Ozone Hole fact or fiction?

[Agent51]

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!

[James R]

<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.

[Xev]

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.

[Stryder]

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.

[Edufer]

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>.

[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.

[bobbapink]

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?

[Adam]

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

[Edufer]

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.

[Edufer]

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>

[Edufer]

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.

[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.

[Greg Bernhardt]

fact, but it's used for politics too much

[Edufer]

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.

[Gifted]

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:

[Edufer]

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.

[Gifted]

I recall that there was a Japanese team too.

[Edufer]

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>

[invert_nexus]

"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...

[James R]

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.

[Edufer]

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.

[Skylark]

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.

[Edufer]

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.

[Gifted]

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%.

[Edufer]

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.

[Gifted]

I didn't have stats for it.

[Mr. Chips]

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.

[invert_nexus]

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:

[Mr. Chips]

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

[Gifted]

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.

[invert_nexus]

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.

[Mr. Chips]

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?

[invert_nexus]

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.

[Mr. Chips]

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.

[invert_nexus]

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]

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>

[Gifted]

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.

[Edufer]

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.

[invert_nexus]

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.

[Edufer]

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?

[Edufer]

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.

[invert_nexus]

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

[Mr. Chips]

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)

[Edufer]

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.

[Mr. Chips]

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.

[Skylark]

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.

[Edufer]

<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.

[Edufer]

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 ----->

[Edufer]

<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.

[Mr. Chips]

"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.

[Mr. Chips]

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.

[Edufer]

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.

[Mr. Chips]

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.

[invert_nexus]

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?

[Mr. Chips]

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.

[Edufer]

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.

[invert_nexus]

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. :)

[Gravage]

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.

[Gravage]

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.

[Mr. Chips]

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.

[Edufer]

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 has anything to do here. “National Security”, as understood by US governments since the 19th Century, is “securing” natural resources belonging to poor nations for use by the US industry. If you study the famous Monroe doctrine of the 19th century (America for the Americans), and understood by Latin American peoples as a principle of self determination, you will see it actually was the basis for the emerging American colonial policies of keeping French and British out of the American continent (North and South) in order for the US to make “good business” with countries in its own “backyard”. The continental US is the living room, the rest of American continent is its backyard.

That was the main reason for the war against Spain, early in the 20th century, with the excuse of liberating Cuba from its immoral foreign debt imposed by Spain on its Cuban colony. Cuba got its “independence” thanks to the USA, but soon became part of the US type of colony: invaded not by troops but by businessmen, banks, and gambling rackets. Pretty soon, Cuba had developed a new foreign debt as immoral as the Spanish one. Then was freed by Castro from the US foreign debt and developed a new one, this time with the Soviet empire. The Soviets were bankrupt and Cuba was free again from debt. Now Cuba is developing a new one with the Spanish tourism industry. The circle is about to finally close – will it start again someday?

USA has invoked the “national security” argument fro invading tiny countries that were in the least a menace to no one but their own people. That way, the marines had a long history of invading countries as Haiti, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Nicaragua, Mexico, Philippines, China (the boxer war), North Africa, Korea, Viet Nam, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc, etc. Presently, US National Security is tied to money, not to human rights or presumed dangers from hostile powers – that could not, in any way, present a real danger to the US people. No way. It is like if the Kremlin invaded Luxembourg invoking “National Security”. Who would believe it? Of course, nobody ever believed the US invaded Iraq because Saddam was a menace to the most powerful country on Earth.

For solving crimes, the French police used to say, “Cherchez la femme”. In today’s politics, when it comes to invasions we should say “Cherchez the oil and other resources”.

I tend to agree with you, however, when you say, ”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.” Even I have doubts about everything I say is correct. If I were 100% sure I was correct I would be God, the owner of the truth. What I do believe, instead, is that the information I present here has enough value to qualify as truthful, or at least, to contend against other information that says otherwise. I don’t trust anyone, for that matter. And I go to big extents in order to make sure the information I get is sound, and it is not plain misinformation. It is not easy.

I hope this reply will not be considered off topic. If we stick strictly to a given topic, then the discussion would be terrible boring. Digressions are helpful, and sometimes add positively to the topic.

[Mr. Chips]

Couple of nice ads there Edufer. Good show. Oh well, they're gone now, one to sign a petition to implore your senator to support decrease of greenhouse gases and the other the IPCC's summary on climate change. Oh well, serendipity strikes briefly sometimes.

Abrupt climate change may be a real possiblity. Some feel we are well within the decade or two transition period between one global state and another though the following URL does not state that explicitly, you can find such elsewhere if you want to look http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/ct_abruptclimate.htm

[Edufer]

"Take uranium. These natural ores are only used to benefit the nations that can afford nuclear technologies and infrastructure. For the countries that can ill-afford, they're still left with the “old-fashioned” resources like coal, wood and biomass to content with".
With today's prices, there are no reasons for a small country to not install a small nuclear reactor for generating electricity. A big 1000 MWh nuclear station is in the order of $1,1 billion dollars, but smaller stations spread in different locations make a more reasonable investment. There a pebble bed reactors in the 100 MWh level that cost no more than $100 million, and I would recommend the use of our Argentinean joint design by Invap and our National Commission on Atomic Energy, the CAREM design. Three modules: a 27 Mwh, 150 MWh, and 300 MWh, that can be assembled together to form bigger generating stations – at $1,100 dollars by installed KWh.

These small stations (called nuplex) can convert a poor region in an industrial and commercial center. Once there is enough power in a region, industries and productive activities (even agricultural) develop rapidly around the generating stations. If they make one of those nuplex near the sea, then they would have cheap power enough to desalinate sea water and provide fresh water for agriculture and populations.

Although I could be accused of going out of topic (you know by whom) I will try to reply to the CFC mention. The CFC example is not a good one. Although I could fill a book on reasons why this is an enormous scientific error (to say the least) I will mention just one small but important fact. The CFC scare is based entirely on computer models or simulations, and there is not the slightest evidence that CFC reach high enough in the stratosphere to be present at heights were the UV radiation is strong enough to dissociate de strong and stable CFC molecules. As many, many studies have shown, CFCs have been detected at no more than 40 km altitude. See the graph. Although it is in Spanish, it is clear:

<center><img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images/Gases2.gif" width=500></center>

(<b>Source:</b> R. Fabian, S.A. Borders, and S. Penkett, "Halocarbons in the Stratosphere," Nature, (Dec. 24, 1981)

According to atmospheric scientists, concentrations of CFCs found in the atmosphere are consistent with what one would expect from the effects of the inversion layer of the lower stratosphere on heavy molecules - as CFCs. The study by Fabian, et al., makes ckear a very important point: CFCs do not rise above 40 km and thus barely reach altitudes where significant energetic radiation UV-C, 190-230 nm, occurs. As a matter of fact, the UV-C radiation as all but disappeared by the time of its penetration to 25 km. He questions is: does enough of this 190-230 nm radiation reach the altitudes of CFC occurrence to casue much destruction of the molecule?

Robert W. Pease, professor emeritus in climatology in Univ. of California at Riverside points out that the same energetic UV band (190-230 nm) both creates the single atoms of oxygen that form ozone molecules and dissociates the CFC molecules that release chlorine to destroy ozone. The number of CFC molecules relative to oxygen molecules at any point in the stratosphere, therefore, determines the probability of each photoreaction occurring at that point. For measured CFC and oxygen concentrations at 25 km altitude, this probability is roughly 1 billion ozone molecules will be formed for each CFC molecule that is broken apart (or one chlorine atom released). Since the amount of ozone in the stratosphere depends upon a continuous equilibrium between its creation and destruction, the probability of depletion of ozone by CFC is virtually nonexistent. The destruction of ozone that maintains the equilibrium is by the UV radiation itself; it is a natural process that has existed as long as there has been an atmosphere that contains oxygen.

The depletion theorists treat the stratosphere in their models as if it were a homogeneous body. This is far from the truth. This has been demonstrated finally by the German satellite Cristas-SPAS, a joint effort by the Wuppertal University, the German Space Agency and the NASA that the stratosphere and troposphere are not homogeneous bodies at all. The interesting evidence can be read at: http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Ingles/Crista.html

Ozone in this layer absorbs UV radiation directly, which makes this layer's temperature to rise with altitude until – at the base of the still higher mesosphere - it is almost as warm as the Earth's surface. This inverted temperature lapse rate, many kilometers deep, provides a thermal barrier that resists vertical air movement and thus allows only a few CFCs molecules to percolate through the top of the troposphere, or tropopause, into the stratosphere and are not decomposed by UV radiation or mixed at higher levels but are recycled back into de troposphere with the normal stratospheric/tropospheric circulation.

I don't know if this technical information is of any value for you, though it has been verified and there is no disagreement among physicists. For getting down to the truth in any matter, one needs to have ample knowledge in that matter. We are not scientists deeply involved in ozone or climate science, and although we have a significant amount of knowledge on the subject, there are many subtleties that escape our attention. Bu, on gross matters, those regarding basic mathematical, chemical or physical facts, we are able to spot at once when there is something that does not fit in the picture.

Until the Crista-Spas satellite made clear that the atmosphere is not homogeneous, the ozone theory still could stand some credibility among less informed people. But after Cristas, the ozone theory fell apart like a playing cards castle.

[Edufer]

Interesting excerpts from the article on the Crista-Spas experiment, that people should read. Norway is very close the Arctic and the alleged ozone hole developing there. This northerly ozone hole was born in the imagination of Robert Watson, back in 1993, when giving a press conference to announce publicly that an ozone hole was going to open right above Kennebunkport, George Bush's farm. The US Congress was by then considering the proposal for advancing the CFC ban for 1995, but was not too convinced of the matter. After this scary anouncement, Congress voted unanimously the bill advancing the ban for January 1st, 1995.

Two days after the bill was approved, Watson announced to the press: "Ooops! We goofed. We made some mistakes in the readings and no ozone hole will develop in the Northern hemisphere. We apologize." The harm had already been done. And this part of the article will give you a hint about why Watson lied when announcing the opening of his hole in the north:

<B><FONT face=Arial size="5" color="#ff0000">No Ozone Depletion over Norway</font></B><FONT face=verdana size="2" color="#000000">

Other scientific papers have confirmed that the ozone depletion theory is wrong. The Norwegian science magazine<I> </i><I><B><font color="#006699">From the World of Physics</font></B>,</I> for example, published a thorough review of ozone science by Thormod Henriksen from the Institute of Physics at the University of Oslo, which presents evidence that the ozone layer was thinner in the 1940s than today!

Norway has several of the ozone measuring stations that have been operating continuously for the longest periods of time, and these are managed by some of the most qualified scientists in the field. Thus, Norway has some of the best, consistent data for a historical analysis of ozone trends. Henriksen describes the history of ozone research in Norway, and analyzes the ozone data starting in the 1940s. Figure 1 compares measurements done at the Dombaas research center in two periods: 1940-1946 and 1978-1994. As can be seen, the ozone layer went through a thinning process in the 1940s similar to that occurring now, with the exception, as noted by Henriksen, that <b><i><font color="#006699">&quot;the ozone layer over southern Norway was thinner in the period between 1940 to 1946 than it is today.&quot;</font></I></B> Henriksen also points out that the level of ultraviolet (UV) radiation have hardly changed:<dir><font face="verdana" size="2"color="#006699"><B>&quot;[In] the last 50 years the ozone layer has not changed to such a degree that biological effects are to be expected. In other words, there have hardly been any changes in the levels of UV-radiation, and therefore it is a dead-end to connect the recent years' development of the ozone layer with the increase of skin cancer.&quot;</font></b></dir> Henriksen concludes:</font></font></p><dir> <p><font face="verdana" size="2" color="#006699"> <B>&quot;We can safely state that the picture of a depletion of the ozone layer is far more complicated than the picture that the media often gives. Those who expect a depletion timed with the release of CFC gases, will look in vain in their measurement results. It looks like the amount of ozone did increase in the 1950s and 1960s and reached a maximum in the 1970s. Since then, the amount of ozone has been decreasing. We believe that the low values in 1992 and 1993 are due to the volcano Mt. Pinatubo.&quot;</dir>
<center><img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images/Fig1-Levels.gif" width=500 height=350>
</font><font face="verdana" color=0000bb size=2><B>Figure 1
SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN THE OZONE LAYER
OVER NORWAY (1940-1946 and 1978-1994)/font></b></CENTER><blockquote><blockquote><font color="#006699" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Measurements of ozone levels over southern Norway show that a thinning process occurred very similarly in 1940-1946 and 1978-1978-1994 -except that the measured ozone levels were lower in the 1940s than now.

<B>Source:</B> Adapted from Thormod Henriksen, &quot;Ozone Layer and Ultraviolet Radiation&quot;, 1994.</font></b></blockquote></blockquote>
</font>
And they say the hole in Antarctica was "discovered" in 1985! :D

[Mr. Chips]

So I thought I would be masochistic for a moment and started reading this snow job of Edufer's. I skipped over the shit that is just fluff about the great and glorious nuclear answer and started concentrating on the first claim this joker made concerning the limits to chlorine and ozone observations which I found to be 100% false. The first satellite designed to provide remote viewing of chlorine concentrations as well as ozone concentrations provides some of the best proof of the relationship via its direct data record, http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/uars.htm

Okay, here is what I find highly probable IT AIN'T WORTH THE TIME TO ANYONE WHO VALUES THE INTEGRITY OF THE DATA THEY PERUSE TO READ ANY GOD DAMN THING THIS ANTI-SCIENCE ZEALOT BARFS UP. There is a lot to read in this world. Ignore Edufer's posts all together and you will be one up on spending your valuable time finding relative truth.

Of course, this is not a new finding of mine but just reinforced by these latest bowl you over, join the klu-kux-klan of anti-environmental science crap of the Edufer misinformation disservice.

[the_greenvision]

Thanks Mr. Chips,

Great point brought up there.

[Zarkov]

>> What we know for sure is that climatic changes do not happen suddenly,

Edufer.... this is true for natural events.....

BUT we have a man made layer of oil on the seas/oceans of the world.. and the layer must be getting thicker.

Just as after WW11 there was rapid climate change and then it levelled out
(>> "the ozone layer over southern Norway was thinner in the period between 1940 to 1946 than it is today.">>)... what we may see in the not too distant future is a reaping of what we have sowed... very rapid and detrimental drying of the surface of the planet..... laying all the water back under this layer of oil.

Then "all hell will break loose", because the world's population needs FRESH WATER.... and they will fight each other rather than die of thirst or starve to death....

The greenhouse effect is a myth, we agree on this, but this layer of oil worldwide is real and its effects can be seen today, and soon it will be known just how irreversiable this problem has become.
There is NO solution, we just have to wait and see it all unfold.....

95 months to go.

[the_greenvision]

95 months to go.

Ominous. You sound almost as if you're looking forward to that.

95 months later would mean May/June 2012. What's the significance in the date - why 2012? Unless it's an iridium asteriod that's already set in an Earth-bound trajectory, I don't see any reason for your stated date-o-doom.

Edit: Sorry for disgressing, but I would still prefer to believe that the ozone theory stands.

[invert_nexus]

Edufer,

Just found a reference to the ozone hole in the Jan 2003 issue of Discover magazine. It says that Japanese researchers say that the hole will remain about the same for another decade and then will rapidly close. They said the earlier models didn't include enough detail. "So they used a pre-existing model of the atmosphere's circulation patterns and plugged in an extra modulet that took into account the reduction of chlorofluorocarbons. They also posited that levels of other greenhouse gases are low enough not to delay ozone recovery."

Thought you might be interested. The researcher's name is Tatsuya Nagashima, an atmospheric scientist at the National Institute for Environmental Studies in Tsukuba.

Discover though enough about this research to make it #27 of the top 100 science stories of 2002.

[Edufer]

By Nitwit Chips: “and started concentrating on the first claim this joker made concerning the limits to chlorine and ozone observations which I found to be 100% false. “
That’s it. People in this forums must take Nitwit Chips word as the Revealed Truth. No evidence given on why my post was 100% false, though it is based on what an atmospheric scientist says about something he is one of the world’s most reputed scientist on this field. And then Nitwit Chips starts to dig his own grave – while shooting himself in the foot (What a nasty habit!) and gives us this good information:<dir>"The first satellite designed to provide remote viewing of chlorine concentrations as well as ozone concentrations provides some of the best proof of the relationship via its direct data record, http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/servi...rthsci/uars.htm</dir>
Obediently, I went there to see what could be new, something that I didn’t already know. In fact, there was nothing new, as this website was last updated in January 1994. The page is NASA’s Facts On Line, Goddard Space Flight Center - Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS) webpage. This page is more about public relations and propaganda for the ozone hoax than scientific information. So it was a logical decision to go and see what the UARS real webpage said. So there I went and landed on the SUSIM webpage: the two Solar Ultraviolet Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SUSIM) instruments in the SUSIM program of the Solar Physics Branch in the Space Science Division at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC, USA. Go here to read what it says: http://wwwsolar.nrl.navy.mil/susim.html

I quote from the webpage, (original in blue, and bolds are mine):<dir>UARS

Solar Measurements

For centuries, the number of sunspots has been observed to vary on an 11 year cycle. Measurements during the last two solar cycles have shown that sunspot numbers and the magnitude of solar UV light are roughly correlated. Solar UV light can only be accurately measured from outside the Earth's atmosphere because this is where most of it is absorbed. The most practical way to observe the sun in the UV over an entire 11 year solar cycle is through a satellite-based instrument.

The sun is the primary driving force behind the Earth's climate. Both the sun itself and the climate are changing and evolving consistent with known physical laws. However, due to the very complicated nature of these laws, predictions of their overall effects are uncertain. To understand and properly model the evolution of the state of the upper atmosphere or climate systems, it is necessary to know the spectral distribution of solar light and the energies and fluxes of incoming particles.</dir>
But, were not CO2 and greenhouse gases those responsible for driving Earth’s climate? This people from the UARS are contradicting the IPCC Gospel. Naughty boys at the Naval Research Laboratory. Then, these people in the Navy keep saying:
<dir>Earth's Upper Atmosphere

Solar UV light is primarily responsible for both creation and destruction of ozone in the earth's stratosphere and mesosphere. Ozone is the molecular form of oxygen which shields the Earth's surface from solar UV-B radiation through their absorption. The same process also causes the temperature in the stratosphere to be higher than in the upper troposphere.

Stratospheric ozone densities are known to vary with the 11 year solar cycle. Solar variability over the solar cycle causes expansion and contraction of the outward extension of the Earth's atmosphere into space. Scientists will use SUSIM data along with constituent, dynamical, and other radiation measurements made by UARS instruments to better model the processes occurring in the earth's upper atmosphere particularly involving the creation and destruction of ozone.</dir>
And now the scientists in charge of the UARS become heretical and link ozone densities with the 11 year solar cycle. And what are the implications of solar cycles and solar activity Earth’s climate and ozone formation? That’s something I have been insisting in this forum for a long time, but Nitwit Chips refused to read the studies I pointed to him (by solar scientist Dr. Theodor Landscheidt, (unfortunately deceased on My 19th, 2004), preferring to stay in his natural state of blessed ignorance. It is his choice. Apparently, ignorance is the basis of happiness – and neurosis.

The UARS website keeps saying, to Nitwit Chips disgrace:<dir>Earth's Climate
The connection of solar UV light and its variability to climate change is controversial among scientists. Recent measurements of the sun's total irradiance show that it varied by about 0.1% during the recent 11 year solar cycle. Computational models indicate that this level of variation is insufficient to significantly modulate the climate. However, the models do not include subtle feedback mechanisms (e.g. enhanced cloud formation) which could magnify the impact of this tiny variation.</dir>
Something that has been thoroughly researched by solar physicists and there is no doubt nowadays about this matter. If you can find a dissenting view, please let us now, Chippie. You can read what’s all about in Dr. Landscheidt paper: Solar Wind Near Earth: Indicator of Variations in Global Temperatures. http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/SolarWind.html that is closely related with what the UARS scientists say:
<dir>"It is also possible that changes in the Earth's upper atmosphere induced by solar UV light could similarly affect the surface climate. … Numerous correlations between solar activity and climatic events have been claimed in the past, many of which were abandoned when their statistical significance could not be convincingly established. A dramatic example of a connection which remains credible occurred during the extended seventeenth century period known as the Little Ice Age which was characterized by Earth surface temperatures much colder than normal and which coincided with a very unusual period of low solar activity and no sunspots known as the Maunder Minimum.</dir>
Something that I have been insisting upon since my first appearance in sciforums, and something “catastrophic warming theorists” are still denying it existed. This is expressly denied by Michael Mann and his friends, responsible for the infamous “Hockey Stick” study that purported to demonstrate that the 20th century was the warmest in 1000 years – claim that has been demolished by many scientific studies since his theory was presented back in 1998, and more recently (August 2003) by McKitrick and McIntyre.

I don’t think Chippie and greenvision will understand this part of the UARS website, but here it goes, nontheless. There are other members of this forum that are not amateurs and really know about scientific matters.
<dir>Displayed above is a plot of the latest version of the SUSIM UARS Mg II Index whose time series began on October 11, 1991. Several features of solar behavior are readily apparent. For hundreds of years, the number and area of sunspots visible on the solar disk has been found to vary in 11 year cycles.

More recently, sunspot number has been correlated with the presence of so-called "UV active regions", i.e. areas on the solar surface exhibiting enhanced UV emissions relative to their surroundings. The last secondary peak of solar cycle 22 sunspot number occurred in early 1992, shortly after the start of the SUSIM observations. This was followed by a decline to minimum levels by 1996. Not surprisingly, the long-term behavior in the Mg II index is similar to that of sunspot number and other measures of solar activity.

The plots also show often quasi-sinusoidal 27-day period modulation having a variable amplitude, a result of the sun's rotation. In late 1996, the index began a rise in activity associated with a new solar cycle. By early 2000, peak levels of solar cycle 23 were reached. We expect this activity and the Mg II index to remain at peak levels until 2003 when the decline to solar minimum is expected to begin.</dir>This fact is present in Dr. Landscheidt paper on solar wind and, among other celestial factors, it is his basis for predicting the occurrence of a double solar minimum, called the Double Gelissberg Minimum, similar to the Maunder and Spoerer Minima of the Little ice Age. Landscheidt predicts a descent in global temperatures starting around 2006 and peaking by 2030 for the onset of a new Little ice Age, similar to that in the 1450 - 1700s.

[Edufer]

Thanks Invert_nexus for mentioning Tatsuya Nagashima study. I know about it, but I have never had any confidence on models. They are so imperfect, that until they are improved (a lot!) they are virtually useless. As you see, models are not even useful for predicting next week's weather, so what confidence can we have for predicting climate hundred years from now? And the same applies to ozone models: what they predict or purport to show, has never been tried or demonstrated in a laboratory, under controlled conditions. It is only wild assumptions.

[Mr. Chips]

Hey obfuscating Edufer. The names I call you are based on evidence. This "nitwit" monker is a definite attempt at character slur. I find that you are a slime ball.

Here's what I was refering to "UARS data confirmed the polar ozone-depletion theories by providing three-dimensional maps of ozone and chlorine monoxide near the South Pole during development of the 1991 ozone hole."

This contradicts your statement that "The CFC scare is based entirely on computer models or simulations, and there is not the slightest evidence that CFC reach high enough in the stratosphere to be present at heights were the UV radiation is strong enough to dissociate de strong and stable CFC molecules."

That was just the first extreme statement you made Edufer, that I found relatively easy to point out as a lie. One major lie is enough to discount trusting anything you share but the legacy of your continual misrepresentation of facts over and over again, while thoroughly ignoring or obfuscating (major ploy in this case) underlines the overwhelming conclusion that any one who wants to be worth anything in their ability to assess predicaments should avoid reading any thing Edufer posts.

Don't trust the mad man that must post long winded convoluted missives where it becomes a real task to pick at the steaming heaps. Best to just plain old ignore such posts altogethor, totally. Seek information from sources that seek to communicate rather than extoll extremism. In a dog-eat-dog world maybe the best ploy is to become the most wily and crafty son of a bitch possible but this is not a dog-eat-dog world. We are human beings. Seek the civility of communication. Avoid reliance on those who embrace force, shear volume of words with continual embedding of falsehoods, over reason and truth

or not.

[Edufer]

Mr. Nitwit provided us with a barrage of foolish claims:

“Avoid reliance on those who embrace force, shear volume of words with continual embedding of falsehoods, over reason and truth”

So what would you think of someone who can elaborate this unintelligible phrase:

“One major lie is enough to discount trusting anything you share but the legacy of your continual misrepresentation of facts over and over again, while thoroughly ignoring or obfuscating (major ploy in this case) underlines the overwhelming conclusion that any one who wants to be worth anything in their ability to assess predicaments should avoid reading any thing Edufer posts.”

And he thinks he is very clever when saying.

“Here's what I was refering to "UARS data confirmed the polar ozone-depletion theories by providing three-dimensional maps of ozone and chlorine monoxide near the South Pole during development of the 1991 ozone hole."

The UARS satellite was thought to be good then because it was the only technology orbiting Earth at that time. It was credited to give good information on chemicals in the stratosphere until Crista-Spas satellite came into the scene in November 1994. It showed that the atmosphere is not homogeneous, as UARS scientists had been saying through their measurements. UARS data is fed into atmospheric models that are not better than the common garbage found in the modeling hobby of many “serious” organizations (NOAA, Hadley Center, etc) that cannot even predict next week’s weather. Oh, come on! How can you be so naïve, so gullible! No wonder, that is the main characteristic found on nitwits.

Mr. Nitwit says:

“This contradicts your statement that "The CFC scare is based entirely on computer models or simulations, and there is not the slightest evidence that CFC reach high enough in the stratosphere to be present at heights were the UV radiation is strong enough to dissociate de strong and stable CFC molecules."

As anyone has seen, the UARS contradicts nothing of what I said, because the UARS has been made obsolete by NASA’s and German Space Agency’s, Crista satellite. And until this day there is no convincing evidence against both facts I mentioned: The altitude reached by CFCs compunds is no greater than 40 km, and that chlorine cannot attack ozone outside the ice crystals of SPCs in Antarctica’s stratosphere. If you find one, please post it here. Are you such a blockhead that cannot get that into your miniature brain?

More stupid claims by Mr. Nitwit: “That was just the first extreme statement you made Edufer, that I found relatively easy to point out as a lie.”

It would have been a lie if what I said was inaccurate and I new in advance it was – which is not the case, because what I said is the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help me God, and the Crista scientific research. So I lied not.

But you lied when stating that I was a liar – because you knew in advance the information of the Crista satellite, the results of the research, the date of launching of both the UARS and Crista satellites, etc., and could have reached to a better conclusion than the moronic one you expressed here. But you chose to ignore all that and jumped in your usual ad hominems, because that’s the only way you know to solve discussions.

Mr. Nitwit, you are not only a liar, but a dishonest man. Up to what extent will you go pushed by your green neurosis? Have you no decency, sir?

[Mr. Chips]

"that chlorine cannot attack ozone outside the ice crystals of SPCs in Antarctica’s stratosphere"

Though I have posted data before that finds these conditions do sometimes form in other areas of the world, the Arctic now but also over mid and low latitudes ocassionally, it is nice to see you slip and dispel the lie you have spilled here me thinks (don't really care to go search for it, maybe somebody else could corroborate) that CFCs do not deplete high altitude ozone.

What a tangled web you've wove. Hard to keep your main thesis straight? I know there were other satellites but I question the integrity of how you analyze the results. I also know that there are interferometry techniques that have been used for more than a half of a century to estimate and monitor atmospheric gas compostion.

Edufer: "The CFC scare is based entirely on computer models or simulations"

Not true. Not true. Not true. The vacuum you propose here is a rich and burgeoning field of data, quite overwhelmingly in favor of the proposition that high altitude chlorine and bromine compounds (maybe hydrogen! according to recent investigations) and other chemicals are causing radiation protective ozone depletion.

Like a dog, lies like a dog. Mmmm, I wonder if there might be a cyberspace equivalence to the etiology of rabies. Is your invective infective?

[Edufer]

I think this link will interest you kmguru, InvertNexus and Andre.

Experiment Aboard the Space Shuttle Backs Small Comet Discovery

http://smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu/crista.html

It is from a page by the Iowa University, and says something like: “One of the instruments aboard the satellite, called CRISTA-SPAS, is the Middle Atmospheric High Resolution Spectrograph Investigation (MAHRSI). Robert Conway of the E.O. Hulburt Center for Space Research at Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC was quoted in news reports as saying that MAHRSI had found a "startling" amount of hydroxyl, a product of the breakdown of water, above altitudes of 43 miles.”

It ends saying: “It's high time for theoreticians to take into account the small comets and the water they deposit into the upper atmosphere and begin to revise their models of the atmosphere," says Frank.”

Did you ever hear about these "small comets"? What are they?

[Zarkov]

Dwayne D.L.Rabon

Good summary, are these your ideas? They gel with my understanding very well...

I would be interested to hear/read more :)

[Mr. Chips]

Edufer: "there is no depletion of the ozone layer" and before then you state that there is no ozone layer. Now, in a recent post you have suggested that ozone depletion does occur via chlorine compound interaction at the surface of the ice crystals of high stratosheric clouds. Have you learned and changed your tune with the data presented in this thread or were these just a bit of honesty leaking out of your usual steadfast crusade of lies and misinformation? BTW, look at the satellite data that came after UARS. They supported the general findings of high altitude chlorine compound concentrations being directly related to ozone depletion. I just chose the earliest one as the first example that the "scare" was not all generated from computer models as you stated but actually used hard data.

I would consider your lack of hubris, your inability to admit when you are wrong, as quite amazing but I have seen it before and realize that is your modus operandi. If the data does not fit your desired hypothesis you ignore it.

Dwayne D.L.Rabon, if you could post some of your sources that would be appreciated. What you are saying seems to make intuitive sense to me.

[Mr. Chips]

Gee, I guess I misunderstood you, so much for intuition. This sounds like an extreme case of the Milankovich theory which I do believe some cogent experimentation has shown do not correlate with the past climate cycles but that has to do with ice age occurences. Chlorine compounds have been detected as high as 90 km from some of the satellite work done since UARS, despite Edufer's selective ignorance and misrepresentation of the subject.

[Gifted]

What chlorine compounds have been found, Mr. Chips? There are so many other sources of chlorine in nature, and some massively more productive than human activity, how is this chlorine linked to CFCS?

[Mr. Chips]

Well you can go search for such yourself but as far as I can remember without looking again right now, the human induced chlorine monoxide derives from CFCs that breakdown while in the atmosphere and other chlorine containing molecules that do the same. Volcanoes and other natural processes add to it too but that is more reason to limit our contribution rather than not. Bromine compounds do much the same again from my memory. Look around unless you are just trying to belittle the science, in which case, look with blinders on for exactly what you want to refute rather than corroborate. People do that you know. Sounds like you have your mind made up, Gifted. Edufer's already done a lot of the snow job selective footwork for ya.

[Edufer]

Dwayne said: “… however the school for understanding how solar bodies and are stellar neighbors effect earth has been around for quite a long time. Especially since the application of gravity to science as a event of mass, even so the school has been around since the time of ancient Egypt, and as old as Chinese checkers, or should i say Easter island”.

Dwayne, according to what you have presented here, your theory has more affinity with Astrology than physics. Even so, I will give you the benefit of doubt, and would like you to elaborate on your theory so we could analyze it.

The you said: “There probably are a few persons out there that may have made the calculations but I have not any published worked relevant to what i am saying in this topic.”

If you are referring to calculations on gravity and planetary mass, and all that stuff, then I suggest you a lecture to the works of some solar physicists on the subject. One work is “Climate and Keplerian Planetary Dynamics: The “Solar Jerk”, The King-Hele Cycle, and the Challenge to Climate Science” by Rhodes W. Fairbridge (http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen2/Rhodes.html) and the other is the work of Dr. T. Landscheidt on solar system gravitational forces and its relation with the “baricenter”, or center of mass of the solar system in http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/Landscheidt-1.html You’ll find this point (the solar system baricenter and gravitational forces on Earth, about the middle of the page, in point 5: “Forecast of Gleissberg cycles based on the sun's barycentric oscillations”. I hope it is what you are looking for.

About your statement: “In relevancy to the ozone layer on earth, the event that alpha centuri passes from the 30th lat. to around the 89th latitude, provides that ozone is more than likely completely a product chemically of the stellar interaction.” – I have reasonable doubts that Alpha Centauri can have such a strong effect on oxygen molecules as to split them apart to form ozone. My opinion is that energetic photons, as those in UV-C radiation, are the cause of oxygen dissociation and eventual ozone formation. If gravitational forces have any effect on Earth fluids or gases, I see the Sun has a major, almost excluding influence due to its proximity.

Then and lastly: “… plainly there must be some inducting force causing for the development of ozone as the atomic density at such altitude is minimal, and the energy it self would separate most oxygen atoms simply by acceleration.” – I don’t see why there should be any relation between “minimal atomic density” and energy separating oxygen molecules (you said oxygen atoms, and I guess it was a “laspus calami” and you meant “molecules”), simply by acceleration. Whose acceleration, and induced by what? Really, my first guess is that for any acceleration to separate oxygen molecules (the most stable of gaseous molecules due to its double atomic bond) the acceleration would have to be tremendous, and I would make a wild guess: from zero to near the speed of light in a millionth of a second.

gifted: “What chlorine compounds have been found, Mr. Chips? There are so many other sources of chlorine in nature, and some massively more productive than human activity, how is this chlorine linked to CFCS?”

Gifted, you should know by know the futility of asking Mr. Nitwit any direct question. He will always dodge it in an elegant maneuver, like a matador, Olé! And will return some idiotic answer as the one he gave you. And he will never lose the chance to present me as a liar, a troll, an obfuscator, a misinformer (all words he has applied to me). You should know by now that Mr. Nitwit is a balloon full of hot human methane. Ignore him.

[Mr. Chips]

Just thought this ole gas bag would float on in here.

The following is a bit old, 1974, but it does state the general argument against the "natural" release argument Emission of Ozone Depleting Substances from Natural Sources (http://www.ituf.liu.se/emission_of_ozone_depleting_substances_from_natura l_sources.pdf?node=83408).

Check out this table of chemicals released from Texas in 2001 http://www.texasep.org/html/air/air_4iss_strat.html

Check out the number of different ozone depleting substances us humans emit http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C09/C09Links/www.epa.gov/ozone/ods.html

Here's a reference to EPA data at http://pbisotopes.ess.sunysb.edu/classes/oldclasses/cei542/Workgroups/atmosphere/surrusco.htm which I quote here "Normal stratospheric Cl levels prior to industrial interference were 0.6 parts per billion(ppb) supplied by natural sources. Manmade Cl concentrations are currently six times that level at 3.5ppb, and rising at an acceleration of 5% per year. Over the past 20 years, world wide monitoring of stratospheric O3 has recorded uniform decreases. Since the mid-1960’s, global O3 depletion has annually averaged 5%,"

Check out this rebuttal to the natural sources argument championed by Rush Limbaugh, from http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/rush_volcanoe_ozone.HTM

Chlorine from natural sources is soluble, and so it gets rained out of the lower atmosphere," the journal Science explained (6/11/93). "CFCs, in contrast, are insoluble and inert and thus make it to the stratosphere to release their chlorine." Science also noted that chlorine found in the stratosphere-- where it can eat away at Earth's protective ozone layer--is always found with other byproducts of CFCs, and not with the byproducts of natural chlorine sources. "Ozone depletion is real, as certain as Neil Armstrong's landing on the moon," Dr. Sherwood Rowland, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California at Irvine, "Natural causes of ozone depletion are not significant."

I don't know, there is just so much information out there, most of it quite current and convincing.

Does any one realize that Edufer set himself up? This post makes him a liar again. See how his invectives are not descriptive but actual nonliteral slurs? His mouth drips honest to goodness ad hominems, not an attempt to accurately portray what he has learned of my behavior. What I have learned of his behavior is that he is quite pitiful as to his inability to own up to data that proves him wrong quite succinctly and in volume. He is so transparent. He contradicts himself to admit the very lies he is promulgating. I find him to be a zealot and a disinformation artist. That is my opinion.

Now this gas bag is gonna float off here kind of like a beam into the night, out a sight, out a sight.

[Edufer]

You really are a gas bag, Mr. Nitwit. You can fill the atmosphere with chlorine, whatever its source, and it will not react with ozone because the chemistry laws that governs the gaseous phase say:

“No, no, baby, not in midair, only on hard surfaces – go and play over ice crystals in Antarctica.”

Moron.

[Skylark]

oxygen molecules (the most stable of gaseous molecules due to its double atomic bond)

Why would you make this claim? You've even posted information that contradicts this earlier on. I find it hard to believe that you don't know this is a silly statement, so why say it?

[Edufer]

Why? Because it is a basic fact in chemistry, that's why. Where did I contradict myself saying oxygen is a weak molecule?

[Mr. Chips]

Edufer, the conclusion I find from many researchers based on the most recent and comprehensive data is that the surface of ice crystals in the stratospheric polar clouds facilitates the process. These clouds do not just exist in the polar regions where they predominate and, incidentally, noticed to be increasing over the Arctic besides being in place over Antarctica. They also occur in mid and lower latitudes though at little frequency according to analysis of records to 1997. Ever see a contrail? Those are some though apparently there have been others that did not appear to be from contrails. It is now apparently becoming a consensus that these clouds formation are partly driven by greenhouse gases. Increased moisture in the air leads to more high altitude ice crystals. It is stated that a decent campaign to save the ozone layer must involve decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. How about them apples, a direct attack on two of your favorite denials. Poor guy. Must seem like the world is just so against you sometimes.

I am not a moron and neither are you. I do find that you are quite disturbed to adopt a very anti-science stance in so many fields besides those criticism's of your general approach that you saw fit to remind us that I have called you, "a liar, a troll, an obfuscator, a misinformer." Thanks for culling those out. Oh, and more recently, I called you a zealot and a dissinformation artist. Now I contend that your invectives are quite infantile, so add that, infantile. Wee.

[Gravage]

Edufer, the conclusion I find from many researchers based on the most recent and comprehensive data is that the surface of ice crystals in the stratospheric polar clouds facilitates the process. These clouds do not just exist in the polar regions where they predominate and, incidentally, noticed to be increasing over the Arctic besides being in place over Antarctica. They also occur in mid and lower latitudes though at little frequency according to analysis of records to 1997. Ever see a contrail? Those are some though apparently there have been others that did not appear to be from contrails. It is now apparently becoming a consensus that these clouds formation are partly driven by greenhouse gases. Increased moisture in the air leads to more high altitude ice crystals. It is stated that a decent campaign to save the ozone layer must involve decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. How about them apples, a direct attack on two of your favorite denials. Poor guy. Must seem like the world is just so against you sometimes.

I am not a moron and neither are you. I do find that you are quite disturbed to adopt a very anti-science stance in so many fields besides those criticism's of your general approach that you saw fit to remind us that I have called you, "a liar, a troll, an obfuscator, a misinformer." Thanks for culling those out. Oh, and more recently, I called you a zealot and a dissinformation artist. Now I contend that your invectives are quite infantile, so add that, infantile. Wee.

On these websites they say how the global warming may cause another Ice Age...

http://maritimes.buffaloimc.org:8080/news/2004/01/7305.php

Here is the report in May of this year:

http://www.newconnexion.net/article/05-04/hartmann.html

And the analysis of "The day after tomorrow movie"-what possibility is that Ice Age is on our door:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/05/0518_040518_dayafter.html

Is it possible to make a chance for another Ice Age,according to these newest reports?
You decide,I'm here just a neutral on these subjects.

[Gravage]

On these websites they say how the global warming may cause another Ice Age...

http://maritimes.buffaloimc.org:8080/news/2004/01/7305.php

Here is the report in May of this year:

http://www.newconnexion.net/article/05-04/hartmann.html

And the analysis of "The day after tomorrow movie"-what possibility is that Ice Age is on our door:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/05/0518_040518_dayafter.html

Is it possible to make a chance for another Ice Age,according to these newest reports?
You decide,I'm here just a neutral on these subjects.

Also,I say everything is possible.

[Mr. Chips]

Me thinks that is a subject for another thread, but yes, I consider that a distinct possibility and am aware of promising research whereby we may be able to keep the interglacial indefinitely. Here is a web site that goes into that in detail http://www.remineralize.org/ There is at least one video that was released in something like 1985 called "Stopping the Coming Ice Age" that showed the results of small and large scale remineralization. It is just truly amazing to see the side by side comparisons of field and forest. The plants just take off and tie up carbon dioxide like there was no tomorrow and biota that survives off the vegetable matter appears more healthy. Us humans have some problems but we can be a real part of their solutions. It will require some real concerted global action, something that may require a different form of civilization than what predominates momentarily, fighting for the benefit of all rather than against each other. Appears that major climate cycles have spurred much human social development and looks like that will probably continue.

[Zarkov]

In a plasma, O3 is more stable than O2, and in a very rarefied plasma, as in space H2O2 is most stable.

It would therefore infer that the total amount of ozone in the upper atmosphere is dependant upon the state of our electric field.
Anything that alters our electric field should directly alter the O3/O2 ratio.

[Skylark]

Why? Because it is a basic fact in chemistry, that's why. Where did I contradict myself saying oxygen is a weak molecule?

This is what you posted:
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 118,000 kilocalories/mol of energy ... The nitrogen molecules require more than 171,000 kilocal/mol to dissociate

and you did not claim that oxygen was a weak molecule you claimed that oxygen was "the most stable of gaseous molecules". This is not "a basic fact in chemistry", this is not found anywhere in the scientific literature, this is a made-up embellishment. What I'm curious about is why someone would feel the need to say such a thing?

[Edufer]

… the surface of ice crystals in the stratospheric polar clouds facilitates the process.* These clouds do not just exist in the polar regions where they predominate and, incidentally, noticed to be increasing over the Arctic besides being in place over Antarctica.*They also occur in mid and lower latitudes though at little frequency according to analysis of records to 1997. I am sorry to point it out for you, but SPC means stratospheric polar clouds. They exist only in the South Pole, and very briefly over the North Pole – some years, not all years. No stratospheric polar clouds outside the Poles.

Do not confuse with other lower altitude stratospheric clouds or formations as contrails. These clouds are formed by water vapor ice crystals at altitudes of 8.000 12.000 meters. The SPC are formed way high in the stratosphere, in the region of 16.000 - 25.000 meters altitude, where the main ozone depletion is found in Antarctica. These SPC are formed by CO2 ice crystals and this happens only when temperatures go below minus 82º C. hat temperature has been found ONLY in Antarctica's stratosphere, and in some years, very briefly, in the Arctic's stratosphere, facilitated by the global cooling of the stratosphere – according to NOAA and GISS.

<center><img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-8/strato_temp.jpg">
<b>Source:</b> NOAA and GISS.</center>

According to Crista satellite, there seemed that water vapor increased in the lower stratosphere, and that may help attack ozone in that region. But the main destruction of ozone is accomplished in the region of the SPC (16.000 - 25.000 m) on the surface provided by CO2 “dry ice” crystals. CO2 does not convert into ice crystals until it has reached those -82º C, and that temperature occur about the 20.000 meters altitude. See the chart by our National Meteorological Service, when measuring temperature and ozone in Antarctica, July 14th, 2002:

<center><img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-8/ozonoSondeo.gif">
<b>Source:</b> CONICET (Arg).</center>

The red line is = temperature, the thick blue line = ozone levels, the scale at left = altitude in meters, the scale at the bottom = temperatures, and the scale on top = ozone. The severe ozone depletion starts at 22.800 meters. SPC form below -82º C then they were present <b><font color=#ff0000>from 22.837 meters and up.</font></b>

You may increase and decrease greenhouse gases and it will have little effect on ozone destruction, because <b><font color=#ff0000>water vapour freezes at 0º C</font></b> (upper troposphere and low stratosphere, away from the big thickness of the ozone layer in medium latitude regions) methane concentrations have stopped to increase, and CO2 rate of increase is also slowing down at a fast rate.
“It is stated that a decent campaign to save the ozone layer must involve decreasing greenhouse gas emissions.” How about them apples, a direct attack on two of your favorite denials.*Poor guy.*Must seem like the world is just so against you sometimes. Sometimes I pity you. So much effort in trying to make me look stupid or “poor guy”, and finally you end up shooting your own foot. Who is the moron that mentioned that “decent campaign”? Does he know what he's talking about? Does he know there are lots of people that will tear its arguments to shreds in two seconds?

It is not the world that's against me, Mr. Nitwit. Just you, and sometimes the IPCC. But these are minor and funny nuisances. Mosquito bites.

And it is you the one who adopts an anti-science stand. You are the classic <b>armchair amateur scientist</b> that uses <b><font color=#ff0000>“science by press release”</font></b> to make its point and conduct a discussion. All your links have pointed to press releases or public relations web pages where only biased conclusions are presented, <font color=#ff0000>but not the scientific papers themselves</font>.

On the other hand, I have presented links to scientific papers (either on our website or at other sites as Science, or Nature, or the Geophysical Journal, etc) that you can read and analyze, and tear the theory down if you are able to do it. I have never provided a link to a press release because journalists <b><font color=#ff0000>always make a mess out of any scientific paper</font></b> and will present the history in the way it will be more catastrophic and sensationalistic. Any statement I have made <b><font color=#ff0000>is backed by scientific evidence</font></b> – evidence you deny and disqualify because it does not fit into your religious belief -- without no further proof or argument other than name calling or deprecation.
<p>

[Mr. Chips]

Nice of you to change your tune to include the Arctic. I did take some liberty with the mention of contrails. According to the site I link to earlier, the original researchers btw, only those from high altitude rockets and missiles make similar clouds as the SPCs, not those from commercial jets. I also see reference to observations that these clouds are blown out of polar regions and exist for some time in lower latitudes.

So you do admit that ozone depletion exists. You haven't come around to realize that the Arctic clouds appear to be a new phenomenon and growing but then that does not meet your theory so the evidence must be worthy of ignoring, right?.

Nice of you also to leave the natural sources of ozone depletion substances out of the conversation now as the consensus appears to be that they account for a small fraction of such substances, with human released ozone depletion facilitating substances making up a large majority.

As far as the observation that decrease of greenhouse gases can facilitate recovery of the ozone layer, I was just repeating what researchers say and the ones I read of do not seem to be a part of the IPPC. Maybe I'll provide some links to these later. To date, here's the ones I've posted here:

http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/hole/

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ozwv/ozsondes/spo/index.html

http://www.theozonehole.com/ozoneholehistory.htm

http://www.ec.gc.ca/science/sandejan99/article7_e.html

http://science.education.nih.gov/su...y5_database.htm

http://www.gov.ns.ca/news/details.asp?id=20040527004

http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline...ue=03&page=0213

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...09&page=1&pp=20

http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi...ruptclimate.htm

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/servi...rthsci/uars.htm

http://www.texasep.org/html/air/air_4iss_strat.html

http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C09/.../ozone/ods.html

http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/ru...canoe_ozone.HTM

http://www.remineralize.org/

Hmm, none of these appears to be a "press release." Me thinks it all too easy for you just to heap on some more denigrating lies. Does appear to be something you do commonly so it's like, maybe, a gut reaction for you to strive to mislead.

You have stated that there is no depletion at all. You have stated that depletion of ozone only happens over Antarctica. Now you are willing to include the Arctic. At this rate, you'll finally come around to see that the hole is real, that depletion occurs beyond natural cycles and that the Montreal accord was and is one of the wisest global collaboration events in human history. AND THEN you will probably just go and set that aside and continue with your crusade.

I tell you, somebody has continually shot themselves in the foot here and I don't think it was me :D

All that effort, the pictures, the graphs, the bold and colored text, and you still have to change your tune. Maybe you should think again that amount and quality of presentation has little to do with the quality of the data. Me thinks you want to be lost in the details and help other people get out of touch with the big picture consensus to hold onto your perspective that there is no hole, right? that depletion doesn't happen, right?

You have come around a great deal from your own stance here to start. Keep it up. Maybe you can become a warrior for sanity rather than continually striving to help people be ignorant and gullible. Maybe then the task wont be as tiring, tired warrior. If you don't have to continually change your tune because you embrace science rather than pomp and circumstance, then you wont waste near as much of your waking hours.

You know, if you could get those non-literal slurs out of your communications, it would make you appear more reasonable rather than overtly passionate and attached to belief opposed to science.

[Mr. Chips]

Dwayne, the idea that magnetic pole reversal may have something to do with ozone chemistry is interesting. Some are convinced that magnetic pole reversal is happening though they seem to consider it to be taking over a thousand years to do so, http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/news/2002/041802mag_flip.shtml

As far as Alpha Centauri being responsible for the ozone layer, that is hard for me to believe.

[Edufer]

Hmm, none of these appears to be a "press release."* Me thinks it all too easy for you just to heap on some more denigrating lies.
Some analysis of your links (one by one, in order of appearance)

Cambridge University link: http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/
General biased information – no scientific studies provided. Just conclusions, some of them outright lies as the opening statement in the page: The History of the ozone Hole: (http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/part1.html), saying this blatant lie:
<dir><font color=#0080ff><b>The Beginning ...</b>
Dramatic loss of ozone in the lower stratosphere over Antarctica was first noticed in the 1970s by a research group from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) who were monitoring the atmosphere above Antarctica from a research station much like the picture to the right. “</font></dir>
As is written down in history, Gordon Dobsn (at Halley Station) and French scientists Leroy and Rigaud, at Dumont D'Urville station (on the other side of Antarctica) <b><font color=#ff0000>first recorded the infamous ozone hole in 1957</font></b>. Dobson named it as the “Southern Anomaly”, something that he has documented in his book by Cambridge University press in 1968. It seems the people at Cambridge have forgotten they published the book, or the person in charge of the webpage content didn't read the book. The next paragraph for that page proves it:
<dir><font color=#0080ff>Folklore has it that when the first measurements were taken in 1985, the drop in ozone levels in the stratosphere was so dramatic that at first the scientists thought their instruments were faulty. Replacement instruments were built and flown out, and it wasn't until they confirmed the earlier measurements, several months later, that the ozone depletion observed was accepted as genuine.”</font></dir>They are referring to folklore and leaving out scientific records out. Everybody knows that the first measurements ever made of the Antarctic ozone layer were performed by Gordon Dobson in 1957-58, during the International Geophysical Year.

Please let me quote what G. H.B. Dobson said in his Chapter 6, of “Exploring the Atmosphere”:<dir><b><font color=#a7474f>D. Anomalies in the General Worldwide Pattern</b>
(1) Observatins made at Halley Bay in the Weddell Sea (latitude 75ºSouth), during an since the International Geophysical Tear, show that the total ozone there has the usual low value in the autumn, but it does not rise much during the winter, nor even during the spring; then in November - well after the time of the expected spring maximum for the Southern Hemisphere – <b>the ozone suddenly rises and within a week or two it reaches normal values“</b></font></dir>You have provided the link to a page that lies shamelessly in tow consecutive paragraphs. The “anecdote” of the ozone levels being so dramatically low (and the mention that scientists thought it was due to faulty instruments), really happened, though. Only it happened to Dobson in 1957, as he clearly states that in his book! The Cambridge University website <font color=#ff0000>IS LYING SHAMELESSLY</font> to the people – and Mr. Nitwit has swallowed the lie and he's spreading it.

This Cambridge University page sends us in a link to the British Antarctic Survey website, and the Halley station page history and data, where we can see the continuous misinformation and hiding of historical information: Read and weep seeing the way this people conducts their “science” in behalf of their misinformation:

<dir>http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/Living_and_Working/Stations/Halley/
<font color=#0080ff>Studies at Halley are crucial for a global perspective on ozone depletion, atmospheric pollution, sea level rise and climate change. Ozone has been measured at Halley since 1956. A spring-time depletion in stratospheric ozone was discovered by BAS in 1985, and this led very quickly to the international response to curtail production of CFCs.</font></dir> In the page (see it for yourself, don't take my word for it) they never mentioned Gordon M. B. Dobson was working in the British Survey, and that was Dobson's team <b><font color=#aa0000>the one who first measured the ozone loss during the Antarctic spring.</font></b> The British Antarctic Survey <b><font color=#ff0000>IS LYING</font></b> to the people – and Mr. Nitwit has swallowed the lie and <b><font color=#ff0000>he's spreading it</font></b>. So, when you catch someone lying twice in a row, then whatever they may say becomes highly dubious and hardly believable.

The Cambridge site gives the following accurate information on SPC, though:
<dir><font color=#0080ff>"Since there is no sunlight, the air within the polar vortex can get very cold. So cold that special clouds can form once the air temperature gets to below about -80C. These clouds are called Polar Stratospheric Clouds (or PSCs for short) but they are not the clouds that you are used to seeing in the sky which are composed of water droplets. <b><font color=#ff0000>PSCs first form as nitric acid trihydrate. </font></b>As the temperature gets colder however, larger droplets of water-ice with nitric acid dissolved in them can form. However, their exact composition is still the subject of intense scientific scrutiny. <b><font color=#c8896f>These PSCs are crucial for ozone loss to occur.</font></b>”</font></dir>
But the reference to SPC within the page lead us to their followinf definition of SPC: <dir><font color=#0080ff>Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSC's)
The medium in which reservior chlorine comounds are converted into ozone-destroying chlorine radicals. They are <b>clouds of ice/water particles</b>, typically found at frost point in the stratosphere. </font></dir> Now, how come there is such a contradiction between what they say about the SPCs in their first paragraph, and the definition they give in their Glossary page? Are they composed of nitric acid, (and CO2) or just “ice/water particles”. This way of conducting scientific education (Cambridge University!) is very poor, indeed.

In the same way I am dissecting, exposing, and demolishing the lies on your links, you should analyze the studies I provide you, Mr. Nitwit, and expose the lies you find in them. That's the way science must be conducted. Although you accuse me of being unscientific, you have not provided any proof that your stance is scientific. Just links that lie and misinform.One of the basic rules of research is: <b><font color=#ff0000>The first duty of a scientist is to proof himself wrong.</font></b> and he cannot, then others will do it. Try to show how wrong I am by dissecting my links. <b><font color=#ff0000>Come on, don't be afraid!</font></b>
It will take some more time to analyze and refute the rest of your links, but what the heck, Rome wasn't built in a day!

[Mr. Chips]

As far as I can tell, the importance of the 1985 observations was not that the hole existed but that it had increased in size. You can go ahead and pick on that if you wish but I don't think it detracts at all from the basic findings.

Concerning greenhouse gases exacerbating ozone depletion, here's a summary from one of the researchers looking into this (1999) http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/intro/shindell_02/

This study (2002) finds that the stratosphere has cooled .5 degrees Celsius each decade for the last two http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/aboutus/milestones/ozone.html . The following appears to be a summary of the analysis:

Both ozone and the well-mixed greenhouse gases contribute in an important manner to the cooling of the stratosphere ( Figure B ). Ozone effects are dominant in the lower stratosphere ( around 20 km. ); well-mixed gases are more important in the middle stratosphere ( around 35 km ), while all gases contribute importantly in the upper stratosphere ( around 45 km ). As ozone depletion is linked to the halocarbons, the global stratospheric cooling is attributable in the main to anthropogenic emissions. Another important implication of the trace-gas induced cooling trend in the stratosphere is its likely association with the initiation of ozone depletion in the Arctic and the sustained appearance of 'ozone holes' there during winter / spring.
Here is theozonehole's coverage of the idea, http://www.theozonehole.com/arcticozone.htm

Hyperbole does not give your presentations any added measure of integrity. Should I really hold you to 2 seconds to deny these studies? You have already used that up and then some.

[Mr. Chips]

Here's the text of the press release by The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for the 1995 Nobel prize, http://www.nobel.se/chemistry/laureates/1995/press.html

Can you quote me where Dobson refers to an ozone hole? Appears that the recognition of such by Shanklin et al was a first.

BTW, can you comment on your change of position in this thread from first denying any ozone depletion at all to acknowledging that it occurs in the Antarctic to further and later acknowledgement that it occurs in the Arctic? Can you address this with a bit of humility on your part or is that not in your bag of tricks?

Try this,

Do you now believe that there is ozone depletion?

Do you now believe that ozone depletion only occurs in Antarctica?

Of course the progression continues:

Do you now believe that ozone depletion only occurs above Antarctica and the Arctic?

Each time you changed your stance, you did not admit doing so, just referenced the insights yourself. Me thinks you have a lot of hubris there, dude. That little thing about the web site with the pictures of the hole for consecutive years to date. You realize that appeared quite petty? I do think that criticism that you appear quite infantile appears fairly apt.

[Edufer]

Your link: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/intro/shindell_02/ led us to: <dir><b>Increased polar stratospheric ozone losses and delayed eventual
recovery owing to increasing greenhouse-gas concentrations</b>
Drew T. Shindell, David Rind & Patrick Lonergan

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Center for Climate Systems
Research, Columbia University, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY, USA 10025

The chemical reactions responsible for stratospheric ozone depletion
are extremely sensitive to temperature1. Greenhouse gases warm the
Earth's surface but cool the stratosphere radiatively2-5 and therefore
affect ozone depletion. Here we investigate the interplay between
coupled projected future emissions of greenhouse gases and levels of
ozone-depleting halogen species <b><font color=#ff0000>using a global climate model that
incorporates simplified ozone-depletion chemistry. </font></b>Temperature and
wind changes induced by the increasing greenhouse-gas
concentrations alter planetary-wave propagation in our model,
reducing the frequency of sudden stratospheric warmings in the
Northern Hemisphere 4.

This results in a more stable Arctic polar vortex, with significantly
colder temperatures in the lower stratosphere and concomitantly
increased ozone depletion. Increased concentrations of greenhouse
gases might therefore be <b>at least partly responsible</b> for the very
large Arctic ozone losses observed in recent winters6-9.

Arctic losses reach a maximum <b><font color=#ff0000>in the decade 2010 to 2019
in our model,</font></b> roughly a decade after the maximum in stratospheric
chlorine abundance … The severity and the duration of the Antarctic
ozone hole are also predicted to increase because of greenhouse-gas-
induced stratospheric cooling over the coming decades.</dir>There you go. This terrific study is just an experiment in modeling. They don't give details on how the model works, the parameters, constant and variables used.

It is just another press release in the web by NASA. As any atmospheric professor would say: <b><font color=#ff0000>Junk science. It proves nothing.</font></b> Strike two. Who's next to bat?

[Edufer]

Your second link to NOAA study: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/aboutus/milestones/ozone.html clearly states in its opening paragraph: <dir>The present study presents results from numerical experiments with the GFDL stratospheric general circulation model ( GCM ) to investigate the stratospheric climate impacts of changes in the trace gases. These simulations are used to evaluate the extent to which the observed temperature cooling can be attributed to the trace gas changes, taking into account uncertainties in both model and observational trend estimates.</dir><b><font color=#ff0000>More of the same pseudscientific garbage.</font></b>

As for your link to the full of shit website: http://www.theozonehole.com/arcticozone.htm here is a link to what they said about UV radiation falling over Punta Arenas, Chile, during the spring of 2003, and the comments on it. As you can see, the link is to an article written by myself: http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Ozo/PuntaEng.html

I have already pointed you to this article, but you obviously didn't read it.

[Mr. Chips]

Looks like you have to subscribe to the American Geophysical Union to read the original report. From articles and abstracts, one can see that the authors of the study added corrections to existing computer models to include more atmosphere moisture due to greenhouse gases. They themselves express amazement as to how incorrect previous modeling appeared to be. This was just this last March that they first reported this work in AGU.

As more data is incorporated into the models, should we expect them to get less accurate? A computer model is just a way to look at data. Sure it can be misleading due to lack of incorporating significant real-world observations to their appropriate degree but one can not just disregard them tooth and nail if you want to look like you are considering the evidence rather than pursuing a belief. I know you are harping back to my having pointed out that you stated the "scare" was due solely to computer simulations. You still haven't addressed that snafu of yours. Of course, much data exists that tells us what is happening that is displayed without computer modeling.

[Mr. Chips]

I don't know, that "full of shit" website proved valuable to Invert nexus at least. There is a lot of information there. I guess then, the link to your article there must imply that you are full of shit too. Go figure, damned if you deny and damned if you accept.

You are right. I didn't read that article of yours though I have read others about the phenomenon in South Africa. I do hold the opinion that the less I read from you the better likely-hood of coming to a fair appraisal. I do not plan on reading that article. I like to get my sources from those who do not exhibit a tendency to lie continuously and appear to have an agenda that has little to do with science.

[Edufer]

Your link to the royal Academy of Sciences and the Nobel prize for the hoaxters that conned everybody with their ozone depletion theory, clearly shows the high politicization of science, and the astonishing low level they are bring science to.<dir><font color=#0080ff><b>"By explaining the chemical mechanisms that affect the thickness of the ozone layer, the three researchers have contributed to our salvation from a global environmental problem that could have catastrophic consequences.</b></font></dir>By 1995, the theory was not proved, <b><font color=#ff0000>as it has not yet been proved.</font></b>

French scientist, Dr. Haroum Tazieff, France's former Secretary of State for Major Natural and Technological Risks, released to the press the following statement regarding the Nobel Award in chemistry to ozone scientisyts F.S. Rowland, M. Molina and P. Crustzen in 1995. The world press presented it this way:

<b><font size=4 color=#ff0000>"French Scientist: This Nobel is a Scandal!"</font></b>

Haorum Tzieff, one of the most renown French scientists gave the following statement on the Nobel Award in Chemistry this year:

"The Awarding of the Nobel prize has often surprised competent people; thai has been true of many Nobel prizes n Literature, Peace, and Economics, fields that do not belong to the exact sciences. But there was never, to my knowledge, such amazement as the stupefaction that has touched the world of chemists. The three awards given for what is known today as the theory of the “ozone hole” are, in fact, <b><font color=#ff0000>a tremendous scientific scandal. </font></b>The aim is to intimidate honest scientists who have tried to resist the <b><font color=#c8896f>catastrophism and the lies that have reigned for some 20-odd years on the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect.</font></b>

I am speaking here in my own name, as a volcanologist for half a century; a former director at the <b><i>French National Center for Scientific Research,</i></b> and a former <b><i>Secretary of State for Major Natural and Technological Risks</i></b>, who led four successful missions to the Erebus Volcano in Antarctica. The arguments of Sherwood Rowland, Mario Molina, and Paul Crutzen <b><font color=#ff0000>are scientifically nonexistent </font></b>when confronted with the reality of what is observed in Antarctica. The <b><font color=#ff0000>models they have elaborated</font></b>, especially, <b><font color=#ff0000>have been constantly refuted by satellite and ground based observations.
</font></b>
As for one of my fields of competence, volcanology, in which I have more than ordinary experience and, in particular, concerning the Erebus volcano, which from a height of more than 3000 meters dominates de U.S. station at McMurdo Sound, where measurements have been made of its plume. Rowland et al., as well as their French colleague Gérard Mégie, have deliberately ignored the tremendous quantities of chlorine emitteds 365 day a year by this crater, which is in constant activity.

Instead, they point to the <b><font color=#c8896f>minute quantities of chlorine contained in CFCs </font></b>to accuse them of a so called major crime: destroying the ozone layer in the stratosphere. Rowland et al. <b><font color=#ff0000>also omit to mention, deliberately, </font></b>that those variations in the ozone content in Antarctica were discovered, <b>not in 1985</b>, as they would have us to believe, <b><font color=#ff0000>but in 1956 by the first scientist to study the upper atmosphere there, Gordon Dobson.</font></b> They are thus committing the major scientific crime, which is dissimulation of facts and ignoring earlier publications on the same subject.

What is going on in the world corresponds, with modern propaganda means, to the catastrophist prophecies for the year 1000. For the year 2000, today's technologies are used by the international finances to terrorize the world opinion with lies alleged to be science, <b><font color=#ff0000>promoted by finance-corrupted “scientists”.</font></b>

I do not hesitate to compare this big brainwashing enterprise and deliberate lying, to that of the Cominterm between 1920 and 1935, which induced tens of millions of left intellectuals to transform themselves into as many militants willfully made stupid.

Grave accusations by Haroum Tazieff (died in Februatry 2003) that have been ignored by the main media and the gangsters in NASA. They keep doing their <b><font color=#ff0000>"business as usual"</font></b>.

So you want me to read your links and garbage - but refuse to read my links and material refuting your absurdities and lies. Fair enough. You show what kind of crap you have instead of brains. :D

[Edufer]

From articles and abstracts, one can see that the authors of the study added corrections to existing computer models to include more atmosphere moisture due to greenhouse gases. They themselves <b>express amazement</b> as to how incorrect previous modeling <b>appeared to be</b>.

Of course they are amazed about how wrong the models have been – and those models <b><font color=#ff0000>were used to ban CFC and provide the three stooges with a Nobel Prize!
</font></b>
As more data is incorporated into the models, should we expect them to get less accurate? A computer model is just a way to look at data. The most basic Axiom of computer programming still is <b>GIGO = <font color=#ff0000>Garbage In, Garbage Out</font></b>. You can incorporate a pile of data the size of the Everest into a computer simulation and still get results completely dissociated with the real world. Good models are composed of <b><font color=#ff0000>about 5 millions constant and variables</font></b>, each one of them a result from <b>an original estimate</b> (an elegant word for “<b><font color=#ff0000>wild assumption</font></b>”). Later, results are compared with the real world and then begins the work of making corrections, what they call “tweaking”. Some honest modelers make corrections to models (not only climate or ozone models, can be a new airplane design, a formula 1 car, etc) until <b>results resembles the real world </b>more and more on each successive tweaking.

But it has been found that climate and ozone modelers tweak their models, not to resemble the real world, but for making the results <b><font color=#ff0000>resemble their preconceived idea of what they want to “prove”. </font></b>That's why they will never get a model that, running backwards, and starting from 1400 (for giving a arbitrary date) give a result <b>resembling present climate</b>. Not they haven't tried to do so – but when they did it, and results were almost perfect, predictions of the future climate <b><font color=#ff0000>showed very little warming, or some cooling.</font></b> So that's why, serious scientists say that models are <b><font color=#ff0000>not trustable and serve no purpose for predicting future climate or development of ozone increase or decrease.</font></b>
I know you are harping back to my having pointed out that you stated the "scare" was due solely to computer simulations. You still haven't addressed that snafu of yours. Of course, much data exists that tells us what is happening that is displayed without computer modeling. You need psychiatric help, Mr. Nitwit, I have been addressing that “snafu” since the beginning <b>and have proved beyond any reasonable doubt</b> that the “ozone scare” was based (and still its) on computer simulations that are worth less than the paper they use for their press releases.

I have seen students at our University that are really dumb, and are slow to understand. But to their behalf, I must say they at least<b> TRY HARD</b> to understand and to learn, something you have never tried - <b><font color=#ff0000>or achieved</font></b>.

[Mr. Chips]

According to the 1998 World Meteorological Organization assesment of ozone depletion, volcanism may account for 3% of the observed depletion, the rest due to human induced substances mainly. Appears that your volcanologist Tazieff was a bit out of his field of expertise when he made his grand sweeping generalizations about ozone and greenhouse gases. 350 atmospheric chemist specialists lent their hand to that WMO report. How many perhaps thousands lend their research talents to the Montreal Protocol ongoing studies? I suppose a volcanologist and the hundred or so people who signed his resolution denouncing the Montreal Protocol were better informed? The problem with ignoring the consensus and claiming that a past refuted minority opinion is sacrosanct and all else corrupted, does not bode well for you.

Besides the character assessments I've posted; zealot, disinformation artist, misinformer, liar, troll, infantile, etc. I think one should also add delusory paranoia. Do you really feel that the vast majority of scientists are corrupt? If so, I've asked this before of you, how can you present anything as certain? I see that you really don't and only sustain the illusion as you ignore the numerous questions about the inconsistency of the facts as you present them. I guess it only matters if you can ignore the criticisms. Looks like adamant closed mindedness to me. Adamantly closed minded and delusionarily paranoid, that makes for two new sets of terms to describe you, not ad hominems but my current opinion based on the misinformation you have presented here at this forum.

[Edufer]

Do you now believe that there is ozone depletion?
Do you now believe that ozone depletion only occurs in Antarctica?
Do you now believe that ozone depletion only occurs above Antarctica and the Arctic?
I believe in what I have been expressing since 1993, when I wrote my book “Ecology: Myths and Frauds”, Chapter 2: The Ozone Hoax. It is the same I have been exposing here and there is NOT any going back on what I expressed here. I have not changed my mind a iota.

1) I believe that in Antarctica occurs a decrease in ozone levels caused by dynamic causes having natural origins. I will elaborate on this in a later post.

2) Ozone decreases (different from depletion, a tricky word used by catastrophists) occur all over Earth's atmosphere, as marvelously explained by G. Dobson in Chapter 6, point 5: “Ozone and Weather – Day-to-Day Variations”, in his book “Exploring the Atmosphere”, 1968, later 100% confirmed by Crista-Spas satellite observations that showed the atmosphere <b>is not homogeneous</b> – <b><font color=#ff0000>as modelers assume </font></b>– but has a patchy structure with different concentrations of gases, even at the same altitude or region.

3) I believe there is no ozone layer depletion, although there are natural variations – increases and decreases in ozone levels – amount up to 40% in the matter of hours, as demonstrated by Dobson, and later by Crista-Spas.

As Dobson clearly writes in his book (ignored by the British Antarctic Survey),
<dir>“It has been show in Chapter 2 that there are close connections between the variations of the temperature, the pressure, the height of tropopause, and other variables in the upper atmosphere, so that we naturally find that the variations in ozone are connected with all these to a greater or lesser extent. There is a tendency for the following associations:
<table width="70%" border="1" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" bgcolor="#ffffff" bordercolor="#a7474f"><tr><td bgcolor="#f9ba37"><center><b>High ozone</b></center></td><td bgcolor="#f9ba37"><center><b>Low ozone</b></center></td></tr><tr><td >Cyclonic wind circulation at<br> the level of the tropopause</td>
<td >Anticyclonic wind circulation<br> at the tropopause.</td></tr>
<tr><td >High temperature in the stratosphere</td>
<td >Low temperature in the stratosphere</td></tr>
<tr><td >Low temperature in the troposphere</td>
<td >High temperature in the troposphere</td></tr>
<tr><td >Low level of tropopause</td>
<td >High level of tropopause</td></tr>
<tr><td >Low absolute pressure</td>
<td >High absolute pressure</td></tr>
</table>

<b>8. The Cause of the Connection Between zone and Other Upper Air Conditions</b>

We must now consider what causes the amount of ozone in the upper atmosphere <b>to change from day to day</b>, and why the variations are closely connected with other <b>meteorological conditions</b >. As with the changes in total ozone between spring and autumn, the changes between cyclonic and anticyclonic conditions are found to take place mainly in the first 5 to 10 km above the tropopause. A cyclonic depression, shown on the surface weather map as a closed low pressure area, is represented at a height of 15 km by a through of low pressure extending to lower latitudes; on the other hand, an anticyclone, shown on the surface weather map as an area of high pressure is represented at 15 km by a ridge of high pressure extending towards the pole.

These throughs and ridges tend to circulate round the pole from west to east, but the generally westerly winds at these heights has a much greater speed, and the air actually flows <b>through</b> these throughs and ridges. As the air blows into a high pressure through it descends, while as it approaches a ridge it ascends. These ascending and descending movements of the air lead to increases and decreases in the amount of ozone as we have described a little earlier, and will, to some extent at least, account for the greater amount of ozone in depressions than in anticyclones.

In spring – but not in autumn, the general amount of ozone is greater in high latitudes, than in low latitudes, so that the north polar currents will carry southward air which is rich in ozone, while equatorial currents will tend to carry polewards an air that is weak in ozone. This is also a cause in producing changes in the total ozone. … We still have much to learn about these changes in ozone.</dir>As you can see, Dobson knew everything there was to know about ozone, and very little has been added to that knowledge.

[Edufer]

"I suppose a volcanologist and the hundred or so people who signed his resolution denouncing the Montreal Protocol were better informed? The problem with ignoring the consensus and claiming that a past refuted minority opinion is sacrosanct and all else corrupted, does not bode well for you.
But claiming there is an alleged consensus on your views makes you the owner of the truth? How arrogant can you be! There has never been such a thing as a “<b>scientific consensus</b>” on anything. Here is what Michael Crichton said about “consensus”. Nuclear winter and global warming. Read and you will find yourself portrayed somewhere there: (may I remind you that Crichton, besides being the succesful author of Jurassic Park, and books and scripts for other movies, has his own PhD. in archeology. He he is a scientist that likes to write - and to give lectures as the one I am taking some excerpts from:
<dir>According to Sagan and his coworkers, even a limited 5,000 megaton nuclear exchange would cause a global temperature drop of more than 35 degrees Centigrade, and this change would last for three months. The greatest volcanic eruptions that we know of changed world temperatures somewhere between .5 and 2 degrees Centigrade. Ice ages changed global temperatures by 10 degrees. Here we have an estimated change three times greater than any ice age. One might expect it to be the subject of some dispute.

But Sagan and his coworkers were prepared, for nuclear winter was from the outset <b><font color=#ff0000>the subject of a well-orchestrated media campaign</font></b>. The first announcement of nuclear winter appeared in an article by Sagan in the Sunday supplement, Parade. The very next day, a highly-publicized, high-profile conference on the long-term consequences of nuclear war was held in Washington, chaired by Carl Sagan and Paul Ehrlich, <b><font color=#c8896f>the most famous and media-savvy scientists of their generation.</font></b> Sagan appeared on the Johnny Carson show 40 times. Ehrlich was on 25 times. Following the conference, there were press conferences, meetings with congressmen, and so on. <b><font color=#c8896f>The formal papers in Science came months later.
</font></b>
<b><font size=4 color=#ff0000>This is not the way science is done, it is the way products are sold.
</font></b>
The real nature of the conference is indicated by these artists' renderings of the the effect of nuclear winter.

I cannot help but quote the caption for figure 5: <i>"Shown here is a tranquil scene in the north woods. A beaver has just completed its dam, two black bears forage for food, a swallow-tailed butterfly flutters in the foreground, a loon swims quietly by, and a kingfisher searches for a tasty fish."</i> Hard science if ever there was.

At the conference in Washington, during the question period, Ehrlich was reminded that after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, scientists were quoted as saying <b><font color=#c8896f>nothing would grow there for 75 years</font></b>, but in fact <b><font color=#ff0000>melons were growing the next year.</font></b> So, he was asked, how accurate were these findings now?

Ehrlich answered by saying <b><font color=#c8896f>"I think they are extremely robust. Scientists may have made statements like that, although I cannot imagine what their basis would have been, even with the state of science at that time, but scientists are always making absurd statements, individually, in various places. What we are doing here, however, is presenting a consensus of a very large group of scientists…"</font></b>
</dir>
<b>Doesn't Ehrlich sounds like Mr. Nitiwit?</b><dir>
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, <b><font color=#ff0000>the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels</font></b>; it is a way <b>to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled</b>. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, <b><font color=#ff0000>reach for your wallet, because you're being had. </font></b>

Let's be clear: <b><font color=#ff0000>the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. </font></b><font color=#0080ff>Consensus is the business of politics.</font> Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that <b>are verifiable by reference to the real world.</b> <b><font color=#ff0000>In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. </font></b>The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.</dir>
So your alleged consensus on global warming and ozone depletion is utterly worthless because it <b><font color=#ff0000>DOES NOT EXIST!</font></b>

But blockeads lik Mr. Nitwit will insist until they die there is consensus and the matter is settled. How pathetic!

In case somebody is interested in the lecture given by Michael Crichton on global warming and scientific consensus, the article is one click away:

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen4/consensus.html

I am sure this link will make waves! :D

[Mr. Chips]

I think you are a raving lunatic.

Here is one professor's opinion of Michael Chrichton's rant, http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001172.html

If consensus of opinion from the observations of many has no weight then, I guess truth just comes down to whomever is most dictatorial.

You beat me hands down in that category, Edufer. Rave on.

[Edufer]

Mr. Nitwit, you are <b>SOOOO</b> unsurprising, predictable and transparent in your hypocrisy! You chose to comment on the arguably part of my post as Crichton's lecture, but carefully avoided to refute or even try to comment the rest of my several posts, ie.: Gordon Dobson's experiences on the ozone layer and discovery of the ozone hole in 1956, my proofs that <b>the British Antarctic Survey lies unashamadely</b> when claiming they discovererd the hole in 1985; or Dobson's demonstration that ozone variations are caused <b>by meteorological, dynamical causes</b>, and that chemistry plays a very minor role. Perhaps you weighted the risk of contradicting the opinions of the Father of the Ozone Science, and thought you might set yourself into a ridicule position – if there can be a more ridicule position than the one you have shown in this forum.

Of course, the comment by the “professor” on Crichton's lecture (in the blog you linked us to) is <b>“politically correct”</b> down to its marrow. What else would you expect from Henry Farrell, professor at the Department of <b>Political Science</b> in the University of Toronto, not an expert on climatology, we may assume. And his comments suffer from the <b>same kind of hypocrisy as yours</b>, Mr. Nitwit. See this:
<dir><b><font color=#0080ff>“He sees the Bjorn Lomborg affair as evidence that anyone who disagrees with the prevailing consensus is likely to be treated as a pariah (while notably failing to mention that Lomberg is convinced that global warming is real).”</font></b></dir>Actually, not even me argue that <b>global warming has been happening</b> as a recovery from the Little ice Age. What Lomborg does not accept is that <b>the consequences will be catastrophic</b> – and this hypocrite (or should I say moron?) at Toronto University has <b>conveniently hidden</b> that part of Lomborg's opinion on global warming. No wonder you linked this hypocrite bedfellow to us, Mr. Nitwit.

He said this insanity, for instance: <b><font color=#0080ff>“More than anything else, his style of logic is reminiscent of the creationist quacks who set out to undermine evolution by arguing that it's a 'theory' that hasn't been 'proved.' Caltech can't be held fully to blame for Crichton's speech; universities rarely know in advance what their guest speakers are going to say. But it should be a lot more careful about whom it chooses to deliver major talks in the future.”</font></b>

Well, not only Creationists use the argument <b>“a theory that has not been proven”</b> – but this argument is used by 100% of scientists that are faced with any theory that has not been proven. As one reply to Henry Farrell's quackery stated quite clearly: <dir><I><font color=#aa0000>”Crichton is right that global warming is not a scientific theory, certainly not in the Popperian sense. What tests do its proponents set for it? Scientific theories must be capable of refutation; <b>all other theories are pseudoscience.</b> When Einstein formulated his General Theory he devised three objective tests; even one failure would refute the entire theory and it would have to be abandoned. The global warming people <b>have put forth nothing in the way of an objective test for their beliefs. And beliefs are precisely what they are.</b>
Posted by XXX · January 20, 2004 06:06 PM”</font></i></dir>As you see, in that blog there are some interesting critical contributions as: <dir><font color=#800000><b>“I had to double-take when I saw that. The best way to prove a man who says the consensus silences its critics <font color=#ff0000>is to call for him to be silenced?</font> - Jeez.”</i> … or “just out of curiosity, does anyone want to defend the use of inordinately complex computer models with heaps of uncertainty in making important policy decisions? (cough, cough — macroeconomists — cough).”</b></font></dir>What brings us to the Big Brother kind of policy the United Nations and its many bureaucratic organizations have been conducting during some decades now - with help from their friends, the green NGOs. What's the best way to keep the message from being delivered? <b><font color=#ff0000>Shoot the messenger, of course.</font></b> If your lies don't convince the people at once, then prevent the opposition from accessing the media, and then repeat your lie as many times as needed until your lie becomes an accepted truth.
Then Mr. Nitwit's buddy keeps saying: <font color=#0080ff><b><i>“Crichton not only ignores the rather substantial cumulation of physical evidence that suggests that global warming is a real threat.”</i></b></font>

I would add that Henry Farrell ignores the same (or perhaps more) accumulation of physical evidence that shows <b><font color=#ff0000>global warming is not a real threat.</font></b> If he has any doubts he should ask famous and respected climatologists as Dr. Frederick Seitz, or professor Fred Singer, or Prof. Tim Patterson, or many scientist at many National Academies of Sciences all over the world. And now that you have brought it here, I would add there is the same amount of consensus among dissenting scientists as there is among global waming scientists. Now, if you want to try and make a poll among <b>ALL</b> scientiosts in the world, the poll will show an overwhelming <b><font color=#ff0000>"no catastrophic warming"</font></b> opinion.

And the last, among many other disfavourable opinions for Mr. Farrell comment found in that blog, puts it quite bluntly:<dir><b><font color=#800040>I think the provisional answer at the moment is that it that realistic projections of global warming put them well within the normal variations, and according to pro-Kyoto scientists human changes such as Kyoto will at best delay the onset of their predictions by 3-5 years.
That is what the science shows. The pseudo-science (and it does exist) is the freak-out that Greenpeace encourages with wilder claims. Crichton should have made the distinction clearer. But he never did know how to come to a conclusion.</font></b></dir>And one post in that blog sent us to:

http://citycomfortsblog.typepad.com/cities/2004/01/global_warming_.html

saying something to be considered in these forums:
<dir><b><font color=#800040>(It's fine for amateurs to offer an opinion about the public policies which might/should flow from certain scientific conclusions, but it seems a bit out-of-our league for us to opine on the facts themselves unless we have some sort of scientific credentials in the area.)</font></b></dir>

[Zarkov]

Hi DDLR :)

Good insights you have there...

I am curious about your references to

"the frequency of gravity" and yet you infer gravity is due to mass, and yet you imply mass can increase.....

And you imply electromagnetic fields are pivotal to certain atmospheric reactions...

Now in any 'current' (electric pun here) theory all these thoughts seem incongruous,,,, however in my analysis you talk sense man!!!!!

Would you like to explain your concept of gravity ?

[Edufer]

DDLR said: “In the return of Ozone or its reformation, the return to the stellar intersection of the sun and Aplha Cent.”

This is difficult to understand for me. What is the intersection of the Sun and Alpha Centauri? How do you measure it? How you determine it, in the first place?

Then: ”allow a higher external induction redistributing vacuum barriers making ozone formable.”

Which are the mechanisms that dissociate oxygen and later form ozone? What forces act on the oxygen molecule? Are they electric fields, magnetic fields, or photons?

Later: “Ozone is formable in the altitude of the ozone layer because electrons are able to accelerate in their orbits of the atoms,…”

What causes the acceleration of electrons? I guess you are meaning electrons in oxygen atoms. Is that correct? Of course you know about the principle called inertia. The tendency of a body to conserve whatever state it is in. If the body (in this case, electrons) are orbiting around the nucleus, what force makes them accelerate their orbiting? I assume you know that if electrons escape from its orbit, then a substantial change happens in that atom. This phenomenon is observed (well, presumed by physicists) when a photon strikes a molecule with not enough energy to split its constitutive atoms, and leaves the molecule in an excited state. In this case the electrons have changed their position in the orbit and set the molecule in a higher quantum energy state. When the exciting finally is reduced, the electron jumps again to its original orbit, and this passing from one quantum energy level to a lower one produces the emission of a photon.

This is what orthodox and traditional physics have determined after a long journey down mankind‘s history. It seems to be a right theory because all technologies based on such principle really work. Experience and common sense tell us it works. Now is there another theory that can prove this to be flawed? What kind of energy or field provides the intersection of the Sun with Alpha Centauri?

And finally: “this accleration occurrrs because vaccum barriers are smaller than the electron. Ozone can not form when the vaccum barriers have become large enough to slow down the excited/acclerated electrons.”

It seems to me that vacuum barriers that are smaller than electrons are close to be non existent entities. What is, in your opinion, the cause of formation of these vacuum barriers? And again, what have caused the excited/accelerated electrons? This is quite confusing for me, perhaps in the same way quantum physics would seem confusing to a 10 year old kid. Perhaps you are not explaining yourself in a clear and more complete manner.

[Zarkov]

Thanks DDLR :)

I am with Newton.... mechanics that is... as far as a mode of action called "attraction", philosophically this can not exist... all action is a PUSH

So yes mass induces an electrodynamic field...magnetic-electric... crossed vectors.

Massive mass via superposition has a Poynting vector attached that is a crossed spin field where by any non inertial motion will attact a resulting orthogonal force trying to return back to inertia.

Inertia is motion in accordance with the Poynting vector cross product.
ie all orbital motion is inertial.

So in my view yes gravity has a frequency, and mass is unknown because inertial mass is weightless (???what is mass????), so mass can only be assumed as

Gcentral spin (constant) = Mass X Gnewton. where Gnewton is the amount of electric-magnetic energy per defined hunk of geomagnetic matter.

so mass can vary depending upon its alignment with the inertial state... ie Mercury because its orbit is distorted gains and loses "apparent mass" thus the gravity felt on the planet would rise to twice its minimum value....... and fall again in one complete orbit around the Sun.

Good to see you are considering electrodynamic interactions.....
:)

[Mr. Chips]

Can you show me a quote where Dobson refers to an "ozone hole?"

You complain that the critique of Chrichton is not done by an expert on climatology. Is Chrichton an expert on climatology?

So far, all of the polls I find of scientists and lay people alike, appear to show that a majority believe in global warming (search for "global warming poll" with google). You state otherwise.

You can not use real criticism of my character and must use the crass and infantile "nitwit?" INFANTILE. Unlike yourself this is a real criticism I level upon you. Somehow, your evolution has incorporated an inability to reason and a need to resort to a "fight or flight" approach, leaving your cognitive abilities behind, pitiful petty little dictator.

Yes, I find you to be stark raving mad, Edufer, unable to consider any data that is in opposition to your beloved theory.

Tell me something, is your belief that the ozone hole does not exist your opinion or a fact?

[Zarkov]

Hi DDLR

mmmh, I see your logic, and certaily I agree with the process, though I would use different words.... :)

The same effect has been noted in the atmosphere of Mercury, where certain positive ions periodically increase and decrease in concentration, following the enhanced geomagnetic field.... as evidenced by the intensity of the electromagnetic Sun/Mercury bow wave waxing and waning...

You conclude that the shift in size of effective field is among other factors, also dependent upon Alpha Centauri ? I have not determined the parameters of cosmic bodies outside the Solar System ( only because I lack the data) so I can not comment upon you theory.

[Roman]

I find the concept of a global warming hoax intriguing. I'm disappointed that Mr. Chips and Edufer must snipe, each blabbing about ad hominom. Please stop, both of you. No one cares who started it, so don't mention anymore of it.

It's curious that there is so little ozone, and most UV is blocked by O2 and Nitrogen. However, doesn't ozone block a specific frequency? I think ozone has a use in the biological sense. Your opinion is that ozone are the "sparks" of a reaction, and the sparks are useless to whoever is sanding the brass or whatever. However, the ATPs and cell metabolism reuse their "sparks," so waste products are necessary for processes to repeat. I suppose what I am saying is: why goof things up when we don't have to?

Are there any statistics on the gross tonnage of human produced chlorine vs. naturally produced chlorine in 1985?

I'm almost a skeptic of the ozone hole theory, however I need a little more convincing, or at least some explaining.

Cancer rates HAVE been increasing for this entire century. Cancer is demonstratably environmental. If the sun is not contributing to an increase in melonama rates, what is?

I know global warming is occuring, but I am unsure of who's causing it. I live in Alaska, and so I am witnessing shit get warm, fast. Glaciers are melting, permafrost is thawing, moose have been sighted above the arctic circle, trees are growing where they have never grown. The summers are much hotter and drier, the rains are bigger. Climate change is strong and appearant here.

You say that earth is robust; yet we trash a lot of it. There's a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico the size of New Jersey. Nothing can breathe in it because of algeal blooms caused by fertilizer run off. That's a lot of habitat destroyed. Humans have driven multiple species extinct- our capability at destorying our own biosphere is frequently demonstrated.

It's 3:30 in the AM. I'm done for now, but this thread has piqued my curiosity.

[Andre]

Well

I live in Alaska, and so I am witnessing shit get warm, fast. Glaciers are melting, permafrost is thawing,

Some people are a bit skeptic about all that warming:
http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/PrimeTimeAlaska-McKitrick.html

Glaciers are growing as well:
http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/fs/fs-001-03/

Beware of the chicken little spiral talk.

[Mr. Chips]

Here is a 2002 report on the concentrations of natural verses man-made ozone depleting substances http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/volcano.html

Did you see that recent Scientific American documentary "Hot Times in Alaska?"

[Roman]

Andre, I'd like to point out that there are 8 glaciers growing in Alaska. I have traversed more glaciers in a 100 mile radius than that. Alaska has 1000's of glaciers. These eight seem to be an exception; not the rule.

Also note that the largest recorded glacial lake outbursts occur closer to 2000 and not 1900, though I would say that that conclusion is based on a very incomplete data set and thus somewhat misleading.

I like the less clothes more exposure explanation for an increase in skin cancer rates, if ozone does not actually do anything.

[Edufer]

OK, I'll drop your nickname Mr. Nitwit and return to it original synonym, Mr. Chips. You asked: “Can you show me a quote where Dobson refers to an "ozone hole?"”

Of course not. The term “hole” was coined by the media after the BAS announced the “discovery” of huge amount s of ozone in Antarctica's stratosphere. What Dobson described quite clearly was the phenomenon that he called “the Southern Anomaly”. It is written down in all his studies made when working in the British Antarctic Survey, giving the exact values of ozone for different months. You should note that Dobson didn't go to Antarctica, but his team sent him the data and he analyzed it in London. Read Dobson book (“Exploring the Atmosphere”, Oxford University Press, 1968) and in chapter 6, Section 4: Distribution of ozone Over the World at Different Seasons, point A, he states the following:<dir><font color=#0000cc><b>”… Unfortunately observations have not yet been made at enough places in the Southern Hemisphere to allow a similar diagram to be drawn accurately for the hemisphere, though observations near the South Pole show a most interesting abnormally in that region.”</b></font></dir>In march 1988, Dobson wrote an article (<i>"40 years' Research on Atmospheric Ozone at Oxford: A History”</i>), published in <i>Applied Optics</i> magazine, where he describes how the anomaly came to light:<dir><font color=#0000cc><b>”One of the most interesting results on atmospheric ozone which came out of the IGY was the discovery of the peculiar annual variations of ozone at Halley bay. This particular ozone instrument [was sent] to Shotover [laboratory] to be checked up immediately before leaving England. Moreover, Evans, who took the original observations at Halley Bay had also been to Shotover to become familiar with the working of the instrument and its maintenance. The annual variations of ozone at Spitzbergen [near the North Pole] were fairly well known at that time, so, assuming a six months difference, we knew what to expect.”

“However, when the monthly telegrams from Halley Bay began to arrive and were plotted alongside the Spitzbergen curve, the values for September and October 1956 were about 150 [dobson] units lower than was expected. We naturally thought that Evans had made some large mistake, or that, in spite of checking just before leaving England, the instrument had developed some fault. In November the ozone values suddenly jumped to those expected from the Spitzbergen results.”

“It was not until a year later, when the same type of annual variation was repeated, that we realized that the early results were indeed correct and the Halley Bay showed most interesting difference from other parts of the world. It was clear that the winter vortex over the South Pole was maintained late into the spring and that this kept the ozone values low. When it suddenly broke up in November both the ozone values and the stratospheric temperatures suddenly rose. (page 403).</b></font></dir>Dobson never spoke of any <b>HOLE</B>, as the word "hole" came into use after 1985, but he described ozone values <font color=#ff0000><b>150 units lower</b></font> than Spitzbergen values for that date of the spring (switched six months). “Normal” reduction values at Spitzbergen for the lowest reduction in ozone values were <b>290 DU, so 150 units less are <font color=#ff0000>140 Dobson Units</font></b> – values that rarely have been recorded since then. Nor even when the British Antarctic Survey “discovered” the hole in 1985!

Want more? In 1990, two French scientists, P. Rigaud and B. Leroy, republished the 1948 data from the French Antarctic station Dumont D'Urville, located on the opposite side of the south pole, a few hundred miles from Halley Bay. These measurements show that <font color=#0000cc><b>the ozone “hole” was deeper in 1958 than at any time in the 1980s,</b></font> but that it disappeared immediately after the breakdown of the 1958 vortex.

The Rigaud-Leroy paper, which appeared in the November 1990 issue of Annales Geophysicae, reports on the scientists' search through old ozone records from the French Antarctic Observatory going back to 1958. Rigaud and Leroy discovered that the ozone values took a precipitous decline at the beginning of the austral spring, August and September, and reached values of as low as 110 Dobson units – the lowest values ever recorded in Antarctica! These data were recorded and published in the scientific literature in the 1960s, and has been a recorded fact since then.

According to Rigaud and Leroy:<dir><font color=#0000cc><b>“…reexamination of the Dumont D'Urville data shows that a strong minimum of the ozone content has been observed that year in the austral springtime. This suggests a natural phenomenon to explain the Antarctic 'ozone hole' [page 791]. According to the scientists, the 'ozone hole' appears in September and the beginning of October 1958, but then there is a “spectacular recovery of the ozone concentration between October 8 and 21. The polar vortex breakdown in 1958 occurred ” between October 5 and 20”, they report (page 793).</b></font></dir>What could explain this dramatic drop to 110 DU recorded at the Dumont D'Urville station while at Halley bay the readings were around 250 DU? Rigaud and Leroy wrote: <dir><b><font color=#0080c0>”The center of the polar vortex was near Dumont D'Urville at the end of winter [1958] and far from Halley Bay. The situation wis the opposite of the one observed in the recent years. Since the 'ozone hole' is observed inside the polar vortex, this could explain why this phenomenon was undetected in 1958 at Halley bay</font></b> [page 793].</dir> In other words, the polar vortex was in a completely different location in 1958 from where it is today. The French data show that although the values of ozone were not that low at Halley Bay, in another part of the polar vortex, even farther from the pole, the values of ozone dropped very low to values as low as those being recorded today – and even lower. Must I remind the readers that these events happened 56 years ago? When CFC were barely being used?

Rigaud and Leroy conclude saying: <font color=#0000cc><b>“Although chlorofluorocarbons production was already increasing in 1958, its abundance was far from the concentration today. Therefore, the existence of an Antarctic ozone depletion above Dumont D'Urville in September 1958, suggests that natural phenomena such as volcanic eruptions also contribute to ozone destruction.”</b></font> [pp. 793-794]

I guess your question has been throughly answered with luxury of details and appropriate references. Check them. This is no “obfuscation”, Chippy dear, simply hard historic facts.

[Edufer]

Roman: “Are there any statistics on the gross tonnage of human produced chlorine vs. naturally produced chlorine in 1985?”

Yes. According to many sources (there is somewhat of a consensus on this, but consensus is not science, so take it at your own risk):

Oceans: 600 million tons
Volcanoes: 36 million
Biomass burning: 8.4 million
Ocean biota: 6.0 million
Total natural Sources: 649.4 million tonnes

Chlorine contained in total annual production of CFC (1987): 0.75 million (750.000 tons)
Chlorine theoretically released by the alleged breaking of CFC: 0.0075 million (7.500 tons)

[Edufer]

Roman: “Cancer rates HAVE been increasing for this entire century. Cancer is demonstratably environmental. If the sun is not contributing to an increase in melonama rates, what is?”

“Paperwork” is the answer. Actually, contrary to that popular belief and according to statistics from the American Cancer Society, and many other institutions in the world, cancer RATES have been decreasing for the last 40 years or more. After the ozone scare issue freaked out people, there was a great “screening” for melanoma cases, and this intense paperwork detected many cases that had been unnoticed, so this detection of not then recorded cases was been taken as an increase in RATES, instead of “cases”. Besides, as more people is living longer, there is more people that are reaching an age where cancer is more probable. But with the exception of ling cancer (caused by excessive smoking) cancer “rates” have decreased notoriously.

Moreover, if there is one thing that dermatologists agree on is that melanoma is <b>NOT connected to UV radiation.</b> Other nonmalignant skin cancer (as squamous cell, and basal cell tumors) are related to <b>an excessive exposure to UV-A radiation, not UV-B</B>. UV-A is a more penetrating radiation that goes deeper inside the skin, while UV-B is less penetrating, being absorbed in the upper part of the epidermis.

Melanomas are cancer of the melanocites, <b>deep inside the dermis</b>, where there is less chance for UV-B to reach. And experiments have failed to prove a connection between UV-B and melanoma occurrence.

And cancer <b>is not demonstrably environmental in the least.</b> Cancer is more related to genetic predisposition than exposure to environmental substances or radiation. You should read what Dr. Bruce Ames says about carcinogenic substances in the environment. It is in a paper for proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences, (http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/AmesSynth.html) Nature’s Chemicals and Synthetic Chemicals: Comparative Toxicology (carcinogens / mutagens / teratogens / clastogens / dioxin). You’d be amazed to know all the things you were not aware off!

[Edufer]

Roman "I know global warming is occuring, but I am unsure of who's causing it. I live in Alaska, and so I am witnessing shit get warm, fast."

I guess you are not living at Cold Bay, where temperature has decreased 0,6º C in just 23 years, according to NOAA and GISS temperature data.

<center><img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/chart/coldbay3.gif"></center>

Or not in Cordova, Alaska, where it went down -1.3º C from 1910 to 2000.

<center><img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/chart/cordova3.gif"></center>

<b>Source:</b> GISS database at. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/station_data/

[Mr. Chips]

I find a lot on the web that questions the motives of the research and advice given by the ACS. Appears that the study that was done by the ACS on cancer rates and deaths (early this month) only covered the United States and only found the decreased rates amongst whites and actually reported higher incidence and death rates among minorities. Which other institutions say what?

Edufer: "You’d be amazed to know all the things you were not aware off!"

Edufer, please, Bruce Ames is providing his opinion. It would not be correct to assume he has a monopoly on what is to be known especially since many researchers do not agree. I must admit, when you first pointed this out to me in another thread, I sure did find it amazing that he should be going against the grain to such an extreme extent.

I just went over to PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ and entered "skin cancer UV" in the search field. Appears there are a number of studies, recent and old, that find direct relation between exposure and melanoma using direct studies on animals, not petri dishes of microorganisms as is the Ames test.

[Edufer]

Mr. Chips: <b>“Yes, I find you to be stark raving mad, Edufer, unable to consider any data that is in opposition to your beloved theory.”</b>

And what about you? You have such a tunnel vision, that have acknowledged you won’t ever read articles I have written and published in some websites (in our site or in another ones).

Mr. Chips: <b>Tell me something, is your belief that the ozone hole does not exist your opinion or a </b>fact?

Not my belief, but <b>a scientific fact</b> that there is <b>no ozone hole</b>. There is just a decrease in ozone levels during September and part of October each year, in altitudes between 16 and 25 km.

If variances of known chemicals in the atmosphere is enough to declare a “hole”, then in Antarctica there are a “NOx hole”, a “Freon-11 hole” (as shown by Crista-Spas satellite), and a “water vapor hole”. We should do something about these holes. See it:

<center><img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images-6/vortex-1.jpg" width=500></center>

[Edufer]

Mr. Chips: "Appears there are a number of studies, recent and old, that find direct relation between exposure and melanoma using direct studies on animals,"

Good. Could you point to me some of them? I would like to analyze them at our University in Córdoba. Then we'll see the value of such "direct relations".

[Mr. Chips]

Heck, go do some searching. I don't know how many times I have wondered why someone posts a question in a forum before going and doing some searching because you can find much to begin to formulate an answer. Some cancer rates for some people have decreased. Some cancer rates for some people have increased. Breast cancer rates appear to be increasing. The less clothes idea seems to make sense to me but I don't entirely discount the possibility of more cancers due to less ozone.

It is interesting that the ACS found that incidence of lung cancer decreased amongst women when in fact their own studies show that past rapid increase of the rates have leveled off. I guess one could call that a decrease but seems kind of misleading to me if the incidence is actually the same as previous sample studies rather than less.

[Mr. Chips]

I just told you how to find them. Only the abstracts are available via PubMed but you could try their full text retrieval at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pmc and of course once you got a researcher's name and study title you should be able to find more in depth data via a google search. Oh, lets see, I entered "skin cancer uv" at PubMed Central, the second link above and got 114 leads. Many of these appear to be reports of direct animal and plant tissue exposure to the forms of UV. I don't seem to see any that tend to support your idea that this radiation does not induce cancer, if I understand you correctly.

[Mr. Chips]

Edufer: "Not my belief, but a scientific fact that there is no ozone hole."

If a fact is disputed by people and organizations that claim a nonbiased and scientific standing, does that make it possible that the fact may actually be a strongly held opinion? Sure some organizations are deeply biased but, if most do not agree, shouldn't one have some wonder as to why they disagree with majority opinion? Technically, I find good science to incorporate the general understanding of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and actually be presented as opinions of varying confidence factors. When confidence factors are high, we generally agree to call them facts which is why humanity has had to learn things anew from time to time as mistakes have been made. We're human, sometimes our supposed facts, from what we know and are capable of knowing, are found out later to be no more than strong opinions that were held in error. This does, has and is happening. Do you entirely deny any possibility that you are mistaken with this idea that there be no ozone hole?

Anybody out there, go do your own searching. Do not depend entirely on the third or even more removed citations (and lack of citations) you come across in a public forum. These forums often cater to those who spin, who have an agenda. The most vociferous is not always or maybe even rarely the presentation of the most salient.

[Roman]

Cancer's complicated. I discussed this issue at length today, and there are lot of factors. Carcinogens have been demonstrated to cause cancer, as has UV, radiation, viruses, stress, the age at which one becomes pregnant as well as age and exposure to these environemental sources and genetic preponderance to cancer.

The number of sicknesses described as cancer have been increasing, so in the next generation, cancer rates should level off, correct?

There are localized changes in temprature, certainly. Perhaps the same explanation explains the melting above the Arctic circle. Weather prediction, in any kind of absolute sense, is inherently flawed. It is much too chaotic predict a weather pattern for any specific place. A few examples of glaciers growing, or Cold Bay getting colder does not disprove global climate change.

Village elders north of the Arctic circle, as well as in the interior, are saying that winter is not winter anymore; they're too mild. The polar icecap is also melting– boats can safely traverse it early and later in the year. The US Navy believes that if current trends continue, a northern navy patrol may be required to protect America from Communism. Or whatever the terrorists want to throw at us. I'll try to find the article that addressed this issue.

Some permafrost isn't permanent anymore in the entire Arctic circle, including Russia and Scandavia.

The number of bugs have also increased in northern places, due to earlier, wetter summers. In Finland this week mosquitos reached such great numbers that people thoght it was smoke from a fire.

Denying climate change is foolish. There are too many indicators that it is occuring. I'm just wondering if it is happening at a very quick rate, fast enough to be concerned about. We are due for a mass extinction. Only time will tell.

[Edufer]

Mr. Chips: <b>“Appears there are a number of studies, recent and old, that find direct relation between exposure and melanoma using direct studies on animals, not petri dishes of microorganisms as is the Ames test.”</b>

I've wasted more than two hours searching in PubMed (under “skin cancer UV” keywords as you suggested) for the “direct relation” between exposure and melanoma. The overwhelming majority of studies related to melanomas didn't mention UV, but genetic factors, chemical, etc. but I found this study that sheds some light onto the subject:<dir><b>Animal models of melanoma: an HGF/SF transgenic mouse model may facilitate experimental access to UV initiating events.</b>

Noonan FP, Dudek J, Merlino G, De Fabo EC.

Laboratory of Photobiology and Photoimmunology, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Public Health and Health Services, The George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA. drmfpn@gwumc.edu

Cutaneous malignant melanoma, the most lethal of the skin cancers, known for its intractability to current therapies, continues to increase in incidence, providing a significant public health challenge. There is a consensus that skin cancer is initiated by sunlight exposure. For non-melanoma skin cancer there is substantial evidence that chronic exposure to the ultraviolet B radiation (UVB) (280-320 nm) portion of the sunlight spectrum is responsible. Experimentally, UVB is mutagenic and chronic UVB exposure can cause non-melanoma skin cancer in laboratory animals. Non-melanoma tumors in animals and in humans show characteristic UVB signature lesions in the tumor suppressor p53 and/or in the patched (PTCH) gene. An action spectrum or wavelength dependence for squamous cell carcinoma in the mouse shows a major peak of efficacy in the UVB. <b>For malignant melanoma, however, the situation is unclear and the critical direct target(s) of sunlight in initiating melanoma and even the wavelengths responsible are as yet unidentified.</b> This lack of information is in major part a result of a paucity of animal models for melanoma which recapitulate the role of sunlight in initiating this disease. The epidemiology of melanoma differs significantly from non-melanoma skin cancer. Intense sporadic sunlight exposure in childhood, probably exacerbated by additional adult exposure, <b>is associated</b> with elevated melanoma risk. Melanoma is also a disease of <b>gene-environment interactions with underlying genetic factors playing a significant role.</b> These major differences indicate that <b>extrapolation from information for non-melanoma skin cancer to melanoma is unlikely to be useful.</b></dir>
Then, an example of studies found in PubMed:<dir>Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2004 Mar 15;195(3):298-308.
<b>Toxic effects of ultraviolet radiation on the skin.</b>

Matsumura Y, Ananthaswamy HN.

Department of Dermatology, Kansai Medical University, Osaka 570-8507, Japan. matsumy@takii.kmu.ac.jp

Ultraviolet (UV) irradiation present in sunlight is an environmental human carcinogen. The toxic effects of UV from natural sunlight and therapeutic artificial lamps are a major concern for human health. The major acute effects of UV irradiation on normal human skin comprise sunburn inflammation (erythema), tanning, and local or systemic immunosuppression. At the molecular level, UV irradiation causes DNA damage such as cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers and (6-4) photoproducts, which are usually repaired by nucleotide excision repair (NER). Chronic exposure to UV irradiation leads to photoaging, immunosuppression, and ultimately photocarcinogenesis. Photocarcinogenesis involves the accumulation of genetic changes, as well as immune system modulation, and ultimately leads to the development of skin cancers. In the clinic, artificial lamps emitting UVB (280-320 nm) and UVA (320-400 nm) radiation in combination with chemical drugs are used in the therapy of many skin diseases including psoriasis and vitiligo. Although such therapy is beneficial, it is accompanied with undesirable side effects. Thus, UV radiation is like two sides of the same coin--on one side, it has detrimental effects, and on the other side, it has beneficial effects.</dir>
Where you can see “melanoma” is not mentioned as a result of UV radiation exposure.

The next study (below) talked about melanoma and RR (risk ratios), but as you see there are too many uncertainties and no direct relationship. As this no epidemiological study, it has not too much validity because it has not “screened out” all factors that could induce melanomas. BTW, dermatologists don't have very clear what might induce melanomas. They keep searching, but no definitive study has yet established a recognized factor. What puzzle researchers is that melanoma frequently occur in places that have ever been exposed to any kind of radiation (UV, or X-rays, or whatever), as in the soles of our feet, inside the mouth, armpits, or buttocks.<dir><b>Cutaneous melanoma: hints from occupational risks by anatomic site in Swedish men.</b>

Perez-Gomez B, Pollan M, Gustavsson P, Plato N, Aragones N, Lopez-Abente G.

Cancer and Environmental Epidemiology Area, National Centre for Epidemiology, Carlos III Institute of Health, Madrid, Spain. bperez@isciii.es

AIMS: To improve knowledge of the epidemiology of melanoma by comparing occupational risks of cutaneous melanoma (CM) by anatomic site in Swedish workers. … For each location, occupational risk ratios (RRs) were extracted from Poisson regression models adjusted by age, period, town size, and geographical area. … Risk patterns for different locations were compared. <b>RESULTS:</b> High RRs for different sites were found among workers exposed to UV sources (dentists, physiotherapists, and lithographers), and sun exposed workers (harbour masters, and lighthouse/related work). Risk excesses were seen in fur tailors, tanners/fur dressers, patternmakers/cutters, electrical fitters/wiremen, telephone/telegraph installers/repairmen, and some glass/pottery/tile workers. Results for lower and upper limbs were significantly correlated but somewhat independent of those <b>found in thorax, the most frequent location</b> … Specific risk excesses were found for rolling mill workers in head/neck, for chimney sweeps in upper limbs, and <b>for aircraft pilots/navigators/flight engineers in lower limbs.

CONCLUSIONS:</b> High RRs in the trunk among occupations with UV exposure from <b>artificial sources <font color=#ff0000>suggest</font> an effect not restricted to exposed sites</b>. An unusual distribution of cases and RRs in chimney sweeps, rolling-mill, or glass/pottery/tile workers <font color=#ff0000><b>suggests</b></font> local effects of exposures.</dir>To "suggest" is prove of nothing. To "associate" is to prove nothing.

And then there is this strange study that goes “against the grain”: it finds UV is beneficial!

<b>A moderately low phosphate intake may provide health benefits analogous to those conferred by UV light - a further advantage of vegan diets.</b>

McCarty MF.

Pantox Laboratories, San Diego, CA 92109, USA. mccarty@pantox.com

Although exposure to ultraviolet light is often viewed as pathogenic owing to its role in the genesis of skin cancer and skin aging, there is growing epidemiological evidence that such exposure may decrease risk for a number of more serious cancers, may have a favorable impact on blood pressure and vascular health, and may help to prevent certain autoimmune disorders - in addition to its well-known influence on bone density. Most likely, these health benefits are reflective of improved vitamin D status. Increased synthesis or intake of vitamin D can be expected to down-regulate parathyroid hormone (PTH), and to increase autocrine synthesis of its active metabolite calcitriol in certain tissues; these effects, in turn, may impact cancer risk, vascular health, immune regulation, and bone density through a variety of mechanisms. Presumably, a truly adequate supplemental intake of vitamin D - manyfold higher than the grossly inadequate current RDA - could replicate the benefits of optimal UV exposure, without however damaging the skin.</dir
<b>Conclusion: There is no consensus at all over the genesis of melanoma.</b> Some people try to link melanomas with UV, some others say there is no evidence for that claim. We'll have to wait until definitive solid evidence proves that UV radiation is to blame for melanoma – or not.

Now you make some research and find those studies that prove without doubt that UV radiation is DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for melanomas. Do your homework!

[Edufer]

Mr. Chips: "Do you entirely deny any possibility that you are mistaken with this idea that there be no ozone hole?"

I do. As dozens of thousands of serious scientists do. <b>No hole</b>. there is not an homogenoeus atmosphere, so there are no holes. There are millions of minuscule and tiny "holes" (another way of describing a <b>"reduction in concentrations"</b>) at different heights, and different latitudes and longitudes, all over Earth's atmosphere. If you cannot get that scientific fact into your head, then there is no hope to keep this discussion going.

[Mr. Chips]

I do not come to the same conclusion concerning the reports you posted, copying the abstracts here as well as other reports there. To make it a bit more obvious, I narrowed the search at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pmc to "melanoma uv" with 120 results. Appears that the large majority of those recent research reports more specifically deny the validity of your contention that uv exposure does not induce melanoma cancer.

I don't think that any amount of evidence can dissuade you as you deny the possibility of human fallibility on your part concerning whether or not the ozone hole(s as one is now found to form over the Arctic starting only recently) exists. Your stance appears as the unilateral and unequivocal position of a zealot where no amount of counter evidence, whether major opinion or not, can be valid as you already know the "fact."

I see that PubMed does not put any copyright of their own on the materials they present but do state that such rights belong to the authors and publishers who have submitted the material to them. I believe it is quite possible you have not contacted these parties concerning reproducing the content entire of the abstracts. Maybe if they are contacted, they will comply but this approach does not speak well of your desire to adhere to sound communication protocol to the extent that copyright laws may be transgressed by yourself. This is alarming as your posts contain many pictures and quotes. You also have a web site that presents whole treatises and abstracts complete. I see very little notice or statements associated with those reports concerning their copyrights. Does being in Argentina exempt you from these copyrights? I think sciforums is taking a risk, giving you free reign here.

I believe why you post so much other information rather than refer to in in your own words and provide citation so others can go see them for themselves without any possibility of copyright infringement is because your ploy, in lieu of what you believe to be the facts, is to obfuscate, to fill up the thread with so much time and distance between and among posts it becomes more difficult and taxing, especially for those who are into sound information handling policy, keeping posts brief and to the point because they have a life to live, other projects that mean something to them. This venue is where you can thrive, Edufer, a public forum that due to shear volume alone can not effectively demand adherence to common courtesy and sound communication protocol to the extent of allowing possible copyright infringements. Only in such an anarchy can you possibly go on and on with the clouding of issues and the selective continual rehashing of the garbage you pass off as science.

[Edufer]

Ten Seconds Response: <b>Yeah, sure, whatever.</b>

Thirty Seconds Response: We are a no-profit foundation – do no make money with our activity – we are against <b>“copyright science”</b>, as we think science belongs to mankind. If someone feels we are infringing their rights, they can sue me for the amount they want.

Most studies published in our website were sent by the scientists themselves, with permission for publishing. Other websites have granted us permission for reprinting their material – but the quotes from “green websites” don’t have permission - <b>as if we cared for such a thing</b>. They haven’t asked my permission for representing me, or my family, or my people, for “saving the planet”, banning useful chemicals, or killing millions of poor people in the Third World, or stopping development in my country and keeping our people in poverty.

I thought you greens were against GMO corporations because they have patents and copyrights on their research. You burn and destroy their crop fields, their labs, attack researchers and their families – but are worried because I do not mention “copyrights”. I have seen hypocrites, but you really beat the mark in the Guinness book, Chippy dear.

There are many studies linking UV to melanoma, but there are much more studies that have not found that correlation. As I said before: <font color=#ff0000><b>“linking, suggesting, associating, pointing to, etc”</b></font> does not mean <font color=#ff0000><b>“prove, evidence, definite relation”</b></font>. Think whatever you want, but I can see that insisting on your position is being more antiscientific than I could ever be.

Remember Voltaire’s saying: <font color=#ff0000><b>“Ignorance affirms or denies wholeheartedly. Science doubts.”</b></font>

And, as Kurt Vonnegut used to say <font color=#0000cc><b>“Go and take a flying f… to the moon!”</b></font>

You bored me, Chippy dear.

[Tristan]

Will you guys ever stop? Mr.Chips, it seems to me that he is posting exactly who wrote the ariticle's and where to even find them. Its a part of the reports. Not to mention, the fricken authors wouldnt have PUBLISHED their material if they didnt want other people reading and using it in their research and arguments.

Furthermore, you again, have written 3 paragraphs explaining what could be said in one sentence. Now that is your choice, but seriously, you attack Edufer and not his material.

Edufer, quit going down to his level. It seems he antagonizes you and you lash back as expected.

Furthermore, practically every school child knows Ultraviolet radition is a mutagen. It CAN cause mutations. If you dont think this is true, then go lay in a tanning bed for 2 hours at lets use you a guinea pig. I guarantee you will end up with skin cancer sometime in your life as a result of the extreme burn recieved.

[Edufer]

Thanks, Tristan for your advice. About UV being a mutagen that’s Ok, No one denies UV radiation produces skin tumors in animals, called basal cell and squamous cell tumors. These tumors are benign, although squamous can develop into malignant if not taken care off. But melanoma is malignant right from the onset. If there is a relation between UV-B, UV-A exposure and melanoma, dermatologists have not yet found it, nor the etiology of melanoma. They simply don’t know the mechanism by which melanocytes start multiplying out of control.

As I pointed out before, melanomas appears in areas of the body that are no usually exposed to the Sun or UV rays (if of artificial origin), as buttocks, soles of the feet, interior of the mouth, armpits, etc.

Furthermore, people with dark skin (lots of melanin) are protected from UV radiation - am I right? That’s why basal and squamous cell tumors are rarely found in dark skinned people. But melanoma is <b>as frequent in dark skinned people as it is in fair skinned</b> – suggesting UV radiation is not the cause of the melanoma, because melanin would have protected the skin and prevented the formation of the melanoma. This is common knowledge in the field, so I don’t see why all the fuss because I said UV relation with melanoma has not been yet proved.

[Mr. Chips]

At the PubMed Central site I see numerous studies that claim elucidation of the exact mechanism by which melanoma can and does result from UV exposure. The mechanism, BTW, appears to explain why some 50% occur where the skin is not normally exposed to the sun because the precursor substances are metabolites that can and do migrate to other places in the body. On the web in general I come accross analysis of melanoma cases stating that fair haired people are more at risk than darker skinned people. I'm listening to a NPR recorded broadcast on the subject and the researcher states that a early history of inordinate sun exposure is strongly related "statistically significant" with melanoma cases. She claims that the incidence among colored people is fifteen times less than the incidence among fair skinned people. Sure there is genetic predispostion but genes do not appear to be the cause but only a mediating factor.

Except for PubMed above I think I'll just refrain from posting the links to this other data. Go do your own searching. The very few people looking at this thread and the impossibility of getting Edufer to consider anything that challenges his claims makes the effort pretty worthless.

I will continue to follow my set of standards to avoid copyright infringement publically. That is my choice. It does not mean I agree or disagree with the general policy of copyrights only that it is so easy to get around them by judicious use of links that I consider it simple enough to play it safe.

[Mr. Chips]

Dwayne, until you can share some relatively irrefutable evidence that the gravity of other stars and star systems is a major factor of ozone concentrations, I find it quite hard to believe. I also suspect that the gravity influences of solar system objects has little real time effect. Gravity's effects are geometrically less over arithmetic distances. The closeness of our Earth, moon and our local star, quite overwhelm other sources. I do believe that science has come to some rather detailed means for analyzing the ozone layer and figuring out what is happening there. We already have a pretty good idea of how it is depleted. We are learning more fast as it is research that is getting much support due to its recognized importance.

I find it possible that ozone concentrations near the surface of the earth are quite different from those at the stratospheric ozone level, as well as less homogenous.

Can you please explain more of what you mean by "vacuum barriers?"

Hmmm, radionuclides from nuclear tests depleted ozone, have to see if I can corraborate that. Got any references you can suggest?

Did I miss something? What do you feel is leading to a gravity increase? Maybe accumulation from meteors? Is this a significant amount? What would be the source of such gravity increase? What kind of percentage increase over the fields in which we now live?

Magnetic pole reversal might well be something humanity will need to address relatively soon as far as I can tell though the data I see talks about perhaps in a thousand years but I haven't really sought too much and if you could provide some references that would be great.

That ole saying "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" is pretty wise in my eyes. You are making claims here that are hard to swallow without some replete references to hard core observations and experimentation. You also share some things that I find valid from my own understanding and consider your general stance concerning ozone depleting substances as reasonable.

[Andre]

perhaps it helps to mention that DDLR lives in a parrallel universe. Ocasionally it meets with ours, then the result is these type of discussions.

[roctex4]

Edufer, I want to thank you for confirming what I had suspected for a long time about CFC's and there relation to ozone depletion. I am currently studying to get EPA (puke) certified for class 1,2&3 refrigerants. What a racket. $150.00 US.And they locked up us Italians for a lot less.

On the positive side,I am greatful to learn what the test has to offer however as it is teaching me a lot about azeotropes, isomers, fractionation etc. It's always cool to get stretched in areas of the unknown. The cool part is I think I'm actually getting it!!!!

Please continue to write in detail, and let no comments about the length of your input stop you. I'm greatful you took the time to explain it!!!!

[Orleander]

If the ozone hole gets smaller, could that increase the green house effect? Could the smaller hole warm up the polar region?

[Montec]

Hello all

There is also "polar wind" in the equation when considering ozone holes at the poles.

:)