On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 19:36:39 +0000 Carl wrote:

I suspect that you must be the only person left in the free world that
doesn't know that chlorofluorocarbons (of which Freon is a major member
of the group)have been primarily responsible for the hole in the Ozone
Layer.

I wish this were correct, but unfortunately there are still a large
number of people out there who just can't believe that there could
possibly be anything we could do to the earth that would upset any of
Mother Nature's normal balances.

Most of the time this just takes the form of, "My father did this, and
so did his father and his father before him. It didn't have any effect
then so there's no reason to think that it should have any effect
now."

Unfortunately, there are just a lot more of US here now, so our
collective effects are compounding, plus we come up with more and
different ways to alter the environment every year. Freon has only
been around something like 50 years, so my great-grandfather never
used it.

-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney
Madison, WI 53711 USA
-----------------------------------------------

well at any rate with all of this , its time for everybody on this planet
to wake up and smell the roses, there is no "mother nature" controlling
all of the life sustaining elements on this planet , they will go away,
everybody gets in this whole "god is taking care of us" state of mind and
therefore they ignore the facts. this planet will eventually no longer
suppport life period and if we do not develop technology that allows us to
migrate off it we will go down with it. so lets try and keep it livable as
long as possible to give our scientist the opportunity to develop a method
of deep space travel (if one exists) so that all of this **** we go
through to continue the human race is not in vain

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 20:50:52 -0600, Jim Adney
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 08:58:51 -0700 Big Bill wrote:

It's a distinct change *over the period of time we've been measuring.*
We havn't been measuring even an eyeblink of time yet, so all we know
is that it's a change in extremely recent history.

It's true that the observation time is negligible in terms of the
earth's age. I'll grant you that. If you feel that only observation
over a significant portion of the earth's age will convince you, then
we will have to agree that you will never be convinced.

What fails to convince me that *this* is being caused by *us* is that
we have no idea of whether *this* is a one-tme thing, or a common
cycle,and, if it *is* a common thing, what caused it the other times.
To simply go to a new area, observe somehting that's happening, and
assume that *you* caused it is pretty arrogant, IMO.


We have absolutely no idea of how much the ozone layers have changed
over even the last century, much less long enough to make some sort of
rational claim of an abnormal change over a long period if time.
Maybe when we have been measuring the ozone layers for even as short a
time as 50 years, we might find a cycle that's simply repeating.
But to make such a claim with such an extremely short data gathering
period is simply bad science.

It's important to recognize that in addition to the ozone
concentrations, the fluorocarbon compound concentrations have also
been followed. The chemistry is known and the reaction rates are
known. We also know when Freon first entered the lower atmosphere, and
the rates of diffusion to the upper atmosphere have been calculated
and verified.

All this is true.
However, the fact remains that we simply don't *know* what's causing
the hole. We can model a change, but we still can't say for sure that
the model reflects reality. We can only say the model reflects a
*possible* reality.
Since the model can't take into account any previous occurrances, we
can only observe the change, and *postulate* what's actually causing
it.

The half-life of the fluorocarbons in the upper atmosphere is
extremely long, but it can be calculated, and the calculations agree
with the observed concentrations. The body of evidence is complete and
consistent. To my knowledge, all the debate on this topic withing the
scientific community was settled many years ago.

Then you simply do not see that the body of evidence is so skimpy that
we don't even know if this has happened before. Without that
knowledge, we can't say this is a *unique* happening, and that we are
responsible for it.

The claim that this may just be a normally occuring anomaly would be
reasonable if we didn't have additional data to support the
conclusions, but this is not the case. The claim of "bad science" is
really just the pot calling the kettle black. The science has all been
done; the fight is all in the political arena. Unfortunately, the
current political climate is more comfortable with faith than facts.

But it *is* the case. We simply do ot have enough data to say what is
causeing he hole. We only havbe data from the very recent past, and
that's just not enough to say even whether or not holes have occurred
before, much less why this one is occurring.
The evidence we have is enough to model a *possible* reason, but not
enough to say whether this hole is even unique.
The science has *not* been done; *some* science has been done. There
has not been enough observation done to know whether the hole is
unique or part of a not yet understood cycle.

-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney
Madison, WI 53711 USA
-----------------------------------------------

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 02:38:37 GMT, "James Sweet"
wrote:



Actually, it *is* in dispute.
While we can *model* such, that doesn't mean it's happening the way
the model says it *can* happen.
And it's also in *much* dispute that the holes are anything other than
a natural thing hat we've never noticed before simply because we
havn't been monitoring the ozone levels for very long.

--


Ok so it's possible that freon doesn't affect the ozone layer, on the other
hand it's possible that it does. There's suitable substitutes so why chance
it? It's possible that excessive UV has nothing to do with skin cancer, or
that smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer, or that living off nothing
but fast food won't make you unhealthy, but there's quite a bit of evidence
to the contrary, why chance it?

I truly wish it were as simple as that.
Remember the "Global Warming" thing? The responce to that is to
disrupt our economy in a *hope* that the Kyoto agreement might slow it
down. Yet, we do not know what caused prior instances of global
warming that we had no hand in. The problem is that we have some
people who want to institute very drastic measures to alter things
when we have little to no understanding of what's actually happening.
Freon is only a small part of this.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

"Big Bill" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 02:38:37 GMT, "James Sweet"
wrote:



Actually, it *is* in dispute.
While we can *model* such, that doesn't mean it's happening the way
the model says it *can* happen.
And it's also in *much* dispute that the holes are anything other than
a natural thing hat we've never noticed before simply because we
havn't been monitoring the ozone levels for very long.

--


Ok so it's possible that freon doesn't affect the ozone layer, on the
other
hand it's possible that it does. There's suitable substitutes so why
chance
it? It's possible that excessive UV has nothing to do with skin cancer,
or
that smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer, or that living off
nothing
but fast food won't make you unhealthy, but there's quite a bit of
evidence
to the contrary, why chance it?

I truly wish it were as simple as that.
Remember the "Global Warming" thing? The responce to that is to
disrupt our economy in a *hope* that the Kyoto agreement might slow it
down. Yet, we do not know what caused prior instances of global
warming that we had no hand in. The problem is that we have some
people who want to institute very drastic measures to alter things
when we have little to no understanding of what's actually happening.
Freon is only a small part of this.

I for one am *very* glad that scientists and governments aren't sitting on
their hands with a wait an see attitude. Lack of foresight has caused more
that one disaster in the past.
me

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:37:31 -0600, "me" wrote:

"Big Bill" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 02:38:37 GMT, "James Sweet"
wrote:



Actually, it *is* in dispute.
While we can *model* such, that doesn't mean it's happening the way
the model says it *can* happen.
And it's also in *much* dispute that the holes are anything other than
a natural thing hat we've never noticed before simply because we
havn't been monitoring the ozone levels for very long.

--


Ok so it's possible that freon doesn't affect the ozone layer, on the
other
hand it's possible that it does. There's suitable substitutes so why
chance
it? It's possible that excessive UV has nothing to do with skin cancer,
or
that smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer, or that living off
nothing
but fast food won't make you unhealthy, but there's quite a bit of
evidence
to the contrary, why chance it?

I truly wish it were as simple as that.
Remember the "Global Warming" thing? The responce to that is to
disrupt our economy in a *hope* that the Kyoto agreement might slow it
down. Yet, we do not know what caused prior instances of global
warming that we had no hand in. The problem is that we have some
people who want to institute very drastic measures to alter things
when we have little to no understanding of what's actually happening.
Freon is only a small part of this.

I for one am *very* glad that scientists and governments aren't sitting on
their hands with a wait an see attitude. Lack of foresight has caused more
that one disaster in the past.
me

And taking the wrong action has also caused more than one disaster.
Doing something simply to do something is usually worse than waiting
to do the *right* thing.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

"Big Bill" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:37:31 -0600, "me" wrote:

"Big Bill" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 02:38:37 GMT, "James Sweet"
wrote:



Actually, it *is* in dispute.
While we can *model* such, that doesn't mean it's happening the way
the model says it *can* happen.
And it's also in *much* dispute that the holes are anything other
than
a natural thing hat we've never noticed before simply because we
havn't been monitoring the ozone levels for very long.

--


Ok so it's possible that freon doesn't affect the ozone layer, on the
other
hand it's possible that it does. There's suitable substitutes so why
chance
it? It's possible that excessive UV has nothing to do with skin
cancer,
or
that smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer, or that living off
nothing
but fast food won't make you unhealthy, but there's quite a bit of
evidence
to the contrary, why chance it?

I truly wish it were as simple as that.
Remember the "Global Warming" thing? The responce to that is to
disrupt our economy in a *hope* that the Kyoto agreement might slow it
down. Yet, we do not know what caused prior instances of global
warming that we had no hand in. The problem is that we have some
people who want to institute very drastic measures to alter things
when we have little to no understanding of what's actually happening.
Freon is only a small part of this.

I for one am *very* glad that scientists and governments aren't sitting
on
their hands with a wait an see attitude. Lack of foresight has caused
more
that one disaster in the past.
me

And taking the wrong action has also caused more than one disaster.
Doing something simply to do something is usually worse than waiting
to do the *right* thing.

When you decide the time is right would you please contact all of the
world's scientist and governments and let them know? I for one will rest a
*lot* easier knowing that you're taking care of this for us.
Thank You,
me

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:11:13 -0700 Big Bill wrote:

All this is true.
However, the fact remains that we simply don't *know* what's causing
the hole. We can model a change, but we still can't say for sure that
the model reflects reality. We can only say the model reflects a
*possible* reality.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that theory is nice, but
it isn't convincing until you have an observation that proves it.
Certainly yours would be the most convincing senario, but I wonder if
you are willing to be consistent with this attitude.

Take natural radiation, do you feel that spontaneous fission is an
unproven theory just because no one has ever actually been watching a
particular atom when it broke up?

Do you believe in electrons? Have you ever seen one? Has anyone?

Relativity predicts that my yardstick will look 18" long to you if I
pass you at a significant fraction of the speed of light. Do you
choose to postpone your belief until this particular experiment is
done?

How do you feel about E-M waves? Ever seen one? Maxwell's equations
make a lot of predictions which we can verify, but we still can't
actually see a radio wave.

Or how about the politically dangerous ground of evolution? No one has
ever actually watched while one species evolve into another. There's
plenty of other evidence, but again we find the scientific community
united in favor, while some non-science people argue against it.

Each of these items is something which has been explained by some
theory to most people's satisfaction, and yet none of these particular
things has ever actually been directly observed. In spite of a lack of
direct observational data, there is enough corroborating evidence that
most of us believe that we understand these things and believe the
theory to be correct.

I agree that the natural occuring variation fuzzes up the cause of the
observed ozone hole, but the science is clear that ozone depletion is
an expected consequence of chlorofluorocarbons in the atmsophere. The
observed rate of depletion is consistent with the predictions. There
IS some undertainty in the predictions, simply because very small
changes in the reaction rates have large consequences over 100 years.

I still suggest that you look around and see who is still arguing
about this topic. I don't think you will find any disagreement within
the scientific community. The objections are all political. While the
scientists are certainly willing to continue to take data forever, the
actual problem is a social one and the only solution will have to be a
political one.

Right now, the easy way out is to just say that we don't have enough
data and leave it at that. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on
your point of view, this can go on forever.

The real problem with waiting is that the time constants of ozone
depletion are so long that it may already be too late to do anything
about it. Even if we stopped all of these emissions right now, ozone
depletion will continue over the next 100 years. The rate of depletion
will still slowly increase for 20-50 years as Freon from the lower
atmosphere slowly diffuses upwards and only later will the rate of
depletion start to decline.

None of the living things on this planet have evolved to cope with the
amount of UV that they might be exposed to. Sure, we can all wear
hats, but what if our wheat won't grow in this environment? Fish can
hide in the deep water, but what will they eat? What will we breathe
if our green plants don't survive?

Alarmist? Sure, but not too unrealistic. We're all interdependent in
ways that most of us don't comprehend, and it might just be a little
change like this which would push us all over the edge, not with a
bang, but a wimper.

-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney
Madison, WI 53711 USA
-----------------------------------------------

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 19:00:29 -0600, Jim Adney
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:11:13 -0700 Big Bill wrote:

All this is true.
However, the fact remains that we simply don't *know* what's causing
the hole. We can model a change, but we still can't say for sure that
the model reflects reality. We can only say the model reflects a
*possible* reality.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that theory is nice, but
it isn't convincing until you have an observation that proves it.
Certainly yours would be the most convincing senario, but I wonder if
you are willing to be consistent with this attitude.

What I'm saying is that the data we have is incomplete.
If we are to postulate that an observed phenomenom is caused by a
certain action, we need to first make sure that the phenonemon is
actually happening for the reasons we *think* it's happening.
Especially when that phenonemon is something that we know is part of a
system that we haven't been observing for very long.
Imagine landing on Mars, and finding a dead animal 50 feet away from
the landing site. Did the landing cause the death?

Take natural radiation, do you feel that spontaneous fission is an
unproven theory just because no one has ever actually been watching a
particular atom when it broke up?

Bad analogy. It's been observed long enough to understand the physics
involved.

Do you believe in electrons? Have you ever seen one? Has anyone?

I haven't seen China, either. But I believe it exists.

Relativity predicts that my yardstick will look 18" long to you if I
pass you at a significant fraction of the speed of light. Do you
choose to postpone your belief until this particular experiment is
done?

How do you feel about E-M waves? Ever seen one? Maxwell's equations
make a lot of predictions which we can verify, but we still can't
actually see a radio wave.

Or how about the politically dangerous ground of evolution? No one has
ever actually watched while one species evolve into another. There's
plenty of other evidence, but again we find the scientific community
united in favor, while some non-science people argue against it.

Each of these items is something which has been explained by some
theory to most people's satisfaction, and yet none of these particular
things has ever actually been directly observed. In spite of a lack of
direct observational data, there is enough corroborating evidence that
most of us believe that we understand these things and believe the
theory to be correct.

And yet, for some reason, no one is trying to get us to disrupt our
economy over these things.

I agree that the natural occuring variation fuzzes up the cause of the
observed ozone hole, but the science is clear that ozone depletion is
an expected consequence of chlorofluorocarbons in the atmsophere. The
observed rate of depletion is consistent with the predictions. There
IS some undertainty in the predictions, simply because very small
changes in the reaction rates have large consequences over 100 years.

We can *model* such changes. We can't determine from those models that
this is *why* it's happening.
Why did the ice ages of former times go warmer? We don't know. But we
are told we know why *this* warming period is happening: it's *our*
fault, becasue some model says it *can* happen a certain way. Yet,
it's happened before, and it certainly *didn't* happen the way the
models say it *can* happen.
Models are not perfect, they are only tools.

I still suggest that you look around and see who is still arguing
about this topic. I don't think you will find any disagreement within
the scientific community. The objections are all political. While the
scientists are certainly willing to continue to take data forever, the
actual problem is a social one and the only solution will have to be a
political one.

Wrong. Those who rely on models simply can not apply the models to
reality, they can only say that the model represents one way it can
happen.

Right now, the easy way out is to just say that we don't have enough
data and leave it at that. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on
your point of view, this can go on forever.

The real problem with waiting is that the time constants of ozone
depletion are so long that it may already be too late to do anything
about it. Even if we stopped all of these emissions right now, ozone
depletion will continue over the next 100 years. The rate of depletion
will still slowly increase for 20-50 years as Freon from the lower
atmosphere slowly diffuses upwards and only later will the rate of
depletion start to decline.

None of the living things on this planet have evolved to cope with the
amount of UV that they might be exposed to. Sure, we can all wear
hats, but what if our wheat won't grow in this environment? Fish can
hide in the deep water, but what will they eat? What will we breathe
if our green plants don't survive?

Alarmist? Sure, but not too unrealistic. We're all interdependent in
ways that most of us don't comprehend, and it might just be a little
change like this which would push us all over the edge, not with a
bang, but a wimper.

Extinction happens all the time, and it's not our fault. More than 80%
of all species went extinct before we existed. We just aren't the bad
guys all the time.
The earth's different systems are not understood well at all. ANy
scientist who says they are is just flat lying.
I remember in the 70s when we were told a new ice age was imminent;
now it's global warming. Well, which is it? Global warming has
happened before, without us even being here. We simply do not know
why. But we are being told we know why *this* global warming is
happening; it's our fault. Isn't that just a little arrogant? To
assume that *we* are causing something that's happened before without
our even being here?
Sort of like floating down a river on a raft, and, noticing the
drawbridge is opening, assuming it's opening for you.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 15:55:21 -0600, "me" wrote:

"Big Bill" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:37:31 -0600, "me" wrote:

"Big Bill" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 02:38:37 GMT, "James Sweet"
wrote:



Actually, it *is* in dispute.
While we can *model* such, that doesn't mean it's happening the way
the model says it *can* happen.
And it's also in *much* dispute that the holes are anything other
than
a natural thing hat we've never noticed before simply because we
havn't been monitoring the ozone levels for very long.

--


Ok so it's possible that freon doesn't affect the ozone layer, on the
other
hand it's possible that it does. There's suitable substitutes so why
chance
it? It's possible that excessive UV has nothing to do with skin
cancer,
or
that smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer, or that living off
nothing
but fast food won't make you unhealthy, but there's quite a bit of
evidence
to the contrary, why chance it?

I truly wish it were as simple as that.
Remember the "Global Warming" thing? The responce to that is to
disrupt our economy in a *hope* that the Kyoto agreement might slow it
down. Yet, we do not know what caused prior instances of global
warming that we had no hand in. The problem is that we have some
people who want to institute very drastic measures to alter things
when we have little to no understanding of what's actually happening.
Freon is only a small part of this.

I for one am *very* glad that scientists and governments aren't sitting
on
their hands with a wait an see attitude. Lack of foresight has caused
more
that one disaster in the past.
me

And taking the wrong action has also caused more than one disaster.
Doing something simply to do something is usually worse than waiting
to do the *right* thing.

When you decide the time is right would you please contact all of the
world's scientist and governments and let them know? I for one will rest a
*lot* easier knowing that you're taking care of this for us.
Thank You,
me

Ah, yes, try to make it *my* fault that we don't know what's going on
yet.
When did *you* get to determine who gets to decide?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

"Big Bill" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 15:55:21 -0600, "me" wrote:

"Big Bill" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:37:31 -0600, "me" wrote:

I for one am *very* glad that scientists and governments aren't
sitting
on
their hands with a wait an see attitude. Lack of foresight has caused
more
that one disaster in the past.
me

And taking the wrong action has also caused more than one disaster.
Doing something simply to do something is usually worse than waiting
to do the *right* thing.

When you decide the time is right would you please contact all of the
world's scientist and governments and let them know? I for one will rest
a
*lot* easier knowing that you're taking care of this for us.
Thank You,
me

Ah, yes, try to make it *my* fault that we don't know what's going on
yet.

When did I say it's your fault?

When did *you* get to determine who gets to decide?

Not me. I got the impression from your posts that you knew. My mistake.
;-)
me

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 07:29:21 -0600, "me" wrote:

"Big Bill" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 15:55:21 -0600, "me" wrote:

"Big Bill" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:37:31 -0600, "me" wrote:

I for one am *very* glad that scientists and governments aren't
sitting
on
their hands with a wait an see attitude. Lack of foresight has caused
more
that one disaster in the past.
me

And taking the wrong action has also caused more than one disaster.
Doing something simply to do something is usually worse than waiting
to do the *right* thing.

When you decide the time is right would you please contact all of the
world's scientist and governments and let them know? I for one will rest
a
*lot* easier knowing that you're taking care of this for us.
Thank You,
me

Ah, yes, try to make it *my* fault that we don't know what's going on
yet.

When did I say it's your fault?

Read what yopu wrote.
By saying that *I* am rthe one who gets to decide, you're making it my
fault.

When did *you* get to determine who gets to decide?

Not me. I got the impression from your posts that you knew. My mistake.
;-)
me

Well, I do know that we don't know as much as some seem to *think* we
know.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

"Big Bill" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 07:29:21 -0600, "me" wrote:

"Big Bill" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 15:55:21 -0600, "me" wrote:

"Big Bill" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:37:31 -0600, "me" wrote:

I for one am *very* glad that scientists and governments aren't
sitting
on
their hands with a wait an see attitude. Lack of foresight has
caused
more
that one disaster in the past.
me

And taking the wrong action has also caused more than one disaster.
Doing something simply to do something is usually worse than waiting
to do the *right* thing.

When you decide the time is right would you please contact all of the
world's scientist and governments and let them know? I for one will
rest
a
*lot* easier knowing that you're taking care of this for us.
Thank You,
me

Ah, yes, try to make it *my* fault that we don't know what's going on
yet.

When did I say it's your fault?

Read what yopu wrote.
By saying that *I* am rthe one who gets to decide, you're making it my
fault.

No fault intended. Your posts indicated that even if you don't know what to
do then you certainly know what not to do.

When did *you* get to determine who gets to decide?

Not me. I got the impression from your posts that you knew. My mistake.
;-)
me

Well, I do know that we don't know as much as some seem to *think* we
know.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I favor letting those who know make
the decisions as opposed to those who don't. I believe you've already stated
which group you're in. ;-)
me

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 15:00:20 -0600, "me" wrote:

"Big Bill" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 07:29:21 -0600, "me" wrote:

"Big Bill" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 15:55:21 -0600, "me" wrote:

"Big Bill" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 11:37:31 -0600, "me" wrote:

I for one am *very* glad that scientists and governments aren't
sitting
on
their hands with a wait an see attitude. Lack of foresight has
caused
more
that one disaster in the past.
me

And taking the wrong action has also caused more than one disaster.
Doing something simply to do something is usually worse than waiting
to do the *right* thing.

When you decide the time is right would you please contact all of the
world's scientist and governments and let them know? I for one will
rest
a
*lot* easier knowing that you're taking care of this for us.
Thank You,
me

Ah, yes, try to make it *my* fault that we don't know what's going on
yet.

When did I say it's your fault?

Read what yopu wrote.
By saying that *I* am rthe one who gets to decide, you're making it my
fault.

No fault intended. Your posts indicated that even if you don't know what to
do then you certainly know what not to do.

Well, yeah, I guess so.
I know not to do something that will have lasting negative effects on
the off chance that it *might* fix something.

When did *you* get to determine who gets to decide?

Not me. I got the impression from your posts that you knew. My mistake.
;-)
me

Well, I do know that we don't know as much as some seem to *think* we
know.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I favor letting those who know make
the decisions as opposed to those who don't. I believe you've already stated
which group you're in. ;-)
me

Yep. I'm in the group that knows what we don't know, as opposed to the
group who thinks that because we know something, we know all we need
to know.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"