Quote:As someone who doesn't always disagree with everything you say, I must say that that's not really obvious or clear from your post. At this point, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying you think on any of what you wrote there.
I mean seriously... what is wrong with you people? I didn't even say I was my view point (which to a large extent its not).
Quote:I kind of understand your point here, but I don't really agree with your conclusions. This model almost certainly wasn't the work of just a few months. New things may have been integrated in those few months, but that isn't the only thing that happened. Nor is there any sign that they're claming to have the ULTIMATE FINAL MODEL. Just that it's better than what they had before. Also, there's this:
Yes, it does take into account new info, but the speed at which it came out looks like a rush to judgement.
Quote:So, yeah, retroactive modelling seems to be covered. Overall, I don't see anything that convinces me this model isn't a legitimate result of the progress of science. That doesn't automatically make it *right*, it just looks to me like they're actually trying to do their jobs.
The model accurately reproduces the ozone hole area in the Antarctic stratosphere over the past 27 years. Using the model, the researchers predict that the ozone hole will recover in 2068, not in 2050 as currently believed.
Quote:Question here would be, how significant are those other factors? I remember poor quality control being mentioned in the other thread... that can be deadly no matter what the material is.
Some like the foam they use on space shuttles is so much worse, that it managed to damage a space shuttle lethally. (Yes, other factors are involved, but the kill shot was a rock like chunk of the non-CFC foam damaging the tile.)
Quote:
What the NOx does is slow down the Ozone break down for most of the year. So the Ozone consumption rate is closer to the Ozone creation rate. Then a weird vortex isolates the pole and it consumes all the inhibitor and the UV radiation gets through (which is hampered by the angel of the Earth most of the year) and the Ozone is consumed in the isolated zone... then it sucks in Ozone to fill the gap and that is what causes the decrease in total Ozone.
The spraying NOx thing was in part, because I thought is was funny that Ozone Layer was depleting, in large part, because the pole isn't getting enough laughing gas. Which is an extension of earlier parts of this discussion.
Quote:Describing it as "not enough laughing gas" is kind of funny, but some poking around in wikipedia suggests that you're completely wrong here. To be fair, there's some easily-confused terms here.
Id like to note here that one of the gases it aims for less of is NOx which means that to mitigate the effects of global warming, we have to deplete the Ozone layer by making less inhibitors. So because countries are fighting MGW the Ozone Layer hole will get bigger by default.
The article about antarctica talks about nitrogen oxides, a term which actually covers a number of chemicals - three stable and three unstable. The ones of interest to this discussion are N20 (nitrous oxide), NO (nitric oxide), and NO2 (nitrogen dioxide).
N2O, accordign to it's wikipedia article is both a greenhouse gas and an ozone antagonist, thus not only does it contribute to global warming (thus it's presence in the Kyoto protocol), it actually hurts the ozone layer.
NO and NO2 are the ones involved in ozone formation, as described here. According to it's article:
Quote:NO is also stated to be toxic (though I haven't found details on how), and ozone itself is a respiratory irritant. So it's quite reasonable to want none of these chemicals anywhere near people. And N20 isn't really helpful at all.
Nitrogen dioxide is toxic by inhalation. Symptoms of poisoning (lung edema) tend to appear several hours after one has inhaled a low but potentially fatal dose. Also, low concentrations (4 ppm) will anesthetize the nose, thus creating a potential for overexposure.
On the Kyoto Protocol in general... yeah, there seem to be an issue here. China is building a new coal power plant every week? o.O
Quote:I've heard this mentioned also, and if that's really an accurate description of the situation, it is disturbing in it's own right. Leaving aside entirely *what* was being shown... the idea of a child's grades being determined by a factor not under their control in this way is highly dubious.
I've also heard of at least one case in Florida where kids are required to have their parents attend the Al Gore movie or the kids grades suffer.
Just the movie being shown in schools... doesn't feel much like news to me. When I was in school they showed all kinds of things to me. Different agendas (particularly during the time when I, despite not being catholic, was in a catholic school), same methods. It'll get displaced by something else later on. But the part I talked about above, that's new.
I suppose I should have wrote those paragraphs in the opposite order. But I didn't, it's late and I'm tired, and I need to be going to bed instead of continuing to write this post. So, if there's anything else I want to comment on, I'll comment on it tomorrow. If I remember it. '.'
-Morgan."This continuity is now a Princess of Darkness crossover."
"... They're all going to die, aren't they?"
"Yep. Popcorn?"