What Happened To Deep Throat

Ozone and skepticism

continue with the theme of the previous post . In it, we discussed the techniques of skepticism to counter the problem of ozone. Today we will analyze an article on eco-skeptic ozone What was the Hole in the Ozone Layer? written by Daniel Rodríguez Herrera and published in the neoconservative think tank the Institute Juan de Mariana . On the Juan de Mariana Institute is material for many other items ... but time to time.

not let me play, because it is subject to copyright. However, I recommend reading. I will not be so unfair as to show only without reserve my criticism due recognition to the article itself.

The author argues that the Montreal treaty was certainly unnecessary, more a political move than anything else. The arguments relied upon are:
a) There is scientific consensus and there has been a model certainly very doubtful.
b) The hole is not so bad
c) The hole has not grown since the Treaty of Montreal, and consequently it is natural.

Other interesting aspects of the article, commenting that "disappeared" from the environmental awareness of CFCs, now attacks the CO2, and recognizes that the economic consequences of the Treaty of Montreal has not been particularly damaging. Regardless of content, this (and other articles I have read the Institute), have good quality narrative. Peeeeeero ... with all due respect, it is always interesting to sharpen.

On the first point: There is no scientific consensus. On the contrary, yes there is. Clear that the scientific consensus is not a consensus of a democratic type, and even less is needed unaminidad (if so, we would still be to adopt the theory of evolution. In the scientific world there are hierarchies, and an author who has published more and better (ie, highly referenced review article) will carry more weight and importance than the opinion of someone who has not worked much on the subject. So it is with the famous cousin Rajoy (I will not attack this comment, which seemed unfortunate mostly because I think it was misinterpreted) or ozone skeptics. We talked about the Dr. Singer in the previous post . His opinion should not be too taken into account as just been published on the subject into articles without review and have little impact. The same search in Science Direct (one of the best scientific articles hunters I know) give enough results on destruction of the ozone layer and CFCs .

model of Rowland and Molina, is just that, a model, but satisfactorily explains the responsibility of CFCs in ozone destruction. If this reaction occurs in the upper atmosphere (and it gives me that is well established that it is), CFCs are potentially destructive and if they destructive potential, they need regulation. Fortunately, we substitute, which although not as good as CFCs, then at least they are enough to be worth replacing.

UV-B itself is a major risk. This is an "ionizing" radiation, this means that it is able to ionize, come on, start electrons of the substance on the incident. On DNA damage can be quite serious, UV-B being a mutagen. If it is mutagenic, it may be carcinogenic. If we discover that a particular substance is a carcinogen, like asbestos, they must be removed to minimize exposure. This is not an ordinary poison, which may not exceed a certain dose you get rid of their effects, the DNA has memory, and the damage accumulates until just twisting something. Therefore, the mutagenic and carcinogenic policy is to ban, or at least significantly reduce the exposure to these agents.

The number of melanomas and other skin cancers have increased significantly in recent decades. It is true that you should put all the blame to increased UV-B radiation has also involved changes in the habits of the population, now we go to the beach (small section to remind you of the need to use adequate sun protection.) So it is difficult to distinguish between the effect of UV-B and the effect of behavior change. But this is not an excuse, because if we have a mutagenic potential, you should avoid, especially if we want to increase our exposure to it.

But the effects of UV-B do not result in cancer. This ability causes damage ionizing structures, materials, harvests ... those involving economic loss damages, and we must protect our economy and perhaps the CFC ban has allowed more benefit, albeit in the long term.

On the second point: "The hole is not big deal." Actually, here I see a couple of pretty big failure. First make sure the hole is actually a thinning of the layer, not a disappearance of the gas. Well, would rather the reverse: there is a thinning, because this layer does not exist, but the destruction of the gas. The situation is not restored as it was before the appearance of the hole: After breaking the polar vortex, the air with less ozone is mixed with more ozone, and the overall concentration decreases. It may not be spectacular decline year after year, but for every 1% of ozone is lost, increased by 1% UV-B radiation in the lower atmosphere, and remember the above. If we are pouring indefinitely CFCs into the atmosphere, the concentration increased, so that each year more ozone is lost and the effects may be more harmful.

third point "on the evolution of the ozone layer." The ozone that has been increasing in size until well after the adoption of the Montreal treaty, does not mean that CFCs have nothing to do. Remember it takes on average more than 10 years to reach the stratosphere. The treaty Montreal was signed in 87, and the hole in the layer has grown to late nineties. First, because the ban has not been immediate, and is scheduled to complete disappearance of CFCs in the industry for 2010. And second, the CFC issued before the treaty had not had time to reach the stratosphere.

The lifetime of CFCs is between 75 and 100 years (some more). Assuming a constant emission, the concentration in the stratosphere will increase to balance the 75-100 years since then, it will produce both CFC as it is destroyed. But the issue has not been steady, but growing, that means not to have stabilized CFC emissions, will grow for an indefinite period. The author says that from about 2000 extension hole ozone layer has stayed steady. If so excellent, we have shown that the correlation between the CFC and the destruction of the ozone layer, and you just have to wait until 2050 (date given by some models) for the effects start to decrease. But that has not happened, in 2006 there was a maximum extension , reaching 39 million square kilometers. This shows that there are more things to consider, not just the concentration of CFCs. What this shows is we need more research but does not abrogate the treaty in Montreal.

Indeed, when there tends to be especially useful to show a series of data, draw conclusions and do not show statistical techniques employed. Specifically, the data correspond to the length of the hole.

From 1982 to 2006, its size, in millions of square kilometers, according to NASA, has followed this series: 4, 8, 10, 14, 11, 19 (here adopted the Montreal Protocol), 10, 18, 19, 18, 22, 23, 22, 22, 22, 21, 26, 23, 24, 25, 12, 25, 19, 24, 26. As shown, after increasing significantly during the 80 it seems that things have stagnated since then.

Well, again displayed the same theories of environmental lobbyists and others. I will not deny that environmental groups pose a significant pressure group, and that often employ unethical techniques. I do not care to distance himself from them when their opinion does not seem right. But I think it is giving too much importance to its influence, and all this against the efforts of serious scientists who claim to know the truth, whatever it is, who benefits benefits.

I add that everyone is welcome to criticize my criticism, the author especially. More than anything because I hope that was not offended, this post I've done without the slightest bitterness, but Science discussion is built.

What Happened To Deep Throat

Ozone and skepticism

continue with the theme of the previous post . In it, we discussed the techniques of skepticism to counter the problem of ozone. Today we will analyze an article on eco-skeptic ozone What was the Hole in the Ozone Layer? written by Daniel Rodríguez Herrera and published in the neoconservative think tank the Institute Juan de Mariana . On the Juan de Mariana Institute is material for many other items ... but time to time.

not let me play, because it is subject to copyright. However, I recommend reading. I will not be so unfair as to show only without reserve my criticism due recognition to the article itself.

The author argues that the Montreal treaty was certainly unnecessary, more a political move than anything else. The arguments relied upon are:
a) There is scientific consensus and there has been a model certainly very doubtful.
b) The hole is not so bad
c) The hole has not grown since the Treaty of Montreal, and consequently it is natural.

Other interesting aspects of the article, commenting that "disappeared" from the environmental awareness of CFCs, now attacks the CO2, and recognizes that the economic consequences of the Treaty of Montreal has not been particularly damaging. Regardless of content, this (and other articles I have read the Institute), have good quality narrative. Peeeeeero ... with all due respect, it is always interesting to sharpen.

On the first point: There is no scientific consensus. On the contrary, yes there is. Clear that the scientific consensus is not a consensus of a democratic type, and even less is needed unaminidad (if so, we would still be to adopt the theory of evolution. In the scientific world there are hierarchies, and an author who has published more and better (ie, highly referenced review article) will carry more weight and importance than the opinion of someone who has not worked much on the subject. So it is with the famous cousin Rajoy (I will not attack this comment, which seemed unfortunate mostly because I think it was misinterpreted) or ozone skeptics. We talked about the Dr. Singer in the previous post . His opinion should not be too taken into account as just been published on the subject into articles without review and have little impact. The same search in Science Direct (one of the best scientific articles hunters I know) give enough results on destruction of the ozone layer and CFCs .

model of Rowland and Molina, is just that, a model, but satisfactorily explains the responsibility of CFCs in ozone destruction. If this reaction occurs in the upper atmosphere (and it gives me that is well established that it is), CFCs are potentially destructive and if they destructive potential, they need regulation. Fortunately, we substitute, which although not as good as CFCs, then at least they are enough to be worth replacing.

UV-B itself is a major risk. This is an "ionizing" radiation, this means that it is able to ionize, come on, start electrons of the substance on the incident. On DNA damage can be quite serious, UV-B being a mutagen. If it is mutagenic, it may be carcinogenic. If we discover that a particular substance is a carcinogen, like asbestos, they must be removed to minimize exposure. This is not an ordinary poison, which may not exceed a certain dose you get rid of their effects, the DNA has memory, and the damage accumulates until just twisting something. Therefore, the mutagenic and carcinogenic policy is to ban, or at least significantly reduce the exposure to these agents.

The number of melanomas and other skin cancers have increased significantly in recent decades. It is true that you should put all the blame to increased UV-B radiation has also involved changes in the habits of the population, now we go to the beach (small section to remind you of the need to use adequate sun protection.) So it is difficult to distinguish between the effect of UV-B and the effect of behavior change. But this is not an excuse, because if we have a mutagenic potential, you should avoid, especially if we want to increase our exposure to it.

But the effects of UV-B do not result in cancer. This ability causes damage ionizing structures, materials, harvests ... those involving economic loss damages, and we must protect our economy and perhaps the CFC ban has allowed more benefit, albeit in the long term.

On the second point: "The hole is not big deal." Actually, here I see a couple of pretty big failure. First make sure the hole is actually a thinning of the layer, not a disappearance of the gas. Well, would rather the reverse: there is a thinning, because this layer does not exist, but the destruction of the gas. The situation is not restored as it was before the appearance of the hole: After breaking the polar vortex, the air with less ozone is mixed with more ozone, and the overall concentration decreases. It may not be spectacular decline year after year, but for every 1% of ozone is lost, increased by 1% UV-B radiation in the lower atmosphere, and remember the above. If we are pouring indefinitely CFCs into the atmosphere, the concentration increased, so that each year more ozone is lost and the effects may be more harmful.

third point "on the evolution of the ozone layer." The ozone that has been increasing in size until well after the adoption of the Montreal treaty, does not mean that CFCs have nothing to do. Remember it takes on average more than 10 years to reach the stratosphere. The treaty Montreal was signed in 87, and the hole in the layer has grown to late nineties. First, because the ban has not been immediate, and is scheduled to complete disappearance of CFCs in the industry for 2010. And second, the CFC issued before the treaty had not had time to reach the stratosphere.

The lifetime of CFCs is between 75 and 100 years (some more). Assuming a constant emission, the concentration in the stratosphere will increase to balance the 75-100 years since then, it will produce both CFC as it is destroyed. But the issue has not been steady, but growing, that means not to have stabilized CFC emissions, will grow for an indefinite period. The author says that from about 2000 extension hole ozone layer has stayed steady. If so excellent, we have shown that the correlation between the CFC and the destruction of the ozone layer, and you just have to wait until 2050 (date given by some models) for the effects start to decrease. But that has not happened, in 2006 there was a maximum extension , reaching 39 million square kilometers. This shows that there are more things to consider, not just the concentration of CFCs. What this shows is we need more research but does not abrogate the treaty in Montreal.

Indeed, when there tends to be especially useful to show a series of data, draw conclusions and do not show statistical techniques employed. Specifically, the data correspond to the length of the hole.

From 1982 to 2006, its size, in millions of square kilometers, according to NASA, has followed this series: 4, 8, 10, 14, 11, 19 (here adopted the Montreal Protocol), 10, 18, 19, 18, 22, 23, 22, 22, 22, 21, 26, 23, 24, 25, 12, 25, 19, 24, 26. As shown, after increasing significantly during the 80 it seems that things have stagnated since then.

Well, again displayed the same theories of environmental lobbyists and others. I will not deny that environmental groups pose a significant pressure group, and that often employ unethical techniques. I do not care to distance himself from them when their opinion does not seem right. But I think it is giving too much importance to its influence, and all this against the efforts of serious scientists who claim to know the truth, whatever it is, who benefits benefits.

I add that everyone is welcome to criticize my criticism, the author especially. More than anything because I hope that was not offended, this post I've done without the slightest bitterness, but Science discussion is built.

Has Heather Brooke Retired

Back to the same

I know I can look heavy, but there are things that do not fit in my head (and that is great) as they are put into question things that have well-studied ... yes, again against the eco-skepticism, but not on Climate Change, but the Hole in the Ozone Layer. This is not to say that science is not due to saturation question what is taken for granted, but it annoys certain positions that are completely deniers, and who attack using fallacious arguments.

For instance, this post The first mouse on the moon , blog it seems you have the mania to hole ozone layer, because he has spent several entries.


A hole in a layer imaginary imaginary

First of all, remember a little hole. The atmosphere is a complex system, we can distinguish several layers depending on temperature profile. The lower troposphere, in which we live, is responsible for almost all weather phenomena. The temperature drops with height until about about 13000 or 15000 meters (height variable). Over this is the stratosphere, where temperature increases with height, due to the effect of solar radiation. As the colder air is heavier, in the troposphere, the cold air is hot over "mixed", producing a range of vertical winds. In the stratosphere it is hot on the cold, so the air is in layers, hence its name. Above there are more layers, as the mesosphere, thermosphere, exosphere ... but now we are not interested.

Ozone is an allotrope of oxygen. Which we breathe is O2, whereas ozone is O3. This is an unstable and highly reactive form which is mainly generated by photochemical reactions, ie by light, for instance, the pungent smell that is in the print shop is due to ozone generated by photocopiers. Ozone is very reactive and is considered a pollutant when in the troposphere, but in the stratosphere plays a vital role in life.

In the stratosphere, ozone is constantly being formed, absorbing ultraviolet light of type B and C (most damaging). More or less, the overall reaction is:

3O2 + Light ---> 2O3 + Heat

But there is a reaction of destruction that is just the opposite:

2O3 ---> 3O2

(all this core is actually quite reactions and the participation of catalysts)

As you see, absorbs ultraviolet light and heat is released (which is explained by the increase of temperature with height in the stratosphere). But it has to be a balance between production and destruction, because otherwise it does not absorb radiation.

What is called the ozone layer is not a real object, there is no ozone layer, and consequently not a hole. Ozone is measured in a rather curious. If you took the ozone at sea level, make a layer a few millimeters. This thickness is called Dobson Units. If the ozone concentration decreases, the imaginary layer adelgazaría, producing a virtual hole.

In general, at the south pole circumstances arise that promote the destruction of ozone: a long polar night with extremely low temperatures, which makes the formation of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs). PSCs are responsible for the catalysis of reactions of ozone destruction. Moreover, it forms a polar vortex, which isolates the Antarctic stratosphere from the rest of the atmosphere.

During the seventies and eighties, a series of investigations carried Rowland and Molina (Nobel prize in 1995) to postulate a theory which is attributed to CFCs as catalysts in the destruction of ozone . CFCs have very long half-life and can destroy a lot before disappearing ozone in the stratosphere. As a result, the Montreal Protocol adopted in 1987 (and start launched in 1989), which prohibited the use of CFCs and recommends the use of substitutes. Depending on the model, until 2050 - 2070, it will begin to recover the ozone layer.

orchestrated maneuver "?

Eco-skeptics have the curious habit of disqualifying anything that puts them ahead, using arguments quite unoriginal. If the "anti-money changers" ensure that nuclear energy is behind climate change, the "anti-hole" also have their own Beelzebub: CFC manufacturers!

Here begins the contradiction, because if I fabricate CFC, which is cheap and simple, I will not mount a pitot to switch to other chemicals.

But that's not the only argument. As CFCs are gases guarantee too heavy to reach the stratosphere. The hole, after the banning of Montreal, has had more than a few years ago.

an article I found interesting (in English) on the eco-skepticism and the hole, let me summarize. However, I warn you I'm not used to translate from English, so they can go to the original link. Techniques

Skeptics:

• launch a public relations campaign questioning evidence: DuPont (as Guille, author of the first mouse ... is who orchestrates the fraud), who produced a quarter of the world's CFCs, spent millions of dollars in publishing full-page articles in newspapers defending the CFC, ensuring that CFCs do not endanger the ozone layer. The aerosol industry also published articles where it was held that the model of Rowland and Molina, was a hypothesis, not a fact.
  
• Predicting extreme economic consequences and ignore the cost of benefits : the third largest producer of CFCs in the U.S., Pennwalt, predicted economic chaos if it were replaced CFCs. DuPont warned that the costs in the U.S. alone could exceed 135y million dollars and that all companies could go bankrupt. The European Association of Chemical Companies warned that the regulation of CFCs could lead to a complete renovation and refurbishment of a large vital portion of the chemical industry, and many small businesses would close ... with effects on unemployment inflacción and national and international economy. However, the reality has been less severe. As the United Nations Program for Environment (UNEP) in 1994: "the replacement of gases that destroy the ozone layer has been faster, less expensive and more innovative than it had secured before the replacement process. Implemented alternative technologies have proven effective, and consumers have not noticed any impact (except in the rising price of air conditioners in cars). A group of more than two dozen industry experts estimated the cost of replacing CFCs in developed countries less than $ 37 million to 3 million to industry and consumers. A study by Environment Canada, presented to the United Nations at a meeting in 1997 estimated that the complete replacement of CFC in 2060 cost about 235 billion, but that the benefits of 459 billion dollars. These benefits come from reduction in exposure to ultraviolet radiation in aquatic systems, plants, forests, crops, plastics, paints and other building materials. The study concludes that the implementation of the Montreal Protocol, will have 19.1 million fewer cases of nonmelanoma skin cancer, melanoma less than 1.5 million, 129 million fewer cataracts and 330 thousand fewer deaths from skin cancer in the world.
  
• Find reputable and pay scientists to argue against the treaty : CFC industries hired the largest public relations firm, Hill & Knowton, organized tour of a month-long U.S. in 1975 by noted British scientist Richard Scorer, a former editor of International Journal of Air Pollution and author of several books on pollution. Scorer cursed Molina and Rowland, calling them "Doomsayer" (I can not think how to translate this properly), and noting "The only thing that has built up both the number of hypotheses." Molina's response was "The gentleman is good targeting, but has never published any scientific paper on the subject.
• Use reviewed scientific publications and scientists not belonging to the industry that do not publish original articles reviewed support your point of view : The articles published in traditional journals undergo a process essential to good science, the review. The review process begins when the author submits his work to the journal. The editor of the magazine reviewed the article and send copies to three scientists who are experts in the field. These anonymous reviewers send their commentators to errors that require correction, omission ... back to the editor, who then asks the author to submit a revised version of the article, taking into account the comments of the reviewers. After making corrections, the author resubmit the article to the editor may accepting the article, reject it or send it back to review. The rigor of the revisions is such that a good part of the items are never sent to be published in the scientific literature. In 1995, Molina and Rowland received the Nobel, the Committee on Energy and the Environment began a series of hearings to review the article from the decrease in the ozone layer, where the extract of the review was in doubt. During the hearings, Rep. John Doolittle, a California Republican, said: "I believe, this issue is still very open to debate, hypothesis or speculation are not enough, we need science, not pseudoscience." Doolittle was answered by Lynn Rivers, a Democrat from Michigan.
  RIVERS: Have you reviewed articles found in scientific discussions or people say that this is not really a problem?
  DOOLITTLE: I found no consensus and on which is really the problem, I found extremely confusing representations by the government and government officials who did not sound like science. RIVERS: What I'm asking is reviewed articles, which conducted its work in science regularly. Could you give me some examples of revised publications have been consulted for the formation of his opinion that no overtones of science? DOOLITTLE: Well, we will hear about some of the scientists today, Dr. Fred Singer.
  RIVERS: Dr Singer has published revised documents.
  DOOLITTLE: I will not be surrounded in a sea of \u200b\u200bdocuments reviewed, there are policies in the scientific community, some scientists are too intimidated to speak out once someone has hedged position. And in this conference, we will get the truth and not just academic policies
  RIVERS: The general form of knowing that you have done good science is honestly express their ideas in a peer-reviewed publication and allow others to do the same job, comment, criticism or question their findings. AND I'm wondering, in your quest for good science, what the revised article has been used to shape their decision. What good science is based?
  DOOLITTLE: My answer to you is that the proponents of the ban have a responsibility to do good science. I have no burden.
  
  Then, at the same hearing, Tom DeLay was asked about his position of opposition to the ban on ozone-depleting substances. "Have you checked the latest statements on ozone depletion (WMO / UNEP, 1994) collected by a team of all-reviewed publications important matter?". Said no, because "Well, I have been gifted with the study. "Moreover, was launched at a critical scientific review system, ensuring" the conclusion is written before the study was conducted in many cases. "DeLay cited Toxic Terror, by Dr. Elizabeth Whelan for support their criticism of the "science review". But according to Columbia Journalism Review, Dr. Whelan says the nutritional value of fast food in his writings and no link between high fat diets to heart disease (but receives grant from Burger King, Oscar Meyer, Frito Lay and Land O'Lakes. Unfortunately, DeLay is not the only one that is based on the writings of Dr. Whelan. PR Watch notes that USA Today cites Think Tank American Council on Science and Health as one of the most frequent provider appointments for public health information.
  
  Dr. Fred Singer, the expert assigned to the representative referred Doolittle has previously testified in Congress several times, and probably the skeptic in ozone and climate change most often cited. Unfortunately, Dr. Singer is not the greatest climate science published in peer-reviewed scientific literature, or at least critic objectively. Singer sold himself as the author of more than 200 peer-reviewed journals throughout his career. However, all of these articles were written before 1971, for issues not related to the weather. A search of relevant publications, reveals a piece of official investigation, a 1988 article on nuclear winter (Singer, 1988). The scientific citation index, the database that indexes every appointment made in articles reviewed, reveals that this article has been cited exactly zero times until 2004. In comparison, the publication of Dr. Steven Schneider in 1988 on the same subject, "Simulating the climatic effects of nuclear war", has earned 16 citations. Singer has been included as co-author of three climate-reviewed publications since 1971, a "technical review" of 2 pages criticizing a study showing the increase in surface UVB due to stratospheric ozone depletion (Michaels et. al. 1994), and two articles in 2004, "Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New Evidence (Douglas et al., 2004 ) and "Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observartion" (Douglas et. al. 2004). None of these publications have any appointment at the Science citation index (Science Citation Index) in January 2005 and 1994 has 19 references. The goal of Dr. Singer is questioned because the Think Tank that has founded "The Science and Environmental Policy Project", has received a very substantial contribution from industry, including contributions from Exxon, Shell, ARCO, Unocal and Sun Oil. Proclaim
  
• discredited myths and scientific studies to support your point of view : Skeptics unedited articles first published in newspapers, magazines, books and Think Tanks. The publications are not subject to review, are often full of errors, distortions and opinions that confuse the public that there is no consensus. For example, many critics in the discovery of the hole in the layer (eg. Singer, 1989, Bailey, 1993, Bast et al. 1994), claim that Professor Dobson (n. of t: the first scientist who cared of ozone, we owe Dobson units) in 1956 found a hole in the Antarctic, and consequently, the hole is a natural phenomenon. This myth comes from a misinterpretation of a contextualization of a quote from an article (Dobson 1968), who mentioned that when springtime ozone levels over Halley Bay were first measured, was surprised to find about 150 Dobson units below Arctic spring levels. Skeptics repeatedly refer to "a hole in the ozone of 150 Dobson units below normal in the Antarctic. A visit to the website of the British Antarctic Survey confirms that this hole was not detected in the early 50. Another myth says that skeptical French scientists found a hole in Antarctica in 1958 (Bailey, 1993). That there were measures in 1958 that detected a significant loss of ozone, but it has been shown that these measures proved to be false by an instrumental error. A study in Science magazine (Newman 1994) concludes: "There is no credible evidence for a hole in the ozone layer in 1958" To be fair, environmental scientists were also guilty of using discredited myths to support their thesis. For example, in 1992, the New York Times cited a decrease in ozone in southern Chile has caused "an increase in the incidence of cataracts in sheep and rabbits" (Nash, 1992). The story has been repeated in many places, including the ABC's of July 1, 1992. Al Gore's book "Earth in the Balance" repeated the myth, maintaining that "In Patagonia, hunters now say finding blind rabbits, fishermen catch blind salmon" (Gore 1992). A group of Johns Hopkins has investigated and attributed the blindness in sheep to a local infection ("pink eye") (Pearce, 1993).
• Notes the substantial scientific uncertainty, and secure financial loss if immediate action is taken : The science behind the estimation of ozone depletion has been and is a matter subject to a good degree of incertudumbre. In early 1976, Rowland and Molina discovered a chemical reaction involving a reaction between chlorine and nitrate could reduce ozone destruction of its previous estimate of 7-13% to only 7%. An editorial in the New Yory Daily News in 1976, concluded, "Now that scientists have taken the position of crying wolf, who will hear the new threats?" Critics also pointed estimates ranged in the reports of ozone depletion, conducted by the National Academy of Sciences of the USA as evidence that the science was so uncertain, that no action should be taken. Of course, it ultimately found that estimates were not entirely accurate, but it was not bad. No scientist advance the overwhelming loss of 70% appearing in the Antarctic, or 30% of the Arctic. The lesson to be learned is this: the reality is uncertain, there is no excuse to delay action. The reality could be much worse than expected.
  

Evolution of the estimated long-term ozone depletion

Year Estimate 2-4%

	Depletion
1976	2-20% (7% Most Likely)
1979 16.5%
1982	5-9%
1984

• Use a local area data to support your point of view, and ignore the global evidence : Many skeptics point out that the levels measured in some American cities UVB actually decrease in the decades of 80 and 90 . This is true, and has been attributed to high levels of pollution aerosols, which is responsible for 20% of lower UVB in summer (Wenny et al. 2001). However, the relationship between ozone loss and increased UVB radiation is clearly established. For every 1% decrease in ozone, there are about 1% more than in the low atmósdera UVB (WMO, 2002). Increases of between 6 and 14% in UVB have been detected in numerous sites in middle and high latitudes in the last 20 years (WMO, 2002, McKenzie, 1999). In many places, about half of the increase has been attributed to ozone loss. Changes in cloud cover and surface albedo also contributes in part. Debunk
  
• scientists are saying that posting threats raising finance environmental : a journal of the CFC industry said in 1975 that "The whole area of \u200b\u200bresearch grants and competition among scientists to get them to be considered a factor in politics for ozone" (Roan, 1985 .) A publication of the conservative think tank, The Cato Institute, argues that the threats of the 1992 NASA about the possibility of opening a hole over the Northern Hemisphere "were exquisitely planned to strengthen the budget requests of the agency. (Bailey 1993)
• discredits environmental scientists, ensuring that environmental problems are exaggerated for ideological : Dr. Fred Singer commented environmentalist reaction Molina and Rowland's work linking CFCs with ozone, as follows: "The Ecofraks were static in the end, a chemical industry - and the large porducido DuPont evil and other such "
• Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in the U.S., that would put the nation at an economic disadvantage : Of course, other countries said they were just willing to act until the United States, the main producer and emitter of CFCs, show leadership and take action first.
  
• claims that more research is needed before taking action : Between 1974 and 1987, the CFC industry and the government continued to call three more years of research. Molina called this technique "the door of the three years."
• argues that it is less expensive to live with the effects In 1987, the Reagan administration preferred a "personal protection plan" as an alternative method of controlling emissions of CFCs. Scoffers said that if every American bought two bottles of sunscreen, wearing hats and sunglasses, the nation would cost 8 billion dollars. They also asked how Americans would cream, hat and sunglasses to the cows and crops of corn, when plants and animals are just as vulnerable to the effects of UV.

This extract is part of an article by Dr. Jeffrey Masters, The Skeptics vs. . Ozone Hole . First of all apologize if the translation is not too good ... references are to the original article.

Interestingly, many of the points above I find eerily familiar ... I will return to the issue.

We see that in many cases, eco-skepticism is fueled by conservative think tanks. A Think Tank is a nongovernmental organization dedicated to post opinions on various topics (an example is the FAES foundation created by Jose Maria Aznar). And economic interests to the ban: none.

True, there are still many questions to be answered: the real influence of UVB on skin cancer, if it is part of natural cycles ... but there is a consensus, and no scientist with an ounce of questions the Montreal Protocol. At the end of the day, the prevention and precautionary principle exists for something.

Has Heather Brooke Retired

Back to the same

I know I can look heavy, but there are things that do not fit in my head (and that is great) as they are put into question things that have well-studied ... yes, again against the eco-skepticism, but not on Climate Change, but the Hole in the Ozone Layer. This is not to say that science is not due to saturation question what is taken for granted, but it annoys certain positions that are completely deniers, and who attack using fallacious arguments.

For instance, this post The first mouse on the moon , blog it seems you have the mania to hole ozone layer, because he has spent several entries.


A hole in a layer imaginary imaginary

First of all, remember a little hole. The atmosphere is a complex system, we can distinguish several layers depending on temperature profile. The lower troposphere, in which we live, is responsible for almost all weather phenomena. The temperature drops with height until about about 13000 or 15000 meters (height variable). Over this is the stratosphere, where temperature increases with height, due to the effect of solar radiation. As the colder air is heavier, in the troposphere, the cold air is hot over "mixed", producing a range of vertical winds. In the stratosphere it is hot on the cold, so the air is in layers, hence its name. Above there are more layers, as the mesosphere, thermosphere, exosphere ... but now we are not interested.

Ozone is an allotrope of oxygen. Which we breathe is O2, whereas ozone is O3. This is an unstable and highly reactive form which is mainly generated by photochemical reactions, ie by light, for instance, the pungent smell that is in the print shop is due to ozone generated by photocopiers. Ozone is very reactive and is considered a pollutant when in the troposphere, but in the stratosphere plays a vital role in life.

In the stratosphere, ozone is constantly being formed, absorbing ultraviolet light of type B and C (most damaging). More or less, the overall reaction is:

3O2 + Light ---> 2O3 + Heat

But there is a reaction of destruction that is just the opposite:

2O3 ---> 3O2

(all this core is actually quite reactions and the participation of catalysts)

As you see, absorbs ultraviolet light and heat is released (which is explained by the increase of temperature with height in the stratosphere). But it has to be a balance between production and destruction, because otherwise it does not absorb radiation.

What is called the ozone layer is not a real object, there is no ozone layer, and consequently not a hole. Ozone is measured in a rather curious. If you took the ozone at sea level, make a layer a few millimeters. This thickness is called Dobson Units. If the ozone concentration decreases, the imaginary layer adelgazaría, producing a virtual hole.

In general, at the south pole circumstances arise that promote the destruction of ozone: a long polar night with extremely low temperatures, which makes the formation of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs). PSCs are responsible for the catalysis of reactions of ozone destruction. Moreover, it forms a polar vortex, which isolates the Antarctic stratosphere from the rest of the atmosphere.

During the seventies and eighties, a series of investigations carried Rowland and Molina (Nobel prize in 1995) to postulate a theory which is attributed to CFCs as catalysts in the destruction of ozone . CFCs have very long half-life and can destroy a lot before disappearing ozone in the stratosphere. As a result, the Montreal Protocol adopted in 1987 (and start launched in 1989), which prohibited the use of CFCs and recommends the use of substitutes. Depending on the model, until 2050 - 2070, it will begin to recover the ozone layer.

orchestrated maneuver "?

Eco-skeptics have the curious habit of disqualifying anything that puts them ahead, using arguments quite unoriginal. If the "anti-money changers" ensure that nuclear energy is behind climate change, the "anti-hole" also have their own Beelzebub: CFC manufacturers!

Here begins the contradiction, because if I fabricate CFC, which is cheap and simple, I will not mount a pitot to switch to other chemicals.

But that's not the only argument. As CFCs are gases guarantee too heavy to reach the stratosphere. The hole, after the banning of Montreal, has had more than a few years ago.

an article I found interesting (in English) on the eco-skepticism and the hole, let me summarize. However, I warn you I'm not used to translate from English, so they can go to the original link. Techniques

Skeptics:

• launch a public relations campaign questioning evidence: DuPont (as Guille, author of the first mouse ... is who orchestrates the fraud), who produced a quarter of the world's CFCs, spent millions of dollars in publishing full-page articles in newspapers defending the CFC, ensuring that CFCs do not endanger the ozone layer. The aerosol industry also published articles where it was held that the model of Rowland and Molina, was a hypothesis, not a fact.
  
• Predicting extreme economic consequences and ignore the cost of benefits : the third largest producer of CFCs in the U.S., Pennwalt, predicted economic chaos if it were replaced CFCs. DuPont warned that the costs in the U.S. alone could exceed 135y million dollars and that all companies could go bankrupt. The European Association of Chemical Companies warned that the regulation of CFCs could lead to a complete renovation and refurbishment of a large vital portion of the chemical industry, and many small businesses would close ... with effects on unemployment inflacción and national and international economy. However, the reality has been less severe. As the United Nations Program for Environment (UNEP) in 1994: "the replacement of gases that destroy the ozone layer has been faster, less expensive and more innovative than it had secured before the replacement process. Implemented alternative technologies have proven effective, and consumers have not noticed any impact (except in the rising price of air conditioners in cars). A group of more than two dozen industry experts estimated the cost of replacing CFCs in developed countries less than $ 37 million to 3 million to industry and consumers. A study by Environment Canada, presented to the United Nations at a meeting in 1997 estimated that the complete replacement of CFC in 2060 cost about 235 billion, but that the benefits of 459 billion dollars. These benefits come from reduction in exposure to ultraviolet radiation in aquatic systems, plants, forests, crops, plastics, paints and other building materials. The study concludes that the implementation of the Montreal Protocol, will have 19.1 million fewer cases of nonmelanoma skin cancer, melanoma less than 1.5 million, 129 million fewer cataracts and 330 thousand fewer deaths from skin cancer in the world.
  
• Find reputable and pay scientists to argue against the treaty : CFC industries hired the largest public relations firm, Hill & Knowton, organized tour of a month-long U.S. in 1975 by noted British scientist Richard Scorer, a former editor of International Journal of Air Pollution and author of several books on pollution. Scorer cursed Molina and Rowland, calling them "Doomsayer" (I can not think how to translate this properly), and noting "The only thing that has built up both the number of hypotheses." Molina's response was "The gentleman is good targeting, but has never published any scientific paper on the subject.
• Use reviewed scientific publications and scientists not belonging to the industry that do not publish original articles reviewed support your point of view : The articles published in traditional journals undergo a process essential to good science, the review. The review process begins when the author submits his work to the journal. The editor of the magazine reviewed the article and send copies to three scientists who are experts in the field. These anonymous reviewers send their commentators to errors that require correction, omission ... back to the editor, who then asks the author to submit a revised version of the article, taking into account the comments of the reviewers. After making corrections, the author resubmit the article to the editor may accepting the article, reject it or send it back to review. The rigor of the revisions is such that a good part of the items are never sent to be published in the scientific literature. In 1995, Molina and Rowland received the Nobel, the Committee on Energy and the Environment began a series of hearings to review the article from the decrease in the ozone layer, where the extract of the review was in doubt. During the hearings, Rep. John Doolittle, a California Republican, said: "I believe, this issue is still very open to debate, hypothesis or speculation are not enough, we need science, not pseudoscience." Doolittle was answered by Lynn Rivers, a Democrat from Michigan.
  RIVERS: Have you reviewed articles found in scientific discussions or people say that this is not really a problem?
  DOOLITTLE: I found no consensus and on which is really the problem, I found extremely confusing representations by the government and government officials who did not sound like science. RIVERS: What I'm asking is reviewed articles, which conducted its work in science regularly. Could you give me some examples of revised publications have been consulted for the formation of his opinion that no overtones of science? DOOLITTLE: Well, we will hear about some of the scientists today, Dr. Fred Singer.
  RIVERS: Dr Singer has published revised documents.
  DOOLITTLE: I will not be surrounded in a sea of \u200b\u200bdocuments reviewed, there are policies in the scientific community, some scientists are too intimidated to speak out once someone has hedged position. And in this conference, we will get the truth and not just academic policies
  RIVERS: The general form of knowing that you have done good science is honestly express their ideas in a peer-reviewed publication and allow others to do the same job, comment, criticism or question their findings. AND I'm wondering, in your quest for good science, what the revised article has been used to shape their decision. What good science is based?
  DOOLITTLE: My answer to you is that the proponents of the ban have a responsibility to do good science. I have no burden.
  
  Then, at the same hearing, Tom DeLay was asked about his position of opposition to the ban on ozone-depleting substances. "Have you checked the latest statements on ozone depletion (WMO / UNEP, 1994) collected by a team of all-reviewed publications important matter?". Said no, because "Well, I have been gifted with the study. "Moreover, was launched at a critical scientific review system, ensuring" the conclusion is written before the study was conducted in many cases. "DeLay cited Toxic Terror, by Dr. Elizabeth Whelan for support their criticism of the "science review". But according to Columbia Journalism Review, Dr. Whelan says the nutritional value of fast food in his writings and no link between high fat diets to heart disease (but receives grant from Burger King, Oscar Meyer, Frito Lay and Land O'Lakes. Unfortunately, DeLay is not the only one that is based on the writings of Dr. Whelan. PR Watch notes that USA Today cites Think Tank American Council on Science and Health as one of the most frequent provider appointments for public health information.
  
  Dr. Fred Singer, the expert assigned to the representative referred Doolittle has previously testified in Congress several times, and probably the skeptic in ozone and climate change most often cited. Unfortunately, Dr. Singer is not the greatest climate science published in peer-reviewed scientific literature, or at least critic objectively. Singer sold himself as the author of more than 200 peer-reviewed journals throughout his career. However, all of these articles were written before 1971, for issues not related to the weather. A search of relevant publications, reveals a piece of official investigation, a 1988 article on nuclear winter (Singer, 1988). The scientific citation index, the database that indexes every appointment made in articles reviewed, reveals that this article has been cited exactly zero times until 2004. In comparison, the publication of Dr. Steven Schneider in 1988 on the same subject, "Simulating the climatic effects of nuclear war", has earned 16 citations. Singer has been included as co-author of three climate-reviewed publications since 1971, a "technical review" of 2 pages criticizing a study showing the increase in surface UVB due to stratospheric ozone depletion (Michaels et. al. 1994), and two articles in 2004, "Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New Evidence (Douglas et al., 2004 ) and "Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observartion" (Douglas et. al. 2004). None of these publications have any appointment at the Science citation index (Science Citation Index) in January 2005 and 1994 has 19 references. The goal of Dr. Singer is questioned because the Think Tank that has founded "The Science and Environmental Policy Project", has received a very substantial contribution from industry, including contributions from Exxon, Shell, ARCO, Unocal and Sun Oil. Proclaim
  
• discredited myths and scientific studies to support your point of view : Skeptics unedited articles first published in newspapers, magazines, books and Think Tanks. The publications are not subject to review, are often full of errors, distortions and opinions that confuse the public that there is no consensus. For example, many critics in the discovery of the hole in the layer (eg. Singer, 1989, Bailey, 1993, Bast et al. 1994), claim that Professor Dobson (n. of t: the first scientist who cared of ozone, we owe Dobson units) in 1956 found a hole in the Antarctic, and consequently, the hole is a natural phenomenon. This myth comes from a misinterpretation of a contextualization of a quote from an article (Dobson 1968), who mentioned that when springtime ozone levels over Halley Bay were first measured, was surprised to find about 150 Dobson units below Arctic spring levels. Skeptics repeatedly refer to "a hole in the ozone of 150 Dobson units below normal in the Antarctic. A visit to the website of the British Antarctic Survey confirms that this hole was not detected in the early 50. Another myth says that skeptical French scientists found a hole in Antarctica in 1958 (Bailey, 1993). That there were measures in 1958 that detected a significant loss of ozone, but it has been shown that these measures proved to be false by an instrumental error. A study in Science magazine (Newman 1994) concludes: "There is no credible evidence for a hole in the ozone layer in 1958" To be fair, environmental scientists were also guilty of using discredited myths to support their thesis. For example, in 1992, the New York Times cited a decrease in ozone in southern Chile has caused "an increase in the incidence of cataracts in sheep and rabbits" (Nash, 1992). The story has been repeated in many places, including the ABC's of July 1, 1992. Al Gore's book "Earth in the Balance" repeated the myth, maintaining that "In Patagonia, hunters now say finding blind rabbits, fishermen catch blind salmon" (Gore 1992). A group of Johns Hopkins has investigated and attributed the blindness in sheep to a local infection ("pink eye") (Pearce, 1993).
• Notes the substantial scientific uncertainty, and secure financial loss if immediate action is taken : The science behind the estimation of ozone depletion has been and is a matter subject to a good degree of incertudumbre. In early 1976, Rowland and Molina discovered a chemical reaction involving a reaction between chlorine and nitrate could reduce ozone destruction of its previous estimate of 7-13% to only 7%. An editorial in the New Yory Daily News in 1976, concluded, "Now that scientists have taken the position of crying wolf, who will hear the new threats?" Critics also pointed estimates ranged in the reports of ozone depletion, conducted by the National Academy of Sciences of the USA as evidence that the science was so uncertain, that no action should be taken. Of course, it ultimately found that estimates were not entirely accurate, but it was not bad. No scientist advance the overwhelming loss of 70% appearing in the Antarctic, or 30% of the Arctic. The lesson to be learned is this: the reality is uncertain, there is no excuse to delay action. The reality could be much worse than expected.
  

Evolution of the estimated long-term ozone depletion

Year Estimate 2-4%

	Depletion
1976	2-20% (7% Most Likely)
1979 16.5%
1982	5-9%
1984

• Use a local area data to support your point of view, and ignore the global evidence : Many skeptics point out that the levels measured in some American cities UVB actually decrease in the decades of 80 and 90 . This is true, and has been attributed to high levels of pollution aerosols, which is responsible for 20% of lower UVB in summer (Wenny et al. 2001). However, the relationship between ozone loss and increased UVB radiation is clearly established. For every 1% decrease in ozone, there are about 1% more than in the low atmósdera UVB (WMO, 2002). Increases of between 6 and 14% in UVB have been detected in numerous sites in middle and high latitudes in the last 20 years (WMO, 2002, McKenzie, 1999). In many places, about half of the increase has been attributed to ozone loss. Changes in cloud cover and surface albedo also contributes in part. Debunk
  
• scientists are saying that posting threats raising finance environmental : a journal of the CFC industry said in 1975 that "The whole area of \u200b\u200bresearch grants and competition among scientists to get them to be considered a factor in politics for ozone" (Roan, 1985 .) A publication of the conservative think tank, The Cato Institute, argues that the threats of the 1992 NASA about the possibility of opening a hole over the Northern Hemisphere "were exquisitely planned to strengthen the budget requests of the agency. (Bailey 1993)
• discredits environmental scientists, ensuring that environmental problems are exaggerated for ideological : Dr. Fred Singer commented environmentalist reaction Molina and Rowland's work linking CFCs with ozone, as follows: "The Ecofraks were static in the end, a chemical industry - and the large porducido DuPont evil and other such "
• Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in the U.S., that would put the nation at an economic disadvantage : Of course, other countries said they were just willing to act until the United States, the main producer and emitter of CFCs, show leadership and take action first.
  
• claims that more research is needed before taking action : Between 1974 and 1987, the CFC industry and the government continued to call three more years of research. Molina called this technique "the door of the three years."
• argues that it is less expensive to live with the effects In 1987, the Reagan administration preferred a "personal protection plan" as an alternative method of controlling emissions of CFCs. Scoffers said that if every American bought two bottles of sunscreen, wearing hats and sunglasses, the nation would cost 8 billion dollars. They also asked how Americans would cream, hat and sunglasses to the cows and crops of corn, when plants and animals are just as vulnerable to the effects of UV.

This extract is part of an article by Dr. Jeffrey Masters, The Skeptics vs. . Ozone Hole . First of all apologize if the translation is not too good ... references are to the original article.

Interestingly, many of the points above I find eerily familiar ... I will return to the issue.

We see that in many cases, eco-skepticism is fueled by conservative think tanks. A Think Tank is a nongovernmental organization dedicated to post opinions on various topics (an example is the FAES foundation created by Jose Maria Aznar). And economic interests to the ban: none.

True, there are still many questions to be answered: the real influence of UVB on skin cancer, if it is part of natural cycles ... but there is a consensus, and no scientist with an ounce of questions the Montreal Protocol. At the end of the day, the prevention and precautionary principle exists for something.