4 ms·

Remember as you read these arguments that the wide consensus of scientists is that CFCs cause ozone breakdown. And the only reason there is any disagreement at

by mhneu 8y ago

Remember as you read these arguments that the wide consensus of scientists is that CFCs cause ozone breakdown. And the only reason there is any disagreement at all is because billionaires and corporations pay for disinformation. They amplify the tiny number of scientists that disagree, and fund conferences and media to push this false story. Why? Because oil and gas companies make money on climate inaction. So they spend marketing money to sow doubt. There’s no significant organic climate doubt- the push comes from oil and gas funding. Watching “Merchants of Doubt” is a good start because oil and gas company disinformation on climate follows the same playbook as tobacco and asbestos companies used.

RobertRoberts 8y ago
First, I've never heard anyone doubt the ozone layer issue, I've never read anything negative or even looked into any skeptics on this. I didn't even know they existed. So claiming that I am influenced by some mega-corp's propaganda isn't relevant. I just found that basic science points out flaws in this theory, and came here to bring up the issue. Arguments are meaningless, on either side. Chemically speaking I don't doubt that CFCs can react with a whole lot of gases. But to claim that fly all over the world to one spot? And congregate there forever? >"Although the CFC molecules are indeed several times heavier than air, thousands of measurements have been made from balloons, aircraft and satellites demonstrating that the CFCs are actually present in the stratosphere. The atmosphere is not stagnant. Winds mix the atmosphere to altitudes far above the top of the stratosphere much faster than molecules can settle according to their weight" Still doesn't explain why the hole is one single place, and hasn't moved for decades. Later it says this: >"...and some heavier than air (argon, krypton), which show that they also mix upward uniformly through the stratosphere regardless of their weight, just as observed with carbon tetrafluoride." I will repeat the interesting part: "uniformly through the stratosphere". This fits with the science I learned. Gases disperse, not collect. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chlorofluorocarbons-cfcs/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chlorofluorocarbo...
- mhneu 8y ago
  Yes, that was about how disinformation gets into public debate and into the media. Carry on. Seems like the physics discussion above is addressing the science questions you had. Edit to add: because of the alliance in the US between billionaires and Christians, in my experience a lot of christians hear these kind of science denial ideas as they are growing up. (Not saying this is you, just providing context for international HN readers)
  - RobertRoberts 8y ago
    >...between billionaires and Christians. It was teachers in Oregon, decades ago when this came up there was lots of talk, but very little "discussion". (late 80s early 90s) This was back in the day when they were calling the internet the "information super highway" and we had been sharing the anarchists cookbook on BBS for years already. The ozone hole was brand new and came and went quickly. Haven't heard anything really about it until now. It's odd how so many assumptions about people's experience and beliefs cause such harsh reactions.
- rdiddly 8y ago
  Gases don't go to one place; they go everywhere including that place. Attention to the ozone problem is what leads the discussion in a direction of asking or explaining "how CFCs got to the poles." Nobody asks how CFCs get to, I dunno, 15 miles above Scranton. But the lack of asking does not at all imply that there are no CFCs above Scranton. There is extra attention paid to the poles because an ozone hole appears there. In your spray-can story, the scent doesn't just go from the corner to your nose and concentrate there, it diffuses throughout the room. But its effect is noticed at the location of your nose and talked about because there's a human paying attention to smells at that spot. If you asked "How did the smell get to my nose?" you would get the answer, "It traveled there from the corner of the room." Which is correct, but not the whole picture. The question itself is biased to focus on your nose and exclude the rest of the room.
  - RobertRoberts 8y ago
    >...it diffuses throughout the room... That was the lesson I was taught yes. But consider how much scent would have to be released to smell that same smell for 70 years, across the whole planet. I've read some articles on this linked here, and I see that there are many claims about what is happening, but in one PDF linked above this statement was made. >The role of PSC particles in converting reactive chlorine gases to ClO was not understood until after the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985. Our understanding of the chemical role of PSC particles developed from laboratory studies of their surface reactivity, computer modeling studies of polar stratospheric chemistry, and measurements that directly sampled particles and reactive chlorine gases, such as ClO, in the polar stratosphere" I get that science has to extrapolate effects, because they simply can't sit in the sky and test the air all day long, it's not possible. But go look through history, how many times have scientists thought they understood something until later they changed their minds when more data was available. Note the source and timing of the ozone hole discovery: >* Joe Farman of the British Antarctic Survey discovered the Ozone Hole in 1984" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobson_ozone_spectrophotometer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobson_ozone_spectrophotometer Within 1 year of discovering the "ozone hole" they had an answer that hasn't changed to this day, based on computer modeling from the 80s. >*Total ozone was lower in these months [in 1984] compared with previous observations made as early as 1957." https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/twentyquestions/Q10.pdf https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/twentyq... We have a record of only 27 years of likely minimal data (from what I have read, no one was looking for a hole) where a difference was only discovered at the end of this data set, to which all the conclusions we have now are based. And everyone replying to me is saying this is absolutely settled science? No room for questioning this at all?

by mhneu 8y ago

RobertRoberts 8y ago

First, I've never heard anyone doubt the ozone layer issue, I've never read anything negative or even looked into any skeptics on this. I didn't even know they existed. So claiming that I am influenced by some mega-corp's propaganda isn't relevant. I just found that basic science points out flaws in this theory, and came here to bring up the issue. Arguments are meaningless, on either side. Chemically speaking I don't doubt that CFCs can react with a whole lot of gases. But to claim that fly all over the world to one spot? And congregate there forever? >"Although the CFC molecules are indeed several times heavier than air, thousands of measurements have been made from balloons, aircraft and satellites demonstrating that the CFCs are actually present in the stratosphere. The atmosphere is not stagnant. Winds mix the atmosphere to altitudes far above the top of the stratosphere much faster than molecules can settle according to their weight" Still doesn't explain why the hole is one single place, and hasn't moved for decades. Later it says this: >"...and some heavier than air (argon, krypton), which show that they also mix upward uniformly through the stratosphere regardless of their weight, just as observed with carbon tetrafluoride." I will repeat the interesting part: "uniformly through the stratosphere". This fits with the science I learned. Gases disperse, not collect. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chlorofluorocarbons-cfcs/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chlorofluorocarbo...

mhneu 8y ago
Yes, that was about how disinformation gets into public debate and into the media. Carry on. Seems like the physics discussion above is addressing the science questions you had. Edit to add: because of the alliance in the US between billionaires and Christians, in my experience a lot of christians hear these kind of science denial ideas as they are growing up. (Not saying this is you, just providing context for international HN readers)
- RobertRoberts 8y ago
  >...between billionaires and Christians. It was teachers in Oregon, decades ago when this came up there was lots of talk, but very little "discussion". (late 80s early 90s) This was back in the day when they were calling the internet the "information super highway" and we had been sharing the anarchists cookbook on BBS for years already. The ozone hole was brand new and came and went quickly. Haven't heard anything really about it until now. It's odd how so many assumptions about people's experience and beliefs cause such harsh reactions.
rdiddly 8y ago
Gases don't go to one place; they go everywhere including that place. Attention to the ozone problem is what leads the discussion in a direction of asking or explaining "how CFCs got to the poles." Nobody asks how CFCs get to, I dunno, 15 miles above Scranton. But the lack of asking does not at all imply that there are no CFCs above Scranton. There is extra attention paid to the poles because an ozone hole appears there. In your spray-can story, the scent doesn't just go from the corner to your nose and concentrate there, it diffuses throughout the room. But its effect is noticed at the location of your nose and talked about because there's a human paying attention to smells at that spot. If you asked "How did the smell get to my nose?" you would get the answer, "It traveled there from the corner of the room." Which is correct, but not the whole picture. The question itself is biased to focus on your nose and exclude the rest of the room.
- RobertRoberts 8y ago
  >...it diffuses throughout the room... That was the lesson I was taught yes. But consider how much scent would have to be released to smell that same smell for 70 years, across the whole planet. I've read some articles on this linked here, and I see that there are many claims about what is happening, but in one PDF linked above this statement was made. >The role of PSC particles in converting reactive chlorine gases to ClO was not understood until after the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985. Our understanding of the chemical role of PSC particles developed from laboratory studies of their surface reactivity, computer modeling studies of polar stratospheric chemistry, and measurements that directly sampled particles and reactive chlorine gases, such as ClO, in the polar stratosphere" I get that science has to extrapolate effects, because they simply can't sit in the sky and test the air all day long, it's not possible. But go look through history, how many times have scientists thought they understood something until later they changed their minds when more data was available. Note the source and timing of the ozone hole discovery: >* Joe Farman of the British Antarctic Survey discovered the Ozone Hole in 1984" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobson_ozone_spectrophotometer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobson_ozone_spectrophotometer Within 1 year of discovering the "ozone hole" they had an answer that hasn't changed to this day, based on computer modeling from the 80s. >*Total ozone was lower in these months [in 1984] compared with previous observations made as early as 1957." https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/twentyquestions/Q10.pdf https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/twentyq... We have a record of only 27 years of likely minimal data (from what I have read, no one was looking for a hole) where a difference was only discovered at the end of this data set, to which all the conclusions we have now are based. And everyone replying to me is saying this is absolutely settled science? No room for questioning this at all?