Ozone depletion and CFCs

Ok, this is a topic on the validity of the ozone depletion theory, and the banning of ozone destroying chemicals.

I'll start off by pointing out a few basic facts:



The first thing that strikes you is that the ozone is much thicker around the hole. Which is as one might expect, because if the ultraviolet is hitting the atmosphere horizontally, while the globe is spinning, then the ozone creation will occur in a ring like this, with a hole in the middle.



This is a video of the changing amounts of ozone (left), and UV light (right), as the sun comes up for summer in Antarctica.

It is interesting to note that the hole forms while the sun is coming up... effectively, while the sun is on the horizon or just over the horizon, then the hole disappears as the sun comes up completely and illuminates the whole continent. It is interesting to note that the hole does not exist UNTIL the sun begins to rise.

The UV index, as can be seen on the right, is a measure of the amount of ultraviolet hitting the continent. The areas of the display that are very dark... represent little or no sunlight. Areas of higher colour value represent more sunlight.

There is a direct correlation between the formation of the hole and the antarctic sun-rise months.

At a cursory glance the ozone hole looks as though it is a natural phenomenon, one that is almost entirely predictable by basic physics and climatology. Of course I have still not researched this deeply, and hence would like to hear your arguments for and against this being a man-made affect.

Discuss.

 

Well ozone depletion was used as the excuse for the ban on CFC's, but this debate is over whether or not ozone depletion is actually really caused by CFC's or is even occurring at all.

 

1. Ozone is highly poisonous.

2. Many man-made devices already produce large amounts of ozone.

3. UN aid robs the rich to prop up tyrannical regimes (including those of socialist countries) and thereby extends the longevity of those destructive and evil systems of government. It also disrupts local industry, such as farming, and causes further interruptions in crop production through temporary artificial abundance. It is effectively a form of institutionalized poverty.

 

Do you know if ozone actually stops UV, or if it is the effect of UV being stopped by the atmosphere?

Ozone is created as a result of ionization of oxygen molecules. Running a high voltage current through a volume of air will create ozone. It seems likely to me that ozone is the effect rather than the cause. But perhaps you have evidence that suggests otherwise?

This is a null and fallacious point. The fact that you believe conspiracies do not occur frequently has no impact on the validity of the science behind the ban of CFCs and bromide chemicals. The purpose of a debate is to find and establish the truth or the most likely explanation, not the majority opinion.

 

Ozone probably does block UV, but not because its special. Ozone is just the ionized product of atmospheric oxygen.

If you shine ionizing radiation, such as UV or xrays, onto a gas such as oxygen then ions will undoubtedly form, and chemical reactions will follow. The point is, the UV is being absorbed by the oxygen in its O2 form in order to produce the ozone. The ozone itself is the product of a reaction which effectively blocks UV. But the ozone itself probably blocks UV as well.

So my point is: if there is no ozone, then new ozone is going to form, and most of the UV is probably still going to be blocked, just lower in the atmosphere.

A loss of excessive amounts of ozone *may* lead to increased UV exposure on the surface of the earth. But this is not necessarily the case.

The CFC ban is premised on a hypothesis that certain chlorine and bromine based chemicals react in the upper atmosphere to destroy ozone, and that ozone is necessary for UV protection, and that these chemicals can get up there in the first place, and that these chemicals will react up there to disrupt the natural process.

This debate is over the validity of this hypothesis vs some natural cause.