View Single Post
  #4  
Old June 12th 06, 01:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.bicycles.rides
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default we are putting a lot s*** into it

Peter Cole wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:


Another parallel to the current global warming debate - some
scientists were convinced that our CFCs were depleting the ozone, and
that this was going to cause horrendous changes in our planet. We
were going to be forced to become mole people to avoid the sun.
Others pointed out the "volcano conundrum", and the fact that the hole
over the south pole was much bigger than the one over the north pole,
even though the industrial / automotive impact would have been a small
fraction of that of the northern hemisphere. Fast forward to today
and scientists have figured out that the ozone hole wasn't really
shrinking as much as they thought, and naturally shrinks and grows.


You are exaggerating and distorting. You are representing sensationalism
as fact and marginal opinion as science. You've really got to move past
Fox News. The atmospheric chemistry is pretty well understood, and most
of the world's leadership came to relatively quick agreement to phase
out CFC's. The economic consequences haven't been as dire as the
hysterics predicted and atmospheric CFC levels have stabilized. It's a
success story, as is that (mostly) of pollution control in the
industrialized West. We could use a few more.


I was quoting from memory, and hadn't read up on the subject for a
number of years. In doing a little digging, it does appear that the
concept of a volcano as a major contributor to the ozone reduction has
been pretty well debunked (at least as THE major contributor - there's
some debate about how much chlorine from a large eruption reaches the
stratosphere it seems). Then there's still the question of why there
is a large hole in the ozone over the hemisphere with very little CFC
production and use, and why there isn't a corresponding one over the
north pole. And the reading I've done does validate the fact that
there is still a lot to learn about the subject, and not yet a real
consensus among all the atmospheric scientists. But you're right, I
was (unintentionally) exaggerating when I brought up the volcano
angle, and was no doubt underestimating the effect of man-made CFCs on
the ozone. Mea culpa.

Still, I remember a lot of panic among soccer moms who seemed to
believe that their progeny would burst into flames if they weren't
slathered with SPF10000 sunscreen before every exposure to the sun,
due to the "hole in the ozone" (which at most resulted in a few %
reduction in ozone in the mid-latitudes). That (IMHO) is the real
similarity between the current global warming hysteria and the ozone
issue. Both have some basis in reality, but have been blown far out
of proportion by skewed and inaccurate, sensationalist reporting.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home