I did not mean to assert that volcanic eruptions would not deplete [temporarily] ozone. On the contrary, I fully expect this to happen. I just disagree with the assumption that man's [negligible] activity [CFCs, etc.] will destroy enoguh ozone to cause irreparible harm. The earth goes through natural cycles of warming and cooling, continents drift [Antartica used to be in a much warmer climate, Iceland or Greenland used to have a forrest before drifting toward the Arctic circle, etc.]. We are also more affected by solar cycles where the sun is actually hotter at times. This is one of those times. Hell, the earth used to tilt at different angles as well.

It is not that I believe we should not protect what we have and reduce pollution to the lowest extent possible. I just do not believe we take the right approach most of the time. Certainly you don't think MTBE has been successful? Tests in Phoenix before it was mandated proved it would not work, but EPA ignored this and went full speed ahead. I went to our own internal dog-and-pony shows [same ones given to the public as well] on this and questioned the presenters on their basis for all this. They still spouted the party line, and all the sheep fell right in line.

We had a good idea with Superfund, but too much of the 100s of billions of dollars has gone to the lawyers and beauracrats instead of actual cleanup. If that money had been directed straight to cleanup instead of fault finding, finger pointing, and bringing in truck loads of lawyers, we would have about 90% of all hazardous wastes sites eliminated by now. The higher the gov't level the less efficient that gov't is at resolving local problems.



>Hi Mark,
> Can you comment on the following? Just curious, TIA, Steven Bennett
>
>
>"Volcanoes emit two sorts of ozone-depleting compounds. One is hydrochloric acid, but the amount of this chemical in the stratosphere, measured before and after Pinatubo's eruption in 1991, was found to be largely unchanged."
>
> - Wallace, L. and W. Livingston. "The Effect of the Pinatubo
> Cloud on Hydrogen Chloride and Hydrogen Fluoride."
> Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 19, June 1992, p. 1209.
>
>"The other ozone-depleting chemical emitted by Pinatubo, sulfur
>dioxide, is converted in the stratosphere into tiny particles which,
>acting in combination with man-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's),
>temporarily increased the rate of ozone depletion by several
>percentage points during 1992 and 1993. 6/ Nevertheless, nearly
>all the particles resulting from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption have
>already washed out of the atmosphere, unlike CFC's, which remain
>in the stratosphere for as long as a century."
>
> - Kerr, R.A. "Ozone Takes a Nose Dive After The Eruption of
> Mt. Pinatubo." Science, vol. 260, April 1993, pp. 490-91;
> Gleason, J.F., et al. "Record Low Global Ozone in 1992."
> Science, vol 260, April 1993, pp. 523-26; and Hoffman, D.J.,
> et al. "Ozone loss in the lower stratosphere over the United
> States in 1992-93: Evidence for hetero- geneous chemistry
> on the Pinatubo aerosol." Geophysical Research Letters, vol.
> 21, January 1994, pp. 65-68.
>
>It is true that the greenhouse effect is, by and large, a natural phenomenon,
>produced by gases in the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide and water vapor that have warmed the Earth for eons, making its climate moderate enough to support life as we know it. Without these gases, Earth would be forty to sixty degrees colder, essentially a frigid desert.
>
>However, in nature these gases usually remain in balance, leading
>to a stable climate, while the greenhouse gases added by humans
>over the last two hundred years have accumulated to the point that
>the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, for example, is
>now more than 25 percent above what it had been for the previous
>10,000 years. (Scientists have direct evidence of this data, from
>measurements of air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores.) The
>scientific consensus is that the accumulation of carbon dioxide and
>other gases due to human activity will alter the climate substantially,
>warming the globe by three to eight degrees Fahrenheit over the
>next century.
>
> - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate
> Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment. (New York, NY:
> Cambridge University Press), 1990, p. xi.; Intergovernmental
> Panel on Climate Change. Climate change 1992: The
> Supplementary Report to The IPCC Scientific Assessment.
> (New York, NY: Cammbridge University Press), 1992, p. 5.
>
> It is worth reproducing the original IPCC statement on this
> point from the 1990 report --
>
> "We are certain of the following:
>
> there is a natural greenhouse effect which already
> keeps the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be.
>
> emissions resulting from human activities are
> substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations
> of the greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane,
> chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrous oxide. These
> increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting
> on average in an additional warming of the Earth's
> surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapor, will
> increase in response to global warming and further
> enhance it."
>
> These conclusions were reaffirmed in the IPCC's 1992 report.
>
>
>
>
>>If more people would do their own thinking instead of allowing the media or gov't do it for us, we would all be better off. One good volcanic eruption puts more "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere than man has ever produced. I remember the environmentalists in the late 60s and early 70s predicting the doom of an impending ice age. Now its warming. Whatever floats your agenda rules the day.
>>
>>By nature, I am not an environmentalist. I believe in the rational and responsible use of all natural resources to their best benefits. Kind my definition of a conservationist.
>>
>>Environmentalist: someone who already has their house in the woods.
>>
>>Also, did you ever notice they all drive to wherever they are protesting? Not to mention they usually drive the worst polluting cars of anyone.
>>
>>>I guess we ought to consider that if man could truly control the weather, we'd all starve to death.
>>>
>>>Personally, I think global warming is a big sham, or perhaps more correctly, global warming caused by man. We might like to believe we control this planet, but we don't. We are actually at the mercy of something...
>>>
>>>Actually, if you want to control 'global warming' it would be better to control cloud formation. CO2 is such a miniscule proportion of the atmosphere. Of course, it is the only thing we CAN control, so it becomes the only thing that NEEDS controlling. How precious!
>>>
>>>The world would be a great place if it weren't for all the people trying to make it a great place.
>>>
>>>>Remember, we are the ones who insisted on putting MTBE in gasoline to improve air quality, perpetuate the myth that CFCs deplete ozone, and global warmingis a scientifically factual. Now our water supplies are being contaminated and air quality is worse because of MTBE. Pluse our Governor refused to pay the lawyers in Texas over $3 billion as their part of the tobacco settlement. He claimed it was too excessive. Way to go, GW! Too bad he has not yet forced MTBE out of our State as other States have wisely done, including California. I can't figure out whe Env Groups aren't sueing us over this. They do over every other EPA faux pas. Makes me wonder what their real agenda are.
>>>>
>>>>There I go blaspheming again!