Re: OT: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- From: richard mullens <mullensdeletethis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 23:52:14 GMT
Charlie Edmondson wrote:
Pooh Bear wrote:
Yes, you can't buy them. They got outlawed. What was never proven was that there was a cause/effect link between the two. The first time we looked, we saw a hole. Scientist (dubious) then took some lab experiments, and postulated a possible cause (chlorine can act as a catylist to convert 03 to 02). They then postulated that CFCs MIGHT be a source for chlorine in the upper atmosphere, and later measurements did confirm that there were CFCs there. What was NEVER proven was that any of these were actually related, other than coincidentally. BTW, is the hole still there? 8-)Charlie Edmondson wrote:
richard mullens wrote:
bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx wrote:
It is an incomplete arguement, because CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas - methane is an order of magnitude or so more effective as a greenhouse gas, and there are indications that the more dramatic episodes of global warming in the remote past involved massive methane release, probably from under-sea methane hydrates.
Last week's newspapers included some rash predictions about the consequences of tundra-thawing in eastern Siberia - which stores a lot of methane - but there is some very recent Dutch work on marshes which suggests that any methane release by a thaw would be immediately captured by the local bacteria and metabolised to relatively inoffensive CO2. There isn't as much oxygen around on the sea-bottom, so under-sea hydrates presumably still represent a real danger.
There is always a simple, convincing and incorrect explanation of any physical phenomena .....
The argument was intended to show how burning fossil fuels would give an
increase in atmospheric temperature - in a manner that would be familiar
to an electronics engineer. It was not meant to give all the mechanisms
whereby global warming might occur.
Global warming occurs as a consequence of burning fossil fuels. Of course, other factors (eg CH4) also have an effect.
What is important is that people come to accept these mechanisms. At
the moment political expediency takes priority. Just as we had to wait
until the hole in the Ozone layer grew as a result of emissions of CFCs,
no doubt we will have to wait until things get much worse before
awareness penetrates the thick heads of US leaders that are in bed with
the oil industry.
You mean, as the hole in ozone layer FAILED to grow as a function of emissions, don't you? Still love the fact that, when it was found that surface UV measurements didn't show the anticipated increase in UV, they shut down the measuring stations...
What was affecting the ozone layer is not connected to global climate change.
If you've forgotten, the problem was caused by flourinated hydrocarbons like
freon entering the upper atmosphere.
As a result, things like refrigerants have changed so as to make them 'ozone
friendly'. Indeed my own car's A/C is one of the first to use a specifically
designed refrigerant for that reason.
Also you can't buy freon to wash pcbs any more ! Board washing is typically
aqueous now. I do recall having something like a gallon of the stuff back in
1973 to use with an ultrasonic cleaner btw.
Do please try to keep up.
Graham
To put it politely, you are somewhat lacking in knowledge of the history of the the subject. Ozone depletion by CFCs was postulated long before the ozone hole in the antarctic was found. Perhaps if you had taken an interest in chemistry, you would have leaned of this hypothesis in the 70s. It had to wait 15 years before action was taken. Like now, the science was well understood - it just took an age to get it into the heads of those who were in denial. .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- From: Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
- Re: OT: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- From: Charlie Edmondson
- Re: OT: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- References:
- OT: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- From: Pooh Bear
- Re: OT: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- From: bill . sloman
- Re: OT: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- From: richard mullens
- Re: OT: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- From: bill . sloman
- Re: OT: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- From: richard mullens
- Re: OT: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- From: Charlie Edmondson
- Re: OT: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- From: Pooh Bear
- Re: OT: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- From: Charlie Edmondson
- OT: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- Prev by Date: New to www.pupman.com.
- Next by Date: Re: OT: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- Next by thread: Re: OT: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|