Actually that's not at all what you initially said as anyone can scroll up and see. Perhaps you will stop with this whack-a-mole style debate and/or learn to communicate more effectively.
Environmentalism speech by Michael Crichton and second hand smoking
- Thread starter Lucifuge Rofocale
- Start date
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Landscheidt is a simple nutcase wacko. I would not use him as an authority on anything.
Don’t worry about me. I know where I am going and where I come from.
I don’t have a solution for a NON-Problem as ozone depletion. We don’t need any. There is no such thing as ozone depletion, and has never been –at least outside Antarctica during brief periods of time, during periods of darkness when the Sun cannot create new ozone.
Did you know that the main ozone destroyer is ozone itself? And then comes UV radiation. Chlorine, as by Molina dimmer theory, can only react with ozone on the surface of ice crystal of SPC (stratospheric polar clouds). That is a basic rule of chemistry heterogeneous phase.
As the only place where SPC can form is in Antarctica stratosphere, at below -82º C, (and some exceptional occasions in some few years above the North Pole) there is not the slightest chance for chlorine to react with ozone in the rest of Earth’s atmosphere. Basic chemistry –as explained by Mario Molina, who got his Nobel Prize for that explanation. Argue with him, not me.
If you take care to analyze all satellite graphs, you will see that the ozone that is missing in the centre of the ozone hole is grouping in huge amounts around the “hole”. While the centre of the hole may have some years around 150 DU, the areas around the hole reach between 350 to 400 DU (the “normal” at the Equator is around 275 DU).
Then, all news about ozone loss above Arosa, Switzerland, for instance, relate to losses at a specific altitude, not in the total ozone column, and losses caused by UV radiation interacting with the Jet Stream currents. By now you should have learned that ozone creation, destruction and re-creation are dependant from the Sun’s irradiance.
Or have you discovered another way of creating ozone in the stratosphere? Yes, watch your step...
I don’t have a solution for a NON-Problem as ozone depletion. We don’t need any. There is no such thing as ozone depletion, and has never been –at least outside Antarctica during brief periods of time, during periods of darkness when the Sun cannot create new ozone.
Did you know that the main ozone destroyer is ozone itself? And then comes UV radiation. Chlorine, as by Molina dimmer theory, can only react with ozone on the surface of ice crystal of SPC (stratospheric polar clouds). That is a basic rule of chemistry heterogeneous phase.
As the only place where SPC can form is in Antarctica stratosphere, at below -82º C, (and some exceptional occasions in some few years above the North Pole) there is not the slightest chance for chlorine to react with ozone in the rest of Earth’s atmosphere. Basic chemistry –as explained by Mario Molina, who got his Nobel Prize for that explanation. Argue with him, not me.
If you take care to analyze all satellite graphs, you will see that the ozone that is missing in the centre of the ozone hole is grouping in huge amounts around the “hole”. While the centre of the hole may have some years around 150 DU, the areas around the hole reach between 350 to 400 DU (the “normal” at the Equator is around 275 DU).
Then, all news about ozone loss above Arosa, Switzerland, for instance, relate to losses at a specific altitude, not in the total ozone column, and losses caused by UV radiation interacting with the Jet Stream currents. By now you should have learned that ozone creation, destruction and re-creation are dependant from the Sun’s irradiance.
Or have you discovered another way of creating ozone in the stratosphere? Yes, watch your step...
You teach me. Please?
Theodor Landscheidt WAS a highly respected astrophysicist in the atmospheric science community -of course not among the warming nutcracks.
He was such a "lousy" scientist that he was the ONLY person in the whole world that predicted the occurrence of the El Niño and La Niña events three years in advance -missing by a mere month.
And all his predictions on USA droughts, and variations in the North Atlantic Oscilation have been right on the bull's eye. You really have a lot to learn, don't you? Don't give up. You will, some day...
Oh, I love the logic, there is no ozone problem, except for when there is.
You are really good at spouting assumptions. Now, perchance, would you like to actually address the facts?
You're so far out in left field that there isn't much to even discuss. I think I'll just have to write you off.
Then tell me where the ozone problem is. I see none. Please?
Now, why don’t you address facts? Let’s see them. I have seen none of YOUR facts –just some pompous remarks.
And yes, do it. Why don’t you just write me off? It would show that your 1.000+ plus posts here have taught you nothing.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
The Ozone problem is well know and understood. CFCs were responsible for causing it to break down at a rate that was only going to increase, and allow dangerous radiation down to the earth's surface.
Well, as you seem to know it all, please explain me (a perfect ignorant) and the rest of the board (all sages) about the mechanism by which CFCs (atomic weight around 140) climb up to the stratosphere and destroy ozone.
Please try to make it sound scientific and technical. Otherwise I wont' feel impressed.
Don't provide links to dubious websites -just your own simple words.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
CFCs are lifted up by air currents. ("The Weather Makers", p 216). Despite being very stable, they are slowly broken down, releasing the Chlorine atom. This acts as a catalyst, breaking down ozone. A single chlorine atom can break down 100,000 ozone molecules.
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 34,324
I care not what conservatives say -- that's not what I am. And in any event, you do not address the points.
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 34,324
But, see, that doesn't feed into the political desires of the command-and-control socialist politicians. As I mentioned, in science you don't question the person, you question the facts, the analysis, the methods of gathering data. In politics, you start with your political position and work backwards to the arguments.
Hence you decide, for example, that you want legal abortions (which I agree with.) Therefore you work backwards until you find an argument that supports it (women have the right to make intimate decisions about their own bodies.)
But that premise also contains the implication that it is wrong to make prostitution illegal. But the supporters of abortion rights don't go there because it's not about that. It's about the political position and arbitrary chains of logic to support it.
And the political positions are all about power. Power to direct other people and money.
Now, if you're a power hungry socialist or communist type politician, who loves big government, and an argument comes along that justifies massive command and control of the economy, are you gonna latch onto it like Nina Hartley onto a weiner? Hell yes!
And this is where "what to do about it" comes in -- the proposed solutions are all economy-crushing concepts, things which get a rise out of capitalist-hating socialists. It's no coincidence that when socialism was on the way out in the voting booth that the very same people were the ones who largely picked up the environmentalism ball and ran with it.
Just trying to discuss these issues in the purely scientific realm eviscerates the bulk of what's actually going on from discussion. Just because a hundred mass-murderous economic "experiments" last century demonstrated big government intervention can make the average person's live significantly worse than it otherwise would be, nevermind! This time it's for the right reason, therefore the consequences will be, umm, different.
Yeah, that's the ticket!
Sure I did. "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt."
I said: try to be technical. What you mentioned is just what the Green Litany says. Provide the technical basis for this.
As it looks as you know little or nothing about this, I will make specific questions. Google and/or Wikipedia work for you:
State the following:
- The altitude the CFC molecules reach.
- The mechanism by which heavy molecules pass through the tropopause.
- The amount of energy needed for a photon to dissociate a CFC molecule (100% error margin allowed)
- The levels of UV radiation at different altitudes.
- The concentrations of CFC in the stratosphere.
- The chemical reaction (Molina’s dimmer formula) for the chlorine catalytic reaction on the surface of ice crystals.
- The concentration of ozone in the stratosphere and compare it with that of CFCs.
- The time of permanence of CFC molecules in the stratosphere.
- Why chlorine molecules cannot interact with ozone molecules in mid-air, outside ice crystals on SPCs
That will be enough, for the time being. Wish you luck.
Beerina, you have a working brain. My hat off to you. Today, the environmental movement is about global power, about World Governance, as proposed many years ago by G. Bush father and his friends as Kissinger, Soros, etc. Lots of fish to cut there.But, see, that doesn't feed into the political desires of the command-and-control socialist politicians. As I mentioned, in science you don't question the person, you question the facts, the analysis, the methods of gathering data. In politics, you start with your political position and work backwards to the arguments.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yeah, that's the ticket!
Have you red Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope"?, or W. Cleon Skousen's "The Naked Capitalist"?
Or perhaps "A Century of Wars," by F. W. Engdahl, or "The Iron Mountain Report" by Leonard Lewin?
It is quite related to the ozone wars and the resulting scam.
Beerina, you have a working brain. My hat off to you. Today, the environmental movement is about global power, about World Governance, as proposed many years ago by G. Bush father and his friends as Kissinger, Soros, etc. Lots of fish to cut there.
Evidence for this vast conspiracy?
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Wow. GW as conspiracy theory.
You know, Edufer, Michael Crichton writes fiction. There isn't an island off Costa Rica that's populated with dinosaurs, and there's no global conspiracy trying to take power via GW.
You know, Edufer, Michael Crichton writes fiction. There isn't an island off Costa Rica that's populated with dinosaurs, and there's no global conspiracy trying to take power via GW.
You declared that there is a vast global conspiracy imvolving, literally, thousands of scientists, government officials, activists, and god knows who else. All I am asking for is some tiny shred of evidence for this.
How are they keeping something that HUGE a secret?
Cleon
King of the Pod People
Given that your credibility is completely shot and you haven't offered nearly as much scientific evidence as you seem to think you have, you'll excuse me if I don't take your word as authoritative.