Re: The CFC Ban: Global Warming's Pilot Episode
JohnM
> February 04, 2010
> The CFC Ban: Global Warming's Pilot Episode
> By David S. Van Dyke
> <snip>
> In the end, a global ban on CFCs was enacted based on a theory that
> continues to be challenged to this day. Chemists remain uncertain of
> the rate and extent of ozone depletion due to chlorine.
What factual evidence is there for this statement.
> In fact, the exact role of atmospheric CFCs remains uncertain. It appears that the
> primary catalyst of ozone depletion is atmospheric chlorine,
If he means Cl2, where is the associated chemistry to back this
statement?
> and the most atmospheric chlorine by far is out-gassed from the oceans or
> emitted by volcanoes.
How does Cl2(g) become the 2Cl(g) needed to catalyse 3O2(g) => 2O3(g)
> Mankind's contribution is miniscule (does this
> sound familiar?). Further, natural processes have by far the greatest
> influence on the ozone layer (e.g., solar influence).
What does this imply exactly? That natural processes are sufficiently
well-known that we can integrate them seamlessly with unnatural ones
like CFC's?
<snip>
As these are the thoughts of an "American thinker", I suppose it must
be OK then :-/
chemist
The Ozone Hole HAS NOT REDUCED even though CFCs have been
phased out.
This fact proves you wrong
JohnM
It proves nothing, except that the rapid growth of the ozone hole
prior to adoption of the Montreal protocol, has stopped.
chemist
So has the rapid growth of Global temperature
JohnM
The rapid growth in global temperature was a result of data tampering
by a cabal of wicked, demonic scientists hell bent on global
domination. Luckily Fox News, acting for Jebus, seems to have stopped
them. I thought everyone knew that :-/
erschro...@gmail.com
Because it takes decades for CFCs to make it to the stratosphere and
then decades for the Cl radical to be removed from the cycle.
Pick up a freshman chem book.
> This fact proves you wrong
This proves you are an idiot.
dlzc
On Feb 18, 12:38 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 9:01 am, Leon <trot...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
> > February 04, 2010
> > The CFC Ban: Global Warming's Pilot Episode
> > By David S. Van Dyke
> > <snip>
> > In the end, a global ban on CFCs was enacted based
> > on a theory that continues to be challenged to this
> > day. Chemists remain uncertain of the rate and extent
> > of ozone depletion due to chlorine.
>
> What factual evidence is there for this statement.
They see the interim products of such interaction, but I'm not sure on
how they get to the rates. I've never been terribly happy with them
ignoring water vapor's contribution, and claiming it is "NOx"...
> > In fact, the exact role of atmospheric CFCs
> > remains uncertain. It appears that the primary
> > catalyst of ozone depletion is atmospheric chlorine,
>
> If he means Cl2, where is the associated chemistry to
> back this statement?
We know that monatomic chlorine is produced / liberated when the
energetic UV at / above the ozone layer encounters any molecule
containing chlorine. This would include chloromethane (and its ilk),
CFC, and Cl2.
> > and the most atmospheric chlorine by far is
> > out-gassed from the oceans or emitted by
> > volcanoes.
>
> How does Cl2(g) become the 2Cl(g) needed to
> catalyse 3O2(g) => 2O3(g)
That part is easy with sufficiently energetic radiation.
What this person is not supplying, is that most of these "naturally
released" compounds are easily scrubbed from the atmosphere by water,
before reaching the elevation of the ozone layer. We can see / sample
the gases at the altitude of the ozone layer, and the lion's share of
the ones containing chlorine / bromine are manmade, and don't occur in
Nature.
> > Mankind's contribution is miniscule (does this
> > sound familiar?). Further, natural processes have
> > by far the greatest influence on the ozone layer
> > (e.g., solar influence).
>
> What does this imply exactly?
The Sun destroys far more ozone than we ever could. What this person
is glossing over is that the Sun's and Nature's contribution are by
definition, NOT, ozone depletion if they are not "flaring up". They
define the average "total column ozone".
> That natural processes are sufficiently well-known
> that we can integrate them seamlessly with
> unnatural ones like CFC's?
No, that "we" can shovel parrotted bullsh*t sufficiently fast, that
anyone that doesn't think things through can spill them on newsgroups.
> <snip>
>
> As these are the thoughts of an "American
> thinker", I suppose it must be OK then :-/
The key is that we have been dumping these compounds into the
atmosphere since the 1920s, and the *only* way they can leave the
system (in significant quantities) is by being broken down by the UV
at and above the ozone layer.
The next issue will be the (hydro)fluorocarbons, some of which are
being seen to behave as endrocrine enhancers / suppressors... and they
too cannot be removed from the system except by... they just
(ostensibly) don't affect ozone.
David A. Smith
JohnM
Then state the frequency for Cl2 + hv => 2Cl
dlzc
On Feb 18, 1:29 pm, JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 10:20 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
...
> > > > and the most atmospheric chlorine by far is
> > > > out-gassed from the oceans or emitted by
> > > > volcanoes.
>
> > > How does Cl2(g) become the 2Cl(g) needed to
> > > catalyse 3O2(g) => 2O3(g)
>
> > That part is easy with sufficiently energetic radiation.
>
> Then state the frequency for Cl2 + hv => 2Cl
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TGC-44C92W4-H1&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1990&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1212609047&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9b4d6466a788c61ef1cfefa3a0cc0218
... no I don't have the rights to open the document.
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JCPSA6000094000002001039000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no
... this says 130nm in a inert gas matrix, with "wierd sh*t" starting
to happen at 180nm, and shutoff positive by 300nm.
I'll let you figure out the frequency, OK?
David A. Smith
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Ozone Hole HAS NOT REDUCED even though CFCs have been phased out. This
fact proves you wrong"
can you please explain how long CFC's last in the atmosphere, and
correlate that to the montreal protocol deadline. You will find your
logic fails, so in fact you are wrong.
John M.
> On Feb 18, 1:29 pm, JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 10:20 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> ...
> > > > > and the most atmospheric chlorine by far is
> > > > > out-gassed from the oceans or emitted by
> > > > > volcanoes.
>
> > > > How does Cl2(g) become the 2Cl(g) needed to
> > > > catalyse 3O2(g) => 2O3(g)
>
> > > That part is easy with sufficiently energetic radiation.
>
> > Then state the frequency for Cl2 + hv => 2Cl
>
> ... no I don't have the rights to open the document.
>
> ... this says 130nm in a inert gas matrix, with "wierd sh*t" starting
> to happen at 180nm, and shutoff positive by 300nm.
>
> I'll let you figure out the frequency, OK?
It seems both references are not quite what I am looking for. In the
gas phase, there is no reference I can find that Cl2 is readily
dissociated into atomic Cl by any frequency of the solar spectrum.
Flaps_50!
> Dear JohnM:
>
> On Feb 18, 1:29 pm, JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 18, 10:20 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> ...
> > > > > and the most atmospheric chlorine by far is
> > > > > out-gassed from the oceans or emitted by
> > > > > volcanoes.
>
> > > > How does Cl2(g) become the 2Cl(g) needed to
> > > > catalyse 3O2(g) => 2O3(g)
>
> > > That part is easy with sufficiently energetic radiation.
>
> > Then state the frequency for Cl2 + hv => 2Cl
There's no simple answer to this question one needs to know
temperature, polarization, wavelength etc. You are such a twit -you
like to sound like you might know some science but you are a pompous
blowhard.
Now consider yourself smacked again !!!
Bwhahhahaha
Flaps_50!
Define readily. Did you know halogens can absorb short wavelength
light? What will happen if the energy of the photon is higher than the
bond energy?
Cheers
JohnM
Care to supply an answer to my implit question? Explicitly, what is
the frequency, empirically determined, that splits a Cl2 molecule?
Earl Evleth
3767e474-ebf2-43e4...@t32g2000pre.googlegroups.com,
"Flaps_50!" <more...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It seems both references are not quite what I am looking for. In the
>> gas phase, there is no reference I can find that Cl2 is readily
>> dissociated into atomic Cl by any frequency of the solar spectrum.
>
> Define readily. Did you know halogens can absorb short wavelength
> light? What will happen if the energy of the photon is higher than the
> bond energy?
C-Cl bonds an electronic transition region around 2000 nm
There is sufficient raw sun light UV to photodecompose
any C-Cl containng material.
C-F bonds will have a transition at much higher energy.
The C-Cl lowest electronic absorption band is a continum,
no find structure.
That is indicative of a predissocation, that the bond
rupture occurs in less than one vibration (picosecond)
Taking methyl chloride as an example, the higher frequency
absorptions (above 7.5 ev) are exciting Rydberg states.
and thise display vibrational structure meaning they
are stable for at least several C-Cl vibrations.
Cl2 itself is green and absorbs in the visible.
Its spectra shows some fine structure but is a
continum at the high end of the absorption curve.
In the continum region it is predissociative.
HCl is fairly photostable, the threshold for its
absorption is at high energies. HCl was once thought
to be the final trap for removing Cl atoms but
recent work on the ice particles shows HCl reaction
with Cl-O-NO2 yielding nitric acid and Cl2 which
photodecomposes yielded two Cl atoms.
Ozone hole chemistry has undergone some changes
but the essential is that man made chlorinated
products are the primary contaminate
Ozone hole chemistry involves the recycling of
HCl
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
dlzc
On Feb 19, 1:10 am, "John M." <jmorgan1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 11:36 pm,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
...
> >http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=...
> > ... this says 130nm in a inert gas matrix, with
> > "wierd sh*t" starting to happen at 180nm, and
> > shutoff positive by 300nm.
>
> > I'll let you figure out the frequency, OK?
>
> It seems both references are not quite what I am
> looking for. In the gas phase, there is no reference
> I can find that Cl2 is readily dissociated into atomic
> Cl by any frequency of the solar spectrum.
1) The Sun emits wavelengths shorter than 130nm, and they are
available at and above the "ozone layer". The quantities are
necessarily small...
2) This is a wild goose chase of your own making. Cl2 is not found in
Nature, as Cl is reactive enough to have found another home. The
"clown" you are discoursing with was referring to things like
chloromethane. So don't lose sight of your quarry.
David A. Smith
Earl Evleth
c314c891-e4d1-4075...@s25g2000prd.googlegroups.com,
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccide...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Thanks Earl.
The electronic spectra of small molecules and their photochemistry
is something I worked on and published in. I mentioned Rydberg states.
Some molecules only have Rydberg states. These arise by an electron
being excited outside the immediate confines of the molecules,
which can be symbolized by M(+)(e-). For instance, ammonia only has
Rydberg states and the lowest state undergoes N-H bond rupture immediately
as does water and methane.
The CFCs are tough molecules, the workhorse of atmospheric reactions is
the OH radical. Some replacements of CFC include some C-H bonds and
these will have shorter atmospheric lifetimes. CFC live a long long time
before decomposing.
The chemistry around the ozone hole is pretty well worked out.
But the formation of the hole is a meteorological event. It only
lasts a couple of months. The chemicals are still there all year
long. The fact that the hole did form and that the chemistry
was figured out was a lucky accident since it was a wake
up call that this could get worse globally. The overall
O3 lost globally is perhaps 5%. The hole has short term
losses way over 50%.
I knew Mario Molina, one of the Prize winners for the CFC
work, years ago.
I spent an hour or two talking over science in his office
at JPL years ago, the last time I saw him.
Earl Evleth
8b476002-30d2-4925...@t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com, "dlzc"
<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> 1) The Sun emits wavelengths shorter than 130nm, and they are
> available at and above the "ozone layer". The quantities are
> necessarily small...
The Sun's spectral distribution maxes in the visible and tails
off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
In the lab we can work down to 190 nm easily, but then one gets
into the vacuum UV, meaning oxygen in the air starts absorbing
below 190 nm. Quartz optics work down to 190 or so, below that
one can use saphire optics for a short range.
The threshold photochemistry of water occurs around 200 nm, ammonia
is a bit higher about 250 and methane is perhaps about 100 nm.
The threshold photochemistry of proteins also occurs around
250-300 nm. The intensity of radiation from the sun
below 200 nm drops off very quickly. C-Cl bonds will have
thresholds photochemistry in the 200-250 region.
I have seen no data on C-F but they should be much less
sensitive to rupture since the sun's energy spectrum
peters out. There is slow photochemistry from the sun
which occurs over millions of years on comets, cold
moons, etc. For instance CH4 + 10 ev light => CH2 + H2.
CH2 + CH4 => ethane. So from methane you can get
the higher hydrocarbons, slowly. To Titan's methone
lakes will have other stuff.
JohnM
His piece of 'American Thought' he was sharing specified chlorine
exiting volcanoes in quantity and this being the cause of the ozone
hole. Not knowing diddly squat about vulcanology I didn't appreciate
it was as combined chlorine in chloromethane.
Bill Ward
JohnM
Thank you.
I asked because of this statement in the article which spawned this
thread:
"It appears that the primary catalyst of ozone depletion is
atmospheric chlorine, and the
most atmospheric chlorine by far is out-gassed from the oceans or
emitted by volcanoes".
As you can appreciate, the chance of a chlorine molecule making it to
the top of the atmosphere and then photochemically dissociating is
remote. I'm surprised given your self-proclaimed eagle eye for bad
science you didn't pounce on it yourself. Perhaps you thought as the
article originated in American Thinker, there couldn't possibly be a
mistake in it.
Earl Evleth
ae34bade-2ff2-46e3...@l26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, "JohnM"
<john_howa...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> As you can appreciate, the chance of a chlorine molecule making it to
> the top of the atmosphere and then photochemically dissociating is
> remote.
Right, I would say absolute zero. I don't know of any Cl2 generating
reactions except the one cited with the reaction of HCL + ClONO2 on
Stratospheric ice particles as the AntArctic winter goes into Spring
there.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TFN-3Y8W8XC-2&_us
er=10&_coverDate=12%2F17%2F1999&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_doca
nchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1213807940&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_
version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1d1700e5be6889409ac23cda4cb8f5b6
It is a odd reaction and unlikely find for the research people who found it.
What other yet uncharacterized important reactions still exist is unknown.
Cl2 lifetime is short but it needs light to dissociate.
"The mean atmospheric lifetime of chlorine has been reported as 440 seconds"
Flaps_50!
WTF are you yapping about now? You really don't want an answer do
you? Perhaps you might like to THINK about chlorine fluorescence. If
you had managed to frame your question properly in the first place
instead of it being a diffuse blather perhaps someone might have
answered it. I will tell you that were scientific experiments carried
out ~85 years ago on light-induced halogen dissociation but I'll not
do any legwork for a blowhard like you. You yourself could even answer
it by applying QED (if you are smart enough -LOL!!!!). I suggest that
your pompous sophistical style doesn't deserve any scientist answering
your questions. Try Google -you'll find the answer.
Cheers
Flaps_50!
Very good. Of course Johnny won't like your answer.
Cheers
Flaps_50!
> "columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com>
I'm concerned about the focus on Cl chemistry when other compounds can
also break down O3. Why are nitrous and sulphur components ignored?
Cheers
Flaps_50!
>
> <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> > 1) The Sun emits wavelengths shorter than 130nm, and they are
> > available at and above the "ozone layer". The quantities are
> > necessarily small...
>
> The Sun's spectral distribution maxes in the visible and tails
>
> In the lab we can work down to 190 nm easily, but then one gets
> into the vacuum UV, meaning oxygen in the air starts absorbing
> below 190 nm. Quartz optics work down to 190 or so, below that
> one can use saphire optics for a short range.
>
> The threshold photochemistry of water occurs around 200 nm, ammonia
> is a bit higher about 250 and methane is perhaps about 100 nm.
> The threshold photochemistry of proteins also occurs around
> 250-300 nm. The intensity of radiation from the sun
> below 200 nm drops off very quickly. C-Cl bonds will have
> thresholds photochemistry in the 200-250 region.
>
Actually biological protein photochemistry can also occur in the near
UV and visible due to numerous chromophores present.
Cheers
Flaps_50!
Maybe so, but is it at a negligible concentration? You do know that
CFC's up there are measured in ppt? What about N compounds?
Cheers
Flaps_50!
>
> <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > As you can appreciate, the chance of a chlorine molecule making it to
> > the top of the atmosphere and then photochemically dissociating is
> > remote.
>
> Right, I would say absolute zero. I don't know of any Cl2 generating
> reactions except the one cited with the reaction of HCL + ClONO2 on
> Stratospheric ice particles as the AntArctic winter goes into Spring
> there.
>
> er=10&_coverDate=12%2F17%2F1999&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_doc a
> nchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1213807940&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221& _
> version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1d1700e5be6889409ac23cda4cb8f5b6
>
> It is a odd reaction and unlikely find for the research people who found it.
> What other yet uncharacterized important reactions still exist is unknown.
>
> Cl2 lifetime is short but it needs light to dissociate.
>
> "The mean atmospheric lifetime of chlorine has been reported as 440 seconds"
>
> www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp172-c6.pdf
One thing is clear, the absorbance spectrum up there is complex so
there are probably many things that are not being considered which may
contribute to O3 depletion. As is usual in climatology, the models and
thinking is myopic.
Cheers
dlzc
On Feb 19, 1:30 pm, "Flaps_50!" <morefl...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> I'm concerned about the focus on Cl chemistry when
> other compounds can also break down O3.
I concur. Water vapor is number one. It blocks ozone production,
accelerates ozone decay, recycles in a few simple steps to do it
again, and comes out in the exhaust of everything that breathes air
(plus rockets).
> Why are nitrous and sulphur components ignored?
"Nitrous" is formed when water vapor interferes with nitrogen acting
as a placeholder for monatomic oxygen (until it can deliver its
payload to an oxygen molecule). Nitrogen (and perhaps other actors)
play a critical role in the formation of ozone. The "placeholder"
role is well documented in ozone generators... whether air fed or
oxygen fed. It doesn't matter what the pressure is, or how the oxygen
atoms were scissioned...
Sulfur compounds are too bioavailable to stay long in the atmosphere.
Very few of them make it to altitude (unless bioengineers decide to
loft them to fight "global warming"). I would not concern myself with
them. Even H2S oxidzes easily if oxygen is present... and water vapor
(like at low altitudes) will really help here too.
David A. Smith
George
Yup.
However at those Ozone forming altitudes there is no water vapour.
Just clouds of ice crystals.
Bill Ward
Maybe someone could explain the alarm over the ozone "hole" to me.
As I understand it, O2 absorbs UV light to form O3, forming an "ozone
layer" at the corresponding altitude. There are various reactants, some
man made, which can catalytically decompose O3 back to O2.
Over the poles during the winter night, the ozone layer is observed to
thin. After sundown, is it really all that surprising that a
photochemical reaction (3O2 --> 2O3) would stop and allow the catalytic
reactions to reduce the ozone concentration?
There's an excess of O2, so during the day, when there's enough UV to
worry about, why doesn't O2 simply absorb it, forming more O3? It seems
like a self-regulating process to me. What's the problem?
What am I missing?
Last Post
> Maybe someone could explain the alarm over the ozone "hole" to me.
>
> As I understand it, O2 absorbs UV light to form O3, forming an "ozone
> layer" at the corresponding altitude. There are various reactants, some
> man made, which can catalytically decompose O3 back to O2.
øø It is a bullshit theory designed to benefit one
certain chemical company
> What am I
øø Nothing
ø The issue is really irrelevant.
Nobody can control the wind
Nobody can control the rain or snow
Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
Global temps are within natural variations
Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation
Get used to it!!
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
George
altered to include the warming cult
dlzc
Nope. Oxides of nitrogen only survive if water vapor helped form
them. And at those pressures and temperatures, water exists
simultaneously in two states, solid and gas. Cannot have one without
the other. Only ppm levels of water vapor are necessary to torpedo
ozone production.
David A. Smith
dlzc
On Feb 19, 4:43 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
...
> Maybe someone could explain the alarm over the
> ozone "hole" to me.
It is not the hole per se, but how early it starts, how little ozone
is in it, how big it gets, and how long it lasts. The ozone hole has
formed annually as long as we have had an ozone layer and an axial
tilt.
> As I understand it, O2 absorbs UV light to form
> O3, forming an "ozone layer" at the corresponding
> altitude. There are various reactants, some man
> made, which can catalytically decompose O3 back
> to O2.
Yes, and the equilibrium value of "total column ozone" is depressed
when additional depleters are added to the mix. Additional UV-B has
been detected in increasing amounts nearly every year since the 1700s
(as recorded by chemicals produced by trees when bombarded by it, away
from the Earth's equator).
> Over the poles during the winter night, the ozone layer
> is observed to thin. After sundown, is it really all that
> surprising that a photochemical reaction (3O2 --> 2O3)
> would stop and allow the catalytic reactions to reduce
> the ozone concentration?
Note what I said about "start", "depth", "size", and "duration". That
it decays stuff is no surprise. That it seems to be an increasing
effect (at least up until 2006), is now not in question.
> There's an excess of O2, so during the day, when
> there's enough UV to worry about, why doesn't O2
> simply absorb it, forming more O3? It seems like a
> self-regulating process to me. What's the problem?
>
> What am I missing?
Depression of equilibrium concentration.
David A. Smith
I M @ good guy
wrote:
I am sure he knows, but seems to neglect
the fact that the day is six months long and
the night is six months long there, and that
some O3-->O2 is always happening even with
no harmful chemicals, and at low sun angles
high clouds can shade the upper atmosphere
some distance away over part of the polar
region.
Over the rest of the world UV is constantly
converting O2 to O3 during daytime, so the
claims of a world wide loss of ozone was kind
of extreme, it is constantly being replaced.
People that have had cataract surgery may
be sensitive to strong sunlight, my old natural
lenses were very amber tinted and bright
lights cause me discomfort, even the monitor
brightness is a problem, that may have had
some influence on claims of people having
to wear sunglasses, even some young people
are light sensitive, and sunglasses always
were worn by most people in the sun belt.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> - Show quoted text -
and there may have been claims you had a brain, but thats a joke....
Bill Ward
Thanks for your reply, but it raises more questions.
How could the equilibrium concentration be depressed in a self-regulating
system if there's an excess of oxygen and UV? I'd think the O3 layer
would just sink a bit lower, maintaining about the same concentration.
Doesn't the Sun brighten predominately in the UV when it becomes more
active? If the Sun was previously quiet and began to become more active
in the 1700s, wouldn't the Sun account for increasing UV? Have any
honest investigators looked into solar effects of that sort?
JohnM
This fallacious argument about low concentration has been used many
times. A straightforward rebuttal is the level of botulinum toxin
needed to produce mortality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulinum_toxin
> What about N compounds?
Which ones do you have in mind?
I M @ good guy
What is going on, I tried to find a reference to
temperatures in the upper stratosphere, and found
a gif link that a NASA web page contained, but it
loaded and then a page not found message came up.
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/essd/atmos_temps/tropo_temp.gif
First url at;
http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Who&%2339%3Bs-Lying_26330.html
Graph from;
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
It's like NASA has a forked tongue, or at least
at one time, but maybe now the warmers have
corrected even existing science.
http://digitaldiatribes.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/latest-cooling.jpg
from;
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/comment.html?entrynum=74&tstamp=&page=1
gives another conflicting impression.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/
shows temperatures at 2 millibar at 60-90 south as;
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/02mb6590.gif
Some times above freezing.
bw
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:0dKdnci8X7ML4OLW...@giganews.com...
Precisely correct. Ozone production also has a positive pressure component.
ie. the chemical reaction is favored more as pressure increases. There never
was any ozone problem.
The ozone issue was current when I was doing graduate work on low pressure
atmospheric chemistry. I can remember the professor's bemused look when he
tried to explain why the issue ever arose in the poplular media, likely just
some new instruments needed to be sold, or some corrupt politician made a
deal with kickbacks.
> Doesn't the Sun brighten predominately in the UV when it becomes more
> active? If the Sun was previously quiet and began to become more active
> in the 1700s, wouldn't the Sun account for increasing UV? Have any
> honest investigators looked into solar effects of that sort?
>
I don't remember exactly here, but solar UV variability did not help the CFC
industrial profit margin. I've not bothered to maintain any attention to the
issue over the years. I doubt any amount of chlorine or flourine released
will damage the surface UV exposure.
JohnM
I'm sure you are familiar with a constant head device used to maintain
a steady pressure and flow of water.At the outset water overflows with
the supply being in excess of the demand.
Now imagine drilling a series of small holes randomly in the side of
the cistern. Initially the flow and pressure will not be affected,
because the 'leaks' will simply remove surplus like the overflow. But
eventually these will exceed the input and the pressure and flow will
drop in response, finding a new equilibrium.
> Doesn't the Sun brighten predominately in the UV when it becomes more
> active? If the Sun was previously quiet and began to become more active
> in the 1700s, wouldn't the Sun account for increasing UV? Have any
> honest investigators looked into solar effects of that sort?
Doesn't this question presuppose that dishonest investigators have
already looked? If so, what were their false discoveries and how did
they hope to profit from them?
Bill Ward
Thanks for your comments. I remember being a bit dubious about the
"ozone hole" arguments given at the time, but never pursued it, being
younger and more gullible. The climate scam has now opened my eyes
somewhat.
I wonder how many other "facts" we've been sold will turn out to be due
to a scientific fast shuffle rather than an honest analysis?
Earl Evleth
ebba3dad-f732-4725...@z1g2000prc.googlegroups.com,
"Flaps_50!" <more...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm concerned about the focus on Cl chemistry when other compounds can
> also break down O3. Why are nitrous and sulphur components ignored?
Bromine is is like Chorine, bromomethane is release by the ocean.
It plays a significant role
O3 is generally reactive and has low activation energies, the
reaction of Cl + O3 has none so it occurs rapidly at low
temperatures. The reaction yields ClO which is itself is reactive
(reacts with atomic oxygen to yield Cl + O2, where Cl can continue
destroying O3. Bromine does the same thing, atoms initially released by the
photodecomposition of CH3Br.
This is discussed at http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonedestruction.htm
ClO can react with NO2 to give Cl-ONO2.
In my final years before my retirement I got interested in various
theoretical aspects of these problems. I would think O3 would react quickly
with SO2 to give SO3 + O2 but found nothing on this. SO2 has
a fairly short life time before being oxidized to SO3
(by OH radicals) in the lower atmosphere, SO3 eventually terminating
by hydration as sulfuric acid. I might be that SO3 could react
with O3 to give SO2 + 2O2 but I have not looked into the thermodyanmics
of that.
O3, although a simple structure is difficult to calculate using standard
quantum mechanical tools (which I used at the time) but the methodology
was just coming in to do so.
The other complexity of the chemistry is that an O2 generating reactions
can give either triplet O2 (which is it ground state) or singlet O2
a highly reactive form of oxygen.
I also was curious about the HCl + CLONO2 => Cl2 + HNO3 reaction which
occurs on the springtime ice crystals. It must have a low activation
energy since it is "very cold" up there. Theoretical treatment of
this reaction has been reported but the papers have to be purchased
via the web. I am too cheap to buy these so eventually may make
it back to the University library here in Paris.
Earl Evleth
9e061b4a-f043-4963...@m35g2000prh.googlegroups.com,
"Flaps_50!" <more...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually biological protein photochemistry can also occur in the near
> UV and visible due to numerous chromophores present.
The amino acids which do this are tryptophan, phenylalanine
and tryosine. They all of spectral tails which peter
out around 300 nm with They don't absorb about the threshold of
the visible (beteen 360-400 nm) but will yield some fluorescence.
(blue at the edge of the visible).
I looked into the photochemistry of tryptophan years ago
but only published once paper on indole (Theoretical analysis of the
photophysical properties of indole, the indolyl radical, and the indole
radical cation
E. M.�Evleth, O.�Chalvet, P.�Bamiere J. Phys. Chem., 1977, 81 (20), pp
1913�1917.
It appears that the photochemistry in proteins involves electron
ejection and the subsequent reaction of the cation radical.
In that sense the damage is like that seen with gamma ray
ionization which blasts out lots of electrons yield
reactive.
The absorption spectral behavior of fluorescence shows that
the photochemistry does not occur near the threshold
of absorption. So while tryptophan fluorescence can
occur by excitation the 300-330 nm region the
photochemistry is initiated at higher energies
around 250 nm
DNA bases also absorb in the same region as proteins but
I have not looked at the photochemistry but DNA and its
bases exhibit no fluorescence for reasons not completely
understood.
Androcles
"dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3f15f51a-39bf-44a5...@k2g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Dear Bill Ward:
On Feb 19, 4:43 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
...
> Maybe someone could explain the alarm over the
> ozone "hole" to me.
It is not the hole per se, but how early it starts, how little ozone
is in it, how big it gets, and how long it lasts. The ozone hole has
formed annually as long as we have had an ozone layer and an axial
tilt.
> As I understand it, O2 absorbs UV light to form
> O3, forming an "ozone layer" at the corresponding
> altitude. There are various reactants, some man
> made, which can catalytically decompose O3 back
> to O2.
Yes, and the equilibrium value of "total column ozone" is depressed
when additional depleters are added to the mix. Additional UV-B has
been detected in increasing amounts nearly every year since the 1700s
(as recorded by chemicals produced by trees when bombarded by it, away
from the Earth's equator).
==================================================
How many trees does Antarctica have, and just when in the 1700s were those
tree chemicals recorded, Smiffy?
"Although myths and speculation about a Terra Australis ("Southern Land")
date back to antiquity, the first confirmed sighting of the continent is
commonly accepted to have occurred in 1820 by the Russian expedition of
Mikhail Lazarev and Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen. The continent,
however, remained largely neglected for the rest of the 19th century because
of its hostile environment, lack of resources, and isolation. " --
Wackypedia.
I know what bullshit is without stepping in it.
Earl Evleth
2e18af85-18e0-400a...@k2g2000pro.googlegroups.com,
"Flaps_50!" <more...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One thing is clear, the absorbance spectrum up there is complex so
> there are probably many things that are not being considered which may
> contribute to O3 depletion. As is usual in climatology, the models and
> thinking is myopic.
Cl2 is important but only as generated by the reaction of HCl + CLONO2.
That finding postdated the original CFC work and indicates that other
reactions might be occurring. One has confidence that the central
role of CFC has not changed.
dlzc
On Feb 19, 11:13 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
...
> > Depression of equilibrium concentration.
>
> Thanks for your reply, but it raises more questions.
>
> How could the equilibrium concentration be
> depressed in a self-regulating system if there's
> an excess of oxygen and UV?
There isn't an excess of UV-C and more energetic radiation. It is all
gone by the "ozone layer". Otherwise, the layer would end up sparser
but more spread out, for net no change.
> I'd think the O3 layer would just sink a bit lower,
> maintaining about the same concentration.
Not just one flavor of light. UV-B intensity is secularly increasing
at Earth's surface, away from the equator.
> Doesn't the Sun brighten predominately in the UV
> when it becomes more active? If the Sun was
> previously quiet and began to become more active
> in the 1700s, wouldn't the Sun account for increasing
> UV? Have any honest investigators looked into solar
> effects of that sort?
The Sun's output is monitored, almost continuously. It does correlate
with "flareups", and does correlate with Coronal Mass Ejection
arrivals, but it does not correlate with the long term trend.
David A. Smith
dlzc
On Feb 20, 3:12 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote:
...
> How many trees does Antarctica have, and just when
> in the 1700s were those tree chemicals recorded, Smiffy?
Fossil trees under the ice. The trees I referred to were, as I
recall, in Russia. You too seem to want to concentrate on the
vicinity of the larger ozone hole. Don't The hole is larger for
other reasons than "overall ozone layer health".
> "Although myths and speculation about a Terra Australis
> ("Southern Land") date back to antiquity, the first
> confirmed sighting of the continent is commonly accepted
> to have occurred in 1820 by the Russian expedition of
> Mikhail Lazarev and Fabian Gottlieb von Bellingshausen.
> The continent, however, remained largely neglected for the
> rest of the 19th century because of its hostile environment,
> lack of resources, and isolation. " --
> Wackypedia.
> I know what bullshit is without stepping in it.
You should, as you are well acquainted with its source.
David A. Smith
dlzc
On Feb 19, 11:48 pm, "I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
...
> Some times above freezing.
Freezing changes a bit with pressure. But the key is, just because
there is some ice, does not mean it is all ice. Ice is "temporary
storage for excess water" at those pressures. There is still water
vapor present, and seeing ice will assure you it is a maximum possible
value. Period.
You might want to study "dew point", and how water vapor is present in
an air stream that passes over (for example) dry ice. Seems a lot of
people can learn a lot for the "art" of making ozone with ozone
generators...
By the way, ice is sometimes used to store ozone. Not very effective,
as ozone's half-life is unaffected... and *liquid* ozone's half-life
is still about a week... (just mentioning this since decay rate is
temperature dependent).
David A. Smith
Androcles
Hello Androcles:
On Feb 20, 3:12 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote:
...
> How many trees does Antarctica have, and just when
> in the 1700s were those tree chemicals recorded, Smiffy?
Fossil trees under the ice. The trees I referred to were, as I
recall, in Russia. You too seem to want to concentrate on the
vicinity of the larger ozone hole. Don't The hole is larger for
other reasons than "overall ozone layer health".
============================================
So the hole in the ozone happened over Siberia and resulted in
trees becoming fossilized and buried in ice in the 1700s, as you
recall. Your longevity is remarkable, Smiffy. Have you been in
suspended animation on ice since the 1700s?
> I know what bullshit is without stepping in it.
You should, as you are well acquainted with its source.
David A. Smith
============================================
Yes, I've been familiar with usenet for some years now and there
can be no greater source of crap outside the Vatican, the White
House or Westminster Palace. Academia is in a class by itself.
dlzc
On Feb 19, 11:54 pm, "bw" <bweg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
...
> > How could the equilibrium concentration be depressed
> > in a self-regulating system if there's an excess of
> > oxygen and UV? I'd think the O3 layer would just sink
> > a bit lower, maintaining about the same concentration.
>
> Precisely correct. Ozone production also has a positive
> pressure component. ie. the chemical reaction is favored
> more as pressure increases.
But there is no UV-C lower, to break oxygen apart, to make ozone
from. A loss is a loss. UV-B does not make ozone.
> There never was any ozone problem.
Over 300 years of increasing damage to trees in northern and southern
latitudes says you are incorrect. And other data sets besides. And
note that this indicates that CFCs are not the only problem...
> The ozone issue was current when I was doing
> graduate work on low pressure atmospheric chemistry.
> I can remember the professor's bemused look when he
> tried to explain why the issue ever arose in the
> poplular media, likely just some new instruments needed
> to be sold, or some corrupt politician made a deal with
> kickbacks.
Yes, references to "profit margins" and unscrupulous behavior always
serves to blind others to one's lack of concentration.
> > Doesn't the Sun brighten predominately in the UV
> > when it becomes more active? If the Sun was
> > previously quiet and began to become more active
> > in the 1700s, wouldn't the Sun account for increasing
> > UV? Have any honest investigators looked into solar
> > effects of that sort?
>
> I don't remember exactly here, but solar UV variability
> did not help the CFC industrial profit margin. I've not
> bothered to maintain any attention to the issue over
> the years. I doubt any amount of chlorine or flourine
> released will damage the surface UV exposure.
Not supported by the facts. Increases in UV-B have been noted by many
different sorts of ground observations, and since we have had the
ability to accurately measure solar output, we still have a long term
increase that is *not* driven by the Sun.
By the way, the chemical companies are going to be faced with worrying
about the compounds they make (using fluorine as the only halogen)
acting as endocrine disrupters now. We make stuff that takes decades,
then centuries, and dump them to the atmosphere...
So prepare your case for these chemical costs to go up yet again, and
new products to have to be developed, employing new people, and new
methods, and more researches, and so on.
David A. Smith
Bill Ward
I don't understand the obsession with destruction of ozone in the dark.
Ozone is formed by the reaction of UV and O2, and UV is then absorbed by
ozone. If some of the ozone is destroyed by the trace catalysts, more
will immediately be produced by UV and O2. If there is insufficient UV
to form ozone, then the absorption is obviously unnecessary. I seriously
doubt we'll run out of O2 any time soon.
Has there been any honest effort to calculate the amount of CFCs that
would be necessary to significantly increase the surface UV? It seems to
me the negative feedback from production of ozone would swamp the CFC
destruction in much the same way as WV swamps the warming influence
influence of CO2 in the stratosphere.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:49:44 +0100, Earl Evleth wrote:
> > On 19/02/10 21:30, in article
> > "Flaps_50!" <morefl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I'm concerned about the focus on Cl chemistry when other compounds can
> >> also break down O3. Why are nitrous and sulphur components ignored?
>
> > Bromine is is like Chorine, bromomethane is release by the ocean. It
> > plays a significant role
>
> > O3 is generally reactive and has low activation energies, the reaction
> > of Cl + O3 has none so it occurs rapidly at low temperatures. The
> > reaction yields ClO which is itself is reactive (reacts with atomic
> > oxygen to yield Cl + O2, where Cl can continue destroying O3. Bromine
> > does the same thing, atoms initially released by the photodecomposition
> > of CH3Br.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
here is bill wards typical challenge, "it seems to me.... swamps
out....". He is asking a rate of change question, but leaves out the
idea of a semi isolated mass of air, the polar vortex, meaning the
rate of replenishment is limited. The question is how fast is O3
replenished, compared to the effects of stratospheric cholorine, but
the polar vortex changes the dynamic of bills question.
Earl Evleth
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> I don't understand the obsession with destruction of ozone in the dark.
> Ozone is formed by the reaction of UV and O2, and UV is then absorbed by
> ozone.
And destroyed. Ozone formation and destruction goes on in the absence of
CFCs is a cyclic process. What the CFCs do is join the UV light and
destroy even more ozone, which leads a net Ozone loss.
Bill Ward
In the dark. But during the day, there seems to be enough O2 and UV to
easily overcome the trace catalysis. It seems eerily similar to the AGW
claim that the trace amounts of CO2 can somehow overcome the feedback
effects of the overwhelming effect of water. In each case, the
importance of a minor factor is apparently wildly overestimated.
Earl Evleth
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>> And destroyed. Ozone formation and destruction goes on in the absence
>> of CFCs is a cyclic process. What the CFCs do is join the UV light and
>> destroy even more ozone, which leads a net Ozone loss.
>
> In the dark. But during the day, there seems to be enough O2 and UV to
> easily overcome the trace catalysis. It seems eerily similar to the AGW
> claim that the trace amounts of CO2 can somehow overcome the feedback
> effects of the overwhelming effect of water. In each case, the
> importance of a minor factor is apparently wildly overestimated.
>
The ozone destruction does not require light all the time.
Light is necessary to the photodecomposition of the CFC,
but the Cl atom is constantly being regenerated, so plays
a catalytic effect. That is a dark reaction.
The ozone hole occurs because of the vortex + the CFC
chemstry. The Antarctic spring (September => November)
produces enough heat to release materials trapped out
by ice particles the HCL + Cl-ONO2 occurs on the ice and releases
CL2 which requires light to decompose.
The low light intensities in the 200-250 nm region prevents
the CFC's going quickly so their presence constantly replaces
the Cl atoms sequestered by some other reactions. The net
result is that the ozone hole size and loss around October
1st of each year goes nearly unchanges. It is like a toilet
constantly dirty because one does not have the means to clean
it.
Bill Ward
Just like the IPCC.
Martin Brown
Not at all. When the conditions are right in the Antarctic spring the
combination of strong sunlight and still very cold stratosphere with
polar stratospheric clouds present. The ozone level cripples due to
catalytic reactions that destroy ozone rapidly. The same also happens
sometimes over Europe when PSCs form there (eg Feb 1996 and Nov 1999)
this being more of a problem over heavily populated areas.
CFCs is a rather good litmus test for paranoid lying dittoheads.
Anyone with a past history as a denier for hire in the cases of:
Wearing seatbelts does not save lives.
Smoking tobacco is good for you.
CFCs do not damage the ozone layer
Can safely be dismissed as a rightard crank.
Regards,
Martin Brown
I M @ good guy
Have you been drinking with your left hand?
"Denier for hire", what a laugh, liberals
think everybody has money but them.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:24:05 +0000, Martin Brown
>
>
>
>
>
> <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Bill Ward wrote:
> >> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 11:20:45 +0100, Earl Evleth wrote:
>
> >>> On 21/02/10 7:08, in article
>
> - Show quoted text -
cool, so you all act like idiots for free, wow, i thought you must get
something in compensation for acting stupid on purpose, because you
sure dont deserve much for advancing science, and you all sure dont
use logic and common sense when making your arguments..