134a Refrigerant

Top-posting *and* bottom posting... that's a new one on me!

Matt, when you can hang with the big dogs, come back... otherwise, just get back on the porch. __ Steve .

TRANSLATION --> "i cannot provide conclusive evidence, nate"

sure it can be blown around in the wind but it wont reach the stratosphere. not without a volcanic push.

i hope youre just changing what i say to fit your argument, and that you really arent that dense. i never said that it doesnt fall. i said that its concentration wasnt enough to cause a problem.

TRANSLATION --> "im full of shit, nate". :-)

i stated that i follow the rules. HOWEVER, if i thought that what i did was harmful to the environment i stated that i would take greater precautions (such as low loss hose fittings which arent required under the current rules). now, unless youre trolling you shouldnt try so hard to be an ass and actually try to read what someone says.

you yourself admitted to hearing the tech vent in your garage. on the surface the hvac industry has to play the game but in the field its another matter entirely.

lol and you think that gives your statements ANY credibility at all? :-) once upon a time your "scientists" thought the earth was flat! for every liberal scientist there is a conservative scientist who knows better.

And your point is? Really Stephen, you aren't going to change any minds here, and the more you try the more of an asshole you become. You've become what you love to hate...most Conservatives resort to personal attacks when they can't win an argument on facts.

Buh-bye. (plonk)

stratosphere.

Then why is it measured there? Along with CFC? The CFC is coming from space? Volcanos spew CFC?

If the atmosphere layered out like you said it should, we'd all be dead from it... do the math.

Did you have physics in high school or college, Nate?

I've already posted links from reputable scientific organizations, as well as HVAC industry periodicals, supporting my assertion. Nothing I could post would convince you... I've shown that CFCs are found in the stratosphere, in amounts commensurate with the reactions going on. You don't agree... you can't agree, since it would cause you guilt for all the crap you've released into the atmosphere. Your beliefs are convenient... why bother to change?

Yes... we're beginning to see the problem.

Conservative scientists know the earth is flat? Well, then you should be able to post me a link, then, right, Nate? Well do it, and quit screwing around. C'mon, Nate... Conservative Science! I need a good belly laugh... __ Steve .

You see what I mean... __ Steve .

Every month is a bad Bush month where I see it... : ) __ Steve .

can you PROVE otherwise? c'mon you talk about links, show me something CONCLUSIVE (which is all ive asked for!) you CANT.

not if the concentration wasnt there. are you saying that heavier gases rise above lighter gases? answer directly.

TRANSLATION --> "ill try to spin it but yes, im full of shit, nate". :-)

containing NOTHING conclusive.

which means NOTHING.

WRONG. all it would take is CONCLUSIVE evidence which you CANNOT provide so you continue to attempt to spin your horseshit.

If you won't listen to thousands of scientists, what can I hope to do? You can't even prove you're not in a militia!

I'm saying the reason that the atmosphere is not stratified is due to mixing... it's not a closed system, there are thermal and physical forces at work. It's very complex... not like your 'chlorine heavier' model.

You didn't take much science in school, did you?

How to convince an ignorant person? Preponderance of evidence, even assertions by atmospheric scientists don't work. The only reason there's nothing conclusive for you is that there would be *no* evidence that would convince you... you don't have a clue about the scientific method.

Can you give an example of evidence that would satisfy you?

No, it actually means something. I've posted links... suppose *you* post a link. I've asked before... you can't. Go ahead... if it's as you say, then certainly, you could find a link somewhere, supporting your assertion that there's no CFC affect on the ozone layer. We're waiting...

Begging the question.... 'all it would take is conclusive evidence'. This is a logical fallacy... one of the biggies. You don't know how science works, you can't even keep the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan straight!

Post a link! *One* link.... any link... that shows that there is no CFC affect on the ozone layer. __ Steve .

Just what am I supposed to be 'miss lead' ing about? The fact is, you can't show *one link* that supports your assertion that CFCs don't affect the ozone layer... that's pretty telling, isn't it? I mean, all these links you've posted, and I'm able to find info to support my argument with each one!

Just who's misleading whom? And what are the consequences of this misleading? If I'm wrong, you pay a little extra for refrigerant. If you're wrong, everyone gets skin cancer. Which of us would be best to trust? __ Steve .

the scientists youre quoting have not made their statements absolute! their own statements are NOT conclusive. the words "could" mean it hasnt been proven at all!

what a dumb ass herring.

red herring. BOTTOM LINE, you claim to have been a "tech" but choke when i ask to see your credentials. :-)

absolute statements (no "could be/should be" crap) from an authoritative source.

"Nathan W. Collier" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com...

No scientist will. That's not how science works. Educate yourself.

You can't! And you don't even know why! I'll give you a clue... it's impossible to prove an absolute negative. Chew on that...

I have a college degree in science... what are *your* credentials vis-a-vis knowlege of the scientific method? I got the degree

*after* topping out as a technician... industrial controls, RF, cryo, that kind of thing. I was Chief Site Tech at a $6M NRAO VLBA site... I guess you could call that a 'tech'...

Myth: CFCs Are Heavier Than Air, So They Can't Reach the Ozone Layer

CFCs and other ozone depleting substances (ODS) are heavier than air. In a still room, they will pool on the floor. However, the atmosphere is anything but still. Numerous measurements have confirmed that these molecules are mixed nearly uniformly worldwide. In the same way that vinegar and oil normally separate when still, but mix when shaken, ozone depleting substances and air are thoroughly stirred together by winds in the troposphere. Winds are also why the location of CFC and other ODS emissions is essentially irrelevant. CFCs released from a car in the U.S. are as likely to find their way to the stratosphere over India as are molecules released from much closer countries like China. Once they mix through the troposphere, CFC molecules eventually move into the stratosphere. Thousands of measurements over several decades have firmly proven the existence of these heavier-than-air molecules in the ozone layer. As the graph above shows, the concentration of CFC-11 is essentially constant at altitudes up to 10 km. The UV radiation needed to break CFC-11 apart is shielded by the ozone layer. Because no natural processes destroy CFCs, it survives to be uniformly distributed, both vertically and horizontally. Concentrations drop off rapidly, however, in the stratosphere. As the molecules rise into and above the ozone layer, they are exposed to strong UV, break down, and release chlorine. These measurements are one link between CFCs, increased levels of chlorine in the stratosphere, and ozone depletion.

Common myths about ozone depletion: Myth: CFCs cannot reach the stratosphere because they are heavier than air. Fact: Air in the lower atmosphere (which extends far above the stratosphere) moves in masses, not as individual molecules. A number of studies have found CFCs and the products of their breakdown in the stratosphere (Rowland, EPA). Myth: Volcanoes and other natural sources contribute much more chlorine than CFCs to the ozone layer. Fact: Chlorine compounds from natural sources are soluble, and so are washed out of the atmosphere. CFCs, by contrast, are not soluble and so are able to reach the stratosphere. A number of studies have shown that the majority of chlorine in the stratosphere comes from man-made chemicals (Rowland, Taubes, Russell et al, EPA). Myth: The Antarctic ozone "hole" was there all along, it was discovered in the 1970's because that's when satellite measurements started. Fact: The hole was discovered using a ground based instrument that had been in use since 1956. There was no hole until about 1976. That means about 20 years with no hole. Since the 70s the hole has continued to increase in size and intensity (Farman, et al, Jones & Shanklin). Myth: The "hole" was present when the first measurements were made in 1956. Fact: The first ozone measurements made in the Antarctic were lower than similar measurements made in the Arctic. However, this is the natural condition, not the decrease that is referred to as the ozone "hole". As noted above, there was no "hole" during the first 20 or so years of measurement. (Parson, Christie). Myth: Some French researchers found an ozone hole in 1958. Fact: Paul A. Newman (Newman) looked at all the facts and found that "There is no credible evidence for an ozone hole in 1958." Myth: Spray cans deplete the ozone layer. Fact: Spray cans (in the United States) have not used CFCs as propellants for about 20 years. Myth: Of course there is an ozone hole in the winter, there is no sunlight to make new ozone. Fact: The ozone hole occurs in the spring, after the sunlight returns. There is little destruction or creation of ozone during the winter (Parson) Myth: DuPont supported the ban on freon because the patent was about to run out. Fact: The patent for making freon was issued in 1928, it ran out in the

1940s, long before any concern about ozone depletion. (The History of Freon)

References Christie, Maureen, The Ozone Layer: A Philosophy of Science Perspective, Cambridge University Press, 2000 Farman, et al., "Large Losses of Total Ozone in Antarctica Reveal Seasonal ClOx/NOx Interaction", Nature, May 16, 1985, pp 207-210. Jones & Shanklin, "Continued Decline of Total Ozone over Halley, Antarctica, since 1985", Nature, August 3, 1995 pp 409-411. Newman, Paul A., "Antarctic Total Ozone in 1958", Science, April 22, 1994, pp 543-546. Parson, Robert wrote a lengthy FAQ on ozone depletion, the best source of information I have found. Rowland, Sherwood, "The Need for Scientific Communication with the Public" Science, June 11, 1993, pp 1571-1576. Russell, et al, "Satellite Confirmation of the Dominance of Chlorofluorocarbons in the Global Stratospheric Chlorine Budget" Nature, February 8, 1996, pp 526-529. Taubes, Gary, "The Ozone Backlash", Science, June 11, 1993, pp 1580-1583. __ Steve .

'Suck off the government'? Perhaps you're referring to the super-rich, who have recently been given massive tax breaks... that would qualify as 'suck'.

Until you pull your head out, Bill, you won't see much, I'll grant you that!

Common myths about ozone depletion:

Myth: CFCs cannot reach the stratosphere because they are heavier than air.

Fact: Air in the lower atmosphere (which extends far above the stratosphere) moves in masses, not as individual molecules. A number of studies have found CFCs and the products of their breakdown in the stratosphere (Rowland, EPA).

Myth: Volcanoes and other natural sources contribute much more chlorine than CFCs to the ozone layer.

Fact: Chlorine compounds from natural sources are soluble, and so are washed out of the atmosphere. CFCs, by contrast, are not soluble and so are able to reach the stratosphere. A number of studies have shown that the majority of chlorine in the stratosphere comes from man-made chemicals (Rowland, Taubes, Russell et al, EPA).

Myth: The Antarctic ozone "hole" was there all along, it was discovered in the 1970's because that's when satellite measurements started.

Fact: The hole was discovered using a ground based instrument that had been in use since 1956. There was no hole until about 1976. That means about 20 years with no hole. Since the 70s the hole has continued to increase in size and intensity (Farman, et al, Jones & Shanklin).

Myth: The "hole" was present when the first measurements were made in 1956.

Fact: The first ozone measurements made in the Antarctic were lower than similar measurements made in the Arctic. However, this is the natural condition, not the decrease that is referred to as the ozone "hole". As noted above, there was no "hole" during the first 20 or so years of measurement. (Parson, Christie).

Myth: Some French researchers found an ozone hole in 1958.

Fact: Paul A. Newman (Newman) looked at all the facts and found that "There is no credible evidence for an ozone hole in 1958."

Myth: Spray cans deplete the ozone layer.

Fact: Spray cans (in the United States) have not used CFCs as propellants for about 20 years.

Myth: Of course there is an ozone hole in the winter, there is no sunlight to make new ozone.

Fact: The ozone hole occurs in the spring, after the sunlight returns. There is little destruction or creation of ozone during the winter (Parson)

Myth: DuPont supported the ban on freon because the patent was about to run out.

Fact: The patent for making freon was issued in 1928, it ran out in the

1940s, long before any concern about ozone depletion. (The History of Freon)

References

Christie, Maureen, The Ozone Layer: A Philosophy of Science Perspective, Cambridge University Press, 2000

Farman, et al., "Large Losses of Total Ozone in Antarctica Reveal Seasonal ClOx/NOx Interaction", Nature, May 16, 1985, pp 207-210.

Jones & Shanklin, "Continued Decline of Total Ozone over Halley, Antarctica, since 1985", Nature, August 3, 1995 pp 409-411.

Newman, Paul A., "Antarctic Total Ozone in 1958", Science, April 22, 1994, pp 543-546.

Parson, Robert wrote a lengthy FAQ on ozone depletion, the best source of information I have found.

Rowland, Sherwood, "The Need for Scientific Communication with the Public" Science, June 11, 1993, pp 1571-1576.

Russell, et al, "Satellite Confirmation of the Dominance of Chlorofluorocarbons in the Global Stratospheric Chlorine Budget" Nature, February 8, 1996, pp 526-529.

Taubes, Gary, "The Ozone Backlash", Science, June 11, 1993, pp 1580-1583.

__ Steve .