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 RodrÃguez 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.
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.
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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment