Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! A Small Double Ozone Hole in 2002 Credit: SVS, TOMS, NASA As expected, the ozone hole near Earth's South Pole is back again this year. This time, however, it's smaller than the past two years, and has an unusual double lobe structure. Ozone is important because it shields us from damaging ultraviolet sunlight. Ozone is vulnerable, though, to CFCs and halons being released into the atmosphere. International efforts to reduce the use of these damaging chemicals appear to be having a positive effect on their atmospheric abundance. The smaller size of the ozone hole this year, however, is attributed mostly to warmer than normal air in the surrounding stratosphere. The above picture of the ozone hole was taken on September 24 by TOMS on board the orbiting Earth Probe satellite.
What a coincidence, we are discussing this very topic in Chemistry class and have that same picture. The UV-A radiation from the sun is the least harmful of the 3 (being UV-A, UV-B, and UV-C) but is most llikely to get through. The steady state of the stratosphere is being disturbed due to the CFC being released into the air. The Chapman cycle is the steady state reaction that occur in the stratosphere helping to block out harmful UV radiation. Chapman Cycle: UV + O2 --> 2O O + O2 --> O3 O3 + UV --> O + O2 O3 + O --> 2O2
The hoax is still alive Nice picture, wet1. Computer imaging can do wonders with useless data. It seems that the ozone hole scare is still in good health. They keep passing subtle missinformation (or shameless lies) as <i>"Ozone is vulnerable, though, to CFCs and halons being released into the atmosphere."</i>, without letting know the gullible people that CFCs and halocarbons are <B>INERT</B>, so they can't react with ozone. In any case, the ozone <B>MIGHT</B> react with chlorine, but <b>ONLY</b> on the surface of ice crystals in stratospheric polar clouds (SPC) over Antarctica, as demonstrated (back in 1988) by S. Salomon, R. Stolarski, et al, one of the teams trying to prove the dangers of CFCs to our stratosphere. (published in Science, 1988. I will give you the reference in a next post, if you are interested, maybe quoting the main conclusions of the paper.) This means that the chlorine allegedly coming from CFCs cannot attack ozone <b>nowhere in the stratosphere</b>, and that's the reason why the ozone levels --outside the infamous hole in Antarctica-- has not changed <b>AT ALL</b>, beyond the natural fluctuactions from one hour to another, day to day, week to week, from one station to another, as recorded by all UV recording instruments all over the world. No arguing possible here. But the scare and the hoax must be mantained in working conditions, because the amount of money involved is huge. Presently, the production of CFCs is <b>well and alive</b>, esoecially in China and India (besides France and other western countries) and the black market created by the CFC ban is greater than the weapons trafficking, lagging not too far behind the narcotraffic business. Money talks ... and the fools listen. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I was under the impression that CFCs are inert near the surface, but when atmospheric mixing and convection carries them into the tropopause, intense UV radiation can break the CFC molecules into their individual atoms, which then interact with the ozone layer. Peace.
Hello Halo! Did you know that the chlorine cathalytic reaction allegedly responsible for destroying ozone in the infamous layer <b>has never been demonstrated in any lab essays?</b> They tried and tried, but nothing happened. It all relates to the "gaseous phase" of chemical reactions: chlorine only reacts with ozone over the solid surface of ice crystal in the polar clouds over Antarctica. Have your chemistry professor explain this to you. You'll be amazed. Another tip: ozone is quite a lousy filter for UV radiation. The big job is being accomplished by oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere. See: oxygen = 21%, nitrogen = 78%, ozone = 0,000003% (that's right, just 3 millionths percent!). If you compress all ozone to sea level pressures, you'll get a mere <b>3 millimeters in average</b> (that is what the Dobson Units are referring to), while compressing the oxygen and nitrogen will yield a layer of <b>about 5 kilometers.</b> Besides that, the energy taken by oxygen molecules from UV photons is <u>+</u> 118,000 kilocalories/mol, and nitrogen molecules take 171,000 kilocalories/mol. Ozone just "steals" about <b>64 kilocalories/mol</b>. Still thinking ozone is any good as a "shield"? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Let's see. CFCs measured at about 35 km altitude is about <b>0,1 parts per trillion</b> (ppt), and that's because CFCs are about <b>4,5 times heavier than air. </b> The UV radiation with the necessary energy for spliting the CFCs molecules are well above the 45 kms, where no CFCs are found. Thar UV radiation is known as UV-C. But even if those 0,1 pppt of CFCs release their chlorine atoms, the they cannot react with ozone due to, as explained in a previous post above, the gaseous phase of chemistry.
I haven't analyzed all the data, so I'm not going to try to draw conclusions as of yet. However, just in briefly looking around the Internet, I'd say that the issue CFCs and their relationship to ozone depletion have been quite well studied. Some URLs for people to scout around in: http://www.nas.nasa.gov/Services/Education/Resources/TeacherWork/Ozone/Controversy.html http://www.shsu.edu/~chemistry/ESC440/PSC.html http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/ozone/ http://www.ciesin.org/TG/OZ/cfcozn.html http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/stratcl/ http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/antarctic/ Edufer's points do not appear to be very well accepted by the general atmospheric scientific community.
That is true. The same scientific community who want to ban the herbal supplement (including Chinese and Ayurvedic) saying they dont work. I wonder who funds these studies? And why is that only the chemicals whose patent is expired are on the hit list?
Scientific Community? On the other hand, you appear to believe that the <I>“general atmospheric scientific community”</I> is composed solely by people who has taken sides with the “depletion theory”. I took the time and effort to read all the links you provided (not that I expected to see something new, though) but just to have a confirmation of the uncertainties and false reasoning, and poor science that surround their arguments. A few examples will suffice: In the long pages of the “<b>ciesin</b>” links, we see this introductory remark: <blockquote> <b><I>“Special attention is devoted to the evidence that most of the chlorine comes from the photolysis of CFC's and related compounds.” </blockquote></I></b>, Which, of course, is a <b>gross untruth</b> (or blatant lie?). It has been demonstrated many times that the yearly CFCs releases to the environment was 1% of the CFCs produced, whose chlorine content is about 7,500 tons. Compare those 7,500 tons with the <b>650 million tons of chlorine produced annually by Mother Nature</b> (600 million come from the sea, 5 million from ocean biota, 8,4 million from forest fires, 36 million from volcanoes, etc). So, if the page <b>starts with a gross “mistake/misinformation/ignorance/lie”</b>, how can we be sure that the rest of the article is not also a bunch of “mistakes/misinformations/ignorances/lies”, or simply a distortion of facts, and data manipulation –dressed with fancy pseudo-scientific jargon? Then comes the fact that CFCs are, in average, <b>4,5 times heavier than air</b>, so it makes it quite difficult for them to get all those 7,500 tons of chlorine to the stratosphere. As I told you before, measurements of CFCs in the stratosphere, (made by R. Fabian, S.A. Borders, and S. Penkett, <I>“Halocarbons in the Stratosphere,”</I> Nature, Dec 24, 1981) showed that Freon-11 was found in concentrations of <b>less than 0.1 ppt</b> (parts per TRILLION) at 29,000 meters, CF<sub>3</sub>Br was in much less than 0,1 ppTrillion at 26,000 meters, CF<sub>2</sub>Cl<sub>2</sub> was about 9 ppb at 32 km, and Freon-12 was about 10 ppb at the same altitude. The important fact here is: UV radiation with the energy enough to split the highly stable CFC molecule is found well above the 40 km mark, the region where oxygen (although one of the strongest gas molecules –along with nitrogen- it is not as stable as the CFC molecule) absorbs almost all the UV-C radiation that could dissociate the CFC molecules. The comes the issue of “assumptions”, shown in http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/ozone/rtm/mval.html : <blockquote><I>“UV irradiance was calculated every half hour from 8AM to 7PM Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) based on variation in solar zenith angle. Ozone and aerosol levels <b>were assumed constant</b> over the day <b>due to lack of appropriate measurements.</b>” … “With uncertainties in boundary layer aerosol and ozone in addition to the non-validated total column ozone value, <b>these estimates give confidence</B> that this model provides an accurate representation of the UV budget at the surface of the Earth.”</I></blockquote> Confidence? Based on unproved an unmeasured ozone and aerosols levels, just because there were <b>”a lack of appropriate measurements”</b>? Is this sound science? Are this people insane? Or they just think we are ignorant or simply stupid? Then comes this piece of misinformation: (in http://www.shsu.edu/~chemistry/ESC440/PSC.html) <I>“Arguing against <b>the presence of CFCs in the stratosphere</b> is a waste of time: CFCs have been detected in the stratosphere, their chlorine containing decomposition products have also been detected there, and their fluorine containing decomposition products have been detected in the stratosphere. Period. The data are overwhelming.” </I> The data really is overwhelming, but not favorable to the “depletionists” or “general atmospheric scientific community”, as the aforementioned paper by Fabian, Borders, and Penkett showed that the amount of CFC is barely measurable above 32 km, so the data mentioned by the article becomes “flimsy”, or simply “no data at all”. The question that seem to be crucial here is: <b>Have the UV levels increased at the Earth’s surface?</b> According to many scientists they have not. As demonstrated by Dr. Joseph Scotto, et al, <I>“Biologically Effective Ultraviolet Radiation: Surface Measurements in the United States, 1974-1985”</I> – Science, Feb, Feb. 12, 1988) the levels of UV radiation went down: They say: <blockquote> <I>“Average annual R-B (Robertson-Berger meters, in which UV radiation is measured) counts for two consecutive 6-year periods (1975-1979 and 1979-1985) <b>show a negative shift at each station, with decreases ranging from 2 to 7 percent … Figure 3 shows that there are no positive trends in annual R-B counts for 1974 to 1985 … For all the stations the R-B counts dropped and average of 0,7 percent since 1974.”</I> (page 762).</b> </blockquote> In a subsequent issue of <I>Science</I>, Nov. 25, 1988, Scotto rejects the possibility that urban pollution was scattering incoming UV-B and thus causing the decrease in UV reaching the Earth. Scotto points to data from the sir station at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, <I>“which is relatively free from urban air pollution”</I>, yet, he says, <I>“preliminary analysis of data from this site shows no increase in ultraviolet B radiation from 1974 to 1985”</I>. I could go for days showing you every piece of junk science that appeared in the links you provided thinking they contained the scientific truth –perhaps because, as you implied in your post, you didn’t go to deep into the subject. However, it was a good try, as it showed that you made some research of your own. Now you should make more research, but this time looking at what the “skeptics” and “dissenters” have to say. For example, Soren H. Larsen and Thormod Henriksen, from the University of Oslo’s Institute of Physics, say (in “<I>Persistent Arctic Ozone Layer”, <b>Nature</b></I>, Jan. 11, 1990): that gases like CFCs have had a negligible effect on the Arctic ozone layer. <i>“The general balance between formation and destruction of ozone has not changed, at least not to an extent that is apparent in the long-term observations”.</i> I don’t want to bore you with all the hard scientific data available that show, without doubt, that the variations of ozone concentrations in the stratosphere are caused by natural reasons. AS J.K: Angell, “On the Relation Between Atmospheric Ozone and Sunspot Number,”, Journal of climate, Nov. 1989) showed a clear evident correlation between the 11-year and 22-year cycle in ozon levels, matching the Sun’s sunspot cycle. The graph from Angell’s paper shows it clearly (the graph is in Spanish –taken from our website of the Argentine Foundation for a Scientific Ecology- but it can be understood by anyone. <br> <center><img src=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images/Ozono-Manchas.jpg></center> <br> As in the “global warming” subject (or any environmental subject, for that matter) the ozone subject is divided in equal parts between “believers” and “dissenters”. The only judges here are the <b>scientific, unbiased, undistorted facts</b>. Politics should stay out of the matter. But, sadly, in this matter <b>money talks loudly</b> –on both sides, of course, so the issue will remain in darkness for ages.
You lost me some here. What study? Which Chinese herb? What is Ayurvedic? What study(s) have said they do work? Which chemicals with patents are you talking about? My point was not to say whether Edufer is right or wrong, but just to say that there is a lot of controversy about it and I put some interesting URLs behind that statement. I didn't want others perusing this thread and thinking ozone depletion is as big a lie as Edufer would like it thought without checking into the other side of the argument. However, I'm only a computer programmer and my high school science background is 25 years gone, so I'm not going to claim to be an expert. But I am going to take a look at Edufer's message next. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
BatM: We (you, me and Edufer) have gone through this same item before. I would also like to point out that there are stuff out there that is ignored and people need to ask why. May be those who are in a position to do research could get engaged for the truth. Due to pharma company pressure, most alternative medicine that does not have a patent are regarded as useless. Granted, there are a lot of useless products out there, so are even those which are patented (they may work 50% - 70% of cases). Products whose patent ran out are items such as Freon, PCB. I am sure there are others. Just another view point to think about. Since neither I, nor you and even Edufer did not physically took a sample up there - we all can point to other studies and thoughts. In this regard, your posting is as valid as Edufer's except that Edufers information makes sense from a chemical engineering standpoint. Let the reader beware.
Re: Scientific Community? No, just that there is a large amount of scientific resources that do. I go by the skeptic's credo, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". In the early 70s, I would've said that the claim of ozone depletion was a theory requiring much evidence to back it up. Now, 30 years later, much work has been done and the evidence appears to be pretty solid -- sufficient that I would now view the "no depletion theory" as extraordinary (and, therefore, requiring extraordinary proof). You caught me on the phrase. When I wrote it, it looked okay and I couldn't think of anything better, but it bothered me. You still don't like Columbia University, huh? References? This report from just some of the companies producing CFCs suggest that far more than 1% is eventually released into the atmosphere. Also, CFCs are not removed from the atmosphere until they are broken apart by upper-atmosphere UV radiation whereas natural chlorine is much more readily absorbed by water in the atmosphere. Finally, CFCs have an atmospheric lifetime of 50-200+ years, so they accumulate whereas the natural chlorine cycle is not cumulative. If you accept that, then there would be no stratospheric ozone layer and we should all be breathing ozone (see this). Or, using your previous statements, all the ozone would be at our feet. How did they get their measurements? NOAA suggests differently at here, but I'm still looking for better links. Reference? I had a reference to something showing how organic chlorine is prevalent in the lower stratosphere and inorganic chlorine is prevalent in the higher stratosphere and how this relates to CFCs, but I can't find it right now. Your use of ellipsis is telling particularly since that section clearly said "model estimates showed variation of less than 8% at 305 nm and 320 nm, and less than 4% at 340 nm relative to measurements". The point was that, even without these particular ozone and aerosol measurements, the model stil produced reasonably close values to actual measurements. But then to others, they have: http://www.srrb.noaa.gov/UV/ENCYCLOPEDIA_1.pdf http://www.gcrio.org/UNEP1998/UNEP98p7.html However, more analysis is needed. Your references, however good they may be, are hard for me to find because they aren't URLs. My understanding is that arctic ozone is affected differently than antarctic ozone due to differences in the atmospheric cycling between the poles (I probably stated that wrong). What does Larsen and Henriksen say about antarctic ozone and the effects of CFCs on it? This news release suggests that arctic levels of ozone are being greatly affected. So sunspots cause fluctuations in the ozone levels? Why would that be unexpected? Sunspots would increase solar radiation which, in turn, would have to be absorbed by the ozone layer and, thus, temporarily reduce its concentration. If you ignore the variations due to sunspot activity, what is the overall trend in ozone levels over a long period of time (you choose the timescale)? That is more germane to this discussion. As you counsel, do not let your inherent bias against "environmentalists" lead you to discount what is said out of hand. Ultimately, the facts are not the judges of this issue as they cannot make judgements about their validity to the problem -- only we (the human race) can.
Examples? This doesn't make sense. The market has already put enormous pressure to bring alternative medicine to market. That's why there is such a huge amount of herbals on the shelves. And, yet, as you point out, a large (and unknown) amount of these products are useless or even downright dangerous. Many of these alternative products have not had any significant study and most have not had any large scale study. Sure, some of them have value (possibly great value), but, without the proper study, all you have to go on is "tribal knowledge". In theory, the pharmaceutical products have gone thru testing. In practice, that testing can also be faulty (or, in some cases, just not executed). With validated testing, at least you have more to go on. The cost of doing the testing, though, means that only the potentially expensive will get the testing. It will be up to the market to push for better testing, but that will also increase the cost of the product. Ahh, the relationship to this discussion. This also doesn't make sense because the majority of the studies on ozone depletion and its relationship to CFCs are coming from government backed institutions rather than industry. In fact, the reverse way of looking at this is easier to understand -- that industry sources want to discredit "ozone depletion" and CFCs because it would be very expensive for them to switch to something else. Always.
Is that supposed to suggest that, since HCFCs cause this problem, we should go back to CFCs? Take a look at these: http://www.tibet.ca/wtnarchive/2001/1/17_6.html http://www.ineosfluor.com/refrigeration/klea/news/ArticleText.asp?ID=62 http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/abstract/1736
That is a good point. We know that CFCs were found in the upper atmosphere even though in small amounts. We know that in the laboratory CFC plus UV and ozone produces Chlorine Dioxide which kills the ozone. We also know that between 1979 and 1993, the ozone depletion took place. We also know that after we banned the aerosol cans with Freon - few years later like now, the ozone hole is closing. That is a pretty strong case for proving that the theory is correct. The only thing that bothers me is that the ozone reaction is not with CFC but with chlorine. What if the photons breakdown the chlorine molecule to their atomic states? If that is the case, are we not having a false sense of security? Only time will tell if the ozone layer grows big again in the next 20 years....on its own solar radiation cycle...
Apparently HCFC is not good either. HCFC Phaseout Schedule All developed (i.e., non-Article 5) countries that are Parties to the Montreal Protocol are subject to a cap on their consumption of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). Consumption is calculated by the following formula: consumption = production plus imports minus exports. The cap is set at 2.8% of that country's 1989 chlorofluorocarbon consumption + 100% of that country's 1989 HCFC consumption. (Quantities of chemicals measured under the cap are ODP-weighted, which means that each chemical's relative contribution to ozone depletion is taken into account.) Under the Montreal Protocol, the U.S. and other developed nations are obligated to achieve a certain percentage of progress towards the total phaseout of HCFCs, by certain dates. These nations use the cap as a baseline to measure their progress towards achieving these percentage goals. The following table shows the U.S. schedule for phasing out its use of HCFCs in accordance with the terms of the Protocol. The Agency intends to meet the limits set under the Protocol by accelerating the phaseout of HCFC-141b, HCFC-142b and HCFC-22. These are the most damaging of the HCFCs. By eliminating these chemicals by the specified dates, the Agency believes that it will meet the requirements set by the Parties to the Protocol. The third and fourth columns of the table show how the U.S. will meet the international obligations described in the first two columns. http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/hcfc.html
Humh? Chlorine is an atom, CFC is the molecule (chloroflourocarbon). The issue is that CFCs are broken down in the upper atmosphere and chlorine is released. That, in turn, causes the following reactions: Cl + O<sub>3</sub> = ClO + O<sub>2</sub> ClO + O = Cl + O<sub>2</sub> (the extra O comes from the normal breakdown of ozone in the upper atmosphere) Net effect: O<sub>3</sub> + O = 2O<sub>2</sub> (ie. ozone is destroyed) I wonder if it is that quick. Some things I read suggest that CFCs have an tropospheric lifespan of 50-200+ years.
You are so wrong! …and still you think you are right because you got your information from the NOAA, and the rest of people active in the web, pushing this hoax to unbelievable levels. Unfortunately, my references are hard to get: you must get the scientific papers published in science journals, and that is a hard task, indeed. But, if you try hard enough, you can get the information: try the US Library of Congress, for instance. I am luck to have a cousin of mine working there as the head of the Latin American Department (for more than 30 years) so every time I need that kind of information I ask her for such a favor. In the case of removal from the atmosphere, there are many studies performed by many scientists, but one of the most important is the one carried by M.A.K. Khalil and R.A. Rasmussen, “The Potential of Soils as Sinks of Chlorofluorocarbons and Other Man-Made Chlorocarbons”, in Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 16, (July 1989), when working out of the Institute of Atmospheric Sciences at the Oregon Graduate Center, said in their report that “their measurements showed amazingly rapid removal of chlorocarbons by the soils and other constituents of the termite mounds. The soils depleted methylchloroform (CH3CCl3) and carbon tetrachloride (CCl3) by about 25 percent and more than 50 percent, respectively. According to their paper “<I>Such large changes cannot be explained by the slowness of the processes that transport these chemicals into the soil of the termite mounds or soils in general… It can only be a result of either adsorption in the soil or removal by heterogeneous or biological processes”</I> (page 680). What makes the whole subject suspicious is that <b>several scientists interested in pursuing this line of research had their request for funding rejected.</b> However, since 1989 (time of the study) this fact was thoroughly investigated and proved beyond doubt: soils and bacteria remove CFC from the atmosphere. Moreover, other studies proved that the main sink for CFCs are the oceans, something quite logical, as CFCs are heavier than air and they have a strong tendency to sink to lower places. As demonstrated by J.L. Bullister, in “<I>Chlorofluorocarbons as Time-Dependant Tracers in the Ocean”</I>, in Oceanography, (November 1989), have a graph (I would have to scan it and upload to our website to post it here –I will do it, though, just need some time) where we can see more than 2,000 samples of CFCs found at different depths (up to 4,000 meters deep) in varying concentrations –much higher than the concentrations found in the stratosphere. So the question arise: If CFCs are destroying the ozone layer in the stratosphere, as the depletionists claim, then what are these CFCs doing at the bottom of the ocean? (By the way: J.L. Bullister works for the NOAA. Would you believe him?) If you really want to make a serious research on this matter, I provide below a list of references (alas, not URLs)where you might find the scientific facts: (1) Brockman, Fred, et al., 1989, “Isolation and Characterization of Quinoline Degrading Bacteria from Subsurface Sediments,” <I>Applied & Environmental Microbiology</I>, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 1029-1032. (2) John L. Bullister, 1989, “Chlorofluorocarbons as time dependant tracers in the ocean,” <I>Oceanography</I>, (November), pp. 12-17. (3) P. Fabian, R. Borchers, G. Gomer, et al., 1984, @The Vertical Distribution of Halocarbons in the Stratosphere”, in <I>“Atmospheric Ozone”</I>, Proceedings of the Quadrennial Ozone Symposium, Sept. 1984, (4) P. Fabian, R. Borchers, S.A. Penkett, et al., 1981, “Halocarbons in the Stratosphere”, in <I>“Nature”</I>, *Dec. 24( pp. 733.735. (5) Aslam Khalil and R.A. Rasmussen, M.Y. Wang, et al., “Emission of Trace Gases from Chinese Rice Fields and Biogas Generators> CH2, N2O, CO, H2 Chlorocarbons and Hydrocarbons”, <I>Chemosphere</I>, Vol. 20, No. ½, pp. 207/2026. (6) Derek Lovely and Joan Woodward, 1990, “Consumption of Freon F-11 and F-12 in Methane-Producing Aquatic Sediments”, paper presented at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union, San Francisco, Calif., (Dec. 3-7, 1990) I have read all these papers, (and about a couple of thousand more) that have convinced me that there is no scientific base for the ozone depletion theory. I have read also the same amount of papers by the “depletionists”, and have a severe lack of scientific methodology, wild assumptions, and, quite often, shameless lies and distortion of facts, data manipulation, wrong statistical procedures, etc. Why? I do not get your reasoning. Ozone is heavier than air so it must go down? It does go down, indeed, but it is instantly replaced by new ozone created by the splitting of oxygen molecules. And that is one of the reasons why the ozone layer cannot be depleted: the rate of reposition is much higher than the rate of removal or destruction. The proof is just under your nose: the replenishment of ozone in the Antarctic Hole starts when the first UV rays hit the stratosphere in early spring. If the chlorine atoms were so effective in destroying the ozone forming the hole, why don’t they slow down the replenishment? We could assume that replenishing a 60% reduction of the layer would take more time than replenishing a 15% reduction, isn’t it? That is, if a 15% depletion replenishes by late October, a 60% reduction will replenish around late November. But surprisingly, the hole closes every year by the same date, give or take a couple of days. And this tells us that, <b>if chlorine cannot delay the replenishment of ozone, then it was not the cause of its destruction.</b> My timescale would be 30 years. The same span referred to by Dra. Victoria Tafuri, who’s been in charge of measuring ozone at the Villa Ortuzar national Observatory in Buenos Aires, who has stated many times <i>“We have been measuring the ozone layer for the last 30 years</i> (also in Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, the southernmost city in the world) <i>and have not found any decrease in ozone levels --other than natural seasonal variations.” </i> The NOAA website you provided gave valuable information –on how people can lie when they have an agenda to push. One topic was: <blockquote> <b>When Did the Antarctic Ozone Hole First Appear? </b> <i>The springtime Antarctic ozone hole is a new phenomenon <b>that appeared in the early 1980s. </b> The observed average amount of ozone during September, October, and November over the British Antarctic Survey station at Halley, Antarctica, first revealed notable decreases in the early 1980s, compared with the preceding data obtained starting in 1957. </i> </blockquote> Which, of course, <b>is a shameless lie</b>. As most people know, the infamous ozone hole was noticed, simultaneously, by British scientist George Dobson, and by the French scientists at the Dumont D’Urville scientific station (at the other side of Antarctica), when they discovered such low levels of stratospheric ozone that they thought the instruments were at fault. You should try to get George Dobson’s great book, published in 1968 by Oxford University Press, “Exploring the Atmosphere”, and red Chapter 6, where you will find a beautiful graph: Figure 6.2 <B>ANNUAL VARIATION OF TOTAL OZONE FOR EACH 10 DEGREES OF LATITUDE</B> where is clearly shown the “normal” average ozone levels during different months, and different latitudes. This graph is for the northern hemisphere, but the ozone levels vary with the seasons, and we can see that ozone levels are quite low in winter and spring and recover during summer and fall (as in the southern hemisphere). The depletionists try to ignore this historic fact: Dobson and the French were the ones who discovered the “hole” back in 1957, and this show that the hole has a natural (dynamic) cause, and has nothing to do with chemistry. Again the NOAA page said: <i>Stratospheric ozone depletion, caused by increasing concentrations of human-produced chemicals, has increased since the 1980s. The springtime loss in Antarctica is the largest depletion. Currently, in <b>nonpolar regions, the ozone layer has been depleted up to several percent compared with that of two decades ago. </b></i> But, as Dra. Tafuri measurements in Buenos Aires and Ushuaia show, this NOAA’s statement is <b>another shameless lie</b>. But what do they care? Nobody believes what the skeptics say. People believe what’s in the web, in fancy websites. Science is absent. Nobody care to read thousand of scientific peer-reviewed papers that deny any loss in ozone worldwide. So the issue has become more a case of religious faith instead of a scientific issue. Actually, UV radiation is absorbed by oxygen and nitrogen, as I told you in a previous post. 21% and 78%, respectively, of the atmosphere. Highly stable gases, (double bonded, you know…) Ozone is only 0,000003% (three millionth percent, highly unstable –high quantic energy-- low absorbing capacity). So ozone levels all over the world –also in the Poles—are influenced by many dynamic (physical) factors as the sun, the Quasi Biennial Oscillation (stratospheric winds at the Equator), the uplift of oxygen during the Antarctic winter, the self destruction by ozone during the dark six-month polar night and no formation of new ozone, due to the absence of sun rays, etc, etc… I got tired, so I rest my case. Please forgive any typos, I am too tired to check the whole post… Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The mistake is mine, not NOAA's. The data is there at NOAA as you mention later. The interpretation was my mistake. CFCs are removed from the atmosphere both through upper-atmosphere photolysis (sp?) and through the air-sea exchange process as well as... Does this one go into any detail on the quantity of CFCs absorbed by soils? Does it also go into the global variations of CFC absorbtion into the soil? For instance, if the concentration in soils is near the poles, then the question would be how did the CFCs get there? I think the data and graphs you're referring to are under here, but I haven't quite figured it all out. Good. I'm always interested in another interpretation of the facts. It may take awhile to find the information, though. And where does the sinking ozone go? Wouldn't it be raining down on us at all times? And what about all the other heavier-than-air particles? How do they get up in the atmosphere? Dobson noted the naturally occuring difference in ozone at Antarctica compared with the Arctic during the springtime. The ozone hole discussed in places such as NOAA is much greater than what Dobson noted and is related to ozone depletion. No. The annual variation is duly noted. The overall trend in ozone levels, though, has been heading down since that time. That can't be accounted for by "natural cause" and that's what was noticed in the 1980s. That I have to look into more. I don't believe they have a reason to lie. I just believe its a question of data interpretation. By the same token, peer-reviewed papers are not absolutes. A few years ago, American physicist Alan Sokal wrote a spoof cultural studies article called 'Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity' and manged to get it published in 'Social Text' a leading journal. The article was complete garbage and caused much embarasment to the social science community. There are also claims that it's been done with garbage theoretical physics papers and someone may have gotten a PhD out of it. Naturally, I am not a climatologist, so the deep papers are not going to make much sense to me. I have to leave it to the experts at places like NOAA to collect the data and provide some conclusions. There are no such things as "facts" -- there is only data and theoretical certainty about what that data means and no theory is 100% certain. Me too. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
