h a l f b a k e r yGood ideas at the time.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Since the only source for huge heat and gas emitions at the stratosphere level are the rockets sending out space shuttles and satellites, make a law that an equal amount of ozone must be distributed by them. Then NASA could solve the problem instead of just reporting it anually.
Atmospheric Effects of High-Altitude Jet Traffic
http://www3.bc.symp...vest/investjets.htm
22 Oct 02 | "By the time a New York-departed 747 descends into Ireland, some 239,000 pounds of "jet A" will have been spewed out its exhaust pipes as soot . . . " Not sure what the author's source is, but NOx is specifically mentioned. [bristolz, Oct 22 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Myth: Volcanoes and the Oceans are Causing Ozone Depletion
http://www.epa.gov/...cience/volcano.html
22 Oct 02 | The US EPA's page on volcanoes and ozone depletion. [bristolz, Oct 22 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Rossby Wave
http://www.soc.soto...by/Rossbyintro.html
Some of them last for years. [ty6, Oct 22 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Ozone Loss From Launches and Re-entries Study (article)
http://ax.losangele...paceNewsFeb1995.pdf
22 Oct 02 | PDF FILE | "By far the largest polluter to the ozone is the U.S. space shuttle followed by the Titan 4, Delta 2 and Europe's Ariane 4 booster . . . " Space News, Feb '95 [bristolz, Oct 22 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Ozone depletion unproven.
http://www.fortfreedom.org/s35.htm
A rare dissenting voice. [briandamage, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Climate HotMap
http://www.halfbake...greenhouse models.
http://www.climatehotmap.org/ [BunsenHoneydew, Oct 04 2004]
Summary of argument
http://www.wundergr.../ozone_skeptics.asp
Concludes it is definitely something serisous, and gives you the tools to decide. [pashute, Mar 21 2006]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
"Since space shuttles and satellite rockets are the cause to the hole..."
Please prove that statement. Or are you being funny? |
|
| |
". . . but, it said so in that comic book I read." |
|
| |
I have to take issue with this one I'm afraid. Though rockets obviously do pollute, how can they be responsible for hole in the ozone? Ozone is a result of a photo-chemical process where sunlight from space hits the air of our atmosphere causing O2 molecules to stick together creating 03 ie. ozone.This ozone disperses thru the atmosphere. There is NO such thing as an ozone layer, as such.The air is what protects us from UV, not ozone. So the whole story of skin cancer being caused by ozone depletion is a load of rubbish.
By pollutants, I assume you mean hydrocarbons. There is a volcano called Mt Erebrus down Antarctic way, a few miles upwind from The Antarctic camp where most of the readings on weather and wotnot in this part of the world are taken. Erebrus erupted in 1982 and spews out a thousand tons of active chlorine EVERY day.I wonder if it affects the data collected? And the planet is covered in volcanoes. I know! lets plug up the volcanoes....
By the way, the average passenger jet coughs up 80 tons of pollutants every time it takes off and flies somewhere. Thats just one plane!! That is the equivalent of a shedload of aerosols. And compared to that, an occasional rocket or space shuttle is small fry. |
|
| |
"I have to take issue with this one I'm afraid." |
|
| |
It would be a pretty dull ol' site if we all sat around and agreed with each other wouldn't it? Or am I missing somthin'? |
|
| |
I just *knew* someone was going to set off Mr. 'Damage with an Ozone - related post today. |
|
| |
What's your source on the eighty tons of pollutants, by the way? Not challenging you - just curious... |
|
| |
Google, brother. Its all out there to find. Anyway, even tho' I have been set off, I'm outta here. Surfs up. AMFYOYO. ( adios mofos your onyour own) |
|
| |
[briandamage] The following comes from some homework I'm doing for my own closely related idea. |
|
| |
Atmospheric pollution due to air traffic:
|
|
| |
NOx and CO2 are considered to be the most important substances emitted by aircraft...// |
|
| |
//...When emitted in the upper reaches of the stratosphere, NOx may also *speed up* the process of ozone depletion.//
|
|
| |
Delft Resource Analysis 1994 - 1998 |
|
| |
What I haven't had luck with chasing down so far is an *objective quantitative summary of global climate trends for the last ten years or finding specific data of global commercial aircraft traffic volume increase for the same period. (In time) |
|
| |
I am ready to account for natural contributions but I still suspect commercial air traffic plays a larger role in environmental change than imagined. It is *the* theory behind recurrent noctilucent clouds only rarely *noted in the history of civilization. |
|
| |
Dang! He knew I was about to hit <enter> |
|
| |
Notilucent Clouds, I've never seen that word before, cool. I just called them 'high ice'. Ever heard of a Rossby Wave? |
|
| |
Yeah, but you've never heard of Noctilucent? ...Spirit guides to the Aurora... |
|
| |
Well, I just made that last part up. |
|
| |
-Excellent links bristolz. |
|
| |
Well, don'tcha know, when them rockets go up like that, they poke a hole right through the ozone layer. If you listen close next time you see a launch, you can hear a stretching sound, followed by a 'pop'. |
|
| |
... followed by whole bunches of Americans laughing while they film people in large water tanks somewhere in Arizona. The earth is flat, I tell you, flat. If it was round people would fall off the bottom. |
|
| |
// If it was round people would fall off the bottom // |
|
| |
[UB and fellow antipodeans]: "WAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh............." |
|
| |
Boy, I forgot this post of mine. brian, give me a break. Ozone depletion is a proven fact, and could easily be shown in models and in the real world. (wait a minute, was the first annotation a joke and the 2nd serious?) And waug, nice to meet you here. So there's no such thing as tuns of fuel burning in the stratosphere doing anything to the ozone layer, even if NASA spends billions checking it out. (That's an expensive pop sound). bristolz - that is from '95! But thanks. And BTW if we are already into interesting newly discovered phenomena, I read that a few months ago it has been proven that the (solid...) earth has a tidal wave up and down, twice a day of several milimeters(!) caused by the moon. |
|
| |
Yeah, well the shuttle is from the 70s. |
|
| |
//ozone depletion is a proven fact// Sorry pashute, but ozone depletion is NOT a proven fact. Yes there are models that show it is being depleted, but none of these prove it as FACT in the real world. I am not an expert on this subject, but I have researched it. I came to the conclusion that the 'facts' are in fact 'unknowns, that have been presented as facts, by a media and scientific community that just loves a disaster story. At the end of the day, thats what the net is for, to read and learn and draw your own conclusions.
Here is a quote or two from an expert. His name is Robert Peas and he is the Proffessor Emeritus of Physical Climatolgy at a leading American University." Clear cut Evidence of ozone depletion is lacking. the entire theory is based on the supposition that somehow, heavier than air CFC molecules rise into the atmosphere unimpeded. In no way can manmade destruction of the ozone layer be accepted as fact. Eventually a scientific debate (as opposed to to an emotional debate by the media????) may take place and this ozone depletion scare may finally be laid to rest". I've added a link for an article by prof. Pease.
All I'm trying to say here is (and I worry pollution at least as much as the next bloke). Just 'cos everyone says its true, doesn't mean a damn thing. Read the research and draw your own conclusions. |
|
| |
Well, it turns out that there are a few crackpots trying to prove that (a) there is no such thing as an ozone layer or (b) it doesn't mean anything to us or (c) we are not causing it's depletion or (d) there is no depletion or (e) even if there is an Ozone layer and it is important and we humans are depleting it, that is not because of the CFC but for other reasons. (This is the stance of this idea, which seems plausible since NASA is the one studying the Ozone layer) or (f) it's all a conspiracy. See google. (ozone fact or myth) |
|
| |
Brian: research proved these facts. Too many links. Nobel prizes. Well documented refutes to the halfscience challenges. And proofs which can be checked on your own. (Similar to theory of the world being round or at least closer to being round than to being flat) |
|
| |
Well pashute, it seems we're gonnna differ on this one. i've just spent far too much time on looking at sooo many web pages and articles on this. And where do I find myself now?
I'm still totally unconvinced that ozone depletion/ global warming have anything to do with the activities of man. I've read loads of science from both sides of the argument with the purpose of convincing myself one way or another that there IS something going on. And I've failed. (to convince myself, that is).
As far as I can tell, there are and always have been fluctuations in the systems of this planet. Until very recently we have had very little ability to measure these fluctuations. Now that we are becoming able to take meaningful measurements of some of the processes going on around us, we (some ) are busy jumping to conclusions about all sorts of data that may or may not mean anything. Measuring so called holes in the ozone layer, for 20 or 30 years and finding that they have moved around a bit and seasonaly change density and position, doesn't PROVE anything (not to me anyway, maybe it does to you and lots of others, it would seem).
Planet earth has been here for 4.55 billion years and seems to have gotten by just fine without 'us' to fret about her. Why should she suddenly be having all these problems now? I just don't get it.
I don't think that I'm gonna be able to change your mind and thats not my intention, but there are some things that just don't add up to me....
Scientific American , 9/89 says that man releases about 6 billion tons of CO2 into the atmos. per year, or 2.9% of total. Non-human activities (forest fires, volcanoes and the oceans) release about 200 billion tons(97.1%) Co2 is the main culprit (apparently) as a 'greenhouse gas'.
The Earths atmos. is at an average pressure of 14.7 lbs. per square inch.The Earts surface area is roughly 200 million square miles. Weight of atmosphere is about 6 thousand trillion tons. In 1950, content of CO2 was 0.04 %.. by weight wich is about 2400 billion tons.
In 1996, the CO2 was 0.06% of the atmosphere or about 3600 billion tons.
On these figures, massive as they are, I just can't make the connection between our piddly 6 billion tons and impending global catastrophy.
I would worry about the environment and global warming and pollution and rising sea levels (i AM a surfer, and probably spend 10 to 15 hours a week actually in the sea), but I'd like to think that my finite reserves of worry energy are being directed at the things that really need to be worried about...Nuclear pollution, genuinly avoidable illnesses, such as the impending health and environmental disaster bought on by the western, meat 3 times a day sugar diet and even the loss of habitat availiable for the lesser spotted custard parrot of matabeleland. At least we can, do something about these things.
The atmosphere ? Methinks it will look after itself.
with respect.... |
|
| |
I see all of you stopped reading this november of 2002. But just in case someone like me comes along by mistake and reads, what is it with briandamage, now tell me that you are a man that defies what thousands of scientists have as a fact researched on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I will post later, my kitchen is on fire, it could make a whole in the ozone layer! |
|
| |
Well thanks [JA-USAF] now I've just had to read through this old thread too. Without wishing to restart a flame war though, there were two gems from [BD] admist it all - //leading American University// is that like 'meat' curry. And the classic //Non-human activities (forest fires...// what like those that seem to keep starting themselves in the amazon basin. |
|
| |
[briandamage] The important
figure is not the % of CO2
emissions that are manmade, it's
the difference between what is
emitted and what is re-absorbed
by plantlife, solution in seawater, and
other processes. In that
context, an added 6% can make a
big difference over a century or so. |
|
| |
In fact it has: from your figures
alone, CO2 concentrations rose by
50% between 1950 and 1996. That's
the difference between a 0.04%
concentration and 0.06%. |
|
| |
Such an easy misunderstanding to
make, if you're clueless. Please
excuse me while I listen to real
scientists, like the UN
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, or the 100 Nobel laureates
(the vast majority of those still living)
who signed a letter of concern over
this issue. |
|
| |
Please see link. nuff said. |
|
| |
Nice one Pash, that was another opinionated, interpretive article that simply puts forth the authors view. It's very easy when writing an article/paper to marginalise the work and/or opinions of your oposition. |
|
| |
You have completely bypassed any scientific or research methodology by posting a link to a single "summary" article and then saying "nuff said" as if one single article, written by an individual, and stating his/her opinions can be expected to be an impartial summary that somehow draws an accurate conclusion. |
|
| |
With this, as with many current scientific debates, I really think that we may have gone too far, and I can see no way to present the data impartially, in order to give the lay man (or woman) an even handed summary. There is simply too much at stake. Everone has their own agenda, and anything they say or publish will be aimed towards validating their opinions. To my mind, the scientific community has failed, and allowed itself to be corrupted. I also see no way that the situation could have ended up any different. |
|
| |
The rules of logic, proof by deduction, ec have all gone out the window. presenting a hypothesis, then presenting contributory evidence without anything to the contrary, or presetning contrary evidence in a critical, derogatory fashion is no way to make an educated statement. And yet, all scientific papers are written this way. Presenting half the evidence, can in the best of situations, only make you half-right. Papers are basically a statement of opinion, and should be treated as such. |
|
| |
There is never an impartial way to interpret a diverse, complex set of data. To wage in and say "read this article, it's all you need to know" is just perpetuating a one-sided debate. Non-technical or nonscientific people can be easily swayed by persuasive arguments, and no one that I can see has ever written a truly impartial, facts-on-the-table thorough review on this issue. There is always an agenda at stake. |
|
| |
These things I am convinced of: |
|
| |
Models are just that. Models. Unless you are making physical measurements, or can verify the accuracy of your model for the range of data you are analysing, don't publish as no-one needs your input; we're all too confused already. |
|
| |
Systems are always too complex to measure accurately, thoroughly and impartially. You will find that most evidence brought forth is a product of raw data having been put into a model and interpreted to produce "measurements". See my previous paragraph. Atmospheric gas percentages, ozone "depetion percentages" etc all come under this group. No one measured how much ozone was missing. They would have guessed how much there was to start, measured a few things like incident UV, etc, and then modelled to produce a nice, guff number to report to the media. Secondly, as was said earlier; Ozone, or O3 is really only a fraction of the ozone cycle, which is rather complex. I digress. |
|
| |
Oh by the way, go out and read the last couple of pages of Michael Crichton's "state of fear". Once again, he's only presenting his own opinions based on research, but it's an interesting read. Take it all with a grain of salt, but he makes a few good points that are easily verifyable with a few google searches. Hell, take everything you read with a grain of salt, especially when someone is trying to convince you of something.. |
|
| |
[/gets off his high horse, nursing saddle sores and goes looking for a beer/] |
|
| |
One thing you all seem to be forgetting is that the shuttle burns liquid hydrogen and oxygen and the only exhaust is steam. |
|
| |