Global warming hysteria?

Vangelis

rsynnott wrote:

Sorry, what? Where did you get this? You're referring to the ozone layer, I assume. The ozone layer is being damaged by CFCs and similar, from old spray cans, refrigirators, fire extinguishers and so on.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas; it reduces loss of heat to space.

CO2 does cause damage to the ozone in the stratosphere. NASA had a good article about this, but that was before they refurbished their website and deleted many articles. From what I can remember, CO2 creates chemical compounds with single O-atoms that should originally create ozone-molecules. This results in a less quantity of ozone. Has my memory deceived me?

...Earth is able to dissipate less heat.

Doesn't this happen because there is an overload of heat or processes that cause heating in our atmosphere?

solas

I didnt read all the way back so apologies if its already been noted, but if any of yous are awake at 1.10am tonight (friday) there is a docu movie titled "the skies on fire" on tv3 on the subject.

MrSinn

How many ice ages have there been?
If there was only one then we know at least one thing,that at some stage the earth started to get colder(much colder)we also know that the earth started to get much warmer(to melt all the ice)
It's all natural,nothing to do with humans!

rsynnott

Vangelis wrote:

CO2 does cause damage to the ozone in the stratosphere. NASA had a good article about this, but that was before they refurbished their website and deleted many articles. From what I can remember, CO2 creates chemical compounds with single O-atoms that should originally create ozone-molecules. This results in a less quantity of ozone. Has my memory deceived me?

Do you have any documentation of this? I've been unable to find mention of it. Single O atoms don't really exist in the wild...

Vangelis wrote:

Doesn't this happen because there is an overload of heat or processes that cause heating in our atmosphere?

Nah, increased heat from humanity's activities is negligible compared to trapped heat from the sun.

MrSinn wrote:

How many ice ages have there been?
If there was only one then we know at least one thing,that at some stage the earth started to get colder(much colder)we also know that the earth started to get much warmer(to melt all the ice)
It's all natural,nothing to do with humans!

So you would contend that the Earth has noticed that we have been messing with its major temperature regulation device, the atmosphere, and will compensate in response? Interesting - how is this managed? Is there an operator somewhere?

Vangelis

rsynnott wrote:

Do you have any documentation of this? I've been unable to find mention of it. Single O atoms don't really exist in the wild...

I'll search on Sunday. Going away tomorrow.
Single O-atoms exist in the stratosphere, but they are unstable.
That is the reason why they so easily form compounds with the atoms in CO2. CO2 must be dissolved first.

Cannot write more now.

MrSinn

rsynnott wrote:

Do you have any documentation of this? I've been unable to find mention of it. Single O atoms don't really exist in the wild...



Nah, increased heat from humanity's activities is negligible compared to trapped heat from the sun.



So you would contend that the Earth has noticed that we have been messing with its major temperature regulation device, the atmosphere, and will compensate in response? Interesting - how is this managed? Is there an operator somewhere?

so who is responsible for the ice age that lasted millions of years?And who is responsible for ending it?

rsynnott

MrSinn wrote:

so who is responsible for the ice age that lasted millions of years?And who is responsible for ending it?

Some of them seem to have been caused by external intervention - comets and so forth. Some by volcanic eruption, and some by natural variation. So yes, the Earth does produce them naturally - in fact, there's one due in a few centuries, I seem to remember. My apologies - from reading your earlier post I thought that you were trying to imply that the Earth would automatically compensate for climate change.

MrSinn

Ever hear of the "baked apply theory"?

MrSinn

Ever hear of the "baked apple theory"?

rsynnott

This is the thing based on the earth's core shrinking as it cools (I'm fairly sure it hasn't been established that it's cooling, incidentally - it's kept hot by radioactive decay), right?

GuanYin

Ok, you all seem to be confusting the greenhouse effect with ozone depletion. They are completely different things.

The green house effect concerns the warming of the earths lower atmosphere (the troposphere) by the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and others) in the troposphere.
These gases absorb infrared (heat) radiation from the Earth which would otherwise escape from the atmosphere into space. The gases then re-radiate some of this heat back towards the surface of the Earth. This all lead sto rising surface temperatures.

The depletion of the ozone layer concerns the loss of ozone in the upper part of the atmosphere (the stratosphere)which is caused by dispersal of some kinds of halogenated hydrocarbons (such as chlorinated fluorocarbons, known as CFCs) into the atmosphere. These halogenated hydrocarbons degrade ozone in the stratosphere.
The ozone layer absorbs some of the ultraviolet radiation from the Sun, some of this radiation is harmful to biological organisms.

Vangelis wrote:

Single O-atoms exist in the stratosphere, but they are unstable.

While this is partially true, you're putting it forward in a fashion that is, to all intents and purposes completely wrong.

There is a natural ozone (O3) cycle inthe atmosphere.
This is regulated by the formation and degredation reactions of ozone and oxygen due to sunlight.

Atmospheric 02 and degraded 03 and 02 form new ozone molecules.

so:
O2 ---- (<200nm light)---> 2O :
O + O2

---

> O3

meanwhile:
O3

---

(200-300nm light) ----> O2 + O
O + O3

---

> 2O2


These events occur separately and simultaneously and under normal conditions they would occur at an equilibrium.

The reason its misleading to say that O atoms exist is because they only exist for an almost imperceivably short time.

Because O atoms will exist in an negligable quantity and
O2 and O3 will exist in HUGE quantities, O atoms will be transformed in one of the above reactions almost instantly.

Seeing as O doesn't degrade into any lesser components, it is wrong to say it is unstable. And it doesn't actually exist as a sole species, just as an intemdiate for a reaction.

That is the reason why they so easily form compounds with the atoms in CO2. CO2 must be dissolved first.

Nope as I said, you're confusing the issues, CO2 is not the molecule you're looking for here (it plays no prt in ozone degredation).

The bad guys are halogen hydrocarbons and they act by catalysing the breakdown of ozone in the mechanism above.

Basically the chlorine (Cl) in chlorinated fluorocarbons reacts with 03 in the systems above to produce 02 and ClO.
This means that O3 is being depleted at a far greater rate than it being produced and as the degredation/production cycle is being disrupted (by the addition of the CFCs) the O3 production is hampered.

Vangelis

Yes, psi. That makes more sense. Found excellent information on ozone depletion on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

Still, CO2 could play a minor role in the ozone depletion process, but it isn't certain:

"Global warming from CO2 is expected to cool the stratosphere. This, in turn, would lead to a relative increase in ozone depletion and the frequency of ozone holes."(from Wikipedia)

Are you sure that the O-atom cannot be called unstable? It seems odd.