Environmentalists piss me off...

[Johnny Ray]

Brian,

From one chemist to another, you're infinitely more patient than I could ever be.

There is an Ozone hole in the Northern hemisphere too, although less pronounced and until recently, not studied much.

John

[Brian R.]

Thanks, I know CFCs, not ozone holes.

[Jammrock]

I am not a chemist by any means, but my brother is. And I know a bit about physics and electricity (I'll explain why that's important later). Here's what I know.

The Ozone hole in Antarctica:

As Gurm said, it's always been there. Several studies have shown that the hole gets bigger as tempuratures decrease and the hole gets smaller when the temp gets larger. So what does this show? Ozone can freeze and change states when exposed to extreme cold, which just happens to what Antarctica is all about.

It's also been proven that sun light (or certain solar rays, can't remember which) will regenerate ozone to a certain extent. Where is Antarctica? In the place where there is the least sun light (which is why it is also the coldest there).

Ozone depletion due to CFC's may play a part, but nothing compared to mother nature at work.

Global warming is a propaganda:

If there are so many contaminates that are causing the Earth to warm up, then why are we having the coldest Autumns in the midwest in decades. Why does it still get to -20 F in Chicago in the winter time, in a city with incredibly high polution rates?

There was an expirament done with the continental glacier in Greenland. They took the deepest point in the glacier and drilled to the bottom (it was around 1.7 km deep). They then estimated the temperatures for every year for over 3000 years by measuring the amount of melting that occured every year. Have you ever seen the graph? There are decades, thousands of years ago, were the tempuratures were so high they put this past summer to shame.

Now on to electricity. Did you know that when enormous amounts of electricity are generated, ozone is created? So everytime there is a thunderstorm, ozone is generated, and not in small quantities. A single bolt of lightning can produce thousands of pounds of ozone. I've seen the numbers and done the experiments.

Ozone depletion is the least of mankinds problems. Poluting the soil and drinking water should concern number one. The ozone is in no danger and won't be in any trouble in the forseeable future. Because let's face it, if global warming was so bad, and the hole over the polar caps were causing global warming, the ocean levels would be noticably rising already. But have they? No.

Jammrock

[Brian R.]

I am not going to enter into a discussion about whether CFCs are meaningful contributers to ozone depletion. I, and you, just don't have the numbers.

I will state (again) that CFCs cause some degree of ozone depletion. I have been drawn into this because this fact has been debated.

I don't think you are able to come to a definite conclusion about whether or not CFCs are a problem or not from the data you have (none).

[Rags]

No one ever said that CFCs don't combine with ozone. We all agree it does. You are now saying exactly what Gurm and I both have been saying all along. We just don't know what is causing the problem up there, and don't really know if there is a problem after all.

Rags

[Brian R.]

You do not agree that CFCs can enter the statosphere. We disagree.

Edit - You also said "R12 does NOT mix with air. Entropy has NOTHING to do with this at all. Period. End of story"

Again, we disagree.

You cannot be reasoned with on this issue.

[This message has been edited by Brian R. (edited 08 October 2000).]

[Rags]

I didn't say they can't get up there, Brian. Read my posts again.

EDIT:Yes, I did say that, but that's not exactly what I meant. I should have said that CFC's can't get there in significant amounts, and the relative amounts are unknown, and how they get there are unknown.

Rags



[This message has been edited by Rags (edited 08 October 2000).]

[Brian R.]

"...To get into the stratosphere, it just isn't happening to any great extent..."

To me this statement means it doesn't happen enough to matter.

I am arguing it certainly has a method of doing so.

[Rags]

Brian,

Read up on the how the atmosphere layers work, then think about it. Yes, the layers to mix unto one another to a degree, but the layers will always remain in tact. Entropy is great when dealing with containers, correct? Think of each layer of atmosphere as a container of it's own, with loose and flexible boundries. This would be the simplest way to put it.

Rags

[Brian R.]

I have discussed this previously. There are no boundaries in the atmosphere to diffusion.

[This message has been edited by Brian R. (edited 08 October 2000).]

[Brian R.]

Also, you have a limited view of entropy. Entropy and heat are the driving forces behind everything in the universe.

[Rags]

There are boundries, Brian. otherwise we would have gas diffusing off of the planet into space. Gravity keeps this stuff pulled towards the earth. I am fully aware of how gases mix, and how they diffuse. I am aware of why water evaporates even though the temp is below boiling. I understand VERY well. All of these properties happen where? At sea level. You cannot apply the same physics to the atmosphere the higher up you go. By your reasoning, we would have a big mix of air with all kinds of compounds floating nicely around the earth. There would be no layers, there would be few clouds, and there would be no ozone layer being discussed, but this is not what happens. The further away you move from the earth, the less affect this has. This is also the reason why the layers of atmosphere are thinner the higher up you go (well, one of them, and not all are thinner higher up, but the general rule still applies).

Rags

[Rags]

I know what you mean Brian, and I agree with heat and entropy being behind everything in the universe. But the gases behave differently the further away from the earth you get, and the mixtures are thinner as well.

Rags

[Brian R.]

"There are boundries, Brian. otherwise we would have gas diffusing off of the planet into space."

You've got it. There is constant diffusion of gases into outer space. That is why the only helium to be found is buried underground in sealed chambers.

"Gravity keeps this stuff pulled towards the earth."

Yes

"I am fully aware of how gases mix, and how they diffuse. I am aware of why water evaporates even though the temp is below boiling. I understand VERY well."

Not in my opinion

"All of these properties happen where? At sea level. You cannot apply the same physics to the atmosphere the higher up you go."

Yes you can. Thermodynamics is omnipresent in the entire universe to the extent we can measure. Not just the atmosphere, but the entire universe.

By your reasoning, we would have a big mix of air with all kinds of compounds floating nicely around the earth."

That's not what I said. I explained previously why the atmosphere is not uniform.

"There would be no layers, there would be few clouds, and there would be no ozone layer being discussed, but this is not what happens. The further away you move from the earth, the less affect this has."

As I said previously, the atmophere is (to a first approximation) at a steady state, not at equilibrium. Thermodynamics allows you to predict with certainty the direction of change. It cannot predict the intermediate stages along the path.

"This is also the reason why the layers of atmosphere are thinner the higher up you go (well, one of them, and not all are thinner higher up, but the general rule still applies)."

The reason the atmosphere is thinner further away from the surface is the pressure at any point is exerted by the column of gas above it.

I know you know alot of what I just said. Your conclusions are not well thought out.

Edit - Gases do not behave any differently on earth as they do on the moon. Their properties are extremely predictable.

[This message has been edited by Brian R. (edited 08 October 2000).]

[Rags]

"The reason the atmosphere is thinner further away from the surface is the pressure at any point is exerted by the column of gas above it. "
and what causes this pressure? GRAVITY pulling the mass back towards the earth, correct?


And the comment about the moon, I agree to a point. The atmospheric pressures are totally different, and the rates are different as well. So, you aren't really making any point with that statement.

Rags