Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

facebook

twitter

youtube

apple

rss

Follow

Google +1

Like Us on
Facebook

NAVIGATION

Home

Reason24/7

ReasonTV

Hit & Run

Magazine

Poll

Subscribe

Donate

Shop

Politics

Policy

Economics

Civil Liberties

Culture

Science/Tech

War on Drugs

More

Nanny State

World

All Tags

Advanced
Search

HIT & RUN BLOG
RSS

Like on Facebook

Google +1

Share on
Twitter

Share on
LinkedIn

Email

Ozone Hole
Science Revisited

Ronald Bailey|Sep. 27, 2007 10:02 am

Scientists are commemorating the discovery 20 years
ago that man-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used chiefly in refrigerators
and air-conditioners were responsible for creating the "ozone hole" over the
Antarctic. The scientists concluded that CFCs would drift into the stratosphere
where they would produce chlorine compounds that react with ice particles and
sunlight to efficiently destroy ozone molecules that shield the surface from
ultraviolet light streaming from the sun. In 1987, the world adopted the
Montreal Protocol to eventually eliminate the production of CFCs. Activists
often cite the Montreal Protocol as a model for a future treaty addressing
man-made global warming by banning the emission of greenhouse gases. A Nobel
Prize in chemistry was awarded in 1995 to the three scientists who
identified the ozone/CFC connection.

This neat story of the scientific identification of a man-made cause for
stratospheric ozone depletion followed by a successful international response to
the threat is now being challenged by some very recent research. [email-masked]
(sub required) is reporting a new analysis by Markus Rex, an atmosphere
scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in
Potsdam, Germany, which finds that the data for the break-down rate of a crucial
molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2) is almost an order of magnitude lower than
the currently accepted rate.

What this could mean according to the Nature news article is
that:

"This must have far-reaching consequences," Rex says. "If the measurements
are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come
into being." What effect the results have on projections of the speed or
extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of
ozone destruction developed 20 years ago2 (see graphic). If the rate is
substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to
create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone
losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became
apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical
model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone
destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a
meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.

Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the
conundrum
is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone
research community. "Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been
blown apart," says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck
Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.

"Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely," agrees Neil
Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research
Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. "Now suddenly it's like
a plank has been pulled out of a bridge." ...

Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into
question, Rex stresses. "Overwhelming evidence still suggests that
anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss.
But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct
chemical reactions."

Of course, it may be that Rex's research has gone wrong somehow or that
another chemical mechanism involving CFCs will turn out to be chiefly
responsible for ozone depletion. Nevertheless, it is good to keep in mind that
all scientific results are provisional and may change in the light of new
evidence.

By the way, for anyone who cares about my own take on the ozone hole/CFC
issue, in chapter 8 of my 1993 book, Eco-Scam: The False Prophets of
Ecological Apocalypse, I concluded:

Despite a great deal of continuing scientific uncertainty, it appears that
CFCs do contribute to the creation of the Antarctic ozone hole and perhaps to
a tiny amount of global ozone depletion. If CFCs were allowed to build up in
the atmosphere during the next century, ozone depletion might eventually
entail significant costs. More ultraviolet light reaching the surface would
require adaptation—switching to new crop varieties, for example—and it might
boost the incidence of nonfatal skin cancer. In light of these costs, it makes
sense to phase out the use of CFCs.

Ronald
Bailey is a science correspondent at Reason magazine and
author of Liberation Biology (Prometheus).

SHARE

Facebook

Twitter

Tumblr

Blogger

StumbleUpon

Digg

Delicious

Reddit

Google

PRINT

VIEW COMMENTS
(85) | LEAVE
A COMMENT

Editor's Note: We invite comments and
request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any
responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them.
Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We
reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.

| 9.27.07 @
10:14AM |#

Does anyone know why CFCs only deplete the 'good' ozone in the upper
atmosphere but not the 'bad' ozone that contributes to global
warming?

This is a serious question...I have never understood this
dochotomy.

MDH

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 11.2.09 @
5:53PM |#

Neither are true. There are not enough CFCs in the lower atmosphere to do
anything and NONE have been demonstrated in the upper atmosphere.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.27.07 @
10:29AM |#

"Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of
CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss."

OK.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 11.2.09 @
5:59PM |#

"Overwhelming evidence?" Since neither NOAA nor NASA have ever demonstrated
a single molecule of CFCs in the upper atmosphere, how can the evidence be
"overwhelming?" The entire myth of anthropogenic ozone loss is based on the
fact that CFCs do, in fact, destroy ozone in the laboratory. However, since
ozone molecules are unstable anyway with a half-life of just 12 seconds, this
destruction is negligible. This is why Al Gore has switched from lie #1 (Ozone
Depletion) to lie #2 (global warming). Wake up people and use your common
sense!

reply to this

log in or register to reply

TS| 5.3.10 @ 1:42PM |#

Certainly Ed. My common sense really tells me that 12 seconds must be
right....

well, fortunately science is based on facts, not on imagination!

reply to this

log in or register to reply

lunchstealer| 9.27.07 @ 10:31AM |#

In light of these costs, it makes sense to phase out the use of
CFCs.

You're just schilling for big sense and big phase.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.27.07 @
10:35AM |#

You have to understand that the earth was at the optimal temperature and
there was a complete "balance" of nature until humans (boo, hiss) developed
TOOLS AND FIRE (dismay, much wailing).

That said, I'm
a rational environmentalist. I figger the jury's still out on this one, and
the unavailability of CFCs can hardly be considered catastrophic. Nuance, I
can do that sometimes. ;-)

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.27.07 @
10:36AM |#

I thought the bad ozone was at ground level and contributed to poor air
quality.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

lunchstealer| 9.27.07 @ 10:49AM |#

MDH,

IANAC, but here goes.

It mostly has to do with volumes
of ozone and the lifespan of that ozone. Ozone is a very unstable molecule, in
both the lower and upper atmosphere.

Polution ozone in cities is
produced daily from unburned hydrocarbons interacting with sunlight. Those
hydrocarbons are released into the atmosphere through incomplete burning in
automobiles and lawn mowers and other small engines, and also escape from
poorly sealed gastanks and when you fill your gastank, or spill gasoline while
filling your tank.

The ozone created, in the high-temperature/pressure,
high-O2 environment of the lower atmosphere, is fairly short-lived, but huge
amounts are produced each day as all our unburned gasoline vapors react with
sunlight. Almost all that ozone decays or disipates overnight, and new ozone
is produced from new gasoline vapors the next day. Any chlorine radicals
released by CFCs never have time to react with the
O3.

Upper-atmospheric (good) O3, however, is produced as high-energy
photons hit O2 molecules in the upper atmosphere. At the much lower pressure
(and possibly temperature - I'm not sure on this point) in the upper
atmosphere, the O3 will take much longer to decay to O2. The 03 is also
produced much more slowly than at low-level. Therefore, the original theory
goes, chlorine radicals released from CFCs at high altitudes can dramatically
increase the rate of decay of O3 in the ozone layer.

Anybody who knows
more can correct any details in this.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 11.2.09 @
6:07PM |#

The only thing I have to say about this is that neither NOAA nor NASA have
ever demonstrated a single CFC molecule in the upper atmosphere where O3 is
made. The stuff is six times heavier than air and cannot float up!

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.27.07 @
11:02AM |#

In light of these costs, it makes sense to phase out the use of
CFCs.

AAY! Get out of here you god damned hippie.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Steven| 9.27.07 @ 11:03AM |#

There is no Ozone depletion. It is just a liberal plot to keep Bush from
fighting for our freedoms in Iraq. Ozone depletion is caused by Iraqi
terrorists because of the smoke from the 911 incident.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Guy Montag| 9.27.07 @ 11:06AM |#

So how long before I get to set up the hybrid 1972 Dodge Charger with the
original equipment AC and the Freon that really works, instead of this new
stuff?

Do I get ozone credits for running an organic hydrogen powered
318 and no catalytic converter?

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.27.07 @
11:25AM |#

Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate

Until that happens, I can't say that I'm too worried about the
state of ozone science. This finding is interesting and it's good that people
are continually checking basic assumptions, but I'll wait to see if others can
replicate his work before I believe him.

However, if he's right, then
he's certainly working at an institute with the appropriate name.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

ed| 9.27.07 @ 11:36AM |#

Too bad we always have to wait 20 years to question (if not discredit)
mandates based on precautionary principles. The same folks who would cite the
imperfect and ongoing nature of scientific inquiry in defense of the Montreal
Protocol are not so charitable when it comes to the science of climate change
and man's role in the current cycle, which, as we know, is
"settled."

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.27.07 @
11:47AM |#

lunchstealer,

Thanks...seems like a reasonable starting
point.

MDH

reply to this

log in or register to reply

JN| 9.27.07 @ 12:34PM |#

CFC's are heavier than air. They cannot float up to the upper atmosphere.
Are they blown up there in the wind?

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Shannon
Love| 9.27.07 @ 12:40PM |#

The dirty secret of ozone layer science is that we have never been able to
accurately predict the real world reactivity of ozone destroying compound in
atmosphere. We've had to make wild ass guesses based on highly
unrepresentative laboratory experiments.

Like most chemical reactions,
the catalytic destruction of ozone by CFC's requires a reactive surface i.e.
some kind of surface against which the the molecules can be compressed, for
the chemical reaction to take place. Such surfaces can be dust, ice or the
laboratory container in which we study the reactions. The presence of such
reactive surfaces accelerates the catalytic destruction of ozone by several
orders of magnitude.

All major thinning of the ozone layer track to
changes in catalytic surfaces, not changes in CFC concentrations. Volcanic
eruptions "tear" the ozone layer by lofting megatons of fine particles into
the ozone layer. The "hole" in the Antarctic ozone layer correlates with the
unusual formation of high altitude ice crystals due to unusual
cold.

Likewise, when we try to reproduce the activity of CFCs in the
lab, the sides of the container we must place it in serves as a massive
reactive surface increasing the apparent reactivity of CFCs massively. AS a
result we cannot experimentally confirm the reactivity of CFCs in the actual
atmosphere by experiments in ground based labs.

Personally, I think the
thinning in the ozone layer will turn out to be driven by changes in the UV
luminosity of the sun linked to solar magnetosphere (sunspot)) activity. The
thinning of the ozone layer began shortly after the solar activity increased
dramatically in the 1960's to its historically unprecedented high levels
today.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Guy Montag| 9.27.07 @ 1:14PM |#

Just remembered the DUMBEST ozone item I have ever heard: "the Soviet SST
will rip holes in the ozone layer above the United States and give us
cancer."

From a fellow student in the late 1970s/early 1980s and I did
call BS on it at the time (still do). He did not seem to understand the way
gasses are different from solids, details like that. Never did find the source
for that myth either.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.27.07 @
1:24PM |#

I would like to replicate AC's point.

Replication is needed before
this is important.

Somebody is already working on it.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.27.07 @ 2:53PM |#

The interesting thing is that the ozone hole was discovered when they
started looking because they had instrumants that were able to make the
measurements. Since it was first observed its size has fluctuated, bigger some
years, smaller others.

Nobody has made any observations that show that
there was no ozone hole.

Sort of runs into the observation above about
ice crystals. Could it be that the ozone hole has just always been there and
that its existence has nothing to do with CFCs?

Don't know if Mother
Earth has benefitted from the ban but Dupont Chemical has. Its patent on freon
had run out so it couldn't collect the license fees anymore.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.27.07 @
3:22PM |#

While we're asking serious questions:

Why do we only hear about the
Antarctic ozone hole? Shouldn't the effect be larger at the Arctic, with its
closer proximity to more CFC spewing industrial centers?

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Shannon
Love| 9.27.07 @ 3:34PM |#

mobile,

Shouldn't the effect be larger at the Arctic, with its
closer proximity to more CFC spewing industrial centers?

The
primary driver for the thinning of the ozone over the Antarctic is the
relatively stagnate air mass over the Antarctic. Ozone is generated by UV
radiation at the equator and then transported to the poles buy upper
atmospheric circulation. During winter months the Antarctic depends on imports
of ozone from the equator.

The Arctic does see some thinning but the
circulation between the north pole and equator seems to be much more powerful
that with the south pole. Enough ozone gets imported to offset the lose due to
winter.

The relative abundance of CFC's anywhere is generally a poor
predictor of the level of ozone thinning. Other factors play a much larger
role.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Guy Montag| 9.27.07 @ 3:42PM |#

Don't know if Mother Earth has benefitted from the ban but Dupont
Chemical has. Its patent on freon had run out so it couldn't collect the
license fees anymore.

Frigidaire was issued the first patent, US#1,886,339, for the
formula for CFCs on December 31, 1928.

Aren't US patents good for
about 17 years and there is no option for renewal?

Yea, good thing they
banned Freon in 1987, 52 years after the patent on the formula ran out. Whew!
Got some international help dodging that bullet!

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.27.07 @ 3:58PM |#

Dupont is always a good standin for corporationy corporations who, you
know, act all corporationy.

Dupont? Frigidaire? meh, all part of the
multinational corporate conspiracy to profit from the misery of the people,
man. :)

Note, not to be taken seriously.

The question about
whether finding some phenomen when you have instruments to measure it and have
nothing to compare it to historically was meant seriously.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.27.07 @ 4:01PM |#

In other words is there any evidence that the ozone hole is not an
absolutely natural phenomenon which has always been there but wasn't noticed
until someone had instruments which could detect it.

Shannon Love's
comments suggest that it may be exactly that.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Guy Montag| 9.27.07 @ 4:11PM |#

|,

I suggest it is a product of the industrial revolution. There is
no record of an ozone layer, giving us extra protection from UV radiation,
before the industrial revolution.

The Al Gores of the world will
destroy the ozone by their ill-cococted "green revolution."

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.27.07 @
9:03PM |#

Don't forget that there were ozonesonde measurements made over Antarctica
in the Intl Geophysical Year (1957-58) that showed ozone depletion -- many
years before CFCs were invented!

I've also been suspicious that 20
years after the Montreal Protocol there hasn't been much change in the "hole."
One would think that after all the phase-outs that some improvement would have
occurred -- IF it's the CFCs causing the problem.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Guy
Montag| 9.27.07 @ 9:34PM |#

Surf guy,

Don't forget that there were ozonesonde measurements
made over Antarctica in the Intl Geophysical Year (1957-58) that showed ozone
depletion -- many years before CFCs were invented!

Scroll up a
bit. 1957 was 22 years after the patent on CFCs expired. But I do like your
spirit!

reply to this

log in or register to reply

John
Ringo| 9.27.07 @ 11:25PM |#

Huh.

I thought that the alternate (Reasonable) rationale for ozone
holes was fairly well established.

Ozone in the upper atmosphere is
caused by high energy rays from the sun hitting oxygen molecules and causing
O3 to form. The process has to happen continuously because, as a previous
poster noted, Ozone is unstable.

The Ozone hole in the antarctic only
forms during the antarctic winter.

When there's no sunlight.

And
as others noted, the hole hasn't changed much. We only found it when we had
the instruments to do so (appropriate satellites) and as far as we know it's
been there for all time.

Well, as long as we've had a 23 degree axial
tilt.
:-)

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.28.07 @
1:09AM |#

Hypothetically, assume we observed massive amounts of ozone thickening, to
the point that not enough UV light was getting through. Would the same people
that ran to ban CFCs try to enact government regulations requiring us to
output more CFCs to reduce the excess ozone?

I think it is safe to say
that they wouldn't. This makes me think that hard science is not at play but
some political/social/economic motive is.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.28.07 @
8:39AM |#

The back story behind the CFC ban is a fascinating one. CFCs are wonderful
industrial chemicals. They are unbelievably stable. If you don't have a leak
in the system, there is no reason to ever replace them in an air conditioning
system. By the mid 1970s industrial air conditioning systems had become
extremely long lived and reliable. Further, the world had been air conditioned
for the most part. This created a problem for the four or five big chemical
companies (Dow, BASF and the like) that made CFCs; the bottom was falling out
of their market. There were replacement chemicals for CFCs but they were not
as good and they were more expensive. It was about this time that the first
ozone research began to appear. Some very smart person at Dow realized that
this could be a ticket to billions. If CFCs were banned, that would mean that
all the new systems built would have to use the inferior more expensive
replacements and all of the existing AC units would have to be replaced
because there would be no way to replenish the CFC in them if they ever had a
leak.

As a result, the few companies that made CFCs started funding the
Ozone research and got the world wide ban on them passed in just a few years.
The CFC ban was the fastest approved international environmental treaty ever
because the industry that was most effected by it stood to make billions and
consisted entirely of huge multinationals. Now come to find out that they may
have been wrong. I can't think of a stronger scientific "consensus" than the
belief that CFCs caused ozone depletion. Wow. I can't say that I blame the
scientists because this stuff is really hard and complex. It might be nice if
the policy makers would appreciate that fact rather than believing anything
anyone in a lab coat tells them.

I will give you an interesting piece
of trivia Ron. The same Dupont chemist Thomas Midgley, invented both CFCs and
PCBs in the 1920s and 30s.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.28.07 @
8:40AM |#

"In light of these costs, it makes sense to phase out the use of
CFCs"

In the future, you might want to change that to "phase out the
UNNECESSARY use of (fill in name of evil chemical created to destroy humanity
in the name of corporate profit)".

While there are substitutes for most
CFC applications, banning the use of Halon (for example) is definitely going
to result in some people dying a rather grisly death. It won't be the 40+
million dead because of the program to ban DDT instead of limiting it to
necessary applications, but it could still be significant.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.28.07 @
8:44AM |#

J,

Some of the fanaticism on CFCs was inexcusable. Using the things
in firefighting chemicals was not going to destroy the ozone. There was no
reason to ban it in them. Good luck trying to convince the greenies of
that.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.28.07 @
9:02AM |#

Dang. You would publish this one day after I wrote a check for an air
conditioner that cost three times what the one I bought 11 years ago
cost.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Guy Montag| 9.28.07 @ 9:35AM |#

John,

Do you have something to back up your claim, other than more
conjecture, or are we to just believe it because corporations are
"evil?"

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Eric B.| 9.28.07 @ 9:38AM |#

I'm normally not an anti-"Big Evil Corporation" guy, but I have to go along
with John's comments on the Freon producers playing a part in the
ozone-depletion myth. Big companies know a good thing when they see it, and
when an opportunity to create a new market comes along, the lobbyists kick
into high-gear. Look at corn-based methanol. the politicians are falling all
over themselves to get on that train. Using corn for methanol production is
going to be terrible for this country, stealing our farming resources away
from food production, and driving up prices on all of our staples. The
companies that benefit, the corn-producers and the fertilizer and hybrid corn
developers are pumping millions into the efforts to pass methanol bills. The
whole global warming movement is a similar phenomenon. All you have to do is
follow the money.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

M.
Simon| 9.28.07 @ 9:39AM |#

Banning CFCs was a big boon to DuPont. Their patents had run out. Not to
worry, they had less efficient patented refrigerants ready to go.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

M.
Simon| 9.28.07 @ 9:41AM |#

Since the new refrigerants were less efficient they were contributing to
global warming, if you believe the warmists.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.28.07 @
9:49AM |#

Context and perspective govern here, as in all else. First: What is the
pattern of Antarctic "ozone holes" over (say) AD 1325 - c. 1875 (the Little
Ice Age)? If this is a cyclical, recurring phenomenon, it cannot be
anthrogenic. If data is not available, meaning "we don't know", speculative
hypotheses are meaningless.

As with the "Hockey Stick" graph and NASA's
Soros-funded disinformation debacle on global temperature from about 1930 [a
ridiculously short time-frame], both debunked by Steven McIntyre, this Ozone
Depletion schtick reeks of alarmist eco-whelps.

What partisan
propagandists all ignore is that objective reality governs natural processes.
Over some 10-million years, due primarily to plate-tectonic dispositions
(continents walling off Eastern from Western hemisphers), glaciations have
come and gone with clockwork precision, averaging 11,500 - 12,500 years
between.

Depending on how one counts the Younger Dryas, Earth today is
1,500 years overdue to end our current interglacial, which should have
terminated with the Roman Empire. In 2113 we shall intersect an annular ring
of intra-solar dust, as happens every 800 years. Last episode occurred in
1313, when 10 - 12 years of failed harvests tipped every civilized culture on
the planet to destruction (think Black Death, Mongol hordes, drought and
pestilence).

Anyone, researcher or layman, who takes inflated "ozone
hole" prognostications seriously is either dishonest or a fool.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.28.07 @
10:11AM |#

In my opinion, the continuing emissions of volatile material and gases from
Mt Erebus on Ross Island in Antarctica, is responsible for any variability in
the density of the ozonosphere in the southern hemisphere. CFCs, although
chemically active, play a very insignificant role.

Eruptions like
Krakatau in 1883, St Helens in 1980, and Pinatubo in 1991 are all known to
have emitted millions of tons of particulate matter and gasses into the
atmosphere causing changes in both climate and atmosphere.

Three
questions to ask about the entire CFC scare are what patents expired, and who
held the patents on their replacements, and who funded the research.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Jack
Secret| 9.28.07 @ 10:17AM |#

What John Ringo said. Environmentalism - all of it - is the biggest crock
in the history of man.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Shannon
Love| 9.28.07 @ 10:22AM |#

I doubt that some corporations started the anti-CFC craze but I also have
few doubts that amplified it.

I remember the debate quite well back in
the 80's because I was in college back then as a biology major. One of the big
political selling points of the entire matter was that the companies who
produced the CFC replacement technology told everyone how cheap and easy it
was going to be. I think the companies recognized the profit potential of a
replacing easily manufactured/public domain technology with their difficult to
manufacture/proprietary technology. I don't think there was any kind of
sinister conspiracy, just companies seeking to profit from the political
winds.

One can be sure however, that should the CFC ban turn out to be
a false alarm, greens will blame the entire episode on the corporations who
benefited from it.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.28.07 @
10:29AM |#

"I don't think there was any kind of sinister conspiracy, just companies
seeking to profit from the political winds."

There wasn't a sinister
conspiracy as much as a combination of people who had an interest in the same
end. Go back and look at the history of the CFC treaty. It is amazing. Nothing
ever gets done that quick. People were doing this research in the 1970s and
coming to the conclusion that CFCs were destroying the ozone. The chemical
companies picked up on it and started funding and publicizing the research.
The greens admit that they could have never gotten that a ban of CFCs done
that quickly without the help and muscle of the chemical industry. I don't
think that that makes the corporations evil or sinister. They just say an
opportunity and took it.

Guy,

My source for that story is from a
prof I had when I was getting my masters in environmental law. My prof worked
on the original CFC ban treaty and is probably the country's formost expert on
air pollution law. I consider it very reliable.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.28.07 @
10:51AM |#

i have two questions:
1. aren't cfc's much heavier than air, making them
less likely to be found in the upper atmosphere?
2. wouldn't an
internal-combustion engine with a catalytic converter make a nice reaction
vessel for the heavier-than-air cfc's and ozone?
marty

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.28.07 @
11:05AM |#

It seems to me that the application of just a soupcon of common sense would
make any reasonable person realize that the core idea is
preposterous.

I thought so twenty years ago and, if A. Einstein can
back from the dead and told me it was true, I still wouldn't believe
it.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.28.07 @
11:08AM |#

The problem has economic consequences that have not been
addressed.

1. CFCs are 20-30% more efficient in air conditioning units.
Create: Cost of switching to less efficient air conditioners as more and more
affluent (middle class) people buy more and more air conditioners around the
world.

2. Create: Cost of need for more electricity + 20-30% less
efficiency of newer air conditioners. Granted this is small in comparison to
overall electricity consumption but it may remove savings from other forms of
alternatively generated electricity.

3. Create: Cost of global warming
driving the acquisition of more and more air conditioners + 20-30% less
efficiency in air conditioners. Aaarrrrrgggghhhh!

By the way there is a
more efficient refrigerent than CFCs by 20%-30% (making the current
refrigerants look far worse) it is
anhydrous ammonia, but its volatility
and poisonousness if released made it undesirable as a refrigerant.

The
Law of Unintended Consequences. Sigh.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.28.07 @
11:23AM |#

So, the cost of your new air conditioner will be 20-30% more than the old
one for 2 reasons, it must be bigger to hold more refrigerant to do the same
job as your old one. And two, it will use 20-30% more electricity to do the
same job.

I think the air conditioner companies are the ones making the
profit, not you and me, from this.

If the air conditioner companies
have been able to make the air conditioners more efficient this may be a wash,
but I still think they will cost as much or more than previously. Especially,
since the new refrigerants are also more costly to make and probably have just
as bad or worse effects on the environment during manufacture and in
use.

Now think of these costs on a growing global market scale and you
have an idea what these rules have already cost and are likely to cost in the
future as more, but less efficient, air conditioners are bought.

The
Law of Unintended Consequences. Sigh!

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.28.07 @
11:31AM |#

Are Air Conditioners are getting less efficient?

The efficiently of
Air Conditioners in rated in SEERs which is something like BTUs of cooling
divided by watt-hours to produce the cooling.

SEERs have been going up
for years.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

TallDave| 9.28.07 @ 11:31AM |#

I think we're all avoiding the elephant in the room. There is a chemical so
deadly it has killed more people than all others combined, yet thanks to
corporate greed and political corruption, it is still commmonly used by nearly
every industry. It is most responsible for global warming, may cause ozone
depletion, and in one well-publicized incident a few years ago, it killed
250,000 people (the corporate mediaof course played down the role of this
chemical, protecting industry by blaming seismic activity).

That's
right, I'm talking about the deadliest chemical on Earth: dihydrogen monoxide,
or DHMO.

Fortunately, you can help stop the deaths of innocent people
all over the world. Write your Congressperson today and tell them you support
a ban on dihydrogen monoxide!

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.28.07 @
11:57AM |#

"Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs
and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer
ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions."

If we
don't even know the chemical reactions involved, how in @*$&* do we know
that "anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone
loss"? It's ridiculous!j

That's what happens when science and data take
a back seat to panic or the received wisdom. It's happened before and will
happen again (global *cough* warming *cough*).

Not too long ago - just
a few decades - virtually every astronomer "knew" the sun was 66% iron.
Dissenters were ridiculed and their careers crushed like bugs. Once the
dissenters were proven right, turns out everyone had known it all
along!

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Eric B| 9.28.07 @ 12:01PM |#

DMHO, funny! Hey JSC, you spoke of Mt. Erebus like you've been there. Have
you? I made 3 trips to "the ice" some years back. Old Mt. Erebus was smokin
all the time.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.28.07 @
12:32PM |#

Are the DuPont bashers aware that DuPont simply ate the substantial
development costs of the CFC replacements, and then gave them away without any
charge to whoever wants to manufacture them?

reply to this

log in or register to reply

DirtCrashr| 9.28.07 @ 12:37PM |#

It's the Van Allen Belts! They're squeezin' too tight and the magnetic
radiation from the iron-sun is leaking out!

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Scooby| 9.28.07 @ 12:51PM |#

Jack Secret: Environmentalism - all of it - is the biggest crock in the
history of man.

All of it? Even not dumping trash on the side of
the road? Even not dumping out hazardous chemicals into the atmosphere and
rivers, streams and oceans? Even not hunting and fishing species into
extinction? Even a metric shitload of other examples of unnecessary,
uneconomic waste and abuses of common resources?

Knee-jerk
environmentalism is stupid- almost as stupid as knee-jerk
anti-environmentalism.

Norm: SEERs have been going up for
years.

The efficiency gains are due to better machinery &
machining (more efficient types compressors made with closer tolerances than
possible in the past)- that improve efficiency at all loads, and more
sophisticated controls (variable frequency drives on compressors and fans,
multiple compressors, variable refrigerant valves, etc.)- that increase
efficiency at part loads. SEER is a rating that takes into account efficiency
at part load. The machinery spends all but about 2% of the time at part load,
so the more complex controls have done a lot to improve SEERs.

These
efficiency gains have been made in spite of the use of inferior refrigerants,
not because of their use.

The anthropogenic ozone depletion issue
was/is a religious belief, much like the current anthropogenic climate change
issue. Skepticism is treated as heresy. There may or may be something to each.
I'm somewhat agnostic myself, and got bawled out by my thermodynamics
professor for expressing doubt in the ozone depleting chemicals theory,
shortly after Montreal went into effect. I'd love to be able to call him up
and return the favor, but he's since retired. If better data shows up, I might
have to look him up and give him a call.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.28.07 @
12:53PM |#

Incidentally, the Columbia astronauts would like to argue the
point that banning CFCs was harmless.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Shannon
Love| 9.28.07 @ 1:04PM |#

Dwayne Dibley,

Are the DuPont bashers aware that DuPont simply
ate the substantial development costs of the CFC replacements, and then gave
them away without any charge to whoever wants to manufacture
them?

The older a chemical compound is the easier it is to
synthesize it with contemporary technology. There is a larger talent pool of
people who understand how it is made. Conversely, new compounds require
specialized skill and resources.

It may not matter if no one else has
the technical expertise and infrastructure to produce the replacements at a
competitive price. A great chef can tell me how to make his signature dish but
that doesn't mean I have the skills and resources to sell it for a profit in
my own restaurant.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Ben| 9.28.07 @ 1:24PM |#

Dihydrogen Monoxide... Two H's and one O... H2O...
Clever.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.28.07 @
1:42PM |#

Dihydrogen Monoxide... Two H's and one O...
H2O...
Clever.

You'd be surprised how often people get suckered
by that one.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.28.07 @
2:29PM |#

J sub D - Could you please tell me what the optimal earth temperature is
and how is that determined? Also, last time I checked, man was part of nature
too.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Guy Montag| 9.28.07 @ 2:30PM |#

John,

My source for that story is from a prof I had when I was
getting my masters in environmental law. My prof worked on the original CFC
ban treaty and is probably the country's formost expert on air pollution law.
I consider it very reliable.

Thanks for that. Now, does this guy
have a name? Is his documentation available anyplace? Has he published
anything on this backed up by more than a bunch of innuendo? You know, like I
respectfully asked for the first time?

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Guy Montag| 9.28.07 @ 2:30PM |#

Eric B,

Thank you. One of my favorites :)

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Ron| 9.28.07 @ 2:36PM |#

One of the truly unfortunate side effects of the CFC ban is the effects on
the inhaled medications, especially those for asthma. The newer HFA
formulations aren't nearly as good, require cleansing of the inhaler and go
"bad" after 60 days in some cases. Most of the generic inhalers for asthma
will cease to exist and the expensive branded inhalers will take over the
market.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Guy Montag| 9.28.07 @ 3:32PM |#

One of the truly unfortunate side effects of the CFC ban is the effects
on the inhaled medications, especially those for asthma. The newer HFA
formulations aren't nearly as good, require cleansing of the inhaler and go
"bad" after 60 days in some cases. Most of the generic inhalers for asthma
will cease to exist and the expensive branded inhalers will take over the
market.

Great . . . Now the drug manufacturer conspirators will be
jumping in to add their conspiracy theories.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.28.07 @
3:36PM |#

"Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into
question, Rex stresses"

In legal circles, if the Facts are against
you, you argue the Law. In politics, as we now know, you argue Fake but
Accurate.

Orion on Dihydrogen Monoxide:

"You'd be
surprised how often people get suckered by that one."

Reminds me
of a glossy Monsanto(?) ad from wayback. Underneath a photo of a perfect
orange, they listed its grocery-store-style "Ingredients" by their chemical
formulations. Without the photo, I'd have figured the thing would kill you on
the spot. Alas, though I wouldn't have signed the anti-DM petition, I'm afraid
I have to admit that I'd have gone googling for more info when I got
home.

Grimmy:

"Once the dissenters were proven right,
turns out everyone had known it all along!"

Hindsight
Bias Rulz!

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.28.07 @
4:08PM |#

Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into
question, Rex stresses. "Overwhelming evidence still suggests that
anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone
loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the
correct chemical reactions."

Did the CFC conspiracy theorists even read this
paragraph?

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Shannon
Love| 9.28.07 @ 4:24PM |#

Boris,

The crucial scientific debate over the degree to which CFCs
erode the ozone layer hinges on the actual chemical activity of CFCs in the
environment of the upper atmosphere. This study shows that they are
significantly less active than previous acknowledged by most.

If
reproduced, this means the models on which the ozone ban were based turned
were flawed exaggerations. Most of the thinning comes from natural
sources.

Perhaps CFCs weren't the pants wetting emergency they were
portrayed as back in the 80's.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.28.07 @
4:28PM |#

"Incidentally, the Columbia astronauts would like to argue the point that
banning CFCs was harmless.

Ian,
If you are going to speak for the departed, please take
more care in your comments. The Bipods were coated with foam that used Freon,
as NASA was exempt from EPA regulations. Banning CFCs did not doom Columbia,
as much as you might wish to blame their high-profile deaths on the
environmental movement.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.28.07 @
4:49PM |#

As always, there is an in-between answer that doesn't cost all that much on
balance, and is a decent solution. We still don't know, even with the latest
data, how much of an issue CFCs were in the seasonal thinning of atmospheric
ozone at the pole (there was never a "hole"), and indeed, there are and always
were good reasons to be mildly skeptical of the apocalyptic
reports.

But if you look back, there were an awful lot of needless
releases of CFCs, that didn't cause much difficulty when banned, and a bunch
of other virtually no-risk, or minimal impact, applications that should not
have been banned.

Spray can propellants for hair spray, paint,
deodorant, etc., blew a lot of the stuff into the air for no particular good
reason, and the substitutes are really not an issue. We all get along fine
today with pump sprays and other propellant approaches. CFCs were used in open
systems all over as industrial solvents, for cleaning printed wiring boards
after wave soldering, and we have replacement approaches now that do an OK
job.

But CFCs should never have been banned in closed system
refrigerators, it would have been good enough to simply require that when
junking a refrigeration unit the coolant be recovered before disposal, along
with improving the leak characteristics of auto units (heck, as a consumer I
want that fixed, auto ACs leak way too much for no great reasons). Nor should
they have been banned in medical inhalers for the reasons cited (I have asthma
myself), the release volume involved was meaningless- just another "green
feel-virtuous" opportunity for Federal regulators. And, sorry folks, DuPont
did indeed (still does) do very well on CFC-134 now that the generic
competition of good old Freon is gone.

This story is very similar to
that of DDT- there was a potential issue, and the big government people used
it to make life worse on balance and grab more power, when some modest
controls on external environmental usage would have resolved virtually any
actual problem.

And there are a hundred other stories in the Naked City
just like these...

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.28.07 @
5:09PM |#

There is a lot of political posturing going on in the comments section here
so if someone were _truely_ interested in the science I would suggest that
they look elsewhere. Some answers.

Comment:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/122712.html#794763
"Does anyone know why
CFCs only deplete the 'good' ozone in the upper atmosphere but not the 'bad'
ozone that contributes to global warming?"

Several reasons but a major
reason is the fact that CFCs are stable in the troposphere and are not in the
stratosphere (where they get broken down).

Comment:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/122712.html#795006

"CFC's are heavier
than air. They cannot float up to the upper atmosphere. Are they blown up
there in the wind?"

Basically. The whole troposphere is well mixed and
gets globally exchanged over a period of one year. That is why there isn't a
layer of CO2 along the Earth's surface.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.28.07 @
5:37PM |#

J:

"In light of these costs, it makes sense to phase out the use of
CFCs"

In the future, you might want to change that to 'phase out the
UNNECESSARY use of (fill in name of evil chemical created to destroy
humanity in the name of corporate profit)'.

Alas, it's tough to drum up widespread support for anything
resembling half-measures. Brian Eno offered up the best take on the political
realities I've ever heard:

The central problem of politics: Do you paint simplistic pictures that
make people act (and leave them with too simplistic a view of the world) or
do you paint baffingly shaded and contingent scenes that leave people
paralyzed by indecision?

J sub D

You have to understand that the earth was at the optimal temperature and
there was a complete "balance" of nature until humans ...

Could you
please tell me what the optimal earth temperature is and how is that
determined?

I'm nobody's green giant, but I don't think there's any reason not
to use the obvious fact that human life is sustainable at the current
status quo as a working baseline. With the advent of the atom bomb,
we began the ongoing process of absorbing and examining the idea that we may
actually be powerful enough to alter underlying global dynamics, whether
inadvertantly or purposefully, to potentially devasting, and perhaps most
disturbingly, to potentially unknown or unpredictable effect.

I also
don't think it's all that hard to define a fairly narrow range of conditions,
within the global continuum, under which human existence is possible.
Considering how much of that range would be inimicable to life as we know it
know it now, I'm not why sure a lot of folks so archly dismiss concern about
global trends, just because such changes may be natural and not man-made. The
flip-side of destructive power, of course, is its potentially constructive
use. While we don't really know for sure whether we've initiated or affected
global warming climate change, or not, perhaps we should all
be hoping that we can -- just in case the thermometer, as only one obvious
example, starts taking the kind of nosedive that the big picture timeline suggests is otherwise inevitably in
store.

There are certainly some negatives in the current
fear/guilt/faith based environmental politicking, but I suspect the attention
also generates more $$ for research, so it may end up being a net plus. It's
my impression that you could hardly find any money for weather modelling a
decade or so ago, and a lot of the climate related science has short as well
as long term benefits.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.28.07 @
5:49PM |#

Ken

"There is a lot of political posturing going on in the
comments section here...."

LOL! And I was just thinking how
pleasant it was to find people actually talking to each other instead of
taking potshots....

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.28.07 @
6:19PM |#

Shannon:

"The primary driver for the thinning of the ozone over the
Antarctic is the relatively stagnate air mass over the Antarctic. Ozone is
generated by UV radiation at the equator and then transported to the poles buy
upper atmospheric circulation. During winter months the Antarctic depends on
imports of ozone from the equator."

So, let me get this straight: The
winds blow northward and southward from the equator to the poles? You're
saying the wind only blows directly to the poles, do not pass 'Go', do not
collect $200 and nowhere else in between is affected, and furthermore, the
winds stop at the poles instantaneously, thereby depositing all harmful CFC's
in the upper atmosphere?

The only winds I see blowing here are yours,
Shannon!!! This is the biggest piece of liberal brain-wash BS I've read all
week! Put you money where your mouth is: Prove it with evidence!!

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.28.07 @
6:24PM |#

Oh, I see, because Wikipedia says it is so, it must be true. However, if
you read further, you will see that the BX-250 halon foam bipod fell off from
where it was attached to the new style, weaker, non-freon foam.
Perhaps, it
is YOU who should be more careful in your
comments.
[quote]
"Incidentally, the Columbia astronauts would like to
argue the point that banning CFCs was harmless.[/quote]

Ian,
If you
are going to speak for the departed, please take more care in your comments.
The Bipods were coated with foam that used Freon, as NASA was exempt from EPA
regulations. Banning CFCs did not doom Columbia, as much as you might wish to
blame their high-profile deaths on the environmental movement.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Shannon
Love| 9.28.07 @ 7:06PM |#

Don,

So, let me get this straight: The winds blow northward and
southward from the equator to the poles?

Since Ultraviolet
radiation creates slight more ozone than it destroys, more ozone gets created
in the sunny regions of the equator. At the poles, ozone is only created
during the summer months. As the atmosphere circulates north to south the net
transfer is from the equator to the poles.

During the winter months
over the poles, the ozone there degrades largely due to chemical interactions
with immediate environment. Ozone is a highly reactive molecule and will
simply fall apart on its own given time. It take only a minor nudge to destroy
it. The ozone layer over the pole always thins
during the winter. When summer returns ozone begins to form again
there.

The thinning of the ozone layer over the arctic has little if
nothing to do with CFCs. As many have noted, atmospheric CFC levels are higher
over the north pole than the south yet the north experiences significantly
less thinning.

The best explanation for the thinning is that a
combination in a lack transfer from the equator combined with the unusually
large number of ice crystals forming due to cold. The ice crystals form
reactive surfaces which greatly accelerate the decomposition of ozone with or
without CFCs.

CFC are probably a minor contributor to the thinning seen
in the southern pole.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Jay Manifold| 9.28.07 @ 11:09PM |#

John Blake:

In 2113 we shall intersect an annular ring of intra-solar dust, as
happens every 800 years. Last episode occurred in 1313, when 10 - 12 years
of failed harvests tipped every civilized culture on the planet to
destruction (think Black Death, Mongol hordes, drought and
pestilence).

All rings are "annular"; those words are synonyms. "Intra-solar"
would be, er, inside the Sun. We intersect with interplanetary dust streams
many times per year; they're called meteor showers and do not cause failed
harvests (or failed anything else). There is zero evidence of an 800-year
periodicity of civilizational collapse. The Black Death was in the late 1340s.
The Mongol hordes did their conquering in the early-to-mid-1200s. The crop
failures in the early 1300s in western Europe were caused by excess rainfall,
not droughts. The pestilence was the Black Death, 30 years later.

Yes,
my mother did raise me to be your straight man.

DirtCrashr:

It's the Van Allen Belts! They're squeezin' too tight and the magnetic
radiation from the iron-sun is leaking out!

Excellent hypothesis.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

PabloM| 9.29.07 @ 12:36AM |#

The "ozone hole" of Antarctica was first discovered by Gordon Dobson in
1957 at Halley Bay ("Forty years' research on atmospheric ozone at Oxford: a
history"). It was regarded as a natural curiosity and never given much of a
second thought.

Until the 80s, when the hole was (re-)"discovered" in
1985 and blamed on CFCs, which were banned in 1987. Does anyone really believe
that the complex interaction of ozone in the stratosphere over the South Pole
was well enough understood in less than 2 years for such drastic action?
Clearly no, since 20 years later we don't know what the hell is going on,
anthropogenic or otherwise.

Secondly, banning CFCs did have a cost. We
in the developed world did not feel it because we are rich. We paid a little
more to substitute CFCs with something else. In the poorer countries, they
went without - no refrigerants for food or medicine, surgical instruments not
sterilized, etc. They grew sick from lack of medication or got food poisoning
from bad food or got infections dirty medical instruments or starved - maybe
we could not afford an Atari that year. So yes this action did have a dear
cost, just not obvious to us rich, enlightened folk. We're so smart - we know
what is best.

This speaks volumes about what to do with the current
global warming crisis - rash action based half-baked information leads to
disaster.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

PabloM| 9.29.07 @ 1:02AM |#

"Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs
and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer
ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions."

For Rex
to say anything else could easily cost this guy funding and his job. I know
several German scientists being forced out of their jobs in environmental
fields since their interests are not scary enough to warrant funding in
Europe. We are interviewing them now and they all have the same story - they
are seeking "scientific refugee" status in the US.

Besides, the above
quote is somewhat of an oxymoron - overwhelming evidence of man made induced
ozone depletion yet tremendous uncertainty about the chemical reactions.
Hmm-this does not add up.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.29.07 @
9:27AM |#

pickens,

Oh, I see, because Wikipedia says it is so, it must be true. However, if
you read further, you will see that the BX-250 halon foam bipod fell off
from where it was attached to the new style, weaker, non-freon
foam.

Well, one can always go to the original
report:

www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/2003/caib-report_vol1_chapter3.pdf

Wherein
one finds this quote:

Nor does the basic quality of the foam appear to be a
concern.

Read the rest. There's no mention of weakness between the two types
of foam.

Moreover, foam loss occurred well before the changes in foam.
Foam loss occurred on 80% of shuttle missions with sufficient imagery to
analyze, and the left bipod ramp was lost 10% of the time.

Again,
please stop using the dead to support your anti-environmental conspiracy
theories.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.29.07 @
9:46AM |#

In the poorer countries, they went without - no refrigerants for food or
medicine, surgical instruments not sterilized, etc.

So much wrong in one post. Wow. Okay, first nobody went without
sterile surgical instruments because of the Montreal Protocol, which actually
created a fund to help poorer countries transition to non-CFCs.

The
seminal paper on ozone depletion was 1974, not 1985. Dodson didn't find a hole
in 1958.

Oh, well. Some myths never die, as we see from the DDT
nonsense spouted upthread.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

J. H. Colter| 9.29.07 @ 4:45PM |#

OK, someone please help me with my memory. In p-chem in the late 1970s, we
learned that ozone was created by UV photons hitting O2 in the upper
atmosphere (creating a pair of O- radicals that then attacked a local O2 to
form O3). That absorbed the UV, because when the unstable O3 subsequently
decayed, it put out IR, not UV. That decay put out O- radicals too, but (30
year old memory here) at a lower energy state, meaning the O- did not have the
energy needed to attack the O2 molecules and create another O3, so about the
best they could do was find another O- radical and form an O2
molecule.

That is my memory, hence a premise, of the following
conclusions:

1. If accurate (and it may not just be my memory,
hopefully the science has gotten better too), this makes it seem to me that
the ozone layer is an effect, not a cause, of UV absorption. This seems
consistent with the following theory: Because O3 is very unstable, any UV
photon that hits an O3 molecule is going to break it apart, with very little
degradation of the energy of the UV photon (hence, little absorption). So it
does not seem to me that O3 protects the Earth much, anyway. What protects the
Earth is O2, which takes the high energy UV photon hit and breaks apart, to
form O3.

2. If the UV photon does not hit an O2 in the upper
atmosphere, it will continue on to Earth, unless it hits an O2 on that path
(the O2 gets a lot thicker down this way). Thus, it seems to me the O3 layer
will gradually thicken (and get significantly less concentrated), but the
actual amount of UV hitting the surface of the earth will be largely
unaffected by the O3 layer. If nothing else, the O3 layer may be harder and
harder to find, as it extends deeper into the lower atmosphere and at a lower
concentration of O3.

3. The premise behind the CFC ban was that CFCs
degrade O3, threatening greater ground level UV. However, considering my
premise, if CFCs attack O3, does that reduce UV absorption? In fact, it seems
that CFCs rapidly degrading O3 is going to turn a lot more O- radicals loose
(though perhaps without sufficient energy), to attack more O2 molecules. That
could lead to more O3, at which point I cannot remember the equations, and I
guess that is just as well because we may not even know the correct ones,
right?

Anybody have any thoughts as to what is wrong with my
picture?

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 9.30.07 @
7:05AM |#

PabloM, the Dobson found the hole in 1957 is an old canard that would do
your argument well to eliminate.

J. H. O2 and O3 interact with
different wavelengths of UV.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 11.2.09 @
6:03PM |#

CFCs cannot "build up" in the atmosphere because they are six times heavier
than air and the wind vortices of the Earth are not strong enough to thrust
these molecules skyward in any great numbers, especially not 10-20 miles
skyward. Actually, the most like place for CFCs to accumulate would be the
bottoms of lakes and oceans since they are also heavier than water. I don't
want to give the eco-whacks any ideas though! Next thing we'll hear about is
that CFCs are depleating deep-ocean life!

reply to this

log in or register to reply

| 3.4.10 @
8:30PM |#

Ozone hole, Next Ice Age, Global Warming, now climate change, heck before
all that it was nuclear winter.. Until scientist get back to basics and follow
the laws of scientific research (something to many have tossed out because
they are hores to industry) we will continue to get crap science. Oh wait, who
remembers back when they said Television would cause problems with the
atmosphere !!
Until these fools can acurately predict the weather I will
continue to believe they are liars.

reply to this

log in or register to reply

Louis Vuitton
1904 Monogram Be| 4.28.11 @ 2:19AM |#

http://www.louisvuitton.be/louis-vuitton-ellipse-damier-belt-m6995w-p-14.html
Great article and I agree with you that young generation spend a lot of time
on social networking sites as now people are quiet interested in sharing their
views with other people and there you can get your own group who are
interested on the same topic that you are interested in...

reply to this

log in or register to
reply

Leave a Comment

* COMMENT:

You must have an account
and be logged in to comment.
Click here to register, or here to login if you already have an
account

A New Business Model for…

Brian Doherty | 09.27.2007

Hot for International Apa…

Kerry Howley | 09.27.2007

HIT & RUN HOME

VIEW HIT
& RUN ARCHIVES »

Reason In Your Inbox!

24/7 News

Blizzards Hits
Midwest

12.20.12 3:50 pm

Rapper
Fat Joe Pleads Guilty to Tax Evasion

12.20.12 3:40 pm

Sen.
Boxer Proposes National Guard Troops in Schools

12.20.12 3:30 pm

VIEW MORE »

TOP STORIES

Featured

Most Visited

Most Commented

The
Fall Of Tam's #6: How LA Regulated A Burger Stand Out of Existence

12.20.12 12:29
pm

The
Auto Bailout Failure Is Now Complete

12.20.12 12:00
pm

Wrong
Answers for Mass Shootings

12.20.12 7:00
am

Don’t
Believe the Hype About “Dangerous” Christmas Toys

12.19.12 4:30
pm

Grover
Norquist on Fiscal Cliff, Tax Pledges, & Being the GOP's "Rasputin"

12.19.12 10:30
am

How
Do We Know an 'Assault Weapon' Ban Would Not Have Stopped Adam Lanza? Because
It Didn't.

Jacob
Sullum | 12.17.12 12:36 pm

Texas
DPS Sued Over Painful and Humiliating Cavity Searches

Rachel
Moran | 12.19.12 10:36 am

Are
Mass Shootings Becoming More Common in the United States?

Jesse
Walker | 12.17.12 12:11 pm

Teach
For America Kills Children, Says Union Prez on Newtown Shootings

Katherine
Mangu-Ward | 12.19.12 12:01 pm

How
Big Labor Plans to Fight Michigan's Right-to-Work Law

Shikha
Dalmia | 12.18.12 6:00 pm

A.M.
Links: Bolton Suggests Clinton Faked Concussion, Samuel L. Jackson Wades Into
Gun Debate, French President Pushes For Banking Reform, Gun Control Task Group
Announced, Obama is Time’s Person of the Year

Matthew
Feeney | 12.19.12 9:00 am

A.M.
Links: Federal Spending Up 78% Since 1998, Tax Filing To Be Delayed, Lawmakers
Ask Why DOJ Accumulates Data on Americans

J.D.
Tuccille | 12.20.12 9:00 am

Surging
UKIP is Not Libertarian, Despite What Some Would Have You Believe

Matthew
Feeney | 12.18.12 5:48 pm

How
Stupid Must a Gun Law Be to Get Struck Down by the Courts?

Jacob
Sullum | 12.19.12 2:05 pm

Jacob
Sullum Debates Gun Control With Robert Wright

Jacob
Sullum | 12.19.12 6:33 pm

Trending

24 hours ago

Grover Norquist on
Fiscal Cliff, Tax Pledges, & Being the GOP's "Rasputin"

1 day ago

The
Year in Books - Reason.com

2 days ago

Reason.com

20 hours ago

Reason.com

16 hours ago

Don’t
Believe the Hype About “Dangerous” Christmas Toys -
Reason.com

REASONTV: FEATURED
VIDEOS

The
Fall Of Tam's #6: How LA Regulated A Burger Stand Out of Existence

Zach
Weissmueller

Can
an Undocumented Immigrant Become a U.S. Lawyer?

Paul Detrick

How
Indianapolis Fixed Its Parking Problems

Alex Manning

Paul Feine

VIEW ALL »

advertisement

Barack Obama

Is
Obama Kowtowing to Anti-Biotech Activists?

Ronald Bailey

Chuck
Hagel Out of Consideration for Secretary of Defense Nomination?

Ed Krayewski

Four
Hollywood Obama Donors on List for Potential Ambassador
Jobs

Fiscal Cliff

Have
the Fiscal Cliff Negotiations Reached a Dead End?

Peter Suderman

Rand
Paul: The Problem is Too Much Spending

Boehner
Pushing Vote on Tax Hike for Millionaires

War on Drugs

Florida's
War on Pill Mills Is Also a War on Patient Privacy

Mike Riggs

Gun
Bought By ATF Special Agent Found at Mexican Crime Scene

Ed Krayewski

Still
Unclear if Cigarette Producers Will Move into Pot
Market

Guns

Guns
Don’t Kill People; Imaginary Guns Kill People

Scott Shackford

Nervous
3D Printing Firm Bans Gun Designs

AR-15
Rifle Sells Briskly as Americans Anticipate New
Restrictions

Webathon

Last
Call for Reason's 2012 Webathon! Please Support "Free Minds and Free
Markets"

Nick Gillespie

Matt
Welch and Nick Gillespie Answer Your Questions Via Google Hangout!

Nick Gillespie

Donate
to Reason! So We Can Give You 45 More Years of Crazy, Wonderful, and
Epoch-Shifting Libertarian Journalism and Commentary

Matt Welch

The Nanny State

Don’t
Believe the Hype About “Dangerous” Christmas Toys

Lenore Skenazy

Meet
Congress' Favorite Bootlegger: Prohibition, Hypocrisy, and "The Man in the
Green Hat"

Meredith Bragg

Now
a Drink That Reduces Energy Is Causing a Panic

Reason-Rupe Poll

Young
Libertarians Voted For Obama

Emily Ekins

73
Percent of Voters Think Medical Marijuana Should be Legal, Half think
Recreational Pot Should Be Too

Emily Ekins

Despite
the Presidential Campaign Season, Americans Still Believe US is a Land of
Opportunity

Emily Ekins

Staff Reviews

Zero
Dark Thirty

Kurt Loder

2012: The
Year in Books

Jesse Walker

Dictionary
Death Match

Katherine Mangu-Ward

Donate:

Donate
Online

Donate via Fax or
Mail

Why Support
Reason?

Donation FAQ

Stock Donations

Planned Giving

Shop to Support
Reason

Links:

Home

About

Reason Foundation

Cover Gallery

Reason TV

Events

Advertise

Staff

Subscribe:

Subscribe to the Print
Magazine

Reason Mobile Apps

Apple
Newsstand

E-Reader
Subscriptions

Give Reason as a Gift

Back Issues

Subscription Services

Subscription
Questions

Email
Newsletters

Contact:

News Tips

Site Comments/Questions

Media Inquiries

Reprint Permissions

Editorial & Production Offices

5737 Mesmer Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90230
(310) 391-2245

Washington Office

1747 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 986-0916

Home

Reason 24/7

ReasonTV

Hit & Run

Magazine

Subscribe

Donate

Advanced Search

Advertise

Contact

©2012 Reason Foundation.|reason.org|privacy policy