On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Russell Standish <li...@hpcoders.com.au> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 06:48:15AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
>>
>> I'm just as eager to clean up the atmosphere of pollution
>> by the products of fossil fuel burning, as well as to stop global warming or
>> climate change as the next guy, but there is considerable doubt
>> by many (including me) that these changes are due to man.
>> The Vostok ice corps data shows that there have been periodic
>> changes in CO2 for the last quarter or half million years.
>>
>> Now the union of concerned scientists is raising a ruckus
>> about depletion of the ozone layer over the (south) pole.
>>
>> Ozone absorbs ultraviolet light, so its size is monitored.
>> The ozone hole can cause skin cancer etc - but ozone
>> only absorbs 1 % of the sun's energy, so it is unlikely to
>> contribute much to global warming.
>
> Who said the ozone layer problem has anything to do with global warming?
> This is a persistent myth that arose simply because both problems were
> brought to the public attention around the same time (late 80s).
>

Prof. Jim Anderson does:
http://www.nature.com/news/storms-may-speed-ozone-loss-above-the-united-states-1.11063

> The only link between the two is that CFCs, not only destroy the ozone
> layer, but are also potent greenhouse gases. Nevertheless, at the
> concentration they are in the atmosphere, they make negligible
> contribuition to global warming when compared with CO2, water vapour
> and methane.
>
>> And the ozone hole
>> still occasionalloy gets smaller (as it is these days).
>
> That's the whole point of banning CFCs - to make the Ozone hole smaller.
>
>>
>> Remember back in the 60s when chlorofluorocarbons were
>> thought to deplete ozone (at the poles) ? So laws were passed
>> to ban CFC's ? Well that now appears to be nonsense, because the
>> hole occasionally gets smaller even though we don't use CFCs.
>
> That's the whole point of banning CFCs - to make the Ozone hole smaller.
>
>> Just as in IMHO banning the burning of fossil fuels will  do
>> anything more than raising gas prices.
>>
>
> By "gas", do you mean natural gas, methane or petrol (gasoline in
> American English)? If any of these, then banning them would mean they
> simply become unavailable, and people will need to turn to other
> technologies to power their lives. It may well mean a price drop, as
> there would no longer be any significant demand.
>
> Of if you mean gas as in air, or oxygen, or nitrogen, I don't see that
> banning fossil fuels would have any impact on those prices, other than any
> general effect on energy price - except in the case of helium, for
> which the only terrestrial source is from fossil fuel
> reservoirs. Helium would get very expensive.
>
> But of course banning fossil fuels would be totally ineffective anyway,
> so nobody is proposing to do that!
>
> Cheers
>
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to