An inconvenient truth

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center has just put up a new web site which shows the current SST over the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic coast. It should be interesting for you guys living on the East Coast.

Thank you.

[xoxoxoBruce]

tw, your a lying motherfucker, saying I said things I never said, stating positions I never took, and putting me in groups I don't agree with.
It's obvious you don't know jack shit and are just mimicking the sky is falling predictions from your precious magazines. This has nothing to do with Bush, Bin Laden, Iraq, Viet Nam, North Korea or Rush Limbaugh.
I posted Lindzen's speech because he was cited in the original article. I never said I agreed with him or the original article, only that I couldn't find the flaw.
I tried learned the facts and posted them, whereas all you've got is a graph that doesn't show a god damn thing significant and the testimony before Congress of a politician. Yeah, a former scientist turned politician, that's what the President, National Academy of Sciences, is. You would know that if you had read the statement by the IPCC, on time consumption of reports. Do you really think being President on the NAS and UC Dept. Chairman, plus coordinating scientists and politicians, leaves any time for research?

The IPCC process demands a significant time commitment by members of the scientific community.
As a result, many climate scientists in the United States and elsewhere choose not to participate at the level of a lead author even after being invited. Some take on less time-consuming roles as contributing authors or
reviewers. Others choose not to participate. This may present a potential problem for the future. As the commitment to the assessment process continues to grow, this could create a form of self-selection for the
participants. In such a case, the community of world climate scientists may develop cadres with particularly strong feelings about the outcome: some as favorable to the IPCC and its procedures and others negative about the use of the IPCC as a policy instrument. Alternative procedures are needed to ensure that participation in the work of the IPCC does not come at the expense of an individual's scientific career.

If you don't have anything to contribute besides the sky is falling, don't bother with the bullshit rhetoric.

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

If anyone wants to read some authoritative information on Ozone Depletion, have a look at these sites:

http://www.ciesin.org/TG/OZ/oz-home.html - Click on "Overview"

http://cloud1.arc.nasa.gov/solve/ - Click on "Mission Description"

http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Educat...one/ozone.html

This link is off the previous page, and covers the "for" and "against" arguments.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/chemistry/ - NASA's Goddard Institute - Atmospheric Chemistry site.

You should try to get George Dobson’s great book, published in 1968 by Oxford University Press, “Exploring the Atmosphere”, and red Chapter 6, where you will find a beautiful graph: Figure 6.2 ANNUAL VARIATION OF TOTAL OZONE FOR EACH 10 DEGREES OF LATITUDE where is clearly shown the “normal” average ozone levels during different months, and different latitudes. This graph is for the northern hemisphere, but the ozone levels vary with the seasons, and we can see that ozone levels are quite low in winter and spring and recover during summer and fall (as in the southern hemisphere). The depletionists try to ignore this historic fact: Dobson and the French were the ones who discovered the “hole” back in 1957, and this show that the hole has a natural (dynamic) cause, and has nothing to do with chemistry.

Ciesin claims: "Special attention is devoted to the evidence that most of the chlorine comes from the photolysis of CFC's and related compounds." Which of course is a blatant untruth. As I said above the Earth produces 100,000 times more chlorine.

From the Ciesin site: "Catalytic destruction of O3 ”Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) themselves are not involved in the catalytic process; upon reaching the stratosphere, they are subject to higher levels of ultraviolet radiation that decompose the CFC and release atomic chlorine." As written above, CFCs to be decomposed by UV rays, they must reach altitudes higher than 40 km, where the energetic UV-C photons have the energy required for “splitting” CFCs molecules. And no CFCs have been found at such altitudes.

http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Educat...one/ozone.html claims: "The decrease of stratospheric ozone was first reported in 1974 and the decrease was quickly linked to the increasing presence of a class of manmade compounds called CFC's or Chlorofluorocarbons." This is also untrue, the "ozonhole"was already discovered in the 50's by Dobson, see above.

This is just a start. How can we know for sure that the rest is also blatantly untrue? The only holes people like former presidents of the National Academy of Science Dr. Frederick Seitz, or respected atmospheric scientists as Dr. Fred Singer, or Richard Lindsay, or Dr. Michaels, or late French vulcanologist Dr. Haroum Tazieff can find are the holes in the "Ozone Scare"...

Chlorine atoms can ONLY react with ozone on the hard ice crystals in the surface of the SPC (stratosphere polar clouds) in Antarctica. As SPC forms ONLY in Antarctica during the winter and spring (they do not form over the Arctic, because the Arctic’s stratosphere is not cold enough), the logical conclusion is that chlorine do not react with the ozone layer in the rest of the world. That’s a fact. But recognizing this fact would show the ozone depletion theory is a fake, and would deprive scientists milking the “ozone scare cow” of the so much needed money to survive.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I thought the argument was not that CFCs caused the hole, or it's seasonal fluctuation, over the Antarctic, but the extent of the fluctuation. And the seasonal maximum of the hole size (area of complete depletion) being much larger, indicated a general reduction of ozone overall, at high altitudes?

The hole itself wouldn't have many people directly under it.....even fewer sunbathing. But if it's an indicator of an overall reduction, then we'd all be subject to more exposure.
That said, I would think it would be fairly easy to measure the level of UV (A,B,C) reaching us everywhere else.

[Hippikos]

I thought the argument was not that CFCs caused the hole, or it's seasonal fluctuation

It was in most of the links.

There has not been the slightest abnormal increase of UV-B radiation on Earth, as most UV monitoring stations around the world prove it. The US has closed its network of UV monitoring stations when back in the late 80s and early 90s when Dr. Joseph Scotto, of the Biostatistic branch of the National Cancer Institute published his study in Science telling about a decrease of 7% UV-B radiation in the USA between 1974-1985. (Scotto J. et al., “Biologically Effective Ultraviolet Radiation: Surface Measurements in the United States, 1974-1985, Science, Feb. 12,1988).

[bluesdave]

I made sure when I posted those links that I hi lighted the page that discusses both sides of the argument. The bulk of scientific evidence supports CFC's role in ozone depletion - that is why so many sites mention them. I have a background in chemistry, but no direct experience in CFCs and ozone depletion. Just like all of you I have to read the articles and reach an opinion. I admit that I was originally sceptical, but when so many people have backed the theory with experimental evidence (note: I am not saying that this *is* proof), then I must accept what they say. I do not have the resources to do the experiments myself.

Here is an Aussie site that also explains OD very well.

Note that the CSIRO started measuring ozone levels in 1956, but the hole as such was not discovered until the 1970s. Dobson's work is well recognised, and appreciated, but research has continued, and new light has been shed on the topic.

Science does not stand still. New evidence appears constantly, and opinions change. Hippikos, you are entitled to hold onto your opinion, and you have obviously gone out of your way to do your own reading on the topic. Even though we disagree, I tip my hat to you for showing an interest.

Sorry Bruce, I should say the same to you. Please don't feel left out!

[bluesdave]

Here is another site that seems to cover OD very well. I don't have time to go through the site properly though.

[Hippikos]

Science does not stand still. New evidence appears constantly, and opinions change. Hippikos, you are entitled to hold onto your opinion, and you have obviously gone out of your way to do your own reading on the topic. Even though we disagree, I tip my hat to you for showing an interest.

Respect is mutual bluesdave. Fact is that I never see Earth´s own production of chlorine (100,000 times more) coming into the equation by the depletionists, neither the fact that CFC´s are 4,5 heavier than air, so how can they show up 40-50 km up in the air?

There´s no such thing as a "hole", just a mere decrease in ozone levels at some altitude over the South Pole. Some years it is bigger and other years is much smaller, following the sun's activity, or the QBO direction.

Note that the CSIRO started measuring ozone levels in 1956, but the hole as such was not discovered until the 1970s. Dobson's work is well recognised, and appreciated, but research has continued, and new light has been shed on the topic.

NOAA states that the ozone hole was discovered in the 80´s, so take your pick.

Science does not stand still. New evidence appears constantly,

I´m interested to learn these. CFC and PCB´s are banned for decades, still ozone holes occur, exclusively over the Antarctic.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

NOAA states that the ozone hole was discovered in the 80´s, so take your pick.I´m interested to learn these. CFC and PCB´s are banned for decades, still ozone holes occur, exclusively over the Antarctic.

I stand corrected. The decrease in ozone levels was being hilighted through the 70s and the "hole" actually discovered in the early 80s. It will take at least 50 years for the lost ozone to be replaced, and that is assuming that the developing world does not spew out CFCs and halons.

Here is a quote explaining how the hole occurs:

Why does the ozone hole occur over Antarctica?
Human emissions of CFCs occur mainly in the Northern Hemisphere. Gases such as CFCs which are insoluble in water and relatively unreactive are mixed within a year or two throughout the lower 10 kilometres of the atmosphere (the troposphere). The CFCs then rise from the lower atmosphere into the stratosphere, mainly in the tropics. Winds then move this air poleward - both North and South - from the tropics. The meteorologies of the two polar regions are very different. The South Pole is part of a very large land mass that is completely surrounded by ocean. These conditions produce a very cold stratosphere which leads to the formation of clouds. The clouds that form lead to chemical changes that promote rapid ozone depletion. The North Pole lacks the land/ocean symmetry of the South Pole. As a consequence the stratospheric air is much warmer and fewer clouds form. Therefore the ozone depletion in the Arctic is very much less than in the Antarctic.

[bluesdave]

Coincidently, Goddard has just released a report that the ozone hole has just reached its largest area, and depth!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

Sorry Bruce, I should say the same to you. Please don't feel left out!

What?...you haven't heard? I'm just a hand puppet of the Bush administration and a capitalist tool.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

snip~
There´s no such thing as a "hole", just a mere decrease in ozone levels at some altitude over the South Pole.

From Dave's "Goddard" link;

Scientists from NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., use balloon-borne instruments to measure ozone directly over the South Pole. By Oct. 9, the total column ozone had plunged to 93 DU from approximately 300 DU in mid-July. More importantly, nearly all of the ozone in the layer between eight and 13 miles above the Earth's surface had been destroyed. In this critical layer, the instrument measured a record low of only 1.2 DU., having rapidly plunged from an average non-hole reading of 125 DU in July and August.

That would seem to agree that the "hole" is a thinning, rather than an absence, we would normally associate with "hole". I suspect the use of the word "hole", was a media concoction.

I´m interested to learn these. CFC and PCB´s are banned for decades, still ozone holes occur, exclusively over the Antarctic.

From Dave's "this link";

CFC's take up to 15 years to reach the stratosphere but can stay in the atmospere from 50-200 years. This means that the relatively small depletions in ozone seen now will get much larger as CFC's that have already been released accumulate in the stratosphere.

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Chlorine atoms can ONLY react with ozone on the hard ice crystals in the surface of the SPC (stratosphere polar clouds) in Antarctica. As SPC forms ONLY in Antarctica during the winter and spring (they do not form over the Arctic, because the Arctic’s stratosphere is not cold enough), the logical conclusion is that chlorine do not react with the ozone layer in the rest of the world. That’s a fact. But recognizing this fact would show the ozone depletion theory is a fake, and would deprive scientists milking the “ozone scare cow” of the so much needed money to survive.

Wouldn't that be like a swimming pool filter cleaning the water and dumping it in one spot? Eventually the water gets circulated throughout the pool and it all gets cleaner.
So just because the ozone is only being destroyed over the Antarctic, it's still depleting the total we have, unless it's being produced fast enough to make up for that loss, elsewhere.

Thanks to both Youze Guys for the insightful input.....and Dave, thank your boss for us.

[classicman]

I just read most of this thread and found it very interesting - any updates on the statistics... anyone?

[TheMercenary]

It was 77 in Savannah today. Thank God for global warming.