My real problem with MMGW is that it gives me massive flashbacks to Ozone depletion, where we saw Ozone disappearing, had a model explaining how CFCs were causing the changes, it developed into a massive anti-CFC fad with lots of propaganda...and it all turned out to be dead wrong.

For those of you who don't remember, the theory was that CFC gasses would rise to the ionosphere, be hit by a UV ray to release a Chlorine radical, and then the Chlorine radical would begin to consume Ozone molecules in an infinite chain, thus depleting the Ozone layer. Makes perfect sense, right?

Well, no. The model ignored that Ozone has a natural half-life (it's longer in the ionosphere, but it's about 15 minutes at STP) ergo this isn't that Ozone is being destroyed so much as not being created. It also ignored how CFCs are much heavier than air--heck, the Chlorine radicals alone are much heavier than air--and so would tend to settle out and be absorbed in the troposphere. Furthermore, it ignored how the big Ozone hole was over Antarctica, where there was practically no industrial activity to link it to. We knew better, and yet we ignored the facts.

Jakov wrote:You don't see all the oxygen in the air settling at the bottom just because it's heavier than nitrogen. The sun provides energy to make wind which stirs everything up.
Yes it's probably true there are less CFC molecules all the way up there, but there are still many and it's enough to destroy ozone.

If CFCs are so harmless, ask him why one of the strongest campaigners for their banishment was Margret Thatcher (A trained scientist, despite all her other faults.)

To be honest, density is a very simple concept and I'd be very surprised if all the scientists missed this line of reasoning before they went to national governments.

Jakov wrote:You don't see all the oxygen in the air settling at the bottom just because it's heavier than nitrogen. The sun provides energy to make wind which stirs everything up.

Tzelemel wrote:

Jakov wrote:You don't see all the oxygen in the air settling at the bottom just because it's heavier than nitrogen. The sun provides energy to make wind which stirs everything up.

He would probably say that CFCs are heavier than any of the components of air.

Tzelemel wrote:

Jakov wrote:You don't see all the oxygen in the air settling at the bottom just because it's heavier than nitrogen. The sun provides energy to make wind which stirs everything up.

He would probably say that CFCs are heavier than any of the components of air. But I think that what you say about the sun sounds true. I'd better research it further to make sure I don't make a fool of myself, though.

Tzelemel wrote:
Really? I don't remember anyone ever saying that CFCs were not responsible for ozone depletion and certainly can't find anything to support him. Is he talking bull or am I just looking in the wrong places?

Tzelemel wrote:My problem is that I don't understand enough about gases and how they mix to even remotely counteract his bullshit. And that's the problem with him specifically. He says things that have a vague plausibility to them and cannot be easily refuted by just posting a link to an article. You need to really understand the science and construct an argument from scratch.

The logical counter-argument is 1) at ionosphere pressure Ozone has a very long half-life and 2) Chlorine radicals will affect the chemical equilibrium as a catalyst for the decay process.

To which I will reply, 1) Ozone is produced by the same ultraviolet light it protects us from, ergo, while a slight change in solar light would have a huge affect on the Ozone layer, it would take a very large quantity of Chlorine radicals to have a measurable effect, and 2) this is all theoretical until we see Chlorine radicals in the upper stratosphere. That's very unlikely considering the Chlorine radical alone is heavier than atmospheric diatomic Nitrogen or Oxygen, let alone the CFC molecule as a whole. Circulation which could raise such heavy molecules ends with the troposphere. (Note: The EPA page claims to have measured Chlorine in the Stratosphere, but also fails to provide a citation.)

That said, the most damning evidence that the model of Ozone depletion is wrong is that it said Chlorine radicals would lead to infinite chain reactions, and regardless of the cause the Ozone layer is now no longer a concern in the public eye. Crediting the Montreal Protocol as the EPA article does for any change in Ozone levels without having a satisfactory mechanism explaining the effect is post hoc ergo propter hoc. It also doesn't help that hyping the environment is the EPA's job and they don't cite any external references.

By definition, convection only happens in the troposphere; the stratosphere is defined by intense stratification of gas layers. There's even an inversion layer between the troposphere and stratosphere, and barring the action of thunderheads pushing that inversion layer up to form an anvil there is little mixing between the two layers. I'm not saying a comparable gas molecule like CO2 CAN'T get beyond the troposphere, but considering the stratosphere has so many more powerful greenhouse gasses in the stratosphere, like Ozone (which forms there naturally) or Methane (which rises there because it's lighter than air)....It'll take a lot of convincing me that the culprit of a change is CO2.

susu.exp wrote:A few notes:
The stratosphere is indeed a zone where you don´t have turbulent flow, because unlike the troposphere you have the hotter part at the top, which means there´s no convection. On the other hand it is part of the homosphere, the part of the atmosphere where no unmixing of the atmospheric gas due to density differences occurs. You can compare the troposphere to a cup of coffee you stir some sugar in and the stratosphere to a cup of coffe you don´t stir: It still mixes, but at a lowered rate. The mechanism you don´t have is circulation, what you still have is diffusion.

He´s also contradicting himself. He both states that "it would take a very large quantity of Chlorine radicals to have a measurable effect" and that "Chlorine radicals would lead to infinite chain reactions". Now, scrathc the infinite, what they do is act as catalysts, moving the equilibrium between O2 and O3. That´s a non-linear relationship: You double the catalyst, you don´t double the effect. That´s why you don´t need a lot of Chlorine radicals to have a measurable effect. On the other hand UV light has an almost linear effect on the reaction: Double the intensity and you pretty much double the reactions.

Finally: The issue isn´t what gasses are responsible for the climate on earth, but what are responsible for climate change. Sure enough the startosphere has a lot of powerful greenhouse gases. But it´s not as if the concentration of stratospheric greenhose gases has been increasing a lot recently (quite the opposite: Ozone was depleted after all).