Here are some measurements. CFC-11 at 20 miles altitude:
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/airborne/lace/lace10.html
Any more nits to pick or can you agree that this does show the presence
of CFCs in the stratosphere?
--
jeff


L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> Stevie, your links make no mention of Chlorine or Fluorine which is what
> we were arguing about in Chlorofluorocarbons and only confirm their
> absents, even in the parts per million. Fortunately the atmosphere has
> carbon, because that's what every living thing is made of. You can snow
> a Snowbird, but you can't sh*t a Shitbird.

 

"Note that the profile is bimolal at low pressures indicating a possible
contamination problem."

When one is talking about parts per trillion (ppt) then a "possible
contamination problem" could account for the whole graph. I worked in a lab
once, where a master's degree candidate's thesis research results were
determined to be artifact. The degree granting process was rushed through,
before anyone on the committee read the relevant articles, because "It is
just a master's thesis". This is so much more important, a debate on
Usenet, and you are obligated to be more careful.

"The gaps indicate regions where the pumps were turned off because of
overheating." Or maybe gaps exist, because there was no detectable CFC-11
at those altitudes? I am afraid that this page doesn't show much, except
for the presence of dots on a graph. Do you have any higher quality data?

Earle

"jeff" <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:zqXwe.8276$dz6.7348@trnddc02...
> Here are some measurements. CFC-11 at 20 miles altitude:
> http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/airborne/lace/lace10.html
> Any more nits to pick or can you agree that this does show the presence
> of CFCs in the stratosphere?
> --
> jeff
>
>
> L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> > Stevie, your links make no mention of Chlorine or Fluorine which is what
> > we were arguing about in Chlorofluorocarbons and only confirm their
> > absents, even in the parts per million. Fortunately the atmosphere has
> > carbon, because that's what every living thing is made of. You can snow
> > a Snowbird, but you can't sh*t a Shitbird.

 

"Note that the profile is bimolal at low pressures indicating a possible
contamination problem."

When one is talking about parts per trillion (ppt) then a "possible
contamination problem" could account for the whole graph. I worked in a lab
once, where a master's degree candidate's thesis research results were
determined to be artifact. The degree granting process was rushed through,
before anyone on the committee read the relevant articles, because "It is
just a master's thesis". This is so much more important, a debate on
Usenet, and you are obligated to be more careful.

"The gaps indicate regions where the pumps were turned off because of
overheating." Or maybe gaps exist, because there was no detectable CFC-11
at those altitudes? I am afraid that this page doesn't show much, except
for the presence of dots on a graph. Do you have any higher quality data?

Earle

"jeff" <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:zqXwe.8276$dz6.7348@trnddc02...
> Here are some measurements. CFC-11 at 20 miles altitude:
> http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/airborne/lace/lace10.html
> Any more nits to pick or can you agree that this does show the presence
> of CFCs in the stratosphere?
> --
> jeff
>
>
> L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> > Stevie, your links make no mention of Chlorine or Fluorine which is what
> > we were arguing about in Chlorofluorocarbons and only confirm their
> > absents, even in the parts per million. Fortunately the atmosphere has
> > carbon, because that's what every living thing is made of. You can snow
> > a Snowbird, but you can't sh*t a Shitbird.

 

"Note that the profile is bimolal at low pressures indicating a possible
contamination problem."

When one is talking about parts per trillion (ppt) then a "possible
contamination problem" could account for the whole graph. I worked in a lab
once, where a master's degree candidate's thesis research results were
determined to be artifact. The degree granting process was rushed through,
before anyone on the committee read the relevant articles, because "It is
just a master's thesis". This is so much more important, a debate on
Usenet, and you are obligated to be more careful.

"The gaps indicate regions where the pumps were turned off because of
overheating." Or maybe gaps exist, because there was no detectable CFC-11
at those altitudes? I am afraid that this page doesn't show much, except
for the presence of dots on a graph. Do you have any higher quality data?

Earle

"jeff" <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:zqXwe.8276$dz6.7348@trnddc02...
> Here are some measurements. CFC-11 at 20 miles altitude:
> http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/airborne/lace/lace10.html
> Any more nits to pick or can you agree that this does show the presence
> of CFCs in the stratosphere?
> --
> jeff
>
>
> L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> > Stevie, your links make no mention of Chlorine or Fluorine which is what
> > we were arguing about in Chlorofluorocarbons and only confirm their
> > absents, even in the parts per million. Fortunately the atmosphere has
> > carbon, because that's what every living thing is made of. You can snow
> > a Snowbird, but you can't sh*t a Shitbird.

 

"Note that the profile is bimolal at low pressures indicating a possible
contamination problem."

When one is talking about parts per trillion (ppt) then a "possible
contamination problem" could account for the whole graph. I worked in a lab
once, where a master's degree candidate's thesis research results were
determined to be artifact. The degree granting process was rushed through,
before anyone on the committee read the relevant articles, because "It is
just a master's thesis". This is so much more important, a debate on
Usenet, and you are obligated to be more careful.

"The gaps indicate regions where the pumps were turned off because of
overheating." Or maybe gaps exist, because there was no detectable CFC-11
at those altitudes? I am afraid that this page doesn't show much, except
for the presence of dots on a graph. Do you have any higher quality data?

Earle

"jeff" <jalowe44INVALID@hotmail.com.INVALID> wrote in message
news:zqXwe.8276$dz6.7348@trnddc02...
> Here are some measurements. CFC-11 at 20 miles altitude:
> http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/airborne/lace/lace10.html
> Any more nits to pick or can you agree that this does show the presence
> of CFCs in the stratosphere?
> --
> jeff
>
>
> L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> > Stevie, your links make no mention of Chlorine or Fluorine which is what
> > we were arguing about in Chlorofluorocarbons and only confirm their
> > absents, even in the parts per million. Fortunately the atmosphere has
> > carbon, because that's what every living thing is made of. You can snow
> > a Snowbird, but you can't sh*t a Shitbird.

 

The Ozone layer extends to a height of sixty kilometers.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

jeff wrote:
>
> Here are some measurements. CFC-11 at 20 miles altitude:
> http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/airborne/lace/lace10.html
> Any more nits to pick or can you agree that this does show the presence
> of CFCs in the stratosphere?
> --
> jeff

 

The Ozone layer extends to a height of sixty kilometers.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

jeff wrote:
>
> Here are some measurements. CFC-11 at 20 miles altitude:
> http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/airborne/lace/lace10.html
> Any more nits to pick or can you agree that this does show the presence
> of CFCs in the stratosphere?
> --
> jeff

 

The Ozone layer extends to a height of sixty kilometers.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

jeff wrote:
>
> Here are some measurements. CFC-11 at 20 miles altitude:
> http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/airborne/lace/lace10.html
> Any more nits to pick or can you agree that this does show the presence
> of CFCs in the stratosphere?
> --
> jeff

 

The Ozone layer extends to a height of sixty kilometers.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

jeff wrote:
>
> Here are some measurements. CFC-11 at 20 miles altitude:
> http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/airborne/lace/lace10.html
> Any more nits to pick or can you agree that this does show the presence
> of CFCs in the stratosphere?
> --
> jeff

 

Earle Horton wrote:
> "Note that the profile is bimolal at low pressures indicating a possible
> contamination problem."
>
> When one is talking about parts per trillion (ppt) then a "possible
> contamination problem" could account for the whole graph. I worked in a lab
> once, where a master's degree candidate's thesis research results were
> determined to be artifact. The degree granting process was rushed through,
> before anyone on the committee read the relevant articles, because "It is
> just a master's thesis". This is so much more important, a debate on
> Usenet, and you are obligated to be more careful.
>
> "The gaps indicate regions where the pumps were turned off because of
> overheating." Or maybe gaps exist, because there was no detectable CFC-11
> at those altitudes? I am afraid that this page doesn't show much, except
> for the presence of dots on a graph. Do you have any higher quality data?
>

Yea,I saw that low pressure out-gassing as well, but noted it
disappeared at higher pressures as would be expected. How about the
first science run: http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/hats/airborne/lace/lace11.html

BTW, the AC in my 2000 Cherokee works great with R134a, and my Wrangler
doesn't need AC since it rarely has a top on in the summer. My kids are
much more important to me than saving a couple of bucks on a recharge or
retrofit.

--
jeff