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.
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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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> 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> 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>.
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.
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.
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! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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.
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>
Hi DDLR Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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 ?
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.
Thanks DDLR Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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..... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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?
Hi DDLR mmmh, I see your logic, and certaily I agree with the process, though I would use different words.... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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.
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.
Well 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.
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?"
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.
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.
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)
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!
