5 ms·

My father-in-law firmly believes that the hole in the ozone was caused by space shuttle reentry, and that's why it's patching now, and also that CFCs couldn't p

My father-in-law firmly believes that the hole in the ozone was caused by space shuttle reentry, and that's why it's patching now, and also that CFCs couldn't possibly make the hole because they are heavier than air. Does anyone have the data to refute these claims?

pm 8y ago
Does he have data to back up those claims?
- xavierstein 8y ago
  I guess I'm more looking for a response to "yes CFCs can destroy ozone even though they are heavier than air," and "here is a graph of the size of the ozone vs space shuttle reentries" that shows a non-correlation.
  - Retra 8y ago
    Water is heavier than air, but that doesn't stop the rain, does it?
    - kijin 8y ago
      That's not a good counterexample because rain comes down. Water vapor, which goes up, is actually lighter than air by a large margin (0.804g/L versus 1.225g/L) at the same temperature and pressure.
      - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
        Water vapour is water.
      - Retra 8y ago
        Liquid water is certainly denser than air, and the fact that it vaporizes before rising up into the atmosphere is immaterial to the point that it ends up there anyway. The process (evaporation and subsequent fluid mixing) is not significantly different from the process which puts ozone in the upper atmosphere.
  - cmeranda 8y ago
    Have you tried just getting him to read the Wikipedia page? It describes how those gases circulate and how it was discovered. Particularly the "Misconceptions" section. Also the shape of the depletion is not shuttle-sized AFAIK. Finally remind him of rain, or a house in a tornado. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
  - isostatic 8y ago
    If he's into correlations point him at http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations - Nicholas Cage films cause drownings, Cheese leads to bedsheet entanglement, and norway oil causes traffic accidents.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
    The hole was pretty much the size of Antarctica at its peak, how could something the size of a small aircraft flying through the atmosphere 135 times cause such a huge hole!? Also if you lie down on the ground do you suffocate to death because of all of that heavy ozone hanging around there? No, because it's dispersed throughout the atmosphere. Ultimately it sounds like the kind of situation where no amount of logic is going to change his mind and that you're probably better off avoiding the subject entirely for the sake of your own sanity.
jniedrauer 8y ago
> Does anyone have the data to refute these claims? I firmly believe that gravity is caused by a bunch of invisible garden gnomes that hold you down. Does anyone have the data to refute these claims?
seiferteric 8y ago
Does he think the space shuttle was/is the only craft reentering the atmosphere?
- takeda 8y ago
  What if the space shuttle is powered by CFC? /s
decebalus1 8y ago
Ideally the person who claims something needs to provide the data to back it up. My father-in-law doesn't believe that the moon landings took place. All the data in the world cannot convince him otherwise. The only good strategy in the face of these types of claims is to go up the crazy scale. For example when he tells me that the moon landings didn't happen, I tell him he's naive it he thinks the moon exists. The moon was blown up in the 50's due to a nuclear test gone wrong and what we're seeing now is an artificial projection.
- mrfusion 8y ago
  Does that strategy work?
  - umanwizard 8y ago
    For what definition of "work" ?
  - flukus 8y ago
    Considering the amount of "moon hoaxer" videos on youtube (no I'm not joking, go look) I think it might be counter-productive.
rixrax 8y ago
This is kind of funny. Until you realize that some people actually believe this stuff. Either way, burden of proof should always work the other way around. Other than strong believe, did this father-in-law actually offer some scientific evidence/proof to support his theory? This is not to say that established theories would always hold scrutiny. Thinking of e.g. what we thought about tectonic plate movements/continental drift only ~100 years a go.
philipkglass 8y ago
"Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are heavier than air, so how do scientists suppose that these chemicals reach the altitude of the ozone layer to adversely affect it?" https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chlorofluorocarbons-cfcs/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chlorofluorocarbo... Also, see the definition of homosphere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Other_layers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Other_laye... "The homosphere and heterosphere are defined by whether the atmospheric gases are well mixed. The surface-based homosphere includes the troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, and the lowest part of the thermosphere, where the chemical composition of the atmosphere does not depend on molecular weight because the gases are mixed by turbulence. This relatively homogeneous layer ends at the turbopause found at about 100 km (62 mi; 330,000 ft), the very edge of space itself as accepted by the FAI, which places it about 20 km (12 mi; 66,000 ft) above the mesopause." Note that the ozone layer is well within the homosphere so CFCs readily mix into it from surface emissions.
hexane360 8y ago
Gases have a thermodynamic tendency to mix, despite weight differences. The atmosphere isn't a layer cake of heavy gases below light gases. If it was, we wouldn't be able to breathe because the ~1% of argon (and all the heavier gases) would sit below the oxygen layer.
zaarn 8y ago
At the large scale of the atmosphere and in the lower layers, the relative weight of gases doesn't matter (otherwise Oxygen and Nitrogen would seperate out and there wouldn't be a mix of other gases in it either). The makeup down here is largely controller by convection and turbulences, only farther up the relative weight starts to matter.
consp 8y ago
> ... because they are heavier than air. Does anyone have the data to refute these claims? Going up the crazy scale: Has he burst into flames? If no, then air mixes heavier and lighter components. If yes, then the 21% O2 is actually at the bottom and should be 100% as it is heavier than N2.

pm 8y ago

Does he have data to back up those claims?

xavierstein 8y ago
I guess I'm more looking for a response to "yes CFCs can destroy ozone even though they are heavier than air," and "here is a graph of the size of the ozone vs space shuttle reentries" that shows a non-correlation.
- Retra 8y ago
  Water is heavier than air, but that doesn't stop the rain, does it?
  - kijin 8y ago
    That's not a good counterexample because rain comes down. Water vapor, which goes up, is actually lighter than air by a large margin (0.804g/L versus 1.225g/L) at the same temperature and pressure.
    - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
      Water vapour is water.
    - Retra 8y ago
      Liquid water is certainly denser than air, and the fact that it vaporizes before rising up into the atmosphere is immaterial to the point that it ends up there anyway. The process (evaporation and subsequent fluid mixing) is not significantly different from the process which puts ozone in the upper atmosphere.
- cmeranda 8y ago
  Have you tried just getting him to read the Wikipedia page? It describes how those gases circulate and how it was discovered. Particularly the "Misconceptions" section. Also the shape of the depletion is not shuttle-sized AFAIK. Finally remind him of rain, or a house in a tornado. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
- isostatic 8y ago
  If he's into correlations point him at http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations - Nicholas Cage films cause drownings, Cheese leads to bedsheet entanglement, and norway oil causes traffic accidents.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  The hole was pretty much the size of Antarctica at its peak, how could something the size of a small aircraft flying through the atmosphere 135 times cause such a huge hole!? Also if you lie down on the ground do you suffocate to death because of all of that heavy ozone hanging around there? No, because it's dispersed throughout the atmosphere. Ultimately it sounds like the kind of situation where no amount of logic is going to change his mind and that you're probably better off avoiding the subject entirely for the sake of your own sanity.

jniedrauer 8y ago

> Does anyone have the data to refute these claims? I firmly believe that gravity is caused by a bunch of invisible garden gnomes that hold you down. Does anyone have the data to refute these claims?

seiferteric 8y ago

Does he think the space shuttle was/is the only craft reentering the atmosphere?

takeda 8y ago
What if the space shuttle is powered by CFC? /s

decebalus1 8y ago

Ideally the person who claims something needs to provide the data to back it up. My father-in-law doesn't believe that the moon landings took place. All the data in the world cannot convince him otherwise. The only good strategy in the face of these types of claims is to go up the crazy scale. For example when he tells me that the moon landings didn't happen, I tell him he's naive it he thinks the moon exists. The moon was blown up in the 50's due to a nuclear test gone wrong and what we're seeing now is an artificial projection.

mrfusion 8y ago
Does that strategy work?
- umanwizard 8y ago
  For what definition of "work" ?
- flukus 8y ago
  Considering the amount of "moon hoaxer" videos on youtube (no I'm not joking, go look) I think it might be counter-productive.

rixrax 8y ago

This is kind of funny. Until you realize that some people actually believe this stuff. Either way, burden of proof should always work the other way around. Other than strong believe, did this father-in-law actually offer some scientific evidence/proof to support his theory? This is not to say that established theories would always hold scrutiny. Thinking of e.g. what we thought about tectonic plate movements/continental drift only ~100 years a go.

philipkglass 8y ago

"Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are heavier than air, so how do scientists suppose that these chemicals reach the altitude of the ozone layer to adversely affect it?" https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chlorofluorocarbons-cfcs/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chlorofluorocarbo... Also, see the definition of homosphere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Other_layers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Other_laye... "The homosphere and heterosphere are defined by whether the atmospheric gases are well mixed. The surface-based homosphere includes the troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, and the lowest part of the thermosphere, where the chemical composition of the atmosphere does not depend on molecular weight because the gases are mixed by turbulence. This relatively homogeneous layer ends at the turbopause found at about 100 km (62 mi; 330,000 ft), the very edge of space itself as accepted by the FAI, which places it about 20 km (12 mi; 66,000 ft) above the mesopause." Note that the ozone layer is well within the homosphere so CFCs readily mix into it from surface emissions.

hexane360 8y ago

Gases have a thermodynamic tendency to mix, despite weight differences. The atmosphere isn't a layer cake of heavy gases below light gases. If it was, we wouldn't be able to breathe because the ~1% of argon (and all the heavier gases) would sit below the oxygen layer.

zaarn 8y ago

At the large scale of the atmosphere and in the lower layers, the relative weight of gases doesn't matter (otherwise Oxygen and Nitrogen would seperate out and there wouldn't be a mix of other gases in it either). The makeup down here is largely controller by convection and turbulences, only farther up the relative weight starts to matter.

consp 8y ago

> ... because they are heavier than air. Does anyone have the data to refute these claims? Going up the crazy scale: Has he burst into flames? If no, then air mixes heavier and lighter components. If yes, then the 21% O2 is actually at the bottom and should be 100% as it is heavier than N2.