Arctic ozone loss at record level

[Canell]

Arctic ozone loss at record level

So, now we have a hole in the Arctic too. :doh
Any thoughts?

 

[OscarB63]

Arctic ozone loss at record level

So, now we have a hole in the Arctic too. :doh
Any thoughts?

The cause was an unusually long spell of cold weather at altitude. In cold conditions, the chlorine chemicals that destroy ozone are at their most active.

how can this be? with global warming there shouldn't have been any unusually long spells of cold weather most of the world stopped using CFCs decades ago.

 

[LesGovt]

Arctic ozone loss at record level

So, now we have a hole in the Arctic too. :doh
Any thoughts?

I have been preaching here for weeks that we must ban vehicles powered by gasoline and batteries and we must ban heating and airconditioning that uses gas or electric. Scientists have been quoted on this site as saying that the survival of the next generation is in doubt that and that we only have an estimated 50 years left; unless, we act to reduce carbon emissions. According to scientists drastic action is needed and that no such action exists today. C.A.F.E. standards and banning low efficiency lightbulbs are not the solution. That is why I am advocating the bans listed above.

 

[Djoop]

with global warming there shouldn't have been any unusually long spells of cold weather

How can this be? This being the believe in above statement.

 

[OscarB63]

I have been preaching here for weeks that we must ban vehicles powered by gasoline and batteries and we must ban heating and airconditioning that uses gas or electric. Scientists have been quoted on this site as saying that the survival of the next generation is in doubt that and that we only have an estimated 50 years left; unless, we act to reduce carbon emissions. According to scientists drastic action is needed and that no such action exists today. C.A.F.E. standards and banning low efficiency lightbulbs are not the solution. That is why I am advocating the bans listed above.

last time I checked.....carbon emissions had nothing to do with CFCs destroying ozone.

WTF...let's just all go back to living in caves, wearing animal skins and dying of old age when we are 35.

 

[LesGovt]

last time I checked.....carbon emissions had nothing to do with CFCs destroying ozone.

WTF...let's just all go back to living in caves, wearing animal skins and dying of old age when we are 35.

Hey! Don't blame me for describing the problems. Environmentalists tell me what the problems are and, based on what they tell me, I provide solutions.

 

[OscarB63]

Hey! Don't blame me for describing the problems. Environmentalists tell me what the problems are and, based on what they tell me, I provide solutions.

then start your own thread. nothing you said so far relates in any way to the OP

 

[LesGovt]

then start your own thread. nothing you said so far relates in any way to the OP

Sorry, my error. Are you saying that CFCs are the problem here? If so, what causes the problem?

 

[Canell]

Sorry, my error. Are you saying that CFCs are the problem here? If so, what causes the problem?

Did you read the article?

The cause was an unusually long spell of cold weather at altitude. In cold conditions, the chlorine chemicals that destroy ozone are at their most active...

Chlorine compounds persist for decades in the upper atmosphere, meaning that it will probably be mid-century before the ozone layer is restored to its pre-industrial health.

 

[OscarB63]

Sorry, my error. Are you saying that CFCs are the problem here? If so, what causes the problem?

read the article linked in the OP... jeez. "the CFCs that destroy ozone are more acive during cold weather"

 

[LesGovt]

read the article linked in the OP... jeez. "the CFCs that destroy ozone are more acive during cold weather"

How do chlorine chemicals get into the ozone?

 

[LesGovt]

How do chlorine chemicals get into the ozone?

Okay, the article said this:

"Ozone-destroying chemicals originate in substances such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that came into use late last century in appliances including refrigerators and fire extinguishers."

Is the use of these chemicals something that could cause the extermination of mankind?

 

[LesGovt]

Okay, the article said this:

"Ozone-destroying chemicals originate in substances such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that came into use late last century in appliances including refrigerators and fire extinguishers."

Is the use of these chemicals something that could cause the extermination of mankind?

Wait a second. The article also says this: "Their use was progressively restricted and then eliminated by the 1987 Montreal Protocol and its successors." That was 24 years ago. How long do these chemicals persist to cause a problem?

 

[OscarB63]

How do chlorine chemicals get into the ozone?

aerosol CFCs used to be the prime culprit. but most countries banned the use of those several decades ago.

 

[Thunder]

how can this be? with global warming there shouldn't have been any unusually long spells of cold weather most of the world stopped using CFCs decades ago.

how high up is the ozone layer?

exactly.

 

[What if...?]

Wait a second. The article also says this: "Their use was progressively restricted and then eliminated by the 1987 Montreal Protocol and its successors." That was 24 years ago. How long do these chemicals persist to cause a problem?

I'm not sure but their durability was the problem.

Rather than "canceling", like adding and acid to a base until neutral, CFCs bounce around up there wrecking ozone for a long time.

Iirc it would have been much worse if it hadn't turned out that some phytoplankton or something increased ozone production under increased UV.

 

[OscarB63]

how high up is the ozone layer?

exactly.

19-25 miles up

 

[Thunder]

19-25 miles up

atmosphere is much thinner up there.

and yes, AGW does not mean that the entire Earth will evenly and consistently have warmer temperatures. that's not how our planet works.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Arctic ozone loss at record level

So, now we have a hole in the Arctic too. :doh
Any thoughts?

Several thoughts.

First of all, the term “ozone hole” always was a rather grotesque exaggeration when it was used to describe the thinning over the South Pole, and it is equally an exaggeration now to describe the similar thinning over the North. There has never been, as far as has ever been proven, anything that actually constituted a “hole” in the ozone layer. In both instances, we are discussing areas where the ozone layer is less dense and thick than elsewhere. But describing it in honest terms isn't nearly so useful for stirring up fear and trying to get the population to agree to drastic unproven means to solve the alleged problem.

When we first starting hearing about all this regarding the “hole” over the South, we were told that the cause was CFCs—“Freon”—which, at the time, was popularly being used as a refrigerant and as an aerosol propellant. We were compelled to give these up, in exchange for more expensive, more toxic, and less effective chemicals. We were compelled to have our extant air conditioners modified to use R134a instead of R12; a modification which rendered some of them useless, and in nearly all other cases, rendered them considerably less effective.

That was decades ago; and with all the strict limits on CFCs, they are no longer a factor. That the “problem” still exists, and in fact, appears to be getting “worse”, would seem to prove that we were mistaken in blaming CFCs for it, and in imposing all sorts of drastic, expensive measures to eliminate the use of CFCs.

I think, most likely, that it is, and always was, an entirely natural phenomenon, and that Mankind's activities have never had any measurable effect on the variations in the ozone layer. We were foolish to listen to Chicken Little, and be whipped into a panic over the imminent falling of the sky.

I think that in time, we will see that the same is true of the current “Global Warming” hoax which threatens to have far more devastating consequences for our economy and our way of life than the “Ozone Hole” hoax ever did.

 

[OscarB63]

atmosphere is much thinner up there.

and yes, AGW does not mean that the entire Earth will evenly and consistently have warmer temperatures. that's not how our planet works.

really? that's not what the good Rev Al "the pious" Gore of the Church of Our lady of anthropamorphic global warming told me.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

How do chlorine chemicals get into the ozone?

The southern “ozone hole” is positioned almost directly over Mount Erebus, a volcano that, on a daily basis, spews more chlorine compounds into the atmosphere than Mankind has produced in its entire history.

 

[OscarB63]

Several thoughts.

First of all, the term “ozone hole” always was a rather grotesque exaggeration when it was used to describe the thinning over the South Pole, and it is equally an exaggeration now to describe the similar thinning over the North. There has never been, as far as has ever been proven, anything that actually constituted a “hole” in the ozone layer. In both instances, we are discussing areas where the ozone layer is less dense and thick than elsewhere. But describing it in honest terms isn't nearly so useful for stirring up fear and trying to get the population to agree to drastic unproven means to solve the alleged problem.

When we first starting hearing about all this regarding the “hole” over the South, we were told that the cause was CFCs—“Freon”—which, at the time, was popularly being used as a refrigerant and as an aerosol propellant. We were compelled to give these up, in exchange for more expensive, more toxic, and less effective chemicals. We were compelled to have our extant air conditioners modified to use R134a instead of R12; a modification which rendered some of them useless, and in nearly all other cases, rendered them considerably less effective.

That was decades ago; and with all the strict limits on CFCs, they are no longer a factor. That the “problem” still exists, and in fact, appears to be getting “worse”, would seem to prove that we were mistaken in blaming CFCs for it, and in imposing all sorts of drastic, expensive measures to eliminate the use of CFCs.

I think, most likely, that it is, and always was, an entirely natural phenomenon, and that Mankind's activities have never had any measurable effect on the variations in the ozone layer. We were foolish to listen to Chicken Little, and be whipped into a panic over the imminent falling of the sky.

I think that in time, we will see that the same is true of the current “Global Warming” hoax which threatens to have far more devastating consequences for our economy and our way of life than the “Ozone Hole” hoax ever did.

but...but...but... WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING NOW!!!!!!!!! OR WE WILL ALL DIE WITHIN 20 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

but...but...but... WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING NOW!!!!!!!!! OR WE WILL ALL DIE WITHIN 20 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Moderator's Warning:

Oscar... don't.

 

[LesGovt]

Moderator's Warning:

Oscar... don't.

Mr. Moderator, the environmentalists here have been saying that scientists have said that we will die and in the near distant future (30 to 50 years). zNow that had to do with carbon emissions and not with CFCs. I'm not sure that saying we are going to die is something that deserves a warning.

My question about dying is that if CFCs are causing a problem 27 years after they were banned, what are the chances of harm to mankind. Are CFCs worrisome as carbon is where we could die within a few decades? Or, are CFCs less dangerous than carbon?

 

[LesGovt]

On the other hand, this case is a damned if you do and damned if you don't. If it heats up, we are going to die from carbon. If it cools, we are in trouble with CFCs. Hmmmm. Almost sounds like it is rigged to go either way and covers someone's rear end no matter which happens. Woof!