Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
“In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’ All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.” George Orwell
There it was in reality! The headline I had tongue-in-cheek considered writing for a national newspaper.
Melting in the Arctic reached an all-time high in June: Ice has been disappearing at a rate of 29,000 square miles a day.
This is near the average daily rate of melt in the brief Arctic summer, but few people know this is natural. Approximately 10 million km2 of ice melts every summer in approximately 145 days, which is a melt rate of 68,965 km2 (26,627 square miles) per day. Besides, the variability is wide as a 2011 Journal of Geophysical Research article explains,
“The perennial (September) Arctic sea ice cover exhibits large interannual variability, with changes of over a million square kilometers from one year to the next. Here we explore the role of changes in Arctic cyclone activity, and related factors, in driving these pronounced year-to-year changes in perennial sea ice cover.”
In addition, determination of full ice cover is problematic (Figure 1) so different analysts get different results. It is further complicated by meltwater on the ice surface that the satellite reads as open water (Figure 2). Alarmists claim these are a sign of warming, but they ignore the fact the satellite readings of ice cover are compromised.
Figure 1 What percentage would you assign?
Figure 2 Meltwater on the ice, called freshets on river ice.
It is another example of alarmists and uninformed media reporting a natural situation as unnatural. It is a lie of omission because they only presented facts that suited their story, but lying and deception are now standard and condoned practice for some people. Apparently for them the end justifies the means.
With the introduction of the new paradigm of environmentalism and the subset global warming, natural events were presented as unnatural. The strategy provided a ‘no lose’ situation. People were easily misled because they don’t know what is normal. The few with some knowledge were easily marginalized as skeptics or conspiracy theorists. The sequence is to announce the imaginary problem, produce false science to make it ‘real’, introduce political strategies that do nothing except cost jobs and inconvenience people, and wait. When conditions return to “normal,” you claim victory for your science, policies, and wisdom. It is like the ice hockey defender who was considered good when he was so slow he missed the attacker’s feint and caught him coming back.
Recent political events in Washington, Britain, and Europe remind us of Orwell’s insightful novel Animal Farm. Lying is a constant of politics, but it is now legally endorsed by the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ), more appropriately the Department of Injustice. These political traits became standard for environmentalists and global warming advocates with the introduction of claims that humans were the cause of most environmental and climate change.
The characteristics of politics described by Orwell were manifest in the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) beginning in November 2009. On the cover of their 2010 book Climategate, Mosher and Fuller wrote that,
“The Team led by Phil Jones and Michael Mann, in attempts to shape the debate and influence public policy:
· Actively worked to evade McIntyre’s Freedom of Information requests, deleting emails, documents, and even climate data
· Tried to corrupt the peer-review principles that are the mainstay of modern science, reviewing each other’s work, sabotaging efforts of opponents trying to publish their own work, and threatening editors of journals who didn’t bow to their demands
· Changed the shape of their own data in materials shown to politicians charged with changing the shape of our world, ‘hiding the decline’ that showed their data could not be trusted.”
Those descriptions fit Orwell’s observations. There is no doubt what was done and who did it. The problem was compounded and the practices condoned in the cover-up that followed. The Atlantic editor Clive Crook wrote,
“I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.”
Unfortunately, Crook’s remarks are similar to those made about the testimony given by FBI Director James Comey before the US Congress hearing on July 7, 2016. The Director listed all the lies, deceptions, misdirection’s, abuse of procedures, and attacks on people and groups who questioned or challenged Hillary Clinton. He then concluded there was no criminality nor requirement for accountability or punishment. He condoned the behavior just like the groups set up to investigate Climategate. The behavior condoned by Comey will continue because it is now ‘officially’ justified. We know it will continue because it has in the environmentalist and AGW communities about global warming and ozone.
The CRU debacle was not the first application of “lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia” to advance a false narrative for a political agenda. It began with the “hole-in-the-ozone” issue. It was the first global-scale environmental deception. It was the first deliberately orchestrated misuse of science by a small group of people (cabal) using bureaucracies and the media for a political agenda. The public still doesn’t know there is no scientific basis for what was claimed. AGW proponents can’t let that truth emerge because it would undermine the larger ongoing global warming issue.
The revelation that the so-called “ozone hole” was recovering and almost back to “normal” was predictable. Not surprisingly, the ozone recovery story appeared under the name of Susan Solomon, a principal architect of the original ozone story and a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration employee, described by Wikipedia as follows;
Her work formed the basis of the U.N. Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to protect the ozone layer by regulating damaging chemicals. Solomon served the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. She was a contributing author for the Third Assessment Report. She was also Co-Chair of Working Group I for the Fourth Assessment Report.
The ozone story reappears now because the climate change story is losing momentum; Paris COP 21 commitments are failing; polls show little or no public concern; and the public attitude to lying politicians is spreading. The ozone story reinvigorates the climate deception by claiming the originators were correct. We were correct and saved the planet with the Montreal Protocol so you must listen to us on the climate issue.
In December 2015 I explained the purpose of the Ozone scare as a trial run for the CO2 scare and the deception to follow. It had all the components; a false claim of change being due to human activity, it was false because it assumed incorrectly that UV radiation, which creates ozone, was constant; use of the claim for a political agenda; and manufactured scientific evidence to support demands for political action.
The Ozone Issue Template
The Montreal Protocol is a template, but not for pushing the need for a Climate Protocol. It is a template
· For how ozone destruction by human produced Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) was a test run for the deception that human CO2 is causing global warming.
· Not because it worked, but because it was completely unnecessary, cost a lot of money and created a multitude of other problems.
· Because humans were blamed for atmospheric ozone destruction without evidence, while natural processes were ignored.
· For using a global environmental issue as justification for establishing a world government.
· For establishing the efficacy of claiming natural events as unnatural.
· For allowing bureaucrats to create and control the entire process outside of normal scientific methods, codes of conduct, and accountability.
· For establishing how bureaucrats could control the political agenda on environmental and climate issues.
The Montreal Protocol appeared to work because there was no problem in the first place. Variations in ozone were perfectly natural. If they don’t know this, they are scientifically incompetent. But that doesn’t matter because they need its false success for political reasons.
Nurtured by environmental hysteria and the determination to show all changes in the natural world are due to human activity, the claim that CFCs were destroying ozone changed from an unproven hypothesis to a scientific fact. All the other ingredients were at hand; the big corporation; the dangerous manufactured product; the luxury of refrigeration improving the quality of life for rich people at the expense of the poor and the environment; and the fear of increased skin cancer, especially among children. The political juggernaut was underway as fearful people demanded political action. As H. L. Mencken said,
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the public alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
Most actions did not and could not deal with the problem. One geo-engineering solution proposed to produce ozone at ground level and pump it into the ozone layer. Then someone pointed out that this required more energy than humans produce in total.
There are still no “holes in the ozone”, but the area of thinning over Antarctica continues to vary due to natural conditions. As the climate change deception falters, the counterattack builds. Out of desperation, they fall back on the illusionary “success” of the Montreal Protocol, thus risking the exposure of that charade. Orwell knew the fate of those who expose or even question the charade. He wrote,
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
The Montreal Protocol is a good example of fixing a probem that doesn’t exist as stated. I still think there was not a long enough baseline to deterimine what the natural variations were in ozone levels before they discovered a crisis and assigned a cause.
The ‘Ozone hole’ and its ‘solution’ was a forerunner of AGW. It was a test, to see how susceptible the world population could be to control by a despotic few in the UN (etc). Not to mention how many refrigeration manufacturers cleaned up because of the need to switch to non-CFC coolants.
Yes and to solve a non problem we spent billions,
and many made millions
‘Not to mention how many refrigeration manufacturers cleaned up because of the need to switch to non-CFC coolants.’
Prove it.
I doubt that the ozone hole scam was actually designed as a forerunner of CAGW. That smells a bit too much of conspiracy theory because its perpetrators would have had to be remarkably prescient. My impression is that it was simply a scam in its own right, and that its success then encouraged others to start the larger CAGW scam.
Not to mention pilots can no longer see where to land.
Aircraft were once fitted with rain repellant buttons, which delivered a whole cc of repellent to the windows while on the approach. After a squirt you could suddenly see the entire runway without wipers – they were that effective. (Billy Boeing’s wipers are hopeless. The old variety made so much noise you could not communicate. The new versions got rid of the noise, by making the wipers not work…)
But due to the ozone scare, all aviation rain repellants were banned and disabled. So now pilots land by braille, or by dropping a plumb-line out the window to see how high they are. ;-). (Hint, autolands are not available at most small airports.
In addition, all BCF fire extinguishants have been banned for the same CFC reasons, and yet this is the only extinguishant powerful enough for aviation use. Aircraft still have BCF extinguishers, but only because the fluid is being recycled and reused, but stocks are dwindling as the number of aircraft in use grows. And since the cost of BCF is increasing, there have been several instances of BFC fra-d, where rogue manufacturers dilute the BCF to make it go further.
So thanks to the greens, flights today are much more dangerous. The reports of landings that were difficult or went around because of heavy rain on the windscreen are endless. While the prospect of aircraft having diluted extinguishers is a disaster waiting to happen.
Send your letters of thanks to Greenleace and the WWF.
Ralph
Gamecock on July 9, 2016 at 1:48 pm
‘Not to mention how many refrigeration manufacturers cleaned up because of the need to switch to non-CFC coolants.’
Prove it.
______________________________
Yeah, that ‘prov it’ always does the trick :
let’em run against the evidence of spreading refrigerator startups in silicone valley and South Africa since Kyoto!
Not to mention that the new fridges with the new refrigerant (some kind of propane or butane) are much more dangerous that the old CFC fridges. There has been a rash of fridge explosions in Britain, and I expect the same is true in the US and around the world.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1210334/Alert-new-wave-exploding-fridges-caused-environmentally-friendly-coolant.html
Send your letter of thanks to Greenpeace and the WWF.
Ralph
Not to mention the old types ran for over 20 years. the new ones die within 3 to 5 years as seal go bad due to the new gases.
I agree completely. It’s giving these people too much credit and demonizing them to too great an extent at the same time. It’s worth noting also that all of this is occurring in the wake of Silent Spring. In this environment, there are all sorts of positive reinforcements as well as models to imitate – and this is probably a sufficient explanation (as opposed to a Chomskyite vision of ultimate manipulation and control – although this sort of thing is also probably part of the mix as well).
As a refrigeration contractor and system designer I have to say that it was all a big pain in the butt. ODP testing, redesign of systems, strict, nearly unworkable rules on releases. Some equipment manufacturers went broke. They were perfectly happy before selling stuff that hadn’t changed for 30 years. Refrigerants now cost 10 times what they did before. If that was all for nothing, I’m pissed!
I understand. I was involved finding an alternative to Freon cleaning solvent used after soldering pc boards.
I am also stunned to find that the ozone alarm was false. I do think that the person first postulating the ‘problem’ might not have realised all the facts [as I see it today]
Mike Jonas – I came a cross a not-so-bright young women who was an arts student and activist in about 1990. She insisted that the two were the same thing. I have no doubts that they were linked and she couldn’t distinguish between the scientific positions and talking points.
Gamecock: Easy. Existing equipment can’t use the new chemicals. The old chemicals rapidly became scarce and more expensive making the maintenance of older equipment more expense.
For many users, it rapidly became less expensive to dump your old equipment, even though it still worked and buy new equipment that could use the new chemicals.
ralfellis: The Challenger accident was caused because NASA switched to a non-CFC foam for the external tank. With the old formula, there had never been a problem with chunks falling off during liftoff.
MarkW
STS-107 Columbia
I didn’t know about the foam formula change thanks.
Columbia again. If you believe the wiki…
The composition of the foam insulation had been changed in 1997 to exclude the use of freon, a chemical that is suspected to cause ozone depletion; while NASA was exempted from legislation phasing out CFCs, the agency chose to change the foam nonetheless. STS-107 used an older “lightweight tank” (a design that was succeeded by the “superlightweight tank”, both being upgrades from the original space shuttle external tank) where the foam was sprayed on to the larger cylindrical surfaces using the newer freon-free foam. However, the bipod ramps were manufactured from BX-250 foam which was excluded from the EPA regulations and did use the original freon formula. The composition change did not contribute to the accident.[46]
So CFC’s the original magic molecules that managed to mass migrate from the NH to SH and magically get lifted to the stratosphere to ultimately sunburn some penguins. Did anyone bother to ask why the ozone situation wasn’t hugely worse in the arctic?
I agree with Mr. Ball that pieces of the CFC trial balloon still exist; particularly where the “devastating effects” are in remote and generally inaccessible places.
Though the CFC non-problem scare may be a good model for CAGW, the fact is that CFC’s were (in a relative sense) easy to squash; CO2… not so much as most everything useful we do including breathing generates it. Ultimately this overreach is going to implode when minimal to no or negative correlation with temperature is discovered. You’d think 20 years non-correlation would be enough but speculative bubbles seem to last way longer than most reasonable people would expect.
Susan Solomon owes virtually her entire career and prominence to the Ozone Scam. It made her a political heavyweight for the IPCC scams to follow.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36690943
The claim is that the ozone hole is shrinking.
Of course they’ve never demonstrated that there was a time when there was no Ozone hole.
Mwhite
I asked that very question to Cambridge university and the Max plank institute around 2010 .
They said that instruments that could measure the ozone hole first became available in the mid 1950’s but were unaware whether holes might have previously existed but their models seemed to imdicate it was a new problem. They did say they hoped to conduct experiments to determine if a hole could have previously existed and I guess now is the time to find out if these were carried out.
If mr Connelly happens along here he might have some knowledge of the situation as I believe he was involved in Antarctic experiments.
The hole is at its largest in October so it is premature to claim it is shrinking especially as it was around its fourth largest only a year or so ago.
It is said the hole should disappear by the middle of the century so I guess the jury is out as to whether modern holes are unique and whether or not the current one will disappear as expected by the middle of the century.
Tonyb
Observations made since 1957 suggest there was no hole at that time. They also suggest that the ozone layer above the Antarctic was much thicker and had gradually thinned from 300 DU in the 1950s to around 200 DU in the late 1970s and subsequently to around 100 DU more recently.
CFCs are fairly long lasting in the atmosphere so any increase in the ozone layer (reduction in the hole) wasn’t going to happen overnight. There has apparently been around 5% reduction from the peak concentration which is consistent with the trend in ozone increase.
I’d hesitate to state that there is no doubt that CFCs caused stratospheric ozone depletion but the data and evidence strongly suggest that CFCs are at least a factor,
Do you have a reference to this ‘data’ from the 50s ?
This is something I see claimed repeatedly but I have never seen anyone produce the slightest reference to a paper a data source or anything that suggests that they have checked out the claim.
Obviously the data will be very sparse at that time and probably from the coastal research stations, so we need to look at whether this is the usual apples and oranges warmista claims. Current total column values are nearer to 200 than the 100 you mention. The ‘hole’ is 200 instead of 300 : not exactly anyone’s idea of what the word hole means anywhere outside climate alarmist mythology.
Hre is what the size of the 220DU ozone “hole” history looks like with a light low-pass gaussian filter.
The rapid increase in the 80s and 90s and flattening since can not possibly be due to the trivial reductions in remaining atmospheric CFCs that have occurred since Montreal came into force:
It very likely has more to do volcanic activity. NASA state that ozone was reduced by 5 to 8% after Mt Pinatubo.
Greg July 10, 2016 at 12:35 am
Do you have a reference to this ‘data’ from the 50s ?
This is something I see claimed repeatedly but I have never seen anyone produce the slightest reference to a paper a data source or anything that suggests that they have checked out the claim.
Try reading this for a good overview.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/361/1469/769
Current total column values are nearer to 200 than the 100 you mention. The ‘hole’ is 200 instead of 300 : not exactly anyone’s idea of what the word hole means anywhere outside climate alarmist mythology.
No the cause of the ‘hole’ is the O3 in the 14 – 22 km altitude range being degraded to zero from its former value, resulting in a drop in the total column ozone at that location. That’s a hole in anyone’s language!
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ozwv/ozsondes/spo/iadv/SPO_2015-10-12.21.png
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/09/alarmism-claiming-normal-as-abnormal-began-on-a-global-scale-with-ozone/comment-page-1/#comment-2256722
mwhite/tonyb says
Of course they’ve never demonstrated that there was a time when there was no Ozone hole.
henry says
would be nice to get a comment from Phil. about that….
I have ample evidence showing that production of ozone\peroxide\N-oxide TOA follows Gleisberg/Hale – solar cycles.
It seems odd it could be shrinking if just last year it was near record size: http://www.popsci.com/ozone-hole-is-now-larger-than-north-america Either that or it varies all over the board and you can claim what you want to by looking at the differences between any two given points.
Bingo!!!
Observations are not permitted. Models only need apply.
More seriously, some of this is a simple result of finally being able to record something that you could not earlier record well. The sheeple look at it and some Millerite Quack decides that it is caused by the “gods” being angry with some sort of human action that must then stop immediately. Further, the Rev. Quack believes that having discovered the gods displeasure with mankind, that his/her high Quackness is uniquely able to satisfy the gods and revert humanity to the previous state of approval of the gods. The Rev. Quack then usually proceeds to recruit various priests and priestesses who divine the will of the gods with reference to objects that are only held by the Church of Quackentology. These priests and priestesses are usually housed in some sort of quackery and supported by tithes now laid on the populace at large. For a separate contribution, the Church usually dispenses indulgences that will relieve the contributor from some sort of imagined future state of “sin” for a limited time or reduce their stay in some sort of hypothetical in between world.
Sadly, any student of history can tell you that this is a repeated theme. The origin of the very word “quack” as a reference to a doctor who would show up and not be able to really do anything is thought to have originated with the plague in 1348. The medical people of the time were clever enough to construct a sort of hazmat suit that they sometimes wore when they visited patients. The openings for the eyes were protected by small pieces of glass. The suits had a long “beak” that was filled with flowers/herbs/spices to ward off the smell and protect the wearer from the “bad air”. They may have indeed been effective for pneumonic and septicemic plague but not otherwise. The medicine that the “quacks” had to offer was not effective against any of it. The Church at the time was of the opinion that the plague was a punishment from god.
There is little new under the sun. Ecclesiastes was right.
Welcome to modern day “science”
cheers
Volcanic eruptions can spur ozone loss. The general trend is towards recovery but CFCs are still at 95% of their peak level in the atmosphere. The 2015 Calbuco eruption in Chile would have contributed to a significant ozone depletion.
The “general trend” is to less volcanic activity to. By the usual standards of climatology that is sufficient ‘proof’ of attribution and that we need to ban volcanoes.
Here is the same data I posted above without the filter:
Someone need to explain what happened in 2003. The largest change in the whole record. What was that, a sudden drop in CFCs ?
clearly CFC are only a small part of the story. There are natural variations that are far more important. This is nothing more than the usual activist-scientist crap where they draw a straight line through two datasets and conclude a spurious attribution which fits their alarmist, political worldview.
Greg suggests that:
Greg, do CMEs have any effect on the ozone in earth’s atmosphere?
Given the fact that CME activity began increasing significantly in 2000 and peaked in 2003 ….. correlates with your Ozone Hole “size” graph, …… to wit:
4 years ago it set a record.
It has shrunk since then.
So obviously banning CFC’s 30 years ago caused the size of the hole to shrink.
If we only had ONE 1 “sophisticated ” politician (1 that could understand facts and figures )
The USGS lab has know of the data manipulations for a long time. There are 50 lightning strikes per second each generating ozone. Big deal but no longer.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/08/federal-lab-ignored-environmental-data-manipulation-for-years/
I don’t think the article on the USGS data manipulation supports your claim that the USGS knew specifically the ozone hole issue was bogus. Can you provide primary evidence? Peer-reviewed article?
Ho
w can there be peer reviewed articles if the raw data and methods are hidden and/or known to be false?
It isn’t the least bit difficult to make ozone. The problem is that it is unhealthy at the surface, but necessary in the stratosphere between us and the sun. The idea that lightning creates ozone does not change the basic mechanics.
Neither pole receives enough UVb or UVc (solar) to create or support the inter-conversion process.
Which is the basic fallacy of the Great Ozone Lie and really shouldn’t need much in the way of empirical support. The hole is there because the Antarctic doesn’t get much sun. Who knew?
In 1543, Copernicus rightly established the sun (at 99% of the mass and 99.99% of all available energy) at the center of the solar system. For the last 75 years modern day shamans posing as Eco-friendly climate scientists have systemically placed man’s activities as the primary causality.
In essence, post-modern science has reverted us back to a pre-renaissance view of the solar system.
We may not be conducting human sacrifices on South American temples, but the shamans are quietly freezing to death the most vulnerable in our society under icy windmills.
Nobody, because it isn’t true. Hint, in the winter when there is no sunlight over the antarctic the O3 concentration stays high, when the sun rises in the spring it is the UV light that destroys the O3.
Sorry Phil.
I don’t agree with that. It shows that you don’t understand the basic processes involved/ you just want to go with the published ‘investigations’ and rely on them only, instead of relying on your own reasoning.
Hear this: The sun produces and radiates particles, some so energetic that if there were no atmosphere, or almost no atmosphere, like on Mars, it would kill you. Hence, going to Mars is not such a good idea, until you have created an earth-like atmosphere….
What prevents us from being hurt by those particles are the reactions of those particles with the basic compounds of the atmosphere to form ozone, peroxides and N-oxides. Once formed , this formation is irreversible. Once formed these compounds than carry on oxidising other components that happen to be in the atmosphere. …. As far as I remember my chemistry, ozone is a stronger oxidiser than chlorine?
HenryP July 12, 2016 at 8:10 am
Sorry Phil.
I don’t agree with that. It shows that you don’t understand the basic processes involved/ you just want to go with the published ‘investigations’ and rely on them only, instead of relying on your own reasoning.
Whether you agree or not Henry it’s the fact!
Hear this: The sun produces and radiates particles, some so energetic that if there were no atmosphere, or almost no atmosphere, like on Mars, it would kill you. Hence, going to Mars is not such a good idea, until you have created an earth-like atmosphere….
What prevents us from being hurt by those particles are the reactions of those particles with the basic compounds of the atmosphere to form ozone, peroxides and N-oxides. Once formed, this formation is irreversible.
If that were true Henry we’d never lose any O3!
Here’s a set of O3 profiles above the south pole during 8 years from 2002-2009:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/spo_oz/SouthPoleMin_profile_2002_2009.png
The red curve is the average over the winter when there is no sun there, typically peaks between 15 and 20 km with a pO3 of ~15 mPa. A couple of months later (blue curve) it’s dropped to the minimum in the presence of the sun, most years to zero mPa! At the same time and altitude there’s a peak in ClO, a product of the O3 depletion mechanism. By December pO3 is back up to ~15 mPa as the temperature has increased and the sunlight is peaking.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ozwv/ozsondes/spo/iadv/SPO_2015-12-16.21.png
In the late 50s the total O3 stayed constant at around 300 DU throughout the winter until it increased in November as the vortex collapsed, no minimum (‘hole’).
Phil. says
If that were true Henry we’d never lose any O3
Henry says
All my graphs on ozone [as an example of all compounds formed TOA] show that ozone has been increasing since around 1995, both in the Nh and in the Sh. Check it out!!!
e.g.
first part of my comment here (Arosa, Nh)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/09/alarmism-claiming-normal-as-abnormal-began-on-a-global-scale-with-ozone/#comment-2255467
It is the Sun who rules. \man is arrogant if he thinks he can ‘change’ the atmosphere/ weather
HenryP July 12, 2016 at 12:27 pm
Phil. says
“If that were true Henry we’d never lose any O3”
Henry says
All my graphs on ozone [as an example of all compounds formed TOA] show that ozone has been increasing since around 1995, both in the Nh and in the Sh. Check it out!!!
e.g.
first part of my comment here (Arosa, Nh)
Henry every spring above the Antarctic as shown above O3 is destroyed.
@Phil.
I think you misunderstand me. Or want to.
I said: once the most energetic particles from the sun have formed the ozone, peroxide and N-oxides, that process [reaction] most surely is irreversible. IOW once formed you cannot get the original oxygen /OH /nitrogen back and shoot that particle just back to the sun…..
here you can see that ozone is increasing from 1995 in the sh
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/ozone_hole_minimum.gif
Unfortunately I have no data there in that graph from 2006 but I assume that the curve will continue to go up until now.
What happens to the ozone/peroxide/N-oxides once they have been manufactured by the sun’s most energetic rays is a completely different story. For example, ozone and peroxide are very strong oxidizers, so they will be reduced back to oxygen and water, respectively, once they make contact with other reactive molecules. If there is a seasonal trend in the yearly data, there must be some logical reasons for it. IOW normal reactions with various atmospheric compounds at certain temperatures…. In any case, nothing [much] to do with CFC’s.
My point is still that I would expect to find more OH radicals above the SH oceans, because they receive more heat than the NH oceans. I am willing to bet that nature has balanced the “ozone hole” with peroxide. Most likely, peroxides are formed preferentially to ozone if more OH radicals are present.
The absorption spectrum of peroxide and ozone are almost identical, so once formed they do exactly the same thing: restrict some UV to warm the oceans [because they have absorption in certain UV regions]
more peroxide and more ozone means less heating [of the oceans]
So, if we all could go back now, and measure the peroxide content exactly inside the hole and around it, I think you will all get a surprise. I am currently unemployed, so I am available to assist you with those investigations.
best wishes
henry
henryp July 13, 2016 at 6:01 am
@Phil.
I think you misunderstand me. Or want to.
I said: once the most energetic particles from the sun have formed the ozone, peroxide and N-oxides, that process [reaction] most surely is irreversible. IOW once formed you cannot get the original oxygen /OH /nitrogen back and shoot that particle just back to the sun…..
In the field of chemical kinetics (which is the subject here), ‘reversible’ has a very specific meaning and the one you’re using isn’t correct. To be reversible the reverse reaction isn’t required to release the energy in the exact form in which it was received, so the reaction is reversible.
here you can see that ozone is increasing from 1995 in the sh
Unfortunately I have no data there in that graph from 2006 but I assume that the curve will continue to go up until now.
Not at issue although ‘bouncing around’ might be a more accurate description (see below) as anticipated by Rowland ten years ago in his Proc Roy Soc paper.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/spo_oz/spoOctAve.png
What happens to the ozone/peroxide/N-oxides once they have been manufactured by the sun’s most energetic rays is a completely different story. For example, ozone and peroxide are very strong oxidizers, so they will be reduced back to oxygen and water, respectively, once they make contact with other reactive molecules. If there is a seasonal trend in the yearly data, there must be some logical reasons for it. IOW normal reactions with various atmospheric compounds at certain temperatures…. In any case, nothing [much] to do with CFC’s.
On the contrary, the appearance of a ClO peak in the same location as the O3 depletion over the S Pole indicates involvement go CFCs. The seasonal behavior is explained by this region being coincident with the low temperatures favoring PSC formation during the winter (<-78ºC).
clearly, looking at your graph, you can see the ozone following a hyperbole. 86-87 years from the beginning of your graph you will be back to where we were. [ozone still rising]
Gleissberg was right.
http://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf
tables II and III
there is no man made warming and there is no man made ozone hole.
go figure. go measure. yourself.
end of story.
HenryP July 13, 2016 at 1:19 pm
clearly, looking at your graph, you can see the ozone following a hyperbole. 86-87 years from the beginning of your graph you will be back to where we were. [ozone still rising]
Henry, I don’t see a hyperbola, and if there was it wouldn’t go back up, perhaps you mean a parabola?
During the ramp-up to the year 2000, there were two voices: Y2K alarmists and moderates. The alarmists made lots of money; the moderates did not. Running a scare racket can be very lucrative.
…wait ’til y10k comes around!
The Director listed all the lies, deceptions, misdirection’s, abuse of procedures, and attacks on people and groups who questioned or challenged Hillary Clinton…..
Involuntary manslaughter is legal now……
Comey and the State Department IG laid out a reasonable case for determining a “reasonable person’s” intent – being so “extremely careless”, having only a Personal Server and Devices, refusing a State Department account or Device, destroying evidence, etc.- then he basically argued that Hillary wasn’t ~”sophisticated enough” to know her own intent – or to ever have one! Next he eliminated Gross Negligence because of “Precedent” and because he thought it wasn’t “Constitutional”.
Thus Comey proved himself not “sophisticated enough” to really understand or at least wonder why the Espionage Law was there in the first place, that a Trial can lead to an actual test of a Law’s Constitutionality, and that people are convicted all the time for the violation of similar Laws, perhaps including just running a Stop Sign. I want my money back!
So Comey skated away free from criticism according to his own constructions!
Some Pigs are more equal and more unsophisticated than the rest of us. So we get convicted and pay the extremely careless bills for our “betters”. “It’s only fair” or “just”, or an Animal Farm. After all, wasn’t Orwell “intending” to lay out how a Good Farm should operate? Dey weally weally wuvs it! But I want my Constitution Back!
As a sitting Senator from the State of New York, Hillary joined in unanimous roll call support of house bill 2458, known as FISMA
https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/2458
The bill was sponsored by 39 democrats and one republican. The purpose of FISMA was to make sure the Federal Records Act kept up with modern technology (e-mail, web, e-commerce). Further, the democrats wanted to ensure Congress could effectively perform its oversight responsibility for executive agencies during the Bush administration.
Agency directors had specific duties under this law
“Directs the head of each agency to: (1) be responsible for providing information security protections commensurate with the risk and magnitude of the harm resulting from unauthorized access and for complying with information security standards and guidelines; (2) ensure that senior agency officials provide information security for the information and information systems that support operations and assets; (3) delegate to the agency CIO the authority to ensure compliance with the regulations imposed under this Act; (4) ensure that the agency has trained personnel sufficient to assist the agency in complying with Act requirements; and (5) ensure that the agency CIO reports annually on the effectiveness of the agency information security program.”
NIST further refined the regulations under this law to require each agency to provide a report to Congress on EVERY system of record for the agency (including 3rd party and contractors) that identified the system and an annual audit on what security controls were implemented to ensure cyber security.
For Comey to not hold Hillary to the highest standard for cyber awareness and compliance in light of her participation in establishing the laws she broke is indefensible.
May the U.S Constitution rest in peace.
Me thinks that most everyone is oblivious to the “BIG STORY” that pertains to Hillary Clinton’s server “wiping” erasing of tens of thousands of her and Bill’s money seeking E-mail correspondence between themselves and the wealthy donors, banks, corporations and government entities, …… both foreign and domestic, …. so the really import issues that has never been discussed is …. what were all “names” on their E-mail Contact list?
Given the assumed fact that both Hillary and Bill were engaged in “revenue seeking” E-mail correspondence, ……. via their “unprotected” basement server, ….. with responding “entities” all over the globe pretty much assures one that foreign entities and hackers had access to an “open microphone” to US government Secret and/or Classified information.
And the FBI is smart enough to figure that out …… and smart enough to not tell Congress, the Media Reporters and the citizens, …… nor to recommend that Hillary be prosecuted, …… maybe because of fear of rioting and burnings or maybe Bill threatened to “tell all” if they prosecuted Hillary.
It’s pretty simple to me. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Thanks to Dr. Tim Ball for another great and detailed expose of the Machiavellian processes of Global Climate manipulations by the Alarmists.
JAXA have it on their website, that they cant trust their sat when melt water is on the surface of ice, it’s considered open water..
*mistaken as open water
Lets not forget the wind earlier this year in the Barents sea, wind blown ice was called “ice melted”
The problem with observation without science.
O3 is created by solar rays hitting the atmosphere, so the Antarctic would see less given the angle of earth towards the sun.
The other Ozone created and destroyed by pollution, is not the ozone we need anyway, that is not O3 and is part of a process that destroys the ozone anyway.
Ozone /ˈoʊzoʊn/ (systematically named 1λ1,3λ1-trioxidane and catena-trioxygen), or trioxygen, is an inorganic molecule with the chemical formula O
3. It is a pale blue gas with a distinctively pungent smell. It is an allotrope of oxygen that is much less stable than the diatomic allotrope O
2, breaking down in the lower atmosphere to normal dioxygen. Ozone is formed from dioxygen by the action of ultraviolet light and also atmospheric electrical discharges, and is present in low concentrations throughout the Earth’s atmosphere (stratosphere). In total, ozone makes up only 0.6 ppm of the atmosphere.
Ozone’s odour is sharp, reminiscent of chlorine, and detectable by many people at concentrations of as little as 10 ppb in air. Ozone’s O3 formula was determined in 1865. The molecule was later proven to have a bent structure and to be diamagnetic. In standard conditions, ozone is a pale blue gas that condenses at progressively cryogenic temperatures to a dark blue liquid and finally a violet-black solid. Ozone’s instability with regard to more common dioxygen is such that both concentrated gas and liquid ozone may decompose explosively at elevated temperatures or fast warming to the boiling point.[4] It is therefore used commercially only in low concentrations.
Ozone is a powerful oxidant (far more so than dioxygen) and has many industrial and consumer applications related to oxidation. This same high oxidising potential, however, causes ozone to damage mucous and respiratory tissues in animals, and also tissues in plants, above concentrations of about 100 ppb. This makes ozone a potent respiratory hazard and pollutant near ground level. However, the ozone layer (a portion of the stratosphere with a bigger concentration of ozone, from two to eight ppm) is beneficial, preventing damaging ultraviolet light from reaching the Earth’s surface, to the benefit of both plants and animals.
@ur momisugly Mark, How does circulation ( jet stream etc.) influence the distribution of Ozone? Or is it too high up? Does not last long as O3? Can you point me somewhere? Thanks.
Go to reality348.wordpress.com and there is a heap of observations collated by erl happ using nullschoolearth and more…
Ozone mostly forms in the equatorial stratosphere due to high insolation, but then migrates towards the poles with the upper atmospheric large scale circulations like the Hadley Cell. The net result is stratospheric ozone piles up in the mid to high latitudes giving generally higher ozone concentrations than over its equatorial source region.
It’s always intrigued me that three of the biggest scientific frauds of the 20th century were committed by women who, by the way, are now lionized by leftists and progressives.
Margaret Sanger was an admitted eugenicist who advocated “family planning” for inferior races [her terms]. Welcome Planned Parenthood, who preferentially locates their clinics in low-income, minority-dominant neighborhoods
Rachel Carson posited the bogus hypothesis that DDT caused damage to bird populations by some mysterious process that allegedly led to thinner egg shells, and the equally bogus contention that DDT causes cancer. Total BS, but her advocacy led to the near-total ban on DDT use worldwide. Consequence: millions of infant deaths (especially in Africa, Latin America, and SE Asia) due to malaria, which would have been prevented by modest DDT application
And then Susan Solomon and her made-up story about CFCs and stratospheric ozone. She’s not in Sanger and Carson’s league in terms of body count, but she probably bears some responsibility for Vitamin A deficiency (rickets) in western world children as their mothers have been scared into slathering them with SPF99 sunscreen for fear of skin cancer. No one seems to note that the so-called “ozone hole” only occurs in polar regions where essentially no one lives.
What a bunch of Maroons! [credit Bugs Bunny]
Ouch, logic and facts will find no place in our political driven media outlets and our pop culture mentality.
Well said and please keep it up.
Vitamin D.
I supplement.
Right. The sun-vitamin is D not A (produced only by UV-B light with a sufficient small obliqueness of the sun’s rays) and it seems to have much more positive effects than only to prevent rickets:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D
Additionally, the hole is largest during the spring not the summer when the sun’s rays strike more directly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
“Inaccurate chromosome number
In 1923, leading American zoologist Theophilus Painter declared, based on poor data and conflicting observations he had made,[15][16] that humans had 24 pairs of chromosomes. From the 1920s to the 1950s, this continued to be held based on Painter’s authority,[17][18][19][16] despite subsequent counts totaling the correct number of 23.[15][20] Even textbooks[15] with photos clearly showing 23 pairs incorrectly declared the number to be 24[20] based on the authority of the then-consensus of 24 pairs.[21][17]
This seemingly established number created confirmation bias among researchers, and “most cytologists, expecting to detect Painter’s number, virtually always did so”.[21] Painter’s “influence was so great that many scientists preferred to believe his count over the actual evidence”,[20] to the point that “textbooks from the time carried photographs showing twenty-three pairs of chromosomes, and yet the caption would say there were twenty-four”.[20] Scientists who obtained the accurate number modified[22] or discarded[23] their data to agree with Painter’s count.”
Scientists are the most susceptible to consensus thinking. CO2 warming is the 24th chromosome pair.
I didn’t know that about Painter, ….. thanks for posting it.
How about Charles Marsh and his “wrong headed” dinosaur he named the Brontosaurus that persevered for 100 years before the public was told otherwise?
See http://www.unmuseum.org/dinobront.htm
Amazing! Except in the context of this forum and what we see today!
The protocol phased out gases that deplete atmospheric ozone and create the ozone hole over Antarctica in spring. But the gases phased in as replacements are called “super greenhouse gases” by observers such as David Doniger, director of climate and clean air at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a New York-based international environmental advocacy group. They are much worse than carbon dioxide, he says.
Shall we call this looking for the next gas to get money form taxpayers? As one gas goes we shall find another even if it is only 1 part per hundred trillion?
They were talking about phasing out the HFC’s even before they started introducing them!
Another fabulous essay Dr. Ball. Thanks.
The BBC is currently running an article that is incidentally and accidentally highly relevant to climate change alarmism. It is ostensibly about the 1908 Siberian explosion that flattened a huge area of forest, and it quotes K. Florensky in a report on the event: “While I am aware of the advantages of sensational publicity in drawing public attention to a problem, it should be stressed that unhealthy interest aroused as a result of distorted facts and misinformation should never be used as a basis for the furtherance of scientific knowledge.” The very next lines are also interesting: “But that did not stop others coming up with even more imaginative ideas. In 1973 a paper was published in the reputable journal Nature, suggesting that a black hole collided into Earth to cause the explosion.” Reputable journals publishing silly ideas to explain a phenomenon? Surely not!
and you all seem to be forgetting one of the key ingredients of the ozone fiasco: freon and it’s widely used variants were off patent and the market was about to be flooded by cheap developing world sources. By phasing out freon and replacing it with newer, freshly patented chemicals, refrigeration companies were given the right to insist on replacement of all refrigeration equipment in the world (vastly profitable for them) and they were protected from all cheap competition in servicing that equipment. (also vastly profitable)
More than enough money to kick back a chunk of it to the politicians and groups demanding that “something must be done!!!!”
WWS wrote: “: Freon and it’s widely used variants were off patent and the market was about to be flooded by cheap developing world sources.”
But About.com says Freon was patented in December 1928. That patent would have expired FAR BEFORE the ozone hole fiasco
(http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blfreon.htm: Frigidaire was issued the first patent, US#1,886,339, for the formula for CFCs on December 31, 1928.)
wws . . . file that with faked moon landings.
These are the same people who define 1900, when plants grew 40% slower as the climate optimum.
And further claim – when Ag studies show a progressive increase in drought tolerance and heat tolerance of crops – with highest yield increases at the equator – that a 0.5°C increase or 1.0°C is a hard limit at which harm will occur. Even though the last 1°C and 100 PPM got us 60% more growth.
1900 was too cold and had too little CO2 for plants to grow properly. It shouldn’t be used as the basis for anything. Further, we should demand that the IPCC limits be indexed to an index of crop heat tolerance. If this was done we would never hit the IPCC limit.
The IPCC concept that warming is harmful or CO2 is bad, is made up out of the whole cloth.
As far as our hole… We didn’t observe a lot of things until the satellite era. So we don’t really have any comparison for modern observations. The solution is simple, ban global warming/CFC/whatever claims as fraud for any property that has been observed closely for at least 100 years.
The lead-in Orwell quote was so good I had to read more of the source. I found it at https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm. It’s well worth a read and probably even more relevant now than when it was published in 1946.
Someone who knows the Bible better than I can probably cite examples from the Old Testament.
Here’s a story about ironmaking in the Weald district of southern England. Ironmaking required charcoal, which was made from trees. Trees were also required for almost everything else. They were the major industrial material. We thus have a dispute which led to a royal commission. The evidence tended to be alarmist.
The thing the alarmists didn’t mention was that large trees, suitable for building warships and buildings, were not being felled to make charcoal. The small branches necessary for charcoal making were provided by the highly renewable, environment friendly, process of coppicing wherein small trees were encouraged to branch rather than growing straight and tall. The process could be repeated many many times on the same tree.
The alarmists ignored the truth and resorted to the same lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia that they employ to this very day.
Yep, I’ve read the evidencce in English County records that woodland expanded greatly with the Iromasters’ economic influence. Similar is happenning nowadays……
CommieBob: Good point, and really apposite to our present circumstances. One of the consequences of the 16th century wood crisis, manufactured or not, was the beginning of the large scale use of coal for heating and cooking. Coal was gathered on the northeast coast of England where coal seams were were exposed in cliffs that were being actively eroded by wave action – hence the term “sea coal”. Under Queen Elizabeth I’s rule, the coastal trade in sea coal, delivered to southern England, grew dramatically.
There is serious irony here. In the 16th century, the fossil fuel industry really got started because of a fabricated shortage of wood. In the 21st century, English coal burning power stations are starting to burn wood because of a fabricated climate crisis supposedly caused by coal et al. You don’t know whether to laugh or cry. What have we really learned in 500 years?
BTW, gathering sea coal still goes on. You can see photos of it here:
http://robbirrell.com/category/projects/sea-coal/
Also BTW, another consequence of the wood crisis was the development of improved forestry management. Those Elizabethan half-timbered houses needed a lot of 8″×8″ oak timbers, and that was a bigger drain on a limited resource than naval construction. England under Henry VIII was a mess. Under his daughter, England enjoyed a level of prosperity that it did not see again until after the industrial revolution got started. She was called “Good Queen Bess” for a reason – she actually cared about the material well-being of her people. Not a prominent characteristic of recent governments in the “western world”. You can see I’m a fan of QE1.
Also BTW, under the semi-managed Elizabethan economy, metal mining was promoted by encouraging “German” miners from the Joachimsthal (now Jachymov) area to work in England by granting them licences to prospect and mine. What could be the first recorded use of iron-wheeled cars on rails to move heavy stuff easily, was noted in a lead mine dated at 1535 (ref: Shaw, WT Mining in the Lake Counties, (Dalesman, 1970).
Metal mining, and then coal mining have been major contributers to technology development because of the physical problems of getting stuff out of holes in the ground, and the secondary problems of getting and keeping water out of those same holes. Mining matters, although greenies don’t seem to like it very much
.
Also BTW, the mint at Joachimsthal produced silver coins that were widely used in international trade. They were colloquially called “Joachimsthalers” and that got shortened to “thalers” which in turn got corrupted to “dollars”.
Elizabethan England was like Athens in terms of its influence on civilization. It was rife with challenges and opportunities. If Elizabeth had played her cards wrong (as did the Duke of Somerset) it could have ended with you and I speaking Spanish.
History, like the climate, is chaotic. You have the Great Man theory (chaos). On the other hand, you have the theory that leaders will arise as required (determinism). I would argue that Elizabeth is prime evidence for the Great Man theory. I can’t imagine anyone else doing the job that she did. It was her great luck, and ours, that she came along at exactly the right time.
Ohhhhh! Queen Elizabeth the first.
…and here I thought you were making some obscure case for Quantitative Easing… 🙂
rip
Qing-Bin Lu models and shows evidence for cosmic rays causing the Ozone Hole.
See his 2015 book: New Theories and Predictions on the Ozone Hole and Climate Change
5.2 Spatial correlation between cosmic rays and ozone depletion
5.3 Temporal correlation between cosmic rays and ozone depletion
11 Year Cyclic Variation
Thanks. You fail to mention that that paper is relating ozone to the product of solar rays and chlorine concentration. ie CFCs. Interesting none the less.
Greg – you assert the OPPOSITE of what QB Lu documents. He reviews and rebuts the solar-chlorine model. See: 3.3.4 Heterogenous chemical reactions in the polar stratosphere.
Well done Dr. Ball, thank you.
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”
And Dr. Ball is a true revolutionary by that definition.
With all due respect to Dr Ball, his underlying assumption is incorrect.
The story of CFCs and their potential impact on ozone in the atmosphere was based fundamentally on science. The first paper was written by chemists in 1973, identified that CFCs had a particularly long life in the atmosphere, and that these gases would eventually reach the middle stratosphere, where UV radiation was likely to result in the release of chlorine atoms. This paper postulated that the chlorine would then react with ozone, resulting in its depletion.
CFCs were commonly used in industry at the time, and the conclusions of this first and only paper were very publicly critisized. However, the fundamental science was proved correct by the US National Academy of Science in 1976, and the US banned the use of CFC based aerosols in 1978. For the years after this paper was published, increased funding was given to research this issue, and various countries were able to confirm both the presence of CFCs at high altitude in the atmosphere, and the depletion of ozone levels over time.
The development of the Montreal Protocol came much later, but it also differs from the AGW’s Kyoto Protocol in that it banned the use of CFCs, ie the identified primary cause of the problem. By the time the Montreal Protocol came into effect, industry had worked out alternative chemicals that adequately replaced CFCs. Subsequently, the models of the projected long term impact of CFCs on ozone levels have proved accurate. And unlike the recent article that Dr Ball refers to, atmospheric ozone levels have been recovering since 1996.
So, science postulated a cause and effect, science confirmed that theory with observations and evidence, science found a solution, and observations now confirm that the solution is working. As another point of difference with the history of AGW, the scientists who first brought this issue to public attention won the Nobel Peace prize in 1995.
I would agree with Dr Ball’s suggestion that in the late 1980’s,certain environmentalists attempted to build their global warming campaign around the success of the Montreal Protocol. However, the differences are stark and telling:
– 50,000 research papers later, and still no conclusive proof of the underlying theory of AGW
– Lots of political support, except that the agreed to Kyoto Protocol fails to address the primary cause, so there has been no significant change to world wide emissions.
– The projections made by the many climate models fail to align with observations.
– None of the proposed alternatives are proving very effective.
And the whole cartload gets blown out of the water if the hole increases in size again from other causes, possibly solar minimums and maximums.To say they have a solution is taking a lot for granted. With all due respect
No, Pauly. We now know the energy is not present to allow the necesaary reactions. Not realised until people actually did the required experiments and study more recently. The usual postmodern rubbish, so dig deeper please.
No Pauly’s right, when in comes to ozone depletion Ball clearly doesn’t have a clue. Brett, your assertion is incorrect, how about you back it up with some references to real scientific publications?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/09/alarmism-claiming-normal-as-abnormal-began-on-a-global-scale-with-ozone/comment-page-1/#comment-2256722
Sea-to-air emissions of bromocarbon gases are known to play an important role in atmospheric ozone depletion. In this study, seawater concentrations of bromoform (CHBr3) and dibromomethane (CH2Br2) were measured regularly between February 2005 and March 2007 at the Rothera Oceanographic and Biological Time Series (RaTS) site located in Marguerite Bay on the Antarctic Peninsula. Strong seasonality in CHBr3 and CH2Br2 concentrations was observed. ‘
‘If these flux rates are representative of the seasonal ice edge zone bloom which occurs each year over large areas of the Southern Ocean during the austral summer, sea-to-air bromocarbon emissions could have an important impact on the chemistry of the Antarctic atmosphere.’
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GB003268/full
I didn’t know that the sea emitted bromocarbons, but I do know that the air surface above seawater is replete with aerosols, mostly spray droplets. (A very nemesis for laser beam propagation.) These droplets are small, of course. They can migrate and evaporate, leaving infinitesimal particles of salt (sodium chloride). If the salt migrates to the upper atmosphere (maybe into the stratosphere is sufficient), the UV energy is sufficient to split the chlorine from the sodium,
A nutty theory? But there is a layer of sodium ions in the high atmosphere, heavy enough and reliable enough that the new astronomical observation technique of adaptive optics employs a “guide-star” laser that is co-aligned with the telescope, and projects a beam into the sodium layer to activate it and provide a local reference optical signal that can be used to adjust the telescope for transient atmospheric refractive changes.
So, if there is no salt => upper atmosphere => ionic splitting => free chlorine mechanism, how did that sodium get there? (“Oh, the meteors brought it.” Yeah, right.)
Check out “Another Day, Another Dollar – CFC’s and the UN”, written in 2010.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/science-papers/originals/another-day-another-dollar
“In a paper titled “Forty Years’ Research on Atmospheric Ozone at Oxford: A History” (Applied Optics, March 1968), Dobson described an ozone monitoring program that began at Halley Bay in 1956. “When the data began to arrive, “the values in September and October 1956 were about 150 [Dobson] units lower than expected. … In November the ozone values suddenly jumped up to those expected. … It was not until a year later, when the same type of annual variation was repeated, that we realized that the early results were indeed correct and that Halley Bay showed a most interesting difference from other parts of the world.
The BAS web site has data for 2009-10 and reports that: “Ozone values dropped, to reach a minimum of around 125 DU (60% depletion) in late September, (Antarctic spring). The lowest daily value measured was 107 DU on October 1. This minimum value is similar to those recorded each October since the early 1990s.” It is also similar to those in the spring of 1958 at the French Antarctic Observatory at Dumont d’Urville [opposite side of the South Pole from Halley Bay], when Rigaud and Leroy [quoted in Annales Geophysicae (November, 1990)] reported atmospheric ozone levels as low as 110 DU.
It isn’t the first time that it has been claimed the Ozone Hole is “recovering”.
“It seems, however, that reports of ozone’s “recovery” are greatly exaggerated. In August 2006, the WMO issued this statement: “Antarctic ozone forecasted to recover in 2065.”
“A new scientific assessment, released Friday by the World Meteorological Organization, WMO and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) says that the stratospheric ozone layer that protects life on Earth from excessive solar radiation will recover five to 15 years later than previously expected.
Because of special conditions within the Antarctic vortex (a natural cyclone of super-cold, super-fast winds), the Antarctic ozone hole is expected to recur regularly for another two decades.”
UNEP and WMO are both subsidiaries of the UN and also joint promoters of the IPCC. Their assessment suggests that this is more of a natural phenomenon than is admitted. They explain why there is no Arctic ozone hole in the Northern hemisphere, where most of the anthropogenic CFC’s have been released, by the fact that the Arctic is not as cold as the Antarctic. However, there are those who predict an Arctic Ozone Hole to come.” http://www.theozonehole.com/arcticozone.htm
It is emphatically claimed by the EPA and repeated in all discourse on the issue, that there are no natural sources of CFC’s. There is considerable evidence to show that their stance is wrong, as shown on the website of an Australian geologist: “CFCs are not Volcanic” – Oh Really? http://cfc.geologist-1011.net
Volcanoes are not the only source of natural emissions, as shown by the British Antarctic Survey, who in July 2007, issued this press release: “LARGE quantities of ozone-depleting chemicals have been discovered in the Antarctic atmosphere by researchers from the University of Leeds, the University of East Anglia, and the British Antarctic Survey.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070726104756.htm
“The source of the halogens is natural – sea-salt in the case of bromine, and in the case of iodine, almost certainly bright orange algae that coat the underside of the sea ice around the continent. These halogens cause a substantial depletion in ozone above the ice surface. This affects the so-called oxidising capacity of the atmosphere – its ability to “clean itself” by removing certain – often man-made – chemical compounds. The iodine oxides also form tiny particles (a few nanometres in size), which can grow to form ice clouds, with a consequent impact on the local climate.”
Ozone is Global Warming’s Little Brother, just like Ocean “Acidification” is Global Warming’s “Evil Twin”.
It’s a (UN) Family Affair.
Ocean “Acidification” is Global Warming’s invisible twin!
“The development of the Montreal Protocol came much later, but it also differs from the AGW’s Kyoto Protocol in that it banned the use of CFCs, ie the identified primary cause of the problem.”
No they did not identify it as a cause of a problem. First the problem is not there. There is no proof there is any problem, speculative claims about the ozone hole in the 50’s notwithstanding.
The thing they rely on still is that alternative and far more viable explanations have not yet been proven either, only demonstrated. The CFC ‘problem’ relies on speculation and some physical facts. Like CO2 the ‘basic physics’ may by true but confounding factors render them almost irrelevant as the initial explanation turns out to be partial.
Prof Lu’s work is seminal in this regard. He correctly and appropriately tested his theories and predictions, not just mouthed off about them demanding trillion$ in subsidies for remedial technologies. At least he has working examples of the ozone damage and the oceans are once again far more important that people-sourced CFC’s (which are included in his works).
Most relevant is the importance of cosmic rays which have already been proven at CERN to be very important to cloud formation and coverage. Montreal is more properly known for its comedy clubs than its laughable protocols and declarations.
Dr. Ball wrote: “Lying is a constant of politics, but it is now legally endorsed by the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ), more appropriately the Department of Injustice.”
FWIW, the Director of the FBI (a Republican and former member of the Bush Administration and former prosecutor) said that Ms Clinton did not lie to the FBI about her email. He did say what she said to the FBI conflicted with short quotes from her testimony in front Congress, but that the FBI doesn’t investigate such allegations of perjury until Congress requests that they do so. Nor has anyone complained to the FBI that her personal email server prevented the State Department from properly responding to Congressional subpoenas or FOIA requests. So she hasn’t been cleared of problems in these areas.
FWIW, the FBI found no intent to disclose secret information (unlike with David Petraus) and but extreme negligence in handling top secret information. The statute permitting prosecution for extreme negligence (which arguably occurred) had only been used in one trial in nearly a century. They recommend not proceeding this that as the sole charge.
Intent is not relevant in this case.
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/charles-krauthammer-why-did-fbi-director-james-comey-let-hillary-clinton-off-the-hook
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-hillary-clintons-rigged-game
Clipe: Why would you link articles on this legal topic that were written by partisan columnists without a law degree – and written before Director Comey testified in front of Congress? How about an article by someone qualified to comment – say a professor of law or the Federalist Society?
Or better still, listen to or read Director Comey’s testimony in front of Congress at c-span
http://www.c-span.org/video/?411866-101/washington-journal-julian-hattem-fbi-director-james-comeys-capitol-hill-testimony
There is little point in listening to the comments and question from the Democrats, since they are thrilled with this decision. Listen to the dialog with Republicans, particularly Trey Goudy, a former prosecutor. Goudy obviously would be thrilled bring the charges the FBI declined to recommend, but it isn’t obvious he would prevail at proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on a single charge of gross negligence.
The rest of the testimony shows that Ms. Clinton is in danger of being charged with perjury – once Congress requests that an investigation be performed. It also show the possibility of obstruction of justice by withholding information subpoenaed by Congress and requested under FOI – again once a complaint is received. IMO, the personal server and the actions taken show clear intent by Clinton to keep information out of the hands of State Department lawyers responding to subpoenas. I don’t think she clearly understood how this would put secret information at risk. Yes, she was grossly negligent in that regard, but proving it beyond a reasonable doubt would be extremely challenging.
I suspect the DoJ restricted the scope of the FBI’s investigation to the only official complaint they received – from the Inspector General of the Department of State.
Correct. Comey is upstanding. The ‘gross negligence’ statute is in the Espionage Act, now over 100 years old. All other criminal ‘secrets’ acts require scienter (knowing intent to violate). Petreaus clearly met the ‘scienter’ criminal knowing intent standard. HC did not. The only prosecution under the Espionage Act ‘gross negligence standard was in 2003. An FBI agent had an affair with a Chinese spy, and in that process she got access to confidential spy stuff. He was convicted (by plea bargain), but not on this Statute. No one ever has been in 100 years. Comey made IMO a correct judgement call here, as much as I dislike the outcome.
Note Comey hedged on the Clinton Foundation political corruption angle. Elsewhere, reported FBI had accessed additional server non-wiped private emails. Elsewhere, said the FBI had expanded its investigations based on that access. Plenty of political corruption smoke. Can the FBI find fire?
“The ‘gross negligence’ statute is in the Espionage Act, now over 100 years old.”
And if you don’t consider that law justification for prosecution, in this case, I don’t consider you worthy of a second glance in terms of anyone being upstanding or not, ristvan.
“Can the FBI find fire?”
Can you?
‘The Espionage Act of 1917’
…
(e) whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, or information, relating to the national defence, through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be list, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.
ristvan wrote: “Correct. Comey is upstanding. The ‘gross negligence’ statute is in the Espionage Act, now over 100 years old. All other criminal ‘secrets’ acts require scienter (knowing intent to violate). Petreaus clearly met the ‘scienter’ criminal knowing intent standard. HC did not.”
Do you really think Hillary didn’t know what she was doing? Do you really think Hillary was not conspiring to deceive?
Trey Gowdy thinks Hillary *did* have knowing intent. I’ll go with Gowdy’s interpretation. And Juliani’s. And a lot of others, too.
Had you every filled out the paperwork required for a TS/SCI with SAP privileges, your opinion of her intent would differ. Not only that, but her position as Secretary of State made her an original classification authority, i.e., someone that actually classifies material in the first place.
HC probably didn’t like entering the secure ID number every time she logged on. It changes every 60 seconds.
ristvan,
Can you find the fire here?;
‘Records Management by Federal Agencies’
(44 U.S.C. Chapter 31) …
§ 3106. Unlawful removal, destruction of records
(a) FEDERAL AGENCY NOTIFICATION.—The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, corruption, deletion, erasure, or other destruction of records in the custody of the agency, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records the head of the Federal agency knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from that agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to the legal custody of that Federal agency.
(b) ARCHIVIST NOTIFICATION.—In any case in which the head of the Federal agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action described in subsection (a), or is participating in, or believed to be participating in any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made.
~
’18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally’
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 795; Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title V, § 552(a), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1566; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
. . It appears to me Mr. Ball was correct in his assertion . .
Perhaps more importantly, the wife of an ex-president, a former secretary of state who is running to be president, cannot be trusted with confidential material. Yet there she is, still running for president!
Intent? By God man, she intended to violate security agreements she knew existed. She clearly obstructed justice on several occasions. She was told early in her SOS tenure to stop doing what she was doing. She wiped the server.
Did she lie to the FBI. How the hell does the FBI or anyone know? There is no transcript of the meeting. She lied to the public repeatedly.
Defn of LIE includes “something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture”
When asked if Clinton lied to the public Comey said “That’s a question I’m not qualified to answer”. That response was a lie, one that everyone let slide. An honest answer would have been, “I won’t answer that because it is outside my job requirements and the answer would, I believe, cause more overall harm than good.”
When asked if Clinton would get an FBI security clearance Comey responded “I don’t want to answer a hypothetical. The FBI has a robust process … blah blah blah”. An honest answer would have been “I won’t answer that hypothetical.” (note that he had no problem dealing in the hypothetical when he said that NO reasonable prosecutor would want to file charges). The blah blah blah that was included in his answer was intended to change the direction and deflect away from his true response … an evasion/detraction..
Lying is a indeed a constant of politics, Just because Comey was appointed.rather than elected he is no less a politician than those that had to run for office.
I liked the part where Trey Gowdy asked FBI Director Comey if Hillary lied when she said she only used one mobile device. Instead of Comey answering “yes” he said “she used multiple devices”. He avoided giving a “yes” soundbite every time, by saying something other than a simple yes, to the question.
I don’t know Comey’s motivations, but IMO, he is not playing it straight with the American people. If he is sincere in his take on the subject, then I question his grasp of the law.
there really are some interesting parallels between the ozone scare and the climate scare. also an interesting common institution – the UNEP.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2794991