Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Ozone Hole Science Revisited

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: shagdrum

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/122712.html

Ozone Hole Science Revisited

Ronald Bailey | September 27, 2007, 10:02am

Scientists are commemorating the discovery 20 years ago that man-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used chiefly in refrigerators and air-conditioners were responsible for creating the "ozone hole" over the Antarctic. The scientists concluded that CFCs would drift into the stratosphere where they would produce chlorine compounds that react with ice particles and sunlight to efficiently destroy ozone molecules that shield the surface from ultraviolet light streaming from the sun. In 1987, the world adopted the Montreal Protocol to eventually eliminate the production of CFCs. Activists often cite the Montreal Protocol as a model for a future treaty addressing man-made global warming by banning the emission of greenhouse gases. A Nobel Prize in chemistry was awarded in 1995 to the three scientists who identified the ozone/CFC connection.

This neat story of the scientific identification of a man-made cause for stratospheric ozone depletion followed by a successful international response to the threat is now being challenged by some very recent research. News@nature.com (sub required) is reporting a new analysis by Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, which finds that the data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2) is almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.

What this could mean according to the Nature news article is that:

"This must have far-reaching consequences," Rex says. "If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being." What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago2 (see graphic). If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.

Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum
is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. "Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart," says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.

"Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely," agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. "Now suddenly it's like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge." ...

Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question, Rex stresses. "Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions."

Of course, it may be that Rex's research has gone wrong somehow or that another chemical mechanism involving CFCs will turn out to be chiefly responsible for ozone depletion. Nevertheless, it is good to keep in mind that all scientific results are provisional and may change in the light of new evidence.

By the way, for anyone who cares about my own take on the ozone hole/CFC issue, in chapter 8 of my 1993 book, Eco-Scam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse, I concluded:

Despite a great deal of continuing scientific uncertainty, it appears that CFCs do contribute to the creation of the Antarctic ozone hole and perhaps to a tiny amount of global ozone depletion. If CFCs were allowed to build up in the atmosphere during the next century, ozone depletion might eventually entail significant costs. More ultraviolet light reaching the surface would require adaptation—switching to new crop varieties, for example—and it might boost the incidence of nonfatal skin cancer. In light of these costs, it makes sense to phase out the use of CFCs.

It turns out that a key chemical reaction that was part of the theory that manmade chemicals are causing destruction of stratospheric ozone has been found to be almost ten times weaker than assumed. As a result, at least 60% of the stratospheric ozone loss in recent decades can no longer be explained. However, the last paragraph of this story illustrates quite plainly that these scientists are nevertheless circling the wagons around the Freon ban saying they still think that manmade chemicals are to blame in some way even if they don't understand the mechanism.

Posted by: Iszi

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

It turns out that a key chemical reaction that was part of the theory that manmade chemicals are causing destruction of stratospheric ozone has been found to be almost ten times weaker than assumed. As a result, at least 60% of the stratospheric ozone loss in recent decades can no longer be explained. However, the last paragraph of this story illustrates quite plainly that these scientists are nevertheless circling the wagons around the Freon ban saying they still think that manmade chemicals are to blame in some way even if they don't understand the mechanism.

Well, if 60% of the ozone loss is from unknown sources, is that to imply that 40% is from man-made sources? Even if some of that is natural, say only 10% can be attributed to man, I think we all would still like to have that 10% back wouldn't we? Really, any contribution of ours that is measurable in whole percentages, is something that should be given serious regard.

Now, if someone can definitively prove that we are not contributing at all to the ozone loss, then I'd say the scientists need to break up the wagon circle.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iszi

Now, if someone can definitively prove that we are not contributing at all to the ozone loss, then I'd say the scientists need to break up the wagon circle.

With all due respect, that is not the correct position to take. The scientific method does not call for the acceptance of a theory in the absence of proof to the contrary. That is like me printing a story in the newspaper about how your momma's a whore, and telling you that unless you can prove she's not, the story is true.

The GW "moral" issue is nothing more than a religion being taken on faith. Algore said so himself. There is a mountain of evidence that shows that man made GW is based on nothing but junk science. So why should we accept any of it until these religious zealots prove their case? Why should we spend ONE RED CENT on a cure if it isn't necessary?

Posted by: Iszi

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

I'm not saying that I believe in or support the GW alarmists at all. What I am saying is that shagdrum is being a little over-critical of the scientists' "wagon circle", when I have yet to see a statement in that article that says that man is *not* still significantly contributing to the hole in the ozone.

What the article does say is that we are not contributing as significantly as previously believed, and that 60% of the loss of ozone is currently unaccounted for. What it doesn't say specifically, is what caused the other 40% that they do know about. None of it says that man still isn't playing a significant part in creating the hole in the ozone, nor does it define exactly how much scientists can currently blame on humans. It just says that a lot of the ozone loss that was previously attributed to man is now a mystery. So, what I'm trying to say is that we need to get the missing numbers here (How much of that 40% loss which can be tracked, are we responsible for?) before we pass judgment on the scientists' defense of the CFC bans.

Global Warming as a whole on the other hand, is a totally different issue outside of this particular discussion.

Posted by: shagdrum

ozone science, like GW is based on computer models which are inherently flawed. At their best these models are only as good as the understanding of the dynamic processes they are supposed to account for (which this story proves in the case of ozone, they doen't understand those processes), at worst they are merely a reflection of the assumtions pluged into them.

Posted by: MonsterMark

From the 'sad but true' department....

I signed up for National Geographic thinking my young children might actually learn something (besides women in many parts if the world have saggy boobs).

Low and behold, they have a pull out map of the world. And guess what?
That's right... a global warming map!

Before slicing it into strips of recycled paper scrap, I did notice that the map showed a DECREASE in temperatures in Antarctica and the caption on the map blamed it on the OZONE HOLE GETTING SMALLER and, you guessed it again,.... GLOBAL WARMING!

These fruitcakes are so bent on a money grab they are making themselves look like fools.

Me, I'm waiting for my renewal notice from the National Geographic folks when they come begging for my money so I can tell them how to roll up their rag and where to strategically place it an attempt to save the planet.

Posted by: MAC1

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

ozone science, like GW is based on computer models which are inherently flawed. At their best these models are only as good as the understanding of the dynamic processes they are supposed to account for (which this story proves in the case of ozone, they doen't understand those processes), at worst they are merely a reflection of the assumtions pluged into them.

Exactly! Claims of ozone depletion due to CFCs go back to 1975-1976 when scientists knew even less about the ozone layer, which was when the ice age alarmists cropped-up. Back then, ozone depletion was just a theory like global warming is today. But that didn't stop legislation outlawing CFCs and billions of dollars from being spent on eliminating CFS. Nevertheless, still today there are expansive holes in the ozone at various times despite all the legislation and money spent on eliminating CFCs. So, no doubt that after we are taxed billions of dollars in order to raise money to combat global warming, it will turn out that it too was all a waste. So stay tuned as democrats try to convince you that raising taxes is the only alternative to combat global warming based on an unproven theory. Part of convincing you will no doubt take the form of vilifying those who don't share their views about global warming.

So here we are with a likely pending oil shortage in the not too distant future, nothing being done to stop it, particularly by democrats who have stood in the way of drilling for Artic and Gulf of Mexico oil for decades and building oil refineries. So those of you who will vote for the radical left-wing democrats remember when you are paying $4.00 plus for a gallon of gas and have a lot less in your pocket to spend on your family due to the global warming crusade--Don't dare complain!

Posted by: 04SCTLS

President's switch on climate criticized as lacking new policy
Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Saturday, September 29, 2007

President Bush's rallying cry for action on climate change at his summit of the world's largest economies Friday marked a shift from a year ago when he said there was still debate over whether global warming was man-made or a natural phenomenon.

But while many foreign leaders and Democrats in Congress applauded the president's new rhetoric, they said it wasn't matched by a shift in policy. Bush still adamantly opposes mandatory limits on greenhouse gases, favoring voluntary cuts.

"The rhetoric of the president's speech today is an improvement," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who is drafting new climate legislation in the Senate. "But unless it is followed up with mandatory cuts in global warming pollution, it will amount to little more than empty words."

The president convened the two-day summit of the world's 15 largest emitters to draw attention to the fact that fast-developing countries - notably China and India - are quickly catching up with the United States, which has long been the world's No. 1 emitter. The Kyoto Protocol on limiting emissions spared developing nations from making the deep cuts required of industrialized world. Bush, in essence, wants to cut a new deal.

But the president's critics say there is a major flaw in Bush's strategy: China and India are unlikely to agree to deeper emissions cuts until they see the United States, the world's richest nation, lead by example.

"India, China and other developing countries have been used by the United States as an excuse for inaction," said Sanjay Vashist of the Tata Energy Research Institute in India, who is in Washington for the talks.

In his speech, Bush insisted it was time to "leave the debates of the past behind," referring to the United States' refusal to embrace the Kyoto accord.

"I want to get the job done," he told environment ministers and ambassadors at the State Department. "We've identified a problem. Let's go solve it together."

Bush's laid out his strategy: a new set of climate talks, led by the biggest economies, with a meeting next summer where the heads of state of the 15 top emitters would set new voluntary targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

But environmentalists and many foreign leaders criticized the proposal as a distraction from the United Nations climate talks, where countries are negotiating binding cuts in greenhouse gases to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. The next meeting is in Bali, Indonesia, in December.

John Ashton, the special representative to the British foreign secretary, said the U.S. administration is isolating itself by calling for a new system of voluntary limits while the rest of the world is agreeing to mandatory cuts.

"I don't think that this meeting by itself moves the ball very much at all," Ashton said.

Portuguese Deputy Environment Minister Humberto Rosa, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, said all nations should stay focused on the upcoming United Nations talks.

"Our view is that Bali is the landmark that we must all look at," Rosa said.

Some experts, however, say there could be merit in having two parallel sets of talks: one among all nations at the United Nations, and the other among the biggest emitters, who may be the most resistant to change and may require more intense negotiations.

"It's the same approach many economists, political scientists and others have recommended for years. Also (former British Prime Minister) Tony Blair pursued this," said Robert Stavins, who directs the environmental economics program at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

"So bringing this group together is definitely good news. If they do not move beyond (voluntary) targets then that could be potentially bad news, but only if it precludes progress later on a more meaningful agreement."

The president focused much of his address on the need to move quickly toward cleaner energy technologies that emit less carbon dioxide. He proposed a new clean energy technology fund, to be paid for by wealthy nations, that would help spread the technology to the developing world.

Bush said renewable technologies, such as wind and solar, would one day supply 20 percent of the world's energy. He also touted nuclear power as a way to reduce emissions, but still provide the energy needed to fuel growing economies.

The call for new cleaner energy technologies has been widely embraced, including in Silicon Valley, where investors are pouring billions of dollars into biofuels and renewable energy. But critics say the United States has held back the development of these cleaner sources by not joining Europe's "cap-and-trade" system, which sets a price on energy with heavy carbon emissions.

"This is the time to get the economies of scale, to force down the costs of clean energy technology," said Kate Hampton of the Carbon Investors Organization, a British investors' group. "It is economic folly for the United States not to be sending a very strong carbon signal now. If you move away from mandatory approaches ... you just won't get capital to flow."

U.S. lawmakers complain that Bush, despite his rhetoric, has undercut Congress' efforts to limit emissions. He opposes legislation to create a cap-and-trade system. House and Senate Democrats are negotiating an energy bill that would raise fuel economy to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, but the White House opposes it, instead asking for new authority for the Transportation Department to set fuel economy standards for each size-class of vehicle.

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., the chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, also pointed to new documents - released by a House committee this week - showing that Bush's transportation secretary, Mary Peters, lobbied Congress and governors to try to block California from regulating greenhouse gases from cars and trucks.

"Only at the point where ... the Department of Transportation stops lobbying against California's laws will we know that this administration is serious about dealing with this issue," Markey said.

Global warming actions ahead
The issue of how to address climate change will play out in several political forums over the next few months:

Congress: Will try to craft legislation that creates a cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse gas emissions

Bush administration: Will act by December on California's request to go forward with its landmark law to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.

United Nations: Will meet in Bali, Indonesia, in December to begin developing new worldwide climate change plan to take the place of Kyoto agreement that expires in 2012.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

From the Christian Science Monitor

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0927/p13s03-sten.html