Very good representation on facts khantyranitar.

 

If you have a R-12 system that has been "topped off" with a substitution gas will a AC shop reclaim and reuse it or can it be detected as comtaminated?

.....=o&o>.....

 

i blocked this political pseudo science diatribe with no citations or references long ago.

 

Naturally occurring chlorine gas, Cl2, while very reactive, is nothing compared to atomic chlorine, Cl. Atomic chlorine generated here in the trop will very quickly combine with other substances long before they get close to the strat. This is why CFCs are so nasty; they keep the Cl atom protected in their molecular bonds through the trop until they get to a place where they are exposed to UV.

As I said, many agencies have monitored the reaction of CFCs with strat O3 for about 40 years. The most notable is probably Dr. Mario Molinas and his colleagues, who were the first to publish an article on this specific observation in a 1974 issue of Nature magazine. Their subsequent research and publications have been critiqued and refereed by the best scientific minds in this field. The net result of this was their receiving the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1995 for their discovery:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1995/molina.html

I think they knew what they were talking about.

It's called atmospheric transport. Here's an example:

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/j.../transpts.html

I can't comment on that, as I don't know how that experiment was carried out.

Even if that were true, 20 years of use was enough to measurably deplete strat O3 by the 70's.

The increase of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere has been tracked with the industrialization of mankind over the last 100 or so years. That CO2 has direct greenhouse effect is fact. But a largely ignored simultaneous effect of burning of fossile fuels is the other product of combustion: H2O. Water has a much stronger greenhouse affect than CO2. (This is one reason why H2 based engines will not help with global warming.) CFCs in the upper trop also have greenhouse effects. With all these heat insulating gasses added to the atmosphere by human activities, it's not a stretch to expect an increase in atmospheric temperature. It's like putting a blanket over yourself. In addition to trapping the heat that the sun produces on earth, the blanket also traps the additional heat we generate by our increased consumption of fossile fuels.

The global atmospheric system is very complicated. Those of us who study it know not to discount anything; what may seem insignificant can have profound effects.

 

I'm just trying to dispell some hearsay with some facts. I think I stayed non-political.

But here is my opinion: I'm amazed that so many seemingly reasonable people would choose to ignore facts just because they seem inconvenient.

A few years ago, on a similar forum, I heard someone complain about how the EPA wanted to increase the CAFE requirement, and close down loopholes that allowed manufacturers to not include SUVs. The implications were that cars and trucks would be more expensive, and lose power. I tried to express (poorly) that it's not a bad idea to have such a requirement, since that would tend to force the manufacturers to build more efficient engines. At that time, gasoline was around $1 a gallon. so no one really cared about fuel efficiency. Now, I try not to express my opinions about this.

 

You are absolutely correct about water (H2O) being a very powerful greenhouse gas. Have you also noticed how it creates those massive solar reflectors we call clouds? On CO2 have you noticed that the rate of a plants consumption of CO2 is nearly proportional to its increased oncentration. In greenhouses, where increased concentrations of CO2 were introduced, increased plant grown was observed. In the enclosed environment, the increase in temperture from CO2 was not really measureable in this kind of environment, since, as you stated, water has a far more profound effect.

Now, here are some facts about global warming in reality.

As real global temperatures rise, this includes the air over the oceans. This results in an increase in evaporation, which in turn results the an increase in cloud production. While an increase in power and frequency of storms may occur, the overall global temperature remains stabilized, and the overall amount of rainfall on land increases. This results in an increase in the quality of life for both man and wildlife. This can easily be observed by looking at our last warm age, dureing mideval times, from about 800 AD - 1300 AD, where that average global temperature was 5 degrees warmer than it is today, and many parts of Greenaland were actually green. As this time period subsided, the crops began to fail, due to farmers planting to early, and haveing shorter growining seasons. The was mass starvation, and overall malnutrition. This is very well documents, and can be observed by looking at the rings of trees that grew in that time period (rapid growth of trees caused by both increased rainfall, longer growing seasons, and warmer climate. This is also the time period the Anasazi people thrived. The Vikings were thriveing, and culture in hotter climates were about the same average temperatures they are today (can be measured by analyzing icepack on mountains in tropical climates)

Now, here is a nother interesting thing about gases that get warmed. They rise, and as they rise, hey loose pressure, and begin to release their heat. Now where do you suppose it goes? Some of it may find its way back down to the surface, but overall, it gets dissipated at higher elevations, where it escapes into space. Water behaves this way, and other gases do as well. All greenhouse gases serve dual purposes, as global moderators, both to retain heat, and to release it, just like an air conditioning system.

Now back to R-12 and its potential to damage Ozone, how come when raw chlorine gas in its ataomic form is mixed with O3 and exposed to intense UVC radiation, not decay is observed. Also, R-12 is heavier than air, in fact heavier than CO2. There is no measurable CO2 at the altitude the O3 is found at, so how does R-12 get there? O2 is also effective at blocking UVC by the way, perhaps not as effective as O3, but still normal atmoshperic oxygen can block a decent percentage of UVC. The Ozone hole is most prominent at the southern pole, and nearly nonexsitent at the northern pole, which is strange since most of the moderne industrial world is in the northen hemisphere. One would thing that if freon was to blame, that the Ozone hole would be a real issue in the northen hemisphere. The Ozone layer was discovered in the early days of rocketry, prior to the commercial release of freon, the hole was in fact discovered dureing the 1950's. Now, what do references really mean anyway, if I told you my neighbor told me all this stuff, you would ignore me. If I told you that Dr. Philbert Seimen at the University of Texas was my source, then I would have some credibility. This would be the case if if the previously mentioned doctor was a medical doctor and had no experience in the field of biology or environmental science.

The scientific method
# 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
# 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
# 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
# 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
# 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

If you apply this situation, you will find there are a lot of discrepancies.

We can see this in other cases

Lets use DDT as our case here
allegations of DDT were that it would cause thinning of the shells of birds, and was possibly responsible for decreaseing predatory bird populations. This was reffered to in a book, with no previous scientific studies to prove this was the case. Many studies were done on predatory bird, feeding them food that was deliberately contaminated with DDT, and across 5 generations of these birds, no egg thinning was observed. This effectively rules out DDT as a possible culprit. However, dureing the same time period that this was occuring, the fluoridation of drinking water was also at its peak in the areas that these birds reside (Washington, Oregon, California namely), positive links were found relateing fluoride between both decreases in the populations of the fish that these birds would eat, as well as calcium absorption problems in birds that consumed fish contaminated with fluoride. This was independently tested by the EPA to determine its effects on birds and they found that egg thinning could be observed in wild birds that consumed fish from contaminated water. These same birds were also found to have weaker bones than wild birds from non contaminated regions. Most of this fluoride was determined to come from manufactureing processes however. The plants were shut down years ago, due to failing to meet EPA requirements. This occured around the same time that DDT was banned. You do the math. This is kind of obvious to the casual observer, once the actual events are brought forth.

If you want to look into this more closeing, feel free.
If you want to see how sensitive fluoride is to birds, read these
http://www.laleva.org/eng/2004/02/fl..._to_birds.html
http://www.greenfacts.org/fluoride/index.htm
http://www.fluoridealert.org/pestici....abstracts.htm

Now back to global warming
Walk outside on a parking lot, and measure the temerature in the shade
drive to a rural area nearby, away from pavement, and measure again
notice something?
Take consistent measurements over a period of time, in rural areas away from cities
one will find the average temperature in most cases are actually lower thant hey were in 1910.
There is a phenomeno called urban warming, which occures where there is a lot of pavement, and asphalt roofs, and not as much vegetation. This causes a noticable local warming. This gets worse as the city grows, but has little effect on the overall climate of the region. Does the heat in LA make the rest of California hotter?

 

I'm not sure where you got your information from, but they are anything but reality. There are naturally occurring variations of global temperatures that are severe enough to change climate, but their periodicity are on the order of tens of thousands of years. But what we're observing since the late 19th century, the time at which global measuring systems were put in place, are temperature changes that are indicative of geological changes, but occurring in a matter of decades. Here are some data collected by the United Nations Envronmental Program from these networks:

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/17.htm


I think I've gone over this already.


You eluded to something related to this before. The reaction occurs at a narrow temperature range, around 240K I think. It's warmer over the north pole than over the south pole. (This is also why polar ice melting is more severe in the north.) The temperature over the south pole is more ideal for the Cl + O3 reaction.


I'm not sure qhat you're trying to say here. The reference I gave for CFC and strat O3 interaction was a Nobel laureate who is the foremost expert in this topic.


You forgot:

# 6. Review and critical analysis of your work by your peers and other experts in this field, making sure your work was sound, and digging at, and resolving the discrepencies. Otherwise, you don't get a Nobel prize for your work.


I think we're far enough off topic already.

 

What we need to do is get down to the real reason of Global warming......$$$$$$$
If it wasnt for all the Grant Money they get there would be no one to study it.
I think it's funny that if they already know it's there why they have to keep studying it every Mintue, hour, day, month, & year.
Take away the grant money and you'd never hear of the Ozone Hole again.

JaY

 

Scientific information can be very accurate, but when money gets involved, well, things can happen. Don't you find it a little bit odd, that all this alleged bad information regarding freon was conducted as the patents for freon were expireing? Don't you find it odd that the only company that made freon to this point was DuPont? Don't you find it odd that DuPont now held patents to a new refrigerant right around this point, on that was actually cheaper for them to make? Look at where the money funding the research is coming from. IF it is truely coming from an unbiased government group, or a science organization, then one can expect the information is going to be reasonably accurate, but if the money is coming from a company which stands to loose a lot of money if their product won't sell, then sometimes the research is falsified. Then look at how much money is being dumped into it even today.
Now lets be honest, you have absolutely no information whatsover that freon caused the ozone hole, or in other words, you have not eliminated the possibilty that is was coincidence. You have not elimated a host of other possible pollutants from the study, you have not eliminated the possibility that it is a naturally occuring phenomenon.
When studies have been conducted to determine possible effects on the environment, you have mixed reviews about whether wildlife has suffered from UV rays. You have mixed reviews as to whether or not UV levels reaching the ground have increased. You don't even have a base value to compare your readings to. If your conclusions cannot be unanimous, then your test studies are flawed and new studies must be conducted with stricter control variances, until the evidence is so conclusive that the scientific world can truely agree. And by the way, cancer rates in the US dureing the 1970's and 80's are not found to be significantly higher than today. In fact, the opposite trend has been observed. And less protection from the sun was used in those time periods, while today, everyone I know basically refuses to spend any significant time in the sun without wearing sunscreen. Durring the seventies, measurements of the amount of ultraviolets light in the UVB and UVC spectrums was monitored by ordinary people, and in temperate climates, no meaningfull measurements were recorded. One can do this test today, and you can see your readings do not coincide with the measurements of variations in the ozone layer. Measurements of gases from the Ozone layer revealed no chlorine containing compounds, however nitrogen containing compounds, in frozen form were found in abundance in the weeks prior to the annual enlargement of the hole (which is a thinning by the way, not a hole) These crystals are believed to be formed by extreme cold in the upper atmosphere, and form during the Antarctic winter. Perhaps they have something to do with this. And by the way, the majority of our atmosphere is made of nitrogen, so I seriously doubt these compounds came from a manmade source, though if you are really interested in scientific reasearch, you may want to study this phenomenon.