Re: The sky is falling

The vast majority of scientists have believed a lot of things that eventually were proven to be wrong. Regardless of their "feelings," consensus is not science Good thing we did not believe those that told us we were headed into another ice age, because of pollution, just a few years ago. Back then like today, we MUST act now before it is too late I prefer to see proof, rather than feeling, since other scientist say the rise in the CO2 level FOLLOWS rise in temperature, not the other way around

Reply to
Mike hunt
Loading thread data ...

Ozone, both O and O3, is very unstable. They both give up heat when they break down, in the case of O3 to O2, or combine in the case of O, to form O2. O2 is the most stable form of Oxygen.

A molecule of O2 is just the right size to absorb energy from UV radiation. This increases the energy level of the O2 molecule until it reaches the level needed to break the bonds between the 2 atoms of O and it splits. The resulting 2 atoms will then either recombine, giving up the energy as heat, or they will combine with two other molecules of O2 to form 2 molecules of O3 and give up heat. The O3 molecule will bump into an atom of O, giving up an atom of O to form 2 molecules of O2. And then the dance starts over again.

So, it isn't the existance of Ozone (either O or O3) that protects the Earth's surface from UV, it's the formation of Ozone the transforms the UV to IR energy. Take away either UV radiation or O2 from the upper atmosphere and the Ozone will disappear in a short time. Guess what, the Sun really doesn't give much energy to the South pole when it's summer in the North.

This from high school physics classes of about 1962.

Jack

Reply to
Retired VIP

Only if one chooses to believe what has been learned through science and the scientific method.

If I am incorrect, why don't you do us all favor and show us the references that show I am incorrect? You could also correct Wikipedia and send a letter to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

I am sure they will benefit from your knowledge.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

Have you read the IPCC? You're right. Feelings are not science, nor is consensus.

As you point out, science is self-correcting. It corrected the previous conclusion that the earth was cooling.

And, so far, you have done nothing to show that the earth is not warming up.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

Actually, ozone is only O3.

However, ozone blocks UV light much better than oxygen (O2).

A lot has been learned about oxygen and ozone in the last 45 years. You should read about it. It was found that ozone (O3) is what really blocks the UV and that destroying the ozone in the upper atmosphere is not a good thing.

You should read about it.

Reply to
Jeff

Then what is O?

If so, then why does Ozone break down into O2 and O?

You need to ask yourself, "How did the Ozone get there in the first place?" You talk like you're an expert on the chemistry of Oxygen, what are your qualifications? What exactly that is new has been learned about Oxygen and Ozone in the last 45 years? Are you just repeating what the folks say who are getting rich of this?

My qualification on this subject is a high school education that dates from a time when my class mates didn't have to take remedial general math to get into an engineering college.

Jack

Reply to
Retired VIP

Oxygen atom.

Because it is not stable.

Why don't you read about ozone hole and the chemicals that were eliminated from aerosols that protected the ozone hole?

In high school, I took general physics, chemistry and AP chemistry, which meant that I did not have to take the first half of chemistry course.

I have a minor in biochemistry, which required college level chemistry, organic chemistry, biology, biochemistry and biophysical chemistry. I also took college level physics as well as graduate level courses in biology and biochemistry, as well as other college and graduate level biology courses.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

Yeah, science today is exactly like it was in the 15th century.

Consensus is how science works.

No scientist, no scientific journal, no scientific article said we were headed to an ice age.

Hint: Newsweek is not a scientific journal.

OK, I demand to see proof of atoms. Can you provide some? If not, by your standards, you must admit atoms do not exist.

Reply to
Lloyd

Oh Mike - you should know the answer to that by now: "Anyone who believes that by definition is not a scientist" (even though that's the truth, but they aren't concerned for truth, especially truth that is

*INCONVENIENT* for them). Come on Mike - Get with the program!!!! :)

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

As well as some scientists who have publicly stated that they way the report was assembled was a disgrace to true science. But of course you will claim that any such so-called scientists aren't real scientists (by definition). The left is carrying out a character assassination campaign on those involved in denouncing the IPCC report. Truth has nothing to do with it. Science has nothing to do with it.

And of course you will ignore NASA's reversal on that (links previously posted). Care to know which was the warmest year on record? (hint: it was before 1950)

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

I bow to your superior knowledge. Ozone exists in the upper atmosphere because it blocks UV and is unstable. It just magically appears after it disappears. Yeah, right.

Oh, and the Tooth Fairy is a good friend of the Easter Bunny!

Dow Chemical lost the patent extension request on Freon. They made some big donations to some obscure environmental groups and suddenly the disappearance of Ozone over the South Pole in the winter was a big disaster and we needed to ban Freon. Oh, by the way, Dow Chemical has a NEW and IMPROVED version of Freon that will work almost as well. Patent? Well sure, we need to recoup our developmental costs!

Jack

Reply to
Retired VIP

Only if you consider lightning 'MAGIC' as lightning is one of the natural occurrences that produce ozone

Reply to
PC Medic

And there are bunches of man-made ozone producing events (such as welding, production of electrical sparks as in electric motor commutation), but they are generally close to the ground.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

I doubt you would have made a mistake of such magnitude if the subject had been within your areas of expertise.

Why? It's readily available in air and is the most practical and cheap way to inflate tires.

Reply to
Johnny Hageyama

Plants eventually die and release CO2. And higher concentrations of CO2 don't necessarily lead to more plant growth, and some types of plants benefit much less from the extra CO2 than others do.

Reply to
Johnny Hageyama

Dow Chemical never lost the patent on Freon because Freon was invented by DuPont Chemical, and I don't believe they ever transferred all the patent rights to Dow. Furthermore the patent on Freon ran out long before major concerns were raised about ozone layer depletion, some time in the late 1960s.

Reply to
Johnny Hageyama

Ozone exists in the upper atmosphere because it is a result of chemical reactions involving lightning and other things in the upper atmosphere.

Not magically. But by known chemical reactions.

I don't believe in either.

Actually, it had far more to do with research done by scientists that showed the ozone hole was growing.

Before you go and make an ass of yourself by saying things that are completely made up, I suggest you educate yourself on the science and facts surrounding ozone and the ozone hole.

One source is wikipedia, which has many references:

formatting link
Unless you are able to say something that shows you understand the subject, I am not going to waste my time responding to you.

Until then, I rest my case.

Jeff

Reply to
Jeff

I guess one can believe that if the choose

Reply to
Mike hunt

Seems the "man is the cause" global warming theorists would like to pass laws that to ban nature from producing Ozone and CO2. After all nature is the largest producer of those gasses. Much like current laws, that set fines for manufacturers that produce ozone.

We are all enviromentalists in that we do not want to poop where we eat, but the "environuts" do not want us to eat so we need not deal with the poop. How much longer are we going to allow the environuts to run the asylum? LOL

Reply to
Mike hunt

Actually, it was not.

You should find and read the Newsweek article. There was speculation only: "If this happens, cooling could occur." No scientist was predicting cooling was going to occur.

Yes it was.

formatting link
Look at # 7.

Reply to
Lloyd

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.