Difference between revisions of "Talk:Ozone"
(New page: ==Theory of CFCs breaking down O3== Ed, just wondering why you said it was a theory that O3 is broken down by chlorofluorocarbons? It has been observed.<br /> Here is the common chemical ...) |
(Their claim was entirely based on theory - not on observation) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
(UV radiation breaks down a CFC molecule and releases a free chlorine atom. The chlorine atom reacts with ozone breaking it down to molecular oxygen plus highly unstable chlorine monoxide.) | (UV radiation breaks down a CFC molecule and releases a free chlorine atom. The chlorine atom reacts with ozone breaking it down to molecular oxygen plus highly unstable chlorine monoxide.) | ||
:--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:46, 8 May 2007 (EDT) | :--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:46, 8 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | What I said was: | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Some activists '''claimed''' that this ozone layer has been '''threatened''' in recent decades by the release of [[chlorofluorocarbons]], '''on the theory that''' these act as [[catalyst]]s to break down the O<sub>3</sub> molecules. | ||
| + | |||
| + | You have to take all three emphasized words together. They claim there was a threat to the atmosphere. Their claim was entirely based on theory - not on observation. | ||
| + | |||
| + | It's like some of the evolutionary claims about biochemistry: someone theorizes that the flagellum or the eye '''could''' come into being as the result of gradual accumulation of helpful mutations. It's just a theory - not a [[fact]] - until it is proven. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Newton's theory of gravitation is also based on a formula: | ||
| + | |||
| + | <math>F = GMm/r^2</math> | ||
| + | |||
| + | But it can't be called a "Law" of motion unless it fits the observed facts (see [[astronomy]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:53, 8 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 21:53, May 8, 2007
Theory of CFCs breaking down O3
Ed, just wondering why you said it was a theory that O3 is broken down by chlorofluorocarbons? It has been observed.
Here is the common chemical reaction:
CFCl3 + UV(~310nm) ==> Cl + garbage
Cl +O3 ==> ClO + O2
(UV radiation breaks down a CFC molecule and releases a free chlorine atom. The chlorine atom reacts with ozone breaking it down to molecular oxygen plus highly unstable chlorine monoxide.)
- --TimS 17:46, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
What I said was:
- Some activists claimed that this ozone layer has been threatened in recent decades by the release of chlorofluorocarbons, on the theory that these act as catalysts to break down the O3 molecules.
You have to take all three emphasized words together. They claim there was a threat to the atmosphere. Their claim was entirely based on theory - not on observation.
It's like some of the evolutionary claims about biochemistry: someone theorizes that the flagellum or the eye could come into being as the result of gradual accumulation of helpful mutations. It's just a theory - not a fact - until it is proven.
Newton's theory of gravitation is also based on a formula:
But it can't be called a "Law" of motion unless it fits the observed facts (see astronomy). --Ed Poor 17:53, 8 May 2007 (EDT)