65 ms·

Based on your wall of text I have to assume that you're serious. I'm also going to venture a guess that you haven't looked into the literature on ozone depletio

by cwal37 12y ago

Based on your wall of text I have to assume that you're serious. I'm also going to venture a guess that you haven't looked into the literature on ozone depletion at all, or you're not well versed in the science and you don't understand it. Not only are there a plethora of papers out there from a variety of different sources, with different funding, spread over decades, (here's a simple search[1]), but this was actually a problem that garnered international collaboration. That is phenomenally rare on environmental topics, particularly those where local emissions collectively lead to global impacts. Here's a straight review[2] for you to read through and perhaps understand this issue a little better. [1] http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=ozone+depletion&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C43&as_sdtp= http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=ozone+depletion&bt... [2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999RG900008/full http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999RG900008/full

graycat 12y ago
I did follow the arguments when the ozone hole stuff was making a big stink. As I already wrote here, I know a guy got a Nobel prize in chemistry for his work on CFCs and ozone. But I also know that for "garnered international collaboration", a much better explanation is follow the money to flow to the chemical industry for outlawing cheap, commodity Freon, ruining a lot of refrigeration capex, and selling new refrigeration working fluid, at high prices, and capex. Ozone? Surely you are joking. Money and politics? Now for the real cause, that's believable.
graycat 12y ago
Okay, I just followed your [1] and, there, the first link, S. Solomon, et al., "On the Depletion of Antarctic Ozone", Okay, just as I recall: There have been some measurements of an ozone hole over Antarctica during the late winter and early spring there when there has been no sunlight for months. Of course there was ozone depletion; there had been no sunlight for months; we can't expect anything else. Since that good measurement effort was new, we didn't have much good, historical data to compare; that is, as far as we know, there has been such a big ozone hole each late winter and early spring in the Antarctic for 1000+ years, that is, well before human generated CFCs. But the paper did make clear that their measurements showed a hole only during the late winter and early spring and only over Antarctica. There was little discussion of an ozone hole over the Arctic. There was essentially no evidence to raise concern that ozone would be depleted in areas with both sunlight and humans. Why just Antarctica and not also the Arctic? The paper outlined some differences in temperature and clouds. As I already wrote, there was some cute chemistry there. Of concern on earth where there is both life and sunlight? Nope. So, for life on earth where there is both sunlight and life, f'get about the ozone hole. Indeed, if want to worry about life in Antarctica, say, the penguins, still nothing to worry about because the ozone hole is only there when there is no sunlight and, thus, no UV to worry about. Even over Antarctica, even with the CFCs from sinful, evil humans, when there is sunlight, there is ozone, from the paper apparently at reasonable levels, and no concern about UV hurting life. So, why the big stink? Look for a hidden agenda. Follow the money. A big trilogy of sin, evil, transgression, retribution, redemption. Manipulation. Propaganda. Politics. Take a little, cute but nearly irrelevant, science and blow it up with a lot of scare headlines (get ad revenue) and build a big consensus to permit picking the pockets of everyone who wants to use refrigeration. So, a flim-flam, fraud, scam. Suspicions confirmed. Science showing threat to humans? Nope. Got some better evidence? If so, then trot it out. Else we should move on and f'get about the ozone hole. But, we can learn a lesson: Some people who want to pick pockets with a hidden agenda can misuse and exploit a little science and use a lot of publicity and propaganda to mislead much of the world. And ozone is not the only threat they can scream about. Too much of the Hacker News community looks too gullible.

by cwal37 12y ago

graycat 12y ago

I did follow the arguments when the ozone hole stuff was making a big stink. As I already wrote here, I know a guy got a Nobel prize in chemistry for his work on CFCs and ozone. But I also know that for "garnered international collaboration", a much better explanation is follow the money to flow to the chemical industry for outlawing cheap, commodity Freon, ruining a lot of refrigeration capex, and selling new refrigeration working fluid, at high prices, and capex. Ozone? Surely you are joking. Money and politics? Now for the real cause, that's believable.

graycat 12y ago

Okay, I just followed your [1] and, there, the first link, S. Solomon, et al., "On the Depletion of Antarctic Ozone", Okay, just as I recall: There have been some measurements of an ozone hole over Antarctica during the late winter and early spring there when there has been no sunlight for months. Of course there was ozone depletion; there had been no sunlight for months; we can't expect anything else. Since that good measurement effort was new, we didn't have much good, historical data to compare; that is, as far as we know, there has been such a big ozone hole each late winter and early spring in the Antarctic for 1000+ years, that is, well before human generated CFCs. But the paper did make clear that their measurements showed a hole only during the late winter and early spring and only over Antarctica. There was little discussion of an ozone hole over the Arctic. There was essentially no evidence to raise concern that ozone would be depleted in areas with both sunlight and humans. Why just Antarctica and not also the Arctic? The paper outlined some differences in temperature and clouds. As I already wrote, there was some cute chemistry there. Of concern on earth where there is both life and sunlight? Nope. So, for life on earth where there is both sunlight and life, f'get about the ozone hole. Indeed, if want to worry about life in Antarctica, say, the penguins, still nothing to worry about because the ozone hole is only there when there is no sunlight and, thus, no UV to worry about. Even over Antarctica, even with the CFCs from sinful, evil humans, when there is sunlight, there is ozone, from the paper apparently at reasonable levels, and no concern about UV hurting life. So, why the big stink? Look for a hidden agenda. Follow the money. A big trilogy of sin, evil, transgression, retribution, redemption. Manipulation. Propaganda. Politics. Take a little, cute but nearly irrelevant, science and blow it up with a lot of scare headlines (get ad revenue) and build a big consensus to permit picking the pockets of everyone who wants to use refrigeration. So, a flim-flam, fraud, scam. Suspicions confirmed. Science showing threat to humans? Nope. Got some better evidence? If so, then trot it out. Else we should move on and f'get about the ozone hole. But, we can learn a lesson: Some people who want to pick pockets with a hidden agenda can misuse and exploit a little science and use a lot of publicity and propaganda to mislead much of the world. And ozone is not the only threat they can scream about. Too much of the Hacker News community looks too gullible.