I've read that freon is 4x heavier than air yet the theory goes it still
gets carried into the upper atmosphere by air currents to intermingle with
the ozone. Yet, I've seen it claimed that the ozone created in the lower
atmosphere by manmade sources doesn't get carried into the ozone of the
atmosphere. Why would it not if freon does?

In article . net,
"Doc" wrote:
I've read that freon is 4x heavier than air yet the theory goes it still
gets carried into the upper atmosphere by air currents to intermingle with
the ozone. Yet, I've seen it claimed that the ozone created in the lower
atmosphere by manmade sources doesn't get carried into the ozone of the
atmosphere. Why would it not if freon does?

Ozone is very reactive; freon is not.

Doc wrote:
I've read that freon is 4x heavier than air yet the theory goes it
still
gets carried into the upper atmosphere by air currents to intermingle
with
the ozone. Yet, I've seen it claimed that the ozone created in the
lower
atmosphere by manmade sources doesn't get carried into the ozone of
the
atmosphere. Why would it not if freon does?

I'd guess troposperic ozone does not get transported to the
stratosphere because it is so much more reactive, for example with
oxides of nitrogen.

Bill wrote:
Doc wrote:

I've read that freon is 4x heavier than air yet the theory goes it

still

gets carried into the upper atmosphere by air currents to intermingle

with

the ozone. Yet, I've seen it claimed that the ozone created in the

lower

atmosphere by manmade sources doesn't get carried into the ozone of

the

atmosphere. Why would it not if freon does?


I'd guess troposperic ozone does not get transported to the
stratosphere because it is so much more reactive, for example with
oxides of nitrogen.


Yes, that's it. Ozone is a highly reactive gas, and it has a relatively
short lifetime in the lower atmosphere. In the stratosphere, it is
regularly replenished by the action of ultraviolet radiation. The ozone
layer screens the lower atmosphere from such radiation. Ozone persists
in the lower atmosphere because it is regularly replenished, mostly by
human activities. Freon, on the other hand, is extremely stable. That
property is what made it so useful for its typical applications. It
persists long enough for atmospheric processes to carry it to the ozone
layer. There it is decomposed by ultraviolet radiation, and its
decomposition products as catalysts which convert ozone back to O_2.

You can find out all about this and much more at

www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion

One sign that someone is not to be trusted about environmental issues is
that person's claim that there is anything controversial about ozone
depletion. The chemists who discovered the effect won the Nobel Prize
in chemistry. There is no serious controversy about the subject.

In article lgate.org,
"Michael Mcneil" wrote:
"Leonard Evens" wrote in message


There is no serious controversy about the subject.

Unless you count the question about why it was found in large quantities
in the South Pole. (Or was it?)

There is no controversy. Any freshman science book contains the
explanation.


The depletion of upper atmosphere ozone is alledgedly due to carbon
halides (chloro-fluoro-carbons.) However it is never pointed out that
the high points in the graph are on the other side of the hemisphere to
the southern magnetic poles.
http://www.leos.le.ac.uk/home/images/ozone.jpg



It's pointed out a lot; perhaps you need to read those things called
"books" sometime.

"Leonard Evens" wrote in message


There is no serious controversy about the subject.

Unless you count the question about why it was found in large quantities
in the South Pole. (Or was it?)

The depletion of upper atmosphere ozone is alledgedly due to carbon
halides (chloro-fluoro-carbons.) However it is never pointed out that
the high points in the graph are on the other side of the hemisphere to
the southern magnetic poles.
http://www.leos.le.ac.uk/home/images/ozone.jpg


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Michael Mcneil wrote:
"Leonard Evens" wrote in message



There is no serious controversy about the subject.

I've already given a reference which explains all these points. There
is nothing new about your argument. It is falacious. Go read Rbert
Parson's FAQ to find the explanation for what is wrong with your attempt
at reasoning.



Unless you count the question about why it was found in large quantities
in the South Pole. (Or was it?)

The depletion of upper atmosphere ozone is alledgedly due to carbon
halides (chloro-fluoro-carbons.) However it is never pointed out that
the high points in the graph are on the other side of the hemisphere to
the southern magnetic poles.
http://www.leos.le.ac.uk/home/images/ozone.jpg

Michael Mcneil wrote:
"Leonard Evens" wrote in message



There is no serious controversy about the subject.


Unless you count the question about why it was found in large quantities
in the South Pole. (Or was it?)

No, the CFCs are not found in larger quantities at the South Pole than
elsewhere, it is just during polar winter conditions in the stratosphere
(very low temperatures, isolated polar area due to a vortex wind that
surrounds the region) move Cl from a chemical reservoir species to a
reactive species, so that at first light a lot of chlorine atoms are
available to destroy ozone in the stratosphere. Take Leonard's advice
and read Parson's FAQ for a start. There is nowhere else in the
stratosphere that is so cold, and that is the key.

The depletion of upper atmosphere ozone is alledgedly due to carbon
halides (chloro-fluoro-carbons.) However it is never pointed out that
the high points in the graph are on the other side of the hemisphere to
the southern magnetic poles.
http://www.leos.le.ac.uk/home/images/ozone.jpg

After the polar vortex breaks up in the spring, air masses are free to
move in these patterns. Please read the FAQ before you make even more
errors.

josh halpern