Sunday Topic - Ozone

[grasshopper]

Just found this thing, and as you are all much cleverer than me; I was wondering if you could do the decent thing, if you feel so inclined, and demolish this comment!

 

In brief, there ARE no “holes” in the ozone layer, simply because there IS no ozone “layer”. The only place an ozone “layer” exists is as an imaginary construct to allow the calculation of overall ozone levels in the atmosphere, and compare those levels, one place to another. As such, the ozone “layer” is as “real” as the “two dimensional plane extending in all directions to infinity”, that allows for our geometry axioms (definition of a point, line, parallel lines etc).

 

Ozone concentration is measured in “Dobson Units” on a “Dobson Spectrophotometer”, or an updated version of same. A Dobson Unit is the amount of ozone in a column of air from ground level all the way out to the edge of the atmosphere. For the purpose of calculation it is then ASSUMED that all those molecules of ozone are then compressed into a “layer” at sea level. By comparing this ASSUMED thickness in different places, one can say there is “more” or “less” ozone in the atmosphere at a certain place, from sea level to the outer edge of the atmosphere.

 

This ASSUMED “layer” – created entirely as a mathematical construct, is the only “real” layer of ozone there is.

 

Ozone is an allotrope of oxygen – O3. Basically, oxygen as we know it is O2 – two atoms of O get together and form a fairly stable relationship. However, if a little energy is applied the two O atoms get all excited, split up, and then reform as a threesome – O3 (like some marriages). But O3 is pretty unstable, and very quickly loses the additional energy required to maintain that state, and disintegrates back to the more stable O2 again (also like some marriages).

 

The energy to allow O2 to become O3 can come from many sources. However, the most common source is good old sunlight. And since we have O2 rising up from the surface of the planet, up through the atmosphere, and sunlight reaching us from outer space, it stands to reason that the place where MOST O3 is formed is where these two meet – at the edge of the atmosphere. This is where people erroneously think the mythical “ozone layer” exists.

 

It also stands to reason that, if there is a lack of oxygen or sunlight, there will be less ozone. And guess what folks, for some months of the year there is NO sunlight at the southern polar regions (southern hemisphere winter), and a similar effect in the north polar regions during the northern hemisphere winter. It is no accident that the horror stories about the dreaded “ozone hole over Antarctica”, always appear in September, at the end of the southern hemisphere winter.

 

Back in the 1950′s there was a very bright man called Professor Gordon Dobson. Professor Dobson fully understood the ENTIRELY CYCLICAL NATURE of ozone depletion over the poles during their respective winters, due to the lack of sunlight.

 

Professor Dobson also believed there were high level air currents which he called “slipstream currents”. He wanted to prove the existence of these currents, but it is very hard to “tag” some air and see where it goes.

 

So he devised an experiment: by rights, there should have been little or no ozone over Antarctica during winter (no sunlight). However, the good doctor postulated that there would be, because it would be brought in by his theorised “slipstream currents”.

 

All he needed was a way of measuring ozone concentrations. So he invented the Dobson Spectrophotometer and the Dobson Unit. Then he spent the winter of 1957 at Antarctica measuring the flux of ozone concentration in the atmosphere. From its varying densities he was able to prove both the existence of his slipstream air currents, and produce the first maps of their directions. 1957 was the “International Geophysical Year”, and for his efforts Dobson was named “International Geophysical Man of the Year” (sorry ladies and women libbers, that was the name of the award).

 

In 1962 he co-wrote a book about it all called “Exploring The Atmosphere” which was one of my science textbooks at high school. Incidentally, you will learn very little of the above from googling “Professor Dobson” or “Dobson Unit”. The “official” story of Dobson now available on the net is so far divorced from the reality as to render the current version little more than fairy tale.

 

When DuPont Chemicals invented chloroflourocarbons (CFC’s), the company was still very much controlled by the DuPont Family. They realised the implications of cheap refrigeration for the world and allowed CFC’s to be produced under licence by other companies at a peppercorn fee.

 

By the early 1980′s Dupont Chemicals was controlled by the Canadian/American Bronfmann Family, which made its fortune during the prohibition by bootlegging. The family patriach, Edgar Bronfmann did not like the fact that the company was “losing” money from the sale of CFC’s. Bronfmann had Dupont’s research department pretty much “invent” the entire CFC “holes in the ozone layer” myth, complete with bought and paid for peer-reviewed papers (sound familiar?).

 

Bronfmann then spent a fair bit of money financing greenie groups, mobilising them to “protest” against the “terrible” CFC’s that were “destroying” the ozone layer (also sound familiar?). In 1987 Bronfmann personally financed a greenie groupie event in Montreal, out of which came the infamous “Montreal Protocol”, calling for the banning of CFC’s. The rest is history.

[Lilith]

yeah a lot of this is straight-up wrong

 

for one thing, there literally is an actual layer in the stratosphere with a higher concentration of ozone than the rest of the atmosphere

 

the dupont stuff is partially true, in that they realised they could make a bunch of money by being the first chemical company to start mass-producing non-CFC refrigerants and therefore supported regulation of CFCs for not-entirely-altruistic reasons, but the stuff about inventing a nonexistent ozone hole to defraud the public is just a conspiracy theory

[Unplayable Playable Character]

So, any sources on this?

[A less presumptuous name.]

I'm no expert on ozone, but I trust Thurylilith. Or whatever he's called. That said, editing is nice.

 

Originally Posted By: boggle, or wherever he got this from.

definition of a point, line, parallel lines etc).

As far as geometry is concerned, there is no definition of a point or line. Don't make me sick my old teacher on you!

 

Originally Posted By: boggle, or wherever he got this from.

This ASSUMED “layer” – created entirely as a mathematical construct, is the only “real” layer of ozone there is.

Math models reality.

 

Originally Posted By: boggle, or wherever he got this from.

When DuPont Chemicals invented chloroflourocarbons (CFC’s),

I didn't realize that flour was part of a CFC. Try chlorofluorocarbon.

 

Also:

Originally Posted By: boggle

Just found this thing, and as you are all much cleverer than me; I was wondering if you could do the decent thing, if you feel so inclined, and demolish this comment!

Are you asking us to call this BS?

[nikki.]

Originally Posted By: Master1

As far as geometry is concerned, there is no definition of a point or line. Don't make me sick my old teacher on you!

would your old teacher mind you bringing him up?

[grasshopper]

Originally Posted By: Master1

Also:

Originally Posted By: boggle

Just found this thing, and as you are all much cleverer than me; I was wondering if you could do the decent thing, if you feel so inclined, and demolish this comment!

Are you asking us to call this BS?

Not really, saying you are much cleverer than me, I hope is true, and I'm really interested in watching you all pick it apart, or prove it's correctness. As this is contrary to what I learnt to be true, I'm expecting a more thorough demolishing than I can presently manage.

[A less presumptuous name.]

Originally Posted By: Nikki.

Originally Posted By: Master1

As far as geometry is concerned, there is no definition of a point or line. Don't make me sick my old teacher on you!

would your old teacher mind you bringing him up?

No, no she wouldn't.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: boggle

Just found this thing, and as you are all much cleverer than me; I was wondering if you could do the decent thing, if you feel so inclined, and demolish this comment!

Dikiyoba's best guess is that some of the climate change deniers have gotten bored with having only one evil atmosphere-related conspiracy to talk about.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba

Originally Posted By: boggle

Just found this thing, and as you are all much cleverer than me; I was wondering if you could do the decent thing, if you feel so inclined, and demolish this comment!

Dikiyoba's best guess is that some of the climate change deniers have gotten bored with having only one evil atmosphere-related conspiracy to talk about.

IT'S ALL A COMMIE ILLUMINATI NEW WORLD ORDER PLOT TO TAKE OUT GUNS AND FREEDOM AWAY!!!!@@!~!111!@@!1

[Sudanna]

Replace Illuminati with Jews, and it'll be believable.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Eld

Replace Illuminati with Jews, and it'll be believable.

Lizardmen from space! I knew I was forgetting something!

[Alorael at Large]

The Dobson unit is a measure of ozone in a column, but it has nothing to do with imagining it to be compressed at sea level. Instead, it's a measure of the total amount of ozone. Yes, the units are in dekamicrons (how's that for a bastardized unit?), but 10 µm at IUPAC standard temperature and pressure is just a different way to express the number of molecules.

 

UV doesn't exactly create ozone. In fact, UV photons split ozone molecules into oxygen gas and free oxygen atoms. Oxygen atoms react with oxygen gas to reform ozone, or with each other or with ozone to form one or two molecules of oxygen gas, respectively.

 

Ozone is formed in areas with more sunlight, but those "slipstream currents" of moving air relocate parts of the atmosphere and can take a while to do so. generally, air moves from the equator to the poles, and does so slowly.

 

The biggest problem with the argument posted is that its structure posits that the hole in the ozone is false, argues that Dobson demonstrated atmospheric currents and showed that the Antarctic ozone is not most depleted in winter, and therefore concludes that the hole in the ozone is false. Winter isn't when the Antarctic ozone hole appears, though; it's in the spring, which is the fall for those of us north of the equator.

 

So yes, ozone circulates, and its behavior isn't what we'd expect from the total absence of movement. But there is a hole, and the mechanisms by which some alkyl halides catalyze ozone depletion have been well documented in labs. You can either reject all the scientific work as the publications of corporate shills that nobody has bothered to verify or you can accept that the argument is both factually wrong and poorly constructed.

 

—Alorael, who doesn't know anything about DuPont corporate politicking. He'll leave it to Thuryl.

[grasshopper]

Thanks for your replies guys. As a layman, it's interesting trying to understand all these things. There is a reply for Alorael, if you care to read it; and brace yourself, as it is fairly long.. I feel as though I have just picked at a fresh scab, and am currently watching all of the blood flow out...

 

From the top:

Quote:

“The Dobson unit is a measure of ozone in a column, but it has nothing to do with imagining it to be compressed at sea level. Instead, it’s a measure of the total amount of ozone. Yes, the units are in dekamicrons (how’s that for a bastardized unit?), but 10 µm at IUPAC standard temperature and pressure is just a different way to express the number of molecules.”

 

 

The “measure” (in dekamicrons if you must) is arrived at by assuming ALL of the ozone molecules are in one place – in one “layer” (the measure IS a measure of the theoretical “thickness” of that layer).

See:

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/dobson.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobson_unit

 

If that doesn’t mean we “imagine” all the ozone from sea level to the outer reaches of the atmosphere is “imagined: to be “compressed” into one layer (approximately 300 units thick, I don’t know what does.

Quote:

“UV doesn’t exactly create ozone. In fact, UV photons split ozone molecules into oxygen gas and free oxygen atoms. Oxygen atoms react with oxygen gas to reform ozone, or with each other or with ozone to form one or two molecules of oxygen gas, respectively.

”

 

Errh, for a start, I never got so complicated as “UV photons”. I said “sunlight”, which encompasses it all – I write for the layman. Second, “ozone molecules” don’t come from “nowhere”, to then be “split into “oxygen gas and free radicals”. In fact, ozone is not a “natural” state of oxygen at all – good old boiler-plate O2 oxygen is.

 

Certain wavelengths of UV light react with ordinary, everyday O2 to produce O3. This is a higher energy, unstable state of O which quickly loses energy and restabilises as O2. Yes, there is a certain band of UV light which has the above-described effect. However, the statement in its entirety gives the impression that the starting point is O3, and UV light causes it to become O2. It pretty-much all starts out as O2, not the other way around. Therefore, yes, sunlight DOES create ozone, and is in fact the biggest (by far) creator of it. Lightning, electric motors and a few other things also impart the extra energy, but by comparison these are minute.

 

Quote:

“Ozone is formed in areas with more sunlight, but those “slipstream currents” of moving air relocate parts of the atmosphere and can take a while to do so. generally, air moves from the equator to the poles, and does so slowly.”

 

Yes, this is exactly what Professor Dobson was trying to demonstrate, amongst other things.

 

Quote:

“The biggest problem with the argument posted is that its structure posits that the hole in the ozone is false, argues that Dobson demonstrated atmospheric currents and showed that the Antarctic ozone is not most depleted in winter, and therefore concludes that the hole in the ozone is false. Winter isn’t when the Antarctic ozone hole appears, though; it’s in the spring, which is the fall for those of us north of the equator.”

 

Yes, the “argument” posits that the “hole in the ozone layer is false” (since there is no “layer”, only a mathematical computation of how much ozone exists in a column of air from sea level to the outer reaches of the atmosphere. By virtue of the nature of its measurement, it is impossible to determine from a Dobson Unit reading WHERE (at what altitude) any particular concentration of ozone may exist. Yes, there are other ways to measure this. However, the oft-times shown “maps” published ad-nauseam each September purporting to show a “hole” over Antarctica are maps of Dobson Units and actually, by definition, show no such thing – only a general depletion of ozone exactly as predicated by Dobson on which to found his experiment.

 

Yes, the claim is that Dobson demonstrated atmospheric currents. This is what he was awarded the “International Geophysical man of the Year” for. It is beyond my power to correct the crap that has subsequently been written about the man in order to fit the “politically correct” script of “holes in the ozone layer”.

 

Quote:

“showed that the Antarctic ozone is not most depleted in winter”

 

‘Scuse me? Dobson’s whole hypothesis was that there shouldn’t be much ozone at all in winter – the fact that there was more than there should have been was his basis for experiment. Yes, it is most depleted in winter – just as it should be – it just isn’t depleted as much as should be accounted for by the complete absence of sunlight.

 

Quote:

“Winter isn’t when the Antarctic ozone hole appears, though; it’s in the spring,”

 

Anybody want to direct me to a study ANYWHERE that supports this contention.

 

Let me state the sentence a slightly different way, much closer to the truth:

“Winter isn’t when STORIES APPEAR IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA about the Antarctic ozone hole though, THE STORIES APPEAR IN THE SPRING.

 

I think that’s far closer to the truth. The reality is the stories appear at the end of winter (which is the beginning of spring), when the measured ozone depletion is at its highest. Outside of Dobson’s original work, I’ve never seen any figures anywhere on the state of depletion at any other time other than when the “maps” are printed in the newspapers in September. Is it slightly higher in August or October? Or July or November? Anybody got figures? A peer-reviewed paper perhaps?

 

Quote:

“So yes, ozone circulates, and its behavior isn’t what we’d expect from the total absence of movement. But there is a hole, and the mechanisms by which some alkyl halides catalyze ozone depletion have been well documented in labs. You can either reject all the scientific work as the publications of corporate shills that nobody has bothered to verify or you can accept that the argument is both factually wrong and poorly constructed.”

 

So, after all that, “there IS a hole” – where? In what?

 

Quote:

“And the mechanisms by which some alkyl halides catylyze ozone depletion have been well documented in labs”

 

Yes, they were. After about (if memory serves correctly) six years and untold millions of dollars in “research funds” (mostly taxpayer’s money) a lab finally managed to “recreate” this entirely hypothetical chemical reaction in a lab, under strictly lab controlled conditions. The fact that it has never actually been observed or measured in the “REAL” world (ie in the atmosphere) before or since is, of course, totally besides the point to those for whom observable fact (empirical evidence), is merely an inconvenience.

 

Note also that “alkyl halides” (confusing chemistry speak for, in this case, CFC’s), were not, even in a lab, shown to “cause” ozone depletion”. Rather, a “mechanism” of alkyl halides (CFC’s) – in a lab – were shown to “catylyize” ozone depletion.

 

What this post normal science double-speak actually refers to, of course, is a reproducible experiment which showed that, if, under certain favourable lab conditions, you superheated CFC’s, they released super-reactive, hot chlorine ions, which “broke down” O3 to O2 (the natural fate of O3 molecules anyway).

 

The offered “proof” that this was actually happening, was to record the incidence of hot, highly reactive chlorine ions in the upper atmosphere at the Antarctic, during the Ozone Minimum (September), and attribute the depletion to said hot, reactive chlorine molecules, which in turn were attributed to the breakdown of CFC’s.

 

The fact that the readings were taken over an active volcano (Mount Erebus) which was spewing forth more hot, reactive chlorine in a year that the total amount available from the catalytic conversion of all the CFC’s ever produced by Mankind, ever, was entirely besides the point.

[Niemand]

Originally Posted By: boggle

Yes, the “argument” posits that the “hole in the ozone layer is false” (since there is no “layer”, only a mathematical computation of how much ozone exists in a column of air from sea level to the outer reaches of the atmosphere. By virtue of the nature of its measurement, it is impossible to determine from a Dobson Unit reading WHERE (at what altitude) any particular concentration of ozone may exist. Yes, there are other ways to measure this. However, the oft-times shown “maps” published ad-nauseam each September purporting to show a “hole” over Antarctica are maps of Dobson Units and actually, by definition, show no such thing – only a general depletion of ozone exactly as predicated by Dobson on which to found his experiment.

As has already been stated, there is portion of the stratosphere, defined by height, which contains most of the atmosphere's ozone. This is perfectly consistent with standard definitions and understandings of the idea of a 'layer': "A sheet, quantity, or thickness of material, typically one of several, covering a surface or body".

Quote:

‘Scuse me? Dobson’s whole hypothesis was that there shouldn’t be much ozone at all in winter – the fact that there was more than there should have been was his basis for experiment. Yes, it is most depleted in winter – just as it should be – it just isn’t depleted as much as should be accounted for by the complete absence of sunlight.

I admit that I haven't had the time to research this very carefully, but it isn't clear to me why Dobson's work would 'disprove' the existence of the ozone hole: Dobson's major papers were published in 1968 and 1973, and he died in 1975. According to skimming the Wikipedia article, indirect evidence of ozone depletion was experimentally observed beginning around the mid 1970's:

Quote:

In 1974 Frank Sherwood Rowland, Chemistry Professor at the University of California at Irvine, and his postdoctoral associate Mario J. Molina suggested that long-lived organic halogen compounds, such as CFCs, might behave in a similar fashion as Crutzen had proposed for nitrous oxide. . . . within three years most of the basic assumptions made by Rowland and Molina were confirmed by laboratory measurements and by direct observation in the stratosphere.

and the actual 'ozone hole' was discovered in 1985:

Quote:

The discovery of the Antarctic "ozone hole" by British Antarctic Survey scientists Farman, Gardiner and Shanklin (announced in a paper in Nature in May 1985) came as a shock to the scientific community, because the observed decline in polar ozone was far larger than anyone had anticipated.

If I understand correctly, the theory is that ozone depletion only became severe, creating the detectable hole, after a large amount of CFC compounds had been released, meaning that this only happened after Dobson had not only ceased his work, but was also dead. His work is important because he described the seasonal variations which were present before depletion became a major effect, allowing depletion to be inferred by the observation of ozone levels lower than those observed by Dobson, and others, in earlier decades.

Quote:

Anybody want to direct me to a study ANYWHERE that supports this contention.

Let me state the sentence a slightly different way, much closer to the truth:
“Winter isn’t when STORIES APPEAR IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA about the Antarctic ozone hole though, THE STORIES APPEAR IN THE SPRING.

I think that’s far closer to the truth. The reality is the stories appear at the end of winter (which is the beginning of spring), when the measured ozone depletion is at its highest. Outside of Dobson’s original work, I’ve never seen any figures anywhere on the state of depletion at any other time other than when the “maps” are printed in the newspapers in September. Is it slightly higher in August or October? Or July or November? Anybody got figures? A peer-reviewed paper perhaps?

I'm afraid that not being an atmospheric scientist, I don't have such a citation handy, and I don't have the time just now to take a serious look. If you are seriously interested in this, I suggest that you make such a search yourself. It is, in fact not clear to me that you have actually read Dobson's papers; I just skimmed two of them, noting the discrepancy with dates, mentioned above. Also interesting is this statement, from the abstract of his 1973 paper:

Originally Posted By: G. M. B. Dobson (1973)

A region of minimum ozone is also sometimes found at heights of around 23 km but less frequently than at 15 km. These high level minima are only found in late summer or autumn and in very high latitudes.

So, if significant depletion is observed in the winter or spring, it would suggest that new mechanisms are at work which were not present until after ~1970.

Quote:

So, after all that, “there IS a hole” – where? In what?

We've been through this; it is perfectly sensible to talk about a 'layer' of ozone, and an area where that layer is thin or missing can be sensibly described as a 'hole'.

Quote:

a lab finally managed to “recreate” this entirely hypothetical chemical reaction in a lab

If it was reproduced, anywhere at all, then it is clearly not 'hypothetical', but factual. The more correct question, which you were, I think, getting at, is whether it also occurs in the upper atmosphere. The wikipedia article on this subject cites a number of studies which claim to have found string evidence for various reactions destroying ozone. Again, I haven't had time to go read them yet, but I suggest that doing so would be a valuable step before dismissing their results.

Quote:

What this post normal science double-speak actually refers to. . .

This phrase appears much less meaningful than the one you were using it to attack.

Quote:

. . . which “broke down” O3 to O2 (the natural fate of O3 molecules anyway).

Sure, this is what ends up happening to the ozone in general, but your dismissal glosses over the central point: If the ozone is broken down by CFCs, it can't be broken down by UV radiation, thus absorbing some of that radiation.

Quote:

The offered “proof” that this was actually happening, was to record the incidence of hot, highly reactive chlorine ions in the upper atmosphere at the Antarctic, during the Ozone Minimum (September), and attribute the depletion to said hot, reactive chlorine molecules, which in turn were attributed to the breakdown of CFC’s.

The fact that the readings were taken over an active volcano (Mount Erebus) which was spewing forth more hot, reactive chlorine in a year that the total amount available from the catalytic conversion of all the CFC’s ever produced by Mankind, ever, was entirely besides the point.

If the experiment was conducted correctly, it may very well be entirely beside thet point: if the volcano is active pretty much all the time, and one observes an increase in chlorine at a particular time in the year, t is entirely plausible that the volcano isn't responsible. This is called 'distinguishing signal from background', and while not all experimenters always do it correctly, they are trained, by and large, to try.

Also, I'm guessing that measurements have been conducted at other locations besides McMurdo.

I find it interesting to note that the ozone hole can show up in odd ways; the experiment I work on regularly sees fluctuations (on top of the usual winter-summer variation) in cosmic ray muon rates that match up neatly with the behavior of the ozone hole, like a point a couple of years ago when it temporarily split into two separate holes.

[grasshopper]

Thanks for your reply, Niemand.

[A less presumptuous name.]

Originally Posted By: boggle

What this post normal science double-speak actually refers to, of course, is a reproducible experiment which showed that, if, under certain favourable lab conditions, you superheated CFC’s, they released super-reactive, hot chlorine ions, which “broke down” O3 to O2 (the natural fate of O3 molecules anyway).

What happens in the upper atmosphere is more or less this: The CFCs are his by radiation, which causes them to break down. This is initially good, as it absorbs radiation, which is what ozone does for us in the first place. However, the halide atoms produced are highly reactive and catalyze the decomposition of ozone, preventing ozone from absorbing radiation.

I see that people are referring to the chlorine as an ion, which is not true. The CFC decomposes, it doesn't ionize. Therefore, the resultant chlorine is an actual atom of chlorine, which is a free radical, and thus highly reactive.

[grasshopper]

Another viewpoint:

 

Quote:

“If the experiment was conducted correctly, it may very well be entirely beside thet point: if the volcano is active pretty much all the time, and one observes an increase in chlorine at a particular time in the year, t is entirely plausible that the volcano isn’t responsible. This is called ‘distinguishing signal from background’, and while not all experimenters always do it correctly, they are trained, by and large, to try. ”

 

There is another reason why the eruptions from Erubus are an irrelevance.

They don’t make it into the stratosphere. In fact no significant amounts of chemically active chlorine from the surface or volcanoes (except from major explosive events like Pinatubo) does reach the stratosphere according to direct measurement.

It combines with H2O and gets rained out of the troposphere. There is a ‘gap’ between the lower troposphere and the stratosphere where water vapour and chemically reactive chlorine compounds disappear. The only way for significant amounts of chlorine to reach the stratosphere is in a nonreactive form – CFCs.

All of this was established with balloon measurements, and that refurbished U2 spy-plane that NASA used!

 

You are also right about the requirement for sunlight to destroy the ozone. The CFC’s in the stratosphere are chemically unreactive, but are susceptible to UV. The chemically active chlorine compounds formed further react on stratospheric clouds and more UV provides the atomic chlorine that catalysis’s the increased O3 breakdown.

More detail here, but simply explained….-

 

http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/part3.html

 

None of this has been at all controversial since the late seventies, and was certainly scientifically legitimate by the mid 1980s.

This did not stop Du-Pont from continuing to claim that ozone depletion from CFC’s was ‘science-fiction or that “No ozone depletion has ever been detected…all ozone depletion figures to date are based on a series of uncertain projections.”

Through the 70s and 80s they actively lobbied to block any regulation of CFCs engaging in the sort of anti-science spin that is once again eerily familiar….

 

Even after the signing of the Montreal protocol Du Pont Chair Richard E. Heckert wrote to U.S. senators:…. At the moment, scientific evidence does not point to the need for dramatic CFC emission reductions. There is no available measure of the contribution of CFCs to any observed ozone change…”

 

Note the ambiguity of this statement, it does not deny that CFCs destroy ozone – that was well established – but it implies that the lack of a quantitative measurement of how much is being destroyed makes it unnecessary to make dramatic reductions.

This at a time when dramatic reductions in ozone levels over the Antarctic when sunlight returns and the known chemistry is operating where being detected.

 

However I doubt any of this will alter memoryvault’s fixed conviction that the ozone hole is a fraud invented and perpetrated by the jewish financier Bronfman who was leading Du Pont from 1980 as a scam to sell its patented alternatives….

 

Conspiracy theories are so much more satisfying for some…

-grin-

[Alorael at Large]

There's nothing wrong with treating the Dobson unit as a measure of the thickness of a hypothetical layer, per se, but the way it was written struck me as a disingenuous assertion that our measurements aren't meaningful. At standard temperature and pressure, gas volume and number of molecules are interchangeable. There's nothing shady about the layer at sea level, and it neither requires nor suggests that ozone is either actually at sea level or uniformly distributed.

 

Likewise, "ozone is not a natural state of oxygen." It's quite natural—it happens in nature all the time in the ozone layer! Not at all stable at sea level, sure, and not even highly stable in the stratosphere, but it's not unnatural! But okay, yes, I left out the fact that the large oxygen reservoir in the atmosphere is the diatomic gas.

 

Dobson units only become a bad way of measuring ozone in the ozone layer if there's a large amount of ozone that isn't in the ozone layer. There isn't. And it's also irrelevant, because ozone can absorb UV no matter what its altitude is. If the column is depleted the column is receiving more UV radiation. There is an observed layer, but it's irrelevant to the existence of a hole anyway.

 

And slipstream currents—can we drop them from the discussion? They exist, and nobody is denying them. Nobody denies that they move ozone around. The fact that Dobson discovered them has no bearing on the debate.

 

Finally, chemical-speak and citations. I said alkyl halides because CFCs are only one ozone-depleting chemical. Bromofluorocarbons are another. Both are alkyl halides, so that's the term I used. For you seasonal information, you're claiming that newspapers print articles in the spring. Maybe they do; I haven't seen any in years. But our spring (unless you're in southern Africa, South America, or Australia) isn't Antarctic spring, and newspapers are a terrible source of good scientific information.

 

Want studies? Here's an informal overview that explains things well. Here's the abstract of a Nature paper on it. You can look up more yourself if you want them, but I'm more interested in seeing what studies you can cite that back up your position.

 

—Alorael, who finds the rejection of lab studies laughable. Of course the studies done in labs were under laboratory conditions. That's how you try to get rid of confounding factors! And the atmosphere is full of random gases that can confound. The mechanism has been shown, the necessary material and conditions are found in the atmosphere, and there is observed ozone depletion. That's a pretty good scientific argument in the absence of counterevidence.

[waterplant]

Originally Posted By: Gentlemen Scholars

Likewise, "ozone is not a natural state of oxygen." It's quite natural—it happens in nature all the time in the ozone layer! Not at all stable at sea level, sure, and not even highly stable in the stratosphere, but it's not unnatural!

I think Boggle means 'not natural' meaning not usual or most stable. Of course ozone is a naturally occurring state of oxygen - even chicken McNuggets are natural in some sense of the word - just maybe not it's automatic first choice.

[Lilith]

The McNugget Layer would be a good name for a film

[Sudanna]

Originally Posted By: waterplant

Originally Posted By: Gentlemen Scholars

Likewise, "ozone is not a natural state of oxygen." It's quite natural—it happens in nature all the time in the ozone layer! Not at all stable at sea level, sure, and not even highly stable in the stratosphere, but it's not unnatural!

I think Boggle means 'not natural' meaning not usual or most stable. Of course ozone is a naturally occurring state of oxygen - even chicken McNuggets are natural in some sense of the word - just maybe not it's automatic first choice.

I think Alo got that.

[grasshopper]

Originally Posted By: waterplant

I think Boggle means...

Boggle means nothing of the sort! I've forgotten most of the science I learnt at school, but am still very interested in these issues. All I have done is copy and paste, and acted as a go-between. I'd like to thank everyone for their answers so far, they really have been fantastic.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

The McNugget Layer would be a good name for a film

It's a McEnviromental disaster!

[Alorael at Large]

If you're communicating technically, "unnatural" isn't a meaningful term. If you're communicating colloquially, you're writing for an audience that can be misled by the term. There's no good reason for it to come up when its varied connotations aren't wanted.

 

—Alorael, who does not want a McNugget layer. And he'd argue that McNuggets are not natural, although they're also not unnatural. They're artificial. Ozone can be artificially produced, but the ozone layer isn't, and in fact it would be rather difficult to artificially supplement or maintain the ozone layer.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Gentlemen Scholars

If you're communicating technically, "unnatural" isn't a meaningful term. If you're communicating colloquially, you're writing for an audience that can be misled by the term. There's no good reason for it to come up when its varied connotations aren't wanted.

It is, however, and excellent term to use for obfuscation purposes. It means nothing and says a lot, which is why I like it very much.

[Alorael at Large]

You like it and I want to excise it for much the same reasons.

 

—Alorael, who means that he wants it gone precisely because you like it. Sorry.

[Student of Trinity]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

The McNugget Layer

Brilliant — we skip the egg completely!

[grasshopper]

I've been away from the computer for a few days, and missed this dedicated post to your comments:

 

http://libertygibbert.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/dobson-dykes-and-diverse-disputes/

 

I won't paste it here, as the debate is getting very long now! Please feel free to comment if you want to, we have one warmist, Izen, who is a good chap, and would appreciate the moral support. I don't know the arguments in depth myself, but think it is very important at this time when people are beginning to have doubts about the integrity of the scientific establishment that as many people as possible have access to the facts; and that these facts are explained and discussed in terms of the layman! Thanks for your responses so far!

[Sarachim]

Originally Posted By: boggle

I don't know the arguments in depth myself, but think it is very important at this time when people are beginning to have doubts about the integrity of the scientific establishment that as many people as possible have access to the facts; and that these facts are explained and discussed in terms of the layman! Thanks for your responses so far!

A little learning is a dangerous thing.

Anyway, I'm not a scientist, but I'm pretty sure that anybody who includes a slur in the title of their post on global warming isn't one either.

[grasshopper]

Where was the slur?

[RCCCL]

Dyke is a slur against Lesbians. The fact that this person decided to go for attacks on lesbians rather than respond intelligently against the arguments originally(something he admits to) suggests that he couldn't think of a rebuttal, and his method of postponing his rebuttal speeks very low if his intellect IMHO.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: boggle

I've been away from the computer for a few days, and missed this dedicated post to your comments:

http://libertygibbert.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/dobson-dykes-and-diverse-disputes/

I won't paste it here, as the debate is getting very long now! Please feel free to comment if you want to, we have one warmist, Izen, who is a good chap, and would appreciate the moral support. I don't know the arguments in depth myself, but think it is very important at this time when people are beginning to have doubts about the integrity of the scientific establishment that as many people as possible have access to the facts; and that these facts are explained and discussed in terms of the layman! Thanks for your responses so far!

lol "warmist"

[Lilith]

but yeah that entire post is a hilariously dishonest characterisation of our arguments and i don't really feel like having a conversation with him if he's just going to grumble about postmodernism and accuse us of being a bunch of lying cultists for our trouble

[Lilith]

seriously nobody here resorted to personal abuse no matter how dumb we thought his arguments were. does he think it's fun to try to ruin people's day just because they disagree with him? screw that. i'm out.

[Lilith]

also what's with all the secrecy about where the arguments he's "rebutting" are coming from? is he not man enough to admit "i'm arguing with people from a video game forum and still losing"?

[Alorael at Large]

I'm with Thuryl, and after reading the comments with Izen as well. This person has no interest in actually engaging in debate. He's just quote mining, and he's not even doing a good job. His first problem is "Hurr hurr, µm isn't a unit of molecules!" Yes, it sounds absurd, but it's true, and when he's just not willing to accept that something is true because it's easier to bash it as a sign of his opponents' idiocy, well, there's no point anymore.

 

—Alorael, who finds the "fun to try to ruin people's day just because they disagree with him" comment from amusing. Oh, the times gone by on Spiderweb.

[Slawbug]

...I'm confused. Why did he even bring lesbians into the argument? Was it solely for the purpose of a slur and a bizarre analogy, or what?

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Divine Prominence

—Alorael, who finds the "fun to try to ruin people's day just because they disagree with him" comment from amusing. Oh, the times gone by on Spiderweb.

i used to be a nicer poster than i am today

i was once... a human, like you...

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

...I'm confused. Why did he even bring lesbians into the argument? Was it solely for the purpose of a slur and a bizarre analogy, or what?

the environment is a leftist conspiracy. you get bonus points if you combo an attack on the environment with an attack on other progressive causes

[Lilith]

i've given up hope of a sincere meeting of minds and am resorting to mockery b/c it's more fun

[Sarachim]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

...I'm confused. Why did he even bring lesbians into the argument? Was it solely for the purpose of a slur and a bizarre analogy, or what?

the environment is a leftist conspiracy. you get bonus points if you combo an attack on the environment with an attack on other progressive causes

The rare environment/lesbian/postmodernism trifecta is worth a lot of points, but few can pull it off.

[Slawbug]

ah. what about summoning the Palin eidolon, do I get bonus points for that?

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

i used to be a nicer poster than i am today

i was once... a human, like you...

He's more machine now than man, twisted, and evil.

Originally Posted By: Lilith

but yeah that entire post is a hilariously dishonest characterisation of our arguments and i don't really feel like having a conversation with him if he's just going to grumble about postmodernism and accuse us of being a bunch of lying cultists for our trouble

Resorting to postmodernist arguments in any discussion EXCEPT one on literary/art criticism should result in your immediate expulsion from the debate. What little respect I once had for pomo has be stretched to the absolute limit by people twisting it to support their own agenda.

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

ah. what about summoning the Palin eidolon, do I get bonus points for that?

Too easy.

Originally Posted By: Lilith

i used to be a nicer poster than i am today

i was once... a human, like you...

Must have been way before my time.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

He's more machine now than man, twisted, and evil.

she

Quote:

Resorting to postmodernist arguments in any discussion EXCEPT one on literary/art criticism should result in your immediate expulsion from the debate. What little respect I once had for pomo has be stretched to the absolute limit by people twisting it to support their own agenda.

what does this have to do with anything i said

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Originally Posted By: Dantius

He's more machine now than man, twisted, and evil.

she

Last time I checked, Darth Vader isn't a she.

Originally Posted By: Lilith

what does this have to do with anything i said

It was in reference to the blog post, which you referenced. It had no bearing on anything you said, it was just a handy thing to quote.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Last time I checked, Darth Vader isn't a she.

please refrain from examining darth vader's genital organs

it was bad enough when padme did it

[izen]

Thank you for your interest in this topic, yes I'm the poster from the libertygibbert site - the 'warmist' -grin-

 

A bit of clarification may be in order, it involves some history...

Most of the posters there are refugees from the UK Daily Telegraph comments section - a 'hotbed' of AGW theory rejectionists....

 

We left when the paper changed the software into something barely adequate for a chat-room, and hopeless for 'serious' discussion...

At the DT there was a prolific poster who regaled us all with a byzantine conspiracy theory involving the Bullingdon club, David Cameron and the BBC. It involved secret killings of the rich and powerful by lesbians.

Yes I KNOW this sounds bizarre, and I don't THINK anybody took it seriously except the poster who dumped megs of this stuff all through the threads, but the result is that the lesbian assassins became a bit of a running joke on the blog.

 

Of course HOW you 'run' with that joke is a matter of taste, and the poster with the guest thread at libertygibbert is not to my taste....

 

Hope that background helps!

-GRIN-

[Alorael at Large]

Hi! Good to see that our warmist propaganda has brought another wayward soul in search of a cause to our sanctum. We shall rejoice together by destroying ozone in our secret, chlorine-filled volcano lair.

 

—Alorael, who also found the postmodernist angle odd. While he'll admit that he finds postmodernism to be the last refuge of many literary scoundrels, it's not usually used in debates about science. Not even to tar and feather opponents. Points for creativity?

[grasshopper]

Originally Posted By: RCCCL

Dyke is a slur against Lesbians.

I thought it was just an analogy of the The Little Dutch Boy trying to plug that hole in the dyke/ozone layer.

About the abuse, when you get the chance and you are in the UK, you should visit the Houses of Parliament.

And congratulations to Yeovil, who seems to have managed to crash the spiderweb forums with the posting of that link, which also brings us to the nub of the issue. I posted the opening post on that Sunday, because like someone said, a little learning can be a dangerous thing; so I have two choices: to either completely forget everything I have learnt, or learn more. I'm very thankful to those who have responded to memory vault's posts so far, as it has given me more food for thought. And not just me, but also the hundreds of lurkers who read that website. If you can deal with the personal abuse, you will find a friend in Izen, and you will have the opportunity through your posts to let the lurker make up his own mind about who is right and who is wrong. Your reasoned answers have already given lots of people the chance to think about the ozone thing in more detail, which is very very valuable. So I thank you all again, not just on my behalf, but on the behalf of all of the thinking lurkers.