Ozone hole - Facts and the half-baked truths!
Firstly, i might be sounding like a rebel in all my previous posts, challenging all the worldly-accepted views and theories. But, am someone who seeks *proof* for each damn thing said on paper! And I also strongly believe that therz almost always a contrary to even the best of accpeted beliefs. So, itz best to weigh both sides of the coin, rather than blindly jumping into conclusions.
This "Ozone hole" is one such fact (??). 90 out 100 people believe itz true. I'm part of the sane 10, who say "Give me proof, and an *acceptable* one". Thats only cos I've taken pains to do enough research to dig into the other side of these *supposedly* well-established truths!
(Discliamer: Facts here have been taken from well-researched publications. This is NOT an attempt at plagiarism, but an attempt to bring in all the good work, and publish before the green! Sources: Predict Weather, Chemistry Department at the University of Waterloo, and Columbia University...)
Lets start with the basics:
1. Ozone hole:
I know so many people think itz really a "hole"! I can only feel sorry for them. I dont blame them either cos thats what all our text-books right from 8th grade have taught it to be.
A ozone *hole* is nothing but merely a region where the density of ozone is "less(er)".
2. Ozone depletion is *only* cos of man:
Even if man were yet to set foot on earth, ozone molecules will still continue to disappear and reform in a continuous cycle! (Ozone is so very unstable)
3. The Ozone *layer*:
In order to simply understand the relationship between UV(sunlight), ozone and oxygen (air), lets think about what we see when we go to a beach. The order of things is
Water - Surf - Beach
The boundary where the water hits the beach is called *surf*. Similarly, in the upper atmosphere, the boundary where the sunlight hits the air is termed the *ozone layer*. This is because ozone is produced as a result of the UV acting on the oxygen in that region (where the sunlight hits the air)
Sunlight – Ozone - Air
Just as the surf cannot in any way protect the land from the sea, ozone cannot *protect* the air and our environment that is below it from UV. A result cannot be defined as a protector. To lament that ozone depletion is taking away “our protection” is the same as crying that surfers are wearing down the surf. Now, all that is there is the surf to hold the ocean back, and when the surf erodes (due to human behavior) the water will simply flood over the land and destroy mankind! lolz
-----------------
The Hype:
As with so many theories, threads are tied together to build a case. The case is then launched to the media to attract attention. The attention is then added to by ‘further findings’, ‘disturbing new studies’ and ‘concerns’ The end result is the willing granting of research funds to research “the problem”. If the word "Cancer" can be attached, so much the better for the case. The public will donate any amount of money for such a research. The case just has to be spelled out in a conclusive-sounding way.
-----------------
How is Ozone Formed?
O2 + h v --> O + O (h v is a photon, which is got from sunlight - UV rays!)
O2 + O --> O3
02 is two oxygen atoms stuck together. When sufficient energy is supplied, now and then three oxygen atoms will stick together, making an 03 molecule, which is called ozone. The energy required for this can come from electrical discharge through the air, such as lightning, or from the sun in the form of UV rays.
The Sun’s energy from space races down to meet Earth’s rising air. Thats when a certain amount of 03 is produced. Ozone is merely the *result* of the photo-chemical process between oxygen and UV light. Hence, it is the photo-chemical process that *protects* us; the ozone is a mere by-product.
O3 + h v --> O + O2
O3 + O --> 2 O2
A dynamic equilibrium is established in these reactions. The ozone concentration varies due to the *amount of radiation received* from the sun.
BASELINE: Even if Ozone is going to get depleted, UV rays will still be utilized (absorbed) by oxygen to create more ozone. Give me a break! Man CANNOT possibly *stop* ozone from being *manufactured* (even while assuming he the cause of itz depletion) lolz. This will mean that UV rays will only continue to be absorbed! P.E.R.I.O.D.
---------------
CFCs - *NO* Evidence:
Despite all the information you may have read, there is not one shred of supportable evidence that CFCs have found their way 40 miles up above the Earth. No one has ever found any up there because they are roughly five times heavier than air. They are like "bricks" in a swimming pool.
It is not often that you will see a brick floating to the surface of your pool. CFCs are so dense that even as a gas you could fill a bucket with it and pour the contents of one bucket into another. Secondly there is *NO* evidence that they can destroy anything because they are very stable and unreactive substances. Most dictionaries and chemistry books describe them as inert gases.
(Faced with this rather unfortunate logic, some researchers extend the plot, claiming that in the upper atmosphere the intense UV light is sufficient to break down the CFCs, releasing chlorine which then does the damage. If that actually could happen though, then the “ozone layer” would just get replaced by the CFC layer, which would then further “protect” us from UV radiation as UV is used up to break CFCs. lolz!)
-----------------
Are the *holes* getting bigger??
In 1988 NASA’s Nimbus satellite appeared to show that the southern hole was increasing. Here was supposed proof that man was aggravating the situation. The fact that the following year’s results showed the hole smaller than ever previously recorded went totally unannounced, except in obscure journals!!!!!
I'm sure that 99% of you didn't even know that this happened!! Thats the way *modern* science works, folks - Publicize all that will fetch money, and raise eye-brows...shun all that will ruin your repute or the millions of dollars of hot cash that they will bring in! (What a shame!)
------------------
"Hey you! What about the Antarctic hole??"
Nice question. Appreciated. But read on...
Hmm, maybe, some chlorine is coming from some other source, instead of CFCs. Lets have a look around.
GOTCHA!! Just a few miles upwind from the Antarctic camp where all the readings about ozone-depletion originate from, is a rather large hill called Mt Erebus. Mt Erebus is an active volcano, which first erupted in 1982 (coincidentally about when the bigger hole was discovered).
Mt Erebus spews out over 1,000 tons of active chlorine every day. It is puffing away even this very second! This chlorine, far from being as cold as CFCs, comes out as superheated gas which shoots straight up into the stratosphere. This chlorine does break down the ozone. And Mt Erebus puts out more chlorine per year, all by itself, than all the cars and aerosol cans on earth put together could do in a decade.
It is a little tidbit of science that esteemed experts seem to have overlooked. Moreover, Erebus is not the only active volcano in the world. There are hundreds, thousands, throwing chlorine upwards every second. We sure can't cap all the volcanoes. lolz.
------------------
What do the experts say??
Finally, a word from a reliable expert. Robert Pease, Professor Emeritus of Physical Climatology at one of America’s leading universities, sent a disclaimer about what he called the “media-endorsed ozone-depletion theory” to many United States newspapers. Only a handful published it.
Here are some excerpts:
“..The ozone layer self heals. Ozone molecules in the atmosphere are constantly being replenished, created when energetic ultraviolet light splits normal oxygen. In addition, the ozone layer is replenished by upward diffusion of smog-induced surface ozone.
The belief that CFC molecules will rise and collect in the stratosphere is incorrect. Even if they did, there is a low probability of enough CFC decomposition necessary for ozone depletion. Based on Professor Rowland’s own calculations, there will be one CFC for every 136 million normal oxygen atoms in the ozone layer at 25 km altitude.
Clear-cut evidence of ozone depletion is lacking. The entire theory is based on the supposition that somehow heavier-than-air CFC molecules rise into the stratosphere unimpeded.
In no way can manmade destruction of the ozone layer be accepted as fact. Eventually a scientific debate may take place, and this ozone depletion scare might finally be laid to rest.."
(R.Pease)
Ya rite, P.E.A.C.E it is, folks...pour in all ur thoughts...cheers...
This "Ozone hole" is one such fact (??). 90 out 100 people believe itz true. I'm part of the sane 10, who say "Give me proof, and an *acceptable* one". Thats only cos I've taken pains to do enough research to dig into the other side of these *supposedly* well-established truths!
(Discliamer: Facts here have been taken from well-researched publications. This is NOT an attempt at plagiarism, but an attempt to bring in all the good work, and publish before the green! Sources: Predict Weather, Chemistry Department at the University of Waterloo, and Columbia University...)
Lets start with the basics:
1. Ozone hole:
I know so many people think itz really a "hole"! I can only feel sorry for them. I dont blame them either cos thats what all our text-books right from 8th grade have taught it to be.
A ozone *hole* is nothing but merely a region where the density of ozone is "less(er)".
2. Ozone depletion is *only* cos of man:
Even if man were yet to set foot on earth, ozone molecules will still continue to disappear and reform in a continuous cycle! (Ozone is so very unstable)
3. The Ozone *layer*:
In order to simply understand the relationship between UV(sunlight), ozone and oxygen (air), lets think about what we see when we go to a beach. The order of things is
Water - Surf - Beach
The boundary where the water hits the beach is called *surf*. Similarly, in the upper atmosphere, the boundary where the sunlight hits the air is termed the *ozone layer*. This is because ozone is produced as a result of the UV acting on the oxygen in that region (where the sunlight hits the air)
Sunlight – Ozone - Air
Just as the surf cannot in any way protect the land from the sea, ozone cannot *protect* the air and our environment that is below it from UV. A result cannot be defined as a protector. To lament that ozone depletion is taking away “our protection” is the same as crying that surfers are wearing down the surf. Now, all that is there is the surf to hold the ocean back, and when the surf erodes (due to human behavior) the water will simply flood over the land and destroy mankind! lolz
-----------------
The Hype:
As with so many theories, threads are tied together to build a case. The case is then launched to the media to attract attention. The attention is then added to by ‘further findings’, ‘disturbing new studies’ and ‘concerns’ The end result is the willing granting of research funds to research “the problem”. If the word "Cancer" can be attached, so much the better for the case. The public will donate any amount of money for such a research. The case just has to be spelled out in a conclusive-sounding way.
-----------------
How is Ozone Formed?
O2 + h v --> O + O (h v is a photon, which is got from sunlight - UV rays!)
O2 + O --> O3
02 is two oxygen atoms stuck together. When sufficient energy is supplied, now and then three oxygen atoms will stick together, making an 03 molecule, which is called ozone. The energy required for this can come from electrical discharge through the air, such as lightning, or from the sun in the form of UV rays.
The Sun’s energy from space races down to meet Earth’s rising air. Thats when a certain amount of 03 is produced. Ozone is merely the *result* of the photo-chemical process between oxygen and UV light. Hence, it is the photo-chemical process that *protects* us; the ozone is a mere by-product.
The absorption of UV B and C leads to the destruction of ozone
O3 + O --> 2 O2
BASELINE: Even if Ozone is going to get depleted, UV rays will still be utilized (absorbed) by oxygen to create more ozone. Give me a break! Man CANNOT possibly *stop* ozone from being *manufactured* (even while assuming he the cause of itz depletion) lolz. This will mean that UV rays will only continue to be absorbed! P.E.R.I.O.D.
---------------
CFCs - *NO* Evidence:
Despite all the information you may have read, there is not one shred of supportable evidence that CFCs have found their way 40 miles up above the Earth. No one has ever found any up there because they are roughly five times heavier than air. They are like "bricks" in a swimming pool.
It is not often that you will see a brick floating to the surface of your pool. CFCs are so dense that even as a gas you could fill a bucket with it and pour the contents of one bucket into another. Secondly there is *NO* evidence that they can destroy anything because they are very stable and unreactive substances. Most dictionaries and chemistry books describe them as inert gases.
(Faced with this rather unfortunate logic, some researchers extend the plot, claiming that in the upper atmosphere the intense UV light is sufficient to break down the CFCs, releasing chlorine which then does the damage. If that actually could happen though, then the “ozone layer” would just get replaced by the CFC layer, which would then further “protect” us from UV radiation as UV is used up to break CFCs. lolz!)
-----------------
Are the *holes* getting bigger??
In 1988 NASA’s Nimbus satellite appeared to show that the southern hole was increasing. Here was supposed proof that man was aggravating the situation. The fact that the following year’s results showed the hole smaller than ever previously recorded went totally unannounced, except in obscure journals!!!!!
I'm sure that 99% of you didn't even know that this happened!! Thats the way *modern* science works, folks - Publicize all that will fetch money, and raise eye-brows...shun all that will ruin your repute or the millions of dollars of hot cash that they will bring in! (What a shame!)
------------------
"Hey you! What about the Antarctic hole??"
Nice question. Appreciated. But read on...
Hmm, maybe, some chlorine is coming from some other source, instead of CFCs. Lets have a look around.
GOTCHA!! Just a few miles upwind from the Antarctic camp where all the readings about ozone-depletion originate from, is a rather large hill called Mt Erebus. Mt Erebus is an active volcano, which first erupted in 1982 (coincidentally about when the bigger hole was discovered).
Mt Erebus spews out over 1,000 tons of active chlorine every day. It is puffing away even this very second! This chlorine, far from being as cold as CFCs, comes out as superheated gas which shoots straight up into the stratosphere. This chlorine does break down the ozone. And Mt Erebus puts out more chlorine per year, all by itself, than all the cars and aerosol cans on earth put together could do in a decade.
It is a little tidbit of science that esteemed experts seem to have overlooked. Moreover, Erebus is not the only active volcano in the world. There are hundreds, thousands, throwing chlorine upwards every second. We sure can't cap all the volcanoes. lolz.
------------------
What do the experts say??
Finally, a word from a reliable expert. Robert Pease, Professor Emeritus of Physical Climatology at one of America’s leading universities, sent a disclaimer about what he called the “media-endorsed ozone-depletion theory” to many United States newspapers. Only a handful published it.
Here are some excerpts:
“..The ozone layer self heals. Ozone molecules in the atmosphere are constantly being replenished, created when energetic ultraviolet light splits normal oxygen. In addition, the ozone layer is replenished by upward diffusion of smog-induced surface ozone.
The belief that CFC molecules will rise and collect in the stratosphere is incorrect. Even if they did, there is a low probability of enough CFC decomposition necessary for ozone depletion. Based on Professor Rowland’s own calculations, there will be one CFC for every 136 million normal oxygen atoms in the ozone layer at 25 km altitude.
Clear-cut evidence of ozone depletion is lacking. The entire theory is based on the supposition that somehow heavier-than-air CFC molecules rise into the stratosphere unimpeded.
In no way can manmade destruction of the ozone layer be accepted as fact. Eventually a scientific debate may take place, and this ozone depletion scare might finally be laid to rest.."
(R.Pease)
Ya rite, P.E.A.C.E it is, folks...pour in all ur thoughts...cheers...
posted by thegaad at 1:11 PM
14 Comments:
these are interesting comments to prove that there are many issues which are not problems but are made a big concern to reap financial benefits.
but the inner lying concept of Human existence is the problem for it is correct in another way. its just the politics they play for the survival.
Everone in this world knows why Iraq war happned. By looking at the facts i doubt if the 911 is an outsider act? Did any human land on the moon? etc. questions may have similar reasons not to belive them
thanks
Niranjan
As long as u mention the sources. its not plagiarism. and putting a link is even better.
thanks
Niranjan
Hey...Its a new prespective.Like it.You like this subject a lot is it?
But what abt your sources?Link them to lend more authenticity.C
Cheers
lolz...i will...am planning to make more additions to my posts...will tag all the links once im done...cheers...
@niranjan: im totally convinced that all the crapping abt global warming and the ozone depletion is ONLY for money! God save the earth from the geedy robbers!
"Despite all the information you may have read, there is not one shred of supportable evidence that CFCs have found their way 40 miles up above the Earth."
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/heavier.html
Three scientists, Crutzen, Molina, and Rowland were awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their work on stratospheric ozone.
http://nobelprize.org/chemistry/laureates/1995/index.html
These ppl did work on compounds like NO, Cl acting as catalysts in depletion of O3. Is the Nobel committee ignorant?
@g'man: lolz, im loving ur arguments...this is what i read:
-----------
An article in the November 1990 Geophysical Research Letters reports the results of extensive measurements of volcanic gases taken in 1983 from Mt. Erebus in Antarctica. These results showed that hydrogen chloride (HCl) and HF emissions were 1,230 and 480 tons per day respectively.
The above article goes on to explain that Mt. Erebus's HCL and HF emissions "are extremely high and comparable to the lower limits of total global volcanic emissions."
Thus, Mt. Erebus spews out over 150,000 tons of HF in the Antarctica stratosphere. Only 2,480 tons per year of fluorine are theoretically released by the alleged breakup of CFCs. Even more curious is that most CFCs are produced in the northern hemisphere, yet little to no corresponding ozone thinning has occurred at the north pole!
------------
The last point is especially awesome...dont u think?! even if i were a believer that ozone-hole IS man-made, idve been stumped by the last statement! lolz...
No comments on the "nobel-prize" committee...dont want to stit yet another debate...lolz...
@thegaad
:) If you had cited your comments, I would have taken some enthu in reading and debating. But I am going to leave it at this. I guess there are both sides to the problem. Lets hope that we would know the 'truth' soon enough.
Ya, I agree decisions of Nobel committee can be controversial in its own respect. For instance, Einstein's Nobel prize was given for his work on photoelectric effect. Though his work on photoelectric was not 'correct' in the light of quantum mechanics, which was discovered later. There are things that we will never understand. Peace lies in not tryin to understand those, i guess.
@g'man: ya i guess somethingz can never be explained...but i always love to look at both sides of the coin...and more into the side that has had lesser attention...lolz...that for sure sparks debates...
will be posting more controversial topics soon...check them out...and keep your comments pouring...cheers...
While the surf analogy is powerful, it unfortunately doesn't wash. Ozone formation absorbs a different part of the spectrum (far UV around 200 nm) than ozone itself absorbs (UV-B around 300 nm). So ozone is not a byproduct of UV-B absorption. see:
http://www.sepp.org/ozone/natsci_ozone.html
However, UV-B has only been implicated in relatively treatable basal and squamous cell skin cancers, not malignant melanoma which is associate with UV-A. Thus the principle cost benefit calculation by EPA related to the CFC band was completely false and the principle human health justification was wrong.
The thrust of your thinking, that natural processes may overshadow anthropogenic effects, is sound. However that is different than maintaining that there are no anthropogenic effects or the argument of whether this effect is brought about by natural sources of chlorine.
There has been documentation of increasing HCl associated with human contributions in 1990 (After governments had been stampeded into banning CFCs). But the extent of ozone depletion associated with these compounds and resulting UV-B incident as well as the extent of natural sources of Chlorine reaching the stratosphere remain in serious debate.
For instance, the widely trumpeted increase in UV-B striking the ground in Toronto Candada was simply a poor use of a paucity of data and rather than representing a trend of 35% per year was about abhorrent measurements in March 1993 attributed to serious winter storm and at the tail end of what most scientists agree represent the signature of the Pinatubo eruption. see: http://www.sepp.org/ozone/ozoncana.html
While the debate of volcanic chlorine contributions to the stratosphere is open (some argue that water vapor associated with eruptions leads to volcanogenic chlorine being washed from the atmosphere in
While the surf analogy is powerful, it unfortunately doesn't wash. Ozone formation absorbs a different part of the spectrum (far UV around 200 nm) than ozone itself absorbs (UV-B around 300 nm). So ozone is not a byproduct of UV-B absorption. see:
http://www.sepp.org/ozone/natsci_ozone.html
However, UV-B has only been implicated in relatively treatable basal and squamous cell skin cancers, not malignant melanoma which is associate with UV-A. Thus the principle cost benefit calculation by EPA related to the CFC band was completely false and the principle human health justification was wrong.
The thrust of your thinking, that natural processes may overshadow anthropogenic effects, is sound. However that is different than maintaining that there are no anthropogenic effects or the argument of whether this effect is brought about by natural sources of chlorine.
There has been documentation of increasing HCl associated with human contributions in 1990 (After governments had been stampeded into banning CFCs). But the extent of ozone depletion associated with these compounds and resulting UV-B incident as well as the extent of natural sources of Chlorine reaching the stratosphere remain in serious debate.
For instance, the widely trumpeted increase in UV-B striking the ground in Toronto Candada was simply a poor use of a paucity of data and rather than representing a trend of 35% per year was about abhorrent measurements in March 1993 attributed to serious winter storm and at the tail end of what most scientists agree represent the signature of the Pinatubo eruption. see: http://www.sepp.org/ozone/ozoncana.html
While the debate of volcanic chlorine contributions to the stratosphere is open (some argue that water vapor associated with eruptions leads to volcanogenic chlorine being washed from the atmosphere ingrueso del ejército indígena, les batía de frente.
Alonso Fernandez de Lugo, consiguió agrupar en una de las márgenes del barranco de Acentejo a toda su tropa, estableciendo rápido contacto con la vanguardia. De esta manera, pudo resistir los primeros embates de los guanches hasta que la gran agilidad y el valor de que hacían gala, empezaron a inclinar la balanza a favor de los patriotas isleños. Causaba sorpresa contemplar cómo abatían a los castellano
sorry the reference pasted at the end of the first paragraph should have been at the end of the second paragraph.
While the surf analogy is powerful, it unfortunately doesn't wash. Ozone formation absorbs a different part of the spectrum (far UV around 200 nm) than ozone itself absorbs (UV-B around 300 nm). So ozone is not a byproduct of UV-B absorption. see:
http://www.sepp.org/ozone/natsci_ozone.html
However, UV-B has only been implicated in relatively treatable basal and squamous cell skin cancers, not malignant melanoma which is associate with UV-A. Thus the principle cost benefit calculation by EPA related to the CFC band was completely false and the principle human health justification was wrong.
The thrust of your thinking, that natural processes may overshadow anthropogenic effects, is sound. However that is different than maintaining that there are no anthropogenic effects or the argument of whether this effect is brought about by natural sources of chlorine.
There has been documentation of increasing HCl associated with human contributions in 1990 (After governments had been stampeded into banning CFCs). But the extent of ozone depletion associated with these compounds and resulting UV-B incident as well as the extent of natural sources of Chlorine reaching the stratosphere remain in serious debate.
For instance, the widely trumpeted increase in UV-B striking the ground in Toronto Candada was simply a poor use of a paucity of data and rather than representing a trend of 35% per year was about abhorrent measurements in March 1993 attributed to serious winter storm and at the tail end of what most scientists agree represent the signature of the Pinatubo eruption. see: http://www.sepp.org/ozone/ozoncana.html
While the debate of volcanic chlorine contributions to the stratosphere is open (some argue that water vapor associated with eruptions leads to volcanogenic chlorine being washed from the atmosphere in
and i don't know what is up with this site. I have an identity, i'm signed in. it keeps telling me that some required field is not filled in and my posts get cut off or mixed with spanish.
go figure. sorry for the confusion. this was the entire post with the reference corrected, hope it comes through ungarbled.
While the surf analogy is powerful, it unfortunately doesn't wash. Ozone formation absorbs a different part of the spectrum (far UV around 200 nm) than ozone itself absorbs (UV-B around 300 nm). So ozone is not a byproduct of UV-B absorption.
However, UV-B has only been implicated in relatively treatable basal and squamous cell skin cancers, not malignant melanoma which is associate with UV-A. Thus the principle cost benefit calculation by EPA related to the CFC band was completely false and the principle human health justification was wrong. see:
http://www.sepp.org/ozone/natsci_ozone.html
The thrust of your thinking, that natural processes may overshadow anthropogenic effects, is sound. However that is different than maintaining that there are no anthropogenic effects or the argument of whether this effect is brought about by natural sources of chlorine.
There has been documentation of increasing HCl associated with human contributions in 1990 (After governments had been stampeded into banning CFCs). But the extent of ozone depletion associated with these compounds and resulting UV-B incident as well as the extent of natural sources of Chlorine reaching the stratosphere remain in serious debate.
For instance, the widely trumpeted increase in UV-B striking the ground in Toronto Candada was simply a poor use of a paucity of data and rather than representing a trend of 35% per year was about abhorrent measurements in March 1993 attributed to serious winter storm and at the tail endere the launch will take place).
This is going to be fun.
lity", by Philippe Van Nedervelde.
I do like the idea of a bunch of technophile thinkers meeting in a corner of virtual reality - however, primitive VR may be at the moment. The simple architecture of the island is pretty cool to fly around and check out (in a couple of the uploaded pics, you can see "me" exploring the auditorium of the central building, where the launch will take place).
This is going to be fun.
Post a Comment
<< Home