“”” Nasif Nahle (13:29:33) :

The term “ozone hole” was invented by environmentalists for shaking the public up, but there are not ozone holes in the ozone layer. Perhaps slight depletions that seasonally grow and diminish in association with geomagnetic fluctuations, but no, nothing like holes in the ozone layer. “””

I merely pointed out that there is ample evidence for the existence of whatever it is that they call “ozone holes” long before someone decided to make them headline news; and long before any possible man made cause (that’s anthropogenic in four letter words (mean word length of course)).

I apologize and agree with your last statement. :)

“…Under clear sky conditions, we “look” brighter if we were standing on the moon. Under dusty, cloudy, murky conditions, we “look” dimmer if we were standing on the moon. …”

At the next moon landing, instrumentation that measures the earth’s albedo should be put in place. This would eliminate all the missing ocean data.

Thanks Stephen for the response, this could certainly explain this effect. I do understand the traditional theory of global dimming with sulphates/particulates basically reflecting away more light. ( through creating a nucleus for cloud formation)

in my mind at least, it seems possible that if the atmosphere causes more scattering of the light at certain stages that it could effect the amount of light reaching the ground, but more dependent on angle of light(time o year/latitude) more so than high reflective cloud as such.

As regards your mountain and weather/visibility changes I think you are commenting on a different phenomenon to the global dimming/brightening aspect.

There are old weather sayings that clearer air is less stable air (generally but not always). That is because rainfall washes particulates out whereas stable air tends to accumulate airborne particulates over time.

However I do agree that it is logical to suppose that a generally warming atmosphere might have different optical qualities to a generally cooling atmosphere. I suggested that in my earlier post on this thread.

just the rambling thoughts of a curious farmer.

But i have become quite curious about this, and would truly be thankful if one of the more enlightened posters would be able to explain what does cause this effect.

And if its a stupid question i apologize, but just say so;-)

George E. Smith (13:14:55) and Alexander Feht (01:26:32):

No holes in the ozone layer. Really, there are not holes in the ozone layer.

The term “ozone hole” was invented by environmentalists for shaking the public up, but there are not ozone holes in the ozone layer. Perhaps slight depletions that seasonally grow and diminish in association with geomagnetic fluctuations, but no, nothing like holes in the ozone layer. “”"

I didn’t coin the term Nasif; but “ozone holes” is the name under which this phenomenon is understood by the lay public.

I merely pointed out that there is ample evidence for the existence of whatever it is that they call “ozone holes” long before someone decided to make them headline news; and long before any possible man made cause (that’s anthropogenic in four letter words (mean word length of course)).

I hadnt given it any thought at all until i read this thread, and really have no idea on the mechanism of this phenomenon.(a quick google didnt help.. probably because im unsure on the labeling) But the atmosphere defiantly displays variable optical properties, seemingly influenced by atmospheric pressure/ or possibly humidity/ or possibly thermal disruption?(but independent of aerosols… well as far as i can tell) It indicates to me that light is scattered more, during atmospheric highs… and if it does it laterally, it seems possible that this would also be true vertically? although not necessarily.

If anyone could enlighten me, id appreciate it. :-)

No holes in the ozone layer. Really, there are not holes in the ozone layer.

The term “ozone hole” was invented by environmentalists for shaking the public up, but there are not ozone holes in the ozone layer. Perhaps slight depletions that seasonally grow and diminish in association with geomagnetic fluctuations, but no, nothing like holes in the ozone layer.

I have an ability to see a little more into the UV part of the spectrum than most people (I call the shade that I see “bluish white” or “ultramarine white”), and I routinely noticed that the sunlight in the end of 1990s was much harsher, and much more suffused with the UV radiation than the sunlight of my childhood years (1960s). Especially harsh “bluish white” Sun even made me worry about my eyesight in Arizona in 1998.

But who would pay attention to the observations of an obscure Russian poet? “Experts” know it all, don’t they. “”"

Optics Handbooks dealing with the sun, as an example of “natural light sources” comment on the fact that the effective color temperature of the sun (as seen from the earth’s surface) is known to vary seasonally, and also erratiucally at other intervals. Such studies date back to the 1940s and 50s when the Air Force was doing studies related to high altitude flight.

Such color temperature changes were attributed to changes (seasonal and otherwise) in the UV end of the solar spectrum; which is an area where the solar spectrum is known to deviate from a simple black body radiation curve.

They don’t mention it, but such observations can arguably be attributed to the appearance and disappearance of Ozone holes, which have a seasonal component.

In other words; ozone holes existed, long before CFCs, and caused variations in the ground level solar spectrum; long before somebody wondered about ozone holes and looked for them; which I think was somewhere around the IGY in 1957/8

So solar UV variations are nothing new.

Nogw (18:02:07) :

Nasif Nahle (17:36:34) :
What if the conventional idea of how the sun works it is another urban myth?
Look: http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/

Very intersting. I wonder how that theory would solve the problem, although according to the theory it would be restricted to the photosphere, in any case.

Sandy (00:34:24) :

In the core of the sun the pressure and temperature are high enough that it can overcome Coulomb forces in order for nuclei to get within range of the strong force and fuse. Quantum tunnelling is associated with the wave-length of a particle which gets longer (hence can tunnel further) as you get colder, so you won’t find tunnelling effects in the sun.

I had priory thought in this solution; I mean, high pressure and temperature in the core of the Sun as possible solution. However, this solution generates more unsolvable events, like geometrical dilution and premature exhausting of protons, for example. Besides, the kinetic energy of protons in the core at high temperature and pressure lessens the nuclear cross section for nuclear reactions, so the dependence of nuclear fusion on quantum tunneling escalates, probabilistically talking.

anna v (22:34:56): and anna v (22:46:21):

Quantum mechanics.

In a sense there is no barrier for the strong force to overcome, except to come into range, and the gravitational pressure takes care of that.

The problem is that the kinetic energy of the protons in the core is not high enough as for protons overcome the Coulomb barrier. When one proton comes into range of another proton the repulsive force is stronger than the gravitational influence and protons’ kinetic energy doesn’t rise above the Coulomb barrier.

I think your explanation of quantum tunneling is the most feasible solution. The classical solution complicates more the problem and ends for radiating inconsistencies.

By the way, I’d like to know the total amount of protons playing in the Sun; I do remember from my school a ghostly cipher with many zeroes, but don’t remember it.

Alexej Buergin (06:15:06):

In Quantum Mechanics (the physics of small things) there is no certainty, only probability. So even if a particle does nor have enough energy to cross a barrier, there is a probability it will do so anyhow. Like going through a tunnel.

(The square of the absolute value of Schrödinger’s wavefunktion that describes the particle is the probability-density to find it in that spot).

Definitely, this is the solution; Anna and you coincide on this. Do you know what the total amount of protons in the Sun is? I don’t remember the cipher.

If my calculi run Ok, I’ll give an answer to MikeE’s question in one or two hours. Thank you friends!

Anyhow… it’ll be interesting to see how the predictions for mid-80′s pan out.

(The square of the absolute value of Schrödinger’s wavefunktion that describes the particle is the probability-density to find it in that spot).

In the core of the sun the pressure and temperature are high enough that it can overcome Coulomb forces in order for nuclei to get within range of the strong force and fuse. Quantum tunnelling is associated with the wave-length of a particle which gets longer (hence can tunnel further) as you get colder, so you won't find tunnelling effects in the sun.