Wharfie, the scientists seem rather ignorant of the ozone hole formation process, being surprised that the hole forms over the Antarctica. <The scientists who demonstrated the ozone-eating ability of CFCs—they would later earn a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the work—believed that the degradation high in the atmosphere would be slow, taking perhaps hundreds of years. Yet the ozone shield was disintegrating quickly. "And the thinning wasn't supposed to show up over Antarctica first," Solomon recalls, "since that's not where these chemicals were being used." >
Gases flow around in the atmosphere really quickly. It's windy. There are huge clouds with vast updrafts and hurricanes really get things moving, including buildings which are trying to hold onto the ground. While the northern and southern hemispheres operate somewhat independently, there is a vast diffusion zone and turbulence across the equator. Like a fart in a room, it soon diffuses from one side of the room to the other.
I suppose that's what they mean. Surely they didn't think ozone holes would form over population centres such as Los Angeles and New York.
And why on Earth would they think it would take hundreds of years for CFCs to strip out ozone? Chemistry happens a lot faster than that. Once it's in place, it reacts if conditions are right. It doesn't wait until day after tomorrow. There's no half life.
And, many people who write about it seem surprised when each spring there is an ozone hole. During winter it is dark. Pitch black! There is no incoming high energy light to smash up oxygen into ozone, so the CFC/O2 reaction process can continue apace. In summer, it gets really sunny, all day long, meaning constant sunshine and lots of ozone formation. Filling in the "hole". Which isn't actually a hole. It's just a reduction and increase of ozone.
In the 1980s, I spent a fair bit of time on ozone protection in my BP Oil days. Now, we never hear about the terrible ozone hole problem. It looks as though the huge catastrophe went away really quickly. Acid rain was another big catastrophe which has disappeared as a problem in a decade.
I'm not suggesting ozone depletion, acid rain, soot and other pollutants weren't problems, just that they didn't turn out to be big catastrophes as alleged. When it was accepted that they were problems, flue gas desulphurisation and scrubbing, and other solutions can be developed easily enough at reasonable cost.
There's a nickel smelter near Sudbury [Canada] and it was fascinating to see [in 1977] the moonscape surrounding it where all living things were gone, I suppose due to pollution. I imagine it is now green again. The Manukau Harbour [by, on and in which I grew up] was completely killed by many sources of pollution [sewage, abattoir, steel mill, rubbish dump, road and other effluent]. When I say killed, I mean stone dead! Maybe there were still bacteria, but I couldn't see any worms, shells, nothing. It had been seething with everything when I was young. Now, 16 years after seeing it in its dead state, it is now very rapidly coming back to life. Give it another 5 years and it'll be full blast. All the pollution has been stopped [nearly all and certainly hugely reduced in all respects].
The current excitement is Greenhouse Effect/Global Warming/Climate Change.
So far, I think CO2 increases have been very good for us and a lot more besides. CO2 is the foundation of the ecosphere. It had been stripped for hundreds of millions of years by the biosphere and geomorphological and tectonic processes, and dumped into permanent graves in Earth's crust.
CO2 isn't toxic, unlike lead, mercury, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide etc. Okay, it is if we get serious levels. But going from 200 parts per million to 400 ppm isn't a big deal. It takes about 70,000 ppm to poison people. At 20,000 ppm, most people are unaware of the CO2. inspect-ny.com
So we have a long way to go before we run out of breath. Though athletes would find their performance reduced at much much lower levels. Even at 400 ppm, world record times in distance running would be reduced.
It's funny seeing everyone getting into biofuels as a solution to the greenhouse effect. That's not going to be the answer. Not oils from crops, but perhaps cellulose could be made into fuel economically. Power stations are much more efficient and the exhaust can be captured, liquefied and put into a lake on the bottom of the ocean if needs be. Electric vehicles with super duper batteries seems a better bet to me. Maybe fuel cells running on methanol.
Peak People combined with improved transport efficiency and cultural change away from 3D transport, will be the main solution [if there turns out to actually be a problem]. Living in Canada is dopey too, requiring a lot of heating in winter and cooling in summer, when it would be better to live in San Diego region and other equable climates.
Mqurice |
