From the University of Leeds
We are already reaping the rewards of the Montreal Protocol, with the ozone layer in much better shape than it would have been without the UN treaty, according to a new study in Nature Communications.
Study lead author Professor Martyn Chipperfield, from the School of Earth & Environment at the University of Leeds, said: “Our research confirms the importance of the Montreal Protocol and shows that we have already had real benefits. We knew that it would save us from large ozone loss ‘in the future’, but in fact we are already past the point when things would have become noticeably worse.”
Although the Montreal Protocol came into force in 1987 and restricted the use of ozone-depleting substances, atmospheric concentrations of these harmful substances continued to rise as they can survive in the atmosphere for many years. Concentrations peaked in 1993 and have subsequently declined.
In the new study, the researchers used a state-of-the-art 3D computer model of atmospheric chemistry to investigate what would have happened to the ozone layer if the Montreal Protocol had not been implemented.
Professor Chipperfield said: “Ozone depletion in the polar regions depends on meteorology, especially the occurrence of cold temperatures at about 20km altitude – colder temperatures cause more loss. Other studies which have assessed the importance of the Montreal Protocol have used models to predict atmospheric winds and temperatures and have looked a few decades into the future. The predictions of winds and temperatures in these models are uncertain, and probably underestimate the extent of cold winters.
“We have used actual observed meteorological conditions for the past few decades. This gives a more accurate simulation of the conditions for polar ozone loss.”
The researchers suggest that the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic would have grown in size by an additional 40% by 2013. Their model also suggests that had ozone-depleting substances continued to increase, the ozone layer would have become significantly thinner over other parts of the globe.
Professor Chipperfield said he undertook this study because of the exceptionally cold Arctic winter of 2010/11.
“We could see that previous models used to predict the impact of the Montreal Protocol in the future would not have predicted such extreme events and we wondered how much worse things could have been if the Montreal Protocol had not been in place,” he said.
Without the Montreal Protocol, the new study reveals that a very large ozone hole over the Arctic would have occurred during that cold winter and smaller Arctic ozone holes would have become a regular occurrence.
The Montreal Protocol has been strengthened over time through amendments and adjustments, supported by ongoing research. The researchers behind the new study say that scientists must continue to monitor the situation to ensure all potential threats to the ozone layer are mitigated.
###
Further information
The research was partially funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) through its National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS) and the National Centre for Earth Observation (NCEO).
The research paper, ‘Quantifying the Ozone and UV Benefits Already Achieved by the Montreal Protocol’, is published in the journal Nature Communications on 26 May 2015: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8233
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Models alone?
So ozone is probably another scam….
Basically the paper is saying that since the Montreal Protocol there has been no reduction in ozone levels, but the protocol still worked because without the protocol the ozone levels would have been higher. Funny that at the time they said the protocol would in due course remove the ozone hole. It seems that the thing over the Antarctic isn’t an ozone hole, it’s a credibility hole.
You got it backwards. No Montreal == less ozone, according to the models, of course.
Complete crock, but still…
Mark
Right. Just like when Nancy Pelosi announced that she’d created or *saved* millions of jobs after flushing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into the economy with no discernible effect on the unemployment rate.
Or even more apropos, the old joke where a guy finds his friend standing on a corner snapping his fingers. When asked why he was doing that, the friend replied that he was keeping elephants away. When told there weren’t any elephants within hundreds of miles, the friend replied “Yeah, it works well, huh?”
Right on target, Mr. Jonas.
Larry,
I heard another version of that – probably whilst still at school, so in the Sixties.
then it was a man sitting in the train from Tattenham Corner, ripping the ‘Daily Telegraph’ into six inch squares.
‘Dashed effective, ain’t it!’
Auto
@Mike,
No, observations have measured a decline in ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere. From the paper:
“The Montreal Protocol came into force in 1987 . . . . Concentrations peaked in 1993 and have subsequently declined.”
The Ozone Hole regularly opens, then closes as the Atmosphere gets exposed to the Sun..
Overall that’s what was learned in the 80’s and 90’s… how much .. if at all Humans impacted it… we can’t be sure.. the big shocker to begin with WAS the Ozone Hole itself..
… which of course had *never* existed before they had the wherewithal to discover it.
To quote Josh (in reverse as it were!) “AIn’t science wonderful?”
the ozone hole is caused by cold aid descending and scrubbing out the poles.
the largest antarctic ozone hole occurred in 2006
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/ozone.php
So is it the reduction in CFC’s that have increased Ozone levels in the Arctic or is it the increased temperatures that have increased Ozone in the Arctic?
Yes. Good thing the aerosols have been way contained by then because the hole would have been larger.
The Ozone “hole” has been observed since the late 1950’s and talked about in the 1920’s, by G. M. B. Dobson.
But how do we know if the ozone hole hasn’t always existed its just that prior to the 1950’s we didn’t have the equipment to measure it?
That was the question I asked Cambridge University and the Max Planck institute a few years ago. They cant be certain but think it unlikely due to modelling results
tonyb
[blockquote]
climatereason
May 27, 2015 at 1:04 am
But how do we know if the ozone hole hasn’t always existed its just that prior to the 1950’s we didn’t have the equipment to measure it?
That was the question I asked Cambridge University and the Max Planck institute a few years ago. They cant be certain but think it unlikely due to modelling results
tonyb
[/blockquote]
Oh, that is easy, tony, Just look at where the ethnicies with the darkest skin color live. They all are native to the southern hemisphere. (south Africa, Australia… ) The color of the skin is due to the presence of melatonin, a pigment produced by skin cells to protect us from UVB radiation damage.
The fact that these ethnicies had so much melanin in their skin proves that the southern hemisphere has always received more UV radiation than the northern one, because it has less stratrospheric ozone that blocks UV radiation. And it always has been like this.
Uh, sorry about the failed blockquote, and I meant to say melanin, not melatonin.
Use angle brackets, not square brackets.
Here is an interesting NASA publication from 2000. could it be the lack of solar activity which restored the ozone layer?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ProtonOzone/
Anyway I know from experience that chillers work much longer on freon 22. The higher condenser pressures that the replacement refrigerants run are “built in” failure, especially in dehumidifier units!
Well I think it is fairly certain that ozone holes or thinning ozone has always existed, long before anybody thought to try and measure it.
Ever since folks started measuring the ground level spectrum of the sun, it has been known that the apparent color temperature of solar radiation had seasonal variations, and also changes over longer random periods of time. It was postulated that this was likely a result of seasonal changes in the short wavelength end of the solar spectrum. Obviously it wasn’t the sun doing it, even though solar UV does fluctuate, but ozone doesn’t just absorb in the UV, but also at visible wavelengths that will certainly alter the sun’s apparent color temperature.
Air force researchers reported on these seasonal changes in color temperature. It’s mentioned her in one of my Optics Handbooks, talking about “natural” light sources.
But they weren’t called ozone holes until somebody called them that.
Ozone level were reduced as a result of the two major stratospheric eruptions towards the end of the last century. This is recognised by mainstream.
Ozone has pretty much been flat-lining since 1996. This has very little to do with UN treaties and more to do with the lack of any major volcanoes.
This is also strong link between lower stratospheric temps and ozone.
All this was discussed at the end of this rather lengthy article on Climate Etc.
http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/06/on-determination-of-tropical-feedbacks/
A new paper out this week also looks at that stratosphere “pause” that matches the surface pause.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n6/full/nclimate2624.html
The similarity of the two can be seen here:
A scam in that CFC’s do not cause breakdown. It has been discovered that Ozone is formed by the action of UV, high energy, EM radiation. It is also that same radiation thaty can reduce the ozone to oxygen.
Antarctic Ozone concentration (at least) is affected by Bromine and Chlorine compounds from the oceans. Obviously they dominate the tiny human emissions. GCR’s are an important contributor to the effect.
A lack of Antarctic ozone causes additional cooling into space – a large heat vent, in other words. The Montreal Protocol is intended to block that vent. OK…if you must.
Not many facts here just “better than we expected” NASA reports Ozone is created by sunlight incident on 3O2 to form 2O3. after 30 minutes it decays back to 3O2… the ozone hole always covered where the sun doesn’t shine!
The Montreal Protocol had everything to do with Dupont’s patent on CFC’s expiring. The “Ozone Hole” was science invented to maximize corporate revenues and minimize competition.
If my memory serves, the ozone depletion scam was the first model driven catastrophe. It was taken at face value because “scientists using state of the art computers” said it was so. Why it manifested itself primarily at the Austral pole was never explained, even though the bulk of CFC loss to atmosphere was Boreal. Neither was it explained how very dense CFC gasses climbed high into the atmosphere.
The ozone “hole” is however adequately explained by considering the power of the solar system, the sun, combined with the Earth’s magnetic field. Each pole is the target of charged particles of differing charge, and these particles have different reactivity. Plus, light particles are most probably in higher concentration than more massive ones at the poles (derived from f=ma).
So the computer models can be challenged but there is money to be stolen from the people, so why do it?
Do we have to explain molecular diffusion to you? Gases are miscible. Molecular weight does not prevent this. Molecular weight gives you the diffusion velocity at a given temperature and pressure. So, the ‘heavy’ vapor is a gas and diffuses through to fill the whole container, which it does at the speed of sound and you can add turbulent bulk flow in, too, to boost it up, such as in a thunderstorm (which, I suspect, could create some interesting chemicals from the heat, light and charged entities on the non-water parts of the aerosol called a thundercloud). In this case, the whole container is the atmosphere. The higher molecular weight gases thus do not undergo gravitational fractionation until you reach the very top, where the lighter ones ‘preferentially’ escape because for these a higher fraction can reach escape velocity locally against the very low pressure.
Hmmm… exceptionally cold Arctic winter of 2010/11 why didn’t I read about that in the newspaper?
Glad that the ozone hole is healing up nicely.
I never realised Leeds had a university, never mind a professor called Chipperfield. I wonder if he’s any relation to those circus folk entertainers. Anyway, thanks to all their efforts and of course the precautionary principle, the sky hasn’t fallen on us, or perhaps it has, but we’ve been luck enough to be under one of the ozone holes everyone used to be having nervous breakdowns about.
Pointman
Actually, the University f Leeds is a well-established “red brick” university with a world class School of Earth Sciences.
And models all the way down.
So the bright blue hole never existed except as a glint in somebody’s eye.
So that was the ozone as measured on the 26th of March 2011, or was that the day they ran the models, or was that the day they invented the Montreal protocol ??
It’s a very uninformative diagram for a supposedly peer reviewed scientific paper.
Are red bricks somehow conducive to higher learning.
Don’t think we had red bricks at my University; well we had 60 inactive volcanos instead. Come to think of it, the scoria from the one of those that they dug up and carted away, was red.
Maybe that’s how I got my learning.
I’m sure that Uof Leeds is an excellent school. Are they also world class at computer modeling, like Peter Humbug is ??
“world class”?
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014-15/subject-ranking/subject/physical-sciences/order/rank|asc
It had a world class University bar back in the 80’s, I remember that much. Well, when I say “remember” whilst talking about bars….
And famous as the venue for recording of The Who Live At Leeds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_at_Leeds
I wouldn’t parade my ignorance in public. Leeds is a very good university, well over 100 years old.
Leeds might once have been a good university, at least by Brit standards. Doesn’t appear to be the case nowadyas.
There’s a restaurant in Fort Wayne IN called Coney Island that has been open for 100 years. The prices are average, the food is average at best, and the location is a hole in the wall downtown where few but those living there go anymore.
But hey, everybody in town has at least heard of it, and most have been there at least once. It’s a local classic. ^¿^
Ever hear of John Ronald Reuel Tolkien? Professor of Anglo-Saxon at the University of Leeds and was on the staff of the Oxford English Dictionary, I believe.
Science by counterfactuals, what’s not to love? 6 million jobs created or saved. and all of them apparently in environmental science.
You beat me to it!
It always was to the detriment of asthma suffers who can no longer get good inhalers that will consistently deliver the correct dose of medicine each and every time.
Us asthma suffers don’t count unless we can be use as an excuse for something. like Obama CO2 increase asthma, A bold face lie, yet never called for it!
Asthma sufferers are big CO2 polluters. Regulations on wheezing to follow!
Those of us that have a degree in Environmental Science generally respect the complexity of our environment and realize that humans are an egocentric bunch.
+ 1000
Max, but for your having a doughnut and coffee this morning, the Earth would have fallen off of its axis. You saved the world. Good job, as usual. (God you’re awesome.)
So long as it was gluten-free and contained kale and chia seeds, mind you. Without those, we would have been doomed! Doomed I tell you!
….more hair spray
“the researchers used a state-of-the-art 3D computer model”
Warning! Danger, Will Robinson!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/20/daleo-on-ozone-hole-it-is-very-likely-to-have-been-there-forever/
Anto — haha, like it! — Eugene WR Gallun
Yeah, your post perfectly illustrates how those who reject global warming also tend to reject the very concept of science.
Without the Montreal Protocol, the new study reveals that a very large ozone hole over the Arctic would have occurred during that cold winter and smaller Arctic ozone holes would have become a regular occurrence.
MY REPLY -PROVE IT!
I thought all this ozone hole nonsense had long since been thoroughly resolved as natural and unrelated to DuPont’s expiring patent on freon. Unlike the Montreal Protocol.
I was wondering how far down the thread would DuPont show up…
Me too!
Not just DuPont, what was then ICI, Hoechst and Asahi were in on the act also. India and China were gearing up due to patent run out and much expected drop in price due to increased supply.
111 Trichloroethane was banned also and replaced again in many industries with the product it originally replaced Trichloroethylene, a not so nice product hence it got replaced with 111 T. The ozone hole was saved, if you believe it, but the lives of people were put at risk again. Oh that is right, the jobs were exported to China and India. Last time I looked India and China still produced 111 T, about 2 years ago.
So we invent a bunch of other fluoro’s where we have new patents on, keep the hype going. This certainly was an ongoing joke at ICI.
OK. How about we release all the CFC’s that would have been released all at once and “measure” what happens. What could go wrong? Let a bit more heat escape at the poles?
Kidding of course, but …. ?
That’s odd.
When the Montreal Protocol was enacted, we were told it would take until at LEAST 2050 for ozone depletion to stop, because of the long lifespan of CFCs in the upper atmosphere. Reversal of the loss? Even further down the road.
Which means they were wrong about the science. Again.
Perhaps it wasn’t “settled” science?
I seem to recall a physical chemist who claimed the cited reaction could not occur at the pressures and temperatures available at the ozone level of the atmosphere, but would require a pressure vessel with some added temperature/pressure to get the Gibbs free energy value (or one of the other thermodynamic properties) to a point to make it possible.
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/OzoneHole.pdf
Alternative theory.
That they find themselves informed by a model is worrying. All they have is a speculative best guess as to what would have happened. The worst kind of ignorance is knowledge that is based on self-deception. This should be another story tagged with “creepy and a little scary”.
I’m sure the next generation of useful idiots at this same university will tell us all , 30 years from now, how the IPCCUN prevented Global Warming, headed off climate change and brought back the voting Dodo.
So from the abstract, no proof but it woulda,coulda been so ozone depleted up north without the UN treaty.
Same old song, bang those rocks together.. drive off the storms…
Shaman are usually more honest.
IPCC and its acolytes are indeed just like shaman, who were adept at duping gullible tribe members into parting with their hard-earned blubber or whatever resources with conjurer’s tricks.
Thanks to people like you, it’s very unlikely that global warming will have been averted 30 years from now.
It seems suspicious that the hole isn’t getting smaller. It’s just not getting larger as predicted by MODELS. Maybe the Montreal Protocol has done nothing and the hole that’s there has been there since forever. Maybe CFC’s had nothing to do with the hole in the first place.
It very much looks like just a slider bar change of the colour scheme for the same map data. Maybe I’m missing something but it appears their sophisticated models are actually just a little “slip of hand”.
This gravy train has lot of stops, point changes and shunting – beats Starlight, The Orient or Hogwarts Express – what fun it must be and the ticket to Platform 9 3/4 is nothing more than a BS paper someone will publish what fun!
Models are not empirical evidence of anything….
When did they test their model against reality to verify its mathematical representation is representative of earths systems?
Looks like they are manufacturing feathers for their Paris caps…
Now we have another chance to save the planet, this time from CO2 pollution.
Just don’t let the secret out that the last 3 decades featured the best weather and climate in almost 1,000 years(since the Medieval Warm Period), the biosphere and vegetative health is booming(thanks mostly to the higher CO2) and most creatures are either benefiting or not noticing the slight warming over the past century………….but again, we have one last, last chance before its too late to make big cuts in CO2 emissions.
Of course the reality is that one could never make a case for CFC’s being beneficial regardless of your view.
Increasing CO2, however is the best thing that humans have ever done for this planet.
CFCs were very useful as propellants in inhalers for asthma suffers.
Hi Mike, how right you are !!!
It’s truly amusing that the green “anti-CO2 = anti-greening the planet = anti-life” zealots want to have back the “good old” climate before the Industrial Revolution, that is to say Little Ice Age conditions with all its “nice” comforts like terrible long cold spells with accordingly high death tolls, bad growing conditions for basic food and frequent famine crises, or – last but not least and believe it or not – more extreme weather events:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113003387
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589412000294
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/39/11/1063.abstract
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/historical_storm_trends_france.pdf
CFC’s can not get up to the ozone layer, too heavy
Oy! You make my head hurt! Vapor bulk density has nothing to do with whether or not you’ll find traces of CFC’s in the stratosphere, troposphere, or wherever. By your reasoning, O2 should have settled out of the atmosphere long ago, since it’s 14% denser than N2. When gases and vapors are unconstrained physically, where they wind up is all about diffusion. If you didn’t have natural processes such as weather and the bio cycle mixing things up and allowing inhomogenities for atmospheric components such as methane, CO2, etc to exist, you’d wind up with a perfectly uniform gaseous mixture all over the planet, all other things being equal.
No doubt that some CFC’s will end up in the stratosphere. The question’s always been whether enough of them would end up there to make any real difference.
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Ingles2/AmazingOzone.html
Given as CFCs break down when exposed to uv – they must travel at night yes?
Reaction rates are important. They vary according to concentration of reactants. Higher concentration leads to higher reaction rates. Lower concentration leads to lower reaction rates. Since CFCs are significantly heavier than air and the ozone layer is above the tropopause, it follows that the concentration of CFCs in the ozone layer is small because CFCs can only get to the area where there is lots of ozone by diffusion. This means the reaction rates are low (very low).
Since ozone is always being created and destroyed, a low reaction rate with CFCs means that the CFCs have little effect on the ozone concentration. Also, lowering the concentration of ozone means more oxygen to be hit by UV and converted to ozone. Negative feedback! So the CFCs can only disturb the natural processes slightly.
No, some of it reaches the stratosphere. What invalidates the CFC theory is that, according to satellite data, the concentration of CFCs is higher at the equator than at the poles. and if CFCs were the cause of the ozone hole, this should be in the equator rather than at the poles, because is at the equator where CFCs are concentrated.
http://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/People/Jackman/Roche_1998.pdf
(that is the paper that shows CFCs distribution in the atmosphere)
The poles are where the VERY SPECIFIC conditions exist to break down ozone. It’s very very cold (<-80C) and there are tiny ice crystals that act as catalysts in the reaction of ozone with chlorine radicals. Also, the lack of UV light causes ozone production to plummet in Spring. But this happens whether there are CFCs in the atmosphere or not. It's the weather conditions in the stratosphere that cause the ozone depletion, not necessarily CFCs. If there were 100 years of ozone data, I'd be more convinced of the CFC hypothesis, but there are only about 30 years of data. Half of it is with CFC production and the other half is without. The halves look almost identical.
@george NaytowhowCon
F. Sherwood Rowland of the University of California at Irvine, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on atmospheric chemistry, answered the question:
HOW CAN CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS (CFCs) GET TO THE STRATOSPHERE IF THEY’RE HEAVIER THAN AIR?
Although the CFC molecules are indeed several times heavier than air, thousands of measurements have been made from balloons, aircraft and satellites demonstrating that the CFCs are actually present in the stratosphere. The atmosphere is not stagnant. Winds mix the atmosphere to altitudes far above the top of the stratosphere much faster than molecules can settle according to their weight. Gases such as CFCs that are insoluble in water and relatively unreactive in the lower atmosphere (below about 10 kilometers) are quickly mixed and therefore reach the stratosphere regardless of their weight.
Much can be learned about the atmospheric fate of compounds from the measured changes in concentration versus altitude. For example, the two gases carbon tetrafluoride (CF4, produced mainly as a by-product of the manufacture of aluminum) and CFC-11 (CCl3F, used in a variety of human activities) are both much heavier than air. Carbon tetrafluoride is completely unreactive in the lower 99.9 percent of the atmosphere, and measurements show it to be nearly uniformly distributed throughout the atmosphere as shown in the figure. There have also been measurements over the past two decades of several other completely unreactive gases, one lighter than air (neon) and some heavier than air (argon, krypton), which show that they also mix upward uniformly through the stratosphere regardless of their weight, just as observed with carbon tetrafluoride. CFC-11 is unreactive in the lower atmosphere (below about 15 kilometers) and is similarly uniformly mixed there, as shown. The abundance of CFC-11 decreases as the gas reaches higher altitudes, where it is broken down by high energy solar ultraviolet radiation. Chlorine released from this breakdown of CFC-11 and other CFCs remains in the stratosphere for several years, where it destroys many thousands of molecules of ozone.
And how does this destruction compare in quantity to the natural ozone production? Does it outweigh the action of heliospheric bombardment?
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ProtonOzone/
This is what I mean by bombardment.
please note the final quote:
Well I disagree.
I am pretty sure it was a model I made of a beautiful ruby red 1957 Chevy that did the trick with the ozone. The steering wheel actually turned the wheels, doors, trunk and hood opened and the seats had a cloth covering. The ozone had no chance against this model.
High energy, free radical reactions sometimes can be deceptive as to which way they actually go. It occurred to some of us that the reactions actually go the other way than advertised. Ozone chews up CFCs in a chain reaction, and when the free radical gets quenched, it gets regenerated by UV. It also seemed reasonable that the “ozone hole” was just normal decay during the polar winter, with no UV for a few months.
I have sometimes wondered how things would have turned out had there been anything like the CAGW sceptics around when the Ozone Hole scare was at it’s peak.
There were skeptics of the various ozone scares during the 1970s and 1980s, including Jim Lovelock, Richard Scorer, Hugh Ellsaesser and New Scientist. There was no internet.
A few weeks before congress was to vote on the Montreal Protocols, NASA released a report in which they proclaimed that they had found a northern hemisphere ozone hole that was growing larger.
About a month after the vote, they announced that we should ignore the previous announcement, it was the result of measurement error. But by then, the damage had been done, just as intended.
@MarkW
Sources would be nice.
Why did they pick the Arctic?
The Arctic winter stratosphere is much more dynamic than the Antarctic winter stratosphere. The position and size of the polar vortex plays a vital role the amount and distribution of total column ozone.
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/ozone_2014_MERRA_NH.html
If the Antarctic is difficult to model, the Arctic is nearly impossible:
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/figures/merra/ozone/toms_minn_2014_omi+merra.pdf
Take a look at the red and blue lines on the above chart – they look easy to model don’t they?
Can anyone say why ozone is at a minimum in the stratosphere at the same time of the year at both poles (September/October)?
Go here: http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/jra/atlas/eng/indexe_column0.htm
Select Column integrated ozone and look at March and October
Well this is a new spin on the “its worse than we thought” meme.
Instead of a prediction so far out in the future that proving or disproving it is impractical in our lifetimes, they’ve now come up with a prediction of something that might have happened in the past but is impractical to prove or disprove as we can’t rerun history. Genius.
I know. It made me smile too.
I just remembered that I worked on a ‘SO2 abatement’ project (design of an oxygen plant for a copper smelter) some ~20 years ago – and the job was in Montreal. So I probably benefitted financially from the fear of the ozone layer’s pending “destruction”.
Extreme UV Radiation Is Killing Our Trees
In short, geoengineering is destroying the ozone layer. Levels of UVB are now often up to 1000% higher than official agencies are disclosing, these are extremely dangerous levels. How do we know levels are this high? Because we can and are metering UV radiation. We are now even detecting UVC radiation at the surface, UVC is the last band of UV radiation before x-ray radiation. We are told by all “official” monitoring agencies that UVC is stopped 100,000 feet up in the atmosphere, this is also a lie. Back to the trees, what is all this radiation doing to them? The 2 minute video below illustrates one example of the harm being done.
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/extreme-uv-radiation-is-killing-our-trees/
Fred,
Do you believe that?
We get CHEMTRAILED three times a week in NEW HAMPSHIRE!!!!!
Watch whales die of sunburn on youtube WHY?
Get an instrument in UNIVERSITY and measure yourself.
Climate Engineering Has Left Earth Perilously Exposed To Solar Flares
How much risk do solar flares or the even larger coronal mass ejections (CME’s) pose to our planet and our very existence? The dangers are far
[Reply: First and last warning: NO chemtrails commentary permitted here per site Policy. ~mod.]
~mod,
I present the following without commentary.
http://widelec.org/stuff/odpowiedni_kadr/odpowiedni_kadr_06.jpg
Done.
Do you want the result in inches or centimeters?
Max Photon — Chem trails — got to live it — Eugene WR Gallun
Please do not feed the herons bean burritos..
Here’s another from today’s Telegraph
http://s14.postimg.org/r04yhoka9/seagull.png
Perhaps we should add mosquito-cide to jet fuel and wipe out malaria and dengue, as well as those annoying itchy welts that develop when humans are exposed to mosquitoes. Who would miss them if they were gone?
“extreme-uv-radiation-is-killing-our-trees/”
Ahem Fred. That’s a funny website. Trees here in Germany are growing like crazy. So is the “scorching UVC radiation” only on your side of the atlantic? Maybe try watering them and come back and report.
Fred
UVC has never been stopped at 30K. Where do you get that?
The ozone hole was discovered in 1956, long before substantial human ODC emissions. It’s cause was determined in 1961 – completely natural.
Ozone is formed from atmospheric oxygen by UV light. O2 is 21% of atmosphere. There is no way a minute trace of ODC is going to overwhelm all that O2.
But what is science and facts compared to a 3D model?
There is a neat asymmetry between Dobson’s discovery of the springtime ozone hole in Halley Bay, Antarctica and Keeling’s discovery of the background CO2 trend in Hawaii. Both were due to Geophysical Year funding. However, these two impressive pieces of empirical science had very different trajectories, one heroic, the other forgotten.
‘Heroic’, ‘forgotten’? which planet do you live on?
This was just a dry run for the whole global warming scam. That and acid rain. Notice when something more gripping arose, these false alarms were reduced in importance?
WW
Find yourself a copy of
Thomas, D.S.G. and Middleton, N.J. (1994) “Desertification: Exploding the Myth” John Wiley & Sons
and check for another contender in the “dry run for the whole global warming scam” stakes IMO