Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

Funny thing is, there were plenty of ozone deniers, too.

All you are saying is that you believe cfcs are bad and you don't believe co2 is bad.

That web page doesn't prove anything about CFCs. If I was a denier, I'd say something stupid like "common sense will tell you that the troposphere is so large, and the chlorine atoms and ozone molecules are so tiny and relatively few, and N2 and O2 so much more numerous, that they essentially never come in contact with each other, so that reaction, which might happen in a LAB, doesn't happen in the atmosphere." And then when you presented data that in fact the number and velocity of the molecules is sufficient to run into each other, I'd change the subject and make some other "common sense" claim. Being a denier is easy, because you don't actually have to learn the science. You just have to believe it is wrong.

But you aren't a denier about CFCs, and neither am I, so we don't have to go there. I'm just saying there are plenty of web pages that "prove" CO2 warming just as well as that web page "proves" ozone hole destruction. The actual details of proving that CFCs are a problem are rather more complex than writing down the chemical reactions.

barfo

 

Sure, power, even at S2 or the U. of East Anglia, corrupts.

But I don't see how I'm missing the point when PapaG posted about the money, and I responded about the money, and now you say it isn't about the money.

barfo

 

It's about the money they get to spend. It translates to power.

 

There are zero pages that prove CO2 warming, that's the thing.

As for CFCs, look at the formulas again and see how the free radical affects the reaction. Hell, I'll do it for you:

http://www.beyonddiscovery.org/content/view.page.asp?I=89

When chlorine and ozone react, they form the free radical chlorine oxide, which in turn becomes part of a chain reaction. As a result of that chain reaction, a single chlorine atom can remove as many as 100,000 molecules of ozone.

 

Of course not. It's complicated.
Show me a page that proves CFC ozone hole depletion. Your first try was a failure.

Why bother, when you never address the points I make?

barfo

 

The free radical chain reaction addresses your point:

"common sense will tell you that the troposphere is so large, and the chlorine atoms and ozone molecules are so tiny and relatively few, and N2 and O2 so much more numerous, that they essentially never come in contact with each other, so that reaction, which might happen in a LAB, doesn't happen in the atmosphere."

 

No it doesn't, not in the slightest. You have to have a significant collision cross-section to have the reaction proceed at all, and you (your web page) haven't shown that there is.

If the first step of the chain reaction never happens, the rest of the chain reaction never happens either.
It's vaguely analogous to a nuclear chain reaction. If you don't have critical mass, no explosion. Show me you have critical mass.

barfo

 

The chain reaction doesn't consume ALL of the ozone for that reason, but it clearly does consume mass quantities at the poles.

Though you might want to consider both reading my posts before saying I don't respond to your points and figuring out what a big ozone hole at the north pole might mean for the ice caps there. The latter being entirely independent of any other factors.

 

It's only clear because you believe it does. You've presented no proof whatsoever.

Sorry, don't understand your point here. What does the effect of an ozone hole on an ice cap have to do with whether CFCs destroy ozone?

Let's try to stay on topic here: you are claiming that that web page PROVES that CFCs destroy the ozone layer.

barfo

 

I didn't ask what the ozone hole has to do with CFCs, I asked how an ozone hole over the poles might affect the ice packs there. Nice try at deflection.

Again:

By the mid 1980s, scientists had become expert in measuring the concentration of chlorine-containing compounds in the stratosphere. Some monitored the compounds from the ground; others used balloons or aircraft. In 1986 and 1987, these scientists, including Susan Solomon and James Anderson, established that the unprecedented ozone loss over Antarctica involved atomic chlorine and chlorine oxide radicals.

At the same time, measurements in the lower atmosphere established that CFC levels had increased steadily and dramatically since the first recordings taken by Lovelock in 1970. The conclusion was clear: The prime sources of the ozone-devouring chlorine atoms over Antarctica were the CFCs and two other pollutants, the industrial solvents carbon tetrachloride and methylchloroform.

A satellite operated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration appears to have removed any possible doubt about the role of CFCs. Data collected over the past three years by the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite revealed these compounds in the stratosphere. Moreover, the satellite has traced the worldwide accumulation of stratospheric fluorine gases, a direct breakdown product of CFCs. The quantitative balance of CFCs and its products eliminates the possibility that chlorine from volcanic eruptions or other natural sources created the ozone hole.

 

And again, that has nothing to do with what we were discussing. Why are you changing the subject?

We were discussing whether your web page proves CFCs destroy the ozone layer.

It's actually not that basic a fact, that's why a (fake) denier was able to poke (fake) holes in it. The chemical reaction by itself isn't proof of the atmospheric effects. Your web page proves nothing, you just choose to believe it, just as you choose not to believe in CO2.

Why did they bother to do all that when it is as simple as 1+1=2? They should have just looked at that web page. Silly scientists. Besides, we all know data from NASA can't be believed.

You realize I'm not actually arguing that CFCs don't destroy the ozone layer? I'm merely pointing out that you believe whatever you want to believe. You aren't actually analyzing the data.

barfo

 

Why did they bother to do all that when it is as simple as 1+1=2? They should have just looked at that web page. Silly scientists. Besides, we all know data from NASA can't be believed.

You realize I'm not actually arguing that CFCs don't destroy the ozone layer? I'm merely pointing out that you believe whatever you want to believe. You aren't actually analyzing the data.

barfo[/QUOTE]

Read the damned link. They basically did look at the WWW page that proved what CFCs do to ozone:

 

That would be hard since you didn't provide a damned link for that quoted material.

Edit: Ah, I see, you edited the link into a post 8 or 10 back. I didn't see that edit.

barfo

 

Uh huh.

 

Well, I responded to that post before you edited in the link, so I never saw your linky. Terribly sorry.

barfo

 

Fair enough.

Now read it

 

Ok, I read it. It's a nice story. If you believe it. Why do you believe it?

I'm pretty sure I could find you a nice story about some climate scientists working diligently to show the earth is heating up, too. What would that prove, exactly?

barfo

 

There is no silver bullet, like the chemical equation for CFCs, that leads me to believe in the man made global warming hypothesis. Maybe most of the scientists who believe in man made global warming are looking at WWW pages hyping the hypothesis, since it's now clear that the real data has been filtered and not made public.

Certainly the guys who figured out the CFC and ozone hole relationship didn't need to resort to climate models, and they didn't even need to run any experiments since the 1+1=2 nature of the chemical equation is as close to fact as Science gets.

Not only is there a compelling fact/equation in the case of CFCs, the scientists were able to make predictions and those predictions came true and held up. To me it's as plain as day, and irrefutable. As much so as our using similar (as near as possible) facts to launch a satellite, have it slignshot around two inner planets and then rendezvous with Neptune 8+ years later.

Not only were the predictions about CFCs spot on, they continue to be spot on. We stopped putting CFCs into the atmosphere and the ozone holes are shrinking.

On the other hand, the small man Al Gore is removing slides from his Nobel/Oscar winning powerpoint presentation as prediction after prediction fails to hold up.

The guys sounding the alarm over CFCs didn't tell us to stop using aerosol sprays, refrigerating our food, or enjoying the comfort of air conditioning. There were numerous practical alternatives to CFCs and we're still getting the benefits of those technologies.


I was asked what it would take to make me believe it, and I pointed to the incontrovertible evidence that CFCs damage the ozone layer.

 

Which you basically take on faith. Which is ok, since you are probably right in this case. But, you know, there could be a conspiracy to fake that data. Maybe the concentration of CFC's in the troposphere has been vastly overstated by people who wanted to get their grants funded. Maybe the shrinking of the ozone hole has been faked. Maybe the ozone hole was fake in the first place. You don't know. You haven't seen the data. You just believe what you want to believe.

Me, I think I'll believe Oden didn't hurt his knee tonight. Because that's what fits with my worldview. So it must be right.

barfo

 

I don't take it on faith anymore than the original researchers did.

Link, please, to how many and big the grants were to study CFCs and ozone.