posted 11-24-2003 10:58 AM               

Haroum Tazieff died on February 2001, so he is no longer with us to continue his longtime fight against ecological catastrophism back in the 80s, when he wrote his book called (free translation) “Will the Earth Stop Spinning?”. He was one of the most respected scientists in the field of volcanology, but also in other fields related to the environment, and was joined by Brice Lalonde (nothing less!) in his defense of nuclear power in France, that brought France to its outstanding position as the biggest electricity producer in Europe (sells its surplus electricity to England, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Holland, all the small banking states, Denmark, etc).

I have to admire you consistency and coherence of your beliefs, though. That is why I am not surprised to find out you were not shocked at all by his harsh denounce of the Chemistry Nobel Award in 1995, but it is distressing to find that people having a fairly high level of intellectual power, choose to ignore what undisputed scientists (this time not tied to industry interests) say about the ozone theory and global warming, without analyzing their arguments and the science behind them, and contrasting them against basic physics and chemistry laws.

Thus, it does not surprises me to find you believe in Chemtrails and Deep Shield. Although I cannot dismiss the theory completely, for lack of evidence, the evidences shown by the Chemtrail followers are still not convincing as scientific evidence. From the zillion posts made in many Chemtrail forum and many, many pages related to the subject, I have not found any serious piece of evidence. Not one. Just “perceived things”, “gossips”, “a friend of mine told me”, “an undisclosed insider said” , etc. etc.

I was brought into this forum, because one of the contentions of the Chemtrail theory says it is being performed to “save the ozone layer” and to “stop or remediate global warming” . As I expressed to “Halva-Bruce Holmstead-Bruce Broccoli-Wayne Hall” in my email interchange with him, people at high levels (those in charge of the project) know very well there is no such thing as “human induced warming” and no “ozone layer depletion” , so they are not going to spend billions in that project – just for those causes.

In the remote case the Chemtrail operation is being carried, however, it must have quite different motivations, and “warming and ozone” are just excuses for gullible people scared stiff by the “ozone scare and catastrophic warming” campaigns pushed by the same people supposedly behind Chemtrails. It is as simple as that.

If there really exists such spraying going on, it must have political reasons for doing it, as I have read, “for population control” , for example, and curiously enough, is being preformed on a country (the US) that has not such a problem. People in the Club of Rome, one the many members of the green community, is worried by the “excess population” in Third World or “underdeveloping” countries – but I have found no traces of such “contrails” over those countries. In my province we see just two high altitude contrails from the planes by Aerolineas Argentinas and LAN Chile making the flight Buenos Aires-Santiago. They pass right above my house, following the path given by the radio beacon at our local airport.

Our own satellite photos taken at the nearby satellite station we have at Falda del Carmen station (10 miles to the west of my house), owned by our CONAE (National Commission on Space Activities, maker of the Hugo-1 weather satellite), show the tiniest cloud in the sky, and the contrails of those specific flights. Nothing else. I have free access to the station facilities there (my good friend Ing. Marcelo Martínez is in charge – we have weekly barbecues at my home or his), so I can assure you that no Chemtrail program is being performed on South America.

Pictures are taken by the Hugo-1 satellite in every pass over South America, covering the entire territory, on an hourly basis. It provides information, not only on weather, but on many subjects as ultraviolet and infrared data for agricultural and forestry uses, mineralogy, radar altimetry for the Rio de la Plata levels (and its nearby Atlantic ocean), etc, etc. We are not just “Indians buying mirrors and plastic beads” down here. We have sold China the technology for producing “cold protons” for their new research nuclear reactor. We won the contract over the Germans, French and Canadians, as we also beat them with a contract to Australia’s newest reactor. The US is out of those contracts because the pressure of the green movement has brought the US nuclear industry on its knees. Lucky we!

The “cold protons” technology is the latest in nuclear research, and the company that has developed it (INVAP) - guess what? – belongs to the Argentinean state and is not in private hands. Neo-liberalism? Free trade? Open markets? Not here, any more, thanks you. We still have to get rid of the multinationals that have looted the country from 1991, (Oil, communications, and energy are mostly on the hands of multinationals as Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon, Halliburton, etc, Telecom France, Telefónica Española, EdeSur and EdeNorte (electricity owned by Chilean-British companies) , EcoGas (gas pipelines, an US company), Aerolíneas Argentinas (belongs to Iberia Airlines), etc. It will take time, but we can do it.

posted 11-26-2003 06:59 PM               

So much for consistency...and hypocrisy.

As far as the myths he promotes about the irrelevance of man-made CFC's impact on ozone depletion, consider the following from the US Environmental Protection Agency. We can only imagine that SEÑOR Ferreyra will claim that they are only taking this position in order to garner additional funding from the Bush junta. (This is why, while at the same time tragic in potential consequence, SEÑOR Ferreyra's postings are so amusing.)

http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/science/myths.html

Myth: CFCs Are Heavier Than Air, So They Can't Reach the Ozone Layer

Source: World Meteorological Organization, Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998, WMO Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project - Report No. 44, Geneva, 1998.

CFCs and other ozone depleting substances (ODS) are heavier than air. In a still room, they will pool on the floor. However, the atmosphere is anything but still. Numerous measurements have confirmed that these molecules are mixed nearly uniformly worldwide. In the same way that vinegar and oil normally separate when still, but mix when shaken, ozone depleting substances and air are thoroughly stirred together by winds in the troposphere.

Winds are also why the location of CFC and other ODS emissions is essentially irrelevant. CFCs released from a car in the U.S. are as likely to find their way to the stratosphere over India as are molecules released from much closer countries like China. Once they mix through the troposphere, CFC molecules eventually move into the stratosphere. Thousands of measurements over several decades have firmly proven the existence of these heavier-than-air molecules in the ozone layer.

As the graph above shows, the concentration of CFC-11 is essentially constant at altitudes up to 10 km. The UV radiation needed to break CFC-11 apart is shielded by the ozone layer. Because no natural processes destroy CFCs, it survives to be uniformly distributed, both vertically and horizontally. Concentrations drop off rapidly, however, in the stratosphere. As the molecules rise into and above the ozone layer, they are exposed to strong UV, break down, and release chlorine. These measurements are one link between CFCs, increased levels of chlorine in the stratosphere, and ozone depletion.

posted 11-26-2003 07:04 PM               

Source: World Meteorological Organization, Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998, WMO Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project - Report No. 44, Geneva, 1998.

Volcanic eruptions are powerful events, and they are capable of injecting hydrogen chloride (HCl) high into the atmosphere. Similarly, oceans produce large volumes of sea salt, which contains chlorine, on a daily basis. If these compounds accumulated in large quantities in the stratosphere, they might produce ozone depletion. However, for several reasons, we know that CFCs and other substances used in human activities are the primary sources of chlorine in the stratosphere.

First, the vast majority of volcanic eruptions are too weak to reach the stratosphere, around 10 km above the surface. Thus, any HCl emitted in the eruption begins in the troposphere. Sea salt from the oceans is also released very low in the atmosphere. These compounds would have to remain airborne for 2-5 years to be carried to the stratosphere. However, both sea salt and HCl are extremely soluble in water, as opposed to CFCs which do not dissolve in water. Rain effectively scrubs the troposphere, removing both of these forms of chlorine. Steam in volcanic plumes can act the same way, removing HCl long before it reaches the ozone layer. Measurements have shown that concentrations of these substances vanish very rapidly as altitude increases. Neither sea salt from the oceans nor tropospheric-level volcanic eruptions (like Mt. Erebus in Antarctica) contribute significantly to stratospheric chlorine levels. Some sea life does produce methyl chloride, a more stable form of chlorine than sea salt, but its contribution is small, as explained below.

Source: World Meteorological Organization, Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998, WMO Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project - Report No. 44, Geneva, 1998.

CFCs, on the other hand, do not dissolve in rain. In addition, no chemical processes have been found that aggressively remove them from the troposphere. In fact, one of the advantages of the CFCs was their stability. However, it is this very stability that poses a threat to the ozone layer.

Second, there is no historical record that shows significant increases in stratospheric chlorine following even the most major volcanic eruptions. Although El Chichon, in 1982, did increase concentrations of HCl in the stratosphere by 10%, that extra chlorine disappeared in about a year. When Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, measurements found no increase in stratospheric chlorine. The dramatic increase in chlorine concentrations simply cannot be explained by a concurrent increase in volcanic activity.

Imagine that your birthday arrives, but you have no money in your savings account. You receive several gifts, but you can't quite remember whether your professor gave you a check. A call to the bank reveals that you have a balance of $100. One friend confirms she gave you $20, your mother reminds you that she sent $50, and your brother chipped in $30. By knowing the total and the amounts sent by everyone else, you conclude that your professor couldn't have sent you any money. Scientists performed exactly the same calculation. They could account for all of the sources of chlorine in the stratosphere, and only 3% was from HCl, probably from volcanoes. Another 15% of the chlorine entering the stratosphere derived from methyl chloride. However, fully 82% of stratospheric chlorine came from ODS, with 51% being carried there by CFC-11 and CFC-12.

Finally, Mt. Pinatubo did have an indirect effect because it emitted a large amount of aerosols, but it was short-lived. (Note that volcanic aerosols are tiny particles, not related in any way to consumer products called aerosols that have not used CFCs since the 1970s.) The aerosols essentially improved the efficiency of chlorine from CFCs, but they have already disappeared from the stratosphere. Thus, this temporary effect is not the root cause of ozone depletion.

The relationship between volcanic eruptions and ozone depletion is one of the most misunderstood in the realm of ozone science. Scientists seriously considered the impacts these awesome natural events might have on the ozone layer. They concluded, however, that ODS like CFCs are the real source of stratospheric chlorine, and thus ozone depletion.

See also: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/

posted 11-26-2003 07:06 PM               

Source: World Meteorological Organization, Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998, WMO Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project - Report No. 44, Geneva, 1998.

News about the ozone hole that forms over Antarctica each October has spread around the world. First formed in the early 1980s, the ozone hole can be as big as the U.S. and as deep as a 66% loss of ozone. However, less-well-known is that ozone depletion has been measured everywhere outside the tropics, and that it is, in fact, getting worse.

In March, 1999, over 260 of the world's top atmospheric researchers released their latest findings in a volume titled Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2002. Ozone levels vary by season and latitude. The report concluded that in the middle latitudes (most of the populated world), ozone levels have fallen about 10% during the winter and 8% in the summer. Since 1979, they have fallen about 4% per decade when averaged over the entire year. Depletion is generally worse at higher latitudes, i.e. further from the Equator. The Executive Summary to the Assessment is available from the WMO.

Ozone levels at Arosa, Switzerland clearly show a sharp drop beginning in the early 1970s. The graph to the left shows long-term ozone levels over Arosa, Switzerland. Although ozone levels rise and fall in natural cycles, the average level remained constant from 1926 until 1973. Beginning in 1973, however, and continuing through 2001, ozone levels have dropped at a rate of 2.3 percent / decade. Both the 11-year sunspot cycle and volcanic eruptions such as Mount Pinatubo in 1991 can affect total ozone levels temporarily. However, it is clear that at Arosa, neither had a long-term impact. The sharp decline beginning in 1973 demonstrates that the world is not experiencing a natural cycle in ozone levels. In fact, this decline matches the high rate of growth in the use of CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances.

Ozone depletion is not constant through the year. More detailed monthly data from the Swiss Institute for Atmospheric Science show that most of the depletion occurs in winter and spring.

In addition, satellite measurements of ozone depletion over North America demonstrate ozone depletion occuring since 1979. Note that in the graph to the left, column ozone over the Seattle area was 391 Dobson units (DU). In 1994, however, ozone levels had dropped to 360 DU. Los Angeles saw a similar drop, from 368 DU to 330 DU. Finally, the Miami area ozone levels fell from 303 DU to 296 DU.

In general, ozone depletion is greater at higher latitudes. Thus, the decrease near Seattle will be greater than near Los Angeles, while Miami will see the smallest depletion of the three cities. However, southern cities also have much higher incidence of UVB light; even with less depletion, the net increase in UVB can be greater. While exact calculations cannot be made from this graph, it demonstrates that the ozone layer is being damaged over much of the globe, not just over Antarctica.

Finally, measurements over various cities in Canada show ozone depletion. These measurements confirm that ozone depletion is not limited to Antarctica.

Myth: No Link Exists Between Ozone Depletion and Higher UV Levels
http://www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/science/FIG-FAQ09.JPG

Source: World Meteorological Organization, Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998, WMO Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project - Report No. 44,
Geneva, 1998.

The primary concern related to ozone depletion is the expectation that as the ozone layer deteriorates, higher levels of UVB will reach the ground. Studies done in Antarctica show a clear connection between reduced ozone levels and higher levels of UVB. During the annual ozone hole, UV intensitities more than doubled compared to what would normally be found given the angle of the sun in the sky. A study in Toronto demonstrated the relationship between days of lower ozone and higher UV levels, and other researchers also showed this connection over Germany, Iceland, and Greece. Finally, laboratory experiments confirm that ozone absorbs UVB.

The connection between ozone levels and UV levels is also demonstrated by measurements of incident UV at different parts of the Earth's atmosphere. The sun's rays contain a wide variety of wavelengths. Some of this energy is visible light (400-700 nm), but a wide variety of the electromagnetic spectrum is represented, including various UV bands: UVA (320-400 nm), UVB (290-320 nm), and UVC (shorter than 280 nm). Measurements taken above the ozone layer show that none of the bands have been strongly absorbed. However, lower in the ozone layer, it becomes clear that the ozone molecules are strongly absorbing the UVB and UVC bands. UVC is so completely absorbed by normal oxygen that only nearly complete destruction of the ozone layer will increase its levels on the ground. However, UVB is only absorbed by ozone. For each 1% drop in ozone levels (i.e. 1% increase in ozone depletion), scientists estimate about 1% more UVB will reach the Earth's surface.

J. B. Kerr and C. T. McElroy, "Evidence for Large Upward Trends of Ultraviolet-B Radiation Linked to Ozone Depletion", Science,262, 1032, 1993.

Seckmeyer, G., B. Mayer, R. Erb, and G. Bernhard, "UV-B in Germany higher in 1993 than in 1992", Geophys. Res. Lett., 21, 577-580, 1994.

Zerefos, C. S., A. F. Bais, C. Meleti, and I. C. Ziomas, "A note on the recent increase of solar UV-B radiation over northern middle latitudes", Geophys. Res. Lett., 22, 1245-1247, 1995.
--------------------------------------------
Additional ozone myths:

http://info-pollution.com/common.htm

http://www.cs.uu.nl/wais/html/na-dir/ozone-depletion/.html
--------------------------------------------

posted 11-26-2003 11:11 PM               

The Scientist 10[9]:, Apr. 29, 1996

Letter

Ozone Chemistry
By Patrick Hassett

The recent Opinion essay by S. Fred Singer on the awarding of the Nobel Prize in chemistry for research on chlorofluorocarbon-ozone chemistry [The Scientist, March 4, 1996, page 9] is a continuation of a well-orchestrated political campaign, using a small group of self-appointed "skeptics," that is aimed at undermining research into environmental problems. The implication that it is the Nobel Prize committee that is politicizing the basic science issues of CFC-ozone chemistry is disingenuous at best. Time and again the mode of attack is to assert that the basic science being conducted is contaminated by the political ends desired. The CFC-ozone and climate change research programs are the current favored targets of these "skeptics"; as species and habitat protection threatens unrestricted property use, I would guess that biodiversity and sustainability research will soon be targeted as well.

The debate is not being waged in the scientific literature or at scientific meetings, but in the mass media through "sound-bite science," and in front of accommodating congressional committees, with funding provided by corporate interests that see themselves threatened by the research. Scientists actually doing the research on ozone depletion or climate change are portrayed as proceeding with blinders, ignoring even the most obvious problems with assumptions or data, in their single-minded zeal to arrive at a preordained conclusion.

Anyone who followed the long history of these debates would realize the hollowness of the charges. I attended an American Association for the Advancement of Science session on climate change nearly a decade ago where climate modelers were challenging each other's assumptions and stressing the areas of uncertainty that needed to be addressed. There were no blinders evident then, nor has there been in the literature since. I would suggest, rather, that it is this group of "skeptics" who are proceeding with blinders, in their obsessive desire to undermine research in these areas.

The defense might be that these "skeptics" are simply balancing the views of other scientists that are publicized by environmental activist organizations such as the Environmental Defense Fund or Sierra Club, but if so these "skeptics" should make clear their perspective, and their connections with and financial and logistical support from such organizations as the Western Fuels Association, the American Petroleum Institute, OPEC, and the Heritage Foundation. It may be inevitable that when basic research intersects with public-policy issues, the research itself will become a political target, but if that is the case, then the politics should not be hidden behind a veil of scientific "balance."

posted 11-26-2003 11:18 PM               

Science: Ozone Depletion

In the stratosphere, the region of the atmosphere between about 6 and 30 miles (10 and 50 kilometers) above the Earth's surface, ozone (O3) plays a vital role by absorbing harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Stratospheric ozone is threatened by some of the human-made gases that have been released into the atmosphere, including those known as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Once widely used as propellants in spray cans, refrigerants, electronics cleaning agents, and in foam and insulating products, the CFCs had been hailed as the "wonder chemicals." But the very properties that make them useful - chemical inertness, non-toxicity, insolubility in water - also make them resistant to removal in the lower atmosphere.

CFCs are mixed worldwide by the large-scale motions of the atmosphere and survive until, after 1-2 years, they reach the stratosphere and are broken down by ultraviolet radiation. The chlorine atoms within them are released and directly attack ozone. In the process of destroying ozone, the chlorine atoms are regenerated and begin to attack other ozone molecules... and so on, for thousands of cycles before the chlorine atoms are removed from the stratosphere by other processes.

The profile above shows how the amount of ozone (O3) varies with height in the atmosphere. Note that most of the ozone is in the lower stratosphere. The "ozone layer" resides at an altitude of about 12 to 15 miles (20 to 25 kilometers) above sea level. It acts as a shield by absorbing biologically active ultraviolet light (called UV-B) from the sun. If the ozone layer is depleted, more of this UV-B radiation reaches the surface of the earth. Increased exposure to UV-B has harmful effects on plants and animals, including humans. The chlorine and bromine in human-produced chemicals such as the ones known as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons are depleting ozone in the stratosphere. The figure shows a simplified cycle of reactions in which chlorine (Cl) destroys ozone (O3).

Science: The Antarctic Ozone Hole

The Antarctic Ozone Hole was discovered by the British Antarctic Survey from data obtained with a ground-based instrument from a measuring station at Halley Bay, Antarctica, in the 1981-1983 period. They reported the October ozone loss in 1985. Satellite measurements then confirmed that the springtime ozone loss was a continent-wide feature.

Research conducted during the National Ozone Expeditions to the U.S. McMurdo Station in 1986 and 1987, and NASA stratospheric aircraft flights into the Antarctic region from Chile in 1987 showed conclusively that the ozone loss was related to halogen (chlorine)-catalyzed chemical destruction which takes place following spring sunrise in the Antarctic polar region. The chlorine is derived from manmade chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) which have migrated to the stratosphere and have been broken down by solar ultraviolet light, freeing chlorine atoms.

The ozone hole is formed each year in the Southern Hemisphere spring (September-November) when there is a sharp decline (currently up to 60%) in the total ozone over most of Antarctica. During the cold dark Antarctic winter, stratospheric ice clouds (PSCs, polar stratospheric clouds) form when temperatures drop below -78C. These clouds are responsible for chemical changes that promote production of chemically active chlorine and bromine. When sunlight returns to the Antarctic in the Southern Hemisphere spring, this chlorine and bromine activation leads to rapid ozone loss, which then results in the Antarctic ozone hole. Although some ozone depletion also occurs in the Arctic during the Northern Hemisphere spring (March-May), wintertime temperatures in the Arctic stratosphere are not persistently low for as many weeks which results in less ozone depletion.

Owing to regulations on the production and use of certain ozone-destroying chlorinated compounds, which went into effect in January 1996, the atmospheric concentration of some of these man-made substances has begun to decline. Chlorine/bromine should reach maximum levels in the stratosphere in the first few years of the 21st century, and ozone concentrations should correspondingly be at their minimum levels during that time period. It is anticipated that the recovery of the Antarctic Ozone Hole can then begin. But because of the slow rate of healing, it is expected that the beginning of this recovery will not be conclusively detected for a decade or more, and that complete recovery of the Antarctic ozone layer will not occur until the year 2050 or later. The exact date of recovery will depend on the effectiveness of present and future regulations on the emission of CFCs and their replacements. It will also depend on climate change in the intervening years, such as long-term cooling in the stratosphere, which could exacerbate ozone loss and prolong recovery of the ozone layer.

Although increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere may result in warmer surface temperatures, colder temperatures are expected to occur in the stratosphere. In fact, temperatures in the lower stratosphere, as measured by NOAA's Microwave Sounding Unit, have cooled during the past 22-years, the length of the satellite record. Colder stratospheric temperatures can enhance ozone loss through their affect on the formation of polar stratospheric clouds which in turn promote chlorine-caused ozone destruction.

posted 11-26-2003 11:41 PM               

Aerosols in the Stratosphere

Most volcanoes do not penetrate the stratosphere. In fact, only a small number of eruptions have produced a significant amount of aerosols in this century. (Note that volcanic aerosols are totally unrelated to consumer aerosol products, like hair spray, that have not used ozone-depleting substances since the 1970s.) One example is Mt. Pinatubo, which injected 30 million tons of aerosols into the stratosphere during its 1991 eruption in the Philippines. That amount is represented by the peak in the graph below. The topmost graph shows measurements from Barrow, Alaska; the lower graph represents measurements taken at Mauna Loa, Hawaii .

These tiny particles can provide a surface where the ozone destruction reactions take place very rapidly. Aerosols only have an effect because of the currently high levels of stratospheric chlorine released from ODS. They improve a chlorine atom's effectiveness at destroying ozone molecules, producing a short-lived spurt in ozone depletion.

Source:

"Pinatubo effects in the Arctic as derived from Airborne and Surface observations "
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/star/agasp2.html

However, as the graph also shows, these particles were fairly quickly removed from the stratosphere. A standard way to quantify the longevity of a substance in the atmosphere is its "lifetime" -- the time that it takes for an initial amount to be cut by about two-thirds. More precisely, for an initial amount of 1000 tons injected into the stratosphere, about 368 tons would be left after one lifetime. Each subequent lifetime would reduce the remaining amount by about 63%. As the graph shows, the amount of aerosols in the stratosphere dropped at about the same rate as would a substance with a lifetime of about 11 months. Three years after the eruption, nearly all of the Mt. Pinatubo aerosols were gone.

One disturbing point to note from the above graph is that it appears to take much longer for aerosols to be removed from polar regions than from tropical regions. The polar regions, particularly Antarctica, are particularly susceptible to major drops in stratospheric ozone.

In comparison, CFC-12 has a lifetime of 100 years and CFC-11 has a lifetime of 45 years (as reported in the Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2002). Hence, the impact of aerosols is much shorter in duration than that of the CFCs. The fact that CFCs have long lifetimes is one reason why it will take so long for the ozone layer to recover after the production phaseout.

posted 11-27-2003 11:48 AM               

In my profile in Chemtrails Center you can find my name, my email address, my interests, and where I live. It means I put my face up front, and accept all criticisms you may want to express. That’s the reason I have been receiving a great deal of emails in my personal inbox (at the Argentinean Foundation for a Scientific Ecology) congratulating me and our foundation for the work we do, and how we do it. I expected some criticism, but there was none.

On the other hand, the person I am confronting here is a mystery. His profile shows nothing. One can only send him emails through the forum’s email service. He hides behind anonymity, although his real identity may be known to some people on this forum, namely Deborah, David Stewart, halva, etc.

But Sore Throat’s identity is no mystery for me. Among the emails received, one of them contained a complete dossier on Sore Throat, but I will respect his privacy and will not disclose his name and address – I can only tell you that he had training in marine biology in the late 60s, is a dropout, and works in the pharmaceutical business.

This “mysterious” man was asked to answer very simple questions about basic meteorology, chemistry and physics of the atmosphere, in order to see if he is qualified for a discussion on climatology and related fields. He has failed to do it, so until he proves to the forum he knows the basics about what he is trying to discuss, I will not answer his posts, no matter how sarcastic he may get about my refusal to discuss with an amateur.

I was alerted yesterday by an email that new posts were in the forum related to the ozone issue, as after many days of silence I assumed the discussion was over. As for the last posts made by this person, it seems they are the usual “shot in the foot”, and a strange insistence in “digging his own grave”.

I am finishing my answer, using his same graphs and assertions, adding other graphs and charts by the NASA, NOAA and other official institutions, as well of my own graphs derived from scientific studies (peer-reviewed and references), and some charts and graphs appearing in Gordon Dobson’s book of 1968, ”Exploring the Atmosphere”, by Oxford University press, showing how flawed and misinforming are, not only Sore Throat’ assertions and conclusions (are his, or just plain plagiarism?), but the sources he mentioned.

So, if you would like to see my response to his assertions, then convince him to give his answers to the set of basic questions I asked him. Otherwise, this discussion ends here. An of course, it will reveal that Sore Throat’s refuse to answer demonstrates three things:

1) He knows nothing about basis climatology and physics,

2) He cannot discuss matters in a personal level, having to resort to “copy and paste” of other people, usually out of context, and,

3) By refusing to answer the questions he prevents the rebuttal of his misinforming posts.

posted 11-27-2003 01:32 PM            

How's the weather there in Cordoba today? It's cloudy here (in Mid-Missouri, USA)with a fairly thick whiteish haze but very pleasant for late Nov.) Go figure

I know you are a busy man as your writings seem to indicate and apparently a well studied one as well in the field of "weather". I know you said you don't talk to "amateurs", at least if I read you correctly, but I was hoping that maybe you would make an exception in my case. I have a reasonably good scientific background and am fairly well able to apply critical thinking and spend probably a more than "average" time observing. In any case I would appreciate any insite you might wish to share.

Speaking of observing, many of us here where I live in central Missouri have been noticing what appear to be "squadrons" of dozens of planes (or fewer planes looping) FILLING in areas of ANY blue sky until we get, what most surely appears to be the objective, a COMPLETELY whited-out sky. These planes, if one follows their trails, work in a WELL exectued flight plan, that anyone of moderate intelligence, can see is working to "create clouds" and fill in spaces of blue sky with white haze. And as a result of this white haze, it naturally gets cooler.

Now what I have to wonder is this? Is the objective of these "large smokey type spreading trails" weather modification to reduce the sunlight, or weather modification to make it rain? What is your experience with weather modification? Any? A short surf through the net show's an amazing (to me) amount of weather modification going on that I think is largely out of site of the mainstram. Is it like that in your country?

One other thing what is your impression of the work performed at Lawrence Livermore Labs by Edward Teller and others especially as regards such issued outlined in the paper "Global Warming an Ice Ages" from August 15, 1997. I assume you are familiar wtih it.

Another interesting paper I imagine you have seen "Geoengineering:A Climate Change Manhattan Project (Stanford Environmental Law Journal, January, 1998) seems to advocate geongineering as an acceptable solution to what they seem to think is a REAL already present problem, at least that's how it come across to me. Do you belive they are sincere, or perhaps do you think they have other motives?

Lastly with all of the "weather modification" tests and applications going on why do you still think people deny "chemtrails"? Like to hear any thoughts you could share. Thanks.

posted 11-28-2003 05:18 PM               

I am sure you misunderstood my last post regarding “discussing with amateurs”. Discussion is one completely different thing than speaking. “Amateur” is just a way of defining somebody with lots of enthusiasm but not much skill. There are great amateurs there playing basketball, but for getting into de NBA, they must play well above “average”. I do not consider myself an authority or a “pro” in climatology, although, for a visual comparison with golf handicaps, I would be an amateur with a handicap of 5. Amateurs play in different categories. Scratch, 0-9, 10-16, 16-32, at least down here in Argentina. Although I cannot play against a scratch or a golf pro, I can see if the man is doing something wrong with its swing, coming down from the outside, their wrists broken too soon, his right elbow not coming close to the body, etc.

The same applies to scientific work. When one has a handicap 5, can see if Stepehen Schneider, or F. Sherwood Rowland, for instance, are hooking or slicing, and one can point where might be the error. I love speaking to scientists amateurs, or less informed people, because I am one. I try to provide my opinions, pointing out some evident errors in scientific studies, and pointing to probable or demonstrated facts. But when I find an arrogant amateur refusing to analyze the facts I provide, and keeps presenting theories of distorted facts, that have been shown as flawed or simply dead wrong, then I refuse to keep discussing. And this is not your case, fortunately.

I know about National Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, of course, and some (not all the great works that have been conducted there). I have great respect for the project that national laboratories do in the US, as Oak Ridge, Alamo, Argonne, etc. Great advances have been made there related to final disposal of nuclear residues, especially the technique for completely eliminating radioactivity from the waste, reducing TRU (transuranic) by a factor of 100 to 1,000 less than the original volume. They use the synthesized substance called CMPO (octyl [phenyl]-N,N-diisobutylcarbamoyl-methylphosphine oxide) which isolate trensuranics from the rest of the nuclear waste, which is converted into LLW (low level waste) easily and safely handled afterwards. This means the “problem” – the technical and scientific problem - of nuclear waste disposal exists no more. Only remains the”political” problem of using the available and proven techniques.

As for the geoengineering theory, proposed by Edward Teller in his paper prepared for the 22nd International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies, in 1997, I have not given it a serious study, although I don't doubt there might be some of this kind of “scattering systems” being performed, or at least tried to perform. Why did I not given a more deep study to the theory? Simply because they start from what I consider a false basis. They say, for instance, when stating about what we know about climate change:

1. the climate is warming;

2. concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere are increasing;

3. the latter phenomenon theoretically can cause the former; and

4. increases in the Earth's temperature are likely to have costly effects.

Well, they left out a fourth possibility (that would fall into place 4), the say:
“The former phenomenon (warming) theoretically can cause GHs increase.” Because there many studies that show CO2 increase lags behind temperature rise by about 200-400 years. Believe it or not, as Ripley would add.

As I have said in the email I sent to “Bruce Broccoli” – that provoked my intervention in this forum – I really think that people involved in such projects as geoengineering or Chemtrail spraying know that:

1) climate change is not induced by man, but it is a natural phenomenon,

2) They cannot prevent ozone loss in the upper stratosphere, because there is no such ozone loss (outside the Antarctic Polar Vortex), as Mario Molina (Nobel prize for this theory!) clearly explained that chlorine can only react with ozone over the hard surface of ice crystals – found only in side the Polar Vortex. As SPC (stratospheric polar clouds) are not found outside the Polar Vortex (sometimes, very few, on the North Pole), the variations observed in the ozone layer in the rest of the world has natural causes, as thoroughly explained by Gordon Dobson, back in the 60s.

3) They already know the reduction in fossil fuel emissions will have not the expected effect on temperature increase, because CO2 is not the primary (or even an important) GHG because that role is being played by water vapor. Not even methane is an important factor, though they say it has 20 times more power as a GHG than CO2, because the sheer insignificant levels of it in the atmosphere. Water vapor accounts for about 95% of the heat retention capability of the atmosphere, while CO2 has merely 3,5% and methane much less than 1%. So a reduction of 30% of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (not in its emissions) would result in CO2 having about 70% of 3.5%, that is, 2,4% of heat trapping capability.

4) If they wanted to “cool down Earth”, they would have to control H2O concentrations in the air, something impossible to accomplish – 75% of the Earth is covered by oceans, and they would be providing much more humidity than theses people can control. Even if you covered all the countries on Earth with this chemical haze, they would be covering only 25% of Earth surface.

So I don't find much sense in what they say:

” FN92. Schelling, supra note 8, at 306. Of course, some greenhouse gases are worse than others--methane, for instance, is twenty times as potent as carbon dioxide in terms of its effect on climate change.” As I said above, its trace amount makes its effect negligible.

I do not deny these people involved in geoengineering may be doing some secret work (it is no so secret, as there seems lots of people are seeing it done above their heads), I have not the slightest idea of the nature or intentions for this spraying. On thing I can tell you, though, that this kind of spraying is not being performed over South America, the area covered by our Argentinean Hugo-1 weather satellite, that provides detailed pictures of our country and up to the north of Manaus, Brazil, at 3ºS. Here is a picture taken by Hugo-1 of my ranch in Córdoba (36ºS 64ºW). The red arrow-shaped form on the top right is our international airport, the yellow line is the road to my house. The city of Cordoba is just below the airport (grey). Where the yellow line turns 90º to the left (westwards) there is the Air Force base and the Air Force Academy. This photo was taken from the Hugo-1 database and you can see how detailed the picture is (although the image I send here is 72 dpi – original pictures come as 300 dpi .tif, a file too large to download and seen in your monitors).

The geoengineering proposal says (you must have a separate document at hand to consult all the hundreds of references given; it is a tedious task) somewhere in the text:

“Immodest proposals should elicit skepticism. When one faces a costly proposal involving unproven and potentially dangerous technology, particularly when it involves interfering with a system as complex as the Earth's climate, it is natural to expect Babel-like failure to follow Babel-like arrogance. Geoengineering has a checkered history, at best, from the Army Corps of Engineers' choking of the Everglades to the Soviet Union's attempts to reverse the flow of Siberian rivers to grow cotton and melt part of the Arctic ice cap. [FN193] What if the Big Fix leaves us worse off than we were before? [FN194]”

I wonder why they give as an example the choking of the Everglades by the Army Corps of Engineering, but failed to mention the fantastic job they had been doing along the Mississippi river until about 1980s, when environmental policies prevented the Army Corps from keep making river defenses. That is the cause responsible for the disastrous floods in the past decade. In some case, limited use of geoenigeneering can be useful, in some other cases, it my be harmful, depending on the project. It is a quite broad subject, and cannot be generalized.

“One intuitive objection to intentionally manipulating the climate is that it is unnatural. Surely, "Nature knows best." [FN214]. And if it does, geoengineering is misguided, not only because of the practical risks just addressed, but because human interference with the Earth's climate is both unethical and profoundly unwise. Essentially, a Climate Change Manhattan Project seeks to cure lung cancer with the latest technology, when really the smoker should just quit smoking.”

Geoengineering can be seen in many ancient works done by mankind, as the ancient river and irrigation channels in Indochina, water aqueducts done by the Romans, Asirians, and other peoples, all irrigation for rice paddies, the Zuidersee dams by the Dutch, etc. man has always wanted to transform the habitat adapting it to his necessities or his desires. Most of the times, it worked well. Some other times, they failed, but they corrected the mistakes (not yet with the Assuan dam in Egypt, though). I think that it is not “profoundly unwise” or unethical, as past experience show it has been good and with great benefits fro humankind. This part of the document ventures into the Gaia religion getting away from science.

The Geoengineering document says also:

“FN129. This is the so-called "sunscreen" proposal. See Dickinson, supra note 11; Teller, supra note 11; Huyghe, supra note 14 (quoting Wallace Broecker's endorsement of sunscreen proposal as one of the "cheapest and least dangerous" geoengineering policies as "insurance against a bad climate trip").”

So there may be a good reason for you to say the Chemtrails spraying is real, if this geoengineering project is being performed for real.

My impression is, however, that if they are doing it, is not for “warming control”, or “ozone layer” protection. They know it is useless and unnecessary – besides being impossible. If they are doing those sprayings, and cannot imagine the reason behind it. But, of course, its only my guess, as i am only an amateur in this field of Chemtrails and geoengineering.

-----------------------------------------------------
Be very, very careful what you put into that head,
because you will never, ever get it out.
------- Cardinal Thomas Wolsey (1471-1530)/font>


[Edited 3 times, lastly by Edufer on 11-28-2003]

posted 11-29-2003 10:13 AM            

I enjoyed your photo of your ranch, it looks like quite a spread. I have a small little piece of ground myself that I guess one could say I get to play "god" over,( for a short while) but probably like yourself those who love "the land" prefer to be "stewards". I spend as much time as I can "squeeze in" outside in the oak hickory woods on the place, watching the red tailed hawks soaring, the deer and wild turkey running, and the various other inhabitants playing in their native playground. I have restored a few acres back into the beginnings of native Missouri meadow, planted many many trees in another section, but largely have left the land the way I found it. (just to share a little about myself). As I change the land, I wonder if I have "changed the climate" at least on a micro scale. Surely I have, say for instance when I clear some cedars off of a hillside to allow more sunlight to stike the ground.(especially south facing here)

That is why I would wonder if the assumption "Climate change is not induced by man, but it is a natural phenomenon", is not strictly speeking inacurate. At least again on a micro (or larger) scale. If we know we can affect heat gain by simply building (concrete cities) on a regional level, and we multiply the number of regional levels (and so forth) down the line, isn't it likely that in SOME way man has influenced "climate change". I don't mean to split hairs here, but my point is to show that fundamentally I believe that assumption can be PROVEN false. And that is key to understanding the whole scenario. What are your thoughts on this? Perhaps climate change IS a natural phenomena and it occurs, but ALSO mankind is effecting climate change.

To keep this short I'll just leave it to that one significant point and again be interested to hear any other thoughts you might want to share.

Show-Me Truth

posted 11-29-2003 02:31 PM               

At first sight, it seems clear that man, with those huge urban areas in some countries have changed their regional climate, as indeed happens to the London area, New York, Buenos Aires, Mexico, Tokyo, etc. Then if we add up all that surface it seems it would have add some additional heat retention and later irradiation at night.

But, if we put together all the urban area in the world, it still is a fraction of the Earth's surface, considering that oceans alone cover 75% of the planet, deserted areas are huge, (Siberia, Sahara, all the jungles, and sabanas, and prairies, etc), that would put the urban area in the "micro" scale.

Theoretically, yes, urban heat islands add heat during the night, but they are not heat producers in large scale by themselves. Of course they produce and release heat by means of air conditioning, vehicle emissions, burning of biomass, industrial activities, etc. Even so, air conditioning release heat to the exterior of buildings, but they cool them inside. Buildings (and people, furniture, objects etc) later absorb heat from the outside and balance the "Heat/Cool" equation. A simple matter of Newton's First Law of Thermodynamics. I wouldn't think that urban areas amount more than 3% of Earth's surface. Do you have any information on the subject?

The description of you property sounds nice to me. It must be a beautiful place to get away from the madness of cities and business. Our climate here is not "rainy and humid", but it has been changing in the last 50 years, for sure. It was not "terraforming" or planned "geoengineering", but the construction of many big dams and huge lakes in Patagonia (southwest from our province) and lots of dams and their lakes in the Brazilian southwest (Itaipú dam and some 50 smaller dams) and Argentinean northeast (Yaciretá, Uruguaí, Salto Grande, etc), that adds quite a lot of evaporation to the jungles there. The winds blow in the normal fashion northeast--Southwest (carrying water vapor) and from the southwest to northease (also bringing humidity from the Pacific - across the Andes Cordillera - and picking some more from the dams in Patagonia. So we are in the middle and are now getting much more rains than 50 years ago. As it is now quite cooler than previous decades, we are also getting lots of snow in our nearby mountains (you can see some of the at the left side of the picture, where there is that big black lake), and snowfalls have kept coming until de last days of October, something never seen before). If there is global warming going on, is not here in the central and south part of South America.

Annual rain average was about 600 mm here, but has been increasing steady to the present 1100 mm, which makes all farmers happy. So, man can change the environment - that's for sure - at least at local and regional scales. If we take this change to a global scale, then we could change it globally - perhaps. They have tried to do that in Israel, but with small success - the deserts are still too large.

posted 11-30-2003 11:53 AM            

Moderate to High severe threat of continued Chemtrail applications(not to alarm anyone ....

A.M. hours saw high levels of chemtrail application with continued efforts expected to bring greatly decreased sunshine by 2:00 P.M. Temperatures at 10:50 A.M. at this Mid-Missouri location recorded a most pleasant 65* F. with partially sunny blue skies partially shielded by chemtrail activity. A beautiful day in the neighborhood for Mid-Mo in almost early Dec.(with the exception of The Haze)

Just thought I'd get that off my chest, so to speak, as there are planes engaged in these aerosol applications outside my window, even as I type this. This IS cloud creation folks, or more appropriately HAZE creation for whatever purpose. (Yes, Guys if you read this site, I see the huge beautiful X. Nice work, I assume these big X's are used to more easily track boundries of efforts made) using satellite or other tracking. Or are we just having a little fun???)

I hope I didn't intrude here in this thread without adding something to the "debates". My purpose here is to learn and share, give and give back, and I don't really have an agenda other than to find out simply What Is going on above my head (right now) and why. Perhaps others would like to weigh in.

Eduardo, thanks again for your candor and willingness to share. Yes my 'cedar tree' example is a "microcosmic" event, and as you correctly said not 'micro' strictly speaking in related size, not a millionth, or even a billionth, but perhaps a millionth of a millionth of any contributing factors that might tend to "change" climate in any infinitesimal way and for what ever time span. I wanted to "start at the start" at the smallest most insignificant level and I enjoyed your taking it and following it through to your conclusion as you said:

"So man can change the environment- that's for sure at least at the local and regional scales. If we take this change to a global scale, then we could change it globally-perhaps!"

Yes, I concur Eduardo. I remember reading in one of those papers I sourced that a geoengineering remedy discussed ranged all the way from "particulate dispersion" clear down to planting more trees and painting all of the asphalt and roofs white. If painting them white would cool a large geographical area then could we say that inversely the area has been warmed by the opposite? I think so.

Again I think the point has to be made human activity can be PROVEN to change climate, the questions remaining, how much and for how long. And perhaps at what price

Well, since I'm not at the office today I'm going to go back out and watch the chemplanes. And the red-tailed hawks. I hope that crap they're spraying isn't carcinogenic... or teratogenic... or causes mutations...

posted 11-30-2003 02:08 PM               

Here is an example of a quote that SEÑOR Ferreyra claims that I am "taking out of context":

"Do man-made chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) destroy the ozone layer? There are no longer any skeptics left at NASA, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, or the World Meteorological Organization."

Out of context? The data are provided.

So what does the honorable SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra do? ...as he has throughout this thread...

He resorts to a 1968 text by Dobson (discounting a massive volume of research that has occurred in the past 35 years!) or he relies on the thoroughly discredited "science" of the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Dixie Ray Lee. And let's not forget his mentor, S. Fred Singer whose contrarian viewpoint has the financial support of such strange bedfellows as ExxonMobil, the Moonies, the John Birch Society, and Lyndon LaRouche.

Considering the statement that that Dobson saw an ozone hole in 1956-58...

This is a myth, arising from a misinterpretation of an out-of-context quotation from a review article by Dobson.

In his historical account [Dobson 1968b], Dobson mentioned that when springtime ozone levels over Halley Bay were first measured,he was surprised to find that they were about 150 DU below corresponding levels (displaced by six months) in the Arctic.
Springtime arctic ozone levels are very high, ~450 DU; in the Antarctic spring, however, Dobson's coworkers found ~320 DU, close to winter levels. This was the first observation of the _normal_, pre-1980 behavior of the Antarctic ozone layer: because of the tight polar vortex (see below) ozone levels remain low until late spring. In the Antarctic ozone hole, on the other hand, ozone levels _decrease_ from these already low values. What Dobson describes is essentially the _baseline_ from which the ozone hole is measured. [Dobson 1968b] [WMO 1989]

For those interested, here is how springtime antarctic ozone has developed from 1956 to 1995:
..............................................................
Halley Bay Antarctic Ozone Data
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/antarctic/

Mean October ozone column thickness, Dobson Units,as measured at the British Antarctic Survey station at Halley Bay (Latitude 76 south, Longitude 26 west)

1956 321 1971 299 1986 248
1957 330 1972 304 1987 163
1958 314 1973 289 1988 232
1959 311 1974 274 1989 164
1960 301 1975 308 1990 179
1961 317 1976 283 1991 155
1962 332 1977 251 1992 142
1963 309 1978 284 1993 111
1964 318 1979 261 1994 124
1965 281 1980 227 1995 129
1966 316 1981 237 1996 139
1967 323 1982 234 1997 139
1968 301 1983 210
1969 282 1984 201
1970 282 1985 196

Data from J. D. Shanklin, British Antarctic Survey, personal communications, 1993-95. For published graphs, see
[Jones and Shanklin], [Hamill and Toon], [Solomon], or [WMO 1991], p. 4.6. The original Farman et al. figure, which includes the years 1957-84, is available on the web at
http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/images/easoe/total_ozone.gif

An updated version can be found on the British Antarctic Survey web site: http://www.nbs.ac.uk/public/icd/jds/ozone/
Bulletins showing daily ozone measurements at Halley Bay and at Faraday Station can also be obtained through this web site.

Given his obvious frustration over the weakness of his position, the honorable SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra has to resort to childish name calling of those who challenge his assertions, addressing them as Chihuahuas and "watermelons"..."Our watermelons in the forum? GREEN in the outside, RED in the inside?"). These comments are of course juxaposed his lecturing on tone of an acceptable scientific debate, "In scientific issues, sarcasm does not work. On the contrary, it reveals a lack of a solid argumentation, and poor factual evidence."

Unable to defend an untenable position on ozone depletion, SEÑOR Ferreyra states, "As SPC (stratospheric polar clouds) are not found outside the Polar Vortex (sometimes, very few, on the North Pole)."

Here are the facts:

"Scientists recently discovered that polar stratospheric clouds, long known to play an important role in Antarctic ozone destruction, are occurring with increasing frequency in the Arctic. These high altitude clouds that form only at very low temperatures help destroy ozone in two ways—they provide a surface which converts benign forms of chlorine into reactive, ozone-destroying forms, and they remove nitrogen compounds that moderate the destructive impact of chlorine. In recent years the atmosphere above the Arctic has been colder than usual, and polar stratospheric clouds have lasted into the spring. As a result, ozone levels have been decreasing."
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=3327

"The SAGE III Ozone Loss and Validation Experiment (SOLVE II) is a measurement campaign designed to examine the processes controlling ozone levels at mid- to high latitudes."

http://cloud1.arc.nasa.gov/solveII/index.html

Polar Stratospheric Cloud

http://remus.jpl.nasa.gov/info.htm

"Ozone's Problem with Polar Stratospheric Clouds"
http://www.shsu.edu/~chemistry/ESC440/PSC.html

"Polar Stratospheric Clouds Above Spitsbergen"

http://www.awi-potsdam.de/www-pot/atmo/psc/psc.html

"Polar clouds cause more ozone loss in Arctic"

http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2000/06/06062000/pscozone_13644.asp

In short, despite the statement of SEÑOR Ferreyra to the contrary, polar stratospheric clouds do regularly form in the northern hemisphere, and their frequency, duration and geographical distrubtion appears to be increasing.

SEÑOR Ferreyra's statement: "They cannot prevent ozone loss in the upper stratosphere, because there is no such ozone loss (outside the Antarctic Polar Vortex)" is an absolute falsehood.

Being self contradictory doesn't seem to bother SEÑOR Ferreyra in the slightest. On one hand he states,that the existence of vineyards in England is the result heating of the "huge area" heated by human activities. His quote, "of see how all these vineyards are locatred (sic) well inside the huge area covered by the "urban heat island" that has become the UK since the early 30s."

and yet, when challenged on the potential gloabl impact of 6.3 BILLION people that inhabit the planet,SEÑOR Ferreyra backpeddles (as he so often has during the course of this thread) stating:

"Theoretically, yes, urban heat islands add heat during the night, but they are not heat producers in large scale by themselves."

You can't have it both ways SEÑOR Ferreyra, either there is anthropogenic heating over a HUGE AREA (your words) which permits the growth of grapes or there isn't.

You'll note that SEÑOR Ferreyra very carefully avoids discussing the impact of humans on global climate change, except to categorically state that there isn't any.

Let's again remember the graph of CO2 concentration in the earth's atmosphere:

This reproduces much better at the original site:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/carbdiox.html

This graph shows the increase in the atmospheric concentration of Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and Antarctic temperature from 420,000 years ago until prior to the industrial revolution.

The grey color represents CO2 concentrations, and the scale on the far left refers to the CO2 values. As can be seen in the graph to the left, pre-industrial levels (~280 ppmv) were similar to previous interglacials (times which were not considered an 'ice-age' - as now). The present, post-industrial atmospheric level of CO2 concentration is around 370ppmv, which on this graph would be off the scale.

To put this into perspective:

The "Keeling curve". It measures atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide. The amount drops each summer as plants suck up more carbon dioxide but then increases once leaves are shed each Fall.

Ice core data showing CO2 levels over this millennium.

SEÑOR Ferreyra also contends: "They already know the reduction in fossil fuel emissions will have not the expected effect on temperature increase, because CO2 is not the primary (or even an important) GHG because that role is being played by water vapor. Not even methane is an important factor, though they say it has 20 times more power as a GHG than CO2, because the sheer insignificant levels of it in the atmosphere.

Here are some realities which counter the disinformation provided by SEÑOR Ferreyra:

While there is no disagreement about the importance of water vapor to gloabl temperatures, what SEÑOR Ferreyrachooses to ignore are positive feedback mechanisms in which human activities can affect the water vapor content in the atmosphere.

"Increasing amounts of human-made greenhouse gases would lead to an increase in the globally averaged surface temperature. However, as the temperature increases, other aspects of the climate will alter, including the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. While human activities do not directly add significant amounts of water vapor to the atmosphere, warmer air contains more water vapor. Since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, global warming will be further enhanced by the increased amounts of water vapor. This sort of indirect effect is called a positive feedback."

"Why Do Human-made Greenhouse Gases Matter When Water Vapor Is the Most Potent Greenhouse Gas?"
http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/09.html

"Most Important Greenhouse Gas Way Up In Last 50 Years"
http://unisci.com/stories/20012/0425011.htm

"Scientists know that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide have risen sharply in recent years, but a study released Tuesday in Paris reports a surprising and dramatic increase in the most important greenhouse gas -- water vapor -- during the last half-century.

The buildup of other greenhouse gases (those usually linked with climate change) is directly attributable to human activity, and the study indicates the water vapor increase also can be traced in part to human influences, such as the buildup of atmospheric methane. "

and...

"A wetter and colder stratosphere means more polar stratospheric clouds, which contribute to the seasonal appearance of the ozone hole," said James Holton, UW atmospheric sciences chairman and expert on stratospheric water vapor. "These trends, if they continue, would extend the period when we have to be concerned about rapid ozone depletion."

...more

Global Warming Gas Seen Increasing Dramatically

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031120/sc_nm/environment_warming_ dc_1

"HOUSTON (Reuters) - Worldwide emissions of carbon dioxide, considered a culprit in global warming (news - web sites), are expected to increase by 3.5 billion tonnes, or 50 percent, annually by the year 2020, an executive for ExxonMobil Corp said on Wednesday.

At the same time, global demand for energy will rise by 40 percent as the world population increases and economies grow, said Randy Broiles, global planning manager for Exxon's oil and gas production unit."

...more to the article. (It should be fun to watch SEÑOR Ferreyra take ExxonMobil to task, given that they are the benefactor of his mentor S. Fred Singer).

And it is encouraging to see the increasing awareness of the econimic threats of climate change amongst major instututional investors:

"UN Summit Pressures Firms on Global Warming Risks"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031121/sc_nm/environment_fin ancial_un_dc_1

It will be interesting to watch the press in the coming weeks as "Government officials and environmental experts from 180 countries will gather in Milan, Italy's business capital, from December 1-12 for an annual review of U.N. efforts to curb climate change."

"All Eyes on Russia as U.N. Climate Talks Begin"
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031128/sc_nm/environment_climate_ dc_2

Stayed tuned as SEÑOR Eduardo Ferreyra further solidifies his role for a leadership position in the Flat Earth Society.

posted 11-30-2003 07:41 PM               

quote:

---

How interesting that SEÑOR Ferreyra finds it necessary to resort to CUT & PASTE, which he so frequently derides, to post an opinion by Haroum Tazieff.

---

Being Sore Throat the Champion in Copy & Paste, why shouldn't I follow the steps he so wisely showed me? My paste jobs are mostly of graphs taken from scientific papers and articles. Other graphs are made by myself, from data in scientific papers, and/or available data in the media – mostly used for misinforming people.

quote:

---

As the graph above shows, the concentration of CFC-11 is essentially constant at altitudes up to 10 km. The UV radiation needed to break CFC-11 apart is shielded by the ozone layer. Because no natural processes destroy CFCs, it survives to be uniformly distributed, both vertically and horizontally. Concentrations drop off rapidly, however, in the stratosphere. As the molecules rise into and above the ozone layer, they are exposed to strong UV, break down, and release chlorine. These measurements are one link between CFCs, increased levels of chlorine in the stratosphere, and ozone depletion.

---

Take any chart of UV radiation levels at different altitudes. You'll see that UV-C rays (wavelength shorter than 243 nm, or nanometers) barely show below 40 km. UV-C wavelengths and shorter are the only ones capable of dissociating CFC molecules. UV-B and UV-A do not break the CFCs molecules, as they photons lack the energy needed. But the altitude CFCs have been measured, are below the 35 km, where there are not UV radiation strong enough to split them apart and release chlorine. Fabian, Borders and Penkett, paper in Nature (Dec, 24, 1981) shows it well:

Source: R. Fabian, S.A. Borders, and S. Penkett, “Halocarbons in the atmosphere”, nature (Dec. 24, 1981)

It is very important to notice that CFCs concentrations are in the order of 0.1 ppTv (parts per Trillion in volume) to about 10 ppTv at 32 km altitude. This trifle amount is not affected by UV-B or longer radiation, so it eventually return down to Earth. There is no CFC molecule splitting in the stratosphere. Basic physics and photochemistry says so.

Even so, in the remote case a UV-C photon manages to escape the filtering action preformed by oxygen and nitrogen (very improbable due to their concentration) the chlorine atom freed from the CFC molecule can do two things – given this is happening outside the Polar Vortex:

1) Combine with other compounds there, known as “sinks” (especially nitrous oxides, NOx, etc) and form a new molecule and remain there, (interference reactions), or,

2) Look how ozone molecules wander around and “laugh” at chlorine attempts to react with them. They would shout (if they could speak) “No way, no way! We can combine with you only on the hard surface of ice crystals. Meet you in the Polar Vortex, old chap!”

posted 11-30-2003 07:51 PM               

quote:

---

Volcanic eruptions are powerful events, and they are capable of injecting hydrogen chloride (HCl) high into the atmosphere. Similarly, oceans produce large volumes of sea salt, which contains chlorine, on a daily basis. If these compounds accumulated in large quantities in the stratosphere, they might produce ozone depletion. However, for several reasons, we know that CFCs and other substances used in human activities are the primary sources of chlorine in the stratosphere.

---

I have shown above that the amounts of CFCs found in the stratosphere are almost nil, and that chlorine cannot react with ozone to form OCLO, a theory proposed by Mario Molina and F. Sherwood Rowland, that gave them the 1995 Nobel Prize in chemistry. Saying that CFCs are the primary sources of chlorine in the atmosphere is a blatant lie!

So let us compare the amounts of chlorine provided by both sources: natural and CFCs.. CFC annual production in the world, amounted before their ban to 1, 1million tons which includes 750,000 tons of chlorine. The estimated release to the environment was calculated (by the Montreal Protocol promoters) to an estimated 1% of annual production, so 7,500 tons of chlorine may eventually go up into the stratosphere. This graph show relative proportions of natural and man-made compounds:

quote:

---

They could account for all of the sources of chlorine in the stratosphere, and only 3% was from HCl, probably from volcanoes. Another 15% of the chlorine entering the stratosphere derived from methyl chloride. However, fully 82% of stratospheric chlorine came from ODS, with 51% being carried there by CFC-11 and CFC-12. … They concluded, however, that ODS like CFCs are the real source of stratospheric chlorine, and thus ozone depletion.

---

Preposterous! Chlorine from natural sources amount to about 650 million tons annually, while CFC releases to the atmosphere amounted then to no more than 750,000 tons. They say that rain washes away chlorine, but -- where is the rain in Antarctica? It snows, there, and snow does not washes away chlorine. Besides, if strong winds and atmosphere movements can take such heavy molecules as CFCs (4,5 times heavier than iron!) then what can be said about chlorine molecules produced by all natural sources? The stratosphere over the Erebus volcano is barely at 5,000 meters, not at 10-16 km as in temperate regions. The Erebus is 3,400 meters high, and the smoke plume raises well inside Antarctica's stratosphere. Radio sondes (weather balloons) launched every day at McMurdo Station, pass through the Erebus smoke giving high chlorine readings well inside the stratosphere.

Either you believe scientists records, or Greenpeace's newsletters. It's your choice.

This graph show the amount in tons provided by the Erebus volcano in Antarctica, as measured by the four Antarctic expeditions made by Haroum Tazieff, one the most famous volcanologist on Earth, whose pronouncement on the Nobel Prize didn't impress Deborah, and was dismissed by Mr Sore Throat.

quote:

---

Finally, laboratory experiments confirm that ozone absorbs UVB.

---

As everybody knows, ozone is such an unstable gas that reacts with itself, and on touching one molecule with another, they revert to the molecular form of 3 oxygen molecules. This property makes it impossible to "bottle" ozone for transport to where is needed, and must be produced "on site" by the means of electric sparks in absolutely dry air. Even so, the formation of ozone by this industrial means (used mainly for water purification) amounts to about 3 to 4% of the oxygen volume.

Then, if you wanted to measure ozone UV absorption capability, you must have ozone enclosed in a glass container and measure the amount adsorbed from an UV beam passing through the mixture of 96% oxygen and 4% ozone. How can scientists know if the UV absorbed was by the ozone or the oxygen? Can they aim exactly at an ozone molecule? Of course not. They cannot see it, and even if they see it, this would be an amazing feat of accuracy of hitting a highly moving molecule. Not even Buffalo Bill could have done it.

Besides, of course ozone can absorb UV-B radiation, but not in the proportion that oxygen and nitrogen can. I have explained in this forum that the energy needed to break apart an oxygen molecule is 118,111 kcal/mol, for nitrogen is 171,000 kcal/mol, and the energy for breaking apart an ozone molecule is just 64 kcal/mol. Nitrogen an oxygen are Terminators of the stratosphere, ozone is merely a dwarf in the Lord of Rings.

posted 11-30-2003 07:52 PM               

quote:

---

They could account for all of the sources of chlorine in the stratosphere, and only 3% was from HCl, probably from volcanoes. Another 15% of the chlorine entering the stratosphere derived from methyl chloride. However, fully 82% of stratospheric chlorine came from ODS, with 51% being carried there by CFC-11 and CFC-12. … They concluded, however, that ODS like CFCs are the real source of stratospheric chlorine, and thus ozone depletion.

---

Preposterous! Chlorine from natural sources amount to about 650 million tons annually, while CFC releases to the atmosphere amounted then to no more than 750,000 tons. They say that rain washes away chlorine, but -- where is the rain in Antarctica? It snows, there, and snow does not washes away chlorine. Besides, if strong winds and atmospheric movements can take such heavy molecules as CFCs (4,5 times heavier than iron!) up into the stratosphere, then what can be said about chlorine molecules produced by all natural sources? The stratosphere over the Erebus volcano is barely at 5,000 meters, not at 10-16 km as in temperate regions. The Erebus is 3,400 meters high, and the smoke plume raises well inside Antarctica's stratosphere, right into the Ozone Hole!. Radio sondes (weather balloons) launched every day at McMurdo Station, pass through the Erebus smoke giving high chlorine readings well inside the stratosphere.

Either you believe scientists records, or Greenpeace's newsletters. It's your choice.

This graph show the amount in tons provided by the Erebus volcano in Antarctica, as measured by the four Antarctic expeditions made by Haroum Tazieff, one the most famous volcanologist on Earth, whose pronouncement on the Nobel Prize didn't impress Deborah, and was dismissed by Mr Sore Throat.

quote:

---

Finally, laboratory experiments confirm that ozone absorbs UVB.

---

As everybody knows, ozone is such an unstable gas that reacts with itself, and on touching one molecule with another, they revert to the molecular form of 3 oxygen molecules. This property makes it impossible to “bottle” ozone for transport to where is needed, and must be produced “on site” by the means of electric sparks in absolutely dry air. Even so, the formation of ozone by this industrial means (used for water purification) amounts to about 3 to 4% of the oxygen volume.

Then, if you wanted to measure ozone UV absorption capability, you must have ozone enclosed in a glass container and measure the amount adsorbed from an UV beam passing through the mixture of 96% oxygen and 4% ozone. How can scientists know if the UV absorbed was by the ozone or by the oxygen? Can they aim exactly at an ozone molecule? Of course not. They cannot see it, and even if they see it, this would be an amazing feat of accuracy of hitting a highly moving molecule. Not even Buffalo Bill could have done it.

But they are not lying, either: of course ozone can absorb UV-B radiation, but not in the proportion that oxygen and nitrogen can. I have explained in this forum that the energy needed to break apart an oxygen molecule is 118,111 kcal/mol, for nitrogen is 171,000 kcal/mol, and the energy for breaking apart an ozone molecule is just 64 kcal/mol. Nitrogen an oxygen are Terminators of the stratosphere, ozone is merely a dwarf in the Lord of Rings saga.

posted 11-30-2003 07:54 PM               

quote:

---

Subject: 4.) When did the hole first appear?

It was first observed by ground-based measurements from Halley Bay
on the Antarctic coast, during the years 1980-84. [Farman, Gardiner
and Shanklin.] (At about the same time, an ozone decline was seen at
the Japanese antarctic station of Syowa; this was less dramatic than
those seen at Halley since Syowa is about 1000 km further north, and
did not receive as much attention.) It has since been confirmed
by satellite measurements as well as ground-based measurements
elsewhere on the continent, on islands in the Antarctic ocean, and at
Ushaia, at the tip of Patagonia. With hindsight, one can see the hole
beginning to appear in the data around 1976, but it grew much more
rapidly in the 1980's. [Stolarski et al. 1992]

---

"Enlighten?" The "hole" was first noticed in 1957 by George Dobson, and the French scientists at Dumont D'Urville Antarctic station, recording levels even lower than today's!. See graphs published by Gordon Dobson in his book of 1968: (Oxford University Press)

SOURCE: G.M.B. Dobson, "Exploring the Atmosphere," 1968, Oxford University Press.

Please don't stop there. See now the color over Patagonia (poor sheeps, according to Al Gore, going blind!): It is color MUSK GREEN which means there are actually between 275 and 300 DU. More than in the Equator. And further north in the Patagonia, there are between 300 and 325 DU. This show you clearly that those who spoke about "record levels" are misinforming the public – namely YOU.

As I have shown here, studies carried by scientists from the National University of Buenos Aires in 1987, Dr. Isidoro Orlansky and Ernesto A. Martínez, during the passage of a "mini-ozone hole" above Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, the UV-B radiation levels measured were in the order of 150 watt/m2, while at the same moment, the UV-B radiation falling on Buenos Aires was 300 watts/m2. The UV-B radiation passing through an ozone hole was half the NORMAL radiation falling over Buenos Aires at the same moment. And medical statistics show that skin cancer levels are the same for Buenos Aires and Tierra del Fuego, as for cataracts, and all diseases presumably caused by the infamous reduction of the ozone layer.

Ozone Scare promoters have been lying to you – since the first moment. And they have won A NOBEL PRIZE FOR THEIR LIES!

posted 11-30-2003 08:00 PM               

quote:

---

In comparison, CFC-12 has a lifetime of 100 years and CFC-11 has a lifetime of 45 years (as reported in the Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2002)/b]. Hence, the impact of aerosols is much shorter in duration than that of the CFCs. The fact that CFCs have long lifetimes is one reason why it will take so long for the ozone layer to recover after the production phaseout.

---

Soils (deposition)
Soil bacteria (destruction)
Biomass (capture by plant lipoproteins)
Oceans (deposition)
Ocean biota (destruction)
Desert sands (destruction)

CFCs are degraded by soil bacteria.

Microbiologists have discovered long ago that that halogenated compounds (containing chlorine, bromine, fluorine, or iodine) are a favourite food and energy source for some soil bacteria. Microbiologists that have been studying these dehalogenating bacteria say there is no reason that these bacteria cannot also destroy CFCs. One team of microbiologists has gone a step further, and tested soils to see if bacteria are destroying CFCs; their laboratory experiments have fully proven that it happens.

Soil bacteria are not the only sink for CFCs in the atmosphere, however; there are others. In 1986, Aslam Khalil and Reinhold Rasmussen, two of the world's leading atmospheric chemists, discovered that something - or some process - in the soil was destroying CFCs. They reported their findings in the July 1989 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, in a paper titled: "The Potential of Soils as a Sink of Chlorofluorocarbons and Other Man-Made Chlorofluorocarbons." (Khalil and Rasmussen worked at the Institute of Atmospheric Sciences at the Oregon Graduate Center).

Their measurements, they said, showed amazingly rapid removal of chlorocarbons by the soil and other constituents of the terminte mounds. The soils depleted methylchloroform and carbon tetrachloride by about 25 percent and more than 50 percent, respectively. Later, in an Australian expedition, Khalil and Rasmussen found that "There is evidence ... that the rice fields take up some man-made chlorocarbons, particularly CFC-11, CFC-12, carbon tetrachloride, and methylchloroform ... These gases are implicated in the depletion of the ozone layer." (p. 207)

Aslam Khalil carried out some of the most thorough measurements of CFC concentrations in the atmosphere in the 1980s, and his work is cited as the standard source on concentrations of CFCs in the atmosphere, while Rasmussen has spent decades setting up and calibrating most of the CFC monitors around the world. Both scientists realized that there are major problems with the ozone depletion theory, and they are willing to examine these problems.

And, what about the oceans? CFCs are so heavy that they tend to just sit in the ground, then what about the oceans that cover 75% of Earth's surface? Despite their low solubility, CFCs heve been absorbed into the oceans, and the NOAAengaged in a worldwide study ti determine ocean concentrations of CFCs. The purpose was to use CFCs as tracers for deep ocean currents. CFCs are great tracers because they have been in use for about 60 years, and the ratio of different CFCs in use at different times can be used to date when the CFCs were absorbed by the surface waters.

This is interesting, as it shows that CFCs heve been absorbed by the oceans, but also that they have been detected at depths of 6000 meters under the surface. If CFCs molecules are so adept in rising to the stratosphere, what are they doing at the bottom of the seas? The following figure shows concentrations of CFCs dissolved along a a section of the North Atalntic, as published in the Nov. 1989 Oceanography, in an article by NOAA oceanographer John Bullister (p.15).

In other words, the greatest concentration of CFC destroying organisms may be present at the surface of the world's oceans. And all the information provided here shows that the claim of "persistence of CFC in the environment" is fatally flawed. Not only CFCs are found at the ocean bottom at much higher concentrations than at the stratposhere, but bacteria in the soils are destroying CFC at a high rate.

posted 11-30-2003 08:38 PM               

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2002/20020304volcano.html

March 04, 2002 - (date of web publication)

FUTURE VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS MAY CAUSE OZONE HOLE OVER ARCTIC

An "ozone hole" could form over the North Pole after future major volcanic eruptions, according to the cover story by a NASA scientist in tomorrow's edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Since the 1980s a seasonal ozone hole, characterized by severe loss of ozone, has appeared over the continent of Antarctica. However, scientists have not yet observed, on an annual basis, as severe a thinning of the protective ozone layer in the atmosphere over the Arctic. The ozone layer shields life on Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation. A northern ozone hole could be significant since more people live in Arctic regions than near the South Pole.

"A 'volcanic ozone hole' is likely to occur over the Arctic within the next 30 years," said Azadeh Tabazadeh, lead author of the paper and a scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. Her co-authors are: Katja Drdla, also of Ames; Mark R. Schoeberl of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.; Patrick Hamill of San Jose State University, Calif.; and O. Brian Toon from the University of Colorado, Boulder.

"If a period of high volcanic activity coincides with a series of cold Arctic winters, then a springtime Arctic ozone hole may reappear for a number of consecutive years, resembling the pattern seen in the Antarctic every spring since the 1980s," Tabazadeh said.

"Unlike the Antarctic where it is cold every winter, the winter in the Arctic stratosphere is highly variable," Tabazadeh said. NASA satellite and airborne observations show that significant Arctic ozone loss occurs only following very cold winters, according to Tabazadeh.

(Wouldn't this point to the close relationship between cold stratosphere and ozone losses? That was what Gordon Dobson said back in the 60s, when he blamed low stratospheric temperatures for the decreases in ozone levels in Antarctica - unless Sore Throat insist that what Dobson said is a lie!

Large volcanic eruptions pump sulfur compounds into the Earth's atmosphere. These compounds form sulfuric acid clouds similar to polar stratospheric clouds made of nitric acid and water. The clouds of nitric acid and water form in the upper atmosphere during very cold conditions and play a major part in the destruction of ozone over Earth's poles. Following eruptions, volcanic sulfuric acid clouds would greatly add to the ozone-destroying power of polar stratospheric clouds, researchers said.

That's not posible! Sore Throat already demonstrated that volcanoes have no effect on the ozone layer! Those scientists must go back to school - or, as Sore Throat would put it: They are Hypocrites.

"Volcanic aerosols also can cause ozone destruction at warmer temperatures than polar stratospheric clouds, and this would expand the area of ozone destruction over more populated areas," Tabazadeh said. "Nearly one-third of the total ozone depletion could be a result of volcanic aerosol effects at altitudes below about 17 kilometers (11.5 miles)," said the researchers.

Come on! Why don't these scientists at NASA spoke with Sore Throat before publishing this kind of misinformation. Don't you agree, Sore?

"Volcanic emissions can spread worldwide,"<(i> said Schoeberl. "Our Mt. Pinatubo computer simulation shows that the volcanic plume spread as far north as the North Pole in the lowest part of the stratosphere within a few months after the eruption."

Stop lying, stop lying! or Sore Throat will get mad! Besides, that's a computer simulation, and we all know how flawed they are...

Between about 15 and 25 kilometers (9 to 16 miles) in altitude, volcanic Arctic clouds could increase springtime ozone loss over the Arctic by as much as 70 percent, according to Drdla. "The combination of thick volcanic aerosols at lower altitudes and natural polar stratospheric clouds at higher altitudes could greatly increase the potential for ozone destruction over the North Pole in a cold year," Tabazadeh said.

Hey, guys! Why are you leaving out CFCs? They will resent it!

"Both the 1982 El Chichon and 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruptions were sulfur-rich, producing volcanic clouds that lasted a number of years in the stratosphere," Tabazadeh said. The Pinatubo eruption, as observed by NASA spacecraft, widely expanded the area of ozone loss over the Arctic.

Well, well, well. I recall Sore having posted a link saying that Pinatubo and El Chichón did not have any effect on the ozone layer. Who is lying here?

Both of these eruptions did have an effect, however, over the South Pole, expanding the area and the depth of the ozone hole over the Antarctic, according to Tabazadeh.

I repeat: who's lying, Sore or the scientists at NASA?

Computer simulations have shown that the early and rapid growth of the Antarctic ozone hole in the early 1980s may have been influenced in part by a number of large volcanic eruptions, she added.

"In 1993 the Arctic winter was not one of the coldest winters on record, and yet the ozone loss was one of the greatest that we've seen," Tabazadeh said. "This was due to the sulfurous Pinatubo clouds facilitating the destruction of additional ozone at lower altitudes where polar stratospheric clouds cannot form."

Well, it seems that chlorine coming from those almost inexistent CFC in the stratosphere play a diminishing role every time those liers at NASA start researching!

"Climate change combined with aftereffects of large volcanic eruptions will contribute to more ozone loss over both poles," Tabazadeh said. "This research proves that ozone recovery is more complex than originally thought."

posted 11-30-2003 10:16 PM               

"We can see that Dobson observations were about 290 DU (0.29 cm) for the 60-80ºS latitude"

SOURCE: G.M.B. Dobson, "Exploring the Atmosphere," 1968, Oxford University Press.

Nowhere has SEÑOR Ferreyra's shown that Dobson recorded data within a factor of two of the lows recorded in Antarctica just this year ! In fact, if we compare a springtime baseline of approximately 300 DU (consistent with both the Dobson and British Antarctic Survey data), the minimum experienced this year, 100 DU, is a THREE FOLD decline.

So nice of SEÑOR Ferreyra's to tip his hand and expose his misuse of the Dobson data.

http://jwocky.gsfc.nasa.gov/eptoms/dataqual/ozone.html

You'll also note that SEÑOR Ferreyra's clings to the myth that sea salt as the major contributor to stratospheric chlorine.

By the way, as much as he would like to cast this a a battle of opinions between himself and me, nothing could be further from the truth.

The agencies and institutions with whom SEÑOR Ferreyra has such a dimetrically opposed position are none other than the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, NOAA, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the World Meteorological Association, the British Antarctic Survey (whose long-term data from Halley Bay debunk the Dobson myth), to name but a few.

Amazing that all these prestigious organizations are propagating "lies" and "pure crap", while standing alone in the wilderness it is SEÑOR Ferreyra's, a modern day John the Baptist, who alone is able to discern the truth.

You will also note that SEÑOR Ferreyra's will not correct his error about the occurance of polar stratospheric clouds in the Northern Hemisphere and their importance for ozone depletion.

Arctic Ozone Depletion Linked to Longevity of Polar Stratospheric Clouds
http://www.spaceref.ca/news/viewpr.html?pid=1909

A significant decline in ozone over the Arctic last winter was due to an increase in the area and longevity of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs), according to a group of researchers who participated in a large, international atmospheric science campaign.

The ozone-destroying clouds are made of ice and nitric acid, said University of Colorado at Boulder Professor Owen B. Toon, one of five project scientists heading up NASA's SAGE III Ozone Loss and Validation Experiment, or SOLVE. The massive SOLVE project involved satellites, aircraft, balloons and ground-based instruments operated from December 1999 through March 2000 by more than 200 scientists and support staff from the United States, Canada, Europe, Russia and Japan.

"Even very small numbers of particles in PSCs can efficiently remove nitrogen from the stratosphere," said Eric Jensen, a scientist at NASA Ames Research Center, located in California's Silicon Valley. "We found that the clouds lasted longer during the 1999-2000 winter than during past winters, allowing greater ozone depletion over the Arctic."

Polar stratospheric clouds generally form about 13 miles above the poles where temperatures can drop to minus 110 degrees Fahrenheit and below, said Toon, a professor in CU-Boulder's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics. The SOLVE campaign was staged out of Kiruna, Sweden.

Click here to follow links to pictures of polar stratospheric clouds in larger .jpg image format and at high enough resolution for some publications.

In some parts of the Arctic stratosphere -- which is located from about 10 miles to 30 miles above Earth -- ozone concentrations declined as much as 60 percent from November 1999 through March 2000. The fragile stratospheric ozone layer shields life on Earth from the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation.

Toon was the co-project scientist in charge of NASA's DC-8 aircraft that made about 25 flights over the region last winter. He will participate in a news briefing on the subject at the spring meeting of the American Geophysical Union to be held May 30 to June 3 in Washington DC. Other panelists include Eric Jensen of NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA.; Edward Browell of NASA's Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA; Ken Carslaw of the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom; and Michael Kurylo of NASA's Upper Atmosphere Research Program, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC.

Although seasonal ozone loss is more severe in the Antarctic, the ozone loss in the Arctic presents potentially more serious health problems to human beings, said Toon. Ozone-depleted air from the Arctic drifts south toward North America, Europe and Russia each spring, increasing the amounts of ultraviolet light reaching Earth's surface in the highly populated mid-latitudes and potentially causing increases in several types of cancer.

Most chlorine compounds pumped into Earth's atmosphere in recent decades by human activity initially were tied up as chlorine nitrate or hydrochloric acid, both of which are non-reactive. But if there is a surface area to attach to like the polar stratospheric cloud ice crystals, the chlorine compounds change into ozone-gobbling chlorine radicals in late winter and early spring after reacting with sunlight.

The greenhouse effect, which warms Earth near its surface, may ironically be cooling the stratosphere enough to cause these clouds to form earlier and persist longer. Greenhouse gases are radiating energy and heat away from the upper stratosphere, creating prime conditions for polar stratospheric cloud formation.

"With the clouds persisting longer, we are seeing greater ozone losses even though the amount of chlorine in the atmosphere has declined slightly," said Toon. Manufacture of chlorofluorocarbons ceased in 1996 in signatory countries under the terms of the Montreal Protocol and its amendments.

Downlink information for obtaining video footage of polar stratospheric clouds can be obtained on NASA-TV's Internet site at: http://www.nasa.gov/ntv. NASA TV video footage will be available starting May 30 at noon EDT on GE-2, transponder 9C at 85 degrees West longitude, with vertical polarization. Frequency is on 3880.0 megahertz with audio on 6.8 megahertz.

*******************************************

Note also that SEÑOR Ferreyra has no rebuttal to the very real impact of 6.3 billion people and their combined impact on the earth's climate, other than to say there isn't any, at least on a "global" scale, though he is quick to admit to local or regional impacts.

Interesting how he can be so certain that the combined, cumulative effects of all the regional impacts that he so readily acknowledges, are having NO global impacts.

Here are some sobering data on the rate of recent climate change:

posted 11-30-2003 10:43 PM            

.....The agencies and institutions with who SEÑOR Ferreyra has such a diametrically opposed position are the National Academy of Sciences, NASA, NOAA, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the World Meteorological Association, the British Antarctic Survey (whose long-term data from Halley Bay debunk the Dobson myth), to name but a few.

Amazing that all these prestigious organizations are propagating "lies" and "pure crap", while standing alone in the wilderness it is SEÑOR Ferreyra, a modern day John the Baptist, who alone is able to discern the truth.....

Well, he's literally INVE$TED in his position, representing as he does the very well-organized contingent of similarly INVE$TED parties whose mission it is to ram down the throats of the rest of us the idea there is absolutely NOTHING amiss with our planetary life-support systems and that any scientists whose data indicate otherwise must, of course, be bald-faced LYING to the public.

posted 12-01-2003 12:03 AM               

It's not really a record at all, but a statistical composite from station records from all over the world, most of them from towns and cities, and most from countries which do not maintain their stations or records properly.

This record is compiled by the Goddard Institute (GISS) in the US. It indicates a global warming of +0.8°C.

Is it real? Or is it just a statistical product of urban warming skewing the data, and bad site management in non-OECD countries? The pre-1940 warming is widely regarded to have been caused by the warming sun during the earlier part of the 20th century.

The newest and best way to determine global temperature is to use satellites to measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere, giving the Earth a uniform global sweep, oceans included, with no cities to create a false warming bias.

This second method, used since January 1979, is accurate to within one hundredth of a degree, and is clearly the best record we have. Here is Global Mean Temperature of the lower atmosphere for the period January 1979 to October 2003. It shows a very different picture to that of the global `surface record' over the same period.

Notice that, with the exception of the big El Niño year of 1998, all positive temperature anomalies were less than four-tenths of a degree above the long-term average.

But, if there is a "strong and sustained" trend towards warming - as they would have us to believe, due to sustained CO2 emissions by industrial and transportation activities - then why the Earth cooled during 1982, then again from 1984 trough 1987, again in 1989, once more from 1992 until 1995, and also in 1999, 2000, and end of 2001? Does not seems to be something wrong with the Catastrophic Global Warming hypothesis? Or perhaps the cooling (and the warming) are the result of SOLAR ACTIVITY?

People in this board are still waiting for Meester Sore to provide an answer to

1) The questions that would show he knows something about climatology and meteorology - and has been dodging in despair, as a chicken under the butcher's knife. (Did I say "chicken"? Ooops...)

2) The article of those scientists in NASA saying volcanoes DO REACH the stratosphere, and play havoc there. Something I have insistied upon, but Meester Sore has arrogantly denied, providing instead, obsolete missinformation. Sore has swallowed the article, and kept a sacred silence. I'll bet he didn't like that.

posted 12-01-2003 06:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Edufer:

To the Readers of This Forum

When I was invited to this forum (or defied) by David G. Stewart, to “stand up for my ecological convictions”, I was aware he would throw a pack of wolves against me.
[/B]

---

Whoa!!! hold it, stop right there I did not put out a challenge to anyone. Never have, indeed my case has been that I do not care if anyone does or does not believe what I have presented to them.

I did not send you a challenge. No need to, I know what I know -

Carry on.