Ozone Depletion A Myth?

[Mute Fox]

What do you comrades make of this?

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/ozone/king.htm

I personally cannot help but find this person's opinion to be convincing, but then again, I am no scientist and cannot/ don't know how to verify what he's saying. It seems to make sense to me, though.

If you couldn't be bothered to read the link, I'll summarize it for you:

Ozone depletion, both as a problem and as a fact of science, is a myth, the reasons being that:
1) The ozone layer is created by sunlight hitting rising warm air molecules, and so therefore is *naturally* thin to nonexistent at the poles (where we mainly observe the phenomena of "ozone holes.")
2) Moreover, even if it were somehow being depleted, it would be replaced instantly, since sunlight is constantly hitting the upper atmosphere. It also degrades at a constant rate, so the only way it would disappear is if sunlight stopped hitting the atmosphere.
3) Ozone (O3) does not actually constitute a "layer" of the atmosphere (it's more like a disbursement), nor does it provide any protection against UV rays, since sunlight effectively hits the atmosphere at the same time as it hits us on the surface. Moreover, it is the *mass* of the atmosphere, along with the earth's magnetic field, which protects against solar radiation, *not* O3. Removing all the O3 from the atmosphere would have absolutely no effect on the amount of UV received by the surface, since the total mass of O3 in the atmosphere is minuscule.
4) CFC's, and other substances purported to degrade the ozone layer, are many times heavier than air, and so could never even reach the upper atmosphere.

That's the basic thrust of this guy's argument, which he goes into in much more detail. He's convinced me; but I want to know what my more scientifically-inclined comrades think. Is he right? If he is, what are the implications? How could such a fraud be perpetuated, and why?

EDIT: Oh, I forgot to mention that the site I got this from is pretty strange; an Australian fellow with a very confused social and political outlook runs the site, and much of what is on it is non-materialist bullshit. It does make for interesting reading, though, and there are some neat tidbits like the one I just showed you.

[Mumbles]

As for the thing about CFCs being too massive to be in the atmosphere, take a look at the weight of ozone compared to the other gases in our atmosphere:

(by molar mass)
Nitrogen: 14.0067(2)g/mol^-1
Oxygen: 15.9994(3)g/mol^-1
etc. with Argon, Carbon Dioxide, Neon, Helium, Methane, Hydrogen, Nitrous Oxide, Nitrogen Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, and Ammonia.
With Ozone having an atomic mass of 47.998g/mol^-1
(although Iodine, Krypton and Xenon are heavier)

So I think we've basically cleared up that last argument about CFCs and mass affecting where stuff gets in the atmosphere. Besides the fact that it's not like the atmosphere sits still. It's a gas.

Also for the part about the poles, the ozone-oxygen cycle is where ultraviolet light hitting oxygen (O2) breaks it into elemental oxygen (O), which then bonds with a oxygen gas (O2) particle. But when another elemental oxygen (O) hits that it disassembles the ozone (O3) and forms it into two oxygen gas (2 O2) particles.
So: O2 + UV = 2 O, O + O2 = O3, O3 + O = 2 O2

So if we apply this logically to the situation above the poles, it should be creating and destroying constantly but at a different rate than that above the equator or anywhere else so it would stay semi-constant.

So the basic point is, is that for his first and second argument you present, he forgets to include the fact that UV light also destroys ozone by it's process of creating elemental oxygen.

As for the 3rd argument, he starts off trying to say that the atomic level of the world works just as fast as us, which is just incredibly wrong. Also, distribution of anything is never going to be perfect, even the amount of oxygen in your room compared to another room. But that doesn't mean there's no oxygen for you to breath. Then he talks about "mass" as if it's some sort of magical force. Ozone helps make up the mass of the atmosphere, along with all the other gases.

Hope this helps :)

Also if anyone has to correct me, sorry about the mistakes (if there are any :p haha)

[TheSultan]

To be honest I've always felt as if scares such as ozone depletion were simply methods of increasing consumer consciousness and awareness etc.

Companies advertising products as "safer" and such in order to make more money. That might just be me though. Also note I am not saying all environmental scares fall into such a category.

[Mumbles]

TheSultan, you might like this guy. He runs a website called Skeptoid but he had an episode making fun of companies that did just that to make money.

http://c1.libsyn.com/media/17974/skeptoid-4005.mp3?nvb=20100519220121&nva=20100520221121&sid=727116b8764db66dd3e2b111b460cb8d&t=0025fdcaff4b6d046aaf1

It's from www.skeptoid.com (http://skeptoid.com)

I actually think I remember hearing about this guy and his podcast from someone's post here on RL... to whomever that was, Thanks! :D

[TheSultan]

Ah, thank you Mumble. That was rather interesting tbh

[Mendax]

Ozone depletion, both as a problem and as a fact of science, is a myth, the reasons being that:
1) The ozone layer is created by sunlight hitting rising warm air molecules, and so therefore is *naturally* thin to nonexistent at the poles (where we mainly observe the phenomena of "ozone holes.")
2) Moreover, even if it were somehow being depleted, it would be replaced instantly, since sunlight is constantly hitting the upper atmosphere. It also degrades at a constant rate, so the only way it would disappear is if sunlight stopped hitting the atmosphere.
3) Ozone (O3) does not actually constitute a "layer" of the atmosphere (it's more like a disbursement), nor does it provide any protection against UV rays, since sunlight effectively hits the atmosphere at the same time as it hits us on the surface. Moreover, it is the *mass* of the atmosphere, along with the earth's magnetic field, which protects against solar radiation, *not* O3. Removing all the O3 from the atmosphere would have absolutely no effect on the amount of UV received by the surface, since the total mass of O3 in the atmosphere is minuscule.
4) CFC's, and other substances purported to degrade the ozone layer, are many times heavier than air, and so could never even reach the upper atmosphere.


I was going to write a long knowledgeable response to this but I'm not so great at chemistry and I don't have enough time but:

Different substances absorb different wavelengths of UV radiation - Ozone absorbs radiation of wavelengths 200 to 300 nm and decomposed by it, oxygen absorbs wavelengths below 240 nm etc, the mass may play a role but the different molecules that make up that mass absorb different wavelengths of radiation. If you just removed the Ozone a lot of it wouldn't get absorbed at all.

at 4) there not so much heavier then air as a partt of it - waters heavier then the "main" constituents of air but we still have clouds.

[Mendax]

Also for the part about the poles, the ozone-oxygen cycle is where ultraviolet light hitting oxygen (O2) breaks it into elemental oxygen (O), which then bonds with a oxygen gas (O2) particle. But when another elemental oxygen (O) hits that it disassembles the ozone (O3) and forms it into two oxygen gas (2 O2) particles.
So: O2 + UV = 2 O, O + O2 = O3, O3 + O = 2 O2



actually its

O2 + UV = 2O

O + O2 = O3

O3 + UV = O2 + O

So it should be a constant cycle but chemicals like NO released by jet engines also cause

2(O3) = 3(O2)
By acting like a catalyst

CFCs do the exact same thing with chlorine acting as a catalyst. Which takes it out of balance.

(I couldn't be assed to put the chemical equations for the NO and CFCs in but if you want then give me a prod)

[Mumbles]

Ah, thanks for clearing that little bit up. But for Mute Fox's purposes it basically says the same thing, that it's a self fulfilling cycle.

It'd be nice if you could post a link or explain the other cycles, for information's sake. But you can take your time with it

[praxis1966]

I think the lesson to be learned here is always be skeptical, including and especially when someone purports to be a skeptic of a theory that scientists have reached a consensus about. Doing otherwise is exactly why people get taken in by advocates of things like Intelligent Design, for instance. So-called authorities know just enough about a scientific phenomenon to criticize the theories which explain it, dressing it up in just enough scientific sounding language to make people who don't know any better believe it.

I'm not saying that last bit necessarily applies to you, Mumbles. For me, the surest sign of intelligence is the capacity to admit when you don't know something and ask someone who does. Trouble is, most people are easily led automatons.

[Ovi]

What do you comrades make of this?

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/ozone/king.htm

I personally cannot help but find this person's opinion to be convincing, but then again, I am no scientist and cannot/ don't know how to verify what he's saying. It seems to make sense to me, though.

If you couldn't be bothered to read the link, I'll summarize it for you:

Ozone depletion, both as a problem and as a fact of science, is a myth, the reasons being that:
1) The ozone layer is created by sunlight hitting rising warm air molecules, and so therefore is *naturally* thin to nonexistent at the poles (where we mainly observe the phenomena of "ozone holes.")
2) Moreover, even if it were somehow being depleted, it would be replaced instantly, since sunlight is constantly hitting the upper atmosphere. It also degrades at a constant rate, so the only way it would disappear is if sunlight stopped hitting the atmosphere.
3) Ozone (O3) does not actually constitute a "layer" of the atmosphere (it's more like a disbursement), nor does it provide any protection against UV rays, since sunlight effectively hits the atmosphere at the same time as it hits us on the surface. Moreover, it is the *mass* of the atmosphere, along with the earth's magnetic field, which protects against solar radiation, *not* O3. Removing all the O3 from the atmosphere would have absolutely no effect on the amount of UV received by the surface, since the total mass of O3 in the atmosphere is minuscule.
4) CFC's, and other substances purported to degrade the ozone layer, are many times heavier than air, and so could never even reach the upper atmosphere.

That's the basic thrust of this guy's argument, which he goes into in much more detail. He's convinced me; but I want to know what my more scientifically-inclined comrades think. Is he right? If he is, what are the implications? How could such a fraud be perpetuated, and why?

EDIT: Oh, I forgot to mention that the site I got this from is pretty strange; an Australian fellow with a very confused social and political outlook runs the site, and much of what is on it is non-materialist bullshit. It does make for interesting reading, though, and there are some neat tidbits like the one I just showed you.
And some blame wikipedia for not being good enough; at least we see this bullshit debunked on wikipedia. And here's the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Misconceptions_about_ozone_depleti on) and quoting:


Misconceptions about ozone depletion


CFCs are "too heavy" to reach the stratosphere It is commonly believed that CFC molecules are heavier than air (nitrogen or oxygen), so that the CFC molecules cannot reach the stratosphere in significant amount.[71] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#cite_note-70) But atmospheric gases are not sorted by weight; the forces of wind can fully mix the gases in the atmosphere. Despite the fact that CFCs are heavier than air and with a long lifetime, they are evenly distributed throughout the turbosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbosphere) and reach the upper atmosphere.[72] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#cite_note-71)

That's 4).
2) It wouldn't be replaced instantly. If the rate of ozone destruction is greater than the rate of ozone creation, then ozone gets depleted
3) UV is not affected by the the earth's magnetic field. Here's a graph about atmospheric windows

http://www.invasive.org/gist/products/sensing/images/atmospheric-windows.gif


Each gas has a certain absorption spectrum; For instance ozone absorbs electromagnetic radiation below 0.4 microns, aka UV, while carbon dioxide and water vapor absorb radiation in the infrared spectrum (above 0.7 microns), which makes them greenhouse gases.

[eichtj01]

Hi,

Just wanted to say that the guy is correct. The myth of ozone depletion is nonsensical. Dupont Chemicals owned the 30 year patent on Freon, which was expiring, which meant that Dupont couldn't make the obscene profits anymore; guess who owns the patent on the replacement?

Ozone does not protect us from radiation, it is a byproduct of the protection that the atmosphere affords us. Think about: just as oxygen is corrosive and will react with many things, ozone is even more so. It is highly unstable, lasts only a few seconds, and, even if nothing else is around, it will react with other ozone molecules, releasing the energy it absorbed, reverting to the stable O2. There is no fixed supply of it to even be depleted. If it were not continuously created, it would've be gone a looooong time ago. As long as we have oxygen in the atmosphere, we will have ozone, and an "ozone layer". How can this myth be perpetrated by otherwise intelligent people? Simple. Nearly everyone, even scientists, accept things that they do not understand, simply because it came from an "expert". Free your mind, think for yourself. And whenever you see science on tv being "sold" with appeals to fear and emotion (like in advertising and politics), they are selling something that someone is profiting from. CO2 caused global warming is another example of this, as is the war in iraq.

Peace