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.
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. 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.
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.
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?
Why? Because it is a basic fact in chemistry, that's why. Where did I contradict myself saying oxygen is a weak molecule?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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. 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>
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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
