151–160 of 163 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since you took the time to reply, so will I. I had no idea there was a controversy, and had never considered asking this until this morning.
There isn't a controversy.
Can someone summarize how CFCs achieve the result of depleting the ozone layer? When I was a kid someone pointed out that CFCs were quite heavy and it was not possible to make it up to the ozone layer. Also, my kid logic considered the science experiment where the teacher showed us a basketball with a light shining through a peg-board onto. At the polls the circles were elongated, thus demonstrating how less light (t…
No, nothing is amiss. There are literally decades of scientific research around this topic, and far more thought went into its conclusions than a 7th grade science experiment.
Well I did some research, I don't really agree. The "ozone hole" was discovered in 1984 by Joe Farman, and the cause was concluded by 1985. Not of lot of time there. And how many people have the resources to independently verify this?
I am sure there's likely a computer model that could be used right? That is how it was done in 1985.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, none of this stuff crossed my mind for decades. Learning I should google everything before making a comment.
I would think it is beneficial to be more informed before asking questions and subsequently disputing all of the replies you get with more questions. The problem is that if you don't know enough, you often can't really ask the right questions, so by asking uninformed questions (and giving the logic behind those questions far more credit than it deserves), it's an exercise in frustration for anyone else. Comparing one…
I get it, I simply don't understand the topic well enough to discuss it. My original post was in retrospect a mistake. I don't agree with conspiracy nuts, I just thought something was odd and decided to question it.
I have read a few articles on this today, and it just raised more questions, and after learning some things, I see that some other comments are actually wrong, yet still happy to vilify me.
I understand there is a social dynamic on HN at play here, just need to learn the rules better.
Can someone summarize how CFCs achieve the result of depleting the ozone layer? When I was a kid someone pointed out that CFCs were quite heavy and it was not possible to make it up to the ozone layer. Also, my kid logic considered the science experiment where the teacher showed us a basketball with a light shining through a peg-board onto. At the polls the circles were elongated, thus demonstrating how less light (t…
As I read the comments here, I was idly pondering why there is no vocal ozone-depletion denial community that is actively trying to repair the unfairly tarnished reputation of CFCs - as we have with climate change. /s Until I read the parent comment, my working theory was that CFC production was never backed by politically powerful aged billionaires and despotic states in the way that carbon production currently is.…
I am fascinated by changes in science. Like how no one knew how fermentation existed, and that the word yeast, fermentation and leaven all have the same root meanings. Louis Pasteur came along and went to France to study the grapes and vines to find how yeast was produced.
And how his discoveries helped lead us out of dark age of zymotic disease theory. And how doctors at one time didn't wash their hands, yet deny today that their practice was once monstrous and bestial, yet chiropractors are the new "evil".
The thread of logic and evidence is incredibly fascinating. And so I had similar questions arise with the ozone layer. Some things didn't seem to add up, so I asked about them here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, none of this stuff crossed my mind for decades. Learning I should google everything before making a comment.
Don't be discouraged! The quickest way to learn is how you've done it here. Post something egregiously wrong, and wait for us HN know-it-alls to pounce. Don't worry about the internet points; they're cheap compared to new knowledge. Of course, HN would be tedious if it were full of this sort of thread, so the downvotes are certainly appropriate. I would have cast some myself had others not already done so.
I did learn quite a bit, but also I found that some comments were wrong on the facts they were throwing in my face. I value learning more than social points, but I do appreciate the nod.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Computer models have been used to examine the combined effect of the large group of known reactions that occur in the stratosphere." So, no experiments demonstrating this actually happens, only computer models?
How do you propose to reproduce the earth's atmosphere at scale outside of a simulation? Am I wrong in suspecting that you have an ulterior motive for trying to sow suspicion regarding ozone depletion even though the answers to all your questions are one search engine query away? Wikipedia's article on ozone depletion explains why the hole is where it is and provides hundreds of citations for your consideration. http…
Or at the very least made my original post just the first sentence and left it at that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Computer models have been used to examine the combined effect of the large group of known reactions that occur in the stratosphere." So, no experiments demonstrating this actually happens, only computer models?
Here is a good stackexchange answer about the lab experiments that led to our understanding of ozone depletions: https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/49777/the-chlo... . Here is a text from Berkley: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/lessons/pdfs/ozone_depletion_com... . There is a myriad of observations that support the lab experiments and models.
>The catalytic stratospheric ozone destruction by CFC's and other compounds is almost certainly too complex to fully replicate in a laboratory with current technology.
I've read enough today to know that the stratospheric clouds, temperature, lack of light during the winter and spring months in Antarctica, etc... are all part of the formula for chlorine gases and bromine to cause the depletion of ozone. How is this so complicated it can't be replicated? This smells.
My high school chemistry class had us doing endless formulas on paper showing interactions between chemicals. They were all known and predictable.
But that's fine, I am learning to accept that I just don't understand enough chemistry or science to question these kinds of things. But I appreciate the links, though the PDF disagrees with the Stackexchange posting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that you are holding in one hand currently accepted mainstream scientific thought, and in the other, your "kid logic," and treating them equally. If you want to learn more you need to learn more - which is to say that it's fine to question the current scientific literature but you better be reading the current scientific literature and not basing it on a grade school Earth Science experiment you saw wh…
Are you suggesting that you must be equals with Feynman before you can apply what he taught?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As you provide links remember that a prominent argument used by climate-change-deniers is this heavier than air fake argument. https://www.ourcivilisation.com/ozone/king.htm Some history here https://books.google.com/books?id=Va-BAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA61&lpg=P... But this form of the denial disinformation is pretty old and perhaps surprising it’s being discussed today. Ed: but aha, it looks like the Christian Coalition site…
As I mentioned before, I've haven't read any of their stuff. All of my questions are 30 years old, and only thought to ask this here because I didn't even know there was any controversy on this subject. But I guess asking logical questions is frowned upon if someone else disagrees with the establishment and if you even ask the same questions is automatically guilt by association.
I did not consider the questions to be particularly ‘logical’ at all. Naive, perhaps, but not logical.
There’s presumably 30 years of knowledge you could look up to formulate better questions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bit of a hubris comparing oneself with Feynman. And to challenge the established science you have to learn it first, no way around it.
I made statements that most claim are ignorant, which I will abide by, and mentioned that Feynman said to ask questions. Maybe you people are the ones Feynman was criticising? He certainly wasn't hard on ignorant people looking for answers, he was hard on smart arrogant people who thought they couldn't be wrong.