F. Sherwood Rowland, dead at 84.
Industry representatives at first disputed Dr. Rowland’s findings, and many skeptical colleagues in the field avoided him. But his findings, achieved in laboratory experiments, were supported 11 years later when British scientists discovered that the stratospheric ozone layer, which blocks harmful ultraviolet rays, had developed a hole over Antarctica....
I have a little trouble understanding that sentence. If you say X causes Y and we discover that Y is true, it doesn't prove that X caused Y. I guess you can say that the theory that X causes Y is "supported" why Y occurs during the period when X is happening.
“The clarity and startling nature of what Molina and Rowland came up with — the notion that something you could hold in your hand could affect the entire global environment, not just the room in which you were standing — was extraordinary,” Ralph Cicerone, the president of the National Academy of Sciences and a longtime colleague of Dr. Rowland, said in an interview.
The startling thing is that people absorbed the theory and took it seriously enough to change what they were doing. Attempts to scare us into action over global warming have not worked so well, perhaps because we seem to be asked to change everything (and nothing) about the way we live. To deal with the ozone hole scare, we only needed to
abandon one chemical — CFCs — so okay, get rid of the CFCs... whatever they were. People will do that.
Posts
133 comments:
British scientists discovered that the stratospheric ozone layer, which blocks harmful ultraviolet rays, had developed a hole over Antarctica
Yes, because there were like tons of aerosol cans being discharged in Antartica.
Anyway, I do love the lefty approach to AGW, since there was a hole in the ozone layer found based on a scientists theory, AGW is true too.
perhaps because we seem to be asked to change everything (and nothing) about the way we live
That's the money quote. It didn't help Algore's cause that he was living in a house that consumed 20x the annual energy of the average American household. In fact, the tap-dancing, bullshit-excusing, and flapping in the wind his supporters did in the wake of that disclosure seemed to have done more damage than the house itself.
As Insta is wont to say, I'll start worrying when the alarmists start living like they believe their own bullshit.
Most science reporting, if not most studies, fall under the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.
Forgetting that correlation ≠ causation is common, as humans seek to find patterns everywhere.
Science fads are as destructive to liberty as religious beliefs, if not moreso, despite the damning of the latter by atheists.
The ozone hole bullshit was another attempt at using junk science to attack modern, Western civilization.
If I remember right, the ozone hole closes up and opens due to an entirely different set of circumstances than that claimed by the chemophobes.
Professor,
You neglected to mention that Dr. Rowland shared the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Dr. Molina and Dr. Crutzen for his work.
Not only that. The future of Mars depends on aerosols and CFCs. Apparently the asteroid belt has huge orbiting aerosol cans that can be flung at Mars until it's as warm as a cold winter in Wisconsin.
"shared the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry"
Ha ha ha.
The Nobel deteriorated first under its Peace Prize, and then under its science prizes.
Leftism kills everything it touches.
The ozone hole bullshit
Oh no, someone doesn't understand the difference between ozone depletion and the so-called "ozone hole."
Please try to understand these basic distinctions to make your science denial more plausible. :)
The Nobel deteriorated first under its Peace Prize, and then under its science prizes.
Oh good, a science expert will now share his opinion on how the Nobel science prizes have been awarded incorrectly. Please enlighten us. :)
"I have a little trouble understanding that sentence. If you say X causes Y and we discover that Y is true, it doesn't prove that X caused Y."
Then you have a problem with anthropogenic global warming thesis. So do I.
Rising CO2 causes warming, and temperature may be rising. But to prove that the warming we see now is due to CO2 requires the support of models, and there are significant reasons to doubt the models.
Yes, because there were like tons of aerosol cans being discharged in Antartica.
Science education in the United States evidently reached a new low in Jay's science classes. :(
I enjoyed this:
"Global ozone dropped a little bit [after CFCs were banned], but the good news is that if we had done nothing, it would have gotten really, really bad."
Now a complete rebound seems imminent. Some scientists project that by 2080 global ozone will return to 1950s levels.
So in other words, there was no evidence that CFC's led to the ozone hole and banning them hasn't led to the ozone hole going away.
"Science" as practiced by environmental leftist wacko's.
Curiously enough, the recent behavior of the ozone layer and newer measurements of reaction rates has clouded the CFC ozone connection. Theory doesn't agree with observation. That curiosity doesn't seem to get as much publicity as it should.
I ♥ Willard said...
Science education in the United States evidently reached a new low in Jay's science classes. :(
I think you should continue littering this thread will silly drivel.
Really. You should.
Oh good, a science expert will now share his opinion on how the Nobel science prizes have been awarded incorrectly.
All else aside, don't you think the most recent Nobel peace prize given to an American president was a bit on the uncomfortable and awkward side?
The problems with global warming are that the predictions are bullshit and the solutions are bullshit.
Ozone depletion didn't have those problems, IIRC.
Theory doesn't agree with observation.
But, but, but, Nobel Prize!!!!
So in other words, there was no evidence that CFC's led to the ozone hole and banning them hasn't led to the ozone hole going away.
Tsk, tsk. You have a very poor grasp of atmospheric science and chemistry. Don't let that keep you from expressing an opinion, however! :)
All else aside, don't you think the most recent Nobel peace prize given to an American president was a bit on the uncomfortable and awkward side?
Personally I would NEVER award a Nobel Peace Prize to a communist, however that has NOTHING to do with the Nobel science prizes. :)
♥ Willard said...
Tsk, tsk. You have a very poor grasp of atmospheric science and chemistry. Don't let that keep you from expressing an opinion, however! :)
Idiot:
Prove me wrong.
I dare you.
If you say X causes Y and we discover that Y is true, it doesn't prove that X caused Y.
And let's put this in a more accurate context.
Scientists say our robust earth and eco-system have been around and marching on in changes and development (and self-destruction) for 13,000 million years.
During which time species came and went, and the ground shifted and boiled, and ice flowed and retreated.
And Scientists have zero measured data regarding ozone levels for any of this, including and especially ozone levels over the poles.
But they are absolutely sure that aerosol can use in the past 60 years has had a material negative effect?
Really?
Personally I would NEVER award a Nobel Peace Prize to a communist, however that has NOTHING to do with the Nobel science prizes. :)
That didn't answer my question at all.
"That curiosity doesn't seem to get as much publicity as it should."
One of the things that sucks about the politicization of science is that curiosity is where all the fun is. It's what made me a scientist.
But they are absolutely sure that aerosol can use in the past 60 years has had a material negative effect?
You have one goofball in this thread who believes it was actually proven.
Willard: How about you stop being a forum toady and answer the real question: How can they predict that th Ozone layer will return by 2080 if the evil CFC's that CASUED the ozone hole are banned and no longer produced?
Really, heart Willard?
You can account for all the other forces and causes evidenced by 13,000 million years of change, and you know that none of them are at work in the ozone layer.
You have a complete enough data set on the ozone measurements to know their normal and expected state?
Because even if I gave you 100 years of Ozone data, 100 years over 13,000 million years does not a true sample make. You could be at the peak or trough of some random walk not even know it.
"ozone layer" = "ozon hole" d'Oh!
If you say X causes Y and we discover that Y is true, it doesn't prove that X caused Y.
Don't forget that we're doing induction here, not deduction. If Y never happened before X came along, and there's no other known reason to expect Y, then discovering that Y is true really does add a lot of evidentiary weight in favor of X causing Y.
All this happens, of course, at about the same time the Commies were taking over the enviro movement.
Yeah, the Lefties are great at banning behavior.
PS They finally fixed the Comments preview.
YAAAAAAYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!
Thank you, Ann. What'd ya do, beat 'em all up?
But they are absolutely sure that aerosol can use in the past 60 years has had a material negative effect?
Correct.
It was shown to occur in lab. The theoretical result was observed in the field. And the causative forces that resulted in the observations were documented. My vague recollection is that the breakthrough was the discovery of NAT clouds in the stratosphere: catalytic destruction of ozone by chlorine molecules requires a surface.
When chlorine concentration in the stratosphere declines (I believe it's still increasing, but the curve is now concave down), if the amount of ozone depletion similarly drops, then that will be the end of it, and the theory will be pretty much proven.
Good point on the sentence of casuality professor - but if the only missing element in his theory was the effect - then it makes more sense. I don't know if that's the case here.
Jay, you seem to have two objections: The location of the ozone hole and the time it takes for the damage to be repaired. Simple science can answer both.
The Ozone hole appeared above Anatartica because of the polar clouds - which have the effect of multiplying the chemicals harmful properties on the ozone layer. These clouds at 80,000 feet (see also, the ozone layer) and ONLY occurs in Anartica. Long term, the "hole" will affect the entire ozone.
Secondly - the amount of ozone replenished each year is basically a set amount. Coupled with the fact that the chemicals take years to dissolve and you can see why it will be until 2080 until it is restored.
Willard: How about you stop being a forum toady and answer the real question: How can they predict that th Ozone layer will return by 2080 if the evil CFC's that CASUED the ozone hole are banned and no longer produced?
The amount of time the chemical takes to breakdown + the steady growth of ozone over a period?
That doesn't even seem like a challengeing calculation.
"Attempts to scare us into action over global warming have not worked so well, perhaps because we seem to be asked to change everything (and nothing) about the way we live. To deal with the ozone hole scare, we only needed to abandon one chemical...
Yes, if the proposed solution is doable, it makes some sense to error on the side of caution. The warmists attempt the same argument; "if we must error, then let us error on the side of caution". Unfortunately, in this case, the required action is that we go back to living in caves.
When chlorine concentration in the stratosphere declines (I believe it's still increasing, but the curve is now concave down), if the amount of ozone depletion similarly drops, then that will be the end of it, and the theory will be pretty much proven.
It will be pretty much proven to the scientists who simply ignore all that they can't prove, in order to even have a profession.
Jay, you seem to have two objections: The location of the ozone hole and the time it takes for the damage to be repaired. Simple science can answer both.
Um, except "simple science" hasn't answered anything given that there is no evidence the ozone hole is going away.
See "project that by 2080 global ozone will return to 1950s levels. is not an observable fact.
You failed.
Oh Noes! Science!
run away...run away...
Prove me wrong.
I dare you.
Dear Jay,
There's no need for me to prove you are scientifically ignorant since you're doing such a fine job of establishing that fact all on your own.
That didn't answer my question at all.
Have you noted the Professor's request that we stay on topic with our comments?
Have a super day!
Are not CFCs heavier than air? How did they get to the upper atmosphere over Antartica?
condly - the amount of ozone replenished each year is basically a set amount.
Really?
There were no measurements of any kind prior to about 1979.
You know this how _____?
"Don't forget that we're doing induction here, not deduction."
I would say that induction is a very poor way of doing science, but I would be wrong. It isn't a way of doing science at all.
I ♥ Willard said...
.
Dear Jay,
There's no need for me to prove you are scientifically ignorant since you're doing such a fine job of establishing that fact all on your own.
Hysterical.
Really, thanks for the laugh.
International chemical companies realized that they could make more money selling proprietary replacements for CFC's than the non-proprietary CFC's.
In the lab, the 'science' showed that in 50 years there was a risk of a breakdown of the ozone layer. Miraculously, a hole was found immediately. The fact that it only appeared over Antarctica at extremely low temperatures, which tends to break down relatively unstable O3, was not considered.
Billions of pounds have been spent replacing CFC's and refrigeration systems without any demonstrable benefit. Ozone still thins over Antarctica. Chemical companies have a new high margin product. Asthma sufferers are hosed and so are the poor. But who really cares if they must be sacrificed for the greater good.
Have you noted the Professor's request that we stay on topic with our comments?
You brought up the Nobel issue unnecessarily. It was mentioned in the link provided by AA. Now please answer the question.
I ♥ Willard said...
Waaaaayyyy too much.
I have dropped you from my reading list.
How can they predict that th Ozone layer will return by 2080 if the evil CFC's that CASUED the ozone hole are banned and no longer produced?
Your question is based on a false premise. Firstly, CFCs are not the only ozone depleting substances. Secondly, CFCs are still present in the atmosphere--they didn't vanish when CFC production and use was regulated.
Thank you for your question. :)
Really, Quayle.
Thank you for your pointless question. :)
and the time it takes for the damage to be repaired. Simple science can answer both.
Really?
October 02, 2011
PASADENA, Calif. – A NASA-led study has documented an unprecedented depletion of Earth’s protective ozone layer above the Arctic last winter and spring caused by an unusually prolonged period of extremely low temperatures in the stratosphere.
The study, published online Sunday, Oct. 2, in the journal Nature, finds the amount of ozone destroyed in the Arctic in 2011 was comparable to that seen in some years in the Antarctic, where an ozone “hole” has formed each spring since the mid-1980s.
Unfortunately, in this case, the required action is that we go back to living in caves.
Which wouldn't be much of a change for some people here. o_O
Scott M said...
You brought up the Nobel issue unnecessarily. It was mentioned in the link provided by AA. Now please answer the question.
Note how the intellectual coward runs away.
I'm shocked by this development.
Even if the ozone/CFC story is a blazing success on the science, it still is an example of government overreach in dealing with perceived environmental problems. Was it really necessary to ban asthma inhalers to save the ozone?
You brought up the Nobel issue unnecessarily. It was mentioned in the link provided by AA. Now please answer the question.
I mentioned Dr. Rowland's Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Please note that this thread is about Dr. Rowland and his research.
The subject of the Nobel Peace Prize is off topic. Thank you again for your question, though. :)
Was it really necessary to ban asthma inhalers to save the ozone?
Asthma inhalers were not banned.
Do you science deniers know ANYTHING?
Note how the intellectual coward runs away.
Dear Jay,
This seems like an odd way for you to announce your departure from the thread, but it's probably a good idea for you to excuse yourself from a conversation in which you are not equipped to participate.
Have a super day. Toodles! :)
Rachel Carson got famous and rich over her DDT and bird's egg hypothesis.
The fact that she was wrong has nothing to do with it. Men need fame and money.
How's that malaria epidemic doing an Africa?
Someone needs to get fame and money by discovering how to stop mosquitoes.
The circle goes on under the sun.
Note:
I ♥ Willard said...
Note how the intellectual coward runs away.
Dear Jay,
This seems like an odd way for you to announce your departure from the thread, but it's probably a good idea for you to excuse yourself from a conversation in which you are not equipped to participate.
But then:
Please note that this thread is about Dr. Rowland and his research.
The subject of the Nobel Peace Prize is off topic. Thank you again for your question, though. :)
Carry on silly, incoherent troll.
Rachel Carson got famous and rich over her DDT and bird's egg hypothesis.
The fact that she was wrong has nothing to do with it. Men need fame and money.
How's that malaria epidemic doing an Africa?
Someone needs to get fame and money by discovering how to stop mosquitoes.
The circle goes on under the sun.
but it's probably a good idea for you to excuse yourself from a conversation in which you are not equipped to participate.
Which of course you could step up and prove to the class how smart you are by showing that I'm wrong.
But you won't.
Coward.
The subject of the Nobel Peace Prize is off topic. Thank you again for your question, though. :)
You mentioned communists, which is decidedly off topic. Now please answer my question.
Are not CFCs heavier than air? How did they get to the upper atmosphere over Antartica?
So what you're asking, in essence, is why aren't atmospheric gases stratified by weight, with the heaviest gases (Oxygen) at the bottom, the lightest (water vapor, for example) at the top.
I think you know the answer to that question if you care to think about it.
"Are not CFCs heavier than air? How did they get to the upper atmosphere over Antartica?"
Diffusion, same as other gases. It's not like they are in an enclosed volume like a balloon.
Oops. I stepped on MM's teaching moment. Sorry.
I would have said wind, rather than diffusion.
"... All else aside, don't you think the most recent Nobel peace prize given to an American president was a bit on the uncomfortable and awkward side?"
I think they overcame such emotions after they gave one to Yasser Arafat.
Jay said...
♥ Willard said...
Tsk, tsk. You have a very poor grasp of atmospheric science and chemistry. Don't let that keep you from expressing an opinion, however! :)
Idiot:
Prove me wrong.
I dare you.
You made the assertion.
prove you're right.
BTW Fire can melt steel.
You mean convection? I'm sure that's true too (and it may be the primary effect) but even in its absence, atmospheric gases won't sort out into well defined layers. I suspect (I'm just doing this off the top of my head, so I may be FOS) there will be relatively less of the heavy gases as you go up, but the molecules will have a distribution of velocities, and therefore a distribution of altitudes.
If Obama could mandte global birth control coverage, it would go a long way to saving Gaia from humanity.
MadisonMan said...
Are not CFCs heavier than air? How did they get to the upper atmosphere over Antartica?
So what you're asking, in essence, is why aren't atmospheric gases stratified by weight, with the heaviest gases (Oxygen) at the bottom, the lightest (water vapor, for example) at the top.
No, but it's a good question since the prevailing winds don't go north to south ,toward the pole ,but from south to north, away from the pole, at that latitude. Same goes for north of the Equator too.
Not trying to be a wise ass, just curious.
No, but it's a good question since the prevailing winds don't go north to south ,toward the pole ,but from south to north, away from the pole, at that latitude. Same goes for north of the Equator too.
Not trying to be a wise ass, just curious.
Weather exists to minimize the temperature gradient between the Equator (which is generally getting warmer and warmer via radiation from the Sun) and the Poles (which are generally getting cooler and cooler). Heat must flow towards the Poles to replace the cold air that moves Equatorward.
"Weather exists to..."
Spoken like a true meteorologist.
I would have said, "weather is due to the temperature gradient that exists between the equator and the poles."
I love the CFC ban. I hated having an asthma inhaler that actually effin' WORKED.
At least I know I won't be causing teeny tiny ozone holes.
So they did ban the previous asthma inhalers?
I am surprised that nobody mentioned Dupont. Elpresidentecastro came close to the real heart of the matter but did not quite hit it.
CFCs are better known by their Dupont trade name "Freon" and were used in about 95% of all A/C and refrigeration systems.
Dupont held the patent on the Freon making process. They licensed it to other companies but even so, still made money off of every AC and refrigerator.
The big CFC brouhaha began in the early 70's leading to a total ban under the Montreal protocol. I am sure it was just a pure coincidence that Dupont's patent on the process ran out in 1979. It could not have been anything as venal as money involved, could it?
Also, just by pure coincidence I am sure, Dupont happened to have another patented compound ready to go.
So now Dupont is back to making a nickle (or so) everytime anyone in the western world builds or fixes an AC or refrigerator.
God is in his Heaven and all is right with the world once again.
It would be interesting to know how much Dupont spent getting the ban in place.
It would be interesting to know how many billions or trillions it was worth.
For those who think environmentalists are not on the take, we have only to look to the Sierra Club. One of the oldest, best known and most respected of all the enviromental organizations.
A few weeks ago we found that fully 25% of its annual revenue was supplied by a natural gas company in exchange for bashing coal pollution.
Nice work if you can get it.
John Henry
So in other words, there was no evidence that CFC's led to the ozone hole and banning them hasn't led to the ozone hole going away.
Wrong on both counts. First aerosols were not the only or primary use of CFCs. Their primary use was in refrigeration and air conditioning and in fire fighting chemicals. It took years to switch over from those uses, first with ozone depleters that weren't quite as bad and then non-odc chemicals. We are only just finishing replacing them--and they are still permitted in critical uses (mostly airplane, ship and military fire suppression)
Also CFCs are very persistent in the atmosphere, so it takes years to clear out the backlog.
You really should do a little research before you spout off about something you obviously know nothing about.
I wonder if Dupont, either openly or via front organizations, sponsored Rowland's research.
They certainly would have had a financial incentive to do so.
Did Rowland accept grant money from Dupont? Might that have had an influence on his research and conclusions?
John Henry
A few weeks ago we found that fully 25% of its annual revenue was supplied by a natural gas company in exchange for bashing coal pollution.
Got a link?
Original Mike,
"Unfortunately, in this case, the required action is that most of us die and the remnant go back to living in caves."
Clarified It For You.
@John Henry: Interesting.
Well, that would make their job easier, Kirk.
Rachel Carson got famous and rich over her DDT and bird's egg hypothesis.
Actually, she was right about that as is evidenced by the rebound of large raptors and seabirds (e.g., bald eagles and pelicans), especially those that feed on animals like fish, that concentrate DDT in their systems.
If you want to argue that DDT is minimally toxic to humans, you'll get no argument from me,
If CFC's are heavier than air, then the hole in the ozone at the south pole is easy to explain.
They just fall South, and then out the hole.
Now, where is MY nobel Prize?
snark/off
Rising CO2 causes warming...
More correctly, Rising CO2 correlates with rising temperatures.
For those in the audience without a degree in science (I'm talking about you, Al Gore), the solubility of a gas in a liquid is inversely proportional to temperature.
In other words, a warm Pepsi goes flat much faster than an ice cold Pepsi does.
If the sun's output increases, and the oceans warm as a result, the oceans will not be able to hold as much gas in solution as before, and will out-gas to the atmosphere.
Zoom out on the graphs of ice core data showing temperature together with CO2, and you see correlation. Zoom in, however, and you see that CO2 changes lag temperature changes by hundreds of years. IOW, temperature changes cause CO2 changes, not the other way around.
Scott, try this:
Answering for Taking a Driller’s Cash
By FELICITY BARRINGER
Published: February 13, 2012
The recent disclosure of the Sierra Club’s secret acceptance of $26 million in donations from people associated with a natural gas company has revived an uncomfortable debate among environmental groups about corporate donations and transparency.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/science/earth/after-disclosure-of-sierra-clubs-gifts-from-gas-driller-a-roiling-debate.html?_r=1
When the story came out I wondered how much this was of their annual income. I found that they had around $100mm so this is about 25% of the total.
John Henry
I wonder if Dupont, either openly or via front organizations, sponsored Rowland's research.
Why on earth would they do that? Dupont was a major, if not the major, manufacturer of CFCs.
Dave D said...
Willard: How about you stop being a forum toady and answer the real question: How can they predict that the Ozone layer will return by 2080 if the evil CFC's that CASUED the ozone hole are banned and no longer produced?
Dave D. raises any interesting point which Willard--in his usual condescending manner--glosses over. It is: who checks the authority of scientists?
I believe that the scientific method has its own checks and balances--witness the growing number of credentialed skeptics publishing doubts about the dire predictions of warmists. Those like Willard who blithely argue "Science ueber alles" must surely believe that there is no such thing as agenda-driven science. Such science is actually a perversion of curiosity-driven science. It is more akin to engineering. *ducks*
"Give the people 'miracle, mystery and authority' and they will follow"
~Dosteofsky
Yes, that passage from "The Broter's Karamozov" is relevant. But more insidiously, it is the exact mechanism by which pseudo-science could ascend to the status of a quasi-religion.
The problem is that the ozone layer is decaying at the rate predicted if we'd done nothing about CFCs.
So, the prediction was wrong either way.
Are not CFCs heavier than air? How did they get to the upper atmosphere over Antartica?
If you ever took a chemistry class, I bet you flunked it. You should have learned the answer to your question in high school chemistry--if you were paying attention.
"Broters"--lol! The Breaders!
"Why on earth would they do that? Dupont was a major, if not the major, manufacturer of CFCs.
"
Read his 12:15 post.
The problem is that the ozone layer is decaying at the rate predicted if we'd done nothing about CFCs.
This statement is simply incorrect. Are you lying, ignorant, or both?
"If you ever took a chemistry class, I bet you flunked it."
Oh, oh. Thin ice there, Freder.
Read his 12:15 post.
The problem with his hypothesis is that Dupont had substitutes ready to go back in '79 when the push started to ban CFCs. They didn't. In fact there still aren't adequate substitutes for things like Halon 1211, which is why it still has a critical use exemption.
"More correctly, Rising CO2 correlates with rising temperatures."
It's really not disputed that rising CO2 will cause warming. The question is how much.
Come on Freder, are you really that dense?
Freon is fairly easy to make using the Dupont process. Once their patent expired in 1979, anyone could make them. Many companies already did. Union Carbide (trade name Ucon) and Arco Chemical (trade name Arcon) are two that come to mind. They had to pay Dupont a license fee to use the process.
Banning CFCs took away Dupont's Freon business, it it true. But it opened up a whole new business for their HCFC replacements. It opened up a whole string of licensing fees from all these companies.
Instead of a dirt cheap commodity product, which CFCs became after 1979, we are now forced to buy a proprietary product that carries a very nice profit margin for Dupont.
John Henry
I'm not arguing his point for him, because I don't know, but this: "In fact there still aren't adequate substitutes for things like Halon 1211" doesn't obviate it. It doesn't matter, from DuPont's POV, if the substitutes are adequate; only that they are mandated.
Oh, oh. Thin ice there, Freder.
Well then maybe you should explain it and ridicule him for the next several years for making such an ignorant statement.
20 years since CFCs were banned and the ozone hole is as big as ever, but no worries, the science is settled.
"Trust me, I'm a doctor".
It's not your ignorance, Freder. It's your condescension that provokes a response. You'd think someone who was responsible for, arguably, the most laughable display of scientific ignorance ever shown on Althouse's blog would show a little bit of humilty.
Fred-
I took a chemistry class when this came up. We had an old textbook with the predicted ozone hole size in 2010 if nothing was done. It's about what the ozone hole looks like now.
Feel free to look up the actual papers from the 1980s, if you get tired of calling people names.
I didn't say that CFCs didn't destroy ozone. I said the predictions were wrong. That's easy to see, you ignorant liar, if you'd actually read what's in front of you.
This shows how wedded people are to proving that we can predict the future, rather that collecting data about what's actually happening.
Re Asthma inhalers
Megan McCardle over at The Atlantic is asthmatic and discusses her problems from time to time. She has ranted about inhalers which is where I learned that the ones using CFCs were taken off the market in response to the CFC ban.
They were apparently cheap, easy to use and did not require a prescription. The replacements are expensive, difficult to use (requiring priming before each use) and require a prescription.
It is probably just a coincidence that the pharma companies make more money off the non-CFC inhalers and the ban.
Right?
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/09/cfc-ban-claims-over-counter-inhalers/42915/
John Henry
I see it was Willard who claimed:
"Asthma inhalers were not banned. Do you science deniers know ANYTHING?"
I guess this is the same line of reasoning that allows people to argue that incandescent light bulbs and health savings accounts aren't "banned" either.
You mentioned communists, which is decidedly off topic. Now please answer my question.
Dear Scott,
May I suggest you start your own blog and make the Nobel Peace Prize your first topic?
Please send an invitation when you have your blog up and running.
Please send an invitation when you have your blog up and running.
Why bother? You can't handle answer one uncomfortable and awkward question here. Why placate you with an entire website?
Those like Willard who blithely argue "Science ueber alles" must surely believe that there is no such thing as agenda-driven science.
Mr. Little,
Please pin your straw man on someone else.
Thank you.
Willard wrote: Please pin your straw man on someone else.
I thought this was "Pin the tale on the donkey"? :)
Why bother? You can't handle answer one uncomfortable and awkward question here. Why placate you with an entire website?
I can see that you're absolutely desperate to talk about politics. Why not choose a thread about politics for your question?
It defies logic that you think a discussion of the Nobel Peace Prize belongs in this thread. I'm not saying your question is bad, and I'm not refusing to answer it. However, your question does not belong in this thread and I won't answer it here.
Don't let any of what I've written discourage you from asking your question another 10 times, though. o_O
I thought this was "Pin the tale on the donkey"? :)
Mr. Little,
This is a thread for discussing science. If you want to check out my ass, you'll have to at least buy me a drink.
Weather exists to minimize the temperature gradient between the Equator (which is generally getting warmer and warmer via radiation from the Sun) and the Poles (which are generally getting cooler and cooler). Heat must flow towards the Poles to replace the cold air that moves Equatorward.
3/13/12 11:26 AM
OK. I wasn't clear. By what mechanism does this occur?
I would imagine that the shear between north and south would prevent gasses from the northern hemisphere from migrating south.
Freder,
"Actually, [Rachel Carson] was right about that as is evidenced by the rebound of large raptors and seabirds . . ."
Will you argue with me about the fact that Rachel Carson has the blood of millions of African children on her hands due to the ban?
I see it was Willard who claimed:
"Asthma inhalers were not banned. Do you science deniers know ANYTHING?"
Correct. Asthma inhalers were not banned.
"In 2008 the Food and Drug Administration announced that inhalers using chlorofluorocarbons as a propellant, such as Primatene Mist, could no longer be manufactured or sold as of 2012. This followed from the U.S. decision to agree to the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer."
You can read more here.
Original Mike. They banned CFC's which were the propellant in earlier inhalers. Nothing works like they did so inhalers are now more expensive and do not work as well.
Will you argue with me about the fact that Rachel Carson has the blood of millions of African children on her hands due to the ban?
Are Althouse readers really so gullible?
No.
Bullshit. To you this is just another thread for you to demonstrate your lockstep agreement with agenda driven-science. Specifically, that drastic cutbacks in carbon emissions must occur in order to prevent catastrophe. Carbon must be taxed to finance government authority. Your talking points are right out of left field.
Willard Lover:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ddt-use-to-combat-malaria
What's your point, El Presidente? o_O
Bullshit. To you this is just another thread for you to demonstrate your lockstep agreement with agenda driven-science. Specifically, that drastic cutbacks in carbon emissions must occur in order to prevent catastrophe.
Mr. Little? To whom is this comment addressed? Not to me, apparently, since I'm discussing CFCs, not carbon dioxide emissions.
Why do Althouse readers have such a difficult time staying on topic?
Just giving you some information.
random characters
Just giving you some information.
I read that article about 3 years ago. You must be very far behind in your reading, El Presidente. :(
Why do Althouse readers have such a difficult time staying on topic?
Check the tags Althouse attached to this blog post.
Mr. Little,
Oh, I see. Since the Professor is linking the subject of global warming to a discussion of CFCs, you've decided that you can attach to me your favorite global warming straw man arguments based on my position regarding CFCs.
Well done, sir, well done! I should have realized that every Althouse thread needs to be politicized, especially in a presidential election year.
The only downside to your tactic is that it makes you look like a doofus. :(
Have a super day, Mr. Little.
Geee...now Ann's is an environmental science expert.
And I love this: "The man who got us to believe that aerosol spraying was destroying the ozone layer."
He actually got us to "understand" it.
Duh.
Willard Lover:
"I read that article about 3 years ago."
And yet you remain ignorant?
I would imagine that the shear between north and south would prevent gasses from the northern hemisphere from migrating south.
Instabilities develop on the shear that promote horizontal mixing, once the shear reaches a critical level. And it always does because the shear is related to the temperature gradient.
Interhemispheric mixing -- that is, from north to south, or vice versa -- does occur. You can see it with some regularity in satellite imagery.
Interhemispheric mixing -- that is, from north to south, or vice versa -- does occur.
That sounds racy. I read about it in some Henry Miller novels. That stuff used to be banned--just like CFC's.
Ozone is a highly reactive molecule made by an interaction between normal O2 and UV light.
Being highly reactive, it decays over time. It is hardly surprising that in the long darkness of antarctic winter it becomes depleted. Hardly a problem either since there is no UV for it to adsorb.
@dbp - I think the current thinking is that the Antartic ozone hole is naturally ocurring, for the reasons you point out. CFCs are thought to accenuate the hole, and thus its size over time can be used to monitor global ozone destruction.
edutcher said...
"Yeah, the Lefties are great at banning behavior."
They prefer prescribing others' behavior in general. This is the main reason they end up occupying education, especially schools and non-science disciplines in academia, and media, which are natural habitats for such people, and the main reason education and media failures to do what they are primarily supposed to do - to inform.
And yet you remain ignorant?
Considering the fact that we haven't discussed the substance of the article, your conclusion lacks factual basis.
It appears that, like many other Althouse readers, you believe whatever you want to believe. Enjoy.
A little nit picking. CFC molecules don't deplete ozone. Chlorofluorocarbon is very stable. Only if it breaks down and frees a Cl atom (not molecule) does that chlorine atom act as a catalyst. Therein lies the problem. Where does the energy come from to break down CFCs? Turns out UV energy isn't enough to break them down at the rate required. A recent theory suggests that cosmic rays are involved. Perhaps it's both. Perhaps there is an additional culprit that's being overlooked.
The science isn't nearly as settled as is often portrayed.
Joe, Joe, Joe ....
Freder will be along any moment now to put you in your place.
Willard,
Sorry, I am not familiar with the new generation of trolls. I will avoid engaging you in future.
Post a Comment