Okay, this is an argument that is starting to seriously get on my nerves.
*Everyone on this forum* is some guy on the internet. (Or some girl on the internet, depending on genetic factors.)
The fact that you agree with someone who isn't a guy on the internet is fundamentally meaningless. Pointing out who is and who isn't a guy on the internet adds precisely nothing to your argument. You do not necessarily know everything there is to know about a subject either, no matter who you agree with.
... Okay, on to actual content.
Obviously unchecked ozone production around cities is a bad idea. (And that really sounded like sarcasm to me anyway.)
But the question of "why can't we go to where more ozone is needed and make some?" I think deserves to be looked at seriously. It's probably already been answered, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about it.
My completely unresearched guess would be that producing ozone in the necessary quantities is not technologically feasible. This doesn't to my knowledge weaken any arguments on CFCs. (IE, it doesn't say "If we can't make enough ozone to fix the hole, we surely couldn't have made enough CFCs to *make* a hole.") This is because, if I'm remembering the description I read of the chemistry properly, CFCs aren't consumed by the reaction that breaks down ozone. So a smaller quantity is required to produce a significant effect.
Whether or not ozone holes of a certain size could be a normal part of the system, I have no idea. Maybe if the holes are still around in 2060, we'll be able to come to some conclusions.
-Morgan."This continuity is now a Princess of Darkness crossover."
"... They're all going to die, aren't they?"
"Yep. Popcorn?"
*Everyone on this forum* is some guy on the internet. (Or some girl on the internet, depending on genetic factors.)
The fact that you agree with someone who isn't a guy on the internet is fundamentally meaningless. Pointing out who is and who isn't a guy on the internet adds precisely nothing to your argument. You do not necessarily know everything there is to know about a subject either, no matter who you agree with.
... Okay, on to actual content.
Obviously unchecked ozone production around cities is a bad idea. (And that really sounded like sarcasm to me anyway.)
But the question of "why can't we go to where more ozone is needed and make some?" I think deserves to be looked at seriously. It's probably already been answered, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about it.
My completely unresearched guess would be that producing ozone in the necessary quantities is not technologically feasible. This doesn't to my knowledge weaken any arguments on CFCs. (IE, it doesn't say "If we can't make enough ozone to fix the hole, we surely couldn't have made enough CFCs to *make* a hole.") This is because, if I'm remembering the description I read of the chemistry properly, CFCs aren't consumed by the reaction that breaks down ozone. So a smaller quantity is required to produce a significant effect.
Whether or not ozone holes of a certain size could be a normal part of the system, I have no idea. Maybe if the holes are still around in 2060, we'll be able to come to some conclusions.
-Morgan."This continuity is now a Princess of Darkness crossover."
"... They're all going to die, aren't they?"
"Yep. Popcorn?"