From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Steering Clinton onto the right track
Date: 19 Nov 1992 00:38:37 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Nov18.203503.12198@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu
(Richard Dyrda) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov18.193748.29759@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu
                                                      ---------------------
>>(Michael Tobis) writes:
>>Natural chlorine is predominantly oceanic in origin. Current startospheric
>>chlorine concentrations exceed 4 times the natural background and continue
>>to increase rapidly, even with declining emissions. This is because the
>>time for the lower atmosphere to mix with the stratosphere is about two
>>decades. Thus we can expect stratospheric chlorine concentrations to increase 
>>for some time to come.
>
> Then whats all the worry and fuss about? If it is supposed to rise for
>some time and thereby affect the layer why worry about it. It is a 
>natural cycle.

The worry is that since there's a delay of decades between the time we release
the CFCs and the time we see their effect on the ozone layer, waiting until
there's obviously a major problem with the ozone layer could be suicidal.

Let me make an analogy you might understand:  Suppose you had a loss of coolant
reaction in a reactor, and someone said to you, "The core hasn't melted yet,
what's all the worry and fuss about?  Why don't we wait until the core melts
before we do something drastic like scramming the reactor?"  How would you
react to that?

>>I hope this isn't the brand of theory they are teaching you at nuclear
>>engineering school. Just what theory is that, anyway?
>
> Nope, but there are some things that you need common sense in. This is
>no particular theory either, it is my opnion! Once again why not look
>at some of the true facts instead of second hand info from magazines, who
>usually twist the figures to suit their purposes.

Hmmm.  You seem not to realize that Michael is an atmospheric scientist,
Richard.  You're the one who's getting his information from inferior sources,
not Michael.

>>Maybe you might try to have some idea what you are talking about before
>>sharing your wisdom with the net, especially if you insist on being so
>>smug and snide about it. 
>
> I'm not the one being smug, I'm representing my opinion. If anything
>your the one trying to generate some smug and snide by consistently 
>beriding myself. Again the fact remains that the ozone levels appear
>to be following a cycle/pattern, if you can't accept another opinion
>then what is the point of discussion?

Why should anybody accept so uninformed an opinion as yours?  The first couple
of times you posted, you got polite answers telling you why your claims were
nonsense.  You insist on continuing to push your nonsense, with the apparent
belief that your uninformed opinion is worth more than the opinions of people
who specialize in the field.  You've demonstrated that you haven't the
necessary background to evaluate the problem (your woeful ignorance of basic
chemistry would be enough to make your opinion worthless).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Xref: sparky sci.environment:12870 sci.energy:5584