Greg_d._Moore@mts.rpi.edu (Commander Krugannal) (08/19/90)
> 10556/2618. Nici Schraudolph (schraudo@beowulf.ucsd.edu) 02:10 Sun Aug 19/90 1 > > Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Destroys Ozone Layer ??? 17:28 Sat Aug 18/90 > Summary: ignoring a problem away? > > For weeks now I have been waiting for some reaction to Mark R. Thorson's > alarming post (summary: shuttle launches cause significant percentage of > the world's ozone destruction problem), but... zilch. Nada. Not a single > post. > > Nobody violently doubting the figures. Nobody asking how this could be > allowed to happen. Nobody suggesting what could be done. Just guilty > silence overall. Could it be that we are trying to ignore a problem away > here? Wouldn't be the first time. You're reader must be way behind mine. I've seen several posts refuting the article you mention. One article gave specific figures for the amount of ozone depletion due to various causes. The shuttle was not the biggest. (I would quote the article but no longer have it.) Another article (if I recall correctly) discussed the effects of the SRB's have at various altitudes and what that does to the ozone. So, no, we haven't just wished it away. Greg_d._Moore@mts.rpi.edu
jimh@welch.jhu.edu (Jim Hoffman) (04/12/91)
I have heard some rumors that the shuttle has caused more damage to the ozone layer than all of the CFCs combined. How valid is this claim???? If it is valid, what is being done about it????? While on the topic, is the shuttle being considered as a tool in fighting the ozone problem????? Jim
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (04/13/91)
In article <1991Apr12.163103.11472@welch.jhu.edu> jimh@welch.jhu.edu (Jim Hoffman) writes: >I have heard some rumors that the shuttle has caused more damage to the ozone >layer than all of the CFCs combined. How valid is this claim???? Invalid. The sort of shuttle launch schedule that NASA had originally envisioned -- i.e., 400 launches by the end of 1991 -- would be cause for concern. The SRB exhausts are pretty dirty. But the effects of the real launch schedule are insignificant. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
leech@homer.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) (04/13/91)
In article <1991Apr12.163103.11472@welch.jhu.edu>, jimh@welch.jhu.edu (Jim Hoffman) writes: > I have heard some rumors that the shuttle has caused more damage to the ozone > layer than all of the CFCs combined. You're not the only one hearing rumors. The following is taken from "Censored Stories of the Year," originally published in the SF Bay Guardian, and picked up by a local alternative newspaper. Things not quoted are my own comments. The article describes "Project Censored," run by Carl Jensen, a communications professor at Sonoma State University. The project "convenes a nationwide panel of "media experts," including Noam Chomsky, John McLaughlin, and Bill Moyers, to pick the 10 most important underreported news stories of each year". Describing how it functions, "Jensen said he received some 600 submissions. The stories are then carefully researched by a Sonoma State class. Students, with Jensen's help, weigh the importance of each story against the amount of national coverage their research unearths. They then prepare a list of 25 finalists and forward them to the panel of media experts." #4 on the list this year is: "NASA Shuttles destroy the ozone shield. (SSU Star, Earth Island Journal, San Francisco Chronicle) "A report by Gar Smith in the fall issue of _Earth Island Journal_ restated the warnings of two Soviet rocket scientists that originally appeared in _South_ magazine - that each time a U.S. space shuttle is launched, 187 tons of ozone-eating molecules are released into the atmosphere. According to Valery Burdakov, who helped design the USSR's Energiya rocket engine, and his colleague V. Filin, a single shuttle flight can destroy up to 10 million tons of ozone. It would take only 300 shuttle flights to completely destroy the ozone. "Gar Smith says the TASS-released findings of the scientists were picked up by the European press in the summer of 1989. Smith's article confirmed claims by Dr. Helen Caldicott that appeared in a May 8 stroy by Mindi Levine in the _SSU Star_, the Sonoma State U. campus newspaper, that ``with each launch, 25 percent of the ozone is destroyed. So far the space shuttle has destroyed 10 percent of the ozone.'' "On Aug. 21, David Sylvester of the _San Francisco Chronicle_'s South Bay Bureau cited a National Toxics Campaign study, authored by Lenny Siegel of the SF-based Military Toxics Network, that said a single launch of the space shuttle damaged the ozone layer of the atmosphere as much as an entire year of industrial emissions of CFCs from a single factory. Siegel's report was later published in _Mother Jones_ magazine." My comments: There seem to be a number of contradictory estimates, of ozone loss above. We have 187 tons/flight, 10 million tons/flight, 25 %/flight, and 10% / ~30 flights (I don't see how these two figures can be resolved in the same sentence). These estimates don't even come close to agreeing, and the percentage estimates don't take into account the natural regeneration of ozone in the upper atmosphere. Without seeing the source material, there's no way to tell if *any* of these estimates have any validity whatsoever, but the last three appear completely bogus, along the lines of the claims that a RTG launch accident would kill tens of thousands of people and make Florida uninhabitable that we hear from the Christic Institute and the like. In the absence of reviewed research, I think this is all a bunch of hooey. The Shuttle may well damage the ozone layer but not severely or over a long period. 187 tons/flight I might believe. This is the only one of the stories on the list which cites the SSU student newspaper, and I wonder if this isn't a case of undergraduate ecoawareness getting by Jensen. I don't get the same sense of bogosity from most of the other stories on the list: 1. Flawed coverage of the Gulf crisis 2. S&L solution is worse than the crime 3. The CIA role in the S&L crisis 5. Media blackout of the drug war fraud 6. What really happened in Panama? 7. The Pentagon's secret billion-dollar black budget 8. The Bill of Rights had a close call 9. Where was George? 10. America's Banking crisis. Make of this what you will (don't flame me, I'm just quoting the article). It would be interesting to hear the original material from Burdakov. -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ``Thus Mathematics helps / our brains and hands and feet and can make / a race of supermen out of us.'' - The Education of T. C. Mits
tlijy@cc.curtin.edu.au (04/13/91)
In article <1991Apr12.163103.11472@welch.jhu.edu>, jimh@welch.jhu.edu (Jim Hoffman) writes: > I have heard some rumors that the shuttle has caused more damage to the ozone > layer than all of the CFCs combined. How valid is this claim???? If it is > valid, what is being done about it????? While on the topic, is the shuttle > being considered as a tool in fighting the ozone problem????? > I did a literature review on ozone issue last year. I have come across some articles addressing the potential damage to ozone layer caused by space shuttle and supersonic jet fuel. But I think it is unfair to say that shuttle has caused more damage to the ozone layer than all of the CFCs combined. How many tones of CFC released to the atmosphere a year? How many space shuttle flights a year? Shuttle can be used as a tool in fighting the ozone problem, mainly because it can and has carried remote sensing device on board, such as BUV or SBUV type of sensor. Before you start assessing the damage to the ozone layer, you must have done some quatitative work on it. Ironically, we have doubts in different types of ozone measurements. This is actually two fold problem. First, you need to extract anomaly from its long term natural variability. It is not an easy task, you should have kept long term ozone record and perform a complicated time series analysis. Second, different types (satellite based or ground based, sensing in IR or UV) of ozone measurement are affected by different factors. For instances, ground based measurement (mainly Dobson spectrometer) is annoied by aerosol in the atmosphere and it only gives the ozone reading direct over your head. Satellite based measurements (9.6 miron in IR or in UV region) only give you an area averaged total ozone number because of poor resolution. Physical retrieval model used in satellite data processing is not near perfect yet. Previous work and my own work reveal systematic and non-systematic differences between satellite and ground based measurements. There is no absolute truth in this type of comparison. I am wondering which total ozone measurement can be trusted. -- _Jason Y. Li =============================================================================== Satellite & Remote Sensing Res. Group |1) PSImail: psi%050529452300070::TLIJY Dept. of Applied Physics __________|2) Internet: TLIJY@cc.curtin.edu.au Curtin Univ. of Tech. |3) Bitnet: TLIJY%cc.curtin.edu.au@cunyvm.bitnet Perth, West. Australia |4) UUCP : uunet!munnari.oz!cc.curtin.edu.au!TLIJY <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People who have nothing to say are quickly tired of their own company. [Collier]
rambler@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Dan Meyer) (04/14/91)
People, poeple, people...
There is nothing, yes, NOTHING that we can do here on the planet that will
cause global changes in the earth's climate! For example, the planet belches
all sorts of pollutants into the atmosphere in far greater quantities than
man could ever dream of doing. I have had it up to -here- with all of these
_Chicken Little_ the-sky-is-falling types (the media included) who believe
that life as we know it will be significantly altered due to man's pilligang
of the planet. The only reason life is going to be significantly different is
that we start to believe that the sky is falling. Chill out people. Start
thinking about what the media is saying. Consider that they never get anything
right. THINK FOR YOURSELF!
-- Dan
Remember: " Buffalo never Oink " Seen on a South Dakota travel brocure.
Advertisment: Try the Railway Post Office , a railfan BBS ! (612) 377-2197.
UUCP: {crash tcnet}!orbit!pnet51!rambler
INET: rambler@pnet51.orb.mn.orgjoe@montebello.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Joe Dellinger) (04/15/91)
In article <4607@orbit.cts.com>, rambler@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Dan Meyer) writes: |> There is nothing, yes, NOTHING that we can do here on the planet that will |> cause global changes in the earth's climate! Are you serious? It's amazing what people can do and have done. You're just used to it so you don't realize it was ever any different. Examples: 1) Fly in an airplane over the great plains. Almost every acre of land in the entire great plains has been plowed, destroying the tall-grass prairie that used to be there. 2) Fly in an airplane over the former great Eastern forests. Almost every acre of land has been cleared for agriculture, destroying the old-growth forest that used to be there. 3) The Golden Hills of California are due to introduced grasses. The native grasses stay green in the summer. 4) I have yet to encounter a native bird in Hawaii. I've seen all sorts of interesting birds, but except for a few shore birds that habitually fly across oceans they were all introduced by man within the last 150 years. Some of the most common ones were only introduced in the last 15 years! We're in the middle of a mass extinction event, human-caused. 5) At the AGU somebody was showing several spectrograms they had taken spanning a period of years showing absorption bands from various atmospheric constituents. The lines for various nasty manmade ozone-eating compounds were plainly visible, and were plainly getting stronger each year. 6) There is mounting evidence that most ancient civilizations collapsed because of environmental suicide. If the modern world collapses the same way (which now seems quite likely) it's going to be one hell of a ride down. You're right in one sense: Nature can easily outdo us. A massive volcanic eruption, a significant meteor strike, etc, would do more to alter the environment than anything people have done so far. BUT, that's like saying that at any time a burglar could break down the front door and shoot my family dead, so I might as well leave loaded guns lying about all over the house where my children can play with them. Sure, there is nothing people could do to destroy all life on the planet, just like one crazed man with a gun couldn't destroy an entire metropolis. But we aren't "all life on Earth". We are one species. Most of our close genetic relatives are long extinct, and the few hangers-on are on the brink of extinction in the wild. Do you really want to turn all the madman loose with guns just because they can't kill everybody? Isn't it enough to try to stop them because they could kill _you_? /\ /\ /\/\/\/\/\/\/\.-.-.-.-.......___________ / \ / \ /Hawaii Institute of Geophysics, Honolulu\/\/\.-.-....__ ___/ \/ \/Joe Dellinger, Internet: joe@montebello.soest.hawaii.edu\/\.-.__
dsm@prism.gatech.EDU (Daniel McGurl) (04/15/91)
In article <4607@orbit.cts.com> rambler@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Dan Meyer) writes: >There is nothing, yes, NOTHING that we can do here on the planet that will >cause global changes in the earth's climate! Wonderful assertion. If only life were so simple... Don't you think that a full scale nuclear war would cause a rather significant environment change? I somehow think that it would change the system pretty drasticly. Or perhaps you never read "Silent Spring" by rachael Carson. It was a pretty chilling example of what the chemical pesticides that used to be so prevelant were doing to the eco-system. >For example, the planet belches >all sorts of pollutants into the atmosphere in far greater quantities than >man could ever dream of doing. I have had it up to -here- with all of these >_Chicken Little_ the-sky-is-fal Do you remember basic chemistry when they put you in a lab and you added drops to another liquid until it changed color (the titration expirments)? I'm not saying that we have to worry that we are putting in that last drop that will cause a massive shift, but should we take the chance. >ling types (the media included) who believe >that life as we know it will be significantly altered due to man's pilligang >of the planet. Well, consider CO2. I'm not that worried about the greenhouse effect, but it appears that the tempature is rising. It might be a local fluctuation, but it's smart to take precautions. We are using fossil fuels at a pretty good clip. Once used, they return most of their carbon into the atmosphere. Meanwhile, we are cutting down some of the trees that have serverd as CO2 sinks for millions of years. >The only reason life is going to be significantly different is >that we start to believe that the sky is falling. Chill out people. Start >thinking about what the media is saying. Consider that they never get anything >right. THINK FOR YOURSELF! It's not just the media. Any number of professionals have esposed theories about the greenhouse effect and the ozone layer. Time may prove those theories wrong, but it's best to play it safe as you can anway. For the record, I think the concern about the Ozone layer damage of the shuttle is overrated for the number of flights that we see and think that people who say that that damage is reason to stop the shuttle is a bit silly, but why not reduce where we can? >-- Dan -- Danny McGurl "How straightforward the game Office of Information Technology and when all its rules are respected." Information and Computer Science Major at: Georgia Institute of Technology ARPA: dsm@prism.gatech.edu
jes@wookie.ess.harris.com (Jim Stroud) (04/15/91)
In <4607@orbit.cts.com> rambler@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Dan Meyer) writes: >People, poeple, people... >I have had it up to -here- with all of these >_Chicken Little_ the-sky-is-falling types (the media included) Wait a minute and I'll check on Chicken Little ...... ..................................................(Done) Chicken Little is dead and decaying in a puddle of gunk outside your home. I wonder how that happened..... (Film at 11:00) > THINK FOR YOURSELF! Do us a favor ... DON'T THINK FOR your SELF !!! -- James (JIM) Stroud jes@wookie.ess.harris.com | GISD - "Home of Harris Corporation - GOV INFO SYS DIV =====>/\ | the MOBILE P.O. POX 98000 Melbourne, FL 32902 ====>/__\ | MILESTONES" (407)984-5652 (407)984-5673 oo |
rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs.com (04/15/91)
In article <4607@orbit.cts.com>, rambler@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Dan Meyer) writes: > People, poeple, people... > > There is nothing, yes, NOTHING that we can do here on the planet that will > cause global changes in the earth's climate! For example, the planet belches > all sorts of pollutants into the atmosphere in far greater quantities than > man could ever dream of doing. I have had it up to -here- with all of these > _Chicken Little_ the-sky-is-falling types (the media included) who believe > that life as we know it will be significantly altered due to man's pilligang > of the planet. The only reason life is going to be significantly different is > that we start to believe that the sky is falling. Chill out people. Start > thinking about what the media is saying. Consider that they never get anything > right. THINK FOR YOURSELF! This is a joke, right? The depletion of the ozone layer has been scientifically documented, and the Arabian Gulf is full of dead animals. The skies over the recent warzone are blackened with oil fire smoke, which has been suggested as a possible cause of the recent ( and completly unexpected) heavy rains here in Southern California. We DO affect this planet, by virtue of the sheer numbers of us. Michael
jmethot@vicorp.com (John Methot) (04/15/91)
In article <3162@borg.cs.unc.edu> leech@homer.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) writes: >In article <1991Apr12.163103.11472@welch.jhu.edu>, jimh@welch.jhu.edu (Jim Hoffman) writes: >> I have heard some rumors that the shuttle has caused more damage to the ozone >> layer than all of the CFCs combined. > > You're not the only one hearing rumors. The following is taken >from "Censored Stories of the Year," ... > > #4 on the list this year is: > "NASA Shuttles destroy the ozone shield. > (SSU Star, Earth Island Journal, San Francisco Chronicle) > > ...each time a U.S. space shuttle is launched, 187 tons of > ozone-eating molecules are released into the atmosphere... > ... a single shuttle flight can destroy up to 10 million > tons of ozone. It would take only 300 shuttle flights to > completely destroy the ozone. > > ...claims by Dr. Helen Caldicott...that ``with each launch, > 25 percent of the ozone is destroyed. So far the space shuttle > has destroyed 10 percent of the ozone.'' A typo in Mr. Leech's transcription of this story makes these claims sound ridiculous. The story I read said "with each launch, .25 percent..." > Lenny Siegel of the SF-based Military Toxics Network...said > a single launch of the space shuttle damaged the ozone layer of > the atmosphere as much as an entire year of industrial emissions > of CFCs from a single factory. While I would call myself an environmentalist, I do believe in little things like logic and fact. What kind of factory? Producing what and how much? This statement makes no sense without that information. > In the absence of reviewed research, I think this is all a bunch >of hooey. The Shuttle may well damage the ozone layer but not >severely or over a long period. 187 tons/flight I might believe. I've been an advocate of space exploration all my life, so like most readers of this group I have a bias toward backing space exploration programs. I would, however, like to see responses to this story from people who work in the field - not just "Who are these loonies - it can't be true" knee-jerk reaction.
torbortc@clutx.clarkson.edu (Tadd,KA2DEW, ,3152621123) (04/16/91)
From article <4607@orbit.cts.com>, by rambler@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Dan Meyer): > People, poeple, people... > > There is nothing, yes, NOTHING that we can do here on the planet that will > cause global changes in the earth's climate! For example, the planet belches > all sorts of pollutants into the atmosphere in far greater quantities than > man could ever dream of doing. I have had it up to -here- with all of these > _Chicken Little_ the-sky-is-falling types (the media included) who believe > that life as we know it will be significantly altered due to man's pilligang > of the planet. The only reason life is going to be significantly different is > that we start to believe that the sky is falling. Chill out people. Start > thinking about what the media is saying. Consider that they never get anything > right. THINK FOR YOURSELF! Dan, This is a very scary attitude. One neat thing that the earth has done whilst 'belches all sorts of..in far greater quantities' is to cause whole classes of animal life to disappear and to cover the planet with ice for geologic ages. I'm really not into having that happen in the near future and I'd just as well not be part of trying to compete with such an affect. I've also had proof presented to me that species that I have been familiar with have become extinct in my own lifetime due to man-made climactic changes. One of the reasons that I feel that the space program is SO important is that I believe that only space-based resources are going to be sufficient to allow us humans to save ourselves down the road. And if we don't have a man-presence outside of the gravity well of Earth it may not be possible to utilize those resources. What's more important is that it is people who believe that the Earth is an unlimited resource that are going to get us in trouble (and are already getting us in trouble). "It's not my problem" he said, "I'm only messing it up a little bit", "It's everybody else whose not worrying!". It's time to panic, Dan. Now. Tadd Torborg Once again a student at Clarkson University [ KA2DEW @ KA2JXI.#NNY.NY.USA.NA - Tadd Torborg ] [ torbortc@clutx.clarkson.edu - 26 Maple St - PO Box 330 ] [ NEDA (North East Digital Association) Editor - Colton, NY 13625 ] [ Clarkson University - 315-262-1123 ]
leech@homer.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) (04/16/91)
In article <1991Apr15.142006.6471@vicorp.com>, jmethot@vicorp.com (John Methot) writes: > In article <3162@borg.cs.unc.edu> leech@homer.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) writes: >> ...claims by Dr. Helen Caldicott...that ``with each launch, >> 25 percent of the ozone is destroyed. So far the space shuttle >> has destroyed 10 percent of the ozone.'' > > A typo in Mr. Leech's transcription of this story makes these claims sound > ridiculous. The story I read said "with each launch, .25 percent..." That was the way it was printed in the local alternative newspaper I transcribed it from. Not my doing. I think it sounds ridiculous either way, but I'm willing to be convinced. I am unaware of Dr. Helen Caldicott having a background in atmospheric research that makes her statement credible in the absence of supporting data. >> Lenny Siegel of the SF-based Military Toxics Network...said >> a single launch of the space shuttle damaged the ozone layer of >> the atmosphere as much as an entire year of industrial emissions >> of CFCs from a single factory. > > While I would call myself an environmentalist, I do believe in little > things like logic and fact. What kind of factory? Producing what and > how much? This statement makes no sense without that information. Please identify the parts of the article I was quoting (as this was) as opposed to my statements. I don't wish to be associated in any way with this position, I was simply summarizing it. >> In the absence of reviewed research, I think this is all a bunch >>of hooey. The Shuttle may well damage the ozone layer but not >>severely or over a long period. 187 tons/flight I might believe. This on the other hand was mine. |> I've been an advocate of space exploration all my life, so like most readers |> of this group I have a bias toward backing space exploration programs. I |> would, however, like to see responses to this story from people who work |> in the field - not just "Who are these loonies - it can't be true" knee-jerk |> reaction. I don't consider mine a knee-jerk reaction. This "censored story" is very much along the lines of the Galileo RTG "make Florida uninhabitable" flap which was in *last* year's top 10. That one was more than adequately debunked in sci.space. The references are still online waiting for the next time it comes up, too :-) -- Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu) __@/ ``Thus Mathematics helps / our brains and hands and feet and can make / a race of supermen out of us.'' - The Education of T. C. Mits
steve@groucho.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson) (04/16/91)
In <4607@orbit.cts.com> rambler@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Dan Meyer) writes: >There is nothing, yes, NOTHING that we can do here on the planet that will >cause global changes in the earth's climate! ... An interesting assertion. References please. I believe that as long as the fires in Kuwait burn, the climate of that region of the Earth will be considerably cooler. This would appear to be prima facie evidence that your assertion is false. Steve Emmerson steve@unidata.ucar.edu ...!ncar!unidata!steve
munk@cft.philips.nl (Harm Munk) (04/16/91)
In article <3162@borg.cs.unc.edu> leech@homer.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) writes: > "A report by Gar Smith in the fall issue of _Earth Island Journal_ > restated the warnings of two Soviet rocket scientists that > originally appeared in _South_ magazine - that each time a U.S. > space shuttle is launched, 187 tons of ozone-eating molecules are ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Watch this: it says ozone eating molecules, not ozone molecules. > released into the atmosphere. According to Valery Burdakov, who > helped design the USSR's Energiya rocket engine, and his colleague > V. Filin, a single shuttle flight can destroy up to 10 million > tons of ozone. It would take only 300 shuttle flights to > completely destroy the ozone. > > My comments: There seem to be a number of contradictory estimates, >of ozone loss above. We have 187 tons/flight, 10 million tons/flight, ^^^^^^^^ No, no, ozone eating molecules are not ozone molecules (yet :-) >25 %/flight, and 10% / ~30 flights (I don't see how these two figures >can be resolved in the same sentence). These estimates don't even >come close to agreeing, and the percentage estimates don't take into >account the natural regeneration of ozone in the upper atmosphere. > > In the absence of reviewed research, I think this is all a bunch >of hooey. The Shuttle may well damage the ozone layer but not >severely or over a long period. 187 tons/flight I might believe. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Oops, there you go again. > Make of this what you will (don't flame me, I'm just quoting the >article). It would be interesting to hear the original material from >Burdakov. So would I. And don't forget that the Energya is used for commercial launches, so mr. Burdakov might be trying to sell 'his' launcher as environmental friendly. On the other hand, if the shuttle exhaust does destroy some ozone, that would be a bit wry, don't you think: putting up satellites to study the destruction of the ozone layer with an ozone layer destroying launch vehicle. But let's leave speculation and go back to science. What component in the shuttle exhaust destroys the ozone by which reaction. It must be something in the SRB plumes, because the main engines burn LOX and LH to simple, hot steam. Anyone like to elucidate me ? +----------------------------------------+------------------------------------+ | Harm Munk | | | Philips Centre for Software Technology | | | Knowledge Base Systems Group | #include <standard.disclaimer> | | Room HKJ-p833 | | | 5600 MD EINDHOVEN | | | The Netherlands | | +----------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) (04/18/91)
In article <4607@orbit.cts.com>, Dan Meyer (dm) writes:
dm> There is nothing, yes, NOTHING that we can do here on the planet that will
dm> cause global changes in the earth's climate!
I suppose the Sahara is a myth?
The balance of the climate is maintained by various species, not by
magic. We (along with our hangers on such as cattle) are just as
capable of making changes as any other species.
dm> For example, the planet belches
dm> all sorts of pollutants into the atmosphere in far greater quantities than
dm> man could ever dream of doing.
The problem isn't the volume but the rate of change. Which is not to
say I am sure that the sky is faling, just that it is silly to state
categorically that it could not do so.
One of the major polutants that gets `belched' into the atmosphere is
oxygen, I assume that no piddling little micro-organism could ever
totally change the composition of the atmosphere?
--
rjc@cstr.ed.ac.ukrambler@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Dan Meyer) (04/19/91)
rivero@dev8a.mdcbbs.com writes: >In article <4607@orbit.cts.com>, rambler@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Dan Meyer) writes: >> People, poeple, people... >> >> There is nothing, yes, NOTHING that we can do here on the planet that will >> cause global changes in the earth's climate! For example, the planet belches >> all sorts of pollutants into the atmosphere in far greater quantities than >> man could ever dream of doing. I have had it up to -here- with all of these >> _Chicken Little_ the-sky-is-falling types (the media included) who believe >> that life as we know it will be significantly altered due to man's pilligang >> of the planet. The only reason life is going to be significantly different is >> that we start to believe that the sky is falling. Chill out people. Start >> thinking about what the media is saying. Consider that they never get anything >> right. THINK FOR YOURSELF! > >This is a joke, right? The depletion of the ozone layer has been scientifically >documented, and the Arabian Gulf is full of dead animals. The skies over >the recent warzone are blackened with oil fire smoke, which has been suggested >as a possible cause of the recent ( and completly unexpected) heavy rains >here in Southern California. > >We DO affect this planet, by virtue of the sheer numbers of us. > >Michael The Depletion of the ozone layer is documented? *where*? 150 years of weather data do not provide enough data to support any meteorlogical norms, and the media is crying " global warming, global warming!!!" and " the ozone is going, the ozone is going!! ". How can you support your claim that your baseline is not artificially way too high, and what is taking place is perfectly normal. Almost all of the population has no idea how massive the ozone layer (and other parts of the atmosphere) is. Whatever the amount of freons that we are emmitting into the is, it seems to me that it amounts to less than a drop in the proverbial bucket. I stand by my original statement. -- Dan Meyer Remember: " Buffalo never Oink " Seen on a South Dakota travel brocure. Advertisment: Try the Railway Post Office , a railfan BBS ! (612) 377-2197. UUCP: {crash tcnet}!orbit!pnet51!rambler INET: rambler@pnet51.orb.mn.org
dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Perry G Ramsey) (04/19/91)
In article <4649@orbit.cts.com>, rambler@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Dan Meyer) writes: > > The Depletion of the ozone layer is documented? *where*? Lotsa places. The observations by the British Antarctic Survey are a good start, as are SAGE II satellite obs. You might look into "Scientific Assessment of Stratosperic Ozone: 1989", published by the World Meteorological Association (Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project - Report No. 20), produced by NASA, UK Department of the Environment, NOAA, United Nations Environment Program, and the WMO. > 150 years of weather > data do not provide enough data to support any meteorlogical norms, Essentially true, but being unable to prove that you have a problem is not the same as proving that you don't have a problem. > and the > media is crying " global warming, global warming!!!" and " the ozone is going, > the ozone is going!! ". How can you support your claim that your baseline is > not artificially way too high, and what is taking place is perfectly normal. On the global warming issue, very few reputable scientists would claim that CO2 induced climate change is a certainty. Virtually all would, however, contend that the physical mechanisms are plausible, and that the evidence supports the theory. As far as the ozone going, it is certain that it is going over the Antarctic in the Spring. Everywhere else, well, that's not so certain, but again, the physical mechanisms are plausible, and the data supports the theory. On an almost comical (if it weren't so dangerous) side note, we may be generating enough ozone at the surface (where it is a very toxic pollutant) to counteract the loss of stratospheric ozone. I'm not sure that's the right approach. > > Almost all of the population has no idea how massive the ozone layer (and > other parts of the atmosphere) is. Whatever the amount of freons that we are > emmitting into the is, it seems to me that it amounts to less than a drop in > the proverbial bucket. Freons in themselves are a very small constituent, of the atmosphere, but they represent a great perturbation in the stratospheric chlorine budget. Normally, it is very difficult to get free chlorine into the stratosphere, because it is scavenged by a wide variety of tropospheric processes. CFC's, OTOH, diffuse through the tropopause unchanged. They don't break down in the troposphere because there is very little UV. Once they reach the stratosphere, they break down by photolysis, releasing free chlorine, which CATALYZES the destruction of odd oxygen. Hence, each chlorine destroys thousands of ozone molecules before it gets lost. The Shuttle, and all solid rocket boosted launch vehicles, also deposit a lot of chlorine directly into the stratosphere, hence the problem. Calculations of the quantity of chlorine indicate that the Shuttle at its current (dismal) launch rate does not represent a major threat. > > I stand by my original statement. Then you're standing in a very dangerous place. -- Perry G. Ramsey Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN USA perryr@purccvm Sometimes history repeats itself; sometimes it doesn't. So get good odds.
holloway@chaos.utexas.edu (Bill Holloway) (04/20/91)
Another important thing to realize about earth's climate system is
that it is a dynamical system subject to delicate instabilities and
subsequent alterations in its steady-state condition.
That is, we don't necessarily need to fill the atmosphere with harmful
chemicals in order to alter the climate. All we REALLY need to do is upset
the delicate balance that keeps the climate in its current "temperate" state.
If we knock the climate into an instability, who knows what steady-state will
result? Some stability analyses predict that the current insolation value
supports both an ice-age type steady-state solution as well as a greenhouse
type steady-state.
Thus any damage we do is dangerous.holloway@chaos.utexas.edu (Bill Holloway) (04/20/91)
The depletion of the ozone is not documented in long-standing meteorological time series, that's true. But there is extremely compelling evidence from other sources. Chief among these is the formation and year- by-year intensification of the polar night antarctic ozone hole. This is part of my area of scientific research and I would be glad to provide you references or titles of papers you can read on the subject.
eschner@dev8c.mdcbbs.com (04/22/91)
In article <7280@mace.cc.purdue.edu>, dil@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Perry G Ramsey) writes: > On an almost comical (if it weren't so dangerous) side note, we may be > generating enough ozone at the surface (where it is a very toxic > pollutant) to counteract the loss of stratospheric ozone. I'm not > sure that's the right approach. I think we've moved away from the shuttle topic, but ...... :) The above quote is something I've been wondering for a while. I was going to ask before I saw the above. It seems to me that we are crying about not enough ozone in the upper atmosphere, but here in L.A. we are complaining about too much ozone (smog) where we breathe. It's too bad we can't move the ozone around. (I was just wondering. I'm NOT trying to start any more wars here.) -- ====================================================================== | Brian D. Eschner | Voice: (714) 952-5844 | | Sr. Software Engineer | Fax: (714) 952-6071 | | McDonnell Douglas M&E | Internet: eschner@dev8c.mdcbbs.com | | 5701 Katella Ave. | UUCP: uunet!dev8c.mdcbbs!eschner | | Cypress, CA 90630 | PSI: PSI%31060099980019::DEV8C::ESCHNER | ======================================================================
joefish@disk.uucp (joefish) (04/24/91)
In article <47529@ut-emx.uucp> holloway@chaos.ut.UUCP (Bill Holloway) writes: > > The depletion of the ozone is not documented in long-standing >meteorological time series, that's true. But there is extremely compelling >evidence from other sources. Chief among these is the formation and year- >by-year intensification of the polar night antarctic ozone hole. This is >part of my area of scientific research and I would be glad to provide you >references or titles of papers you can read on the subject. While I have seen many horror stories about how ozone is being destroyed, I have yet to see a single story on how ozone is created. I had a clothes dryer in the 1950's that had a UV bulb that was supposed to sterilize the clothes with ozone, and if that little bulb could make enough ozone that I could smell it, then the sun must be able to make an awful lot of ozone. In fact, it seems to me that the amount of ozone production should be almost proportional to the amount of UV that gets through the upper atmosphere to where there is more oxygen, which I assume is involved in the formation of atmospheric ozone. Am I wrong in thinking that ozone is made by UV, and am I wrong in thinking that more is formed if there is less to block the UV from penetrating the upper atmosphere? Joe Fischer joefish@disk.UUCP