Comments on: Two Interesting Articles http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3712 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Rabett http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3712&cpage=1#comment-2814 Rabett Thu, 02 Feb 2006 00:30:58 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3712#comment-2814 Jim, you are creatively mixing a number of things here. The first one is the issue of an "ozone hole" being observed in Antarctica in the 1950s. Ozone has been monitored at Halley bay since the mid-50s. Dobson, from the British Antarctic survey (not French) observed low ozone in the springtime (ozone btw is measured in Dobson units, which tells you something). This is a natural remnant of the situation before the polar vortex breaks up in the spring, because it stops transport of ozone into the polar region. The decrease seen in the "ozone hole" is still deeper. There is a rather complete discussion of this urban legend at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/antarctic/ You can see that the concentrations of the common CFCs at http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.php?theme=3 CFC-11 has already started to decline, CFC-12 is at about the max and should start to decline. This is perfectly consistent with the average amount of time that a refrigerator/air conditioner goes without a charge and the statistics for manufacturing the CFCs. Jim, you are creatively mixing a number of things here. The first one is the issue of an “ozone hole” being observed in Antarctica in the 1950s. Ozone has been monitored at Halley bay since the mid-50s. Dobson, from the British Antarctic survey (not French) observed low ozone in the springtime (ozone btw is measured in Dobson units, which tells you something). This is a natural remnant of the situation before the polar vortex breaks up in the spring, because it stops transport of ozone into the polar region. The decrease seen in the “ozone hole” is still deeper. There is a rather complete discussion of this urban legend at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/antarctic/

You can see that the concentrations of the common CFCs at http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.php?theme=3
CFC-11 has already started to decline, CFC-12 is at about the max and should start to decline. This is perfectly consistent with the average amount of time that a refrigerator/air conditioner goes without a charge and the statistics for manufacturing the CFCs.

]]> By: Jim Clarke http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3712&cpage=1#comment-2813 Jim Clarke Wed, 01 Feb 2006 03:48:12 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3712#comment-2813 Gentlemen, Perhaps I was mislead about the science around CFC's. I was under the impression that the average CFC molecule would persist in the atmosphere for about 50 years or so. I seem to recall the experts saying that the amount of CFC's would continue to increase for decades as old systems leaked and new production, while dramatically reduced, was not eliminated. Obviously, atmospheric concentrations of CFC's began to level off, even decrease slightly, almost as soon as the Montreal Protocol took affect! Either I was given a false impression, or the system is more complex than we know. As to the pre-existance of the 'hole': I recall that the French took measurements in the 50's that indicated less than 220 Dobson Units at a distant location in Antarctica. Perhaps these measurements have been discredited, but I still find it a bit presumptious to categorically claim we understand the ozone hole and what causes it, when we have such limited data for such a relatively short period of time. Again, I am not denying the role of CFC's in all of this. I just think the final story will not be nearly as cut and dried as some make it out to be. Gentlemen,

Perhaps I was mislead about the science around CFC’s. I was under the impression that the average CFC molecule would persist in the atmosphere for about 50 years or so. I seem to recall the experts saying that the amount of CFC’s would continue to increase for decades as old systems leaked and new production, while dramatically reduced, was not eliminated.

Obviously, atmospheric concentrations of CFC’s began to level off, even decrease slightly, almost as soon as the Montreal Protocol took affect! Either I was given a false impression, or the system is more complex than we know.

As to the pre-existance of the ‘hole’: I recall that the French took measurements in the 50’s that indicated less than 220 Dobson Units at a distant location in Antarctica. Perhaps these measurements have been discredited, but I still find it a bit presumptious to categorically claim we understand the ozone hole and what causes it, when we have such limited data for such a relatively short period of time.

Again, I am not denying the role of CFC’s in all of this. I just think the final story will not be nearly as cut and dried as some make it out to be.

]]> By: Rabett http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3712&cpage=1#comment-2812 Rabett Wed, 01 Feb 2006 02:40:58 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3712#comment-2812 Actually, the ozone layer did continue to thin when CFC production was banned, and it WAS pointed to by some as evidence that CFCs were not responsible for the ozone thinning/hole. OTOH anyone with half a clue knew that there would be a delay between halt of production and decreased concentrations in the stratosphere, because it takes about 5 years for anything emitted on the surface to reach the stratosphere. Actually, the ozone layer did continue to thin when CFC production was banned, and it WAS pointed to by some as evidence that CFCs were not responsible for the ozone thinning/hole. OTOH anyone with half a clue knew that there would be a delay between halt of production and decreased concentrations in the stratosphere, because it takes about 5 years for anything emitted on the surface to reach the stratosphere.

]]> By: Tom Hewitt http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3712&cpage=1#comment-2811 Tom Hewitt Tue, 31 Jan 2006 04:27:54 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3712#comment-2811 Mark, I take exception with your statement "If the ozone layer had continued to thin, even as CFC production began to be dramatically reduced, then the theory/prediction that CFCs caused ozone depletion would have been falsified (proven wrong)." Had that ocurred, it wouldn't prove the human inputs were not in part or largely responsible, just that the dynamics were more complicated than the theory that produced the original results could predict. In the advent of uncertainty in theory, and very limited observations rigorous statements can not be made, the best that can be done in such circumstances is intelligent estimation of probabilities. Mark,
I take exception with your statement “If the ozone layer had continued to thin, even as CFC production began to be dramatically reduced, then the theory/prediction that CFCs caused ozone depletion would have been falsified (proven wrong).”
Had that ocurred, it wouldn’t prove the human inputs were not in part or largely responsible, just that the dynamics were more complicated than the theory that produced the original results could predict. In the advent of uncertainty in theory, and
very limited observations rigorous statements can not be made, the best that can be done in such
circumstances is intelligent estimation of probabilities.

]]> By: Mark Bahner http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3712&cpage=1#comment-2810 Mark Bahner Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:36:18 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3712#comment-2810 "As shown by countless social studies of science, science is intimately and inextricably interlinked with politics, and no transcendent definitions exist by which to distinguish true science from 'pseudoscience.'" Falsifiability (the ability for a prediction to be proven wrong) is a transcendent characteristic of science versus pseudoscience. The "projections" in the IPCC TAR are not falsifiable. Therefore, they are not science. Just as Intelligent Design is not falsifiable, and therefore is not science. If the ozone layer had continued to thin, even as CFC production began to be dramatically reduced, then the theory/prediction that CFCs caused ozone depletion would have been falsified (proven wrong). However, the ozone layer has stopped thinning: http://www.dar.csiro.au/information/image/Halley%20Bay%20October%20ozone.jpg ...and can be expected to repair itself over the next several decades. That's the difference between Nobel-Prize-winning science (CFCs and ozone depletion) and pseudoscientific rubbish (the projections in the IPCC TAR). “As shown by countless social studies of science, science is intimately and inextricably interlinked with politics, and no transcendent definitions exist by which to distinguish true science from ‘pseudoscience.’”

Falsifiability (the ability for a prediction to be proven wrong) is a transcendent characteristic of science versus pseudoscience.

The “projections” in the IPCC TAR are not falsifiable. Therefore, they are not science.

Just as Intelligent Design is not falsifiable, and therefore is not science.

If the ozone layer had continued to thin, even as CFC production began to be dramatically reduced, then the theory/prediction that CFCs caused ozone depletion would have been falsified (proven wrong).

However, the ozone layer has stopped thinning:
http://www.dar.csiro.au/information/image/Halley%20Bay%20October%20ozone.jpg

…and can be expected to repair itself over the next several decades.

That’s the difference between Nobel-Prize-winning science (CFCs and ozone depletion) and pseudoscientific rubbish (the projections in the IPCC TAR).

]]> By: Mark Bahner http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3712&cpage=1#comment-2809 Mark Bahner Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:20:28 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3712#comment-2809 Jim Clarke writes, "Given that the production of CFC's continues today and that the chemical is remarkably stable, there should be more of it in the atmosphere today than ever before!" No, CFC production has decreased by such a significant percentage that there is no reason to expect increases in atmospheric concentrations. See this website for details: http://www.afeas.org/production_and_sales.html For example, that website shows CFC-11 production peaked at approximately 380,000 metric tons in 1987, and had decrease to 3,145 metric tons in 2003. The levels of CFC-11 have responded just as could be expected from this production decrease: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/o3-cf.html "There also seems to be strong evidence that the Antarctic ozone 'hole' existed long before CFC's were ever created." No, there isn't evidence that a "hole" exist before CFC's were ever created. One accepted definition of "hole" is "<220 Dobson units". Such a "hole" did not exist over Antarctica prior to approximately the early 1980s. See these comments for details: http://www.thedeadhand.com/blogs/rgw/articles/578.aspx#1322 Jim Clarke writes, “Given that the production of CFC’s continues today and that the chemical is remarkably stable, there should be more of it in the atmosphere today than ever before!”

No, CFC production has decreased by such a significant percentage that there is no reason to expect increases in atmospheric concentrations.

See this website for details:

http://www.afeas.org/production_and_sales.html

For example, that website shows CFC-11 production peaked at approximately 380,000 metric tons in 1987, and had decrease to 3,145 metric tons in 2003.

The levels of CFC-11 have responded just as could be expected from this production decrease:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/o3-cf.html

“There also seems to be strong evidence that the Antarctic ozone ‘hole’ existed long before CFC’s were ever created.”

No, there isn’t evidence that a “hole” exist before CFC’s were ever created. One accepted definition of “hole” is “<220 Dobson units”. Such a “hole” did not exist over Antarctica prior to approximately the early 1980s. See these comments for details:

http://www.thedeadhand.com/blogs/rgw/articles/578.aspx#1322

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3712&cpage=1#comment-2808 Roger Pielke, Jr. Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:59:31 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3712#comment-2808 Tom- You aren't missing anything! Tom- You aren’t missing anything!

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3712&cpage=1#comment-2807 Roger Pielke, Jr. Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:58:28 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3712#comment-2807 Jeff- Yes, Grundmann does note that the climate case is "larger" than the ozone case and is much more difficult, with the economic context obviously different. But he does not that they are similar in that in the early 1970s it was inconceivable that CFCs would be banned, and now we seem to "take it for granted." Jeff-

Yes, Grundmann does note that the climate case is “larger” than the ozone case and is much more difficult, with the economic context obviously different. But he does not that they are similar in that in the early 1970s it was inconceivable that CFCs would be banned, and now we seem to “take it for granted.”

]]> By: Tom http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3712&cpage=1#comment-2806 Tom Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:38:37 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3712#comment-2806 I might be missing something, but it seems that while everyone is discussing who is right or wrong on the scientific side of the debate, the chilling conclusion of this article is that the science isn't as important as the polictical? I might be missing something, but it seems that while everyone is discussing who is right or wrong on the scientific side of the debate, the chilling conclusion of this article is that the science isn’t as important as the polictical?

]]> By: Jeff Norman http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3712&cpage=1#comment-2805 Jeff Norman Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:47:27 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3712#comment-2805 Roger, I do not have access to the complete article by Reiner Grundman, however the abstract makes no mention of the relative cost impacts of the Montreal Accord and the Kyoto Treaty. The revolutionary changes to our industrialized societies implied in the Kyoto Treaty and the very high price tags associated with these changes requires a level of agreement that far exceeds that of the Montreal Accord. If Reiner Grundman addressed this I would be curious as to what his argument entails. Jeff Roger,

I do not have access to the complete article by Reiner Grundman, however the abstract makes no mention of the relative cost impacts of the Montreal Accord and the Kyoto Treaty.

The revolutionary changes to our industrialized societies implied in the Kyoto Treaty and the very high price tags associated with these changes requires a level of agreement that far exceeds that of the Montreal Accord.

If Reiner Grundman addressed this I would be curious as to what his argument entails.

Jeff

]]>