5 ms·

Okay, mostly we agree: When it is late summer in the northern hemisphere, e.g., August, it is late winter in the southern hemisphere and Antarctica with some m

Okay, mostly we agree: When it is late summer in the northern hemisphere, e.g., August, it is late winter in the southern hemisphere and Antarctica with some months of low sunlight. Indeed, winter in Antarctica can mean some days of 24 hours with no sunlight. So, with no sunlight we don't get the reaction 3O2 --> 2O3 that makes ozone but do continue the reaction 2O3 --> 3O2 that sees unstable ozone convert back to oxygen. Similarly for low sunlight. Soooo, we get an "ozone hole". We agree -- no surprise. But in this case, in this Hacker News thread, the main issue was the effects of CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons). As I recall, some laboratory studies showed that CFCs can speed up the reaction 2O3 --> 3O2 that destroys ozone. Maybe my memory is correct that there was a Nobel prize for that result. Sooo, okay, CFCs contribute to ozone holes. Then a question is, how much? How much do CFCs contribute to ozone holes? I.e., 1 kilogram of some CFC destroys how many additional kilograms of ozone per day causing how many additional Watts of UV (ultraviolet) light hitting the ground? And what is the increase in percent? Uh, and maybe what is the stochastic process of ozone concentration considering solar flairs, sun spots, the standard 11 year cycle of sun spots with or without CFCs? I remember ozone -- it has a distinctive odor. As a child I had an electric train, and sparks from its electric motor generated some ozone, enough to smell. But the ozone didn't last very long, e.g., was gone within a few minutes, certainly in less than an hour, of stopping the toy electric train. Uh, I just looked it up: Google search "half life of ozone in air" yielded "Under normal conditions, the half-life of ozone indoors is between 7 and 10 min and is determined primarily by surface removal and air exchange. ..." Point: Ozone is unstable and doesn't last very long. So, I can believe that with 24 hours a day of low or no sunlight over Antarctica, the ozone doesn't last very long, with or without CFCs. Uh, but with low sunlight, there is little UV to cause skin cancer, whatever the ozone concentration! So, to get concerned about CFCs and an ozone hole in August (late winter after some months of low or no sunlight) over Antarctica, I would want a good actual scientific answer to the question of how much? For the media, much of the media I don't like. I've had decades where I concluded their content is usually (a) without credibility and (b) deliberately deceptive. While I like entertainment, mostly what I want from the media is credible, relevant content. The deliberately deceptive parts I won't accept or excuse. Maybe you suspected that I am angry with much of the media -- that would be correct. I know something about writing credible content: I hold a Ph.D. in applied math from a world famous research university, have published peer reviewed papers of original research in applied math, statistics, and artificial intelligence, have taught at Indiana University, Ohio State University, Georgetown University, while at IBM's Research division gave talks at Stanford, Wharton, etc. The paper in applied math was on the Kuhn-Tucker conditions but also solved a problem stated but not solved in a paper by Arrow, Hurwicz, and Uzawa -- Arrow won his Nobel prize in economics long before and Hurwicz won his more recently and separately. An analysis is that the media wants to make money and to do this pursues some old techniques of journalism that involve fooling people, grabbing them emotionally by the heart, the gut, and below the belt. Such journalism is not nearly new: E.g., there is a movie from ~1941 Meet John Doe about a newspaper getting several months of twice as much circulation from a continuing but fake story about a John Doe committing suicide. Of course the reason there could be a movie about fake news is that the movie audience knew enough about journalism to accept that fake news was common. There was also yellow journalism. And tabloids. Etc. Of course, the technique of getting attention, power, and money by scaring people with threats from evil is much older even than fake, deceptive journalism, goes back 2000+ years -- apparently it's part of human nature and society, but we can try to fight it with good judgment, science, insisting on credible content, and rejecting fake content. So, people who want to create political movements and, thus, get money and power have natural colleagues in fake journalism. And, indeed and specifically, for CFCs, there was a movement with the media and politics: Due to the media touting threats to ozone, CFCs were actually outlawed. So, when I look at claims of threats of CFCs causing a worse ozone hole I see two possibilities: (1) As loudly claimed by some of journalism, CFCs make the ozone hole significantly worse and, thus, contribute significantly to skin cancer in the southern hemisphere. (2) We have no good scientific evidence that CFCs contribute significantly to either ozone holes or skin cancer, and the claims of threats are fake journalism trying to make money by grabbing people emotionally by the gut. Between (1) and (2), I select (2).

bigbillheck 3y ago
> So, when I look at claims of threats of CFCs causing a worse ozone hole I see two possibilities: This is exactly what I mean, you've decided that 'the media' is your enemy and therefore any claims they make or report can be attacked and demolished without actually trying to understand what they're actually saying. > Maybe my memory is correct that there was a Nobel prize for that result. More of the same. Have you never once for a moment thought 'Huh, surely they wouldn't have given a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for something as basic as "CFCs speed up this reaction," maybe there's something to this atmospheric ozone thing' ? Do you think the Nobel Prize Committee (Chemistry) was bamboozled by "the media", or do you think they were in on it? Are there any other Chemistry prizes in the last few decades that you would put in the same category > I hold a Ph.D. in applied math from a world famous research university, have published peer reviewed papers of original research in applied math, statistics, and artificial intelligence, have taught at Indiana University, Ohio State University, Georgetown University, while at IBM's Research division gave talks at Stanford, Wharton, etc. The paper in applied math was on the Kuhn-Tucker conditions but also solved a problem stated but not solved in a paper by Arrow, Hurwicz, and Uzawa -- Arrow won his Nobel prize in economics long before and Hurwicz won his more recently and separately. Were you expecting me to be impressed? I've also got a PhD in mathematics, and in the years since I've met literally hundreds of mathematicians with better careers than this.
- graycat 3y ago
  > This is exactly what I mean, you've decided that 'the media' is your enemy and therefore any claims they make or report can be attacked and demolished without actually trying to understand what they're actually saying. No, you are wrong: Maybe the media is my "enemy", but I'm setting that aside and paying attention just to the media claims that there is an ozone hole. Of course there's an ozone hole -- so what? The media has been claiming that there is a threat from CFCs, but they didn't make their case: The situation and the standards and criteria for making a case are simple and old: If the media wants to claim that there is some threat, then they need to follow at least common high school standards for term papers -- e.g., references to primary sources. > actually trying to understand what they're actually saying. What they are "actually saying" has low credibility, e.g., is just not solidly rational. Again, for a creditable case, rational, scientific, detailed, they just didn't make it or give references to such a case. I outlined what would be part of a credible case -- from 1 kilogram of some CFC, how many kilograms of ozone and how many Watts of UV .... > for a moment thought 'Huh, surely they wouldn't have given a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for something as basic as "CFCs speed up this reaction," maybe there's something to this atmospheric ozone thing' Yes, maybe there is "something", in which case the media claiming a threat needs to make a case, give the "something", or at least give some good primary references. For > surely they wouldn't have given a Nobel Prize ... That's not good evidence that CFCs cause a significant problem. If there is good evidence, then give it. > Were you expecting me to be impressed? No, not at all. My purpose and claim were clearly stated right at the beginning of the paragraph: > I know something about writing credible content: For your > I've also got a PhD in mathematics, and in the years since I've met literally hundreds of mathematicians with better careers than this. Irrelevant. Apparently you mean a "better" "career" as an academic, research mathematician. Actually, I never once, not even for a nanosecond, ever had any desire to have a career in academics or in research mathematics. My main reason for going to graduate school was simply the old idea that a better education would lead to a better job; academics was not such a candidate job. Since this idea seemed to work for my father, I tried it. The Indiana University teaching was as a graduate student. For the three courses they had me taking, two of them were beneath what I'd done in college, and the third was by a prof who was ready to fail me until I read my solution to him and he saw that my solution was correct and one step shorter than his. He was nasty to me for no good reason. I never saw him again. There were some topics I wanted to study in math and physics, but the best way was just to get a job and study on evenings and weekends. Then I got strongly recruited for work in math, physics, and computing for US national security near DC and also did well in much of the independent study I had in mind. And I got into scientific computing -- Assembler, Basic, Fortran, Algol, PL/I, numerical analysis, statistics, the fast Fourier transform, digital filtering, phased arrays, lots of algorithms, etc. At Georgetown I was hired into the computing center. I did too well and scared the head of the center. Then the university needed someone to teach computer science so gave the job to me. Then I helped start FedEx -- with some computing and applied math, saved the company twice. The promised stock was late, and I was commuting from DC where my wife was in her Ph.D. program. So, I got a Ph.D. Just as a reading course, in two weeks I did the work on the KTC. Mathematical Programming wanted my Lemma to be named a Theorem, and I didn't get around to fixing that and publishing until much later. While I've published some papers, I am not now nor have I ever been at all interested in publishing anything. I took the job at Ohio State so that my wife, who suffered in graduate school, could be near her home and family farm. I had 0.000 interest in the academics. Now I'm doing what I always should have -- I'm an entrepreneur doing a startup. The foundations are some math, computing, and, now, the Internet. Again, I don't want a career in math -- never did, still don't. At times, some math did me some good in school: My math SAT scores and the GRE math score were good enough to damp down nasty politics, get people out of my way, and open doors. Some of the independent study I did let me blow away the rest of the students -- I was best in the department on 4 of the 5 Ph.D. qualifying exams and for the 5th had already written the first draft of my Ph.D. dissertation. There was a LOT of nasty politics. The thing I did with the KTC beat down nearly all the bad politics, eased my path through my Ph.D. Somehow doing something independent and publishable in a good journal in two weeks was a magic wand. Silly. Instead of publishing papers, I want to be successful in business. In my brother's side of my family, there are three kids. I give them little encouragements to know some math and science but NO WAY would I encourage them to try for an academic "career". Again, once again, over again, yet again, one more time, my background in math was to support my claim > I know something about writing credible content: in particular to critique the media claims that CFCs are a threat. To me their claims are not what I regard as "credible content".

bigbillheck 3y ago

> So, when I look at claims of threats of CFCs causing a worse ozone hole I see two possibilities: This is exactly what I mean, you've decided that 'the media' is your enemy and therefore any claims they make or report can be attacked and demolished without actually trying to understand what they're actually saying. > Maybe my memory is correct that there was a Nobel prize for that result. More of the same. Have you never once for a moment thought 'Huh, surely they wouldn't have given a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for something as basic as "CFCs speed up this reaction," maybe there's something to this atmospheric ozone thing' ? Do you think the Nobel Prize Committee (Chemistry) was bamboozled by "the media", or do you think they were in on it? Are there any other Chemistry prizes in the last few decades that you would put in the same category > I hold a Ph.D. in applied math from a world famous research university, have published peer reviewed papers of original research in applied math, statistics, and artificial intelligence, have taught at Indiana University, Ohio State University, Georgetown University, while at IBM's Research division gave talks at Stanford, Wharton, etc. The paper in applied math was on the Kuhn-Tucker conditions but also solved a problem stated but not solved in a paper by Arrow, Hurwicz, and Uzawa -- Arrow won his Nobel prize in economics long before and Hurwicz won his more recently and separately. Were you expecting me to be impressed? I've also got a PhD in mathematics, and in the years since I've met literally hundreds of mathematicians with better careers than this.

graycat 3y ago
> This is exactly what I mean, you've decided that 'the media' is your enemy and therefore any claims they make or report can be attacked and demolished without actually trying to understand what they're actually saying. No, you are wrong: Maybe the media is my "enemy", but I'm setting that aside and paying attention just to the media claims that there is an ozone hole. Of course there's an ozone hole -- so what? The media has been claiming that there is a threat from CFCs, but they didn't make their case: The situation and the standards and criteria for making a case are simple and old: If the media wants to claim that there is some threat, then they need to follow at least common high school standards for term papers -- e.g., references to primary sources. > actually trying to understand what they're actually saying. What they are "actually saying" has low credibility, e.g., is just not solidly rational. Again, for a creditable case, rational, scientific, detailed, they just didn't make it or give references to such a case. I outlined what would be part of a credible case -- from 1 kilogram of some CFC, how many kilograms of ozone and how many Watts of UV .... > for a moment thought 'Huh, surely they wouldn't have given a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for something as basic as "CFCs speed up this reaction," maybe there's something to this atmospheric ozone thing' Yes, maybe there is "something", in which case the media claiming a threat needs to make a case, give the "something", or at least give some good primary references. For > surely they wouldn't have given a Nobel Prize ... That's not good evidence that CFCs cause a significant problem. If there is good evidence, then give it. > Were you expecting me to be impressed? No, not at all. My purpose and claim were clearly stated right at the beginning of the paragraph: > I know something about writing credible content: For your > I've also got a PhD in mathematics, and in the years since I've met literally hundreds of mathematicians with better careers than this. Irrelevant. Apparently you mean a "better" "career" as an academic, research mathematician. Actually, I never once, not even for a nanosecond, ever had any desire to have a career in academics or in research mathematics. My main reason for going to graduate school was simply the old idea that a better education would lead to a better job; academics was not such a candidate job. Since this idea seemed to work for my father, I tried it. The Indiana University teaching was as a graduate student. For the three courses they had me taking, two of them were beneath what I'd done in college, and the third was by a prof who was ready to fail me until I read my solution to him and he saw that my solution was correct and one step shorter than his. He was nasty to me for no good reason. I never saw him again. There were some topics I wanted to study in math and physics, but the best way was just to get a job and study on evenings and weekends. Then I got strongly recruited for work in math, physics, and computing for US national security near DC and also did well in much of the independent study I had in mind. And I got into scientific computing -- Assembler, Basic, Fortran, Algol, PL/I, numerical analysis, statistics, the fast Fourier transform, digital filtering, phased arrays, lots of algorithms, etc. At Georgetown I was hired into the computing center. I did too well and scared the head of the center. Then the university needed someone to teach computer science so gave the job to me. Then I helped start FedEx -- with some computing and applied math, saved the company twice. The promised stock was late, and I was commuting from DC where my wife was in her Ph.D. program. So, I got a Ph.D. Just as a reading course, in two weeks I did the work on the KTC. Mathematical Programming wanted my Lemma to be named a Theorem, and I didn't get around to fixing that and publishing until much later. While I've published some papers, I am not now nor have I ever been at all interested in publishing anything. I took the job at Ohio State so that my wife, who suffered in graduate school, could be near her home and family farm. I had 0.000 interest in the academics. Now I'm doing what I always should have -- I'm an entrepreneur doing a startup. The foundations are some math, computing, and, now, the Internet. Again, I don't want a career in math -- never did, still don't. At times, some math did me some good in school: My math SAT scores and the GRE math score were good enough to damp down nasty politics, get people out of my way, and open doors. Some of the independent study I did let me blow away the rest of the students -- I was best in the department on 4 of the 5 Ph.D. qualifying exams and for the 5th had already written the first draft of my Ph.D. dissertation. There was a LOT of nasty politics. The thing I did with the KTC beat down nearly all the bad politics, eased my path through my Ph.D. Somehow doing something independent and publishable in a good journal in two weeks was a magic wand. Silly. Instead of publishing papers, I want to be successful in business. In my brother's side of my family, there are three kids. I give them little encouragements to know some math and science but NO WAY would I encourage them to try for an academic "career". Again, once again, over again, yet again, one more time, my background in math was to support my claim > I know something about writing credible content: in particular to critique the media claims that CFCs are a threat. To me their claims are not what I regard as "credible content".