On Mar 10, 1:53 am, "NB00Z" wrote:
"Tom Gardner" wrote in message

et...

Since CFCs were banned, the ozone hole is fixed!

Oh really????

Ozone Hole Bigger Than Ever

SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON MAN-MADE OZONE HOLE MAY BE COMING APART


You are a liar. That CFCs damage the ozone layer is a proven
scientific fact.

Reality aces the knowalls again. And the antarctic "ozone hole" has
reached record sizes in recent years, DESPITE the abolition of CFCs.

"The ozone hole over Antarctica has shrunk 30 percent [ in 2007] as
compared to last year's record size. "

The
latest reading is not as big as the record 28 million sq km holes that
developed during 2000, 2003 and 2006 but is close to it. When will they
admit that the whole CFC scare showed only how little they knew?


When will you stop lying.

As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal
Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental
data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry.

Lie.

If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their
understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to
climate change.


Which is unrelated to CFCs causing the holes.

Long-lived chloride compounds from anthropogenic emissions of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are the main cause of worrying seasonal ozone
losses in both hemispheres. In 1985, researchers discovered a hole in
the ozone layer above the Antarctic, after atmospheric chloride levels
built up. The Montreal Protocol, agreed in 1987 and ratified two years
later, stopped the production and consumption of most ozone-destroying
chemicals. But many will linger on in the atmosphere for decades to
come. How and on what timescales they will break down depend on the
molecules' ultraviolet absorption spectrum (the wavelength of light a
molecule can absorb), as the energy for the process comes from sunlight.
Molecules break down and react at different speeds according to the
wavelength available and the temperature, both of which are factored
into the protocol.

So Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute
of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when
he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule,
dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated
splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California1, was extremely low in the
wavelengths available in the stratosphere - almost an order of magnitude
lower than the currently accepted rate. "This must have far-reaching
consequences," Rex says. "If the measurements are correct we can
basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being."
What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of
ozone depletion remains unclear.


He did NOT say CFCs were not the culprit.

The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of
ozone destruction developed 20 years ago2 (see graphic). If the rate is
substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be
possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the
observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the
discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis
rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock:
at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an
unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in
Bremen, Germany, last week.


Yes, mechanism. Not cause. Learn what terms mean in science some
time.

Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the
conundrum is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone
research community.

I see. One unconfirmed report (which you misinterpret) and you
trumpet "scientific consensus coming apart." You really are a total
blooming idiot.

"Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really
been blown apart," says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max
Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany. "Until recently
everything looked like it fitted nicely," agrees Neil Harris, an
atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating
Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. "Now suddenly it's like a plank
has been pulled out of a bridge." ......

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/0709...l/449382a.html

--

Warmest Regards

Bonzo

". researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany
report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years,
accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over
the last 100 years."http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

"Talk-n-Dog" wrote
think of it as a tax

Like the 50% devaluation in the U.S. dollar over the last 7 years. But
negative in value and only 1/50th the size.

On 12/03/08 18:36, in article
, "Lloyd"
wrote:


"The ozone hole over Antarctica has shrunk 30 percent [ in 2007] as
compared to last year's record size. "

It can vary from year to year. The hole is essentially due to the
dynamics of formation the vortex, only lasts a couple of months. It is not
due to excess of CFC in the region.

The main web site I use is http://jwocky.gsfc.nasa.gov/

The 30% figure is not correct. In terms of million sq miles the
2007 figure is 22 down from 26 in 2006, which is a 15% drop in size.
But the figure was half these values in 2002 which was a very low
year. Somebody could have said in 2002 'Hey the value has dropped
in half of last years value (2001 was about what it was in 2007)
so the problem is over!

The
latest reading is not as big as the record 28 million sq km holes that
developed during 2000, 2003 and 2006 but is close to it. When will they
admit that the whole CFC scare showed only how little they knew?

When will you stop lying.

The CFC scare is legitimate. The only part of the mechanism which was
lacking since Molina and Rowland first proposed their mechanism is the role
of ice crystals and the storing up of ClONO2 during the winter. The
formation of HCL was presumed to be the end game for the chlorine
atoms, but the reaction of HCL + CLONO2 = CL2 + HNO3 gives back
chlorine atoms (via CL2 + hv = CL + Cl). The Cl + O3 =CLO + O2 goes
on this way.

As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal
Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental
data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry.

Lie.

There is no challenge to the chemistry I wrote above. Can anybody
argue differently?

If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their
understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to
climate change.

Which is unrelated to CFCs causing the holes.

Long-lived chloride

chloride implies CL(-). Salt is a chloride. I don't believe that salt
is a major problem. You may been chlorinated compounds.

compounds from anthropogenic emissions of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are the main cause of worrying seasonal ozone
losses in both hemispheres. In 1985, researchers discovered a hole in
the ozone layer above the Antarctic, after atmospheric chloride levels
built up. The Montreal Protocol, agreed in 1987 and ratified two years
later, stopped the production and consumption of most ozone-destroying
chemicals.

The production still occurs in some countries.

But many will linger on in the atmosphere for decades to
come.

Long half lives of the CFC.

How and on what timescales they will break down depend on the
molecules' ultraviolet absorption spectrum (the wavelength of light a
molecule can absorb), as the energy for the process comes from sunlight.

It is the C-CL bond which if photochemically attacked. These absorb above
200 nm in the UV. This absorption is into a unbound excited state
form which the C-CL bond is broken without an energy barrier. The
spectrum is a continuum without vibrational fine structure indicating
predissociation. Water itself behaves in the same way around 200 nm.

Molecules break down and react at different speeds according to the
wavelength available and the temperature, both of which are factored
into the protocol.

So Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute
of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when
he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule,
dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2).

This is a weakly bound molecule, a peroxide, The -OO- bond decomposes even
at longer wavelengths up to 300 nm or higher. I don't think Cl-O rupture
is favored over O-O

I am right since (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990GeoRL..17..721E)

'The likely photodissociation pathways of chlorine peroxide are examined.
Reasoning by analogy between hydrogen peroxide and chlorine peroxide, it is
shown that photodissociation of chlorine peroxide at wavelengths longer than
250 nm is not likely to give chlorine atoms as a primary product. Reasoning
by analogy with molecules whose visible spectra are known, it is concluded
that chlorine peroxide is also likely to photodissociate in the visible to
give ClO radicals as primary products.'

The rate of photolysis (light-activated
splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California1, was extremely low in the
wavelengths available in the stratosphere - almost an order of magnitude
lower than the currently accepted rate.

The quantum yield of the OO rupture should be nearly unity. It turns
out I did the first calculation on this type of surface
(EM Evleth, J. Am. Chem. Sot. 98 (1976) 1637)

"This must have far-reaching
consequences," Rex says. "If the measurements are correct we can
basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being."
What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of
ozone depletion remains unclear.

Gives us the original reference and I will try and look it over.

He did NOT say CFCs were not the culprit.

That is correct. it is the question of mechanism occurring after
the C-CL rupture. The ozone autocatalytic cycle is

Cl + O3 == ClO + O2

ClO + O == Cl + O2

So the destruction of CLO-OCL to give either 2ClO or CL + CL02 is incidental
CLO2 itself has very low stability and give CL + O2.

The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of
ozone destruction developed 20 years ago2 (see graphic). If the rate is
substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be
possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the
observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the
discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis
rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock:
at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an
unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in
Bremen, Germany, last week.

No rush to judgment please! Never grab and run with anything.


Yes, mechanism. Not cause. Learn what terms mean in science some
time.

Right

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/0709...l/449382a.html


I will look it up.

On 12/03/08 21:43, in article , "Earl
Evleth" wrote:

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/0709...l/449382a.html


I will look it up.

I tried, and it said

******

Chemists poke holes in ozone theory

Reaction data of crucial chloride compounds called into question.


As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol
to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that
threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are
right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone
holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.

To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see
right).

***

is this a scam? Does anybody have the original article without
having to pay for it?

Earl Evleth wrote:

On 12/03/08 21:43, in article , "Earl
Evleth" wrote:

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/0709...l/449382a.html


I will look it up.

I tried, and it said

******

Chemists poke holes in ozone theory

Reaction data of crucial chloride compounds called into question.


As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol
to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that
threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are
right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone
holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.

To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see
right).

***

is this a scam? Does anybody have the original article without
having to pay for it?

That's funny, Ding Dong, you ask about
journal papers by posters, then you ask if
the journal Nature requiring payment for
reprints is a scam? Ha Ha Ha.

Whata Fool wrote:
Earl Evleth wrote:

On 12/03/08 21:43, in article , "Earl
Evleth" wrote:

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/0709...l/449382a.html

I will look it up.
I tried, and it said

******

Chemists poke holes in ozone theory

Reaction data of crucial chloride compounds called into question.


As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol
to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that
threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are
right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone
holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.

To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see
right).

***

is this a scam? Does anybody have the original article without
having to pay for it?

That's funny, Ding Dong, you ask about
journal papers by posters, then you ask if
the journal Nature requiring payment for
reprints is a scam? Ha Ha Ha.






think of it as a tax

--

http://Talk-n-Dog.org
********* Koom-Bay-Ya *********
Our constitution protects criminals, sexual deviants and U.S. Senators.
Which at times are, one and the same...

On 13/03/08 1:27, in article ,
"Whata Fool" wrote:

is this a scam? Does anybody have the original article without
having to pay for it?

That's funny, Ding Dong, you ask about
journal papers by posters, then you ask if
the journal Nature requiring payment for
reprints is a scam?

Many journals you have to pay for, my old articles
are listed and they want money for downloading them.
(example http://www.springerlink.com/content/u18m58707v222h04/)

If authors list them on their web sites they are often
free, and this is done a lot in the climate field.

What looked strange at the web site

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/449382a.html

is the comment `` `

Chemists poke holes in ozone theory

FOLLOWED BY

Reaction data of crucial chloride compounds called into question.

Chemists these days to not usually refer to "chloride compounds", the
organics in question are always chloroorganics, CH3Cl is no
longer referred to as methyl chloride by monochloromethane or
chloromethane. However it may still be a practice in the UK.

I would like to see the article but $18 is a bit steep.

The only chemically related discussion here has been about
CL-O-O-CL photolysis being "slow". Its quantum yield of
photodecomposition should be unity and the only "slow"
aspect is the radiation flux at the wavelength the molecule
absorbs in the UV between 200-300nm and the absorption
coefficient of the material. The following information indicates
that that had been grossly underestimated (poorly measured)
in the past

****

Ultraviolet Absorption Spectrum of Chlorine Peroxide, ClOOCl


Francis D. Pope, Jaron C. Hansen, Kyle D. Bayes,* Randall R. Friedl, and
Stanley P. Sander

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena,
California 91109


Received: November 17, 2006

In Final Form: March 6, 2007

Abstract:

The photolysis of chlorine peroxide (ClOOCl) is understood to be a key step
in the destruction of polar stratospheric ozone. This study generated and
purified ClOOCl in a novel fashion, which resulted in spectra with low
impurity levels and high peak absorbances. The ClOOCl was generated by laser
photolysis of Cl2 in the presence of ozone, or by photolysis of ozone in
the presence of CF2Cl2. The product ClOOCl was collected, along with small
amounts of impurities, in a trap at about -125 C. Gas-phase ultraviolet
spectra were recorded using a long path cell and spectrograph/diode array
detector as the trap was slowly warmed. The spectrum of ClOOCl could be fit
with two Gaussian-like expressions, corresponding to two different
electronic transitions, having similar energies but different widths. The
energies and band strengths of these two transitions compare favorably with
previous ab initio calculations. The cross sections of ClOOCl at
wavelengths longer than 300 nm are significantly lower than all previous
measurements or estimates. These low cross sections in the photolytically
active region of the solar spectrum result in a rate of photolysis of
ClOOCl in the stratosphere that is much lower than currently recommended.
For conditions representative of the polar vortex (solar zenith angle of
86o, 20 km altitude, and O3 and temperature profiles measured in March
2000) calculated photolysis rates are a factor of 6 lower than the current
JPL/NASA recommendation. This large discrepancy calls into question the
completeness of present atmospheric models of polar ozone depletion.


****

These results will have to be checked since it is obvious this is a hard
material to deal with. To get the absorption coefficient you have to know
much much material in the cell one is using.

Earl Evleth wrote:

Many journals you have to pay for, my old articles
are listed and they want money for downloading them.
(example http://www.springerlink.com/content/u18m58707v222h04/)

If authors list them on their web sites they are often
free, and this is done a lot in the climate field.

What looked strange at the web site

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/449382a.html

is the comment `` `

Chemists poke holes in ozone theory

FOLLOWED BY

Reaction data of crucial chloride compounds called into question.

Why strange, the editor can't be expected
to know every displine up to date, he just writes
the sub-heading.

Chemists these days to not usually refer to "chloride compounds", the
organics in question are always chloroorganics, CH3Cl is no
longer referred to as methyl chloride by monochloromethane or
chloromethane. However it may still be a practice in the UK.

I would like to see the article but $18 is a bit steep.

I would like to see a lot of articles, but
can't afford them, it is getting so there is a
charge for everything.

The only chemically related discussion here has been about
CL-O-O-CL photolysis being "slow". Its quantum yield of
photodecomposition should be unity and the only "slow"
aspect is the radiation flux at the wavelength the molecule
absorbs in the UV between 200-300nm and the absorption
coefficient of the material. The following information indicates
that that had been grossly underestimated (poorly measured)
in the past

Geez, please don't go on and on about ozone,
any place the sun can reach is an area of new ozone
production, it isn't a surprise that where it is
cold and high clouds hid part of the upper atmosphere
part of the year there is a reduction in ozone,
the angle of the sun is easy to imagine.