"ozone hole" that was going to kill us all has gone away, despite the fact that the third world is making, and releasing as many florocarbons now as ever.
Why haven't we heard much about the ozone hole lately? Cause it was bullshit. Propagated by Union Carbide due to the fact that their patent on Freon was running out.
What unbelievably unsupported statements that argue against empirical evidence and data demonstrating reduced levels of ozone (ozone depletion) over the past decades and chemistry demonstrating a likely mechanism for its depletion from long-persisting human manufactured chemicals...
Q. What creates ozone in the earths atmosphere?
A. "Fifteen to thirty kilometers up in the atmosphere, in the layer called the stratosphere, ozone is created and destroyed primarily by ultraviolet radiation. The air in the stratosphere is bombarded continuously by ultraviolet radiation from the sun. When high-energy ultraviolet rays strike molecules of ordinary oxygen (O2), they split the molecule into two single oxygen atoms, known as atomic oxygen (O). A freed oxygen atom then can combine with an oxygen molecule to form a molecule of ozone (O3). "
according to:
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=55Q. Where was the "Ozone Hole" disovered?
A. The ozone hole is located over the south pole.
according to:http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/environ/ENV023.HTM
Q. What is unusual about "day" and "night" at the poles?
A. Rather than having a 24 hour day/night cycle, the poles and the regions around them have 1 "day" a year - a 6 month period of continuous light, followed by a 6 month period of total darkness.'
Q. When was the "ozone hole" discovered, relative to the light cycle at the poles?
A. At the END of the antarctic "night".
Essentially, they found reduced levels of a chemical created by ultraviolet light in a region that had NO light of any kind, much less ultraviolet, for 6 MONTHS!! DUH! I could have saved them the grant money...
Now for advanced studies:
1. Chlorine molecules are the part of Freon accused of breaking down ozone. How many tons of chlorine does MAN put into the air, compared to NATURAL SOURCES, like oceanic evaporation and volcanoes?
2. Despite various treaties, chloroflorocarbon manufacture and use continues unchecked in places like China, India, Mexico, etc. Add to that the fact that all PREVIOUSLY manufactured freon is still steadily leaking into the atmosphere. Its been scientifically proven since a Space Shuttle misson in 1994 that the photochemical theory of ozone depletion is FALSE: read about it at
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Crista.html#3linkExpand your minds before you make such wildly unsupported statements.
The Crista {scientists at the University of Wuppertal in Germany}, researchers emphasized this point in their Nov. 6, 1995 press statement:
"One can only understand these occurrences if one examines them in their totality and mutual interdependence. One finds no solution to the ozone problem if one examines only the photochemical side, but neglects the energetics and dynamics."
"Instead of a uniform distribution of ozone along a [band of constant] latitude, as the current models predict. Cristas showed a patchwork of large and small structures in the ozone distribution ... The first results show that photochemical models alone do not adequately describe the condition of the atmosphere. Dynamic processes and transports must be considered, for which temperatures, waves, and turbulences show themselves responsible."
Dr. Ulrich Grossman, one of the leaders of the Crista project at the University of Wuppertal, summarized some of the results in an interview: (1)
"The main point is that the instrument measures with an extremely high spatial resolution in a very short time. So we get a very dense measurement net over the globe within the constraints of the Shuttle orbit. What we see in nearly all emissions and also in ozone density is that there are large fluctuations from point to point and that the ozone distribution in a horizontal map looks like a weather map."
When the modelers "talk about zonally averaged values, it is useless," Grossman said. The ozone layer "is very, very structured. All these structures are moving around, like what you see in the weather map... You have to take all these into account if you want to make a real, reliable forecast for ozone over the next... 20 or 40 years."
Because all the processes involving all these gases in the atmosphere generally are nonlinear, when you take averages, you make mistakes. Once you are down to precision on the order of [hundredths], the errors which you would make by using average values are much bigger than that. Grossman does not believe that even a "mathematical program with the best computers" would be able to do this properly.
...The scientists, Kjell Henriksen from the University of Tromso in Norway and Valentin Roldugin from the Polar Geophysical Institute in Russia, analyzed one year of daily samples from six Soviet Middle Asian ozone measuring stations at two different altitudes.
They discovered that changes in the ozone layer were directly caused by the horizontal and vertical movement of air masses (that is, wind dynamics). A close analysis of the data also demonstrated that chemistry played no role in the thickness of the ozone layer over these stations...
After a detailed analysis of the Russian data, Henriksen and Roldugin conclude with a sharp reminder to the promoters of the ozone depletion fraud that they cannot arbitrarily exclude factors other than chemistry from their models:
The question of so-called "ozone depletion" has to be investigated from the point of view of long-term variation of general circulation in the atmosphere. Models of "the depletion," as summarized in [the World Meteorological Organization's] WMO Report, must realize that the meteorological conditions have significant effects on the ozone layer, being the main cause of seasonal as well as most of the shorter and apparently arbitrary density and thermal variations."
And if you do feel that there is good evidence to counter the data gathered by the scientists or can provide reasonable evidence that the data are fabricated...please cite a reference so that the rest of us can understand how it is that you disagree with the established theory...
See above, for one...
plus: From the World of Physics published a thorough review of ozone science by Thormod Henriksen from the Institute of Physics at the University of Oslo, which presents evidence that the ozone layer was thinner in the 1940s than today!
the ozone layer went through a thinning process in the 1940s similar to that occurring now, with the exception, as noted by Henriksen, that "the ozone layer over southern Norway was thinner in the period between 1940 to 1946 than it is today." Henriksen also points out that the level of ultraviolet (UV) radiation have hardly changed:
"[In] the last 50 years the ozone layer has not changed to such a degree that biological effects are to be expected. In other words, there have hardly been any changes in the levels of UV-radiation, and therefore it is a dead-end to connect the recent years' development of the ozone layer with the increase of skin cancer."
Henriksen concludes:
"We can safely state that the picture of a depletion of the ozone layer is far more complicated than the picture that the media often gives. Those who expect a depletion timed with the release of CFC gases, will look in vain in their measurement results. It looks like the amount of ozone did increase in the 1950s and 1960s and reached a maximum in the 1970s. Since then, the amount of ozone has been decreasing. We believe that the low values in 1992 and 1993 are due to the volcano Mt. Pinatubo."
This, as opposed to your two sources, one of which is pimping for government funding to "study" the issue, and the other is wikipedia!
