Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

2003 Antarctic Ozone Hole Equals Record Size
Space Daily ^ | 09/17/2003

Posted on 09/17/2003 10:31:26 AM PDT by cogitator

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-82 last
To: cogitator
My guess is that the phenomenon is cyclic, with a longer period than we've been measuring. I used to work in the Earth remote sensing business, on a similar topic. My impression at the time was that we needed several decades of data, with significant overlaps between sensors, before we can make any reasonable statements about what conditions are "normal", and whether our industrial activities have anything to do with climatic variations. We're at best halfway there, IMPO.
51 posted on 09/17/2003 3:14:46 PM PDT by ArrogantBustard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: WiscYooper; UCANSEE2; cogitator
This is a collective response to rightwhale, ucansee2, wiscyooper and cogitator, so please excuse so unorganized a message.

I normally don’t comment on scientific or medical matters, since my profession for the years 1969 to date has been in the financial industry and my ongoing education into science has only been a hobby in passing since I have left that field. The only exceptions I have made recently, are regarding the SARS BS and blatant hogwash like the “Ozone Hole.”

My major in college was physics and worked for two summers while attending school for GE at their Missile And Space Reentry Division near Philadelphia in a lab studying the effects on communications of the plasma created around a spacecraft on reentry. This was in the mid 1960’s. My last job in the field was in my senior year for one of my professors working in his lab studying the plasma effects generated by high energy “explosions” of matter. When, in Atomic Physics, I got to the “Uncertainty Principle”, which I was supposed to believe was science, I hung up my science shoes, quit school and entered the free market of the Stock Market in which I am still involved to this day.

Now to the “Ozone Hole.” Anyone can buy any scientific opinion they want, if they have enough money, like the government. For the most part science today is the “whore” of governments. I could see this happening even in the 1960’s, but today it is happening at warp speed.

(1) Discovering the hole 1958 is like discovering that a room is dark at night when you turn off the lights. Ozone (O3) is created by sunlight which ionizes oxygen (O2). The level of ozone in the upper atmosphere is directly related to the intensity of the sun’s radiation. When in winter in Antarctica the angle of incidence of the sun is low, the ozone drops to a low level, causing the famous “hole.” Congratulations, Sherlock on your scientific discovery!

(2) Somehow this simple fact needs other factors to “make it happen,” like CFC’s, freon, chlorine, etc. I always questioned how a very heavy molecule like freon was able to rise into the upper atmosphere amongst rather light gases like hydrogen, oxygen and other carbon gases. But not to worry, even gravity will give way for enough greenbacks.

(3) Scientific education today is an oxymoron. Other than in the applied sciences, like computer technology [still working on every old theory], science is dead, especially to the masses of regular people. I got a lesson on how stupid I was recently when I ran across the graduation exam for 8th grade in a small Midwest town, which was given in the late 1800’s. I would have been very happy to get a 50% grade. Today the best Harvard PHD student would not get 15% right. But not to fear, didn’t you read that the latest SAT scores are the highest in decades? Yes, because they are liars, and have changed the scoring, tests, and whatever else they needed to do to make it so.

(4) You would be surprised how much bull-crap passes itself off as science or especially medicine today. To rule a people you only need to keep them dumb and afraid. I give you a short list of BS items, which I will not comment on, that you should beware of any pronouncements about: AIDS, SARS, HARP, Bio-chemical Attacks, Pollution, Global Warming [Cooling], Weather Modification, etc, etc, etc.

Bye.

If anyone would like further communication I suggest direct private email to me at:

"ido@bellsouth.net"
52 posted on 09/17/2003 8:40:52 PM PDT by ido_now
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Not to be contrary, Cog, but it will take more than a graph to make me a believer. I am pro-environment, but nowhere near anything like the average "greenie." If fact, if the Greens/Sierra Club are for something, I'm automatically against it unless I KNOW that they are correct about it, like the prohibition in Atlanta against building/expanding freeways, while we all sit in traffic, a classic example of counter-productive pursuits on their part.

In fact, my solution is to tax the H--- out of those jackasses who ride around in SUVs, etc, gas guzzlers which over-pollute, all for the twits among us who have never seen a dirt road in their lives. They talk about freedom to drive what they want, regardless of the consequences. They don't care about the price of gas, or pollution at all, so I return the favor and do not care about them. Besides, if you have ever been on the road with one of those "tankers," you know that they have the same mentality as pickup truck drivers: "I'll run your a-- off the road, whatever it takes to let you know who owns it." They deserve no consideration at all.

LOL, maybe we can trick the greenies into thinking that we need a express lane exclusively for non-SUV-Pickups-minivans, that will reduce traffic by 90%. Get these clowns, along with the "50-MPH cell phone users" and self-absorbed dingbats who can't grasp the concept of "slower traffic, get in the right-most lanes," and I might be able to actually drive on a freeway without ever needing to use my brakes. But that would be too much like heaven, wouldn't it?

I believe that those orgs above are more about anti-Capitalism than any other issue. 'Tis passé to be a commie but in vogue to be a greenie, a distinction without a difference in my view.....

53 posted on 09/17/2003 8:44:41 PM PDT by Malcolm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
"The use of ozone depleting chemicals is presently being controlled through the enforcement of international agreements. Measurements show that most of these chemicals are decreasing in the lower atmosphere and they appear to have reached their peak in the critically important ozone layer in the stratosphere. ..." [from article]

What are the concentrations of ozone-destroying chemicals as a function of time ?

54 posted on 09/17/2003 9:00:26 PM PDT by gatex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ido_now
I always questioned how a very heavy molecule like freon was able to rise into the upper atmosphere amongst rather light gases like hydrogen, oxygen and other carbon gases. But not to worry, even gravity will give way for enough greenbacks.

This is exactly what the authors of "The Holes in the Ozone Scare" bring up. The green's arument is that winds carry the stuff aloft. However, even if winds do carry the stuff to the upper atmosphere, it seems impossible for the wind to carry a large percentage of the CFCs up.

55 posted on 09/18/2003 6:40:35 AM PDT by saminfl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: ido_now
I'd love to try and educate you, but it's probably not worth my time. So I'll cut to the chase. You're WRONG. The ozone hole is absolutely real. The mechanisms that cause it are well-known and tested. I will refer you to this Web link. I suggest that you read it if you want to be better informed. If you don't, then your ignorance is not my problem.

The Ozone Hole Tour

56 posted on 09/18/2003 9:08:14 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: saminfl
Study the word "diffusion", Sam.

57 posted on 09/18/2003 9:10:23 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Study the word "diffusion", Sam.

Diffusion means it is spread out or not concentrated. Still, you and your ilk are trying to say that the entire amout of CFCs leaked is concentrated in the upper atmosphere. Do you agree that CFCs are heavier than air? If so, would you not agree that they would be diffused mostly at or near ground level? I can direct you (In fact I think I alrady have) to a web site that refutes what your web site says.

58 posted on 09/18/2003 9:23:59 AM PDT by saminfl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: ido_now
As an astronomer, meteorologist and software engineer for the last 30 years, I have only one thing to say:

You are absolutely correct!

There is no such thing as an "Ozone Hole", only an "Ozone Donut", since the angle of incidence is the single most important aspect.

As you correctly stated, Ozone (O3) is created by sunlight which ionizes oxygen (O2). During the polar winters where there is no sunlight for 6 months out of the year, Ozone is no longer being created.

However, at latitudes above the polar circle, the long duration sunsets produced large quantities of Ozone. That is a simple function of solar incidence (angle between the Sun and the horizon).

59 posted on 09/18/2003 9:26:23 AM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
Apparently we are in error, according the Cambridge University. To paraphrase Malcome Forbes: "Socialist Tool."

I shiver now in my boots.

Cambridge University was last well respected when I believe Sir Issac Newton was in charge. Don't forget to celebrate his birthday next December 25.

60 posted on 09/18/2003 1:04:26 PM PDT by ido_now
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: saminfl
Diffusion means it is spread out or not concentrated. Still, you and your ilk are trying to say that the entire amout of CFCs leaked is concentrated in the upper atmosphere. Do you agree that CFCs are heavier than air? If so, would you not agree that they would be diffused mostly at or near ground level? I can direct you (In fact I think I alrady have) to a web site that refutes what your web site says.

Sorry for the hurricane-induced delay in replying, Sam. You've got a major conceptual error in the above paragraph. NOBODY is saying that the entire amount of CFCs leaked is concentrated in the upper atmosphere. Only a very small amount of CFC molecules reach the upper atmosphere (compared to the amount released)! But in the upper atmosphere the CFC molecules are broken down by energetic reactions (cosmic rays, free oxygen), which releases the chlorine and fluorine, which are highly reactive. Cl and F react with ozone, breaking it down. In the normal stratosphere, this has resulted in a slight (5%) ozone concentration reduction. But in the polar vortex, ozone breakdown reactions are catalyzed on polar ice cloud particles, resulting in a much larger decrease in CFC concentration.

Does your Web site refute that scenario? Or does it merely refute erroneous models?

61 posted on 09/22/2003 7:19:44 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
OZONE DEPLETION AND CFC THEORY by S. Fred Singer Science, September 1993

1. Gary Taubes' article ("The Ozone Backlash," Science, June 11, pp 1580-1583) refers to my commentaries as "purporting to shoot holes in the [CFC] theory of ozone depletion." This is hardly necessary; since March 1988 numerous press releases have announced ozone depletion to be "worse than expected" [from the theory]--thus effectively discrediting it.

My comments have pointed to the lack--so far--of convincing observational evidence for long-term ozone depletion:

The data from ground-based observing stations are reported to be contaminated by UV absorption from atmospheric sulfur dioxide (1).

The statistical treatment is inadequate, with the derived "trend" strongly dependent on the time interval selected for analysis (2).

There is also the problem of disentangling any CFC effects from long-term ozone trends of natural origin, correlated with well-recorded trends in sunspot numbers (3).

Obviously, one cannot exclude the possibility of a long-term depletion of ozone due to anthropogenic causes, and specifically due to CFCs. But with each cause producing its characteristic "finger prints," proof must rely on a longer time series of more detailed observations (of CFC-specific altitude, latitude, and seasonal dependence). 2. While skeptical about the evidence for depletion, I consider the Antarctic ozone "hole" to be a genuine phenomenon, but have held a somewhat different view about its future. I have speculated (4) that--once there is sufficient chlorine present--the intensity of the hole is mainly controlled by the presence of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs), and therefore by temperature and humidity rather than just atmospheric CFC concentration. Because the ongoing increase in atmospheric CO2 should gradually lower stratospheric temperatures (as a result of increased radiation loss), and the increase in methane should gradually increase stratospheric water vapor content (5), it is possible that the hole will persist--even if the chlorine concentration falls below the pre-1975 value. We don't know for certain where the chlorine threshold lies; it is possible therefore that an ozone hole could form in the Arctic if climate conditions favor the formation of PSCs there--even in the absence of CFC-produced chlorine (4).

3. Another controversial issue is covered by Taubes and in an adjacent article (6): What are the relative contribu- tions of natural and human sources to stratospheric chlorine? One side claims that the major sources are volcanic (7,8). The other side criticizes these estimates, arguing that nearly all of the chlorine emitted by volcanic and oceanic sources is washed out in the lower atmosphere, "with negligible quantities reaching the stratosphere" (9). A recent paper (10) claims removal of "up to" four orders of magnitude; but Taubes relates that El Chichon increased global stratospheric chlorine by 10 percent. I conclude that reliable statements about the relative effects of natural and human sources should be based on observed trends of stratospheric chlorine rather than on speculative calculations.

Rowland correctly quotes my views on sources of chlorine as of 1988 (11), but does not cite the relevant 1987 papers by Zander et al (12). They found that the total columns of HCl and HF (the major stratospheric reservoir gases for chlorine and fluorine) increased, from 1977 to 1986, at rates of (0.75 + 0.2)% and (8.5 + 1)% per year, respectively. Since HF is ascribed entirely to CFCs, the much lower trend for HCl would lead one to believe that there are large natural sources of stratospheric chlorine that overwhelm the CFC contribution.

This situation changed in 1991, however, when Curtis Rinsland et al, repeating Zander's measurements of solar IR spectra, reported increases for HCl and HF of (5.1 + 0.7)% and (10.9 + 1.1)% per year, respectively, for the period 1977-1990, thus suggesting CFCs as a major source (13). Nevertheless, Rinsland et al conclude--and I tend to agree: "...in contrast to HF, there are significant natural as well as anthropogenic sources of HCl."

According to Taubes, Rowland and others tag their opponents with "selective use of ...scientific papers and an equally discretionary choice of scientific results..." But in his "President's Lecture" Rowland quotes only papers that support his own view on CFC sources; the 1983 paper (14) he cites is in apparent disagreement with Zander's 1987 findings, and has been effectively criticized by Prinn (15).

I note in passing that the Montreal Protocol was signed in November 1987, and that production limits on CFCs were tightened in the period 1987 to 1991, when published scientific data indicated that CFCs were not an important source of stratospheric chlo- rine.

S. Fred Singer Science & Environmental Policy Project --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

62 posted on 09/22/2003 7:52:39 AM PDT by saminfl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: saminfl
Interesting quote you supply. Let's see what Singer says.

Obviously, one cannot exclude the possibility of a long-term depletion of ozone due to anthropogenic causes, and specifically due to CFCs. But with each cause producing its characteristic "finger prints," proof must rely on a longer time series of more detailed observations (of CFC-specific altitude, latitude, and seasonal dependence). 2. While skeptical about the evidence for depletion, I consider the Antarctic ozone "hole" to be a genuine phenomenon, but have held a somewhat different view about its future. I have speculated (4) that--once there is sufficient chlorine present--the intensity of the hole is mainly controlled by the presence of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs), and therefore by temperature and humidity rather than just atmospheric CFC concentration. Because the ongoing increase in atmospheric CO2 should gradually lower stratospheric temperatures (as a result of increased radiation loss), and the increase in methane should gradually increase stratospheric water vapor content (5), it is possible that the hole will persist--even if the chlorine concentration falls below the pre-1975 value. We don't know for certain where the chlorine threshold lies; it is possible therefore that an ozone hole could form in the Arctic if climate conditions favor the formation of PSCs there--even in the absence of CFC-produced chlorine (4).

In essence, this paragraph admits that Cl on polar stratospheric clouds causes ozone depletion in the Antarctic ozone hole. It also indicates that CFCs are a source of chlorine to the stratosphere.

Singer is a well-known skeptic on this; his stance on ozone depletion marginalized him even before he pushed his global warming skepticism with a petition hoax. While realizing that stating that runs the risk of being accused of an ad hominem argument, the remainder of what you supplied is clearly a skeptical argument, which is why I pointed this out.

It is absolutely true that low-level sources of HCl and HF "wash out" of the lower atmosphere and don't reach the stratosphere. If El Chichon increased stratospheric Cl by 10%, it was one of only two post-1970 eruptions powerful enough for major emissions to reach the stratosphere (the other being Pinatubo in 1991). Surely Singer doesn't think that one or two volcanoes are the major source of supply of Cl to the stratosphere. Or does he? This type of "uncertainty" argument is a typical skeptical way to argue.

Next question: does "total column" HCl and HF refer to tropospheric, mesospheric, and stratospheric concentrations, or just to stratospheric concentrations? That's not clear.

But the next paragraph is the most remarkable of all:

This situation changed in 1991, however, when Curtis Rinsland et al, repeating Zander's measurements of solar IR spectra, reported increases for HCl and HF of (5.1 + 0.7)% and (10.9 + 1.1)% per year, respectively, for the period 1977-1990, thus suggesting CFCs as a major source (13). Nevertheless, Rinsland et al conclude--and I tend to agree: "...in contrast to HF, there are significant natural as well as anthropogenic sources of HCl."

So Singer admits that CFCs are a major source of atmospheric HCl, but there are also natural sources. Well, there are, but this doesn't address or answer what the major sources of stratospheric Cl are. Is this a version of skeptical "bait and switch"? I can't tell without some context.

It appears that Singer's main line of argument is that CFCs are not a major source of stratospheric chlorine. Well, I posted this figure on another thread a few weeks ago; it shows stratospheric concentrations of CFCs as measured by an instrument (CLAES) on NASA's Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS):


The units are parts per trillion by volume (pptv).

The source of this figure is a massive and comprehensive resource entitled Stratospheric Ozone: An Electronic Textbook. Virtually any question about the subject of stratospheric ozone and ozone depletion can be answered with this resource, if you're willing to take the time to read it.

Regarding Singer's final point, I'd like to know what reference he's referring to, and how he would assess this figure:


63 posted on 09/22/2003 9:21:11 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
http://www.sepp.org/ozone/ozdeplth.html

I thought I knew how to post a url, but I guess I was wrong.

64 posted on 09/22/2003 9:52:21 AM PDT by saminfl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
I'll keep that in mind the next time I plan a vacation.
65 posted on 09/22/2003 11:26:25 AM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Look up F. Sherwood Rowland and his buddy, Mario Molina; they have gotten quite rich since their initial clamorings brought all this on.

I will say that industry has adjusted quite well to the changeover to alternative refrigerants and I suppose there is no reason why even scientists shouldn't engage in a bit of self-promotion now and then.

66 posted on 09/22/2003 11:31:20 AM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
One of the researchers who was at JPL in 1992 told me on the phone that the hole would grow larger until one day all the ozone would be gone from the upper atmosphere; he said it was too late to do anything about it.

I wish I could remember his name.

67 posted on 09/22/2003 11:34:16 AM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
It's the fault of France. The run all those millions of HDI diesels on the road. They're not allowed here because of high ozone emissions.
68 posted on 09/22/2003 11:47:21 AM PDT by cookcounty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
The Argentine air force's Global Atmospheric Monitoring Station reported that during the two days of extreme risk in Tierra del Fuego, the Dobson units measurement, which indicates the thickness of the ozone layer, descended from the normal level of 300 to less than 200.

The above excerpt is from http://www.spacedaily.com/news/ozone-02j.html

69 posted on 09/22/2003 11:52:41 AM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Cleaning was done with R19 stable to 88F as a liquid, and R113 stable to 118F.

These two refrigerants were covered with a thin film of water to prevent evaporation and presented minimal flux losses.

70 posted on 09/22/2003 11:56:16 AM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: WiscYooper
That was Mr. Dobson, himself.
71 posted on 09/22/2003 11:59:21 AM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
Sinusoidal, it is.
72 posted on 09/22/2003 12:01:46 PM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
The theory worked out by Molina and verified by Rowland does not allow for a low-limit to destruction as the effect is catalytic and there is no assumed loss of the catalyst proffered; I have boxes of studies and research on this subject.

Not one human death has yet been blamed or can be blamed on the loss of atmospheric ozone.

For every four molecules of oxygen, the sun can ionize three ozone molecules; since there are roughly 210,000PPM of O2 in the atmosphere a slice of 350PPM gives an efficiency rating of about .00167 - this implies that there is an upper-limit to the creation of ozone and allows for the constant breaking down of the unstable molecule.

For those couple of days when the ozone levels are expected or known to be low maybe the local cable system could rerun some Father Knows Best shows.

73 posted on 09/22/2003 12:22:51 PM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
So far, all the data show clearly that all the children play in the same sandbox; what is not clear is whether the wholesale elimination of the use and production of CFCs have directly influenced the readings of the last five years.

The shocking thing about this year's quite low readings is that it comes as the CFCs are diminishing at an ever rapid rate.

If the Cl released from these agents is indeed catalytic, then nothing we now do will stop the inevitable decline.

The very first molecule released back in 1939 may be the one now responsible for our concern; wouldn't that just bite your butt!?

74 posted on 09/22/2003 12:36:55 PM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: saminfl
Here's how: start the line with a left caret, the caret equivalent of an open parenthesis, "(". Also known as a "less than" sign. Then type "A HREF="url", right caret, a text name for the URL, followed by left caret, "/A", right caret.

I copied the reference and took a look. The HF and HCl measurements are above mountaintops, but certainly not just stratospheric concentrations. That answers one question I had, and it indicates that the trend in atmospheric Cl concentrations may not be the same as the trend in stratospheric Cl concentrations.

75 posted on 09/22/2003 1:07:20 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
One of the researchers who was at JPL in 1992 told me on the phone that the hole would grow larger until one day all the ozone would be gone from the upper atmosphere; he said it was too late to do anything about it.

Extrapolation should only be performed under proper adult supervision and with all of the necessary safety equipment installed and operating. Otherwise you might get burned.

76 posted on 09/22/2003 1:09:16 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
These two refrigerants were covered with a thin film of water to prevent evaporation and presented minimal flux losses.

So I would presume that one of the major industrial sources was foam-blowing? (Not to be confused with the more common public-relations activity known as smoke-blowing.)

77 posted on 09/22/2003 1:10:53 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
Not one human death has yet been blamed or can be blamed on the loss of atmospheric ozone.

And let's be quite clear to any reading this reply that I never claimed or even pretended to claim that there had been any. (And with a proper nod to the dangers of spurious correlation, it should also be noted that sun-happy places like Australia have experienced significant increases in the rate of skin cancer. There's an ongoing public relations campaign in Australia to make the people practice solar exposure safety for just this reason.)

78 posted on 09/22/2003 1:14:53 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer
The shocking thing about this year's quite low readings is that it comes as the CFCs are diminishing at an ever rapid rate.

But there's a reservoir effect; the Cl in the stratosphere will remain there for some time, and the CFCs in the stratosphere will keep breaking down to provide more Cl. So the recovery will take time. (Where have I heard THAT line before? Nevermind...)

If the Cl released from these agents is indeed catalytic, then nothing we now do will stop the inevitable decline.

It's only catalytic on the polar ice cloud particles. (Fortunately.) And the Cl concentration will decrease over time, so the CFC phaseout will have an effect eventually.

79 posted on 09/22/2003 1:18:30 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: gatex
What are the concentrations of ozone-destroying chemicals as a function of time ?

I've got more graphs if you want them. Scan up the discussion to the graphics I already posted; the "Stratospheric Ozone: An Electronic Textbook" link has more.

80 posted on 09/22/2003 1:24:28 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
R-12 for Styrofoam; BTW, the researcher I was talking to was a co-author of a Science magazine report that was tailor-made to look for HCl and HF and is one of strongest proponents of the PSCs.

I mentioned this conversation to Dr. Singer a couple of years later and he didn't know if the guy was serious or not; it was the detection of HF at altitude that brought Singer around a bit, but he asked me not to quote him.

It is important to remember that if indeed the PSCs are critical to the wholesale breakdown of ozone, then ordinary latitudes are not likely to be affected; of course, this of little comfort to those who have ensconced themselves in the affected zones.

81 posted on 09/22/2003 3:21:16 PM PDT by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Thanks -- I had only seen one graph, but without time scale. The Electronic Textbook looks interesting from a quick scan of a few screens -- will save for more review.
82 posted on 09/22/2003 3:38:42 PM PDT by gatex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-82 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson