ozone debate

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Gifted, Jul 15, 2002.

  1. Gifted World Wanderer Registered Senior Member

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    Gifted, don't worry about "dufas2". There is nothing that would convince him. He is green.

    But there is something you can reply to dufas2 post, when he said:

    <b>"... b) EVEN SEVERAL PARTS PER BILLION are sufficient to destroy ozone. Chlorine is a catalyst. It will bond to ozone, break it down, release oxygen, and repeat, hundreds of times".</B>

    Although chlorine <b>could be</b> a catalyst in the laboratory, the catalytic reactions claimed by F. Sherwood Rowland, and Mario Molina as the BASIS of their theory, HAVE NEVER BEEN REPRODUCED IN LABORATORY TESTS, and they remain a wild speculation. Theories must br proved by facts, and real world measurements, not by computer simulations that don't take us anywhere nearer the truth.

    In a later post, I will give you the figures that prove that, even if the ozone layer would be destroyed at the yearly rate claimed by the greens, we'd have to wait about 3 million years to get a net decrease of 10%. And the extra UV radiation eraching the surface would be equal to move 100 miles towards the Equator, according to scientists.

    Of course, I don't agree that there will be an increase of UV radiation, as I showed in my post "some commonly unknown facts" at http://www.sciforums.com/t7017/seaad0516b6bc8fc82374aeea73cdffd3/thread.html as I believe that ozone does not block UV radiation in the amounts they claim. Oxygen does the trick, ozone is just bothering up there.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gifted World Wanderer Registered Senior Member

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Edufer Tired warrior Registered Senior Member

    <font size=6 color=red><B>Amazing Calculations!</B></font>

    Scientists have proved that the sun produces about <b>5 billion ozone molecules each second</B>, all over the world, wherever it shines. This represents the impressive amount of <b>100 billions tons of ozone every year</B>. You must keep in mind that this tremendous amount of ozone is the one created <b>every year</b>, and not the ozone <b>already present</b>, that is infinitely greater.

    As CFCs release annually about <b>7,500 tons of chlorine</B>, it looks quite unlikely that such trifle quantity of chlorine may destroy huge amounts of ozone and, above all, at such amazing speed. Let us make a comparison: <b>7,500 versus 100,000,000,000 </B>. As this comparison is somehow difficult to visualize --too many zeros-- we are going to divide by <b>ONE MILLION</B>, and take off three zeros. Then we'll reduce from tons (ton) to kilograms (kg) dividing by 1,000.

    <B>7,500 tons /1,000,000 = 0,0075 tons - - - - - - - -> : 7,5 kg of chlorine

    100,000,000,000 / 1,000,000 = 100,000 tons - - -> : 100 millions kg of Ozone</b>

    If we assume, as claimed by the green scientists, that the chlorine contained in CFCs can destroy 10% of the ozone layer, then we can assume that 7,5 kg of chlorine will destroy <b>10 million kg</B> (10% of 100 million) of the ozone formed annually. In order to determine the ratio between ozone/chlorine we must divide:

    <B>10.000.000 kg / 7,5 kg = 1,333,333 ozone molecules </B>

    This means that for each chlorine atom exist 1,333,333 ozone molecules. As the greens claim that <b>by catalytic reactions</b> each chlorine atom can destroy up to 100,000 ozone molecules, in order to determine the amount of chlorine needed for destroying that 10% ozone formed annually (eg.: 10 billion tons) we must use the famous "rule of three":

    <B>100.000 is to - - - - - - - - 1
    as 1,3 millions are to - - X</B>

    equivalent to:

    <B>1.333.333 x 1 = 13,33 chlorine atoms

    Then, to find the amount of chlorine needed to destroy 10 billion tons of ozone, we must divide <b>10 billion by 13,33</B>, and the result is <b>7,500 million tons of chlorine</B>.

    Now let us find the amount of CFCs needed to provide those 7,500 million tons of chlorine.

    As atomic weight of Freon-11 is <b>137,5</B>, and chlorine takes account for <b>35,5 of that weight</B>, the weight ratio of Freon/chlorine is <b>3,87</b>. Now let us multiply those 7,500 million tons of chlorine by 3,87 and we'll get the amount of Freon needed for destroying the 10 billion tons of ozone that represent the 10% the greens claim will be eventually destroyed.

    <B>7,500 millions tons x 3,87 = 29,025 millions ton of Freón-11 </B>

    Take a close look at this figure: <b>more than 29 billion tons of CFCs</B> are needed for destroying <b>ONLY 10%</B> of the ozone <B>annually</B> created by the sun.

    Let us suppose that CFCs produced during the last 42 years (previous years can be discarded because they lack importance) have increased chlorine concentration in the atmosphere at a rate of 7,500 tons chlorine/year, the amount of chlorine supplied by CFCs would be:

    <B>7,500 ton/year x 42 = 315,000 tons chlorine</B>


    <B>315,000 x 3,87 = 1,219,050 tons Freón-11 </B>

    Well, these 1,292,050 tons of Freon are much, much less than the 29 Billion tons required for destroying <b>just the 10% of ozone formed annually</B>. Then, what about the trillions of ozone tons presently in the stratosphere? Worse yet, this would be possible <b>ONLY IF</B> 100% of CFC molecules could reach the uppermost part of the stratosphere, (only 0,01 parts per trillion are able to do it) <b>ONLY IF</B> chlorine atoms were not intercepted by NOx and other gases, and <B>ONLY IF</B> chlorine could attack ozone in other places outside the crystals in the Stratopsheric Polar Clouds in the Antarctic (that does not happen because of laws in the gaseous phase of chemistry).

    Let us make our last calculation: How many years would take for chlorine, under present conditions, to destroy that 10% of ozone formed annually? (Always speaking of present annual rate of chlorine emission of 7,500 tons) We must substract the 1,219,000 tons of CFCs accumulated in the last 50 years from the 29.0 Billion tons required to destroy the 10% of ozone formed annually, and then divide it by the 7,500 tons of CFCs annually entering the atmosphere. Let's see:

    <b>29.0 Billions ­ 1.219 Billons = 27.806 Billions Tons of CFC

    27.806 Billions / 7,500 = 3,707,466 years</B>

    Take another close look at the last figure: <B>more than 3.7 million years!</B> Even more: how much would have UV radiation increased after 3,7 million years? 5%?, 10, 20% perhaps?

    According to studies made by Isidoro Orlansky & Enrique Martinez, from the Physics Laboratory at the <i>Buenos Aires National University</I>, Argentina, (LAGE) after research on Mini-Ozone Holes over Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, found that a 50% decrease in ozone values yielded a mere 15% of UV rqdiation increase. So <b>a 25% decrease</B> in ozone levels will result in <b>a mere 7,5% increase</B> of UV radiation, the increase naturally produced <b>from one week to another</B> during springtime.

    Don't you believe now that the concern over the Ozone layer is nothing but <b>a huge, mean, and perverse stupidity?</B>
  8. Thor "Pfft, Rebel scum!" Valued Senior Member

    I'm not to hot on this subject, but I agree with gifted here.
    That other guy doesn't have proof that CFC's are the cause, he can only guess. How does he know that the OZone isn't doing it all itself.

    Stick to your guns. Crush the non-believer. Kick his butt.
  9. Gifted World Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Thing is, he says the same thing.
  10. Thor "Pfft, Rebel scum!" Valued Senior Member

    He says what now
  11. Gifted World Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    I don't know, he hasn't posted yet.

Share This Page