF is widely used in the petrochemical industry and is a component of many superacids. Hydrogen flouride boils just below room temperature whereas the other hydrogen halides condense at much lower temperatures. Unlike the other hydrogen halides, HF is lighter than air and it is particularly penetrating. Hydrogen fluoride is a highly dangerous gas, forming corrosive and penetrating hydrofluoric acid upon contact with tissue. The gas can also cause blindness by rapid destruction of the corneas." Hydrogen Chloride HCl en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_chloride"The compound hydrogen chloride has the formula HCl. At room temperature, it is a colorless gas, which forms white fumes of hydrochloric acid upon contact with atmospheric humidity. Hydrogen chloride gas and hydrochloric acid are important in technology and industry. The formula HCl is often used to refer, somewhat misleadingly[according to whom?], to hydrochloric acid, an aqueous solution that can be derived from hydrogen chloride." and boiling seawater... all from volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.phpas far as can be made out from the 'net it's the breakdown of CFC's to amongst others Chlorine that 'attacks' the Ozone, but perhaps an aqueous solution of HCl would do the same? and just as a 'gee-up' cfc.geologist-1011.net/StuartG [according to whom?] according to custom a 'colloquialism'
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 18, 2011 18:02:48 GMT 1
There are natural ozone depleting gases coming out of volcanoes. The CFCs and their successors are no big deal. Anyone would think, from all the brouhaha, that CFCs were the "cause" of the ozone hole.
The Ozone Hole scare was just a precurser to the CO2 scare - the IPCC crowd just trying out their tactics before getting on to "decarbonisation".
They didn't save the world with banning CFCs and they won't save the world with banning CO2.
These "scares" are just a pretext for a political agenda.
|
|
|
Post by clh on Jun 19, 2011 0:33:39 GMT 1
They did stop the growth of the antarctic ozone hole though.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 19, 2011 13:13:36 GMT 1
"In the business as usual scenario CFC-11 increases to over 400ppt by 2011 and CFC-12 increases to over 700ppt. But due to the CFC phase out the actual levels of CFC-11 and 12 in the atmosphere have falled far short of that:" "But due to the CFC phase out" Not Proven. StuartG ps. so I moved this.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 19, 2011 13:57:10 GMT 1
It is normal on this board, clh, to provide the source for graphs, etc, so perhaps you can tell us the origin of the graph you present at reply#57 so that we can read it and understand the claim? Thanks.
|
|