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.

[youtube]12RBgDt3w-c[/youtube]

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.

 

[thequestionmark]

I was under the impression that our "ozone" problem was much solved by the ban of CFC's... unless I"m misinformed or saying something totally off topic...

 

I was under the impression that our "ozone" problem was much solved by the ban of CFC's... unless I"m misinformed or saying something totally off topic...

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.

 

[Tgump]

It's interesting to note this.

I'd have to say it's more of a natural phenomenon. Why would it only do this right before or as the sun is rising?

If I'm misinterpreting this incorrectly, do tell me. It's 3 in the morning.

 

[waltrulz]

we can make our own Ozone gas, and put it to good use too, such as; water filtration, oder reduction, and much more. since ozone floats over Nitrogen/air it won't be staying in the tropicsphere for long. second it smells really good; just like after a lighting storm, and the sun comes out, that first few mins is crisp air unlike anywhere, no oder, no pollution air. also a globally ban of ozone depleting airsals, The UN should not give aid to these countries that still use them, there mostly 3rd world countries. and finally Global awareness.

 

we can make our own Ozone gas, and put it to good use too, such as; water filtration, oder reduction, and much more. since ozone floats over Nitrogen/air it won't be staying in the tropicsphere for long. second it smells really good; just like after a lighting storm, and the sun comes out, that first few mins is crisp air unlike anywhere, no oder, no pollution air. also a globally ban of ozone depleting airsals, The UN should not give aid to these countries that still use them, there mostly 3rd world countries. and finally Global awareness.

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.

 

[The Fat Controller]

Ozone depletion refers to two different mechanisms. One is the seasonal ozone hole at the poles, the other is the 4% decrease in overall ozone per decade.

CFCs are generally unreactive, and so are able to find their way into the stratosphere, where light breaks them down into their components, chlorine/bromine etc. These then act as catalysts in the breakdown of ozone. The Sun breaking down CFCs in the polar vortices is what causes the ozone hole at the poles.

 

[thequestionmark]

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.

Not everything has to be some scientific conspiracy/manipulation by the government, for example, margarine was promoted for a long time over butter due to health benefits, which new studies have shown to be inaccurate.

Yea, science/politics/business get mixed up when they shouldn't, but I think there was good reason to ban the CFC's to begin with.

 

[Tgump]

Not everything has to be some scientific conspiracy/manipulation by the government, for example, margarine was promoted for a long time over butter due to health benefits, which new studies have shown to be inaccurate.

Over tests of time, what the public majority commonly thought was almost always proven wrong, from the Reichstag fire to the September 11th attacks.

 

Ozone depletion refers to two different mechanisms. One is the seasonal ozone hole at the poles, the other is the 4% decrease in overall ozone per decade.

CFCs are generally unreactive, and so are able to find their way into the stratosphere, where light breaks them down into their components, chlorine/bromine etc. These then act as catalysts in the breakdown of ozone. The Sun breaking down CFCs in the polar vortices is what causes the ozone hole at the poles.

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?

Not everything has to be some scientific conspiracy/manipulation by the government, for example, margarine was promoted for a long time over butter due to health benefits, which new studies have shown to be inaccurate.

Yea, science/politics/business get mixed up when they shouldn't, but I think there was good reason to ban the CFC's to begin with.

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.

 

Even though debates can be swayed by popular opinion, for obvious reasons.

I don't believe there is a direct correlation between CFC's and the ozone hole.
Then again, I still think we need a damned hole in our atmosphere to let all this other shit out.

 

[Deskull]

Are you saying that the sun is causing the OZone Layer depletion? If so I wouldn't doubt it. The sun is responsible for global warming or at-least that is what I think.

 

Technically, the sun is responsible for warming our planet.
We would be screwed without natural global warming.

 

[thequestionmark]

Are you saying that the sun is causing the OZone Layer depletion? If so I wouldn't doubt it. The sun is responsible for global warming or at-least that is what I think.

Are you hallucinating? Ozone/Global Warming not the same thing....

Sythe, I'm confused what you are trying to argue. Are you trying to argue that ozone DOESN'T block UV rays? Are you talking about potential (undevoloped) ways to reintroduce ozone into our atmosphere?

Ultraviolet DOES break up CFC's, and Chlorine DOES react with ozone. Which of these 2 is factually wrong?

I have no doubt that Chlorine can break up Ozone, but I could doubt whether if there's actually enough CFC's to cause the problem.

 

Sythe, I'm confused what you are trying to argue. Are you trying to argue that ozone DOESN'T block UV rays? Are you talking about potential (undevoloped) ways to reintroduce ozone into our atmosphere?

Ultraviolet DOES break up CFC's, and Chlorine DOES react with ozone. Which of these 2 is factually wrong?

I have no doubt that Chlorine can break up Ozone, but I could doubt whether if there's actually enough CFC's to cause the problem.

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.

 

[thequestionmark]

Not really.

o2 becomes ionized
"O2 + photon(radiation< 240 nm) &#8594; 2 O."

UV is at 270 to 400 nm. This is what ozone filters out. There's seems to be a mathematical discrepancy there.

What o2 blocks and what o3 blocks are separate. My source was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone#Ozone_layer, so feel free to prove it wrong if there's better evidence.