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.
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
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.
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">"the ozone layer over southern Norway was thinner in the period between 1940 to 1946 than it is today."</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>"[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."</font></b></dir> Henriksen concludes:</font></font></p><dir> <p><font face="verdana" size="2" color="#006699"> <B>"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."</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, "Ozone Layer and Ultraviolet Radiation", 1994.</font></b></blockquote></blockquote> </font> And they say the hole in Antarctica was "discovered" in 1985! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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.
>> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
"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?
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?
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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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.
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.
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?
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.
