From: dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Richard Dyrda)
Subject: Re: Steering Clinton onto the right track
Keywords: hubris
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 20:35:03 GMT

>In article <1992Nov18.193748.29759@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov18.145201.1606@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> dyrda@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Richard Dyrda) writes:
>> Ok say that 0.01% of these chlorine agents reach the actual ozone.
>>Now lets say its roughly 10,000,000,000 particles of chlorine (I'm
>>no chemist what is the actual amount?) That is 100,000,000 particles
>>that reach the ozone per eruption. Say on average there is one eruption
>>every ten years (and going 1,000,000 years back) this is 
>>10,000,000,000,000 particles in the ozone. While it may not get there 
>>all that often they have been there a lot longer and in much larger
>>quantities than CFC's (which are being phased out by 1996).
>
>Um, what's a particle of chlorine? Surely you don't mean a molecule? That
>would amount to about a nanogram. 
>
>Anyway, you are obviously talking without knowing what you are talking
>about. The point Carl made about the atmospheric lifetime of the particles
>seems to have escaped you completely. The half-life of volcanic emission
>atmospheric residence time is on the order of a year. So there's only about
>a year's worth of volcanic emissions in the stratosphere on average.
>By comparison, the half life of the anthropogenic compounds under consideration
>is about a century. (In both cases, the product that is eventually flushed
>out is HCl.)

 Still compare the actual amounts! Comparing 50 years of CFC's to
millions of years of volcanic activity has shown that the ozone can take
these amounts of reactive chemicals. Not only this, the ozone level
has been known to be in a sort of cycle. Case in point, look at the
1964 Air Force study on Ozone Activity, the data they collected matched
perfectly with the data taken in 1989.

>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.

>Again, you show not the remotest knowledge of the subject. If you had gone so
>far as to read the Scientific American article (January 1988) you would know
>that the question isn't the amount of ozone in the Antarctic, but the
>preciptious decline in that amount that began around 1970, not correlated
>with any volcanic activity.

 Again use your common sense! Ozone levels have been known to sway massively
from year to year. This isn't a consistent decline, like the use of CFC's
are. Since CFC's are being phased out we will have to wait and see. Even
with CFC half-lifes being upwards around 100 years, there concentrations 
are affected by wind patterns, sun spots, and any other little climate
affects. My point is that it is a natural cycle that has risen the level
of paranoidness in the world, just liek when the scientists said it was
possible for Haley's Comet to crash into the earth.

>If you really knew your stuff, you would know that actually there is less
>column ozone closer to the equator and this is monotonic up to latitude
>+/- 70 degrees or so. You would also know that the depletion occurs in the
>spring AFTER the sun comes out and solar energy is an essential feature
>of chlorine catalyzed ozone destruction. 

 Yes the spring, but still 6 months with out sun. Like someone stated 
before it is a slow process. I'm not arguing whether I'm a atmospheric
scientist, my argument is that it is a cycle, however all you seem to 
care about is throwing around your weight and "one-sided" knowledge.
Once again goto a large library and ask them if they have the Air Force
1964 Report on Ozone Depletion and the NASA one in 1989. Compare the
results and see if you see a difference.
 
>> Everything isn't scientific, remember theoretically I can put my
>>hand through a desk w/o touching it.
>
>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.

>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?
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Richard Dyrda                         |  "I'm your ice cream man stop
School of Nuclear Engineering         |   when I'm passing by!! They say
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory |   all my flavors are guaranteed 
c/o Purdue University                 |   to satisy!!" Van Halen 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=