Tom Kunich said:"William Asher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
That statement was made before they figured out it wasn't a gas-phase
chemical process responsible for ozone depletion at high latitudes,
but a surface-catalyzed process on ice, that works with much lower
concentrations
of CFCs in the gas phase.
I hate to point this out but CFC's are a very heavy molecule. MUCH
heavier than CO2 which strangely, has a very difficult time getting
into the upper atmosphere.
Of course there was also the fact that the hole in the ozone was only
detected AFTER they put a satellite into orbit that could detect it.
And then STRANGELY enough although ALL of the data showed that the
hole was there from the very first time they looked, that it waxed and
waned but never disappeared and that although the levels of CFC's are
now a mere shadow of what they were at that time, and yet the holes
appear to act EXACTLY the same as they have all along - somehow the
CFC's are still being blamed for these things that have, to our
knowledge always been there.
So I would suggest that someone who claims to be chemically
knowledgeable would probably have a better idea of the situation
before shooting his stupid mouth off.
Quoted message said:Final thing, could you provide a list of the agencies providing
hundreds of
millions of dollars per year specifically for climate related
research? The entire budget for basic research at ONR is around 100
million per year and that is a big pot itself, I want to know where
one several times that size is.
If you don't understand how grants are awarded by the NIH, the NSF and
others perhaps you shouldn't speak about it?
Thomas:
According to articles in peer-reviewed journals like Nature, the mixing
ratio of CO2 decreases by about 7 ppmv in the stratosphere (out of a total
of around 360 ppmv). Above that, most measurements indicate a fairly flat
mizing ration for CO2 up until the stratopause at around 90 km, which I am
going to guess here, is right where the adiabatic lapse rate would predict
atmospheric temperature is below the freezing point of CO2. The maximum in
ozone is at 30 km, give or take, so CO2 doesn't decrease with altitude up
to the ozone layer. CFCs do decline in mixing ratio up to the
stratosphere, but the point is that with solid-surface catalysis driving
the ozone loss you don't need a whole lot of CFC around to degrade a lot of
ozone, it's a very efficient process. I mentioned that in my original
post, it must have gone by you.
As for your "historical perspective," well, read here:
http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/part1.html
Look, as with a lot of stuff (except how many and what kind of bicycles you
have in your garage), you are a wealth of disinformation. Do you just
assimilate anything that fits into your world view as fact no matter how
fast it flies in the face of common sense, logic, or objective evidence?
How much experience I have or don't have with the process of obtaining
federal research dollars has nothing to do with your providing a reference
for where these hundreds of millions of climate-related research dollars
are.
My opinion is that you should stick to topics I find mildly entertaining,
like speculating on the sexual proclivities of other men. That's good
stuff, by the way.
Finally, I never claimed to be chemically knowledgable, I only claimed your
original source was speaking from a position of ignorance. That last
assertion, I can support.
--
Bill Asher
