You're still missing the bigger picture.clone said:the point is that when the time comes, we can do it if we want to.
these crazed hippies need to get back to their smoking...
Assuming that what you're averring is true...clone said:the point is that when the time comes, we can do it if we want to.
these crazed hippies need to get back to their smoking...
Of course, wrecking your car might not be the only casuality of the situation as is wrecking the ozone. When your car crashes, it could take out a tree, a deer, or even a farmer's market. The damage to the ozone might not just be a temporary problem with no rippling reprocussions either. Of course, it's hard to understand the environmental impact of anything as it has to be judged over the course of a long period of time. I'd rather play it safe.Simon W. Moon said:I mean, if I wreck my car, I can have it repaired, or buy a new one. However, this is not an optimal use of my resources. It's better that I take measures to avoid wrecking my car so that I can allocate my resources to different, and IMHO, better things than repairing my car or buying a new one.
Perhaps you should double check your memory. It may be faulty.clone said:one of the laws of chemistry that i actually remember is the one saying every action has a reverse reaction. meaning you can undo chemical mistakes you make.
Is there anything other than your simple say-so that backs up your guarantee?clone said:when the ozone layer does become a problem, i gurantee it wont be long-term. its a simple matter of spraying the right chemicals into the atmosphere.
Where'd you get the idea that this what it would take? Is tehre anything more behind this idea than your humble figuring?clone said:your absolutely right, the better use of resources is...something other than flying a plane and spraying some simple chemicals. yes i can see how that is very costly.
Why should I believe you? You're just some anonymous person on the internet who has offerred nothing but mere assertion as backing for you statements.clone said:if there ever is a serious problem in the ozone layer, it can and will be dealt with, and believe me, the amount of resources used for that is minimal...
We're asking you for proof that you're claiming to be true. Your position, your proof.clone said:haha, my memory is not faulty. look it up yourself before you start saying my arguments are "humble figuring".
chemistry backs up my words. do some research yourself and you would see that.
If this is true, then it shouldn't be any trouble for you to provide some evidence for your assertions.clone said:haha, my memory is not faulty. look it up yourself before you start saying my arguments are "humble figuring".
chemistry backs up my words. do some research yourself and you would see that.
Umm, as I read what you wrote, it seems that you wrote " one of the laws of chemistry that i actually remember is the one saying every action has a reverse reaction."clone said:"Every chemical reaction is, in theory, reversible. In a forward reaction the substances defined as reactants are converted to products. In a reverse reaction products are converted into reactants."
taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_reaction
as you so love to say... "looks like this debate is dead"
I don't think it's the understanding part that's the problem. It's the believing part. You're the one that started this debate without proof. When asked for proof you have supplied none. And now you don't want to discuss chemistry?clone said:the reaction happening in our atmosphere will only be complete when all of hte reactants(the ozone layer) have been turned into products(other noxious gases such as carbon monoxide). this has not happened yet. when it is about to happen, by releasing the right chemicals we can cause the reaction to reverse itself.
my teacher explained this very well, but im not a teacher. if you still dont understand what im saying, i think its best if yoiu leave this debate. im not in the mood to discuss chemistry right now.
clone said:im not in the mood to discuss chemistry right now.
clone said:what the hell are you talking about. chemistry is my proof, chemistry is my statement as well. i even posted an encyclopedia link as proof.
Then why did you post it to a debate forum?clone said:i dont feel a need to argue about it...
Perhaps this is some arcane or very new use of the word 'proof' that I am as of yet unfamiliar with. Have you demonstrated that the damage to the ozone layer is a "forward reaction" as per the link that you cited?clone said:... because i have already stated my point and my proof.
Have you stated what it would take to repair the ozone? "Spraying some unnamed chemicals from a plane" is not specific enough. Let's talk quantities, let's talk about endothermic or exothermic reactions etc. let's name the kinds of chemicals that you would like to spray from a plane.
Let's address the effects of damage to the ozone on life and life forms on earth that are not simple chemical reactions.
You've quite a row to hoe and it's not but just past breakfast for you.
You also fail to realize that a planetary atmosphere is a closed system and its constituent components are relational. For the sake of simple example, let's assume here that the ozone layer can indeed be artificially repaired. Like it or not, this would involve tampering with the system. In other words, fixing one component amounts to tampering and may just as well alter another component with unforseen consequences. In essence, the successful cure could turn out to be well worse that the original ailment. Closed systems are quite symbiotic... and altering one component alters the entire dynamic.clone said:yes, we should try to minimize our waste, but not to the point where it becomes an annoyance.