A Small Double Ozone Hole
- Thread starter wet1
- Start date
Let's throw these in here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=9082
Question: How do I find all the rest of the ozone threads on sciforums? that was the intention, but I can't find any more.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=9082
Question: How do I find all the rest of the ozone threads on sciforums? that was the intention, but I can't find any more.
I've decided to be more logical in my response to the topic of ozone depletion, so I'm collecting information on the subject and getting my thoughts in order. However, problems at work have come up, so I'll have to get back to this next week. At the time, I'll start a new topic when I have (what I think is...) something more coherent to say.
I´ll try to clear some things out. (Not easy)
As for heavier than air materials (debris, dust, smoke, etc) they are caught by strong air currents (as tornados, hurricanes, volcano explosions, etc) and are uplifted to the lower part of the stratosphere –called the <b>tropopause</b>, at heights from 10 to 30 km (give or take a couple km)-- where they get locked. This region of the atmosphere is characterized by its total absence of winds and air current. So that’s one of the reasons why they don’t reach the higher regions of the stratosphere called the <b>mesosphere</b> and the <b>mesopause</b>, at altitudes of about 70 km and 90 km, respectively. It is interesting to note that ozone concentrations in the stratosphere reach a 10 parts per trillion as a maximum. The top of the ozone layer reaches up to about 50 km, where the concentrations start to decrease in relationship with the abundance of oxygen, of course.
Just for fun, go to http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ingles-2/AmazingOzone.html <b>“Amazing Calculations”</b>, read the article I wrote some years ago, and have fun.
<b>Could that give you a reason for why lying?</b> Schneider has been doing just that since he abandoned the boat of the “next ice age” that he was unsuccessfully pushing, to jump onto the “global warming bandwagon”.
The response from the first group was unanimous: <b>this theory is garbage.</b> The second group had mixed responses. Scientists that knew something about the issue said: <b>”garbage”</b>, the rest, less specialized, said <b>“Interesting. Needs more research”</b>. The third group all said “Excellent theory. Keep working on it”.</b> They couldn’t just say: <b>“We don’t know what you are talking about”.</b> It is very difficult to find a honest scientist that can utter the words: “I don’t know”. That would show is ignorant in some field –and that’s something no one likes to admit.
Another fact is that chemistry laws say it is impossible for chlorine atoms react with ozone molecules in “free air”. This is well established in what’s known as the “gaseous phase”. Chlorine atoms can ONLY react with ozone on the hard ice crystals in the surface of the <b>SPC</b> (stratosphere polar clouds) in Antarctica. As SPC forms <b>ONLY</b> 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. <b>That’s a fact</b>. 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. That goes also for the NASA that is always being threatened with budget cost since they abandoned the space race. And of course, for organizations as the NOAA that lives just because there exists scares as the ozone and global warming. If these hoaxes were proven as such, then they would say goodbye to nice easy money. The world sucks!
This is getting interesting, though...
Khalil and Rasmussen studies were conducted in China, and other temperate countries. They did not study the poles. But, now that you mention it, have CFCs been found in the Poles? I have not seen any study about this. It seems reasonably that, if they are in the pole’s stratosphere, they would eventually fall down to Earth where they would be recorded. Interesting…
I went to the site you pointed out, but sadly, all links to the images were broken, so I cannot say anything.
There are huge databases for scientific papers and articles published in the technical and scientific journals, where you have to subscribe and pay a fee for the information. As we are quite poor (no funding from anyone) we have not been able to access this service. As I told you, I get my info through my cousin in the US Library of Congress, something that will end soon, as I learned last night she has been discovered an advanced colon cancer. In this moment I am really shaken.
Excellent question. Ozone, as a gas slightly heavier than air is coming down at all times, but s it is a highly unstable molecule, most of it is destroyed by nearby ozone molecules, returning to the more stable state of oxygen: 2 O<sub>3</sub> molecules produces 3 O<sub>2</sub> oxygen molecules. Ozone is also destroyed by other gases that take one oxygen atom for making a new compound as carbon monoxide (CO) that takes one oxygen atom to become carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>. So there is a very small possibility that ozone produced in the stratosphere reach Earth’s surface.
As for heavier than air materials (debris, dust, smoke, etc) they are caught by strong air currents (as tornados, hurricanes, volcano explosions, etc) and are uplifted to the lower part of the stratosphere –called the <b>tropopause</b>, at heights from 10 to 30 km (give or take a couple km)-- where they get locked. This region of the atmosphere is characterized by its total absence of winds and air current. So that’s one of the reasons why they don’t reach the higher regions of the stratosphere called the <b>mesosphere</b> and the <b>mesopause</b>, at altitudes of about 70 km and 90 km, respectively. It is interesting to note that ozone concentrations in the stratosphere reach a 10 parts per trillion as a maximum. The top of the ozone layer reaches up to about 50 km, where the concentrations start to decrease in relationship with the abundance of oxygen, of course.
Just for fun, go to http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ingles-2/AmazingOzone.html <b>“Amazing Calculations”</b>, read the article I wrote some years ago, and have fun.
I have to disagree. Dobson and the French recorded in 1957 ozone levels of 150 DU (they were not called Dobson Units then, of course), levels that have been reached in not many occasions since then.
I could give you many reasons for lying, but probably you will not accept them. Government money is the pasture feeding the cow that scientists are milking happily. Politics enter here, unfortunately, and grants and subsidies are given to those scientists that agree with a specific agenda. That’s not a secret to any scientist, and this spirit is beautifully expressed by Stephen Schneider, climatologist of National Center of Atmospheric Research at Boulder, Co, when he stated: <b>”To do that</b> (make the world a better place) <b>we need</b> (as scientists) <b>to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, <font color=red>entails getting loads of media coverage</font>. So we have to offer up <font color=red>scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.</font> This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves and cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance between being effective and <font color=red>being honest.</font>”</b> (page 47, Discover magazine, October 1989 issue, during an interview. (The red marking is mine).
<b>Could that give you a reason for why lying?</b> Schneider has been doing just that since he abandoned the boat of the “next ice age” that he was unsuccessfully pushing, to jump onto the “global warming bandwagon”.
<b>I totally agree with you.</b> In another thread in sciforums I mentioned the famous case of Dr. Fox, a journalist that made an experiment on “stupidity” (as I call it). He selected a great number of scientists and divided them into three groups. He sent group one a “paper” explaining an absurd theory he had invented, written in plain understandable English, asking for peer-review. The second group got a version with a much more elaborated wording, full of highly technical and scientific terms. The third group received a study that was pure, abstruse gibberish, that no one could have ever understood.
The response from the first group was unanimous: <b>this theory is garbage.</b> The second group had mixed responses. Scientists that knew something about the issue said: <b>”garbage”</b>, the rest, less specialized, said <b>“Interesting. Needs more research”</b>. The third group all said “Excellent theory. Keep working on it”.</b> They couldn’t just say: <b>“We don’t know what you are talking about”.</b> It is very difficult to find a honest scientist that can utter the words: “I don’t know”. That would show is ignorant in some field –and that’s something no one likes to admit.
I think there are well established <b>FACTS</b>, as most laws governing physics (Thermodynamic laws, almost all laws in electricity as Ohm’s law, Kirchoff laws, etc; gravity; most of chemistry and atomic interaction laws; almost all mathematics (even Fermat’s theorem was finally solved), calculus, etc. These are the things I refer when I mention <b><u>facts</u></b>. Other things that are “almost” facts are constantly recorded observations of phenomena in the physics world. If Dra. V. Tafuri in Buenos Aires consistently records –during 30 years in a row- that ozone levels in Argentina have not decreased below normal seasonal levels, <b>that’s a fact</b>, and not an interpretation. We have in Argentina one of the four Robertson-Berger spectrometers in existence in the world, specially designed by Drs. Robertson and Berger for measuring ozone levels. Is the same model and make as the ones used by NASA and the NOAA, provided by the US government years ago –when they thought the ozone threat was real.
Another fact is that chemistry laws say it is impossible for chlorine atoms react with ozone molecules in “free air”. This is well established in what’s known as the “gaseous phase”. Chlorine atoms can ONLY react with ozone on the hard ice crystals in the surface of the <b>SPC</b> (stratosphere polar clouds) in Antarctica. As SPC forms <b>ONLY</b> 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. <b>That’s a fact</b>. 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. That goes also for the NASA that is always being threatened with budget cost since they abandoned the space race. And of course, for organizations as the NOAA that lives just because there exists scares as the ozone and global warming. If these hoaxes were proven as such, then they would say goodbye to nice easy money. The world sucks!
This is getting interesting, though...
Last edited:
There is so much to touch on, but I've only got time for this right now.
Does Dra. V. Tafuri also handle the Ushuaia station? What do you make of this slide presentation (I hope you can handle PDF files):
http://www.biospherical.com/nsf/presentations/Sparc2000.pdf
The detail of the graphs are difficult because they've shoved a lot of data into a small space. However, looking at the "Total Column Ozone (DU)" graph (and magnifying it with Acrobat), you can get the sense that (say) October ozone over Ushuaia has gone from 475DU in 1978 to a low of 150DU in 1992/4 (and maybe 2000). The data is also on NSF website, but you need to register to get access. Of course, there are significant fluctuations that may be due to any number of things, but, as you can see in the second to last slide, the ozone hole did reach Ushuaia in October of 2000.
How do you interpret these facts?
Originally posted by Avatar
oh ok sorry
that's why I ask
but how do you call it otherwise- the ozone layer has been reducing (on the poles, especially southpole) from 80s till mid 90s (so I've heard)
Start at the top of this thread and read. Then see if you want to rephrase the question.
Both stations belongs to the National Meterological Service network, and Dra. Tafuri si in charge of monitoring ozone over Argentina.
Normal ozone levels at the equator averages 275 DU, the region where there is the highest insolation. There are not abnormal indexes of skin cancers or melanomas or cataracts, as compared with Idaho, or Moscow, or even Ushuaia. The highest ozone concentrastions are normally found near the Arctica and Antarctic circles, due to stratospheric aerial currents from Equator to the Poles. So, when "scientists" scream about a 50% reduction of the ozone layer over Ushuaia, (for example), the levels measured as catastrophic decrease are about 200-250 DU, quite normal for tropical areas. Nothing to fear.
But, as I said in previous posts (perhaps in other thread) Drs. Isidro Orlansky and Ernesto A. Martínez, from the Geophysical Laboratory at the Buenos Aires National University, made a study in Ushuaia, measuring the UV-B radiation passing through an "ozone mini-hole" above the city, (1999) whose results led them to say: <i>"Typical values of global radiation (according to annual averages) are about 300 watts/m<sup>2</sup> in Buenos Aires, about 120-150 watts/m<sup>2</sup> in Ushuaia, and about 100 watts/m<sup>2</sup> in the Antarctic. UV-B levels <b>directly below the ozone hole does not reach half the values</b> present at the same moment in Buenos Aires".</i> So, what's so fearsome about mini ozone holes over Ushuaia?
Sure, it has been happening since Earth was created. Depends on the altutide the ozone losses were measured, of course, as there may be great concentrations at 35 km while there are a big decrease in the 15 km altitude. Great variations of ozone occurr naturally in Antarctica and Tierra del Fuego (Ushuaia), but it seems that that does not have a great influence in the UV-B levels reaching Earth, due to the long distance the UV rays have to travel through the atmosphere (the Earth is round, and the curvature of the planet makes the angle of incidence quite low). As Martínez and Orlansky said in their study: <i>"If ozone levels were to drcrease 50% -something that happens very few days and in quite reduced places in Antarctica- and the rest of parameters remain constant, the UV radiation increases 15%, and global radiation increases 1,5%.".</i> This might come as a surprise to you, but these things have been scientifically demonstrated. Of course it bothers the fat guy at NASA and the NOAA, so that's why Martínez and Orlansky were deprived of funding to keep researching this field.
Remeber Al Gore (Ozone Man) saying the lambs in Patagonia got blind because the ozone hole? And such a liar got to be vicepresident of the US, and almost reached the presidency! Something smell foul, (not in Denmark) but right at the White House...
I will take a look at the .pdf files and will let you now my opinion. And Avatar, stay calm and sleep well. <b>The ozone layer is not being destroyed anywhere in the world</b>, as they want you to believe. And believe it or not, BatM is right: <i>"The obvious reply is "what makes <b>you think</b> our ozone layer is being destroyed?"</i> "Perception" is not the same thing as "observation".
OOPS!
I forgot to add to my explanation of low UV levels at Ushuaia and Antarctica under an ozone hole that, even if there is no ozone at all in a spot near the Antarctic, the UV rays have to travel such a long distance through the atmosphere that almost all UV is filtered by the OXYGEN and NITROGEN in the atmosphere.
At the Equator, the sun's rays must travel about 50 km of air, but during the southern spring, when the lowest ozone values are in the Antarctic, the distance they must travel <b>is about 800 km</b>. See the graph in Chapter 2: "The Ozone Fraud" in my book "Ecology: Myhts and Frauds" (in Spanish, but clear enough to get the idea):
<img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images/LargoCamino.gif" width=513 height=300>
Did you like my infograph?
I forgot to add to my explanation of low UV levels at Ushuaia and Antarctica under an ozone hole that, even if there is no ozone at all in a spot near the Antarctic, the UV rays have to travel such a long distance through the atmosphere that almost all UV is filtered by the OXYGEN and NITROGEN in the atmosphere.
At the Equator, the sun's rays must travel about 50 km of air, but during the southern spring, when the lowest ozone values are in the Antarctic, the distance they must travel <b>is about 800 km</b>. See the graph in Chapter 2: "The Ozone Fraud" in my book "Ecology: Myhts and Frauds" (in Spanish, but clear enough to get the idea):
<img src="http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/images/LargoCamino.gif" width=513 height=300>
Did you like my infograph?
I am sorry, BatM, but I was denied acces to the .pdf files in the site your provided (unauthorized acces), but I went exploring the site and found the following irradiance index map that show no difference between 1997 and 2002, showing that Martínez and Orlansky were quite right in their study.
http://www.biospherical.com/nsf/updates/austral/duvindex.htm
I tried to link it here, but the site refused to have the graph taken from their server. Too bad.
http://www.biospherical.com/nsf/updates/austral/duvindex.htm
I tried to link it here, but the site refused to have the graph taken from their server. Too bad.
Hmmm. You've had access problems before for things I wouldn't think you should have a problem with. I haven't had to do this in a long time, but, in those last ditch cases where you can't get direct access to something on the web, you might be able to get access to it via email. These two web-pages might be of help in that area.
http://www.bellanet.org/email.html
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/internet-services/access-via-email/
I didn't have trouble accessing the PDF and I haven't signed up for any access login as of yet. Did you go directly to it from my link? Maybe if you go in via the NSF website (follow the "Presentations" menu item), it might set a cookie into your browser to allow you in (that's a guess, though).
Well, I discovered that my Internet Explorer somehow lost its capability of calling my Acrobat Reader version 5.0 when accesing .pdf files in the internet. I have to fix that problem, and see why it is not doing that. Now let analyze some of the CIESIN files. Then you'll know why I don't like Columbia University website, (even though my elder brother was a guest researcher in neurphysiology there for about 20 years).
From CIESIN site =<b>"CFCs and Ozone Depletion.htm"</b>: <I>“A complex scenario of <b>atmospheric dynamics, solar radiation, and chemical reactions</b> was found to explain the anomalously low levels of ozone during the polar springtime.</I>
So it seems that atmospheric dynamics and solar radiation also has a lot to do with ozone depletion. They should quantify the amount of depletion caused by each of these factors –if they really would like people to believe they are being honest.
<I>”Announcement of polar ozone depletion over Antarctica in <b>March 1985</b> prompted scientific initiatives to discover the Ozone Depletion Processes, along with calls to freeze or diminish production of chlorinated fluorocarbons.</I>
I wonder if the March 1985 date was the time of depletion or if it was the date of publishing of the news. March is a month of high ozone levels, as in any other year since they started monitoring ozone in the poles. But this is not important…
<b>CIESIN:</b> <I>Global monitoring of ozone levels from space by the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) instrument has shown “<b>statistically significant</b>” downward trends in ozone at all latitudes <b>outside the tropics”</b></I>
What is “statistically significant” for these people? And “outside the tropics” means “in Antarctica” or “near the Arctic circle”, of course, because as recorded by monitoring stations as Buenos Aires (outside the tropics and the Arctic circles) say there has not been <b>any reduction at all for the past 30 years…</b>
<b>CIESIN:</B><I>“Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) still contain chlorine atoms, but the presence of hydrogen makes them reactive with chemical species in the troposphere. This greatly reduces the prospects of the chlorine reaching the stratosphere, as chlorine will be removed by chemical processes in the lower atmosphere.</I>
Why all the fuss about chlorine in the stratosphere? Even S. Solomon, R. Watson and the rest of “depletionists” agree that <b><I>chlorine only react with ozone</I></b> on the crystal of stratospheric polar clouds (SPC) –found only in Antarctica, in winter and spring… They should tell the people that <b>nowhere in the stratosphere</b> –outside the Polar Vortex in the Antarctic—chlorine attacks the ozone layer. They are telling half-truths, and half-truths are <b>“whole-lies”</b>. Tsk, tsk…
From CIESIN site: <b>Catalytic destruction of O3</b> <I>”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.”</I>
We’ve already seen that, for CFCs to be decomposed by UV rays, they must reach altitudes <b>higher that 40 km</b>, where the energetic UV-C photons have the energy required for “splitting” CFCs molecules. And no CFCs have been found at such altitudes.
<B>CIESIN:</B><I> ”Multiphase reactions involving aerosol particles are another source of ozone loss that can occur at all latitudes. Hofmann and Solomon (1989) analyze the El Chichon eruption in 1983 and show ozone destruction in areas of higher aerosol concentration in "Ozone Destruction through Heterogeneous Chemistry Following the Eruption of El Chichon." The process is thought to be similar to the Polar Stratospheric Cloud (PSC) scenario: Aerosol particles act as a base for multiphase reactions, leading to ozone loss.”</I>
Which, of course is true… but it contradicts the claims that chlorine attacks ozone outside the Polar Vortex, and the observed reduction in ozone caused by the El Chichón volcano was no caused by CFCs or man-made pollution. <b>They are saying it, not me…</b>
<B>CIESIN:</B><i>”Hofmann et al. (1992) report that additional ozone loss over Antarctica in 1991 beyond the depletion caused by PSCs may be attributed to this process following the eruption of Mt. Hudson in "Observation and Possible Causes of New Ozone Depletion in Antarctica in 1991."</i>
They keep giving me the reason. “Additional” ozone loss, in this case, means that the normal losses in ozone, which have natural, dynamic causes (strong winds in the Vortex, solar irradiation, the Quasi biennial Oscillation, etc) were not caused by CFCs, --that haven’t went higher than 35 km. But here is a strange thing: How can CFCs be dissociated by UV ray in the Ozone Hole over Antarctica, during winter and spring, if there the sun has not been present there? It is still dark polar night.
The destruction of ozone takes place in the spring in this manner: The first rays of the sun pass over the horizon warming the atmosphere inside the vortex. As the atmosphere is “transparent” to IR rays (it does not block infrared rays) but completely blocks out UV radiation, due to the long journey through the thick atmosphere (as I said before, about 800 km), the ozone molecules begin to move rapidly and collide with each other, canceling themselves out, producing oxygen.
That’s the reason why oxygen levels grow “mysteriously” inside the polar vortex. As the chemical reaction of ozone colliding with ozone releases 64 kilocal/mol, the heat resulting from the self destruction of ozone warms the atmosphere further, speeding the process of destruction. That’s the reason why in 1987, a decrease of 15% of ozone in 24 hours could not be explained by the “chemists”, but was perfectly explained by the “dynamicists”, giving the explanation above.
From CIESIN: <b><I>Observation and possible causes of new ozone depletion in Antarctica in 1991,</B> by D. J. Hofmann*, S. J. Oltmans*, J. M. Harris*, S. Solomon+, T. Deshler++ & B. J. Johnson++
<b>Abstract:</b> “Local ozone reductions approaching 50% in magnitude were observed during the Antarctic spring in the 11-13 and 25-30 km altitude regions over South Pole and McMurdo Stations in 1991.</I>
What happened to ozone in the 14-24 km altitude? A much smaller reduction. The 50% reduction observed where not constant, of course, <b>but lasted just for hours, even minutes</b>. A reduction can happens for just a few minutes, but it is recorded as it lasted for the whole day. That is not ethical. It is cheating. But they don’t say that in the study’s abstract or in the conclusions. Sometimes we can find this fact (if we are lucky) buried in the draft charts used to carefully build gross misinformation. When you hide information that would contradict your hypothesis, you are lying. The Polar Vortex is characterized by terrible winds that put Hurricanes in the Caribbean in shame. This tremendous air movement <b>provokes the destruction of ozone</B> as collision of ozone molecules against themselves <b>causes the formation of oxygen molecules</b> as I told above.
<B>CIESIN:</B><I>“ON the basis of the phase of the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) of equatorial stratospheric winds[1], and tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures (SST)[2,3] which affect the timing of <b>transport of ozone to the Antarctic continent in spring</b>, 1991 was expected to be a year of early recovery of the springtime Antarctic ozone hole and only moderate ozone depletion. Although the recovery of the ozone hole indeed <b>occurred early in 1991 (mid-November</b>), total ozone nevertheless <b>reached record lows in September</b> even though values during the <b>October minimum</b> period at South Pole <b>were no lower than the previous record low values observed in 1987.”</b></I>
From this part of the study we deduct:
1) the losses in ozone can be blamed, in part, to a delay in transport from the tropics (a dynamic cause, not CFCs).
2) In this case, it seems that the ozone transport was not expected to be delayed by the QBO and the SST, so they thought there would be high levels of ozone. Well, as expected, the recovery was ”early in the spring (about mid-November) although I would call that date “late spring”). By the way, the recovery occurs at about the same date, every year, and does not depend on the amount of depletion suffered by the ozone layer, what suggest that if the chlorine present in the “hole” <b>is not capable of retarding the formation of ozone in the hole</b>, it was not the cause of its destruction.
3) They say that total ozone loss occurred in September “ <b>reached record values</b>”, something that support the claim that infrared radiation warms the atmosphere and stirs it causing the ozone molecules to collide against each other, reducing their number.
4) Moreover, we know that in September, when the sun is barely above the horizon in the vortex, the UV rays reaching the area have not the energy enough to break apart the CFCs molecules, releasing chlorine, <b>so there shouldn’t be any chlorine in the vortex to attack ozone.</b> So, why the reduction of ozone, if there is no chlorine present? You could say: <I><B>“Chlorine was transported from other places in the world”.</B></I>
OK, granted, <B>but from where?</B> From the 36 million tons of chlorine produced by volcanoes? From the 8,4 million tons produced by forest and prairies fires? From the 5 million tons produced by ocean biota? Or perhaps from the 600 millions tons produced by the oceans. If we add all the chlorine produced by Mother Nature, the total is about <b>650 million tons of chlorine.</b> And this is quite higher than the <b>mere 7,500 tons</b> released by CFCs –<b>if ALL CFCs</b> released annually were transported to the stratosphere and released <b><u>ALL</u></b> the chlorine they contain, and <u><b>NONE</b></u> of that chlorine was not intercepted by other gases known as “sinks” for chlorine. (The so called “interference reactions”) Then, why the stubbornness in blaming those 7,500 tons of CFC–made chlorine for the depletion, instead of the 650 millions tons of natural occurring chlorine? Quite absurd, don’t you think?
So, who these people think they are fooling? Perhaps less informed people would swallow the scientific jargon and abstruse explanations they give. But people with little more than a basic knowledge of physics and chemistry –let aside people as former presidents of the National Academy of Science as Dr. Frederick Seitz, or respected atmospheric scientists as Dr. Fred Singer, of Richard Lindsay, of Dr, Michaels, or late French vulcanologist Dr. Haroum Tazieff, -- can easily spot the “<b>holes in the ozone scare</b>”.
This issue is getting funnier every minute!
From CIESIN site =<b>"CFCs and Ozone Depletion.htm"</b>: <I>“A complex scenario of <b>atmospheric dynamics, solar radiation, and chemical reactions</b> was found to explain the anomalously low levels of ozone during the polar springtime.</I>
So it seems that atmospheric dynamics and solar radiation also has a lot to do with ozone depletion. They should quantify the amount of depletion caused by each of these factors –if they really would like people to believe they are being honest.
<I>”Announcement of polar ozone depletion over Antarctica in <b>March 1985</b> prompted scientific initiatives to discover the Ozone Depletion Processes, along with calls to freeze or diminish production of chlorinated fluorocarbons.</I>
I wonder if the March 1985 date was the time of depletion or if it was the date of publishing of the news. March is a month of high ozone levels, as in any other year since they started monitoring ozone in the poles. But this is not important…
<b>CIESIN:</b> <I>Global monitoring of ozone levels from space by the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS) instrument has shown “<b>statistically significant</b>” downward trends in ozone at all latitudes <b>outside the tropics”</b></I>
What is “statistically significant” for these people? And “outside the tropics” means “in Antarctica” or “near the Arctic circle”, of course, because as recorded by monitoring stations as Buenos Aires (outside the tropics and the Arctic circles) say there has not been <b>any reduction at all for the past 30 years…</b>
<b>CIESIN:</B><I>“Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) still contain chlorine atoms, but the presence of hydrogen makes them reactive with chemical species in the troposphere. This greatly reduces the prospects of the chlorine reaching the stratosphere, as chlorine will be removed by chemical processes in the lower atmosphere.</I>
Why all the fuss about chlorine in the stratosphere? Even S. Solomon, R. Watson and the rest of “depletionists” agree that <b><I>chlorine only react with ozone</I></b> on the crystal of stratospheric polar clouds (SPC) –found only in Antarctica, in winter and spring… They should tell the people that <b>nowhere in the stratosphere</b> –outside the Polar Vortex in the Antarctic—chlorine attacks the ozone layer. They are telling half-truths, and half-truths are <b>“whole-lies”</b>. Tsk, tsk…
From CIESIN site: <b>Catalytic destruction of O3</b> <I>”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.”</I>
We’ve already seen that, for CFCs to be decomposed by UV rays, they must reach altitudes <b>higher that 40 km</b>, where the energetic UV-C photons have the energy required for “splitting” CFCs molecules. And no CFCs have been found at such altitudes.
<B>CIESIN:</B><I> ”Multiphase reactions involving aerosol particles are another source of ozone loss that can occur at all latitudes. Hofmann and Solomon (1989) analyze the El Chichon eruption in 1983 and show ozone destruction in areas of higher aerosol concentration in "Ozone Destruction through Heterogeneous Chemistry Following the Eruption of El Chichon." The process is thought to be similar to the Polar Stratospheric Cloud (PSC) scenario: Aerosol particles act as a base for multiphase reactions, leading to ozone loss.”</I>
Which, of course is true… but it contradicts the claims that chlorine attacks ozone outside the Polar Vortex, and the observed reduction in ozone caused by the El Chichón volcano was no caused by CFCs or man-made pollution. <b>They are saying it, not me…</b>
<B>CIESIN:</B><i>”Hofmann et al. (1992) report that additional ozone loss over Antarctica in 1991 beyond the depletion caused by PSCs may be attributed to this process following the eruption of Mt. Hudson in "Observation and Possible Causes of New Ozone Depletion in Antarctica in 1991."</i>
They keep giving me the reason. “Additional” ozone loss, in this case, means that the normal losses in ozone, which have natural, dynamic causes (strong winds in the Vortex, solar irradiation, the Quasi biennial Oscillation, etc) were not caused by CFCs, --that haven’t went higher than 35 km. But here is a strange thing: How can CFCs be dissociated by UV ray in the Ozone Hole over Antarctica, during winter and spring, if there the sun has not been present there? It is still dark polar night.
The destruction of ozone takes place in the spring in this manner: The first rays of the sun pass over the horizon warming the atmosphere inside the vortex. As the atmosphere is “transparent” to IR rays (it does not block infrared rays) but completely blocks out UV radiation, due to the long journey through the thick atmosphere (as I said before, about 800 km), the ozone molecules begin to move rapidly and collide with each other, canceling themselves out, producing oxygen.
That’s the reason why oxygen levels grow “mysteriously” inside the polar vortex. As the chemical reaction of ozone colliding with ozone releases 64 kilocal/mol, the heat resulting from the self destruction of ozone warms the atmosphere further, speeding the process of destruction. That’s the reason why in 1987, a decrease of 15% of ozone in 24 hours could not be explained by the “chemists”, but was perfectly explained by the “dynamicists”, giving the explanation above.
From CIESIN: <b><I>Observation and possible causes of new ozone depletion in Antarctica in 1991,</B> by D. J. Hofmann*, S. J. Oltmans*, J. M. Harris*, S. Solomon+, T. Deshler++ & B. J. Johnson++
<b>Abstract:</b> “Local ozone reductions approaching 50% in magnitude were observed during the Antarctic spring in the 11-13 and 25-30 km altitude regions over South Pole and McMurdo Stations in 1991.</I>
What happened to ozone in the 14-24 km altitude? A much smaller reduction. The 50% reduction observed where not constant, of course, <b>but lasted just for hours, even minutes</b>. A reduction can happens for just a few minutes, but it is recorded as it lasted for the whole day. That is not ethical. It is cheating. But they don’t say that in the study’s abstract or in the conclusions. Sometimes we can find this fact (if we are lucky) buried in the draft charts used to carefully build gross misinformation. When you hide information that would contradict your hypothesis, you are lying. The Polar Vortex is characterized by terrible winds that put Hurricanes in the Caribbean in shame. This tremendous air movement <b>provokes the destruction of ozone</B> as collision of ozone molecules against themselves <b>causes the formation of oxygen molecules</b> as I told above.
<B>CIESIN:</B><I>“ON the basis of the phase of the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) of equatorial stratospheric winds[1], and tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures (SST)[2,3] which affect the timing of <b>transport of ozone to the Antarctic continent in spring</b>, 1991 was expected to be a year of early recovery of the springtime Antarctic ozone hole and only moderate ozone depletion. Although the recovery of the ozone hole indeed <b>occurred early in 1991 (mid-November</b>), total ozone nevertheless <b>reached record lows in September</b> even though values during the <b>October minimum</b> period at South Pole <b>were no lower than the previous record low values observed in 1987.”</b></I>
From this part of the study we deduct:
1) the losses in ozone can be blamed, in part, to a delay in transport from the tropics (a dynamic cause, not CFCs).
2) In this case, it seems that the ozone transport was not expected to be delayed by the QBO and the SST, so they thought there would be high levels of ozone. Well, as expected, the recovery was ”early in the spring (about mid-November) although I would call that date “late spring”). By the way, the recovery occurs at about the same date, every year, and does not depend on the amount of depletion suffered by the ozone layer, what suggest that if the chlorine present in the “hole” <b>is not capable of retarding the formation of ozone in the hole</b>, it was not the cause of its destruction.
3) They say that total ozone loss occurred in September “ <b>reached record values</b>”, something that support the claim that infrared radiation warms the atmosphere and stirs it causing the ozone molecules to collide against each other, reducing their number.
4) Moreover, we know that in September, when the sun is barely above the horizon in the vortex, the UV rays reaching the area have not the energy enough to break apart the CFCs molecules, releasing chlorine, <b>so there shouldn’t be any chlorine in the vortex to attack ozone.</b> So, why the reduction of ozone, if there is no chlorine present? You could say: <I><B>“Chlorine was transported from other places in the world”.</B></I>
OK, granted, <B>but from where?</B> From the 36 million tons of chlorine produced by volcanoes? From the 8,4 million tons produced by forest and prairies fires? From the 5 million tons produced by ocean biota? Or perhaps from the 600 millions tons produced by the oceans. If we add all the chlorine produced by Mother Nature, the total is about <b>650 million tons of chlorine.</b> And this is quite higher than the <b>mere 7,500 tons</b> released by CFCs –<b>if ALL CFCs</b> released annually were transported to the stratosphere and released <b><u>ALL</u></b> the chlorine they contain, and <u><b>NONE</b></u> of that chlorine was not intercepted by other gases known as “sinks” for chlorine. (The so called “interference reactions”) Then, why the stubbornness in blaming those 7,500 tons of CFC–made chlorine for the depletion, instead of the 650 millions tons of natural occurring chlorine? Quite absurd, don’t you think?
So, who these people think they are fooling? Perhaps less informed people would swallow the scientific jargon and abstruse explanations they give. But people with little more than a basic knowledge of physics and chemistry –let aside people as former presidents of the National Academy of Science as Dr. Frederick Seitz, or respected atmospheric scientists as Dr. Fred Singer, of Richard Lindsay, of Dr, Michaels, or late French vulcanologist Dr. Haroum Tazieff, -- can easily spot the “<b>holes in the ozone scare</b>”.
This issue is getting funnier every minute!
Not quite. I've been thinking about it, but personal issues have kept me busy elsewhere. Also, as I alluded to above, I want to lookup things on the 'Net to gather background and weigh the different views. I'm not totally of one opinion on this. However, there are some issues I've found where opinion in various research organizations seems to be strongly in favor of ozone depletion, but I haven't found the data on which they base their opinion yet. I have the feeling that the data is there, but, due to lack of climatological background, I'm not understanding it. NOAA, for instance, has a lot of data for people to download and run their own statistical analysis on, but that's beyond my ability.
Keep an eye out for future threads on this.
Keep an eye out for future threads on this.
Last edited:
I’ve some experience with an ozone generator and using ozone for controlling algae growth in cooling towers. From this I know that ozone is very reactive and will revert back to oxygen in short order (at least at ground level and room temperatures).
So could the reason for the winter Antarctic ozone hole be largely due to the ozone reverting back to oxygen with out the source of UV radiation to replenish it? Never mind the CFCs or ice or whatever.
Edufer’s stance that ozone does not block much UV makes pretty good sense but doesn’t ozone block a particular wave length that oxygen or nitrogen miss?
So could the reason for the winter Antarctic ozone hole be largely due to the ozone reverting back to oxygen with out the source of UV radiation to replenish it? Never mind the CFCs or ice or whatever.
Edufer’s stance that ozone does not block much UV makes pretty good sense but doesn’t ozone block a particular wave length that oxygen or nitrogen miss?
What's that you say...??
Maybe we don't need HCFCs or CFCs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2543085.stm
One of these days, I'll get back to this thread...
Maybe we don't need HCFCs or CFCs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2543085.stm
One of these days, I'll get back to this thread...