Monday November 9, 2009, 8:11 am
Whether it helps or not, I believe we should all help protect the environment from being "poisoned" by every day common sense. Refrigerants can be saved unless the system is leaking. The content of aerosol cans however is being dispensed indiscriminately without any option to use otherwise. More alternatives must be found for these products.

Eventhough our atmosphere is a selfcorrecting system, I do believe it has a hard time catching up with the rate we pollute it.

I applaud every effort towards correcting this growing problem. For instance, the Company that produces "OFF" has replaced their product in a pumpspray version. What I do not understand is why they still produce the aerosol version of it. What's the point of having both?

I'm pretty sure there are lots of other Companies that can do the same with their products.

Monday November 9, 2009, 8:43 am
Comparian apples to oranges, I would say.

Monday November 9, 2009, 12:03 pm
I dont know humans are pretty destructive...

Big gorilly huygs

Monday November 9, 2009, 10:22 pm
After all that carrying on about the hole-in-the-ozone....it turns out it is seasonal and normal.

'As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.'

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html

Tuesday November 10, 2009, 1:22 am
Gee, a report presents a hypothesis that is yet to be tested with further data and Judy takes it and runs off with, "After all that carrying on about the hole-in-the-ozone....it turns out it is seasonal and normal."

Did you even read the entire paper, Judy, or just the abstract? And that paper is from 2007. Was the data confirmed or debunked since then?

Here is the entire paper:

http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/energy/Resources/Essays/nature-kickhole.pdf

And at the end of it, it says:

{{{The new measurements raise “intriguing questions”, but don’t compromise the Montreal Protocol as such, says John Pyle, an atmosphere researcher at the University of Cambridge.

“We’re starting to see the benefits of the protocol, but we need to keep the pressure on.” He says that he finds it “extremely hard to believe” that
an unknown mechanism accounts for the bulk of observed ozone losses.
Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question, Rex stresses.

“Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions.”}}}

Once again, Judy has been shown to be spitting in the wind.

Even more damning, right next to that article is another one titled "Pressure for environmental disclosure increases". And it opens with:

{{{Companies are increasingly acknowledging the risks posed by global warming, suggest surveys released on 24 September. The latest Global Corporate Climate Change Report, released by the advocacy group Carbon
Disclosure Project (CDP) at an event in New York headlined by former US President Bill Clinton, details disclosures of energy costs from more than
1,300 companies around the world (see graphic).}}}

ROTFL!

Tuesday November 10, 2009, 2:18 am
Every product that isn't natural and in natural proportions is bed to the atmosphere and is pollution.

Tuesday November 10, 2009, 9:54 pm
Dragging in the global warming scam doesn't give credibility to the ozone story

"This neat story of the scientific identification of a man-made cause for stratospheric ozone depletion followed by a successful international response to the threat is now being challenged by some very recent research. News@nature.com (sub required) is reporting a new analysis by Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, which finds that the data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2) is almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate.

What this could mean according to the Nature news article is that:(what Dale left out)

"This must have far-reaching consequences," Rex says. "If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being." What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago2 (see graphic). If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.

Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum
is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. "Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart," says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.

"Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely," agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. "Now suddenly it's like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge." ..
http://reason.com/blog/2007/09/27/ozone-hole-science-revisited

Tuesday November 10, 2009, 9:56 pm
AND...University of Bristol Press release issued 9 November 2009New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.

The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.

The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.

This work is extremely important for climate change policy, because emission targets to be negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen early next month have been based on projections that have a carbon free sink of already factored in. Some researchers have cautioned against this approach, pointing at evidence that suggests the sink has already started to decrease.

So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? “Not necessarily”, says Knorr. “Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed”.

Another result of the study is that emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent. This would agree with results published last week in Nature Geoscience by a team led by Guido van der Werf from VU University Amsterdam. They re-visited deforestation data and concluded that emissions have been overestimated by at least a factor of two.

###

Here is the abstract from GRL:

Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change.

This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.

Knorr, W. (2009), Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/10/bombshell-from-bristol-is-the-airborne-fraction-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-increasing-study-says-no/#more-12703

Wednesday November 11, 2009, 12:49 am
"Dragging in the global warming scam doesn't give credibility to the ozone story"

And calling something a scam doesn't make it so, Judy.

And what you copied and pasted is still from 2007. What has been done since then? The history of science is chock full of people who put forth hypotheses that were thought by their creators to be revolutionary......until peer review exposed their flaws and discredited them.

And the claims about the ability of Earth's ecosystems and oceans to absorb CO2 may be much the same. Instead of waiting for more data to come in and confirm something, you take off with it and claim it as FACT, just because it fits your prejudices.