This year's ozone hole has gone!

[Dr Mordrid]

No one is doubting that the ozone hole exists or that it fluctuates or that flurocarbons have an effect on it. The question is to what degree in proportion to all the other factors, especially those like the current....and unexpected....solar activity and terrestrial gravity fields not to mention the magnetic field anomalies.

The atmosphere does change drastically during CME's and we are dealing with ions when we're talking about ozone, so to say the hole isn't affected by huge influxes of protons, alpha particles and other energetic particles does sound a bit suspect.

To also say that in the presence of these mostly short-term changes you can be 98% sure of what's going on, especially when the ozone hole phenomenon itself was only discovered in the early 1980's, is also a bit iffy.

To be honest about it I'm suspicious when anyone says their 98% sure of anything, and when it's a committee saying it that's even worse.

Dr. Mordrid

[KvHagedorn]

Did I spout total BS here? If I did, please quote my error.

[Brian Ellis]

Originally posted by KvHagedorn
Even within recorded history, there have been significant climatic changes. In reading about the Vikings in North America and Greenland, they mention a climate which is milder than now in that area, which allowed for easier navigation to Greenland, Labrador, and Newfoundland. Supposedly in the 1300s the climate worsened which led to the abandonment of Greenland and the end of forays to the North American continent. That might explain why they mention grapes being found farther North than they are now, as well.

Another climatic footnote from that time is that in 1066, during the Battle of Hastings, the historians mention that the sea level was higher and that parts of the area were under water at the time. Perhaps less of the Earth's water was tied up in polar ice then..

So who can say how different we are making our climate?

I'm not saying you are talking BS, but you are taking things totally out of context of this thread.

Things like ozone depletion and greenhouse gas buildup can take many years before the full impact is known, and if we don't know just what we are doing, it is better to err on the side of caution.

I agree with you here regarding climate change, but not ozone depletion which is extremely well known and documented. We know the full impact that the Montreal Protocol is having to reduce ozone depletion and what would have happened if it had not been implemented. What we don't know is the effect that non-compliance and new OD substances may have. For example, at the recent meeting of the Parties in Nairobi, one country applied for exemption on massive quantities of an OD substance used as an agricultural pesticide (where other countries have already phased it out). The decision on this has been deferred. The fact that this same country happens to be the biggest producer of this and other OD substances is, of course, purely coincidental. This is politics, of course, not science, but things like this can upset the applecart.

It's possible that fluctuations and large anomalies in the Earth's magnetic field are responsible for the increases in skin cancer as well. I saw something recently about how the Earth's magnetic field is supposed to "flip" (change polarity) every 300,000 years or so, which is preceded by large anomalies in its structure. For a period of perhaps 300 years, they are saying, the Earth will lose about 90% of its protection from those charged particles, resulting in an additional 100,000 cases of skin cancer per year (which sounds optimistic to me.)

This scares me almost as much as supervolcanoes. You know, evolutionists say the big changes happen almost overnight in geologic terms, say a few generations. Could this coincide with mutations caused by the huge amount of radiation organisms receive when their planet's magnetic field takes a holiday?

Again, this is totally out of context and so-called "popular science". There is not the slightest scrap of evidence that we are approaching a "flip" and, even if we were, that it would have any significant effect on the ozone layer.

No one is doubting that the ozone hole exists or that it fluctuates or that flurocarbons have an effect on it. The question is to what degree in proportion to all the other factors, especially those like the current....and unexpected....solar activity and terrestrial gravity fields not to mention the magnetic field anomalies.

This is a case of a little learning... Ozone is a result of ionisation of oxygen, yes, BUT not just any old ionising energy. It requires a very specific energy wavelength to achieve the ionisation of oxygen and this energy is in the ultra-violet (hence the smell of ozone round mercury-in-quartz lamps). UV is propagated in the same way as visible light. There has been no significant change in the visible light, nor has there been any in the UV light, so the recent soalr flares have not had any significant influence. In a similar way, changes in magnetic fields or gravity do not change light, nor do they change UV (at least until the sun becomes a black hole and sucks up all the light!!!). Particulate matter, no matter how energetic, does not resonate with the oxygen molecule to produce ozone-producing monoatomic ozone. So suspect away, but don't be surprised if you are wrong.

As for the "iffiness", I suggest that the thousands of man-years of profound scientific study, much of it far beyond my intellectual capacity of understanding, should stand for more than your suspected "iffiness", don't you think. It is probable that more effort has been put into understanding ozone depletion and its effects than any other scientific subject, since Adam. This has involved scientists from literally every discipline. But maybe you know better than them?

[Gurm]

Brian,

It is excessively hubristic of you to presume that "thousands of man-years of profound scientific study" means diddly-squat.

A few hundred years ago, the sum total of "thousands of man-years of profound scientific study" led mankind to believe that the earth was the center of the universe.

As recently as 150 years ago, this same "sum total" led mankind to believe that disease was caused by sin, or an imbalance of blood, bile, and phlegm.

You continually act as though, because you were closely associated with this research, it is somehow more valid than any other research - ALL of which is subject to the usual "could be 100% wrong no matter how convinced we are and how hard we've looked into it" disclaimer.

Is it wrong? I'm not necessarily saying that. But to quote the great Fangorn:

"Now, now - let's not be hasty."

- Gurm

[The PIT]

Well I've got my Tardis back does anyone want to take a spin and take some readings.
Reduce all the man made pollution is a good idea anyway.

[Gurm]

Oh absolutely. Let's try to stop polluting. I agree with that.

- Gurm

[Brian Ellis]

Well there, we all agree in theory. Anyone want to share my cave while I find a rabbit I can club to death for dinner and a few dandelion leaves for veggie? That is what the tree huggers would like: expectation of life ~35 years.

We have to strike a reasonable balance, and I believe it is possible. Notwithstanding, we do have to take preventive action against major sources of pollution that could or do damage the planet we are tenants of.

[The Rock]

Tell em Gurm. You are the man. I am in complete agreement with everything you posted in this thread. Don't ever change.