Ozone Depletion NOT MAN caused!

[westwall]

Where, you had time to respond to other posts but not this one, obviously your six-figure-mind thought of getting a quick answer so where is your goggle-link.

Where is Clean Energy MADE IN AMERICA

You stated it, prove it, just a little bit. The fact that you cannot answer off the top of your head means your six-figure-intelligence dont know shit, oh sorry, don't know shit.

North America’s Largest Solar-Electric Plant Switched On >> MetaEfficient Reviews

They are made in Malaysia, that is where the pollution, the CO2 will be released into the environment. So lets discuss the plant, its size, how it was built with Clean energy and meets the environmental protection laws and regulations that they would have to meet if built in the USA.

Indeed, there are high levels of manganese and copper showing up in the localities around SunPower plants in Malaysia, with the concurrent rise in Parkinsons related diseases. But hey, that's OK, it's those little brown people being affected right Chrissypoo?

 

[westwall]

Valid points about pollution at sites where solar panels and all are made overseas. Will you join me in supporting a 'pollution tariff' on imported goods? Something akin to 'you saves $xxxx building that in Mexico, here is your import duty for that Dodge Truck'.

I wonder how much of Bagnal Dam was made domestically. It is old.

Bagnell Dam was built between 1929 and 1931 of wholly US created materials, the rebar was trucked in from the steel works of the east and the cement was manufactured onsite.

 

[mdn2000]

I hate to link, especially when common sense should mean one understands the worlds largest solar farm makes the worlds largest pile of shit somewhere in the world.

I guess these people can thank Old Crock and Chris, they can thank me after the government takes my money to clean the mess and compensate the people, they have a case in world court.

Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China - washingtonpost.com

In China, a country buckling with the breakneck pace of its industrial growth, such stories of environmental pollution are not uncommon. But the Luoyang Zhonggui High-Technology Co., here in the central plains of Henan Province near the Yellow River, stands out for one reason: It's a green energy company, producing polysilicon destined for solar energy panels sold around the world. But the byproduct of polysilicon production -- silicon tetrachloride -- is a highly toxic substance that poses environmental hazards.

"The land where you dump or bury it will be infertile. No grass or trees will grow in the place. . . . It is like dynamite -- it is poisonous, it is polluting. Human beings can never touch it," said Ren Bingyan, a professor at the School of Material Sciences at Hebei Industrial University.

The situation in Li's village points to the environmental trade-offs the world is making as it races to head off a dwindling supply of fossil fuels.

Forests are being cleared to grow biofuels like palm oil, but scientists argue that the disappearance of such huge swaths of forests is contributing to climate change. Hydropower dams are being constructed to replace coal-fired power plants, but they are submerging whole ecosystems under water.



Likewise in China, the push to get into the solar energy market is having unexpected consequences.

With the prices of oil and coal soaring, policymakers around the world are looking at massive solar farms to heat water and generate electricity. For the past four years, however, the world has been suffering from a shortage of polysilicon -- the key component of sunlight-capturing wafers -- driving up prices of solar energy technology and creating a barrier to its adoption.

 

[IanC]

Oh my! not another manmade catastrophy that is found to be heavily influenced by previously unknown natural causes!

pretty soon I am going to stop believing that mankind will cease to exist in <insert favourite number> years.

LOL!!! Sucked into another westy troll, where the article doesn't match his manufactured "title". Any wonder why we call AGW skepticism the REAL scam?

Huh? did I miss something? I read the study summary and it said the ozone hole was very large via natural mechanisms even though the manmade Cfcs have drastically reduced. we were assured that the Montreal Protocol (at great expence) would fix everything but apparently mother nature didnt sign the agreement.

 

[westwall]

Oh my! not another manmade catastrophy that is found to be heavily influenced by previously unknown natural causes!

pretty soon I am going to stop believing that mankind will cease to exist in <insert favourite number> years.

LOL!!! Sucked into another westy troll, where the article doesn't match his manufactured "title". Any wonder why we call AGW skepticism the REAL scam?

Huh? did I miss something? I read the study summary and it said the ozone hole was very large via natural mechanisms even though the manmade Cfcs have drastically reduced. we were assured that the Montreal Protocol (at great expence) would fix everything but apparently mother nature didnt sign the agreement.

Don't worry about konrad there Ian. Mother Nature, and how she operates, is the furthest thing from his mind.

 

[konradv]

The article stated that the break down occurred due to the interaction of cosmic rays and halogenated compounds. Where did the compounds come from, if not man? Also, if the compounds aren't there, do cosmic rays break down ozone? Probably not at as high a rate, if at all. Therefore, IT IS a man-made problem.

 

[IanC]

LOL!!! Sucked into another westy troll, where the article doesn't match his manufactured "title". Any wonder why we call AGW skepticism the REAL scam?

Huh? did I miss something? I read the study summary and it said the ozone hole was very large via natural mechanisms even though the manmade Cfcs have drastically reduced. we were assured that the Montreal Protocol (at great expence) would fix everything but apparently mother nature didnt sign the agreement.

Don't worry about konrad there Ian. Mother Nature, and how she operates, is the furthest thing from his mind.

I suppose you're right but I just can't figure out how konradv, OR, and others dont see that the evidence just doesnt support alarmism and that mankind has shown it typically causes more damage than good with their 'solutions'.

 

[Meister]

The article stated that the break down occurred due to the interaction of cosmic rays and halogenated compounds. Where did the compounds come from, if not man? Also, if the compounds aren't there, do cosmic rays break down ozone? Probably not at as high a rate, if at all. Therefore, IT IS a man-made problem.

OMG!!!!

 

[westwall]

Huh? did I miss something? I read the study summary and it said the ozone hole was very large via natural mechanisms even though the manmade Cfcs have drastically reduced. we were assured that the Montreal Protocol (at great expence) would fix everything but apparently mother nature didnt sign the agreement.

Don't worry about konrad there Ian. Mother Nature, and how she operates, is the furthest thing from his mind.

I suppose you're right but I just can't figure out how konradv, OR, and others dont see that the evidence just doesnt support alarmism and that mankind has shown it typically causes more damage than good with their 'solutions'.

Because in the long run they really don't care about the Earth or its health. They only care about the control that is generated over other people. They are the modern day Khmer Rouge wishing to drive the world back to a agrarian poverty and they will quite happily do away with anyone who disagrees with them.

 

[IanC]

The article stated that the break down occurred due to the interaction of cosmic rays and halogenated compounds. Where did the compounds come from, if not man? Also, if the compounds aren't there, do cosmic rays break down ozone? Probably not at as high a rate, if at all. Therefore, IT IS a man-made problem.

sorry i didn't see your comment before. I think you are partially correct in stating that the residual cfcs have some catalytic effect. but I also think that the understanding of ozone depletion was seriously misunderstood, with natural effects understated. I have absolutely no problem in dealing with pollution, I just have a problem with unsupported cries of alarmism over everything that mankind does. the growth in human population does more damage by land use issues than CO2 production but I don't hear any calls for the drastic reduction of human population as the cure for climate woes. the clouds will provide the stasis for earth temperature, just like they have for billions of years. the human population problems will have to look in a different direction for answers.

 

[wirebender]

Huh? did I miss something? I read the study summary and it said the ozone hole was very large via natural mechanisms even though the manmade Cfcs have drastically reduced. we were assured that the Montreal Protocol (at great expence) would fix everything but apparently mother nature didnt sign the agreement.

The ozone hole is a perfectly natural phenomenon. The fact is that when the Brits that "discovered" the ozone hole went to Antarctica, they went there expecting to find a hole. They reported their findings and rather than report that the ozone hole was a natural phenomenon, the Brit media reported that we were all going to die.

Anyone who grasps the chemistry of ozone knows that the "ozone hole" crisis was a fraud from day one. If anyone here is interested, I would be happy to have a rational discussion of the chemical facts of ozone and show you beyond a doubt that we are in no way responsible for the ozone "hole" and never were.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ya sure, Bender. And GHGs don't exist, and the Easter Bunny is real. Nice alternative universe you have constructed for yourself. Willfull ignorance must be such bliss for you.

 

[Old Rocks]

Valid points about pollution at sites where solar panels and all are made overseas. Will you join me in supporting a 'pollution tariff' on imported goods? Something akin to 'you saves $xxxx building that in Mexico, here is your import duty for that Dodge Truck'.

I wonder how much of Bagnal Dam was made domestically. It is old.

I would absolutely support an import tariff based on pollution and worker safety laws.

 

[wirebender]

Ya sure, Bender. And GHGs don't exist, and the Easter Bunny is real. Nice alternative universe you have constructed for yourself. Willfull ignorance must be such bliss for you.

Funny coming from a guy who is completely unable to discuss the topic on his own. Clearly, you don't know whether the information you reference is true or not because you don't understand the science well enough to know one way or another. You have yet to describe a mechanism by which so called GHG's (besides water vapor) trap and hold IR. Don't worry though, because I never expected you to as none exists.

As to ozone, if you want to discuss the subject, by all means bring it on. I won't be dissapointed though if you decline due to lack of knowledge.

If you are up to a discussion, start by describing what you think the ozone "layer" is, how it got there, and what you believe it does.

 

[konradv]

Ya sure, Bender. And GHGs don't exist, and the Easter Bunny is real. Nice alternative universe you have constructed for yourself. Willfull ignorance must be such bliss for you.

Funny coming from a guy who is completely unable to discuss the topic on his own. Clearly, you don't know whether the information you reference is true or not because you don't understand the science well enough to know one way or another. You have yet to describe a mechanism by which so called GHG's (besides water vapor) trap and hold IR. Don't worry though, because I never expected you to as none exists.

As to ozone, if you want to discuss the subject, by all means bring it on. I won't be dissapointed though if you decline due to lack of knowledge.

If you are up to a discussion, start by describing what you think the ozone "layer" is, how it got there, and what you believe it does.

Why would water vapor's hold on IR be any different than other GHGs? Seems you have some explaining to do also. Is there some "new-chemistry" since I've been in school? Funny that you should mention water vapor, the Achilles heel of the skeptics' arguments! If CO2 raised temps even a little, wouldn't that mean more vapor in the atmosphere? Would that extra vapor not lead to more warming considering the more potent IR absorption? Co2 may not be the ba-all and end-all of GHGs, but like the amplifier on your stereo, a relatively small adjustment leads to a large change in volume.

 

[wirebender]

Why would water vapor's hold on IR be any different than other GHGs? Seems you have some explaining to do also.

You really don't grasp the science do you? And of course I am perfectly happy to explain it to you if you don't understand. Science isn't exactly sure how the mechanism by which water vapor traps and holds energy, but they are sure that it is associated with the phase changing property that water has. Energy must be stored in order to allow water's phase to change (solid, liquid, gas). While the mechanism isn't precisely understood, the mechanism can be experimentally demonstrated on your stovetop.

Here is the experiment. Do it yourself and watch water absorb and retain heat. A trick that CO2, and all other GHG's simply can not do.

Freeze a thermometer into a block of ice. Use a tupperware container or something like it. See the temperature. 32 Degrees F no matter how cold your freezer is. Put the block of ice in a large pot and put it on an eye of your stove. Turn the heat to whatever setting you choose.

Watch the thermometer in the ice. Clearly, the ice is absorbing heat from the stove but until the ice has phased to its liquid form, its temperature doesn't rise. So long as there is a sliver of ice remaining, even though it is immersed in boiling water, the temperature of the ice will remain at 32 degrees F.

Once the ice has melted, then all of the water in the pot will begin to assume a uniform temperature and it will begin to rise. The water temperature will reach 212 degrees F (boiling) and no matter how hot you turn your stove eye, it will not go above 212 even though it it clearly absorbing heat from the stove eye. The water will remain at 212 until it turns into a gas (steam & water vapor).

If you could contain the steam, you could continue the experiment and see that once all of the water had turned to gas, the temperature would stabalize and from that point you could superheat the water past 212 degrees.

Is there some "new-chemistry" since I've been in school?

Same old chemistry but clearly you didn't learn any of it. Do feel free to describe the mechanism by which you believe CO2 can trap and retain heat.

Funny that you should mention water vapor, the Achilles heel of the skeptics' arguments! If CO2 raised temps even a little, wouldn't that mean more vapor in the atmosphere?

Describe that mechanism.

Would that extra vapor not lead to more warming considering the more potent IR absorption? Co2 may not be the ba-all and end-all of GHGs, but like the amplifier on your stereo, a relatively small adjustment leads to a large change in volume.

Again, describe the mechanism by which you believe this to be true. I am afraid that you won't find a cut and paste because climate guys avoid this topic like the plague. When you get down to the actual science (physics and chemistry) the hypothesis of AGW breaks down.

Ready to talk ozone?

 

[IanC]

I dont think konradv understands that air gets lighter with more water vapour either. he just refuses to believe that H2O drives the vast majority of heat transport away from the surface towards space.

 

[Chris]

For the past two decades, scientists have known that human-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are the major destroyers of the atmosphere's protective ozone layer. Atmospheric scientists have proposed that ultraviolet light breaks down CFCs, releasing active chlorine, which tears apart ozone molecules. But during the months when ozone depletion is greatest, giant clouds of ice particles--so-called polar stratospheric clouds--block the ultraviolet rays. Experts have not completely solved this piece of the ozone destruction puzzle, but according to one theory, the clouds harbor active chlorine molecules. Yet it's not clear how the chlorine would come to be separated from the CFCs in this ultraviolet-free environment.

Leon Sanche and Qing-Bin Lu of the University of Sherbrooke in Canada now believe that cosmic rays--high-energy radiation from deep space--may be breaking down the CFCs buried in the polar clouds. The two studied ozone and cosmic ray data taken by ground stations, balloons, and satellites, and found some surprising relationships. Ozone depletion seemed to be greatest at altitudes and latitudes of high cosmic ray ionization intensity. What's more, they found a strong correlation between the variation of global ozone levels and the intensity of cosmic rays during the period from 1979 to 1992. This evidence motivated Sanche and Lu to look for a mechanism connecting cosmic rays with CFC breakdown.

Atmospheric chemists have already studied the effects of cosmic ray ionization on CFCs, according to Sanche, but no one has looked at the effects of cosmic rays inside polar clouds. To simulate a dense, antarctic cloud, Sanche and Lu cooled a metal rod down to temperatures between 20 and 100 K and condensed water vapor and CFCs onto its surface. They then bombarded the condensate with low-energy electrons like those created by cosmic rays ionizing atoms in the atmosphere. The electrons reacted with the CFCs and made active chlorine, and the team determined the likelihood of this reaction by measuring the charge buildup on the end of the rod.

The results suggest that electrons from cosmic rays are about a million times more likely to interact with CFCs inside polar clouds than anyone previously believed, says Sanche. Robert Compton of the University of Tennessee says that Sanche and Lu's revised estimations could help atmospheric scientists and meteorologists to improve their models of ozone loss. Sanche says these observations may also change the way we understand the ozone hole. A rise in global temperatures could cause an increase in polar cloud cover that would lead to more cosmic-ray-induced CFC reactions, he says. "So here you would predict some link between global warming and [the ozone hole]."

Ozone Layer Burned by Cosmic Rays | Physical Review Focus

 

[wirebender]

For the past two decades, scientists have known that human-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are the major destroyers of the atmosphere's protective ozone layer.

Nice cut and paste. Now, would you like to discuss the subject, or is finding web sites that support your view and pasting them here the extent of your ability?

You might start by answering the 3 questions I asked the other alarmists. What do you think the ozone "layer" is? How do you think it got there, and what do you think it does. You might also tell me how long you think the half life of an ozone molecule is in the "wild".

But during the months when ozone depletion is greatest, giant clouds of ice particles--so-called polar stratospheric clouds--block the ultraviolet rays. Experts have not completely solved this piece of the ozone destruction puzzle, but according to one theory, the clouds harbor active chlorine molecules. Yet it's not clear how the chlorine would come to be separated from the CFCs in this ultraviolet-free environment.

What a crock. Actual scientists (as opposed to those who depend on crisis in order to get grant money in order to buy thier daily bread) know exactly why ozone "depletion" is greater during some months than others. If you care to delve more deeply into the subject, you too will know why the hole gets bigger during some months and you will know that it has nothing to do with anything man is doing. Are you brave enough to learn that you are a victim of a hoax?

 

[wirebender]

None of you warmists want to actually discuss ozone? How completely unsurprising.