Ozone is an unstable molecule composed of three oxygen atoms (O3). An ordinary oxygen molecule has two oxygen atoms (O2). This compound is stable. It is the third oxygen atom that is chemically active. It seeks to bind with any substance amenable to oxidation. The approximate result is two new molecules: The stable oxygen (O2) plus an oxide of the other compound. If it were chlorine, for example, the reaction might look something like this:


O3+O3+Cl=O2+O2+ClO2


Ozone's reactivity makes it harmful. It is one of the principal components of urban smog. Oxygenated fuels are used exclusively in most urban areas in the winter to keep it from forming. Incomplete burning of fossil fuels is the primary source man made ozone.


Ozone exists at all levels of the atmosphere. It is slightly concentrated at upper levels. It is thinly dispersed (maximum concentration about 12 parts per million) among other stratospheric gases in a wide band between 10 and 50 kilometers above the surface.


Ozone is created in this zone by a natural process, a reaction between sunlight and stratospheric oxygen. Levels fluctuate naturally, depending on the output of the sun and its angle of intensity. When the sun's energy diminishes over the Antarctic each winter, ozone production ceases and the concentration diminishes by about 60%. When the sun returns the following spring, the level rebuilds. The low point in this natural fluctuation is what "scientists" refer to as "The Ozone Hole."


Ozone does absorb some ultraviolet radiation, and excessive ultraviolet radiation can be harmful. The facts don't support any conclusions regarding whether ozone is increasing or diminishing over the long run, however, or whether man is even more than just a small part of the cause.


In meantime, Henny Penny, Goosey Loosey, and other noted scientists (remember the nursery rhyme about the animals who heard that the sky was falling?), are telling us we must go back to live in caves or the world will end tomorrow. Well, these guys have the facts and they can prove it! Here are some examples of their convoluted logic:


1) There is no "Ozone Hole", just a drop in the wintertime of the concentrations of ozone in the stratosphere. Each winter (with long periods of darkness) ozone levels drop over the Antarctic by 60%. They return again each spring with the sunlight.


2) Ozone levels fluctuate most dramatically over the Antarctic but CFC's are primarily produced in the Northern Hemisphere.


3) Ground-borne CFC's are heavier than air but they are supposed to preferentially travel to the stratosphere. This is not supposed to be true of ground-borne ozone, however, which is one of the primary pollutants produced by man.


4) We do not have any data on ozone levels over long periods of time. Any compound this unstable and diluted is bound to fluctuate wildly in its percentage concentration. A mere 1 part per million fluctuation would result in almost a 10% change in its level, a calamity according to the Chicken Little crowd.


3) A single volcano such as Mount Pinatubo puts more ozone depleting chemicals directly into the stratosphere than man has ever produced. Immediately after the explosion, ozone levels dropped worldwide. (OH MY GOODNESS! WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!) Levels rebounded almost immediately through natural rejuvenation.


4) "Scientists" state that ultraviolet rays striking Antarctica in the winter increase dramatically due the decrease in the level of ozone. (Sunbathing in Antartica, anyone? - Winter Specials, going fast!) They report this could result in an increase of the cases of melanoma worldwide by 25%. This would mean 2,500 new cases each year of a serious but treatable disease. Contrast this the tens of millions that would die each year from food poisoning and starvation if we did not have refrigeration.


5) We are now pledged to spend trillions of dollars worldwide re-tooling our industry with a new, less efficient refrigerant to deal with a "crisis" that is probably just a result of observing natural phenomena. This money could be used for developments and in third world where there is real and immediate suffering. Instead it will find its way into the pockets of the people who control the alternative compounds, who lobby heavily on Capitol Hill.


6) Perhaps the best example of clear and careful thought came from our dear Vice-President Algore when he appeared on ABC's Nightline with Ted Koppel about three years ago. Mr. Algore explained "when you spray from an aerosol can, the pressure sends those CFC's clear out the stratosphere. When a volcano blows up it just runs out on the ground." So I have a question for you if hair spray is that powerful then how many people are decapitated each year while spraying their hair with hair spray?!


HEY ALGORE! Did you ever hear of Krakatoa? How about Mount Saint Helens? Mount Pinatubo? .. .. .. Hello? .. .. .. Al? .. .. .. Is anybody home?


7) It appears from the mechanics of the ozone cycle that levels have been fluctuating naturally for billions of years. "Scientists" now have tools to measure it, however, so now it is a "Crisis", and we are all going to die.


Hey, we ARE all going to die! With these guys advising us, who needs Einstein?


There is no "Ozone Layer" so there can be no "Hole" in it. What "scientists" call the "Ozone Hole" is really just fluctuations in the minute concentrations of ozone within a forty kilometer wide upper atmospheric zone. So-called "scientists" (who are supposed to be objective) have already decided that "The Sky is Falling!" and man is the culprit. In the meantime, their analysis defies all logic. Their solution is to spend trillions worldwide to re-tool our refrigeration equipment with a less efficient alternative that we have no reason to believe is any less reactive.


AND GUESS WHAT! AL GORE & CLINTON HAVE ALREADY AGREED THAT WE WILL DO IT! Is this a great country, or what?

Jesus! What else in this miserable world!

<i>There is no "Ozone Layer" so there can be no "Hole" in it. What "scientists" call the "Ozone Hole" is really just fluctuations in the minute concentrations of ozone within a forty kilometer wide upper atmospheric zone.</i>

There is an ozone layer. Below a certain height, there is practically no ozone. Above a certain height, there is preactically no ozone. In between there's a layer containing ozone - the ozone layer.

Yes, the ozone hole is a decrease in the concentration of ozone. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can see it clearly on appropriate satellite images.

Like this:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/ozone.gif

Now, Agent51, let's see your sources.

1) There is no "Ozone Hole", just a drop in the wintertime of the concentrations of ozone in the stratosphere. Each winter (with long periods of darkness) ozone levels drop over the Antarctic by 60%. They return again each spring with the sunlight.

Source?

2) Ozone levels fluctuate most dramatically over the Antarctic but CFC's are primarily produced in the Northern Hemisphere.

Atmospheric circulation.

3) Ground-borne CFC's are heavier than air but they are supposed to preferentially travel to the stratosphere. This is not supposed to be true of ground-borne ozone, however, which is one of the primary pollutants produced by man.

What? Man-made ozone travels to the stratosphere so there is no thinning of the ozone layer? My picture begs to differ.

4) We do not have any data on ozone levels over long periods of time. Any compound this unstable and diluted is bound to fluctuate wildly in its percentage concentration. A mere 1 part per million fluctuation would result in almost a 10% change in its level, a calamity according to the Chicken Little crowd.

What? Just because a compound is rare does not make its concentration fluctuate.

3) A single volcano such as Mount Pinatubo puts more ozone depleting chemicals directly into the stratosphere than man has ever produced. Immediately after the explosion, ozone levels dropped worldwide. (OH MY GOODNESS! WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!) Levels rebounded almost immediately through natural rejuvenation.

Source?

7) It appears from the mechanics of the ozone cycle that levels have been fluctuating naturally for billions of years. "Scientists" now have tools to measure it, however, so now it is a "Crisis", and we are all going to die.

Source?

Look, you need to cite your sources and show evidence for a proper debate.

http://members.aol.com/lindgren3/Ozone.html

That's probably his source.

The Ozone does have Cycles, where at times it will have more Methane present, or O3. The cycle is where the chemical elements switch bondings but occur over months.

The rate of these cycles suggests that the ozone decreases and increases, there is an Equilibrium at a point, but judging by the calculations if we keep producing CH4 (Methane) from landfills and output O3 from combustion engines our Ozone days are numbered.

The Ozone at the polls isn't just attacked by pollution, but has been attacked for years by Radio bounces using the ionosphere as a method of transfering communication throughout the globe.
This has been heightened in recent years over satellite technology.

All this radiation plays apart on both how the Ozone chemicals cycle, and how they react. As afterall the Ozone is the earths own defense against radiation (along with the EM of the ionosphere), which means it's no longer being attacked from above radiation but also below.

Thre is also the point that Poles do suffer from high concentrations of gravity, and because they are an icecap they do reflect light at a higher concentration. So what radiation get's through the hole can actually be reflected back at the ozone from underneath. Again hitting it with radiation from below.

Xev, you seem quite worried about sources. Many sources are not readily available on the Internet, and sometimes I doubt about the usefulness of giving web sources --people in these hurried times don't like to spend much time reading links to scientific studies (most times too lenghty and complicated to read by non experts). But there is enough information for people who have the will and courage to study and compare what both sides on the "ozone hole scare" are saying. That information is stored in thousands of chemistry and physics texts in hundred of thousands of libraries around the world.

But, if you have little more than basic knowledge of physics and chemistry (I dare to say a lot more than the basics) then you should start reading the book written by Dr. George Dobson, in whose honour the measuring units for ozone levels are named. His book is titled: <b>"Exploring the Atmosphere"</b>, published by Oxford University Press, in 1968 (I am sure you could get it from Amazon.com books). In his book, Dobson tell us about everything you should know about the ozone layer and the infamous Ozone Hole --that, BTW, he discovered it back in 1957 during his research in Antarctica, (along with the French team of scientists at the Dumont D'Urville station, on the other side of the South Pole) making the claim that the Ozone Hole was discovered by a British team in 1985 <b>a blattant lie</b>. All this is in Chapter 6th, "Ozone in the Atmosphere", an enlightening reading.

In his explaining of the chemical properties of ozone, you can read the following: <i>"...A large amount of enery is required to form ozone from oxygen and this energy is given up again when ozone returns to normal oxygen; pure ozone is actually explosive and will detonate under suitable conditions. On the other hand, a large amount of energy is required to dissociate a molecule of oxygen into two single atoms of of oxygen and this energy is released again when two atoms of oxygen recombine to form a molecule of oxygen."</i>

From many chemistry books you can have a look at the actual energy levels required by such dissociation of the oxygen molecule: it is required <b>118,000 kilocalories/mol of energy</b>, and this energy is taken (or stolen) from the high energy photons entering the stratosphere. This means that when a photon in the ultraviolet range of the spectrum strikes an oxygen molecule and splits it in two atoms, it loses 118,000 kcal/mol of energy. After hundreds of thousands of such events, the photon loses its energy and becomes weaker, ie: it goes from the UV-C range into the UV-B, the UV-A, then into the visible spectrum, and finally it may be transformed into infrared radiation, or directly lose all its energy and disappear.

In the same chemistry and physics texts you can see that the energy stolen from the photons are released again, when the two oxygen atoms recombine to restore the molecule. This energy is released in a "spherical" way, that is, about half of it is returned to outer space, and the other half is scattered in the atmosphere striking other molecules (among them the nitrogen molecules).

The nitrogen molecules require more than <b>171,000 kilocal/mol</b> to dissociate, so nitrogen is a much stronger radiation absorber than oxygen. Actually, nitrogen and oxygen are the real shields against UV radiation, due to two important reasons: 1) The high energy they require to dissociate --stolen from UV photons, and 2) the vast amount of these gases in the atmosphere: 78% for nitrogen (N2) and 21% for oxygen (O2). As for ozone, the facts are this:

When two ozone molecules touch each other, they do not require energy to recombine into oxygen; on the contray, they release <b>64 kilocal/mol</b> in the process: The reaction is represented in the chenistry books as: <b>O₃ + O₃  3 O₂ + 64 kcal/mol.</b> As a consequence of the application of the <i>First Principle of the Law of Thermodynamics</i> if the destruction of two ozone molecules requires 64 kcal/mol, one ozone molecule requires only 32 kcal/mol to be destroyed. This means that each ozone molecule "steals" only 64 kcal/mol from any UV photon, while oxygen steals 118,000 kcal/mol. That's why oxygen can be compared with "<b>Scharzenneger</b>" molecules and ozone molecules to "<b>dwarf</b>" molecules.

So, oxygen is thousands of times as stronger a shield against UV radiation than ozone. As the formation of <b>TWO</b> ozone (dwarf) molecules requires the destruction of <b>THREE</b> (Scharzenneger) molecules, we see that any region of atmosphere containing high concentrations of oxygen is more protective than a similar region with high levels of ozone. Actually, UV radiation passes more easily through a layer of ozone than a similar concentration of oxygen. Speaking for laymen: If you wanted to protect a fortress against any enemy, what would you choose: TWO DWARFS of THREE Scharzenneges?. Still more: while oxygen concentration in the atmosphere is about 21%, ozone amounts only to <b>0,000003 percent</b> (yes, <b>THREE MILLIONTHS</b> percent!). The Ozone layer is worthless as a UV radiation shield.

Our chief scientist in the National Observatory of Villa Ortuzar in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Lic. Victoria Tafuri, in charge of measuring ozone levels in Argentina (even in Tierra del Fuego) said back in 1997: </b>"We have not seen any decrease of ozone levels during the past 25 years"</b>.
The rest of the ozone debate is pure political trash. As any cheap lawyer in TV movies would say: <b>"I rest my case"</b>.

Edufer,

I think you've missed the point. The question is which chemical reactions absorb photons in the "harmful" UV range, not which chemical reactions absorb the most energy.

As I understand it, ozone absorbs much more "harmful" UV than oxygen does.

While I’ve often considered the Ozone Hole™ to be pretty much pure fear mongering on the part of environmentalists (of the religious variety) and a smidgen of promotion from certain industries in a position to profit from the scare, I'm curious about some of your conclusions, to wit:

Originally posted by Edufer
…while oxygen concentration in the atmosphere is about 21%, ozone amounts only to <b>0,000003 percent</b> (yes, <b>THREE MILLIONTHS</b> percent!). The Ozone layer is worthless as a UV radiation shield.

Doesn’t that depend on the wavelength? My [very possibly incorrect] understanding was that while Diatomic oxygen absorbs the highest-energy ultraviolet radiation from the sun, namely, all radiation with wavelengths shorter than 240 nm, there is a great deal of ultraviolet radiation between 240 nm and 290 nm that is not absorbed by O2 molecules but is absorbed by O3. Right? Wrong? Middle?

Please read this:
Ozone Depletion: Myth vs. Measurement (http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/science/myths.html)

Originally posted by James R
Edufer,

I think you've missed the point. The question is which chemical reactions absorb photons in the "harmful" UV range, not which chemical reactions absorb the most energy.

As I understand it, ozone absorbs much more "harmful" UV than oxygen does.

Yes, that is a popular belief that the scientific facts exposed in my last post debunks. Now you must understand it otherwise. Photons <b>ARE</b> energy, so any chemical reaction that absorbs photons are absorbing energy. You cannot separate one thing from the other.

I'm sorry if this goes against your earlier beliefs, but science keeps marching along... Once we thought the Earth was flat, or it was the center of the universe. You see, we have corrected the mistake as we learned in the way.

There is big talk about the radiation that would pass through an ozone hole. Well, if "big talk" makes the mistake of using numbers and figures from scientific data, then "big talk" becomes a simple "lambeth walk" (our grandparents used to dance at its rythm). What gives a skin burn to humans and living things is UV radiation, and as any other radiation can be accurately measured. The unit of measure is Watts/m2 , or as mathematically put: W m^-2). Sometimes, scientists use submultiples of this unit (miliwatts (mw), or microwatts (w), and/or square centimeters (cm2) instead of square meters (m2), according to their needs.

The average solar energy falling over the Earth's surface is about 1,000 watts/m2 between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn (23,5 N - 23,5 S latitude). UV-B takes care of about 350 watts/m2, and UV-A the rest (650 watts/m2). When Al Gore scared people with his claims that "sheeps in Patagonia were getting blind by the UV radiation coming through the ozone hole, and babies in Punta Arenas, Chile, were developing melanomas", the press (and the people) went wild. But then,
scientists measured at noon the UV-B radiation coming through a mini-ozone hole in Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina, back in Septemeber 1997, (Drs. Isidoro Orlansky and Ernesto A. Martinez, Buenos Aires National University, Laboratory of Geophysics), their Robertson-Berger spectrometer recorded the incoming UV radiation: 150 watts/m2. At the same time of the day, in Buenos Aires there was a "shower" of 300 watts/m2, this is, normal levels.

Orlansky and Martinez said: "Typical average values of UV radiation are 300 watts/m2 in Buenos Aires, about 100 - 150 watts/m2 in Tierra del Fuego, and 100 watts and less in Antarctica, right under the ozone hole. The UV levels below the ozone hole do not reach half the values found in Buenos Aires." I swear to God that there are not blind sheeps in the Pampas of Buenos Aires. Why did Al Gore tell that lie? Because he's a moron. The blind sheeps in Patagonia were the result of the eruption of the Hudson volcano back in 1971 (that killed hundred of thousands of sheeps, covernig them with ashes that got soaked with rain water, making the ashes a cement-like coffin). The babies in Punta Arenas? Babies don't sunbaths, especially in Punta Arenas where the sun is so low over the horizon that it would NEVER give anyone a sun tan (leave aside a skin cancer), and temperature is so low that it would be criminal to take a baby out of the living room. But, have you ever found something more gullible than a sensationalistic journalist? They buy and eat garbage...

There has been developed an index for measuring "erythema" (or skin burn), based in the watts/m2 reaching the surface. The recommended index is based on the standard first adopted in Canada (Burrows et al., 1994), and represents the erythemally weighted (McKinlay and Diffey, 1987), or sunburning UV radiation at midday. The radiation, (in units of W m^-2) is multiplied by 40, to give an index of approximately 15 at midday near the equator. The values recorded for Australia are given in the next table:

<b>Site --- Lat (deg S) - 21-Dec - 21-Mar - 21-Jun - 21-Sep</b>

Suva ----------- 18.2 ----- 14.6 ----- 12.6 ------- 6.8 ----- 12.2
Brisbane ------ 27.4 ----- 13.8 ----- 10.3 ------- 3.9 ------- 9.4
<b><font color="#ff0000">Sydney ----- 33.9 ----- 12.9 ---- 8.4 ----- 2.4 ------ 7.2</font></b>
Kaitaia --------- 35.2 ----- 12.7 ------- 8.1 ------- 2.2 ------ 6.9
Auckland ------- 36.9 ---- 12.3 ------- 7.5 ------- 1.7 ------ 6.1
New Plymouth - 9.1 ----- 11.8 ------- 6.8 ------- 1.4 ------ 6.4
<b><font color="#ff0000">Wellington -- 41.3 ---- 11.2 ----- 6.3 ----- 1.1 ---- 5.0</font></b>
Christchurch -- 43.5 ----- 10.4 ------- 5.6 ------- 0.9 ------ 4.4
Dunedin -------- 45.9 ---- 10.0 ------- 4.9 ------- 0.6 ------ 4.0
Invercargill ----- 46.4 ----- 9.9 ------- 4.8 ------- 0.6 ------ 3.8
<font color="#ff0000"><b>Campbell Is. - 52.6 ----- 8.2 ----- 3.3 ---- 0.2 ------- 2.7
Scott Base -- 77.9 ----- 2.9 ----- 0.3 ------ 0.0 ------- 0.6</b></font>

<b>Table 1.</b> Typical clear-sky UV indices over New Zealand and its surrounding region.
Seasonal variations are larger at high latitudes.

In this table I have marked red the latitudes of Sydney (33.9° S) corresponding to similar latitudes of my home town in Cordoba, Argentina, (32°S), about the same as sunny San Diego, California. There is also Wellington (about the corresponding northern latitude of New York city and Naples, Italy); Campbell Islands, about the latitude of Ushuaia (55°South), and Newcastle, England, (55°North), and finally the Scott base in Antarctica, corresponding to the northern latitude of the Russian islands in the Arctic Sea. I have also marked in red the title: <b>21st Sept.</b>, corresponding to the spring in the Southern hemisphere, a time when the Ozone Hole is wide open. Let's compare these figures and reach to a conclusion:

While there are 15 units of this ertythema index falling at the Equatorial line, in my home town we are getting 7.2 units (about 50%), and in Ushuaia, in Tierra del Fuego, they are getting 2.7 units, that is, <b>more than five times less radiation</b>. This means that if we get a reasonable sun tan in 30 minutes at the Equator (this is a risk-free exposure time), the risk-free for my home town is doubled to <b>ONE hour</b>, and people in Ushuaia have <b>more than 8 hours of risk-free time.</b>

And let's see what happen to those poor scientists working at Scott base, right below the Ozone Hole: <b>they get 0,6 units</b>. That is about <b>FIVE time less than people in Ushuaia</b>, so their risk-free time <b>is about 40 hours</b>. It's a pitty there are only 24 hours in a day, so these scientists must remain outdoors, under the sun rays, for almost two days to get the same skin damage they would get at home in 30 minutes.

So, it seems the ozone loss does not impose a risk of higher UV radiation and skin cancers and other ailments. As it is written at the bottom of my posts: <b><font color="#ff0000">"Small scientific facts have the nasty habit of destroying beautiful theories".</font></b>

Adam: in the link you supplied, there is a page trying to show that CFC in the stratosphere destroy ozone, giving a graph about the concentrations of CFC at different altitudes. This page makes many scientific mistakes, and should be considered misinforming. No wonder, as it comes from a government agency heavily engaged in the "ozone rackett". I quote from this page:

"As the graph above shows, the concentration of CFC-11 is esentially constant at altitudes up to 10 km. <b>The UV radiation needed to break CFC-11 apart is shielded by the ozone layer.</b>"

<B>FALSE!</B> Oxygen absorbs most of the high energy photons at the TOPMOST part of the stratosphere. So, it is hard to find UV-C below 40-50 km altitude, where the CFC are found at concentrations of <b>few parts per trillion</b>. CFCs are highly stable molecules, almost as difficult to dissociate as oxygen and nitrogen. The graph in this misinforming page (similar studies were performed by R. Fabian, S.A. Borders and S. Penkett, <b>"Halocarbons in the Stratosphere"</b>, <i>Nature</i>, Dec. 24, 1981, giving data for all halocarbons manufactured, so I guess this graph was taken from their work.).

The concentration of CFCs remain fairly steady until they reach the bottom of the stratosphere, as the figure shows. Then, there is a dramatic shift: The concentration of CFCs starts to decrease <b>exponentially</b>. A few kilometers into the stratosphere, the concentrations are only 1/100th of those in the troposphere below. A school of thought composed by the vast majority of meteorologists and physical atmosphere scientists, point to the temperature inversion nature of the stratosphere as the phenomenon that keeps stratospheric population of CFC molecules small. In an inversion, the temperature lapses are upside-down, that is, the aire becomes warmer with altitude, and the warmer layer of air acts like a lid on the air below. You can see that phenomenon in cold winter mornings, when there is no wind, and where the pollution is trapped like a brownish blanket over the city. Once the air warms up at mid morning, the blanket disappears. (Hello, Los Angeles!) Robert W. Pease, professor emeritus in climatology at the University of California, at Riverside, clearly states: <i>"It is precisely because CFCs are so much heavier than air, that it takes considerable more eddy turbulence to support and move the molecules upward through this thermal barrier of the stratospheric inversion than other, lighter air gases."</i>

The same graph makes clear another important point: <b>CFCs do not rise above 40 km</b>, and thus barely reach altitudes where significant energetic ultraviolet radiation (190-230 nm) occurs. As a matter of fact, this UV radiation has all but disappeared by the time of its penetration to 25 km. The question arises: Does enough of the energetic UV radiation reach the altitudes of CFCs occurrence to accomplish much destruction of the molecules? You should keep in mind that, at the 40 km altitude where the last CFCs molecules are found, <b>do not have the energy enough to break down the highly stable CFC molecule.</b> So, who breaks the CFCs molecules if there is not UV radiation with enough energy to accomplish this? If they are broken down at all...

Professor Pease points out that the number of CFC molecules relative to oxygen molecules, in any given point in the stratosphere, determines the probability of each photoreaction occurring at that point. For measured CFCs and oxygen concentrations at 25 km altitude, this probability is roughly that <b>One billion ozone molecules</b> will be formed for each CFC molecule that is broken apart, releasing one chlorine atom. Since the amount of ozone in the stratosphere depends upon a continuos equilibrium between its creation and destruction, the probaility of depletion by CFCs <b>is virtually nonexistent</b>. The destruction of ozone that mantains the equilibrium is by the UV radiation itself; it is a natural process that has existed as long as there has been an atmosphere thet contains oxygen. The supply of oxygen is endless, as the supply of UV radiation is endelss too. Earth have two endless suppliers of ozone: oxygen and UV radiation. And ozone is being formed much faster than it can possibly be destroyed, even by natural forces as volcano eruptions and the chlorine supplied by the oceans (more than 600 millions of tons annually), or the really unfruitfull efforts of man releasing a peak amount of 7,500 tons a year (back in the 70s).

The misinforming page keeps saying: <b>"Because no natural processes destroy CFCs, it survives to be uniformly distributed, both vertically and horizontally."</b> This people ignores completely the works of many, many scientists (as M.A. R. Khalil and R.A. Rasmussen, "The Potential of Soils as a Sink of Chlorofluorocarbons and Other Man-made Chlorocarbons", Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 16, July 1989), where they prove that CFCs are digested by bacteria in soils, swamps and rice paddies. They also found that <i>"... show an amazingly rapid removal of chlorocarbons by the soils and other cosntituents of the termite mounds, The soils depleted methylchloroform (CH3CCl3) and carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) by about 26 percent and more than 60 percent, respectively.</i> They end their paper saying: <i>"It should be noted that the soils of the earth have been exposed to the chlorocarbons we studied for at least a decade, and they still continue to remove the chlorocarbons at a measurable rate. The rates of removal are greatest for carbon tetrachloride followed by methylchloroform and F-11"</i> (page 682).

The rest of the website contains similar misinformation about the ozone issue, utterly unscientific, so there is no use in commenting it here --unless you really wanted to hear about it.

PS: I sent an email to Australia's Prime Minister telling him he should worry about more important things than the imaginary ozone hole menace --like trying to reduce Australia's foreign debt, the world's largest per capita. Greens really did a good job of sendig Australia "back to wilderness", destroying the food production the country used to have thirty years ago.

Edufer,

Any atom or molecule cannot absorb any photon. The photon must have just the right energy to be absorbed. It seems you do not understand my point.

fact, but it's used for politics too much

Originally posted by James R
Edufer,

Any atom or molecule cannot absorb any photon. The photon must have just the right energy to be absorbed. It seems you do not understand my point.

That's half correct: atoms and molecules do absorb photons. And yes, the absorption is a function of the photon wavelength and the molecule vibration frequency.

I don't see what's your point either. Perhaps you were not clear enough, but the main issue here is not "which chemical" reactions absorbs more UV radiation, or if atoms or molecules can do it or not. The important thing are:

<b>1) How much UV radiation is reaching the surface.
2) Which are the factors that determine the amount of UV filtering by the atmosphere.
3) If there has been an increase in UV radiation reaching the surface in the last years.
4) If there has been any ozone layer reduction during the last 40 years or so</b>

So, the best thing to do is start from the beginning, as sound science should be performed. I am sure you know what I will explain, but there might be some people on the board that would be interested, so, in their behalf here it goes:

The sun radiates energy to Earth. Other kind of energy comes from outer space: cosmic rays, that do not play an important role in our discussion. We learned in school that energy is defined as the ability to do work, and that the rate at which energy is used is power. We also found out that energy <b>can neither be created nor destroyed, only converted from one form to another.</b>
Some examples of energy are heat energy, electrical energy, electromagnetic energy, chemical energy, nuclear energy, kinetic energy and mass energy. Nobel Prize winner physicist Feynman highlights that we describe energy as a number. As on a double-entry accounting spreadsheet, if we add energy on one side of the ledger we must subtract it from the other side. The net result must be always zero. Once we stored this in our mind, the rest becomes easier.

<b>Absorption and Scattering</b>

When an electromagnetic wave collides against an atom, the electric and magnetic fields interact with the atom's electrons. Simplifying the matter, we can state that: <b>"An atom or a molecule absorb electromagnetic radiation preferently (but not necessarily) when the frequencey of the wave coincides with one of the frequencies in its emission spectrum"</b>. Or in a simpler manner: <b>"The emission and absorption spectrum of a substance is composed of the same frequencies"</b>, something that Kirchoff had demonstrated back in the 19th Century.

The absorption of energy results in a readjustment of the electric movements of the system to match the new and higher energy levels of the atom or molecule. We can say that the atom or molecule has been left in a state of "excitment". When a wave (or a photon, it's the same thing) goes through a molecule (this applies the same to atoms) disturbs the movement of the linked electrons, and the molecule enters into a state of excitment. For the inverse process, --as electrons act as forced oscillating electric dipoles-- the excited molecule can re-emit electromagnetic radiation (or a photon) of the same frequency as the incident wave, without a measurable retard. The energy re-emitted by the molecule has been absorbed from the incoming radiation. This process is known as "scattering", and the re-emitted radiation (or photons) is known as "scattered wave". The scatering helps to decrease the absorbed energy from the primary wave because the scattering is performed in a "spherical" way, that is, in all directions, away from the molecule. The intensity of the scattered wave, of course, depends on the frequency (or wavelength) of the received radiation, and the angle of scattering, An important point is that the scattered waves are strongest when the incident radiation frequency is equal to one of the "1, 2, 3, ...x" of the emission spectrum of the molecule, fact known as <b>"Resonance flourescence"</b>. The scattering could still be signficant at frequencies different from those of the emission spectrum.

We could jump over less important things as the higher degree of scattering of the higher frequencies (thus the blue color of the sky), and go to what matters.

<b>Molecular Oxygen</b>

The oxygen molecule is a double-bonded one (a diatomic molecule), and that means it is one of the most stable molecules on Earth (like nitrogen), and it is extremely hard to break apart. When two oxygen atoms bond together to form an oxygen molecule, there is a great amount of energy released (or formation heat), that is <b>118,111 kilocalories/mol</B>. By the inverse process, it is needed this huge amount of energy in order to dissociate the molecule. The enormous strength of this diatomic bond (O=O) is made evident by the fact that even at 2,300°C only 1% of the oxygen molecules are dissociated in atoms.

We can imagine the atoms as little balls linked by steel coils that keep the balls together. Each "coil-link" has its own vibration frequency, the frequency at which the balls separate from each other, and then are attracted again by the "coil". Let us say that a pair of atoms separates and get closer at about 1 million times every second. We say they vibrate at <b>1 Megaherz per second</b>. (Your computer CPU clock can do much better than that...). When a ECM wave of that same frequency strikes the molecule, increases the natural vibration of its atoms; the molecule absorbs part of the incoming radiation at this particular frequency, and the spectrophotometer shows an absorption peak for the corresponding wavelenght.

When a photon strikes a molecule, it gives away a certain amount of energy. If the absorption capacity of the molecule is greater than the absorbed energy, the energy absorbed "heats" the molecule. If the photon's energy is greater, there begins a transfer of energy that puts the molecule into a vibration state. The molecule might not break, though, until the incoming energy reaches the ionization level of the molecule. At this point, the molecule dissociates in its comstitutive atoms, and the photon (or what remain of the photon) keeps going in its original direction, without any other loss than the energy given to the molecule until its rupture. The photon will continue its path to Earth's surface, making millions or billions of impacts against equal number of molecules of different type of gases, substances, dust, clouds, smoke, airplanes, trees, animals, and human beings.

Each impact takes away some energy from the photon, so the final energy contained in a photon striking a human being is a functin of: a) the energy it had when first entered the atmosphere, 2) the amount of impacts performed and, 3) the absorption capacity of each of the molecules impacted. As we can see, this is a task for the brave of heart...

But, there is a fact: a molecule could not dissociated by a photn not strong enough, but it can leave the molecule in a high vibrating state (it has been "heated up"). In a few seconds, the molecule will go back to its normal "temperature" or normal vibrating frequency, releasing the extra energy absorbed in the form of heat. This process warms the atmosphere. But, if a second photon strikes the molecule when it is still "hot" (in a high vibration state), the additional energy given to the photon can make the molecule reach its ionization (rupture) level, and provoke its breakup.

-----------------------------

<b>In Brief:</b>
When a photon strikes any molecule, the impact provokes the molecule to start vibrating. We can visualize this as two atoms linked by a coil, and the two atoms trying to get away from each other. The "coil" will prevent this and will return the atoms to their "natural" distances. The energy that was transmitted to the atoms by photons, will continue to separate the atoms, and the "coil" will keep bringing the atoms close together again. This process consumes energy and repeats itself until all the added energy is consumed, that is, transformed into heat (infrared radiation), because energy is never lost, just transformed.

This process of added energy increases what its known as "quantum energy level" to higher levels. When the vibration reaches a point that breaks the "coil" resistance, the energy received from the photon will be released in the form of a new photon, and the molecule steps down to its original energy level. The new photon is released in a random direction, so there is no way to determine in which direction it will keep going. Sometimes it will go back to outer space, sometimes will keep going in its original direction, right down to Earth's surface. But, as there are infinite degrees in which the photon can resume its journey, the odds that it would keep going down are about "one against infinte" (1/infinite).

I hope this lenghty explanation has been useful for thos who did not know the science behind EMR and molecules in the stratosphere.

I would appreciate it if someone could find the gas emissions of Mt. Erebus. A link would be nice.

I remember seeing in somewhere that a Japanese team discovered the thinning sometime in the fifties. They too decided that this was natural.

If UV radiation breaks down CFCs, then we should make more of them to absorb the radiation that is leaking through the "hole."

Skin cancer is not a good measurement either. I saw it pointed out somewhere that we are wearing less(women used to wear dresses to swim in, compare that to a bikini) and exposing more.

This debate has the reputations of many scientists and lots of laws and government policies at stake, and guess who has the money. In The Hole in the Ozone Scare the story was told of two scientists that, while researching something unrelated, noticed that CFCs didn't come out of the other end of a termite mound. The critics state the fact that it was never verified, but then, when they requested a grant, they were turned down.

This is too mixed up in politics to be resolved without banging heads.:mad:

In The Hole in the Ozone Scare the story was told of two scientists that, while researching something unrelated, noticed that CFCs didn't come out of the other end of a termite mound.You were reading the right book. (Roger Maduro and Ralph Schauerhammer). Khalil Rasmussen and other proved that CFCs are digested by bacteria in the environment. You should watch the video documentary "Fair skin, stay in". there you would see Haroum Tazieff, the french volcanologist who made four expeditions to the Antarctica (studying the Erebus volcano) stating the Erebus pumps more than 1,000 tons of chlorine, right into the "Ozone hole".

The infamous hole was not discovered by the British scientists in 1985, but by the British atmospheric scientist George Dobson in 1957, during the International Geophysical Year campaign. French scientists at the Dumont D'Urville station in the south pole made the same "discovery", at the same time Dobson recorded the lowest ozone levels ever measured in history.

I recall that there was a Japanese team too.

Gifted: "Edufer, could you provide me with a link to your source of information? I'd really appreciate it."I think you have mentioned one of the best referenced book on the ozone issue: "The Holes in the Ozone Scare. The Scientific Evidence That the Sky Isn't Falling", by roger Maduro and Ralph Schauerhmmer, (1992, 21st Century Science Associates, P.O.Box 16285, Washington, D.C. 20041). If not, you can get in touch with them at: <A HREF="http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/">"21st Century Science & Technology"</B></A> for buying the book. It is well and plainly explained, and fully referenced, so you can go from there.

Or go here for more info: <A HREF=http://members.aol.com/lindgren3/Ozone.html><b>"The Ozone Hole; Facty or Fiction?"</B></A>

Or try my website (and all the links there) at: <A HREF="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ENGLISH.html"><b>Ecology: Myths and Frauds</B></A>

"The greens would make us believe the world is small, that it is delicate and we are destroying it. I've watched their ranks swell to overflowing and heard their voices grow to a thunder. And still, there is something I know deep in my heart. They are wrong. The world is not delicate. It is strong. It is robust, it is alive, teeming with life and we are a part of it. We are not destroying the world. In fact, we are not affecting it in the smallest part."
<a href="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Ozone.html">Ecology: Myths and Frauds</a>

Now, I don't know exactly how much damage we're doing to the earth, (which is why I'm ressurecting this old thread) but that seems to be going a bit far, don't you think?

The reason I bring this up is because a buddy and I were just watching South Park. It was the episode where all the immigrants from the future are coming back in time because the future sucks so bad. It was a blatant play on all immigrants that come in and work for low pay, "They tewk ar jyobs!!" (If you haven't seen the episode, that's said from deep in the throat. Try saying it with your adam's apple. :D) Anyway, they end up figuring that if they clean up the earth, then the future people won't need to come back in time. So they do that for a while then figure out that what they're doing is "gay" and they go back to the big gay doggie pile as plan "b". (If everyone's guy, the future people are never born.)

And this is important because...? Well, we started talking about the subject of ecology and the ozone hole came up. I remember hearing several times that the ozone hole was just a big screw-up basically. It's a cycle that comes and goes. It came and then it went. And that nowadays one hears nothing about the ozone hole because it basically repaired itself, not completely but not anywhere near as bad as it was back in the heyday. I've tried doing some searching on the web before I came back here and searched and I really couldn't find what I wanted. I found a couple of the sites listed above coincidentally enough. :p But, what I would like to see is a direct comparison detailing the ozone hole over time. From then to now. Satellite images and the like. I've found a site that shows year by year stats; but they don't show the hole, they show charts and graphs. It'd be nice to "see" the hole, if you know what I mean. Does anyone have any links or information on this?

And... This is an excellent example of a good thread. I guess the one thing it was missing was someone to play devil's advocate. A little flame war to spur the scientific juices. :D

Edit: even though the original post was plagerized...

Edufer,

Thanks for your tutorial. I hope it helps people who aren't actually physicists who specialise in quantum optics, like I do.

But, as there are infinite degrees in which the photon can resume its journey, the odds that it would keep going down are about "one against infinte" (1/infinite).

Try 1 in 2.

There has been some development in the ozone hoax. First, it has gone down the oblivion path because the CFC ban made possible for the chemical companies to market their less efficient and more expensive gases, as SUVA or 134A, second, managed to rise a flourishing Freon black market (as everybody knew it will happen), and third, the hole in Antarctica has been growing and disappearing as usual, with no increase or reduction in size – besides of what can be accounted by natural phenomena as sun irradiance variations, Quasi Biennal Oscillation in stratospheric winds, more or less solar wind and consequential less or more cosmic rays, etc. There has not been recorded any UV increase over the Earth’s surface, although some reduction has been recorded, but this is totally related with sunspot number and the variations in Sun’s activity.

Also, there has not been any increase or reduction in skin cancers worldwide, melanomas in cats have not increased in Australia (as if cats enjoyed walking under the Sun!), the ozone hole didn’t open over Kennebunkport in the USA, neither over the North Pole. It seems business is as usual as before the CFC ban. Just some chemical companies got huge profits from the whole scam. The refrigeration industry also made a multibillion business replacing hundred of thousand of refrigeration equipments. The only drawback was the public paid for all this. You, me, and our neighbors.

But there has surfaced some research that was kept ignored by the mainstream media – because it was not “politically correct”, that is, showed there were many holes in the ozone hole theory or ozone destruction by CFCs. The research was made in a joint effort by NASA and Wuppertal.University, Germany, and it was called the Crista-Spas project (http://www.crista.uni-wuppertal.de/) a satellite that took readings from the atmosphere at other angles different from the “straight down” traditional way: they discovered there is a Freon-11 hole inside the ozone hole!. It means there are no CFCs inside the ozone hole in Antarctica.

Wouldn’t this discovery deserve some headlines in the media? Not in our politically correct world of nowadays. The show must go on. There are big implications if the ozone depletion theory is debunked and shown to be a fraud. One of them is Rowland, Crutzen, and Molina would have to return the money from the 1995 Noble Prize in chemistry. And the Nobel institution would be shown to be what really has been converted into: a political tool for geopolitics.
Another link quite useful is a long article on anything you should know about this terrible hoax: “New Scientific Evidence Proves Ozone Depletion Theory False”: http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Crista.html

Enjoy the reading.

James R: don’t say it took you two years to read my tutorial! Better late than never! But the odds keeps being 1/infinite as there are infinite directions the scattered photon can go. If you think this is not so, I would like to see the physical explanation for it. I can be wrong. If I am, I will acknowledge it.

So, oxygen is thousands of times as stronger a shield against UV radiation than ozone. As the formation of TWO ozone (dwarf) molecules requires the destruction of THREE (Scharzenneger) molecules, we see that any region of atmosphere containing high concentrations of oxygen is more protective than a similar region with high levels of ozone. Actually, UV radiation passes more easily through a layer of ozone than a similar concentration of oxygen. Speaking for laymen: If you wanted to protect a fortress against any enemy, what would you choose: TWO DWARFS of THREE Scharzenneges?. Still more: while oxygen concentration in the atmosphere is about 21%, ozone amounts only to 0,000003 percent (yes, THREE MILLIONTHS percent!). The Ozone layer is worthless as a UV radiation shield.

UVA consists of wavelengths of 315-380 nm. UVB is 280-315 nm. UVC is 10-280 nm.

The UV absorption specturm of oxygen shows absorbance in the range of 70-250 nm. The spectrum of ozone shows absorbance in the range of 220-320 nm.

UVA consists of wavelengths of 315-380 nm. UVB is 280-315 nm. UVC is 10-280 nm.

The UV absorption spectrum of oxygen shows absorbance in the range of 70-250 nm. The spectrum of ozone shows absorbance in the range of 220-320 nm.What’s on books and tables must be reviewed sometimes. When logic interferes with accepted concepts, these must be revised and checked again.

Acording to the above information gently provided by Skylark, Oxygen absorbs UV radiation between wavelengths 70 and 250 nm. So it shouldn’t be absorbing UB-V radiation between 280-315 nm, absorption left to ozone (220-320 nm), right?

Ozone is almost nonexistent below 16 km altitude, so, according to the spectrum absorption tables, there is no gas left to absorb UV radiation below those 16 km. But experience and instruments show that UV radiation decreases from those 16 km down to Earth’s surface at an effective rate of 1% for every 50 meters. Now, who in Heaven (or in the sky) is filtering (absorbing) that UV radiation – if oxygen and nitrogen are not absorbing it, and ozone does not exist at those altitudes? The fact is, oxygen and nitrogen absorb most of the UV radiation coming from the Sun. Ozone just plays a very minor role. This has been known for a long time, but the media will never aknowledge it, nor authors of newer textbooks. However, the Encyclopaedia Britannica states that since about 30 years ago, in its Micropaedia, in the ozone issue.

Ozone is merely the consequence of oxygen and nitrogen absorbing UV radiation – like sparks are the consequence of a grinding wheel wearing down a piece of steel. I we were making the same with a piece of brass, we would not see sparks coming from the wheel, but the wearing action is being performed nonetheless, and we couldn’t say there is no wearing down of the brass because we see no sparks. One thing is the cause, another quite different the effect.

Ozone can also absorb UV-B, yes, but the amount absorbed is in proportion to its concentrations: ozone is found in the stratosphere where it is more abundant in the range of 3 millionth percent (0.000003%), while oxygen is present at 21%, nitrogen at 78%, argon at 1%, CO2 at 0.03%, etc. The fact that must be taken into account is what I have posted back in 2002, where the effect of repeated impacts of photons on oxygen (and other gases) molecules leaves molecules in a excited state that a weak photon can finally break apart the atomic bonds.

Egads. This makes me realize how long I've been on the forum. I thread I participated in has been ressurected two days before its one year anniversary. Scary.

UVA consists of wavelengths of 315-380 nm. UVB is 280-315 nm. UVC is 10-280 nm.

The UV absorption specturm of oxygen shows absorbance in the range of 70-250 nm. The spectrum of ozone shows absorbance in the range of 220-320 nm. So all radiation 70-320nm is absorbed. 10-70nm and 320-380nm are not absorbed. Total is 67.56% of the radiation is absorbed. Oxygen absorbs 40.54%, Ozone absorbs 18.91%, they overlap over 8.10%.

http://www.thespectroscopynet.com/Educational/Extreme_uv.htm

The graph on this wesite show something interesting: the high absorption spectra of oxygen and water vapor. It says:<dir>“Air does not transmit wavelengths below about 190 nm, because oxygen and water vapour are highly absorbent at these short wavelengths. Some of the strongest emission lines for some very important elements are in this region, notably H I 121.5 nm, O I 130.2 nm, Cl I 133.5 nm & 134.7 nm, N I 149.2 nm, C I 156.1 nm & 165.7 nm, P I 177.4 nm & 178.2 nm and S I 180.7 nm, where I means the neutral atom.”</dir><center><img src=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-8/spectro.gif></center><dir>“To use these lines we need to eliminate oxygen and water vapour from both the spectrometer and the optical path to the emission source. This can be achieved either by evacuating the optical system or by purging the system with a gas not containing oxygen or water vapour, the obvious choice is nitrogen, and today about 50% of all new spectrometers working below 200 nm are evacuated and about 50% nitrogen-purged.”</dir>It seems that oxygen absorbs much more UV “than previously believed” – as it is usual to say nowadays when trying to scare people.

The absence of ozone in the high troposphere (16-20 km altitude) and the progressive reduction of UV levels as it nears Earth’s surface is an evidence that UV radiation is being “absorbed” by oxygen and nitrogen without the molecule dissociation seen in the stratosphere. Other less abundant gases contributes to this absorption, but to a much lesser degree. Oxygen and nitrogen molecules when hit by a UV-B photon with not enough energy to split it apart, merely start to vibrate until they fall down to a lower quantum energy level and release their energy (in the form of a photon) at an angle determined by the wavelength of the incoming photon.

Gifted: in your calculations you forgot to include the absorption of water vapor that is extremely high.

I didn't have stats for it.

http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/tour_images/oct_ozone.gif

I got the above from http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/ Looks like a pretty good presentation, award winning in fact.

Yeah, I've seen that too. Notice how it stops at 91... Why did they stop? Did their theory start to fall apart at that point?

Edit: Yup, exact same site I've already been too. Check out the latest research page. 1994... :eek:

Here's a recent animation from the EPA, http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/hole/

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/hole/images/anim3.gif

I had, don't know if I still do, a poster that showed monthly images for like a decade. Very interesting becuase you can see the yearly fluctuations.

Seen that one too. I think it's telling that it's difficult to find a yearly comparison for the latest years. I even searched on that page for other years so that I could see them on different tabs one after the other, but it's only the very recent ones that are shown visually like this.

I haven't seen any side by side photos however you can see comparison of recent data for the last few years at http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ozwv/ozsondes/spo/index.html

Invert nexus, are you buying into this idea of a hoax?

That's the whole point of why I raised this thread from the dead. I have heard that it is at least an exagerration. I want to see proof either way, but I can't find anything substantial. Or perhaps, what I find is too substantial, but not in a way that I can understand... ;) Why isn't it mentioned much anymore? Why are there no comparisons between the ozone hole of the 80's and 90's and the ozone hole now. Edufer's claims are based on the actual properties of ozone absorbing uv and not the extent of the hole, so while it's interesting, doesn't answer my questions.


Edit: By the way, that's another site I had looked at already. I liked the animations. It's interesting how the ozone levels jump so radically at times, up and down. And again, only the most recent data is available in such a manner. The older data is obscured.

I don't think it is mentioned much anymore because the world wide ban on known ozone destruction chemicals appears to be working. No problem means no news, still, use sun screen.

I don't place much credibility to any of Edufer's posts any more and basically don't read them. Did you actually read all of that? Don't trust a thing there and go find your own data. I don't think someone who floods a thread with an avalanche of words is much into communication, more like coercion. Check out his profile and his web site, he purports to have the answers to many controversies. The opinions there seem to share a common theme, a suck up to corporate hegemony, past and present. He really is quite an education. I thought that kind of pap only came from corporate sponsored propaganda manufacturers but this world never ceases to amaze me as to the extent that people can lose their integrity.

I did read through a lot of it. I don't understand all the physics involved, but I find the lack of serious rebuttal. There have been a few interjections here and there, but overall his posts have stood.

But, as I said, my concern was originally more with the size of the ozone hole not the properties of ozone and the like. I had hoped that some who are in the know might interject with relevant data and links. So far, nothing I haven't seen before. No offense, thanks for trying. :)

On Edufer's behalf, I would posit this as a motivation for his ideals. He lives in South America. And wishes to see his country thrive. The problem is that we in the industrialized countries are now trying to tell the other countries how to act in an ecologically sound manner, but we didn't have these rules when we industrialized. It is in his interest to promote his ideals. I cannot comment on the rightness or wrongness of them. I leave that to people who understand the physics. But I do understand his motivations.

The thing that gets me is that from what I've seen there seems to be a deliberate obfuscation of data that makes it difficult to determine the extent of the ozone hole problem. Why are there no easily understood comparisons? They were all over the place a few years ago. You couldn't turn around without the ozone hole being shoved in your face. Now there is a silence and seemingly deliberate smearing of data. I suppose to get any answers, I'm going to have to pore over reams of obscure data and try to come up with my own answer. Unfortunately, not being educated in this science, the chances are good that I will draw the wrong conclusions.

Such is life...

Edufer's claims are based on the actual properties of ozone absorbing uv and not the extent of the hole, so while it's interesting, doesn't answer my questions.

Invert_nexus, if the hole extension is what worries you, there has nothing to worry about. With minor variations, the hole is about the same since it was first discovered, back in 1956 by Gordon Dobson at Haley base and, on the other side of Antarctica, Leroy and Rigaud in Dumont D’Urville French station.

Press releases keep informing about the hole getting bigger than ever (usually bigger than continental US) but if you compare its size and concentration levels with other factors (Quasi Biennial Oscillation, number of sunspots, etc) you’ll see these natural phenomena mark the trend for the hole’s size.

I know Mr. Chips will love this website: http://www.theozonehole.com/ I guess this is the site you have been looking for. They have graphs for the entire year 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. In the following link, there are graphs for the whole month of June 2003, and graphs of the hole until June 13th, 2004. Quite updated this website. If you spend a lot of time comparing those graphs, you’ll start to see the light. Don’t thank me.

If you watch those graphs when the hole is at its maximum size, you’ll see that over Patagonia (especially Tierra del Fuego) ozone levels are higher than in the rest of Argentina and Chile, and much higher than over the Equator. Amazing? Not at all. Remember what I said about the research our scientists at Buenos Aires University did on “mini-ozone holes” over Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego? I will repeat it for you:<dir>"The average solar energy falling over the Earth's surface is about 1,000 watts/m2 between the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn (23,5 N - 23,5 S latitude). UV-B takes care of about 350 watts/m2, and UV-A the rest (650 watts/m2). When Al Gore scared people with his claims that "sheeps in Patagonia were getting blind by the UV radiation coming through the ozone hole, and babies in Punta Arenas, Chile, were developing melanomas", the press (and the people) went wild.

But then, scientists measured at noon the UV-B radiation coming through a mini-ozone hole in Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina, back in Septemeber 1997, (Drs. Isidoro Orlansky and Ernesto A. Martinez, Buenos Aires National University, Laboratory of Geophysics), their Robertson-Berger spectrometer recorded the incoming UV radiation: 150 watts/m2. At the same time of the day, in Buenos Aires there was a "shower" of 300 watts/m2, this is, normal levels.

Orlansky and Martinez said: "Typical average values of UV radiation are 300 watts/m2 in Buenos Aires, about 100 - 150 watts/m2 in Tierra del Fuego, and 100 watts and less in Antarctica, right under the ozone hole. The UV levels below the ozone hole do not reach half the values found in Buenos Aires."

“I swear to God that there are not blind sheeps in the Pampas of Buenos Aires. Why did Al Gore tell that lie? Because he's a moron. The blind sheeps in Patagonia were the result of the eruption of the Hudson volcano back in 1971 (that killed hundred of thousands of sheeps, covernig them with ashes that got soaked with rain water, making the ashes a cement-like coffin).”

“The babies in Punta Arenas? Babies don't sunbath, especially in Punta Arenas where the sun is so low over the horizon that it would NEVER give anyone a sun tan (leave aside a skin cancer), and temperature is so low that it would be criminal to take a baby out of the living room. But, have you ever found something more gullible than a sensationalistic journalist? They buy and eat garbage...”</dir>If you are still not convinced about the lack of importance of the ozone layer as a shield against UV, then read the following link: <a href=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES-2/AmazingOzone.html>Amazing Calculations</a>, and <a href="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Ozo/vortex.html">Interesting Facts About the Antarctic Polar Vortex</a>

I am curious about that now, Inverted Nexus. I've never really seen such a study. I'll dig around and see if I can find that poster, though it's only part of the eighties as I recall.

There is a large amount of evidence for the corporate conspiracy theories, and I'd guess that they're not entirely innocent. This is science that got mixed up in politics and economics. That distorts things. The lack of readily available easy to read data is another concern.

It more or less seems to have died except for things like this thread.

Invert_nexus, have you read the Cristas-Spas information? Have you visited the Wuppertal Univiersity website with all the scientific work done there (in collaboration with the German Space Agency and NASA). There is no obfuscation there. There is valuable, peer reviewd science.

And did you, Mr. Chips, understand anything on that website? Could you comment on those scientific findings? Or you will just keep on your usual ad hominems attacks (about my integrity) in order to dismiss my information?

You said, referring to me: "I thought that kind of pap only came from corporate sponsored propaganda manufacturers but this world never ceases to amaze me as to the extent that people can lose their integrity."

Had you taken the time to explore our website, you would have seen that we are against corporations, especially American and European multinationals. And we are for the truth in science, against hoaxes, myths and frauds. And no one pays me a cent for what I speak or write. I am stupid enough as to do it just for kicks, or getting Gr$$npeace mad.

Yeah, that's another one of the sites I've looked at. You see the problem is that the information is portrayed in technical charts and graphs and I don't understand half of it. I had hoped to find some nice images showing the hole like the picture Mr. Chips posted above. I think I'm going to have to resign myself to actually studying these charts and graphs and things and try to decipher what it's saying. Unfortunately, even if I do buck the odds and manage to come to some kind of understanding of the data, my friend will never understand and I wonder if I will be able to translate into terms he would be able to understand. A picture speaks a thousand words, they say.

By the way, is that mitosyfraudes site yours? That was another site I found on my web search. Funny that the same sites keep coming up. I guess that says something about the relevance of the sites. (Either that, or everyone is googling their data like I was. :p) I resign myself to trying to come to grips with what is presented and not cry for a better image.

Invert_Nexus: yes, that is our website from the Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology. Non profit ONG. And we have past the point of 1500 visitors a day, for a total of more than 720,000 visitoris in 2 years. Not bad for a $12.50 hosting website, eh? Mr. Chips thinks we are paid by EXXON.

I guess you have visited the website I mentioned (www.theozonehole.com) and read some of it. In this page, regarding the 2003 Hole, they tell a most fantastic story: http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonehole2003.htm
<dir>“The area and population affected including the Argentinean city of Ushaia which has a population of 30,000 and Punta Arenas, Chile which has a population of 120,000 are all at risk during this time period.”

“The public should avoid going outside during the peak hours of 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to avoid exposure to the UV rays. If people do go outside during these hours they should wear protective sunscreen and if possible a hat or head covering and sunglasses with a uv rating.”

“The Ozone hole has reached land and population areas in Argentina, Chile and The Falkland Islands since the early 1990's. Ozone levels drop down as much as 70% in some areas. The protective level of ozone has dropped below 150 dobson units in some areas.

It has reached further north at times affecting the towns of Rio Gallegos, Puerto Santa Cruz, and Rio Grande affecting an additional 200,000 people.”</dir>Do you remember what Martínez and Orlansky said about the UV levels falling over Ushuaia and Punta Arenas during a mini-hole occurrence over those cities?

Orlansky and Martinez said: "Typical average values of UV radiation are 300 watts/m2 in Buenos Aires, about 100 - 150 watts/m2 in Tierra del Fuego, and 100 watts and less in Antarctica, right under the ozone hole. The UV levels below the ozone hole do not reach half the values found in Buenos Aires."

You have seen how the people in that website talk about percentages and do not provide hard figures on UV radiation at the surface, in watt/m2, as they should. If they recommend people to not go outside when they are getting 150 watts/m2, what would they recommend to people in Los Angeles, Miami, Sidney, Madrid, Tel Aviv, etc, that receive 300 watts/m2 or more at the same moment? Can you see how these people is lying to you? Can you trust these people? And can you trust Mr. Chips, their partner in deceit?

An image is worth a thousand words, you say. But when it comes to ozone hole, global warming, etc, the available images are computer generated and, as you know, when it comes to computer science, the old guys used to say: GIGO! GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT!

And computer graphs are as truthful and honest as the guy behind the keyboard programming the graphs. We are walking on thin ice here, Invert_Nexus, and scientific fraud is growing, and growing, and growing. Would you like to hear the sound of a different bell on when to get your sunbath and for how long? Read <a href=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/PlaySafe.html>Play it Safe: Take Sun at Noon!</a>

And this will surprise you: this is a graph by the IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, showing a graph of ozone levels 1970-1995.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig4-8.htm

The levels were increasing between 1970 and 1995, when Rowland an Molina were saying ozone levels were going down catastrophically! They got a Nobel prize in 1995. It would make me laugh – if it were not a disgraceful evidence of how science has been politicized and corrupted.

You know something that's odd about some of these pictures? The graph on the side explains the color keys. Why is there a pink color down in the blues? Why don't they have a regularly gradated color scale. In fact, some of the colors when placed next to each other or surrounding each other end up looking like different colors because of optical effects. It's like another example of an attempt to confuse the image. Now, I'm not actually accusing them of trying to do any such thing, I just find it odd. Is this standard practice in images of this type?

And, yes, Edufer, I can see your point about the amount of UV reaching the ground being the issue at hand. And I can also see how these warnings are of a great importance to you, considering that you live in the affected area. Have you personally set out equipment to test uv light levels reaching the ground? I think you have made a convincing argument. And, as I said before, perhaps the greatest evidence on your behalf is that no one has picked apart your calculations. I tend to believe that if anybody was able to do so, they would. It has always been the case from what I've seen in here so far.

About Mr. Chips being an agent of the enemy (partner in deceit) or whatever you were saying, I definitely wouldn't go that far, but he attacked you first, so I'll have to bow out of that argument.

Also, I started this rehash of this thread with a quote from the <a href="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ENGLISH.html">Ecology: Myths and Frauds</a> link you gave.

"The greens would make us believe the world is small, that it is delicate and we are destroying it. I've watched their ranks swell to overflowing and heard their voices grow to a thunder. And still, there is something I know deep in my heart. They are wrong. The world is not delicate. It is strong. It is robust, it is alive, teeming with life and we are a part of it. We are not destroying the world. In fact, we are not affecting it in the smallest part."

Now, as I said, I don't understand all the physics involved; but I would think that the answer lies somewhere in between. We may not be destroying it as outright as has been claimed, but I think the claim that we are not affecting it in the smallest part is a bit much. Somewhere in the center lies the answer.


You know the thing that offends me about this (if it is a hoax or exagerration) is that it's so typical of our times. Scaremongering. It's like all the "Truth" commercials on the air in the US these days. For all who haven't seen them, they are an organization that is out to tell the "Truth" about the tobacco industry. Now, it's a fact that cigarettes are bad for you. The thing that offends me is that we all know it. We all knew it when we started. And if you didn't know it, either you were a total retard or maybe you're a hundred years old and back then everyone thought it was cool. It's common sense that inhaling burning smoke into your lungs is going to mess you up. We don't need propaganda style broadcasts to inform us of this. We don't have the right to sue the tobacco company because we took our own health into our own hands. There are other correlaries as well, terrorism, drug abuse, crime statistcs. All these are portrayed in the most frightening way that they can make it. I'm sick of it. Anyway, that's my rant on fearmongering... :p

And, as to the nobel prize, Kissinger never gave his back... :p

Edufer: "And did you, Mr. Chips, understand anything on that website?"

Ah, no, I've been on mars for the last few years in a deep cavern with my fingers in my ears.

Edufer: "Could you comment on those scientific findings?"

mvcop24md98%@*(, (well, I guess not.)

Edufer: "Or you will just keep on your usual ad hominems attacks (about my integrity) in order to dismiss my information?"

Hello? (http://asf.allwavs.com/wav01/For_Men/cowdung.wav)

Nexus, it is 4:00 AM down here. I must "hit the sack" or obody will take me out of bed tomorrow (I mean, in four hours from now). I should have been jumping in the streets with my friends, because my soccer team (Boca Juniors) won its semifinal in the "Libertadores Soccer Cup", and will be playing for the finals next week, and on December will play against the European champion for the world cup.

Piece of cake. We won the World cup last year, and did it on 2002, and 2000. But this thread of ozone layer and the hoax behind it kept me awake.

I sympathize with all you are saying, and find you have a lot of common sense, much more than the average person. The quest for the truth is not an easy task. And the road to hell is paved with good intentions...

Kissinger not only did not return his Nobel, but he was awarded the title of Sir by Her Gracious Majesty Queen Elizabeth II "for valuable services rendered to the Crown" - as Kissinger aknowledged back in 1984 (in his speech when receiving the title), he used to inform Her Majesty before his president (Nixon). Nice guy... Admiral Alexander Haig also got his "Sir" after he gave valuable service (satelite info and "sidewinder" missiles) to the British Task Force during the Malvinas-Falkland war in 1982.

I will give you some interesting examples about the way color is used in graphs in order to disguise and confound information, giving a different meaning. People are not too inquisitive when looking at graphs, especially journalists. Wait until tomorrow and be prepared. It will make you smile.

I guess, Invert nexus, you saw this page http://www.theozonehole.com/ozoneholehistory.htm with pictures of the ozone hole from 1980 to 2003 next to each other? The 2003 summary by the NOAA on that page appears fairly astute and might embody all that you need to share with your friend.

The graph on this page suggests that recovery of ozone levels may not be complete until 2060 http://www.ec.gc.ca/science/sandejan99/article7_e.html as long as the ban of ozone destroying substances is continued. This site also is predominantly concerned with the Arctic hole, a newer phenomenon than the Antarctic hole.

"The incidence of skin cancer is higher in Australia than in any other country, and incidence rates are still rising." from http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih1/cancer/activities/activity5_database.htm

Skin Cancer Incidence Increases in Canada, http://www.gov.ns.ca/news/details.asp?id=20040527004

I have not read Edufer's posts above as I have found it entirely worthless to do so when encountering his zeal in other threads. I don't really care what you want to believe Invert nexus, that is your choice. I have found that often, Edufer's slurs are a reflection of his own worst fears, for example, calling me "their partner in deceit" may be something that reflects more on his voluminous posting than on me. I will not hide my opinion. I have found that Edufer ardently works to obfuscate science with lies, spin, gross exageration and ad hominems replete. I tried to get him banned once, pointing to the threads where he brings his vehemence to the point where the threads were locked down as well as his utter inability to respond to pointed examples of his lying like a dog. Edufer is an adept troll, plain and simple. He will ignore any cogent criticism of his crusades and continue on probably until the planet is blessed with his death. No bones, I do not like or trust the man at all, not at all. If he says something is true, that is reason alone for skepticism.

Ever see that Twilight Zone of a small town in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust, where an old man says he has a sage he consults about the safety of food crops and the town folk are tired of following his advice and only eating root crops? The town rises against him and goes to the cave where the "sage" lives and finds a radiation contamination analysis lab. They destroy the lab and eat the food. The last scene is the old man walking amongst the bodies of the town folk. Science is the art of sharing information. When you see someone who is unaproachably adamant about their opinions, be aware, be very aware

or not.

Acording to the above information gently provided by Skylark, Oxygen absorbs UV radiation between wavelengths 70 and 250 nm. So it shouldn’t be absorbing UB-V radiation between 280-315 nm, absorption left to ozone (220-320 nm), right?

Yes, as the graph you supplied a few posts later clearly illustrates, oxygen does not absorb UVB radiation.

Ozone can also absorb UV-B, yes, but the amount absorbed is in proportion to its concentrations

Absorption is also determined by the extinction coefficient for a given wavelength as well as the path length of the radiation through the given chemical.

So all radiation 70-320nm is absorbed. 10-70nm and 320-380nm are not absorbed. Total is 67.56% of the radiation is absorbed. Oxygen absorbs 40.54%, Ozone absorbs 18.91%, they overlap over 8.10%.

If the atmosphere is made up of nothing but oxygen and ozone. (Other gases also absorb some of this radiation, nitrogen for example shows absorbance in lower wavelengths of the UVA). If the levels of radiation is constant across all wavelengths (Of the total solar UV radiation, UVA accounts for about 76%, UVB 18%, and UVC 6%). If the levels of oxygen and ozone are high enough when multiplied by thier extinction coefficients and the length of the path of radiation such that their absorption is 100% at all wavelengths in which the two chemicals are not transparent (this applies to oxygen, but not ozone). Then yes.

<font face=verdana size=2>
More on the phony way "sientists" publishing in Science and "respected" journal distort information, trying to show <b><font color=#0000cc>an overall warming</font></b> - while there is <b><font color=#ff0000>some small and regional warming.</font></b>

This graph, adequately colored, gives the impression that the warming is general. See the scale at the bottom, and see that <b><font color=#dd0000>"0ºC - no change"</font></b> is also <b><font color=#ff0000>colored in red</font></b>. A subtle shade of red, but gives de visual impression of "Warming", although <b><font color=#ff0000>there has not been any warming.</font></b><p><img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-5/image5A.gif"><p>
The same graph is processed by a simple paint program and shifted the color scale so <b><font color=#dd0000 size=4>NO CHANGE</font></b> falls in the dark blue color, and <b><font color=#0000cc size=4>"decreased temperatures"</font></b> in the black and green region. The <b><font color=#ff00ff size=4>0.2º C warming</font></b> region is <b><font color=>purple</font></b> while the <b>0.1º C </b>is lighter shades of blue.<p><img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-5/image5B.gif"><p> <b>Do you see GLOBAL WARMING there?</b>

Do you see now to what extent they will go in order to prove something that does not exist? But they will keep publishing their press releases with distorted graphs, and the only thing they'll prove is that they want the people not to distinguish between truth and lies.

Giving the charts a different hue is <b><font color=#ff0000>not doctoring data – is UN-doctoring data.</font></b> The data is the same, the proportions are the same, only the visual impact changes. Doctoring data is what has been done by using <b><font color=red>"doctored color schemes"</font></b> for making scale bar that induce a false visual impression.

I must split my posts in two or three, due to constraints imposed by the page. It does not accept too many graphs.

As a necessary introductin on the next type of "Color Schemes" (or Color Scams), I will excerpt some paragraphs from an article on Tech Central Station website, by Miceal O'Ronain - 7 July 2002:

In a story titled "<u><a href=http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/envirowrapper.jsp?PID=1051-450&CID=1051-062802B>Coloring Climate Change</a></u>" by Nick Schulz, <u><a href=http://www.techcentralstation.com/>Tech Central Station</a></u> reported that key documents, in a US government report titled "<u><a href=http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/default.htm>The National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change",</a></u> <b><font color=#ff0000>were "doctored" to distort public perceptions of climate change.</font></b> The report was published by the <u><a href=http://www.usgcrp.gov/>United States Global Change Research Program</a></u>. According to their own <u><a href=http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/GCRPINFO.html>web page</a></u>, the USGCRP coordinates the research of ten Federal departments and agencies with active global change programs and provides liaison with the Executive Office of the President. The budget of the USGCRP in fiscal year 2002 was approximately $1.7 billion US dollars.

The National Assessment report has served as the basis for parts of the 2001 National Academy of Sciences' report "<u><a href=http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10139.html?onpi_headlines_042202>Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions</a>"</u> prepared for President Bush on the state of climate science and, most recently, for the highly controversial "<u><a href=http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car/uscar.pdf>U.S. Climate Action Report – 2002</a></u>", covertly issued by climate alarmists within the <u><a href=http://www.epa.gov/>Environmental Protection Agency</a></u>, with the objective of embarrassing the Bush Presidency.

The TCS story displays two graphics, shown below. The graph on the left is the one which was circulated during the public comment period after the original draft was developed. It compares the Canadian Model with the Hadley Model for the lower 48 States for the summer months of June through August, over the next 100 years. The TCS <a href=http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/envirowrapper.jsp?PID=1051-450&CID=1051-062802B>story</a> provides additional background on the two graphs and is highly commended to your attention. Then the disparity between the two models' future forecasts, cast doubt on the predictive capacity of the Canadian and Hadley models, the USGCRP issued the final report on the right, with the color scale altered to obscure the differences between the two models.

<TABLE width=600 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>
<IMG src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-6/USGCRP_Draft.gif" width=300 border=1> </TD><TD><IMG src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-6/USGCRP_Final.gif" width=300 border=0> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER></DIV>

Continued in next post ----->

<FONT face=verdana size=2>Unfortunately for the USGCRP, the two models show the areas of warming and cooling to be occurring in widely different sections of the United States. The USGCRP's solution to this conundrum was to alter the temperature color scale by eliminating yellow and green, and extending the color orange into negative temperature ranges as low as -1.0°F, thereby implying warming,&nbsp; when in fact the models were showing no temperature change or cooling for some localities.

<DIV align=center><CENTER><TABLE width=584 border=0><TBODY><TR>
<TD width=400><IMG height=406 src=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-6/USGCRP_Animate.gif width=400 border=1></TD>
<TD width=170><FONT face=verdana size=2>When the "Draft" and "Final" copies of the USGCRP graphs are animated, employing a technique used elsewhere on this <A href=http://www.john-daly.com/press/press-01b.htm#past-usa>web site</A>, the amateurish nature of the deception becomes painfully obvious:</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> </CENTER></DIV>

Not only was the distorted temperature color scale used to obscure the next 100 years of temperature models, it was also used to change the perception of the United State's past climatic history. The page "<A href=http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/overviewlooking.htm>Overview:&nbsp; Looking at America's Climate</A>" contains a graphic titled "<A href=http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/LargerImages/OverviewGraphics/Temp.jpg>Temperature Change</A>" <FONT color=blue>(shown below)</FONT>, which attempts to minimize the significant cooling which occurred in the Southeastern United States during the 20<SUP>th</SUP> Century. This is achieved by coloring even the zero or `no change' temperatures in light orange, and blending colors in such a way as to make it almost impossible to differentiate anything between about 0° and 5°.&nbsp; Not even the IPCC has as yet stooped to this level of deception.

<center><A href=http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/LargerImages/OverviewGraphics/Temp.jpg><SPAN style="COLOR: windowtext; TEXT-DECORATION: none"><IMG height=320 src=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-6/USGCRP_Temp_Change.jpg width=553 border=0></SPAN></A></center>

On the <A href=http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/overviewlooking.htm>same web page</A>, there is another graph titled "<A href=http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/LargerImages/OverviewGraphics/Summer_WinterTemp.jpg>Summer Maximum and Winter Minimum Temperature Change</A>" <FONT color=blue>(shown below),</font> which contains the USGCRP's final version of the Canadian and Hadley 21<SUP>st</SUP> Century Summer and Winter Models, again with a choice of color scheme which blends everything from 0° to 5° into a deceptive spread of orange.&nbsp; Even areas which these models show will not change, <b><font color=#ff8000>are colored in orange.</font></b> What other purpose can this peculiar coloring scheme serve but to suggest future warming in areas where none is actually predicted by the model?

<center><A href="http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/LargerImages/OverviewGraphics/Summer_WinterTemp.jpg"><SPAN style="COLOR: windowtext; TEXT-DECORATION: none"><IMG height=323 src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-6/USGCRP_Summer_Winter_Temp.jpg" width=562 border=0></SPAN></A></CENTER>

In the <A href="http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/background/default.htm">Background Information</A> section, things become interesting. On a deeply buried page at "<A href="http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/background/scenarios/vemap/trends.html">VEMAP Trend Maps</A>" the original high resolution images, on which the draft graphics were based, can still be found. The individual graphs are: "<A href="http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/background/scenarios/images/txcstr-b.gif">CGCM1 Maximum Temperature Trend (JJA)</A>" and "<A href="http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/background/scenarios/images/txhstr-b.gif">HadCM2 Maximum Temperature Trend (JJA)</A>".

One could engage in endless speculation as to why the USGCRP went to the trouble of altering the first two sections yet failing to alter the third, which contained the most incriminating information. The two most likely explanations are: (1) the Background Information section was overlooked and (2) the USGCRP did not expect anyone to find the original graphs from the Canadian and Hadley Models. Also, on the "<A href="http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/background/scenarios/vemap/trends.html">VEMAP Trend Maps</A>" page the Canadian and Hadley Models are not compared side-by-side, so the inconsistencies between the models are not as obvious.&nbsp;

Of course, the USGCRP may not even care if the real results from the Canadian and Hadley Models are found. As long as the media continues to endlessly report only the results from the first two sections, the voices of a few skeptics can be safely ignored.&nbsp;&nbsp;</dir>
And this ends the chapter on Color Schemes on Graphs, or How to Sell a Freezer to an Eskimo.

The information and its links have been provided for further research and analysis, so Mr. 'Ad Hominem' Chips cannot accuse me of "obfuscation of science" - especially when he merely gives deprecating opinions on skeptics but very little scientific information or analysis by himself.

"Obfuscation," such as lots of shit having nothing to do with the subject of this thread? I have communicated before that I don't buy the global warming hypothesis though for lack of another handle, I don't mind people using it for an excuse to take action to reverse and avoid disturbing ecological balance but it has NO PLACE HERE IN THIS THREAD.

Yes, I read a bit of your recent missives, Edufer, enough to know that you are quite out of order with your usual pedantic pontificating. Call that an ad hominem if you will. I've done worse :D

My opinion is that the ozone hole is no hoax and another appears to have come about over the other pole in the last few years. The banning of ozone depleting chemicals makes sense. We will probably not see the extreme result of our abuse of the ozone for another twenty years so, keep your children close, live at low elevations and low latitudes unless you want to curtail many of your outdoor activities,

and keep on thinking free

or not.

Oh, it is interesting from what I study that the holes appear correlated with inordinate stratospheric cooling in which case, if you care to make the connection, that shit you just posted Edufer, may be more grist for the mill that the holes are not a hoax but it seems you have made no attempt to relate that stuff to the subject of this thread. "Confusion may be my epitaph" (King Crimson, Epitaph) but seems it's your legacy.

Yes, I read a bit of your recent missives, Edufer, enough to know that you are quite out of order with your usual pedantic pontificating. Call that an ad hominem if you will. I've done worse
That’s right, You have done much worse, and Tristan closed a thread because of you. As you can see Nexus, if you wanted to see what happened when Mr. Chips wanted to have me banned from sciforums, you should go to this page: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35909&page=2&pp=20, and see what the rest of the people in this forum think of Mr. Chips. Going down a bit on that page, Tristan (the moderator that closed one thread because Mr. Chips went totally out of his mind) makes a post in red color that deserves to be read.

Regarding my last post as having NO PLACE HERE IN THIS THREAD, Invert Nexus had commented about how weird he found the color schemes on the bar along the ozone charts, and he wondered if it was intended to confound people. I said it was just that, and provided examples of how fraudulent they (you, prophets of Doom, ecologist guys!) will go in order to push their hoaxes.

So it is not out of the spirit of the topic, that is, hoaxes on the ozone issue, and environmentalist’s hoaxes and scientific frauds in general. But as usual, you will take any excuse to abuse me. As if I cared. What is always OUT OF TOPIC is your constant attack on me or any other dissenting opinions. You have done it before, and you will keep doing it in the future. It is in your genes.

I will not lose my sleep on your opinion on me, and it seems to me that’s you who’s always pontificating on anything at hand.

Oh, it is interesting from what I study that the holes appear correlated with inordinate stratospheric cooling in which case, if you care to make the connection, that shit you just posted Edufer,First of all, you should show some respect to other people in this forum, and keep your four letter words out of these pages. You pretend to be and "educated" man, but you are not showing it.

Second, you have earned a place in the Ignorant’s Hall of Fame. The connection has been made long ago, first by the NOZE expedition to Antarctica, back in 1987, and used later by Molina for his theory of SPCs (I hope you know that means stratospheric polar clouds) saying that ice crystals on SPCs provides the hard surface needed for chlorine to react on ozone molecules. All this was necessary because, according to the very old law in chemistry called “gaseous phase”, chlorine cannot react with ozone molecules in mid air – they need a hard surface for doing it. And SPC only forms in Antarctica’s stratosphere when its temperature goes down beyond -82º C.

That’s the reason why an ozone hole seldom opens in the Arctic’s stratosphere because temperatures there are not cold enough to allow SPC formation.

And what’s much worse, as that kind of stratospheric clouds never, but NEVER form outside the South Pole, there is no chlorine attack on ozone anywhere else in the world..

So there it goes all your ideas of ozone layer depletion. It has not happened – at least caused by chlorine, man-made or natural. The ozone layer increases and decreases following well established natural phenomena, mainly UV increase and decrease according to natural variations in the Sun’s activity.

But I hadn’t mentioned that, because I hadn’t mentioned ALL the hundreds of evidences that debunk and send the anthropogenic ozone depletion theory to the garbage can.

You are still the same ignorant on scientific matters. My Lord, and you pretend to argue with me and other people that know what they are talking about! No wonder you are not popular in these sci-forums, Chippie.

Whoa, hard not to read the bold. I guess truth is just not what science would have us believe. According to this site, sometimes those clouds form in lower latitudes. http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=1520-0477&volume=055&issue=03&page=0213 Luckily we got you to straighten us out, pontificating pretentious obfuscating zealot.

So you admit that chlorine compounds do deplete ozone but you don't think it's anthropogenic (oh, did I forget pedantic?). WTF are we arguing about? Maybe I should just bow out. I really don't want to read any of your posts, Edufubar. I had assumed you would claim the global agreements for the bans were not necessary and that the hole or holes were not related to human activity. My bad. Apparently you are doing the good fight, helping people become aware of an alarming condition and the work we need to do to dispel the potential calamity. BTW, I so see some references on the web that decreasing greenhouse gases would lead to less of those cold stratospheric clouds and should be considered as a part of the strategy to stop the increasing ozone depletion. If you haven't already, you better cull the available experts and the data to find the weapons you need to support your theory that we needn't concern ourselves with greenhouse gases regarding this idea that they lead to ozone depletion. That's how science works, right, from theory to desired facts?

For links to flame wars and a limited history of the Edufer phenomenon, see the next to last post in this thread http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35909&page=1&pp=20 Read the whole thread if you want to waste some real time. Public forums have a tendency to cater to trolls and their sycophants. What else is new.

I guess, Invert nexus, you saw this page http://www.theozonehole.com/ozoneholehistory.htm with pictures of the ozone hole from 1980 to 2003 next to each other? The 2003 summary by the NOAA on that page appears fairly astute and might embody all that you need to share with your friend.

I missed that page. That is exactly what I was looking for. I haven't totally read the page yet, but the pictures are somewhat odd. The hole seems to grow and shrink. I will check out the site more indepth, now that I have found what I wanted. And attempt to come to a conclusion. Thanks, Chips. :)

Public forums have a tendency to cater to trolls and their sycophants. What else is new.

I hope you're not including me in either of those categories. I am only searching for information. And as to Edufer being a troll. I brought on those off-topic posts by commenting on the odd color scale used in the images I had seen. And I take it that you are saying that no one has refuted his science because he's a troll and why bother? Could be that, I guess. Hasn't stopped anyone from voluminously shooting down the post's of certain others I've seen around here. Maybe there's just not anyone qualified to pick apart his posts? Anyway, I'm bowing out of the troll war. :D Can't we all just get along?

Search around for the data of the recent and increasing hole over the Arctic. Kind of shoots this all natural cycle, "don't worry be happy" theory to death.

Nexus: if you go back and check the thread you'll see it was me who provided the link to "www.theozonehole.com" website. Chippie picked it up and repeated it later. Credit to where it belongs. :)

Chippie burped: “So you admit that chlorine compounds do deplete ozone but you don't think it's anthropogenic.”

Get a new prescription for your glasses. I never admitted chlorine compounds deplete the ozone layer, as there is no depletion of the ozone layer, as measured by Robertson-Berger spectrometers (only 4 of the kind in the world) installed by the National Science Foundation in Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina, and run by our CONICET (National Council of Scientific Research and Technology) along with our National Weather Service.

The chief scientist in charge of the ozone measurements, Lic. Victoria Tafuri, in the National Observatory at Villa Ortúzar, repeats every year the same statement: “There has not been any reduction in ozone levels over Buenos Aires, Argentina, during the past 30 years of measurements”. So the “ongoing ozone depletion” must be occurring in your feverish mind. As you surely ignored, ozone levels can vary up to 40% in a matter of hours, anywhere in the world. They vary from one hour to another, from day to day, week to week, month to month, year to year, and all those changes are absolutely natural.

Chippie says: “I had assumed you would claim the global agreements for the bans were not necessary and that the hole or holes were not related to human activity. ” You assumed right. The ban was unnecessary, and man has nothing to do with it.

More stupid comments coming from Chippie: ”BTW, I so see some references on the web that decreasing greenhouse gases would lead to less of those cold stratospheric clouds and should be considered as a part of the strategy to stop the increasing ozone depletion.”

Strategy employed by whom? Nature? Because man or governments can do nothing for or against global warming or ozone depletion. One, because warming or cooling are forces beyond human possibilities, and ozone depletion is something that is not happening. As MSU satellites have been reading since 1979, while CO2 and CH4 levels have been increasing (although the rate of increase is slowing down every year, with methane emission leveled off), stratospheric temperatures have been going down steadily. The stratosphere is cooling, in spite of “greenhouse gases”, so your sources are speaking bullshit. And as said before, the “increasing ozone depletion” is found only in press releases – not in Robertson-Berger spectrometers readings.

And I need not cull experts to defend my theory. There are thousand of them all over the world knowing the “man-made ozone depletion” theory is a hoax – but they lack the political power to revert the Montreal Protocol. Had you read the scientifc material exhibited in the Crista-SPAS website, you’d keep your mouth shut.

Chippie: you suck.

Nexus: if you go back and check the thread you'll see it was me who provided the link to "www.theozonehole.com" website. Chippie picked it up and repeated it later. Credit to where it belongs. :)

Yes, you did. And I had actually perused the site before, but somehow I missed that page in particular. But you have been helpful as well. :)

Nexus: if you go back and check the thread you'll see it was me who provided the link to "www.theozonehole.com" website. Chippie picked it up and repeated it later. Credit to where it belongs. :)

Chippie burped: “So you admit that chlorine compounds do deplete ozone but you don't think it's anthropogenic.”

Get a new prescription for your glasses. I never admitted chlorine compounds deplete the ozone layer, as there is no depletion of the ozone layer, as measured by Robertson-Berger spectrometers (only 4 of the kind in the world) installed by the National Science Foundation in Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina, and run by our CONICET (National Council of Scientific Research and Technology) along with our National Weather Service.

The chief scientist in charge of the ozone measurements, Lic. Victoria Tafuri, in the National Observatory at Villa Ortúzar, repeats every year the same statement: “There has not been any reduction in ozone levels over Buenos Aires, Argentina, during the past 30 years of measurements”. So the “ongoing ozone depletion” must be occurring in your feverish mind. As you surely ignored, ozone levels can vary up to 40% in a matter of hours, anywhere in the world. They vary from one hour to another, from day to day, week to week, month to month, year to year, and all those changes are absolutely natural.

Chippie says: “I had assumed you would claim the global agreements for the bans were not necessary and that the hole or holes were not related to human activity. ” You assumed right. The ban was unnecessary, and man has nothing to do with it.

More stupid comments coming from Chippie: ”BTW, I so see some references on the web that decreasing greenhouse gases would lead to less of those cold stratospheric clouds and should be considered as a part of the strategy to stop the increasing ozone depletion.”

Strategy employed by whom? Nature? Because man or governments can do nothing for or against global warming or ozone depletion. One, because warming or cooling are forces beyond human possibilities, and ozone depletion is something that is not happening. As MSU satellites have been reading since 1979, while CO2 and CH4 levels have been increasing (although the rate of increase is slowing down every year, with methane emission leveled off), stratospheric temperatures have been going down steadily. The stratosphere is cooling, in spite of “greenhouse gases”, so your sources are speaking bullshit. And as said before, the “increasing ozone depletion” is found only in press releases – not in Robertson-Berger spectrometers readings.

And I need not cull experts to defend my theory. There are thousand of them all over the world knowing the “man-made ozone depletion” theory is a hoax – but they lack the political power to revert the Montreal Protocol. Had you read the scientifc material exhibited in the Crista-SPAS website, you’d keep your mouth shut.

Chippie: you suck.

Yes,but the reduction of ozone layer is above Antarctica.

That’s right, You have done much worse, and Tristan closed a thread because of you. As you can see Nexus, if you wanted to see what happened when Mr. Chips wanted to have me banned from sciforums, you should go to this page: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35909&page=2&pp=20, and see what the rest of the people in this forum think of Mr. Chips. Going down a bit on that page, Tristan (the moderator that closed one thread because Mr. Chips went totally out of his mind) makes a post in red color that deserves to be read.

Regarding my last post as having NO PLACE HERE IN THIS THREAD, Invert Nexus had commented about how weird he found the color schemes on the bar along the ozone charts, and he wondered if it was intended to confound people. I said it was just that, and provided examples of how fraudulent they (you, prophets of Doom, ecologist guys!) will go in order to push their hoaxes.

So it is not out of the spirit of the topic, that is, hoaxes on the ozone issue, and environmentalist’s hoaxes and scientific frauds in general. But as usual, you will take any excuse to abuse me. As if I cared. What is always OUT OF TOPIC is your constant attack on me or any other dissenting opinions. You have done it before, and you will keep doing it in the future. It is in your genes.

I will not lose my sleep on your opinion on me, and it seems to me that’s you who’s always pontificating on anything at hand.

First of all, you should show some respect to other people in this forum, and keep your four letter words out of these pages. You pretend to be and "educated" man, but you are not showing it.

Second, you have earned a place in the Ignorant’s Hall of Fame. The connection has been made long ago, first by the NOZE expedition to Antarctica, back in 1987, and used later by Molina for his theory of SPCs (I hope you know that means stratospheric polar clouds) saying that ice crystals on SPCs provides the hard surface needed for chlorine to react on ozone molecules. All this was necessary because, according to the very old law in chemistry called “gaseous phase”, chlorine cannot react with ozone molecules in mid air – they need a hard surface for doing it. And SPC only forms in Antarctica’s stratosphere when its temperature goes down beyond -82º C.

That’s the reason why an ozone hole seldom opens in the Arctic’s stratosphere because temperatures there are not cold enough to allow SPC formation.

And what’s much worse, as that kind of stratospheric clouds never, but NEVER form outside the South Pole, there is no chlorine attack on ozone anywhere else in the world..

So there it goes all your ideas of ozone layer depletion. It has not happened – at least caused by chlorine, man-made or natural. The ozone layer increases and decreases following well established natural phenomena, mainly UV increase and decrease according to natural variations in the Sun’s activity.

But I hadn’t mentioned that, because I hadn’t mentioned ALL the hundreds of evidences that debunk and send the anthropogenic ozone depletion theory to the garbage can.

You are still the same ignorant on scientific matters. My Lord, and you pretend to argue with me and other people that know what they are talking about! No wonder you are not popular in these sci-forums, Chippie.

Everyone can say everything to just not make people nervous about the end of the world and an new ice age,everything is ok,but when everything goes to hell,than we ask ourselves,why and how?
These informations you got are here,because government doesn't want to disturb people-reason is national security.
I doubt it everything you written is correct,I truly doubt,since I don't trust to anybody,but I feel it on my skin and health.

That's gooooooooooood Gravage. Trust your immediate feelings. There's plenty of evidence all around that us humans are blowing it in a grand way. Just wanted to note that recently, as of just a few years ago, a hole has been observed above the Arctic also which is considered as having potential to grow at least for the next couple of decades until the compounds that have been found to lead to depletion have a chance to thin out of the atmosphere, according to the best and most research to date.

Gravage: I understand your point. Stay cool, there is not an Ice Age coming the next month or the next year. Nobody knows for sure when it will come, because what we know about climatology is simply a scratch in its surface. Compared with all we ignore about it, we can safely say we know nothing. What we know for sure is that climatic changes do not happen suddenly, as purported by the movie “The Day After Tomorrow", or the stupid “Pentagon Report” early this January.

It takes thousands of years to radically change the global climate. Some small changes have occurred in 30-50 years, but those changes have been caused by the decrease in the Sun’s activity, as during the Little Ice Age of the 1450 on to the late 1600s, provoked by the total absence of sunspots for almost a century during the Maunder, Spoerer and Dalton Minima.

What does not make too much sense is: “When everything goes to hell”. What do you mean by that? Looking back in history there is no evidence that we have ever gone to hell, or “everything” has gone to hell. Perhaps some portions of the globe “went to hell” for a brief period of time, or at least many people in those regions felt as if they were in hell (nazi Germany, communist Russia, Cambodia Pol Pot, Castro’s Cuba’s, most of colonial Africa, etc).

But all those journeys to hell are more related to politics than to climatic events. If you are referring to climatic “catastrophes” as warming, ozone holes, acid rains, or other nonsense, then we have a long discussion on front of us. You seem to be inclined to think we are going to hell, and I have the opposite vision: we are heading to heaven.

As for your statement: ”These information you got are here, because government doesn't want to disturb people - reason is national security.” I don’t think national security