The Sky is Falling
- Thread starter oldgrowth
- Start date
- Status
Roger - lets do a better job of explaining the thickness of the ozone layer. I am not a scientist just some one that is willing to look at things in an analytical manner using some common sense.rogerbum":23653xbe said:
If the ozone is dispersed and in very small amounts in a thick layer over the earth, it will have about the same effectiveness in blocking the harmful radiation that a concentrated thin layer will have. I believe what Jim was trying to point out is the affective thickness of the ozone layer.
Between 1928 and 1958 Dobson established a worldwide network of ozone monitoring stations which continues to operate today. The Dobson unit, a convenient measure of the total amount of ozone in a column overhead, is named in his honor. The Dobson Unit (DU) is a scale for measuring the total amount of ozone occupying a column of air. One DU is defined as 0.01 mm thickness at zero degrees Celsius and one atmosphere. If the ozone layer over the US were subjected to 0 °C and 1 atmosphere it would end up being 3 mm thick or 300 DU. (1/8 inch)
________
Dave
All - I did get a very nice reply from Dr. Osheroff. I include the entire reply (including him correcting my brain fart which referred to Challenger instead of Columbia) and my original question below.
from Dr. Osheroff":1n3yxrgp said:
question from Roger (errors and all)":1n3yxrgp said:
I figured Roger was qualified. I have a suggestion. So that regular non accredited folks like me can learn from this post, why don't we ask those claiming to be in the know state their qualifications. That way guys like me can distinguish between the qualified and the hot air folks.
just a suggestion
Jim D
I really wanted to stay out of this, but.....
It wasn't Bill who inserted the poll, although the lack of smart-aleck comment may have led you to believe it couldn't have been me.
My feeling: If someone is still on the fence with this question, as am I, and that person possesses a lick of common sense, as I profess to have, then some measure of concern is inevitable and therefore valid even though not publically espoused. People who believe the jury is still out and have no concern for which verdict may be returned have no business voting in this highly scientific poll.
One further personal observation may be in order. Even though it is a far stretch to tie this into boating (in our lifetime, anyway), I see no reason why so productive and friendly a discourse cannot be at home in this particular forum. So if there are those who do not wish to see this type of stuff on here but cannot resist the temptation to read it, we can fix it so those individuals cannot see it.
It wasn't Bill who inserted the poll, although the lack of smart-aleck comment may have led you to believe it couldn't have been me.
My feeling: If someone is still on the fence with this question, as am I, and that person possesses a lick of common sense, as I profess to have, then some measure of concern is inevitable and therefore valid even though not publically espoused. People who believe the jury is still out and have no concern for which verdict may be returned have no business voting in this highly scientific poll.
One further personal observation may be in order. Even though it is a far stretch to tie this into boating (in our lifetime, anyway), I see no reason why so productive and friendly a discourse cannot be at home in this particular forum. So if there are those who do not wish to see this type of stuff on here but cannot resist the temptation to read it, we can fix it so those individuals cannot see it.
Roger,
Could you clarify for me the stanford peofessors response. Am i to understand that the Freon or lack there of had nothing to do with the disaster. I think I understand that they were still in fact using the freon agent on that particular area. Maybe I am reading it wrong.
Jim D
Could you clarify for me the stanford peofessors response. Am i to understand that the Freon or lack there of had nothing to do with the disaster. I think I understand that they were still in fact using the freon agent on that particular area. Maybe I am reading it wrong.
Jim D
ryder - I have just about had it with you. If you don’t like me and want to make offhand comments about me, go ahead.ryder":25rrmcm5 said:
I have not seen any hot air folks with comments in here. I have seen people with different views and some that question the intelligence of people out there. They never referred to anyone in here in a disparaging way. Don’t you know out there is not in here? Keep your snide comments pointed to me, because apparently I am the one that you really dislike. Leave the others out of it.
I thank you if you will do that.
________
Dave
Jazzmanic":2o8xjr3k said:
Peter,
Thanks for the acknowledgment and I have to admit that I was feeling a bit concerned about the questions I posed above as I don't want to squash discussion by "non-experts". To be clear, I have a B.S. and M.S. in chemistry and a Ph. D. in Physical Chemistry (mostly doing esoteric spectroscopy and quantum mechanics). From there I went to Caltech were I was awarded a nice prize fellowship and worked in the Department of Geology and Planetary Sciences (but still did mostly Physical Chemistry). From there I met a biologist and wound up doing a 2-year postdoctoral fellowship in biology under Lee Hood (a fairly famous biologist whose group played a major role in the invention of DNA and protein sequencers) and from there I move to the University of Washington and ultimately became a faculty member in the department of microbiology. HOWEVER, none of these things make ME an expert in atmospheric sciences. So what I do is find people who are and LISTEN TO THEM. So my comments and questions above were not intended to mean "listen to me, I have a Ph.D and know what the hell I'm talking about" but rather to mean "listen to the experts in the field of concern".
So with regards to the freon/foam/space shuttle Columbia disaster, I simply emailed a Nobel prize winning physicist who was actually involved with the accident investigation and asked him about the connection between freon-free foam and the accident. From his reply, it can be inferred that there is little connection between the freon free foam and the accident AND that the piece of foam which came loose and caused the damage was actually made with freon AND that the reason for switch away from freon was simply to conserve a limited supply (not some Eco-whacko agenda).
So, should I believe the Nobel prize winning physicist who participated in the investigation and who was hired as and independent expert to participate in the investigation OR should I believe a guy who I know from boating (who by the way did a fabulous job on extending his 16' boat by 2') and his sources which are generally second hand? Personally, I'll go with the Nobel prize winning physicist. That's not because I have a Ph.D., that's not because the fortunate circumstances that allowed me to get a Ph.D. make me special. No it's because that thing we like to talk about - "common sense" says find an expert and listen to them. So my example above with regards to mechanics and surgeons, doesn't require a Ph.D., it requires "common sense". The same goes for science.
Dave - with regards to the thickness of the ozone layer and the ability of a layer that is diffuse and big (or concentrated and thin) - you are quite correct in saying that they are effectively equivalent with regards to their ability to absorb light. However, that doesn't mean that a thin concentrated layer won't absorb much light. I'll get back to you and the group with a more detailed explanation when I have the time but in brief, light absorbance is controlled by Beer's law which states that the absorbance (A) is equal to the absorptivity (a) times the concentration of the molecule (C) times the pathlength. The absorptivity is dependent on wavelength - e.g. molecules absorb different amounts of light at different wavelength. I'll look up the absorptivity of ozone at at UV wavelengths and work through how a thin layer of concentrated ozone (or an equivalent thick layer of diffuse ozone) absorb a significant fraction of the sun's UV light. However, without going through the example, I can tell you that ozone is very absorbent of UV light and it doesn't take much to block most of it (just like a thin layer of black plastic can block nearly all visible light. Hence, the diffuseness of the ozone layer or the effective thickness when concentrated does not imply that it doesn't matter. It does.
My My My-----As my old Great Uncle used to say who never went beyond the 3rd grade and who just happened to be the most influential person in my life. I'm trying to think how He would have answered such a question as should only the views of college educated academics be considered when making a decision on a subject to what many would consider to be one of the top problems facing the future of humanity. He was just a farmer, but I have known few people who's opinion was more respected in any subject under discussion in which He Participated. Then there's my good ole Pop who joined the Marines just after His 17th birthday and never had less than half a dozen books in his pack back during the War. Came home drove logging truck for a living and helped raise 5 kids on a small ranch. No formal education, but a mind like a sponge soaking up any and all information. His two favorite magazines are Scientific American and Discovery. And I've yet to meet a person who is any more knowledgeable on the variety of subjects as Him.
And you want to know what my qualification are, so you can determine if what I say is worthwhile. Well lets just say I have more formal education than my Dad or Great Uncle and my two remaining sons are much higher than Me. Roger I would have respected your views and known you were a highly educated scientist without any mention of academic laurels. To me this is a extremely elitists attitude. To infer anyone not having a formal academic science background can't aquire scientific knowledge worth listening to or be judged unworthy to give a view point worth considering is in any case prejudice to the extreme. I and most any reasonably well read person can desern on a subject such as this thread whether a person is blowing smoke or has something valuable to add.
Jay
And you want to know what my qualification are, so you can determine if what I say is worthwhile. Well lets just say I have more formal education than my Dad or Great Uncle and my two remaining sons are much higher than Me. Roger I would have respected your views and known you were a highly educated scientist without any mention of academic laurels. To me this is a extremely elitists attitude. To infer anyone not having a formal academic science background can't aquire scientific knowledge worth listening to or be judged unworthy to give a view point worth considering is in any case prejudice to the extreme. I and most any reasonably well read person can desern on a subject such as this thread whether a person is blowing smoke or has something valuable to add.
Jay
Roger - thank you for contacting professor Osheroff and posting his response here. I wish you had been a little more up front adout this part of your letter to him. “but I haven't been able to find (at least not in quick looking around) a solid explanation that would lead me to either believe or not believe this claim. I have (of course) found some quotes on right wing media attributed to you that are used to support this idea”. I gave you quotes from news articles of the Boston Globe, Fox News, The UK Guardian, and from NASA documents. It would have been very easy for you to have found the same articles, but it appears (and I could br wrong) you wanted this to be a Right Wing Conspearsy. I did not get any of my information from Right Wing sources. Unlike you, I did an extensive search for any documation supporting professer Oshroff’s statement and like you was unable to find anything.
When I am wrong, I will admit it. My excuse is, I am human.
Now can I ask you a favor? Because on this issue you are able to get information, I cannot. Would you ask the professor where I can find the documentation that the builder of the external tanks used Freon, in the insulation on the Columbia Shuttle.
I hope this puts a nail it the coffin of this tangent of this thread and we can get back to the original post about global warming.
________
Dave
When I am wrong, I will admit it. My excuse is, I am human.
Now can I ask you a favor? Because on this issue you are able to get information, I cannot. Would you ask the professor where I can find the documentation that the builder of the external tanks used Freon, in the insulation on the Columbia Shuttle.
I hope this puts a nail it the coffin of this tangent of this thread and we can get back to the original post about global warming.
________
Dave
Roger
Yes you hit a nerve. I was writing the above when you made your clarification. No need to worry about squashing discussion. As you can see it would take a heavier foot. I do agree with listening to the expects. And I wouldn't have wrote what I did if your clarication had come earlier. Anyway I apologize.
Jay
Yes you hit a nerve. I was writing the above when you made your clarification. No need to worry about squashing discussion. As you can see it would take a heavier foot. I do agree with listening to the expects. And I wouldn't have wrote what I did if your clarication had come earlier. Anyway I apologize.
Jay
Jay I couldn;t agree with you more. All of us are entitled to opinions. I however would like to be able to discern opinion from facts.
..the problem is people claining they know the facts and have "common sense" and can add 2+2. when in fact they don't.
So how do I figure out whats wrong with my outboard motor. Well I get opinions from the forum, but ultimately I ask a "qualified" mechanic.
When i need an operation I go to a qualified doctor.
When I want to learn about the land and maybe a little about life , a farmer would be great. I figure the farmer probably has more common sense than the doctor. But Jay...guess what...? The farmer isn;t going to operate on me.
Let's not confuse opinions with scientific fact...which is my point.
Roger went to the source and found out the facts regarding columbia by someone qualified.
regards!
Jim D
oldgrowth":30da3rck said:Roger - thank you for contacting professor Osheroff and posting his response here. I wish you had been a little more up front adout this part of your letter to him. “but I haven't been able to find (at least not in quick looking around) a solid explanation that would lead me to either believe or not believe this claim. I have (of course) found some quotes on right wing media attributed to you that are used to support this idea”. I gave you quotes from news articles of the Boston Globe, Fox News, The UK Guardian, and from NASA documents. It would have been very easy for you to have found the same articles, but it appears (and I could br wrong) you wanted this to be a Right Wing Conspearsy. I did not get any of my information from Right Wing sources. Unlike you, I did an extensive search for any documation supporting professer Oshroff’s statement and like you was unable to find anything.
When I am wrong, I will admit it. My excuse is, I am human.
Now can I ask you a favor? Because on this issue you are able to get information, I cannot. Would you ask the professor where I can find the documentation that the builder of the external tanks used Freon, in the insulation on the Columbia Shuttle.
I hope this puts a nail it the coffin of this tangent of this thread and we can get back to the original post about global warming.
________
Dave
Dave,
I think I have been very upfront. I disclose my typos/brain farts - I document my edits. Prior to me sending an email to Osheroff, I did exactly what you suggested - e.g. "Do a Google search with columbia shuttle disaster freon in the search string and you will probably be surprised with some of the hits." You didn't (at that time) document any primary sources of data. I did that search and found links that led through either a Rush Limbaugh initiated story or a Steven Milloy (of Fox News) story to comments taken out of context from Dr. Osheroff. So I wrote him. I admit I didn't click on every link that was turned up by that search. Rather I tried to (quickly) determine how this story got legs and see if I could locate primary data. When I couldn't I did what I thought was most efficient - e.g. ask someone who should know - Osheroff.
Most of your initial comments on this topic were somewhat vague, marginally documented and simply implied that you knew a lot about this that those of us who follow "mainstream media". The comment
is an example of something that indicated you were in the know an I (and others) was (were) not. The stuff immediately following did not contain fully attributed sources of primary data but rather contained comments from a couple of scientists that were taken out of context to suggest that there is no connection between CFC use and the ozone hole. Then the stuff suggesting that CFC-free foam caused the space shuttle Columbia disaster came up and I tried to address that with primary sources (like comments from Osheroff). Where precisely have I been less than "upfront"?old growth":30da3rck said:
(note - just because you appear to be badly losing an argument, doesn't mean that the other side is somehow playing unfairly :wink:
Finally, I would suggest that you can in fact get similar information as I by asking the primary sources. Osheroff's email address is posted on a public site as are the email addresses of many others involved in the investigation. Many of these people will reply to well reasoned and respectful questions from the general public. As a scientist involved in genetics and molecular biology research, I get asked a variety of questions each year by people from the general public. For awhile, I used to get one or two questions a month, lately it's less frequent. I generally try to answer what I can regardless of who asks it (from grade school kids to adults). So - give this a try - locate and ask the experts when you can. I've got money that says you'll get a reply 50% of the time or more (as long as you are not offensive when you ask the question).
Hunkydory":2givniuj said:
Jay,
I apologize for coming off as elitist. Your uncle was undoubtedly very smart. I didn't intend to infer that those without a formal academic background can't acquire scientific knowledge. What I intended was to imply that it's best to ask experts when possible. I'd bet that when your uncle didn't know the answer to something, he'd either figure it out himself or find an expert and pay attention to the expert. It doesn't matter whether the topic is farming, auto mechanics or brain surgery - find someone who knows the answer (who has experience in the area) AND LISTEN. If in doubt, find several and take the consensus answer. This is the common sense approach most people take in other areas of life, why should science be different? So when I point out that the vast majority of atmospheric scientists are fairly certain that the ozone hole is caused by CFC's, I am just using the same good old fashioned common sense approach that you and your uncle might take when venturing into an area in which you have little formal training or direct experience (atmospheric science).
When I first moved to Seattle, I took the same approach to salmon fishing - I found people who knew what they are doing, and listened.
ryder":3fs6b2cj said:
The piece of foam that came off and hit the wing (which caused the disaster) was made the "old way" - with freon. Hence, the claim that making foam without freon caused the disaster is on weak ground. The freon free foam was used in other areas but not in the area the came off and caused the problem. That area had been problematic before - why it was problematic enough this time to result in a complete loss of the vehicle when it worked OK previously is not clear but it is likely due to statistics catching up with this launch. E.g. this area had problems before of varying magnitude and on this launch the problem was big enough to cause complete loss of the vehicle.
RJD Wannabe
New member
Simpleton Analysis of the Global Warming Issue
(from a 20+ year faculty member at Univ. Calif Medical Schools, Davis & San Francisco)
1) Human population growing exponentially
2) Were burning fossil fuels at an exponential rate. Likely to burn most of world's supply of oil in about 200 total years, despite recorded civilization of 8000+ years. e.g. Texas is running out of oil. All produce carbon dioxide
3) Carbon Dioxide level in atmosphere in rising exponentially. Main "Greenhouse Gas"
4) Biomass of carbon dioxide extracting plants is decreasing.
5) Earth is warming, glaciers receeding, etc. Significantly. Mother Earth is changing.
is #3 a major contributor to #5?? That's the unanswered question
I believe so, not sure it can be absolutely, definitively proven. We are burning up the planet way too fast. But that is my (and many others, including many scientific experts) opinion.
Most of the deniers, (?ostriches?) are doing so for emotional, political, or financial reasons; not on a scientific basis. Just my $0.02.
Burning the earth's resources at record pace flunks the common sense test, when alternatives are available, but may not be convenient. But I drive a Prius, traded my BMW in and more than DOUBLED my mileage, now a real 44 mpg. If we all improved our mileage by even 25%, think about less CO2, less dependancy on oil imports, etc. If some of those $$ went to solar panels, what a different world we could leave to our children, grandchildren.
One reason I'll have a C-Dory in 12-18 months is the mileage.
Now my real $0.02, we should lead by example, not whine about China, etc. That's the American Way. We can be leaders.
(from a 20+ year faculty member at Univ. Calif Medical Schools, Davis & San Francisco)
1) Human population growing exponentially
2) Were burning fossil fuels at an exponential rate. Likely to burn most of world's supply of oil in about 200 total years, despite recorded civilization of 8000+ years. e.g. Texas is running out of oil. All produce carbon dioxide
3) Carbon Dioxide level in atmosphere in rising exponentially. Main "Greenhouse Gas"
4) Biomass of carbon dioxide extracting plants is decreasing.
5) Earth is warming, glaciers receeding, etc. Significantly. Mother Earth is changing.
is #3 a major contributor to #5?? That's the unanswered question
I believe so, not sure it can be absolutely, definitively proven. We are burning up the planet way too fast. But that is my (and many others, including many scientific experts) opinion.
Most of the deniers, (?ostriches?) are doing so for emotional, political, or financial reasons; not on a scientific basis. Just my $0.02.
Burning the earth's resources at record pace flunks the common sense test, when alternatives are available, but may not be convenient. But I drive a Prius, traded my BMW in and more than DOUBLED my mileage, now a real 44 mpg. If we all improved our mileage by even 25%, think about less CO2, less dependancy on oil imports, etc. If some of those $$ went to solar panels, what a different world we could leave to our children, grandchildren.
One reason I'll have a C-Dory in 12-18 months is the mileage.
Now my real $0.02, we should lead by example, not whine about China, etc. That's the American Way. We can be leaders.
Roger - I hate to do this to you again, but here is another news flash . . . I am not losing the argument about Freon and the space shuttle disaster. I lost the argument.rogerbum":mdkzwxch said:
The jury is still out on human cause of the destruction of the ozone layer and there is still AL Gore and his predictions of the scorching earth, the flooding of New York amongst his other predictions. That is what the thread was started about, until it got off on other tangents.
I also did as you suggested. I located Professor Osheroff’s email (I was not aware they posted it on the web) and requested he point me to the document or give me a name who could.
________
Dave
- Status