"Anyone with a simple knowledge in chemistry knows that freons react with O3(ozone) and break it down into 02. Also known as global warming.. That isn't even mentioning the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere."
I think "simple" here, is the operative word.
The damage that freons can do to the upper atmosphere has nothing to do with global warming. Depletion of ozone is another issue. Furthermore, use of freons is severely restricted (at least in the US). For at least a decade or more, satellite measurements of global temperature show little or no delta T. This sampling of temperatures is far more reliable than ground-based measurements which don't take into account the increased "heat-islands" of more urbanization and the fact that the Soviet Union's measurement of ground-based temperatures in Arctic climbs has been absent for over 5 years as a consequence of low funding (i.e., no colder ground temps to average out higher ones). The recent increase in global temperature occurred during the 1920's -- a period of time when atmospheric concentration of C02 was half of what it is today. In other words, the popular atmospheric model which says global warming is occurring at an alarming rate doesn't comport with reality. I don't need to be a scientist to evaluate this.
posted on 11/03/2004 2:47:17 PM PST
Some of my stupid questions.
1. How do molecules with high atomic weights that are fairly stable get into the bososphere to do all that damage? Take R11/22/501 or any other Freon and let it loose. It will SINK straight to the floor where it will stay. Look at their atomic weights!
2. Assuming the cell theory (In respect to weather) is true. By the way, that's what all our modern weather analysis is based upon. How do these CFCs produced in Europe and North America get to the North and South pole?
posted on 11/03/2004 3:02:51 PM PST
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson