The Ozone Scare Was A Dry Run For The Global Warming Scare


Quote:

Figure 1 shows the level in Dobson Units explained in Figure 2. As with CO2, it is important the public understand the volumes and distributions so involved. Applying the information in Figure 2 against the conditions in Figure 1, you can see that the global average of 300 Dobson Units means if you compressed the ozone down to the surface at 0°C and one atmospheric pressure you have a layer 3 mm thick. The level over Antarctica in Figure 1 is 150 DU or half the average – thinner, but not a hole. The entire story of ozone depletion due to Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) was just that, a story, a scientifically created deception. It was a forerunner and template for the much larger deception of global warming entirely due to human produced CO2. Now, the evidence, much of which was known at the start but deliberately ignored, is emerging.

Quote:

The false science was exposed in “The Holes in Ozone Hoax” As they wrote “Omitted from this story of mass destruction is the fact that the amounts of chlorine contained in all the world’s CFCs are insignificant compared to the amount of chlorine put into the atmosphere from natural sources” The CO2 equivalent to the chlorine deception involved claiming that the CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels differed from “natural” CO2. Similarly, the volumes produced by humans are within the error of the estimate of at least two major non-human sources. It would be an insignificant amount, even if it were causing global warming. The only way the IPCC was able to claim human CO2 was the major factor involved eliminating almost all other possible sources of change. Promoters of the CFC fiasco did the same earlier and achieved their goal. No wonder they tried it again with CO2.

All very similar pseudo science to the co2 hoax.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/05/the-ozone-scare-was-a-dry-run-for-the-global-warming-scare/

What a ridiculous post by the progressive clown freak corporatised puppet

There is extensive peer reviewed literature that validates the degradation of the Ozone hole, in particular over the polar caps, as well as a recorded history of its subsequent recovery after CFCs were banned in the early 1990s.

The derangement and puppetry in this thread is extreme to say the least

lots of overdue apologies and self banishments in arrears me thinks

https://mediaalive.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/thinking-monkey.jpg

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 9:48pm:

What a ridiculous post by the progressive clown freak corporatised puppet There is extensive peer reviewed literature that validates the degradation of the Ozone hole, in particular over the polar caps, as well as a recorded history of its subsequent recovery after CFCs were banned in the early 1990s. The derangement and puppetry in this thread is extreme to say the least lots of overdue apologies and self banishments in arrears me thinks https://mediaalive.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/thinking-monkey.jpg

Hmmm how you say in monkey...... you have been lied to your entire life and never question it

Read a little, it may take you from primitive to something a little less primitive.

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 9:51pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 9:48pm: What a ridiculous post by the progressive clown freak corporatised puppet There is extensive peer reviewed literature that validates the degradation of the Ozone hole, in particular over the polar caps, as well as a recorded history of its subsequent recovery after CFCs were banned in the early 1990s. The derangement and puppetry in this thread is extreme to say the least lots of overdue apologies and self banishments in arrears me thinks https://mediaalive.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/thinking-monkey.jpg Hmmm how you say in monkey...... you have been lied to your entire life and never question it Read a little, it may take you from primitive to something a little less primitive.

apologise and self ban for 48 hours

gather your thoughts and recoup whats left of your ridiculous and putridly pathetic existence.

' Prior to 1979, scientists had not observed concentrations below 220 Dobson Units. But in the early 1980s, through a combination of ground-based and satellite measurements, scientists began to realize that Earth’s natural sunscreen was thinning dramatically over the South Pole each spring. This large, thin spot in the ozone layer came to be known as the ozone hole.'

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/ozone.php

There was never any hole, merely thinning.

Because scientists hadn't seen a low reading before they hadn't existed, right? Of course we have 60 years of readings, so it must be correct.

lee wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 10:41am:

' Prior to 1979, scientists had not observed concentrations below 220 Dobson Units. But in the early 1980s, through a combination of ground-based and satellite measurements, scientists began to realize that Earth’s natural sunscreen was thinning dramatically over the South Pole each spring. This large, thin spot in the ozone layer came to be known as the ozone hole.' http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/ozone.php There was never any hole, merely thinning. Because scientists hadn't seen a low reading before they hadn't existed, right? Of course we have 60 years of readings, so it must be correct.

And satellites prior to "1979" that were looking for the hole or the ozone. Anyone know what satellite that was?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 9:48pm:

What a ridiculous post by the progressive clown freak corporatised puppet There is extensive peer reviewed literature that validates the degradation of the Ozone hole, in particular over the polar caps, as well as a recorded history of its subsequent recovery after CFCs were banned in the early 1990s. The derangement and puppetry in this thread is extreme to say the least lots of overdue apologies and self banishments in arrears me thinks https://mediaalive.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/thinking-monkey.jpg

Chimp... YOUR problem is, you attack the posters so often, rather than the actual science/message, that it's really reached the point that a w@nk 'instruction' from you to "apologise and self ban" is pretty much 100% proof that the post is absolutely correct (otherwise you wouldn't crap on about apologies etc).. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 9:48pm:

as well as a recorded history of its subsequent recovery after CFCs were banned in the early 1990s.

'Ozone hole over Antarctica swells to fourth-largest on record: NASA

Date
    October 30, 2015 '

Peter Hannam
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/ozone-hole-over-antarctica-swells-to-fourthlargest-on-record-nasa-20151029-gkmgge.html#ixzz3tbw1V22c

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 9:48pm:

What a ridiculous post by the progressive clown freak corporatised puppet There is extensive peer reviewed literature that validates the degradation of the Ozone hole, in particular over the polar caps, as well as a recorded history of its subsequent recovery after CFCs were banned in the early 1990s. The derangement and puppetry in this thread is extreme to say the least lots of overdue apologies and self banishments in arrears me thinks https://mediaalive.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/thinking-monkey.jpg

You're dealing with people who simultaneously claim that man never went to the moon yet somehow moon-rock for fusion will save humanity just in case the leftys are not wrong...

Yay, crack is like really good for you and stuff  ::) ::)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 3:05pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 9:48pm: What a ridiculous post by the progressive clown freak corporatised puppet There is extensive peer reviewed literature that validates the degradation of the Ozone hole, in particular over the polar caps, as well as a recorded history of its subsequent recovery after CFCs were banned in the early 1990s. The derangement and puppetry in this thread is extreme to say the least lots of overdue apologies and self banishments in arrears me thinks https://mediaalive.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/thinking-monkey.jpg Chimp... YOUR problem is, you attack the posters so often, rather than the actual science/message, that it's really reached the point that a w@nk 'instruction' from you to "apologise and self ban" is pretty much 100% proof that the post is absolutely correct (otherwise you wouldn't crap on about apologies etc).. ;D ;D ;D ;D

- are you talking about limits  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o ??

--> surely limits don't exist because then concepts such as diminishing returns might also exist  :D :D :D :D :D

lee wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 10:41am:

' Prior to 1979, scientists had not observed concentrations below 220 Dobson Units. But in the early 1980s, through a combination of ground-based and satellite measurements, scientists began to realize that Earth’s natural sunscreen was thinning dramatically over the South Pole each spring. This large, thin spot in the ozone layer came to be known as the ozone hole.' http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/ozone.php There was never any hole, merely thinning. Because scientists hadn't seen a low reading before they hadn't existed, right? Of course we have 60 years of readings, so it must be correct.

Extra extra: real all about it- nothing can be measured ever  :o :o :o :o :o

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 4:37pm:

Extra extra: real all about it- nothing can be measured ever

Is that real?

Except when it's Climate Science ^TM.

lee wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 4:59pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 4:37pm: Extra extra: real all about it- nothing can be measured ever Is that real? Except when it's Climate Science TM.

lee can pick up on typos : you should run for liberal preselection   ::)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 4:37pm:

lee wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 10:41am: ' Prior to 1979, scientists had not observed concentrations below 220 Dobson Units. But in the early 1980s, through a combination of ground-based and satellite measurements, scientists began to realize that Earth’s natural sunscreen was thinning dramatically over the South Pole each spring. This large, thin spot in the ozone layer came to be known as the ozone hole.' http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/ozone.php There was never any hole, merely thinning. Because scientists hadn't seen a low reading before they hadn't existed, right? Of course we have 60 years of readings, so it must be correct. Extra extra: real all about it- nothing can be measured ever  :o :o :o :o :o

'German Physicist and meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls who states:

“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data—first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.” “Scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob." '

http://notrickszone.com/2012/05/09/the-belief-that-co2-can-regulate-climate-is-sheer-absurdity-says-prominent-german-meteorologist/#sthash.aoKMSSgj.dpbs

Quote:

you can see that the global average of 300 Dobson Units means if you compressed the ozone down to the surface at 0°C and one atmospheric pressure you have a layer 3 mm thick. The level over Antarctica in Figure 1 is 150 DU or half the average – thinner, but not a hole.

Yes it was ozone thinning that let in larger amounts of dangerous UV radiation. In the media it was described as a hole but you are arguing over semantics. The effect of an ozone layer that is half the thickness is still dangerous.


Quote:

the fact that the amounts of chlorine contained in all the world’s CFCs are insignificant compared to the amount of chlorine put into the atmosphere from natural sources”

This quote shows a complete lack of understanding of how the carbon cycle (and chlorine cycle) works. In nature the amount of CO2 or Cl in the atmosphere becomes a balance between what is naturally created and what is naturally destroyed. Problems occur when human activity creates extra  of the gas which then accumulates.

Progessives, your article is pure ideologically driven pseudo science

Yep. Map of the ozone hole 2 October 15.

http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/g/k/m/g/h/b/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gkmgge.png/1446203687721.png
Perhaps you can tell me how with the Sun hitting the hole at an oblique angle, it could impact on sunburn on Australians, or indeed the penguins, seeing as the Sun doesn't shine through the hole.

You know- Sun's rays almost parallel after 150 million kms.

So where are these dangerous UV's hitting?

'The amount of UV radiation reaching the earth varies depending on the directness of the sun’s rays, time of day, time of year, the location’s latitude, cloud cover, and the amount of dust, haze and pollution in the air.'

http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/uv/character.html

lee wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 10:59am:

Perhaps you can tell me how with the Sun hitting the hole at an oblique angle, it could impact on sunburn on Australians, or indeed the penguins, seeing as the Sun doesn't shine through the hole. You know- Sun's rays almost parallel after 150 million kms. So where are these dangerous UV's hitting?

Because when the hole gets big enough it can get as far north as Australia
http://www.theozonehole.com/2013ozonehole.htm

---

You notice that is in the 'green', 300 Dobson Units.

'The average amount of ozone in the atmosphere is roughly 300 Dobson Units'

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/dobson_SH.html

So about average. Scary huh?

And the rest of Australia is 250 DU? Weird.

Ok I concede that my graphic didn't demonstrate the dangers of ozone depletion.


Quote:

The ozone layer is depleted in two ways. Firstly, the ozone layer in the mid-latitude (e.g. over Australia) is thinned, leading to more UV radiation reaching the earth. Data collected in the upper atmosphere have shown that there has been a general thinning of the ozone layer over most of the globe. This includes a five to nine per cent depletion over Australia since the 1960s, which has increased the risk that Australians already face from over-exposure to UV radiation resulting from our outdoor lifestyle. Secondly, the ozone layer over Antarctica is dramatically thinned in spring, leading to the `ozone hole https://www.environment.gov.au/protection/ozone/ozone-science/ozone-layer

Surely Lee even you have to admit that the eradication of CFCs to prevent any additional damage to the ozone layer has been a win for science and for society in general. 

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 11:47am:

any additional damage to the ozone layer has been a win for science

That's only if you believe that ozone had never got that low before. 60 years of data is not enough, I think.

Try as I might I can't find any historical figures for ozone over Australia.
Surely that should be the benchmark.

Edit:
It was only in May that NASA said the ozone hole was finally closing up.

And then-

'“While the current ozone hole is larger than in recent years, the area occupied by this year’s hole is consistent with our understanding of ozone depletion chemistry and consistent with colder than average weather conditions in Earth’s stratosphere, which help drive ozone depletion,” said Paul A. Newman, chief scientist for Earth Sciences at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.'

http://research.noaa.gov/News/NewsArchive/LatestNews/TabId/684/ArtMID/1768/ArticleID/11409/Annual-Antarctic-Ozone-Hole-Larger-and-Formed-Later-in-2015.aspx

So natural variation plays a part.

lee wrote on Dec 9^th, 2015 at 11:53am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 9th, 2015 at 11:47am: any additional damage to the ozone layer has been a win for science That's only if you believe that ozone had never got that low before. 60 years of data is not enough, I think. Try as I might I can't find any historical figures for ozone over Australia. Surely that should be the benchmark. Edit: It was only in May that NASA said the ozone hole was finally closing up. And then- '“While the current ozone hole is larger than in recent years, the area occupied by this year’s hole is consistent with our understanding of ozone depletion chemistry and consistent with colder than average weather conditions in Earth’s stratosphere, which help drive ozone depletion,” said Paul A. Newman, chief scientist for Earth Sciences at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.' http://research.noaa.gov/News/NewsArchive/LatestNews/TabId/684/ArtMID/1768/ArticleID/11409/Annual-Antarctic-Ozone-Hole-Larger-and-Formed-Later-in-2015.aspx So natural variation plays a part.

No respect for the calculus that gave you civlisation and new money tryhard-upper-middle-class status  :D :D :D :D :D :D

go the tryhards that voted for howard and abbott still pretending they knew what conservatism meant  :o :o :o :o

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 5:03pm:

No respect for the calculus that gave you civlisation

Newsflash - Calculus can solve natural variation. ;D ;D

lee wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 5:32pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 10th, 2015 at 5:03pm: No respect for the calculus that gave you civlisation Newsflash - Calculus can solve natural variation. ;D ;D

Bro, is burning fossil fuels natural variation?

:D :D :D

I would say ..NO.  Not on the scale undertaken by us human beings.

Emma wrote on Dec 12^th, 2015 at 2:12am:

I would say ..NO.  Not on the scale undertaken by us human beings.

No surprises there I guess that you would say that.

abdullah wrote on Dec 12^th, 2015 at 2:43am:

Emma wrote on Dec 12th, 2015 at 2:12am: I would say ..NO.  Not on the scale undertaken by us human beings. No surprises there I guess that you would say that.

No surprises: but but but that's what terrorism is http://indiandefence.com/styles/smilies/newspark/terrorist.gif

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 12^th, 2015 at 4:20am:

abdullah wrote on Dec 12th, 2015 at 2:43am: Emma wrote on Dec 12th, 2015 at 2:12am: I would say ..NO.  Not on the scale undertaken by us human beings. No surprises there I guess that you would say that. No surprises: but but but that's what terrorism is http://indiandefence.com/styles/smilies/newspark/terrorist.gif

really :D :D :D

Even Margaret Thatcher, a chemist before entering politics could see the harm being done to the ozone layer.

' In bringing this about, Mrs Thatcher played an important part. It is not widely appreciated, however, that there was a dramatic twist to her story. In 2003, towards the end of her last book, Statecraft, in a passage headed "Hot Air and Global Warming", she issued what amounts to an almost complete recantation of her earlier views.

She voiced precisely the fundamental doubts about the warming scare that have since become familiar to us. Pouring scorn on the "doomsters", she questioned the main scientific assumptions used to drive the scare, from the conviction that the chief force shaping world climate is CO2, rather than natural factors such as solar activity, to exaggerated claims about rising sea levels. She mocked Al Gore and the futility of "costly and economically damaging" schemes to reduce CO2 emissions. She cited the 2.5C rise in temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period as having had almost entirely beneficial effects. She pointed out that the dangers of a world getting colder are far worse than those of a CO2-enriched world growing warmer. She recognised how distortions of the science had been used to mask an anti-capitalist, Left-wing political agenda which posed a serious threat to the progress and prosperity of mankind. '

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7823477/Was-Margaret-Thatcher-the-first-climate-sceptic.html

I guess you could read the book to refute it. Or just shoot the messenger.

Snow in summer:



http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/summer-snow-delighting-tasmanians-and-visitors/416691


Quote:

Summer snow delighting Tasmanians and visitors Saturday December 12, 2015 - 13:39 EDT Audience submitted image Snow on the way up kunanyi/Mount Wellington. - Audience submitted As the summer solstice nears, Tasmanians have woken to the sight of a winter wonderland. Low temperatures saw light snow falls around the state, with the Central Highlands receiving the most snow. Hobart's Mount Wellington also received a light dusting as snow fell down to as low as 600 metres, with a strong cold front forcing a significant drop in temperatures overnight, the Bureau of Meteorology's Tim Bolden said. "The coldest of the air really came through around two, three o'clock this morning," he said. "That brought an increase in the shower activity, so we did see snow fall down to the 600-metre level last night.

lee wrote on Dec 12^th, 2015 at 5:01pm:

' In bringing this about, Mrs Thatcher played an important part. It is not widely appreciated, however, that there was a dramatic twist to her story. In 2003, towards the end of her last book, Statecraft, in a passage headed "Hot Air and Global Warming", she issued what amounts to an almost complete recantation of her earlier views. She voiced precisely the fundamental doubts about the warming scare that have since become familiar to us. Pouring scorn on the "doomsters", she questioned the main scientific assumptions used to drive the scare, from the conviction that the chief force shaping world climate is CO2, rather than natural factors such as solar activity, to exaggerated claims about rising sea levels. She mocked Al Gore and the futility of "costly and economically damaging" schemes to reduce CO2 emissions. She cited the 2.5C rise in temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period as having had almost entirely beneficial effects. She pointed out that the dangers of a world getting colder are far worse than those of a CO2-enriched world growing warmer. She recognised how distortions of the science had been used to mask an anti-capitalist, Left-wing political agenda which posed a serious threat to the progress and prosperity of mankind. ' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7823477/Was-Margaret-Thatcher-the-first-climate-sceptic.html I guess you could read the book to refute it. Or just shoot the messenger.

Right I mention ozone hole, you bring up AGW.

You're right.  She couldn't possibly have changed her mind about the ozone hole that doesn't exist.

Was she a geochemist or an ice cream chemist?

The hole in the ozone layer and AGW are two separate things.

Of course they are. Why are you confused. :D

Bobby. wrote on Dec 12^th, 2015 at 5:34pm:

Snow in summer:

This HAS happened before, you know Bobby?.  It isn't new. But as a wee puppy you don't have the memories of us older folk. :)

Emma wrote on Dec 12^th, 2015 at 11:26pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 12th, 2015 at 5:34pm: Snow in summer: This HAS happened before, you know Bobby?.  It isn't new. But as a wee puppy you don't have the memories of us older folk. :)

Agreed, all this global warming nonsense is nothing to me. I remember bigger and better heatwaves when I was a kid. Uni grads these days are fed the most silly nonsense it is a joke.

They will learn as they grow up no doubt. The problem also is the fact they have a generation of ill informed teachers teaching them in the middle nonsense which is of no help also.

Emma wrote on Dec 12^th, 2015 at 11:26pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 12th, 2015 at 5:34pm: Snow in summer: This HAS happened before, you know Bobby?.  It isn't new. But as a wee puppy you don't have the memories of us older folk. :)

Yes it's happened before but -

if the world was heating up we wouldn't have snow in summer.

you are forgiven

namaste

Snow in summer:



http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/summer-snow-delighting-tasmanians-and-visitors/416691


Quote:

Summer snow delighting Tasmanians and visitors Saturday December 12, 2015 - 13:39 EDT Audience submitted image Snow on the way up kunanyi/Mount Wellington. - Audience submitted As the summer solstice nears, Tasmanians have woken to the sight of a winter wonderland. Low temperatures saw light snow falls around the state, with the Central Highlands receiving the most snow. Hobart's Mount Wellington also received a light dusting as snow fell down to as low as 600 metres, with a strong cold front forcing a significant drop in temperatures overnight, the Bureau of Meteorology's Tim Bolden said. "The coldest of the air really came through around two, three o'clock this morning," he said. "That brought an increase in the shower activity, so we did see snow fall down to the 600-metre level last night.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 12^th, 2015 at 11:45pm:

Emma wrote on Dec 12th, 2015 at 11:26pm: Bobby. wrote on Dec 12th, 2015 at 5:34pm: Snow in summer: This HAS happened before, you know Bobby?.  It isn't new. But as a wee puppy you don't have the memories of us older folk. :) Yes it's happened before but - if the world was heating up we wouldn't have snow in summer. you are forgiven namaste

what you said ? in BOLD above..??

is Nonsense.

Emma wrote on Dec 13^th, 2015 at 12:24am:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 12th, 2015 at 11:45pm: Emma wrote on Dec 12th, 2015 at 11:26pm: Bobby. wrote on Dec 12th, 2015 at 5:34pm: Snow in summer: This HAS happened before, you know Bobby?.  It isn't new. But as a wee puppy you don't have the memories of us older folk. :) Yes it's happened before but - if the world was heating up we wouldn't have snow in summer. you are forgiven namaste what you said ? in BOLD above..?? is Nonsense.

My goodness, why is that nonsense ?

Aussie Patriot wrote on Dec 12^th, 2015 at 11:43pm:

Agreed, all this global warming nonsense is nothing to me. I remember bigger and better heatwaves when I was a kid. Uni grads these days are fed the most silly nonsense it is a joke. They will learn as they grow up no doubt. The problem also is the fact they have a generation of ill informed teachers teaching them in the middle nonsense which is of no help also.

So you're saying that the current 400ppm CO2 doesn't produce any significant change in the warming effect from the 310ppm in the 50s? (assuming you're that old)

I think most climate scientists would agree with your observation that you remember bigger heat waves when you were a kid. 

If you're trying to say that current climate conditions are not particularly remarkable, then you're fairly close to the mark.

At 400ppm,  the effect you would have is very subtle, because natural variation makes it impossible to detect in terms of comparing heat waves when you were a kid with heat waves now.

If you are saying that in your location, there is no noticeable effect yet, then you'd be absolutely on the ball.

However if you were suddenly catapulted into 2075, there is a good chance that you would notice a difference. It still wouldn't be catastrophic though.

If the CO2 by that time had increased to 650ppm, then you'd be starting to have tangible effects that don't require elaborate global measurements to detect.

With a global population of 7.3 billion today and who knows how much by 2075, any subtle effects on climate will have a significant effect on their ability to survive. We're on the edge.

The major players are already taking steps to avoid this happening. They are switching to renewable energy in a major way. With a great deal of planning and action from others, there is a very good chance that your great great grandson will be alive to make inane comments on internet forums 200 years from now, oblivious to the fact that  the whole energy generation ball game has changed completely, and hopefully the world population has stabilised to a more realistic level. 

He'll still be able to show his grandson some coal. There will still be massive amounts of it, because they gave up burning the stuff to generate energy ages ago.

The good news is that you won't have to do anything, except post comments that because you don't notice any difference, AGW is nonsense. 

Bobby. wrote on Dec 12^th, 2015 at 11:45pm:

Emma wrote on Dec 12th, 2015 at 11:26pm: Bobby. wrote on Dec 12th, 2015 at 5:34pm: Snow in summer: This HAS happened before, you know Bobby?.  It isn't new. But as a wee puppy you don't have the memories of us older folk. :) Yes it's happened before but - if the world was heating up we wouldn't have snow in summer. you are forgiven namaste

Bobby, there will probably still be the occasional bit of winter snow in Tasmania by 2030.  It might even be worse, because  some regions are actually predicted to get colder. Think subtle effects.

Here is some real world information for you:

http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/

Quote:

Since 2001, the number of extreme heat records in Australia has outnumbered extreme cold records by almost 3 to 1 for daytime maximum temperatures, and almost 5 to 1 for night-time minimum temperatures.

It's a good read.  You do get some extreme cold records broken, but there will be many more extreme heat records broken.

Nobody is saying any different. 

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 13^th, 2015 at 8:36am:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 12th, 2015 at 11:45pm: Emma wrote on Dec 12th, 2015 at 11:26pm: Bobby. wrote on Dec 12th, 2015 at 5:34pm: Snow in summer: This HAS happened before, you know Bobby?.  It isn't new. But as a wee puppy you don't have the memories of us older folk. :) Yes it's happened before but - if the world was heating up we wouldn't have snow in summer. you are forgiven namaste Bobby, there will probably still be the occasional bit of winter snow in Tasmania by 2030.  It might even be worse, because  some regions are actually predicted to get colder. Think subtle effects. Here is some real world information for you: http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/ Quote: Since 2001, the number of extreme heat records in Australia has outnumbered extreme cold records by almost 3 to 1 for daytime maximum temperatures, and almost 5 to 1 for night-time minimum temperatures. It's a good read.  You do get some extreme cold records broken, but there will be many more extreme heat records broken. Nobody is saying any different.

You are forgetting that in the last 2 years the world has seen record low temperatures.

lee wrote on Dec 12^th, 2015 at 8:37pm:

You're right.  She couldn't possibly have changed her mind about the ozone hole that doesn't exist. Was she a geochemist or an ice cream chemist?

You don't think that the ozone hole exists? What, are you a moon landing conspiracist too?

Bobby. wrote on Dec 13^th, 2015 at 8:48am:

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 13th, 2015 at 8:36am: Bobby. wrote on Dec 12th, 2015 at 11:45pm: Emma wrote on Dec 12th, 2015 at 11:26pm: Bobby. wrote on Dec 12th, 2015 at 5:34pm: Snow in summer: This HAS happened before, you know Bobby?.  It isn't new. But as a wee puppy you don't have the memories of us older folk. :) Yes it's happened before but - if the world was heating up we wouldn't have snow in summer. you are forgiven namaste Bobby, there will probably still be the occasional bit of winter snow in Tasmania by 2030.  It might even be worse, because  some regions are actually predicted to get colder. Think subtle effects. Here is some real world information for you: http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/ Quote: Since 2001, the number of extreme heat records in Australia has outnumbered extreme cold records by almost 3 to 1 for daytime maximum temperatures, and almost 5 to 1 for night-time minimum temperatures. It's a good read.  You do get some extreme cold records broken, but there will be many more extreme heat records broken. Nobody is saying any different.  You are forgetting that in the last 2 years the world has seen record low temperatures.

And a lot more record high temperatures.

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 13^th, 2015 at 11:11am:

lee wrote on Dec 12th, 2015 at 8:37pm: You're right.  She couldn't possibly have changed her mind about the ozone hole that doesn't exist. Was she a geochemist or an ice cream chemist? You don't think that the ozone hole exists? What, are you a moon landing conspiracist too?

Der, the hole does not exist. For the dummies, it is not a hole, it is a thinner layer of ozone.

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 13^th, 2015 at 11:38am:

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 13th, 2015 at 11:11am: lee wrote on Dec 12th, 2015 at 8:37pm: You're right.  She couldn't possibly have changed her mind about the ozone hole that doesn't exist. Was she a geochemist or an ice cream chemist? You don't think that the ozone hole exists? What, are you a moon landing conspiracist too? Der, the hole does not exist. For the dummies, it is not a hole, it is a thinner layer of ozone.

lol, semantics  ;D ;D

Yay, go the liberal party and copper internet based dreams of an innovation nation!

Someone just make it stop  ::) ::) ::) ::)

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 13^th, 2015 at 11:38am:

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 13th, 2015 at 11:11am: lee wrote on Dec 12th, 2015 at 8:37pm: You're right.  She couldn't possibly have changed her mind about the ozone hole that doesn't exist. Was she a geochemist or an ice cream chemist? You don't think that the ozone hole exists? What, are you a moon landing conspiracist too? Der, the hole does not exist. For the dummies, it is not a hole, it is a thinner layer of ozone.

It's a hole in the sense of a deficiency. Prior to about 1979, the minimum stratospheric ozone above the Antarctic was above 300 Dobson Units. Anything less than 220 is defined as a hole. Ozone blocks UV-B rays from reaching the Earth's surface. The centre of the Ozone hole is typically below 120 DU.

A Dobson Unit is 0.01mm of thickness of Ozone at Standard temperature and pressure.

(For the dummies, this does not actually translate to a "thinner layer of ozone". The thickness of the layer may be the same, but the stratospheric concentration is lower giving rise to a lower effective thickness.) 

The Ozone Hole only appears in the Southern Spring each year about October.  It is slowly declining, although this year showed a marked increase due to lower than normal temperatures in Antarctica for October.

http://www.skincancer.org/media/legacy/stories/2009_Journal/Ozone/ozone_figure1.jpg


The Australian Government, a signatory to the Montreal Protocol has an excellent resource on Ozone depletion here:

https://www.environment.gov.au/protection/ozone/montreal-protocol

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 13^th, 2015 at 11:11am:

You don't think that the ozone hole exists? What, are you a moon landing conspiracist too?

You are channelling Lewandowsky too much.

'The Curious Case of Condemning Climate Skeptics as Conspiracy Theorists (Lewandowsky, Oberauer, & Gignac, 2013)

Into this mix stepped Lewandowski et al. (2013) with a paper titled, “NASA Faked the Moon Landing – Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax” – which strongly implies that people who doubt global warming believe bizarre conspiracy theories.  As Lewandowsky et al. (2013, p. 622) put it, “… conspiratorial thinking contributes to the rejection of science.”

One possibility is that this was true – that a disproportionately high number of people who disbelieve climate science also believe in something as silly as the faking of the moon landing.  Another, however, was that this was essentially trumped up in order to cast those who are most skeptical of the climate science as fools.

The implication that climate skeptics believe in the faking of the moon landing is another phantom fact.  Out of over 1145 respondents, there was a grand total of 10 who believed the moon landing was faked.  Among the 134 of participants who “rejected climate science,” only three people (2%) endorsed the moon-landing hoax. The link asserted in the title of the paper did not exist in the sample.

Understanding when people are and are not persuaded by science is an interesting and important area of research. But this curious case highlights the threat to scientific integrity that can stem from high moral missions. The notion that skeptics believed something so silly as the faking of the moon landing is yet another myth essentially concocted by the researcher.'

'The Social Psychology of Morality'

A new book from Psychology Press.

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 13^th, 2015 at 12:18pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Dec 13th, 2015 at 11:38am: John_Taverner wrote on Dec 13th, 2015 at 11:11am: lee wrote on Dec 12th, 2015 at 8:37pm: You're right.  She couldn't possibly have changed her mind about the ozone hole that doesn't exist. Was she a geochemist or an ice cream chemist? You don't think that the ozone hole exists? What, are you a moon landing conspiracist too? Der, the hole does not exist. For the dummies, it is not a hole, it is a thinner layer of ozone. It's a hole in the sense of a deficiency. Prior to about 1979, the minimum stratospheric ozone above the Antarctic was above 300 Dobson Units. Anything less than 220 is defined as a hole. Ozone blocks UV-B rays from reaching the Earth's surface. The centre of the Ozone hole is typically below 120 DU. A Dobson Unit is 0.01mm of thickness of Ozone at Standard temperature and pressure. (For the dummies, this does not actually translate to a "thinner layer of ozone". The thickness of the layer may be the same, but the stratospheric concentration is lower giving rise to a lower effective thickness.)  The Ozone Hole only appears in the Southern Spring each year about October.  It is slowly declining, although this year showed a marked increase due to lower than normal temperatures in Antarctica for October. http://www.skincancer.org/media/legacy/stories/2009_Journal/Ozone/ozone_figure1.jpg The Australian Government, a signatory to the Montreal Protocol has an excellent resource on Ozone depletion here: https://www.environment.gov.au/protection/ozone/montreal-protocol

Bit long winded to only return to what I said. And opposite to thickness is....... :-?

giving rise to a lower effective thickness

lee wrote on Dec 13^th, 2015 at 7:09pm:

You are channelling Lewandowsky too much.

Not really.

I just wondered if you shared the views of Ajax, who also posts here. He is a froth-at-the-mouth climate science denier, as well as being  a moon landing denialist and a 911 conspiracy theorist.  Oh, and he thinks that the banks are behind climate science, and that it's just a way of controlling the masses. It might also be a UN plot too. I don't remember all his ravings. 


Ajax wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 11:01am:

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 8th, 2015 at 10:58am: Ajax wrote on Jun 8th, 2015 at 10:42am: Moonlanding....I was watching Dagwood & Blonde when my show got interrupted with some clowns bouncing around over at area 51 claiming to be on the moon. There space craft squeaky clean like it had been mister sheen cleaned it, flags waving in the wind, men bouncing around in half slow mo, all quite boring. I was clad to get back to dagwood & blondie. You are a moon landing conspiracy nut!   :o That was just a stab in the dark I also believe that the twin towers came down because of control demolition.... 8-)

 

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 5:36pm:

Oh, and he thinks that the banks are behind climate science, and that it's just a way of controlling the masses.

Not to the extent of controlling the masses. But it could certainly make mendicant states more so.

Well, there are profits to be made while subsidies are in play. I wouldn't dismiss it completely. The World Bank, IMF are certainly on board as far as lending for renewables is concerned.

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:15pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 5:36pm: Oh, and he thinks that the banks are behind climate science, and that it's just a way of controlling the masses. Not to the extent of controlling the masses. But it could certainly make mendicant states more so. Well, there are profits to be made while subsidies are in play. I wouldn't dismiss it completely. The World Bank, IMF are certainly on board as far as lending for renewables is concerned.

Renewables are the future.  The major oil companies are no longer funding the denial industry. They had to play for time. Now they are ready to profit from renewable energy.

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:20pm:

The major oil companies are no longer funding the denial industry. They had to play for time. Now they are ready to profit from renewable energy.

Most of the oil companies have had extensive interest in renewables for some time. They have broad investment strategies.

I don't know that 'evil oil' was ever into the 'denialist industry'. It was more hype from the 'alarmist' crowd.

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:50pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:20pm: The major oil companies are no longer funding the denial industry. They had to play for time. Now they are ready to profit from renewable energy. Most of the oil companies have had extensive interest in renewables for some time. They have broad investment strategies.

It's just good business sense.

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:51pm:

It's just good business sense.

Of course. And above all else they are businesses.

Quote:

Chinese scientists have published two alarming reports in a matter of weeks. Both conclude that the Himalayan glaciers and the Tibetan permafrost are succumbing to catastrophic climate change, threatening the water systems of the Yellow River, the Yangtze and the Mekong. The Tibetan plateau is the world’s "third pole", the biggest reservoir of fresh water outside the Arctic and Antarctica. The area is warming at twice the global pace, making it the epicentre of global climate risk. One report was by the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The other was a 900-page door-stopper from the science ministry, called the “Third National Assessment Report on Climate Change”. The latter is the official line of the Communist Party. It states that China has already warmed by 0.9-1.5 degrees over the past century – higher than the global average - and may warm by a further five degrees by 2100, with effects that would overwhelm the coastal cities of Shanghai, Tianjin and Guangzhou. The message is that China faces a civilizational threat.

I have been saying the Himalayan Plateau and the glaciers on it that are retreating are the reason the Chinese are pro action on AGW.

As well as the rivers mentioned above the Himalayan glaciers feed another four rivers, watering a quarter of the worlds population.


Quote:

Eight of the world’s biggest solar companies are Chinese. So is the second biggest wind power group, GoldWind. China invested $90bn in renewable energy last year and is already the superpower of low-carbon industries. It installed more solar in the first quarter than currently exists in France. The Chinese plan to build six to eight nuclear plants every year, reaching 110 by 2030. They intend to lever this into worldwide nuclear dominance, as we glimpsed from the Hinkley Point saga. Home-grown energy is central to Xi Jinping's drive for strategic security. China's leaders know what happened to Japan under Roosevelt's energy embargo in the late 1930s, and they don't trust the sea lanes for supplies of coal and liquefied natural gas. Nor do they relish reliance on Russian gas.

China dragging their feet on climate action is in the past.


Quote:

This is why they feel confident enough to forge ahead with a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions in 2017, covering more CO2 than all of the world's 40 existing schemes put together. China is changing fast. The energy intensity of Chinese GDP is in freefall as Xi Jinping tries to wean the economy off primitive metal-bashing and move up the technology ladder. The "tertiary sector" has jumped from 42pc to 51pc of the economy since 2007, taking the baton as the Party starts to tackle vast swathes of excess capacity in steel, cement and shipbuilding. It comes at a time when the cost curve for renewables has fallen far enough to make the post-carbon switch economically painless. "The average cost of global solar was $400 a megawatt/hour worldwide in 2010. It fell to $130 in 2014, and now it has fallen below $60 in the best locations. Almost nobody could have imagined this six years ago," said Mark Lewis from Barclays.

Of course, if we had not elected a Neanderthal in 2013, if the Greens had been sincere in wanting an ETS we could have been part of all this, now we will be passive consumers of renewables AGAIN!

Could have reduced power costs to consumers, industry too:

Quote:

China installed a record 23 gigawatts (GW) of windpower in 2014. It did so because wind is quick and cheap. Lazard calculates that the "levelized cost" of unsubsidized onshore wind has dropped 61pc globally, thanks to smart software, better blades and higher turbines that catch the sweet spot. It thinks wind now undercuts coal and gas, and by a wide margin in optimal spots.

Will finish with the subhead:

Quote:

China is the low-carbon superpower and will be the ultimate enforcer of the COP21 climate deal in Paris

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12052582/Even-if-the-global-warming-scare-were-a-hoax-we-would-still-need-it.html

I have also been an advocate of nuclear power here. It alone can , provide the high density power for industry.

We can use it for desalinisation. Buy the most modern plant, boost hugely nuclear science, engineering, applications like medical. Then get into electric cars, build a network of charging stations. Get Tesla to come here, build the real NBN, dam northern rivers, send them south and west, irrigation and hydro, water the drying south.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:55pm:

Will finish with the subhead: Quote: China is the low-carbon superpower and will be the ultimate enforcer of the COP21 climate deal in Paris

Yeah don't finish with the head quote -

'Even if the global warming scare were a hoax, we would still need it'

lol.

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 6:15pm:

Not to the extent of controlling the masses. But it could certainly make mendicant states more so.

I have never subscribed to subsidising third world countries in the name of reducing carbon footprint.  Any money spent on renewable schemes in these countries is irrelevant, because it will have little impact within a global context.

Most of these countries will never improve.

Ah, the ozone layer. Something that was acted upon, without huge dollars being invested in skepdicksism... and because action stopped it, it was all a lie? Ridiculous.

boxy wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 8:32pm:

Ah, the ozone layer. Something that was acted upon, without huge dollars being invested in skepdicksism... and because action stopped it, it was all a lie? Ridiculous.

What the ozone layer that is still there. The ozone hole that was nearly repaired in May 2015, the ozone hole that was the fourth largest ever in October? That one?

boxy wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 8:32pm:

Ah, the ozone layer. Something that was acted upon, without huge dollars being invested in skepdicksism... and because action stopped it, it was all a lie? Ridiculous.

Y2K too. Didn’t happen. Banks etc spent billions but discount that. Nuts need their conspiracies.

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 8:44pm:

boxy wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 8:32pm: Ah, the ozone layer. Something that was acted upon, without huge dollars being invested in skepdicksism... and because action stopped it, it was all a lie? Ridiculous. What the ozone layer that is still there. The ozone hole that was nearly repaired in May 2015, the ozone hole that was the fourth largest ever in October? That one?

50 years they reckon. About 2050 or so before levels can return to pre 1979 values.  Actually the stratospheric Cl radical concentration is slowly coming down.  Like anything else, there will be natural variation.  In the case of this October, it was unusually cold weather conditions.

Next year, who knows?  It's difficult to predict individual years, as opposed to underlying trends.

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 8:44pm:

boxy wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 8:32pm: Ah, the ozone layer. Something that was acted upon, without huge dollars being invested in skepdicksism... and because action stopped it, it was all a lie? Ridiculous. What the ozone layer that is still there. The ozone hole that was nearly repaired in May 2015, the ozone hole that was the fourth largest ever in October? That one?

The problem is going to remain for at least a generation, but at least we've significantly reduced any added impact, and it will hopefully repair itself over the next century.

As to renewable energy, get used to it.

Sooner or later, we're going to need to transition to renewables. Time to stop freeloading on the 100's of millions of years worth of energy, stored in the bodies of dead (and long extinct) species. The more and longer we rely on the easy fix, the harder it's going to get to transition to something that is long term sustainable.

boxy wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 9:14pm:

The more and longer we rely on the easy fix, the harder it's going to get to transition to something that is long term sustainable.

First off you have to get short term sustainable.

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 9:04pm:

50 years they reckon. About 2050 or so before levels can return to pre 1979 values.  Actually the stratospheric Cl radical concentration is slowly coming down.  Like anything else, there will be natural variation.  In the case of this October, it was unusually cold weather conditions. Next year, who knows?  It's difficult to predict individual years, as opposed to underlying trends.

That's the problem with only 60 odd years of data; we don't know if it is just natural variation.

::) you guys  ;D

Nuclear is long term sustainable.

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 9:23pm:

boxy wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 9:14pm: The more and longer we rely on the easy fix, the harder it's going to get to transition to something that is long term sustainable. First off you have to get short term sustainable.

What does that even mean? Our current energy systems take huge inputs (millions of years worth) and burns them in days.

The point is, we need to focus and use this huge energy deficit, and work towards bootstrapping ourselves into a long term sustainable energy system, rather than frittering it all away on ipods and cheesburgers until we reach a point where we need to act, because it's all gone (or more accurately, too costly to extract any more).

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 9:32pm:

Nuclear is long term sustainable.

Yes, it potentially is, as long as we can mitigate the downsides.

boxy wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 9:42pm:

rather than frittering it all away on ipods and cheesburgers

Neither are on my shopping list. But you didn't respond to nuclear. So where does that fit?


boxy wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 9:42pm:

Our current energy systems take huge inputs (millions of years worth) and burns them in days.

Like Drax Powers station in the UK. Importing wood pellets to burn as fuel from the US. Wood pellets provide less energy than coal, so more wood pellets. The cost of transport, with its attendant emissions, also has to be added to the total cost of Drax.

The ozone is interesting.

'Why Has an Ozone Hole Appeared over Antarctica When CFCs and Halons Are Released Mainly in the Northern Hemisphere?'

'The Earth's atmosphere is continuously stirred over the globe by winds. As a result, ozone-depleting gases get mixed throughout the atmosphere, including Antarctica, regardless of where they are emitted.'

http://www.unep.ch/ozone/faq-science.shtml#question6

Now this is the same line of reasoning used to describe CO2 as a well mixed gas. However, IBUKI and OCO2 satellites both show that CO2 is not well mixed.

Where does that leave the conclusion on CFC's?

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 9:48pm:

boxy wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 9:42pm: rather than frittering it all away on ipods and cheesburgers Neither are on my shopping list. [s]But you didn't respond to nuclear. So where does that fit?[/s

Good for you. Insert your consumer product of choice, it wasn't meant to be an all inclusive list of wasteful excesses ::)

I'm hoping for a cold fusion miracle fix, myself, but we can't afford to place all our hopes in that one basket. Bring on the alternatives, and let the market sort them out, once a realistic price is put on the input costs of the fossil fuel freeloaders.

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 9:28pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 9:04pm: 50 years they reckon. About 2050 or so before levels can return to pre 1979 values.  Actually the stratospheric Cl radical concentration is slowly coming down.  Like anything else, there will be natural variation.  In the case of this October, it was unusually cold weather conditions. Next year, who knows?  It's difficult to predict individual years, as opposed to underlying trends. That's the problem with only 60 odd years of data; we don't know if it is just natural variation.

The Ozone hole is definitely as a result of Chlorine radicals caused by the breakdown of CFCs. There probably won't be much of a trend until concentrations reduce further.

Thomas Midgley has a lot to answer for.

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 6:43am:

The Ozone hole is definitely as a result of Chlorine radicals caused by the breakdown of CFCs. There probably won't be much of a trend until concentrations reduce further. Thomas Midgley has a lot to answer for.

Please explain the transport mechanism.

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 9:59pm:

'Why Has an Ozone Hole Appeared over Antarctica When CFCs and Halons Are Released Mainly in the Northern Hemisphere?'

It's because their is more ice in the statosphere in the southern hemisphere to facilitate the destruction of ozone. So even though there are less CFCs in the southern hemisphere they are more potent.


Quote:

However, the reason we have a southern ozone hole instead of a northern one is not due to the amount of atmospheric pollution — it's due to temperature. The stratosphere in the southern hemisphere — the layer of atmosphere where the ozone layer lies, 15 to 50 kilometres above the Earth's surface — is about five degrees Celsius colder than in the northern hemisphere. "We get more ice in the stratosphere in the southern hemisphere, making the ozone-depleting chemicals more potent," Fraser says. "This leads to that disparity between hemispheres as far as ozone [depletion] is concerned since it's not the level of chemicals that is driving them, but the ability of those chemicals to deplete ozone." Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are one type of ozone-depleting chemicals. They react with ultraviolet light to produce chlorine, which is then able to destroy ozone. This chemical reaction that frees chlorine from CFCs takes place on the surface of tiny particles of ice in the stratosphere. "The more ice there is in the stratosphere, the more ozone-destroying chlorine is liberated from CFCs," Fraser says. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/06/03/2588286.htm

lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 10:49am:

Please explain the transport mechanism.

This site covers how the ozone layer is formed, and the action of various free radicals in breaking down the ozone. For ClOx, see Section 10.2.3 onward.

http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap10.html

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 12:05pm:

It's because their is more ice in the statosphere in the southern hemisphere to facilitate the destruction of ozone. So even though there are less CFCs in the southern hemisphere they are more potent.

It's quite a good summary. The ozone destruction is catalysed by free radicals at an altitude of about 20km. In the case of stratospheric ice, it's the H-O_x. radical where x=1 or 2.

The actual water content (dewpoint) at that altitude is miniscule.

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 2:00pm:

lee wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 10:49am: Please explain the transport mechanism. This site covers how the ozone layer is formed, and the action of various free radicals in breaking down the ozone. For ClOx, see Section 10.2.3 onward. http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap10.html

It doesn't explain the transport of CFC's from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere.

' Because of the lack of topography or land-ocean contrast to disturb the westerly flow at southern midlatitudes, little meridional transport takes place and the antarctic atmosphere is effectively isolated from lower latitudes.'

http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap10.html

lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 2:28pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 2:00pm: lee wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 10:49am: Please explain the transport mechanism. This site covers how the ozone layer is formed, and the action of various free radicals in breaking down the ozone. For ClOx, see Section 10.2.3 onward. http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap10.html It doesn't explain the transport of CFC's from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere. ' Because of the lack of topography or land-ocean contrast to disturb the westerly flow at southern midlatitudes, little meridional transport takes place and the antarctic atmosphere is effectively isolated from lower latitudes.' http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap10.html

I wondered what you meant. I thought you meant transport to the upper atmosphere. It's a gas.

The Antarctic is effectively isolated for about a year. The lag time is about a year.  Let me find a suitably academic reference.

Here we are. Also from Harvard:
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap4.html

Look through the article until you find this diagram:

http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap4-16.gif


Quote:

Daniel J. Jacob Vasco McCoy Family Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Environmental Engineering Harvard University

The Antarctic airmass is actually pretty well isolated during the winter. It's referred to as the Antarctic Vortex.

Looking at Interhemispheric exchanges

'    3. 4 Interhemispheric exchange

In this problem we use observations of the radioactive gas 85Kr to determine the characteristic time for exchange of air between the northern and southern hemispheres. We consider a 2-box model where each hemisphere is represented by a well-mixed box, with a rate constant k (yr -1 ) for mass exchange between the two hemispheres. Our goal is to derive the residence time t = 1/k of air in each hemisphere. '

http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookhwk3.html#76878

Ahh, back to the well mixed gases.

. already dealt with so deleted

boxy wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 9:43pm:

lee wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 9:32pm: Nuclear is long term sustainable. Yes, it potentially is, as long as we can mitigate the downsides.

Nuclear Power is not long term sustainable as it only exists because Nuclear Weapons exist.

Not one politician thinks it wise for the whole world to go nuclear: not one!

... I wonder why  :o :o :o :o

lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 6:24pm:

Looking at Interhemispheric exchanges '    3. 4 Interhemispheric exchange In this problem we use observations of the radioactive gas 85Kr to determine the characteristic time for exchange of air between the northern and southern hemispheres. We consider a 2-box model where each hemisphere is represented by a well-mixed box, with a rate constant k (yr -1 ) for mass exchange between the two hemispheres. Our goal is to derive the residence time t = 1/k of air in each hemisphere. ' http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookhwk3.html#76878 Ahh, back to the well mixed gases.

ah, back to lee not reading properly  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D