http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/0915_050915_hurricane_strength_2.html

Hurricanes Are Getting Stronger, Study Says
John Roach
for National Geographic News
September 15, 2005

Warming ocean temperatures appear to be fueling stronger, more intense hurricanes around the world, a new study suggests.

The number of storms that reach Category Four and Five—the most powerful, damaging hurricanes—has nearly doubled over the past 35 years, the study finds. However, the frequency and duration of hurricanes overall have stayed about the same.

Category Four hurricanes have sustained winds from 131 to 155 miles an hour (211 to 249 kilometers an hour). Category Five hurricanes—like Katrina at its peak in the Gulf of Mexico—have sustained winds of 156 miles an hour (251 kilometers an hour) or more.

The study finds that the increase in hurricane intensity coincides with a rise in sea surface temperatures around the world of about 1ºF (0.5ºC) between 1970 and 2004.

Writing in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science, the study's authors stop shy of pinning the increase in hurricane intensity on global warming. To do so would require a longer historical period of study and a better understanding of hurricane dynamics, they say.

But in an interview with National Geographic News, the study's lead author, Peter Webster, said, "I'm prepared to make an attribution to global warming."

If the increases in hurricane strength and sea surface temperatures were part of a natural cycle, as some scientists believe, then there would be decreases in other regions to compensate for them. But the increases found in the study are both worldwide.

"There's a plus and minus with oscillations," said Webster, an atmospheric scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. "What we see is a universal increase [in temperature] and a universal change in hurricane intensity."

Scientists know that warm ocean waters fuel hurricanes. Webster says it therefore follows that the more fuel there is, the bigger the storms will be. But why the frequency and duration of hurricanes aren't also rising is poorly understood.

"The relationship between sea surface temperature and intensity is not one that has surprised us," Webster said in a telephone briefing with reporters. "The other factors mentioned for hurricanes are more awkward."

Results Questioned

Chris Landsea, a meteorologist with NOAA's National Hurricane Center in Miami, said that the increase in hurricane strength that Webster's team has observed is questionable.

"I've got real concerns about whether this is a real change or whether it's an artifact of the data," he said. "I'm pretty skeptical that it's a real change."

For one, Landsea said, scientists mostly use satellite data to measure hurricane intensity, a technique that has improved dramatically over the past 30 years. As a result, the measurements are likely skewed lower in the earliest years of the period studied.

He added that even though the researchers found an increase in the number of hurricanes reaching Category Four and Five, the maximum wind speed recorded did not creep up, as would be expected if the hurricanes were really getting stronger.

"That's a huge inconsistency in the study," he said. "Something is either wrong here, or there was no real change in Category Four or Five [storms.]"

Lastly, the lowest up-tick in hurricane intensity—five percent—was found in the Atlantic Ocean, where hurricane data is most complete. Landsea said if the global data were better, the increase in intensity might be lower, if it exists at all.

Landsea is currently applying modern methods to historical Atlantic hurricanes to reassess their intensity. Before scientists can say with confidence that hurricanes are getting stronger worldwide, the reassessment must be done for all oceans, he said.

Webster and his colleagues note in Science that satellite techniques used to measure storm intensity have changed over the years. But the method for measuring maximum wind speeds, which they used for the study, has not.

In addition, the North Atlantic and Eastern Pacific hurricane data has been calibrated with aircraft reconnaissance. Where only satellite data is available, the authors say, the data is consistent with the measurements verified by aircraft.

Study Agreement

Michael Mann is the director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University in University Park. He said the new findings are robust and consistent with models of how the global climate responds to warmer oceans.

According to Mann, the models predict that the number of intense hurricanes—though not necessarily the total number of hurricanes—will increase with rising sea surface temperatures.

"So the observations Webster and colleagues have analyzed here and the trends they find are fully in keeping with theoretical climate model predictions," he said.

Mann added that the lower up-tick in intensity in Atlantic hurricanes, as compared to those in other oceans, is likely the result of the El Niño weather phenomenon interfering with hurricane formation.

El Niño, which is driven by a periodic warming of the Pacific Ocean, disrupts the high-altitude wind patterns favorable to the formation of hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean, he explained.

Some scientists speculate that el Niño events will become longer and more frequent in response to global warming.

Under such a scenario, Mann said, warmer sea surface temperatures (which are favorable to hurricane formation) and el Niño (which tends to inhibit it) will cancel each other out.

"If we go to other [ocean] basins, those two factors are not working against each other," Mann said. "There the long-term trends are more clear."

Be Prepared

According to Mann, Webster's study suggests that unless there's a dramatic reduction in fossil-fuel use, the trend of more intense hurricanes will continue well into the future.

Webster said he hopes that whether people believe in global warming or not, they'll take the study seriously. This is especially true for residents of New Orleans as they begin thinking about rebuilding.

"We can't make the assumption that Katrina was a once in a lifetime event," he said. "So if you are going to rebuild New Orleans, at least rebuild it properly."

The number of storms that reach Category Four and Five—the most powerful, damaging hurricanes—has nearly doubled over the past 35 years, the study finds.

How is only the past 35 years useful?

What about before that?


Hell, El Nino is a 7 year occillating weather pattern.

A 40 year hurricane occillation pattern is completely possible. Show me data prior to 35 years.

I rather suspect our hurricane data prior to 35 years ago wasn't substatial enough, if they picked that time period with which to do the study.

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/3617/hurricane1dd.gif

data from
http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/

El Nino has been coming more frequently than 7 years lately.

We also have had a drought in California every third year(a third) for the last 30 years.

Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.


If we have below average rainfall that many years, you would think that someone would eventually get around to putting that into the average.

That 1960 to 1970 decade seems pretty outstanding. Both in strength and numbers.

Can anyone find Atlantic ocean temperature readings from that decade?

I am sure they are out there somewhere, I just can't find them.

Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.

There is no reason to believe that apart from simplicity. We know that mankind created the ozone layer and that it would have continued to grow if we hadn't halted CFC pollution. We can disrupt the weather.

CFCs did not create the ozone layer. They created a hole (supposedly) in the ozone layer. But who's to say the hole isn't a naturally occurring thing and we have only had the ability to measure it the past couple of decades?

Global Warming is a bunch of BS in my opinion. One volcano can put out more pollution in a few days than everything man can come up with over the course of a year, and there have been countless volcanoes over the centuries. To think that we could destroy the earth's climate in roughly 130-40 years (since the industrial revolution) is arrogant and gives us way too much credit.

There has been more than one ice age throughout history. You know what that means? It means that something caused the earth to cool down, but it also means something caused it to warm back up again. The planet is a living ecosystem that is affected by external sources (sunspots, meteors, comets) and internal sources (shifting magma in the core, volcanoes, etc.). There are bound to be changes in climate over time.

Global Warming is a bunch of BS in my opinion. You're gonna freeze in Hell, Kerech! :D

Actually.... I wonder if it's too late for me to take up snow skiing...

Global Warming is a fact much accepted by most scientists. You might debate over how much impact mankind has had on it, but I don't think there's much debate for whether or not it is happening.

Global Warming is a fact much accepted by most scientists. You might debate over how much impact mankind has had on it, but I don't think there's much debate for whether or not it is happening.

there may be no debate, but it sure is happening, thats why they dont need to debate on it, eather way nothings gonna be done about it and we'll all die in time.

-end of story.

CFCs did not create the ozone layer. They created a hole (supposedly) in the ozone layer. But who's to say the hole isn't a naturally occurring thing and we have only had the ability to measure it the past couple of decades?

I don't know what more evidence you need than

(1) CFC's theoretically destroys ozone
(2) CFC's destroy ozone in laboratory simulations
(3) A hole appears in the ozone layer when we pump CFCs into the atmosphere
(4) The hole stops growing as soon as we lower CFC levels in the atmosphere

If there is more evidence needed then say what it is. If you're going to answer everything by saying that we we don't have enough information, and we won't have enough information for another 100 years, then I'm afraid you're just waiting for a disaster to happen. When it comes to climate change, the risks are just too high to take.

The ozone layer hole reached its biggest, so far, in 2003. Got a bit smaller last year according to a national geographic article I just saw.

Yeah, the problem with so many people is that if we wait until the burden of proof is overwhelming, we'll be buying ocean front property in Albuquerqe. For me, if enough reputable scientists, not associated with kooky environmentalists, are getting concerned that's enough. I'm sure as hell not looking to politicians to decide it, or political parties, or talk show hosts.

Well, if this is all true and hurricane's are going to get more powerful and frequent then investing in construction, building materials and companies involved in disaster recovery might be a wise thing to do. And it might be time to unload some of those insurance companies...

The insurance companies will already be factoring the cost of global warming into their premiums. Don't worry about them.

I don't know what more evidence you need than


What is the CFC content of the atmosphere at 30-50Km? Most CFCs are heavier than air, how do they get up there?
What are the UV radiation readings from a sea level city over the last 100 years?
Is the change of the ozone layer a naturally occuring phenomenon?
The ozone layer is 3 millimeters thick, a swallow could fart and make a hole in it, how do we know that jet exhaust is not the real culprit instead of RightGuard?
If there really is a change, is the change in the ozone layer really going to affect me?

Scientists and like minded individuals have made this almost a religion. There is no proof. Many believe it to be true. They reject those who are skeptical. And the punishment for not believing is utter fire and brimstone damnation.

www.epa.gov/docs/ozone/science/sc_fact.html


What is the CFC content of the atmosphere at 30-50Km? Most CFCs are heavier than air, how do they get up there?

The wind carries them. When they reach the ozone layer the UV light breaks them down and they erode at the ozone.

What are the UV radiation readings from a sea level city over the last 100 years?

Are you going to dismiss all environmental problems for 100 years because you haven't enough readings yet? People need to make decisions on global warming now.

Is the change of the ozone layer a naturally occuring phenomenon?

There is natural depletion and replenishment but the measured depletion was far greater than natural levels. Natural replenishment is expected to take 50 years for the damage we've already done.

The ozone layer is 3 millimeters thick, a swallow could fart and make a hole in it, how do we know that jet exhaust is not the real culprit instead of RightGuard?

Because CFC's are chemically proven to break down under the strong UV found at the top of the atmosphere and the chemicals released eat ozone? We're also flying more jets than ever before but the depletion didn't continue after CFCs left the atmosphere.

If there really is a change, is the change in the ozone layer really going to affect me?

What a careless attitude? Anyway, the ozone layer shields out harmful UV light that does cause cancer and harm crops. I think the hole was already big enough to be causing damage to villages in southern Chile and it would have been definitely harmful to anyone living near its expanding reach.

I think you can find nearly all of your answers on the link to that controversial source, the US environmental protection agency. Now that you have your answers will you agree that the depletion was man-made, or just what other information do you need? When making decisions you need to look at the data available now, not data available in a 100 years time.

The wind carries them. When they reach the ozone layer the UV light breaks them down and they erode at the ozone.
Chlorine reacts with O3 to form O2, which is the source of base source of ozone. You did not answer the real question, what are the CFC concentrations now in the stratosphere?

Are you going to dismiss all environmental problems for 100 years because you haven't enough readings yet? People need to make decisions on global warming now.

Enough? I have not seen any. Ozone depletion in the stratosphere is not even a global warming issue. Increases of Ozone in the troposphere is. Additionally, CFCs themselves block UV radiation, well the models that I have read say they do.


There is natural depletion and replenishment but the measured depletion was far greater than natural levels. Natural replenishment is expected to take 50 years for the damage we've already done.
Show me.


Because CFC's are chemically proven to break down under the strong UV found at the top of the atmosphere and the chemicals released eat ozone? We're also flying more jets than ever before but the depletion didn't continue after CFCs left the atmosphere.
Ozone is highly reactive in every regard. Are you saying that the depletion has stopped, because CFC production and pollution has stopped? Ozone is extremely easy to make, envisioning jets dumping a tank of liquid O3 on every flight is not that hard to do, certainly not expensive.

What a careless attitude? Anyway, the ozone layer shields out harmful UV light that does cause cancer and harm crops. I think the hole was already big enough to be causing damage to villages in southern Chile and it would have been definitely harmful to anyone living near its expanding reach.
I know that the ozone layer intercepts UV light. So does regular air.
The hole is over Antarctica, no one lives there. Do you have any numbers about these damaged villages, sea level numbers? If you do, then post them.

I think you can find nearly all of your answers on the link to that controversial source, the US environmental protection agency. Now that you have your answers will you agree that the depletion was man-made, or just what other information do you need? When making decisions you need to look at the data available now, not data available in a 100 years time.
The EPA is controversial. The real data(not from a model) should be available now. I have not seen any real data. I will have to read the link.

If ozone in the troposphere is increasing, and ozone in the stratosphere is decreasing, what prevents the winds that are blowing heavier than air CFCs into the stratosphere from doing the same with ozone from the troposphere?

And ozone in the troposphere is going to block UVs all the same as in the stratosphere, no?

I found a pretty graph of UV indexes.
http://www.al.noaa.gov/WWWHD/pubdocs/assessment02/images/Fig17-2.jpg

But it I can't make heads or tails of it.

It has no numbers on it. Help me find the data that the graph is made from.

www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/part1.html

www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/aura/main/index.html

www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/eff/pollution/544857/?version=1&lang=_e

You did not answer the real question, what are the CFC concentrations now in the stratosphere?

Try the NASA link. They seem to have some current, well recorded data and they certainly think CFCs destroy ozone.

The hole is over Antarctica, no one lives there. Do you have any numbers about these damaged villages, sea level numbers? If you do, then post them.


Try reading the UK government link for a simple description of ozone effects.

Ozone is extremely easy to make, envisioning jets dumping a tank of liquid O3 on every flight is not that hard to do, certainly not expensive.

Does that even require an answer? You might as well try ridding the world of all its deserts by taking pumping water there. We are talking about a hole that's larger than a continent, and even if we could pump the ozone back isn't it just simpler to prohibit use of CFCs so we don't destroy it again the following year?

I really hadn't thought anyone still doubted the effect of CFCs on the ozone layer. At least they'll teach the next generation about the ozone layer in schools. It must make one the best possible school projects imaginable. Chemistry, ecology, climate, physics, geography, and politics all made relevant in one go.

Despite near-record levels of chemical ozone destruction in the Arctic this winter, observations from NASA's Aura spacecraft showed that other atmospheric processes restored ozone amounts to near average and stopped high levels of harmful ultraviolet radiation from reaching Earth's surface.

bleh

Yeah did you read the rest of it?

NASA measured massive destruction of the ozone layer from CFCs through half the year then measured the massive replenishment from highly unusual weather conditions through the rest of the year. They tracked it all the way through. They know CFCs destroy the ozone layer. They know that we won't get highly unusual weather conditions every year.

I'm sure you'd criticise people for taking one years bad weather for proving climate models. You can't take one years good weather and claim it proves climate models either.

I did not find any of the numbers I have repeatedly asked you for, on any of your links.

How many parts of CFCs are found in the stratosphere now?

Yeah did you read the rest of it?

NASA measured massive destruction of the ozone layer from CFCs through half the year then measured the massive replenishment from highly unusual weather conditions through the rest of the year. They tracked it all the way through. They know CFCs destroy the ozone layer. They know that we won't get highly unusual weather conditions every year.

I'm sure you'd criticise people for taking one years bad weather for proving climate models. You can't take one years good weather and claim it proves climate models either.

From what is written there, if you remove the opinion, what is left is that the occillation of the so called ozone hole is a naturally occuring phenomenon.

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/09/16/antarctic.ozone.reut/index.html">The UN Disagrees</a> with the whole "shrink" thing.
U.N.: Antarctic ozone hole nears record size
'So-called ozone recovery has yet to be confirmed'

Friday, September 16, 2005; Posted: 3:06 p.m. EDT (19:06 GMT)

GENEVA, Switzerland (Reuters) -- The hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica has grown to near record size this year, suggesting 20 years of pollution controls have so far had little effect, the United Nations said on Friday.

In a bulletin on the seasonal depletion of ozone gas, which filters harmful ultraviolet radiation that can cause skin cancer and cataracts, the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said the hole would peak within a couple of weeks.

"It will probably not break any records, but it shows that ozone depletion is going on and that the so-called ozone recovery has yet to be confirmed," Geir Braathen, WMO's top ozone expert, told a news briefing.

How many parts of CFCs are found in the stratosphere now?

You're trying to knock down accepted scientific facts, you provide the links.

From what is written there, if you remove the opinion, what is left is that the occillation of the so called ozone hole is a naturally occuring phenomenon.

NASA put specific measuring instruments in place, measured it all, and they still believe CFCs damaged the ozone layer. They have analysed it in detail throughout the year with causes and effects, whilst you read the headline, cherry picked results that supported your home science hypothesis, and disbelieved anything contrary. NASA knows that CFCs damage the ozone layer.

There is nobody to gain from any CFC conspiracy. Nobody makes money, nobody gains power, there's no sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Nobody has any vested interest in restricting CFCs, the decision across the globe to restrict CFCs is purely by need. Are you suggesting that every major scientific body has just plain got it wrong, including NASA now they've measured the ozone layer in detail for a year, or have you some deeper conspiracy?

You're trying to knock down accepted scientific facts, you provide the links.

You are the one trying to convince people that you are correct. The burden of proof is yours, not mine.

I can see Fyyr's point...

Life was really a lot better when antiperspirant was propelled by CFC's... *sigh*

Ah, the good old days!

Here you go, Fyyr. Happy muddling through: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=CFC+in+stratosphere&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search

You are the one trying to convince people that you are correct.

Well in that case I'll rest my case as stands. All governments believe CFCs destroy the ozone layer. Universities and science organisations like NASA think CFCs erode the ozone layer. Chemistry, Physics, and Climatology all suggest the erosion of the ozone layer by CFCs. Anyone who's actually gone and measured it in detail, like NASA putting satellite systems in place, believe that CFCs erode the ozone layer. You think we should pollute for no good reason and then refill a hole that's larger than a continent just like we'd fill up a car with petrol.

If you want to say "I'll believe what I want, whatever", then I can't do much about that. The evidence is comfortably good enough to convince anyone who isn't trying to be obtuse and closed minded. Here's another link anyway www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/antarctic/

And another link, destroys some of your myths.

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

Oh poo, Anka. If we run out of ozone we can always make more by reinstating CFCs! :D

... We know that mankind created the ozone layer and that it would have continued to grow if we hadn't halted CFC pollution. We can disrupt the weather.

If you want to say "I'll believe what I want, whatever", then I can't do much about that.

Have I said that once?

I just have asked for some simple data, that is all.

Honestly, I will change my opinion if I see evidence.

You have to remember that I am an atheist and a skeptic, just because 82% of the worlds population believe in something does not make it true. Numbers of people who believe stuff does not convince me. I already believe the majority is wrong most of the time, majority rule but does not make it right. Trying to convince me with the argument "5 Trillion people say this is true, so it must be true" does not work, at all, with me.

Posting opinions of a bunch of smart people will not convince me, for there are a bunch of really really smart people in that 82%. And they believe in ghosts and demons.

I was honest when I asked for help with those UV index graphs, I don't understand what they are saying. I don't see any numbers there. I was not being facitious or sarcastic.

I am smart enough, when given numbers and data, to compile it on my own. I know how numbers work, I know how to work numbers. I did it with the hurricane data, by myself. I can do it with stratospheric CFC data if I can just find a source of reliable data. I can do it with Atlantic Ocean temperatures. I can do it with UV radiation readings from San Diego.

Unless I have skimmed over the links poorly, all I have seen from them are opinions, based on laboratory models. I want the real data, it is a simple request. All you have to do to sell me is to show me.

From the last link.

Fact: Paul A. Newman (Newman) looked at all the facts and found that "There is no credible evidence for an ozone hole in 1958."

I reject stuff like that for breakfast.

I am able to reject things on my own, thank you very much, give me access to the data, I will form my own conclusions.

That whole page was like that, it is a waste of my time reading that stuff, it is not what I am looking for, nor what I asked for.

Well what part of the proof do you not believe? You've knocked various parts of the proof without suggesting anything else of your own other than you don't believe ... because you're naturally skeptical. That doesn't mean anything either though becuase CFC destruction of the ozone layer is so established you should be skeptical of believing anything else.

Just what exactly don't you believe avout CFCs destroying the ozone layer? I've stuck a link up to at least one detailed scientific document already and I can't post a hundred detailed links hoping to randomly cover your very personal misconceptions.

If ozone in the troposphere is increasing, and ozone in the stratosphere is decreasing, what prevents the winds that are blowing heavier than air CFCs into the stratosphere from doing the same with ozone from the troposphere?

And ozone in the troposphere is going to block UVs all the same as in the stratosphere, no?

Less than 10% of atmospheric ozone is in the troposphere apparently, so it doesn't have a large role in blocking UV. Any ozone in the troposphere blown into an area of CFC depletion would just get depleted too by the CFCs. I can't see how the troposphere affects CFC theories.

www.ucar.edu/learn/1_5_1.htm

I want CFC data from the stratosphere.
How much is there?
If there are CFCs there, then there should be readily available data.
CFCs are man made only, I don't even need a time based study of this data, what is there right now will suffice.

Cl readings, of course, would have to be time based data, because it is naturally occuring.

I want UV readings from any sea level American city, any Northern Hemisphere temperate city will really suffice.
If the ozone layer is really being depleted, then an increase of UV radiation over the last 40 years will be present.
There will be a correlation, 30 or so years behind curve of course(based on Rowland's model), between CFC pollution and a curve upward of sea level UV radiation.
There will be a noticable upward curve of UV radiation to correlate with CFC pollution and destroying the ozone layer.

Less than 10% of atmospheric ozone is in the troposphere apparently, so it doesn't have a large role in blocking UV. Any ozone in the troposphere blown into an area of CFC depletion would just get depleted too by the CFCs. I can't see how the troposphere affects CFC theories.

www.ucar.edu/learn/1_5_1.htm

The Rowland hypothesis is that CFCs do not break down to Cl in the troposphere because it requires the UV radiation that is present at the stratosphere to react. ie, CFC do not deplete ozone at the troposphere level. If they did, that would be a good thing, no?

Another logical hypothesis, based only on the Rowland one, is if UV radiation is used up(conservation of energy) in breaking down stratospheric CFCs they are not striking the Earth. CFCs themselves could be blocking UV radiation. Have you seen anyone propose this, I have not?

Remember that the amount of ozone in the stratosphere is minute already, it is only 3mm think(at STP). The ozone layer is hardly the largest volume of ozone in the atmosphere, and is far less than tropospheric ozone. If tropospheric ozone accounts for only 10% where is the other 80% or so? edit: read your link, I will have to research that.

Anyone who has traveled to mountain regions from sea level regions knows that it is easier to get sunburned at 7 or 9K feet. So we already know that plain old air is a substantial blocker of UV radiation. Ozone layer is miles above that, so it is not a variable for that experiment. 2Km of plain ol air blocks substantial and noticable UV radiation to human skin, already. That is also why I want a sea level city, it would make a good baseline.

other than you don't believe ... because you're naturally skeptical. That doesn't mean anything either though becuase CFC destruction of the ozone layer is so established you should be skeptical of believing anything else.


That is exactly what people say about God.

"Of course God exists, can't you just see that tree there."
"He made that tree, that is proof enough, just look at it, what are you stupid or something?"

It is only established because everyone you believe says that God made that tree. You want to believe that God made the tree, so He did. And you can not fathom someone thinking otherwise.

If it is so well established then the numbers I am looking for would be readily available to you to provide to me. Hell, I would have found them on my own without your help, by myself; they would have jumped into my lap already.

If the ozone layer is really being depleted, then an increase of UV radiation over the last 40 years will be present.
There will be a correlation, 30 or so years behind curve of course(based on Rowland's model), between CFC pollution and a curve upward of sea level UV radiation.
There will be a noticable upward curve of UV radiation to correlate with CFC pollution and destroying the ozone layer.


Yep here we are - measurements of UV radiation from under the hole for the last 13 years. We don't need to look back over 30 years for a baseline. The hole varies seasonally so we can see the changes across the year as the hole depletes and is replenished.

http://www.aero.jussieu.fr/~sparc/SPARC2000_new/OralSess4/Bernhard/BERNHARD.html

EPA haven't posted the details, just asserted that "3.4 Level of UV-B radiation at the surface - Estimated to be at higher than normal levels, consistent with ozone layer depletion."

www.epa.nsw.gov.au/soe/soe2003/chapter3/chp_3.1.htm

The Australians have an excellent chart showing a crystal clear correlation.

www.deh.gov.au/soe/2001/atmosphere/atmosphere03-5.html

The Rowland hypothesis is that CFCs do not break down to Cl in the troposphere because it requires the UV radiation that is present at the stratosphere to react. ie, CFC do not deplete ozone at the troposphere level. If they did, that would be a good thing, no?

Irrelevant until you say whether you think CFCs break down ozone or not. You can't argue that they don't make a difference one moment then argue the change is beneficial the next.

Another logical hypothesis, based only on the Rowland one, is if UV radiation is used up(conservation of energy) in breaking down stratospheric CFCs they are not striking the Earth. CFCs themselves could be blocking UV radiation. Have you seen anyone propose this, I have not?

Nope. There's no reason to believe that at all.

[QUOTE]Yep here we are - measurements of UV radiation from under the hole for the last 13 years. We don't need to look back over 30 years for a baseline. The hole varies seasonally so we can see the changes across the year as the hole depletes and is replenished.
And you think that is useful for determining an increase in UV radiation in Sacramento or San Diego CA how? Antarctica is a terrible model for the rest of the world, there is very little data over the long term. Its weather patterns are unique and unlike the weather in the rest of the world. It is uninhabited, and has been until the modern era. If the hole varies so violently seasonally, it is more likely that it varies yearly, or decadely; and is more explainable as being dependant upon consistant unpredictable and erratic Antarctic weather patterns.

Irrelevant until you say whether you think CFCs break down ozone or not. You can't argue that they don't make a difference one moment then argue the change is beneficial the next.
CFCs themselves are inert. They themselves do not react or affect O3. It is the chlorine atoms from the CFCs which do, according to the Rowland model.

Nope. There's no reason to believe that at all.
If the ozone layer blocks UV radiation by being absorbed in the reactions that forms O3 from O2 and O1. You are saying that when CClFs do the same thing with UV to create Cl, that that is an energyless reaction?

Anyway, I will look at the websites that you provided more thoroughly later.

And you think that is useful for determining an increase in UV radiation in Sacramento or San Diego CA how?

Are you so selfish and short sighted that you only care if your own back yard is polluted?

Isn't ARgentina affected by the hole in the ozone layer? I was pretty sure there was some country that got zapped every year.

I get a cookie for my good memory!

The area and population affected including the Argentinean city of Ushaia which has a population of 30,000 and Punta Arenas, Chile which has a population of 120,000 are all at risk during this time period.

The public should avoid going outside during the peak hours of 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to avoid exposure to the UV rays. If people do go outside during these hours they should wear protective sunscreen and if possible a hat or head covering and sunglasses with a uv rating.

The Ozone hole has reached land and population areas in Argentina, Chile and The Falkland Islands since the early 1990's. Ozone levels drop down as much as 70% in some areas. The protective level of ozone has dropped below 150 dobson units in some areas.

It has reached further north at times affecting the towns of Rio Gallegos, Puerto Santa Cruz, and Rio Grande affecting an additional 200,000 people.
http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonehole2003.htm

It isn't just people it affects though:

Solar Ultraviolet or UV rays make up part of the electromagnetic or photonic spectrum of light and radiant energy. Part of this spectrum is broken down into wavelengths and is measured by nanometers or nm, for short. The electromagnetic spectrum within the wavelength region ranges from the vacuum ultraviolet to the far infrared. We cannot see ultraviolet light and it is shorter in wavelength than visible light.

Ultraviolet radiation (UV) comes naturally from the sun. There are also some manmade lamps and tools (welding tools, for instance) that can produce UV radiation. For most of us, however, the sun is the primary source of UV. UV is divided into at least three different categories based on wavelength:

* UVA wavelengths(320-400 nm) are only slightly affected by ozone levels. Most UVA radiation is able to reach the earth's surface and can contribute to tanning, skin aging, eye damage, and immune suppresion.
* UVB wavelengths(280-320 nm) are strongly affected by ozone levels. Decreases in stratospheric ozone mean that more UVB radiation can reach the earth's surface, causing sunburns, snow blindness, immune suppression, and a variety of skin problems including skin cancer and premature aging.
* UVC wavelengths (100-280 nm) are very strongly affected by ozone levels, so that the levels of UVC radiation reaching the earth's surface are relatively small.

The effects of UV radiation on earth's ecosystems are not completely understood. Even isolating the effects of UVA versus UVB is somewhat arbitrary. All UV radiation can be damaging. This knowledge has prompted many manufacturers of sun screen and sunglasses to offer products that protect against both UVA and UVB wavelengths.

While humans can choose various courses of protection, for instance avoiding noon-time sun, plants and animals are not so fortunate. Studies have shown that increased UV radiation can cause significant damage, particularly to small animals and plants. Phytoplankton, fish eggs, and young plants with developing leaves are particularly suspectible to damage from overexposure to UV.

Solar UV radiation levels are highest during the middle of the day. In total, almost half the daytime total UV radiation is received during the few hours around noontime. Clouds, as well as ozone, have a tremendous affect on UV radiation levels. However, cloudy skies generally do not offer significant protection from UV. Thin or scattered clouds can have minor impacts on UV and even, for a short time, increase UV above what it would be on a blue sky day by further scattering the radiation and increasing the levels that reach the surface.

Are you so selfish and short sighted that you only care if your own back yard is polluted?

Look man, if you don't want to think the problem through, I understand that. But making stupid conclusions will waste both of our times.

The Rowland model requires that CFCs are equally distributed in the atmosphere. It is required for the model to even work. I will even give you that it is equally distributed and dissipated. But that then implies that the depletion would be equally distributed across the globe. That is required by the model.

If the CFCs are equally distributed in the stratosphere, then the ozone depletion would be equally distributed, then the increased UV radiation will be equally(or at least the curve) distributed. If the UV radiation increases were evenly distributed across all the other climes then that would be deductive proof of your theory.

I don't care which city that you pick, but you need to pick a Northern Hemisphere city(preferably) with relatively stable weather patterns and pressure systems, and then show me UV increases that follow the upward curve.

Picking some 9k foot place in Chile to take your UV readings is not valuable, it is not a constant. It is an uncontrolled variable. No one knows if Chilean UV variations are due to anything, other than erratic Polar phenomenon. A city that is not close to the Antarctic is going to give you better results. If Artic/Polar phenomenon were a good model for the rest of the globe, we would have the Aurora Borealis all over the rest of the globe.

If your theory is true, there would be overwhelming evidence, in the form of increased UV radiation across the rest of the globe. Data that you are resolutely against providing.

The model requires that the the depletion is equally distributed, The Second Law of Thermodynamics even requires it, or at least has to be taken into consideration(factored in). Rowlands very model says that CFC distribution in the atmosphere is uniform, his experiments showed that at ground level that they were. If it is, then the depletion should be uniform. Then the UV radiation increases should be uniform. It is not like all the CFCs congealed in the Antarctic Polar stratosphere, that is physically improbable.

You have got to have data from any Northern Hemisphere sea level city. Most cities have been populated for centuries, they have to have data. A ground level weather station. Airports. Area 51, I don't care. The data has got to be out there somewhere. There should be an overwhelming amount of data available now. Where is it?


You can't pick a city like Mexico City, that city has it's own ozone layer in the form of smog, nor would Denver be a good baseline. Sacramento is relatively smog free, but it is still in a valley with an inversion layer. San Diego is on the coast, and I include it because I doubt it has a punishing inversion layer. I don't rightly know the smog conditions of SD, I supposed they are close to San Francisco's. But people have been at those towns for a very long time. If I were familiar with British geography, I would ask for one of those. Pick a British coastal city(location) UV readings from there, if you wish.

If the CFCs are equally distributed in the stratosphere, then the ozone depletion would be equally distributed, then the increased UV radiation will be equally(or at least the curve) distributed. If the UV radiation increases were evenly distributed across all the other climes then that would be deductive proof of your theory.

That would only be true if ozone creation was equally distributed. It's not. They touch on the issue briefly in the following:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast02oct_1.htm

Well... there is some evidence. But you usually don't seem to read what anyone posts, so not sure how much good this will do:

http://www.ciesin.org/docs/001-234/001-234.html (read here if you want to read the citations)

Quality and Coherence of Evidence

Measurements include atmospheric concentrations of CFCs and chlorine monoxide; stratospheric ozone density; UV radiation flux; quantitative and qualitative changes in small organisms, such as phytoplankton; and data from epidemiological and other studies of adverse human health effects that may be attributable to UV radiation. Atmospheric physics and chemistry are arcane sciences: only minuscule proportions of the huge atmospheric volume can be examined. Instruments to measure UV radiation (expensive UV spectrophotometers and relatively cheap Robertson-Berger meters) are sparsely distributed; only 25 US recording stations existed in 1990 (41). The readings have uncertain validity in relation to human exposure. No increase in surface-level UV-B was observed in the US during 1974-1985 (42), but the measuring stations are in urban areas where air pollution confounds the readings. Some increase has been observed at a high-latitude measuring station in Switzerland (43) and Antarctica (44). Use of personal dose-meters would resolve uncertainty about human exposure in urban areas.

The 1991 Update of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Report on the Environmental Effects of Ozone Depletion (44) summarized the situation. Seasonal fluctuations continue, but there is a long-term trend toward further attenuation of stratospheric ozone; regions that will be vulnerable as attenuation progresses include populated parts of the northern hemisphere in the mid-latitudes. a reduction in total ozone of about 3% has occurred over the last ten years (45), associated at least in some places in the southern hemisphere with increased UV-B radiation readings at ground level (44). Anthropogenic tropospheric ozone and aerosols have masked the effect of ozone depletion on UV-B radiation readings in urban areas, but little or no such compensation occurs in places that are remote from industrial emissions.

Fyyr, is S. Fred Singer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Fred_Singer) the source of your skepticism?

Well... there is some evidence. But you usually don't seem to read what anyone posts, so not sure how much good this will do:


I do read that stuff. I already know most of it.

I tell you what, I will make this easier, can you give me melanoma stats for people under the age of 50. From 1975 to today would suffice(the original Rowland paper was published in 1974).

Melanoma is caused by UV exposure, as well as the aging process. Factor out aging, the increased lifespan of the populace, and the increase of people over the age of 50; that would be a really good case of inductive(not empirical) evidence of increased UV radiation.

That's a lousy stat since you can over expose yourself to UV radiation from a tanning bed. And why only melanoma? Squamous cell skin cancers are also caused by UV DNA damage.

You've nixed, for whatever reason, all the really good observed evidence such as and are asking for melanoma statistics?

* Measurements include atmospheric concentrations of CFCs and chlorine monoxide
* stratospheric ozone density
* quantitative and qualitative changes in small organisms, such as phytoplankton
* Increases in UV-B radiation in high altitude areas (away from city pollution which filters UV-B)
*Anthropogenic tropospheric ozone and aerosols have masked the effect of ozone depletion on UV-B radiation readings in urban areas, but little or no such compensation occurs in places that are remote from industrial emissions.

I tell you what, I will make this easier, can you give me melanoma stats for people under the age of 50. From 1975 to today would suffice(the original Rowland paper was published in 1974).

Melanoma is caused by UV exposure, as well as the aging process. Factor out aging, the increased lifespan of the populace, and the increase of people over the age of 50; that would be a really good case of inductive(not empirical) evidence of increased UV radiation.
There are a whole host of reasons why there might be an increase or a decrease in incidents of melanoma that have nothing to do with changes in the amount of UV getting by the ozone layer. Think about it -- there are all sorts of human behaviors that would taint the data (increased use of sunblock, changes in the number of people who sunbathe, changes to the number of people who travel to destinations where exposure is higher). Using melanoma stats as proof one way or another would be junk science.

Fyyr, is S. Fred Singer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Fred_Singer) the source of your skepticism?

No. I have never read him.

My skepticism comes from when I was 17 and read that the ozone layer was only 3mm thick(at STP). I formed the idea that the radiation that is blocked is not so much by reflection by the ozone layer, but by the energy that is absorbed in the formation of 2 O1 molecules from O2(basic quantum mechanics). The reactions to form O3 are what is really doing the shielding, the energy is being absorbed, not reflected. The free radical O1 atoms bind with O2 molecules to form O3, because the O3 molecule is more stable than O1 itself.

The O3 then will quickly decay to O1 and O2, the O1s bind with each other to form O2 again, which is then hit and split by another dose of UV. It is not static, it is a constant resupplying itself and destroying itself. All the while absorbing UV radiation in the reaction, that is the absorbed UV that does not hit us.

I also knew at that time, that I sunburned more readily in the mountains than I did when I was at sea level. I deduced from that that O2 in the air is a valid component of UV reflection(or air itself). I have known since I was 6 that UV does not pass through glass, it was reflected.

The energy to form the free radical O1 atoms is high. The formation of the O3 molecules is extremely cheap(yet still highly reactive), from the environmental O1 atoms and O2 molecules. We normally produce ozone so freely that it is considered waste, it comes from cars, electrical motors. We produce it to sterilize spas. We produce it to make hydrogen peroxide, which is sold for less that a bottle of water. It itself is very unstable, but compared to O1, it is a rock.

Considering that they system has a never ending supply of O2, and that O3 really is just a byproduct, the system seems to be a negative feedback system, instead of a feed forward one. That is to say, that if O3 is broken down to ClO and O2 by CFCs that that only leaves more O2 in the stratosphere to be broken down again into O1, which will then only produce more O3(which is consistant with the NASA 2003 data you provided). I certainly do not like the idea of a bargefull of ClO floating around up there, but that is a moot point in this discussion.

There are a whole host of reasons why there might be an increase or a decrease in incidents of melanoma that have nothing to do with changes in the amount of UV getting by the ozone layer. Think about it -- there are all sorts of human behaviors that would taint the data (increased use of sunblock, changes in the number of people who sunbathe, changes to the number of people who travel to destinations where exposure is higher). Using melanoma stats as proof one way or another would be junk science.

But in lieu of no other UV data, would you not say that it is at least a start.

That is why I said it would be inductive and not empirical. We have no empirical data. I have not seen any.

That was a gimme, don't crap on me for making it easy, I already knew protections and abuses(tanning beds, sunbathing) would skew the results but they would at least average out. What would be left would still be an upward trend in melanoma rates.

If there were no other UV data, it'd be a start. A lame one. But the problem is, there is data. I've posted references to it. You can almost certainly Google any of those studies and read them yourself. If you want to do statistical analysis yourself and publish your own findings, I'm sure the athmosphereic science world would welcome a viewpoint from a noob.

You know, sometimes I just decide that when a large body of people who have studied the crap out of something, experimented, published in peer reviewed journals, probably know a little more than I do about a subject. For instance, the Theory of Relativity. I'm going to trust that physicists are pretty confident of this one and not actually ask them to prove it to me. Because I know that in order to really understand it, I'd have to go back to school for a lot of years and even then, I don't have complete faith my brain is configured to understand it.

I'm always willing to listen to skeptics but not if they aren't at least trained in the field and haven't spent a lot of years working at it and not tied to organizations that have bought and paid for their skepticism.

* Measurements include atmospheric concentrations of CFCs and chlorine monoxide
I have asked for CFC stratospheric numbers. If they were posted, I missed them.

* stratospheric ozone density
Only over the Antarctic polar region.

* quantitative and qualitative changes in small organisms, such as phytoplankton
Not controlled for chemical dumping.

* Increases in UV-B radiation in high altitude areas (away from city pollution which filters UV-B)
Not controlled for the reflective ability of plain air.

*Anthropogenic tropospheric ozone and aerosols have masked the effect of ozone depletion on UV-B radiation readings in urban areas, but little or no such compensation occurs in places that are remote from industrial emissions.
Exactly, numbers from smoggy cities would not be useful. Ozone is a main component of smog. I want to isolate blocked UVs from the Ozone layer, not a thousand feet above Mexico City.
A coastal sea level city, or a sea level desert location would be much more reliable.

I already knew protections and abuses(tanning beds, sunbathing) would skew the results but they would at least average out. What would be left would still be an upward trend in melanoma rates.
That assumes that protections and abuses average out. Do they? That's going to much more difficult to prove than measuring the UV directly. Without that proof, trends in melanoma rates wont provide any compelling evidence one way or another.

If there were no other UV data, it'd be a start. A lame one. But the problem is, there is data. I've posted references to it. You can almost certainly Google any of those studies and read them yourself.

I apologize, I honestly missed it.
Actually I thought I was the only one to post UV indexes with that Palmer, Barrow, San Diego chart- and I could not figure it out. I have as yet found the numbers behind that graph.

Make it easy on me.
Post a link to San Diego UV readings. Simple. Please.

You keep telling me how easy it is for me to find them, where are they?
http://www.biospherical.com/nsf/updates/boreal/EUVindex.gif
This graph shows it lower, the 2005 reading should be higher than the past, but they are not.

I have asked for CFC stratospheric numbers. If they were posted, I missed them.
http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~knutti/atmcfc_concentration.html
My fingers hurt... from googling **** for you. I'll get more stuff later.

Its already been pointed out that UV data from around cities is useless because of the man-made pollution blocking the readings. Why do you keep insisting on it?

That assumes that protections and abuses average out. Do they? That's going to much more difficult to prove than measuring the UV directly. Without that proof, trends in melanoma rates wont provide any compelling evidence one way or another.
I give you that.

I'll take it back now. You can't have that one any more.

Melanoma rates are out, you can't use them.

http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~knutti/atmcfc_concentration.html
My fingers hurt... from googling **** for you. I'll get more stuff later.

Its already been pointed out that UV data from around cities is useless because of the man-made pollution blocking the readings. Why do you keep insisting on it?

Pan,

Those are atmospheric numbers, not stratospheric numbers.

I am insisting on cities only because people have lived there. You can't just fly down to Antarctica set up your observatory in 1975 and say there is a hole now. There was no baseline information before. That is stupid. How do you know there was not a hole in 1940, or 1910, or 1875? There were no people there.

UV radiation in cities is relatively stable. I have certainly never heard of any skin cancer plagues over the long term. That tells me, that even if the data collection was started in 1975 in San Diego say, I have a baseline for there not being any noticable UV phenomenon prior to that. I am trying to isolate the variables. Nevada is actually a bad pick for cancer stats, because of nuclear testing, we know there have been scientific reading taken from there,(um, because there was nuclear testing).

I have never heard of the cateract cataclysm of 1912 in populated Northern Hemisphere areas, or anything. That rules out naturally occuring bursts of UV, that may be copied or repeated since 1975(when we started looking for it).

I am setting the parameters so that it is EASIER for you to make your point, not harder.
1) People were there to collect data. Or are the data.
2) Naturally occuring UV phenomenon is mostly ruled out
3) It follows the Rowland model.

Sacramento has less smog now than in 1975, that's why I included it.
There should be a noticable upcurve UV correlation since 1975, that follows your CFC atmospheric graph. It should be as overwhelming as your graph shows.

Pick any non smoggy sea level city, I don't care which.
I am saying sea level because that rules out regular variable air pressure densities.
The pressure, the air, at sea level is an average 1 ATM of pressure.
The air(pressure/volume) at higher altitudes is far too variable to give accurate readings. The air is thinner at high altitudes.
We already know that regular air blocks or reflects UV radiation.

If you want to give ground level observatory/weather station type readings that will work too.
But it just means that to isolate out naturally occuring UV radiation phenomenon, that your readings(the data) have to go back to at least 1940. Because that was when CFCs were first made.
I just assumed that that data would be harder to get, it is completely(moreso even) valid data to support your theory. If you can find that easier than city data, go for it.

I am insisting on cities only because people have lived there. You can't just fly down to Antarctica set up your observatory in 1975 and say there is a hole now. There was no baseline information before. That is stupid. How do you know there was not a hole in 1940, or 1910, or 1875? There were no people there.

Fyyr, that's utterly useless and a rather thick. UV affects all life on earth, not just humans living in cities. How many people will starve if plankton dies off in huge quantities? Also, UV is blocked by water vapor and other things.

Crops far from cities will also have issues.

Look man, if you don't want to think the problem through, I understand that. But making stupid conclusions will waste both of our times.

Of course, my conclusions are stupid, despite their total agreement with the entire scientific community, whilst your home grown science isn't? Perhaps you should write to the President and advise him to fly some planes about with Ozone cannisters to fill the holes?

The Rowland model requires that CFCs are equally distributed in the atmosphere. It is required for the model to even work. I will even give you that it is equally distributed and dissipated. But that then implies that the depletion would be equally distributed across the globe. That is required by the model.

I'm not talking about the 30 year old Rowland model. (I notice that Rowlands work on the ozone layer was good enough to win the Nobel prize for science, but clearly you think that's a bunkum award too?). The science shows that the ozone layer will be delpeted at the poles, it is heavily depleted at the south pole, nobody expects anything else. Perhaps you do, if you're still working with 30 year old ideas.

If the CFCs are equally distributed in the stratosphere, then the ozone depletion would be equally distributed, then the increased UV radiation will be equally(or at least the curve) distributed. If the UV radiation increases were evenly distributed across all the other climes then that would be deductive proof of your theory.

No use stringing a lot of suppositions together when you start from the wrong assumptions.

I don't care which city that you pick, but you need to pick a Northern Hemisphere city(preferably) with relatively stable weather patterns and pressure systems, and then show me UV increases that follow the upward curve.

How does measuring oustide the hole in the ozone layer show the dangerous UV effects from the hole in the ozone layer?

I've posted Australian data, it clearly showed ozone levels depleting for 25 years, UV increasing for 25 years, and every peak and trough in the ozone levels being matched in the UV levels. You can't suddenly ask for northern hemisphere data because you don't like the utterly conclusive southern hemisphere data provided.

If your theory is true, there would be overwhelming evidence, in the form of increased UV radiation across the rest of the globe. Data that you are resolutely against providing.

There is increased UV levels around the globe. I posted a link to the US goverment saying exacly that, and the UK I think, and the Australian figures are utterly conclusive. I don't know how many more English speaking nations you need data from.

You have got to have data from any Northern Hemisphere sea level city.

Why? The whole world doesn't live in Northern Hemisphere cities. The hole in the ozone layer isn't above Northern Hemisphere cities.

Most cities have been populated for centuries, they have to have data. A ground level weather station. Airports. Area 51, I don't care. The data has got to be out there somewhere. There should be an overwhelming amount of data available now. Where is it?

Most cities seem to have only rainfall, temperature, and sunlight records going back a long way.

You can't pick a city like Mexico City, that city has it's own ozone layer in the form of smog, nor would Denver be a good baseline. Sacramento is relatively smog free, but it is still in a valley with an inversion layer. San Diego is on the coast, and I include it because I doubt it has a punishing inversion layer. I don't rightly know the smog conditions of SD, I supposed they are close to San Francisco's. But people have been at those towns for a very long time. If I were familiar with British geography, I would ask for one of those. Pick a British coastal city(location) UV readings from there, if you wish.

You sound like you're ordering ice cream and don't know your favourite flavour. I've posted a surplus of good links so it's about time you found something to support your conjectures before I give you a link to Sesame Street science. You'd probably find something to argue about with them too.

If there were no other UV data, it'd be a start. A lame one. But the problem is, there is data. I've posted references to it. You can almost certainly Google any of those studies and read them yourself. If you want to do statistical analysis yourself and publish your own findings, I'm sure the athmosphereic science world would welcome a viewpoint from a noob.
/smile

You know, sometimes I just decide that when a large body of people who have studied the crap out of something, experimented, published in peer reviewed journals, probably know a little more than I do about a subject. For instance, the Theory of Relativity. I'm going to trust that physicists are pretty confident of this one and not actually ask them to prove it to me. Because I know that in order to really understand it, I'd have to go back to school for a lot of years and even then, I don't have complete faith my brain is configured to understand it.
I don't do that.
Physicists can't even tell me what gravity is. They don't know. Not one.
Most physicists say that there was a Big Bang. That is just a theory. They show me that the Universe is expanding, they deduce from that that it came from a singularity. But the theory that it has always been expanding, is just as plausible. God I am so sad that Carl Sagan died. When he died science went into the crapper. Same with Stephen J. Gould. When my peers were reading comics in high school I was reading Encyclopedia Britannica, Scientific American, Science Digest, Discover, Popular Science, and Nature for fun. When they were listening to Hall and Oates I was reading Sagan, Darwin, Einstein, and Gould. I have thought about this problem a long time.

I'm always willing to listen to skeptics but not if they aren't at least trained in the field and haven't spent a lot of years working at it and not tied to organizations that have bought and paid for their skepticism.
I am not bought and paid for. I ammore skeptical of skeptics as you are.
For me to buy onto something it needs to make sense, is all. The pieces have to fit, if they do not, I question them and the motives behind it. These are my ideas. The pieces do not fit in this theory, not yet at least. When they do, I will buy. Until then, I will doubt.

But you need to have the knowledge and education to understand it all Fyyr. I'm sure you're a fairly smart guy, but you're not that smart that you can somehow intuit all of what has been built on over a long period of time by people that make us look like drooling idiots.

I think you've vastly overestimated your ability to understand everything. And that, in the end is a measure of intelligence is being able to comprehend how much there is in the world you don't comprehend and probably never will.

Fyyr, that's utterly useless and a rather thick. UV affects all life on earth, not just humans living in cities. How many people will starve if plankton dies off in huge quantities? Also, UV is blocked by water vapor and other things.

Crops far from cities will also have issues.

Isolating variables is required, it is not thick.

Of course it is important, it is not useless.

How else are you going to interpolate naturally occuring UV radiation burst unless you have data. People were in cities prior to 1975, prior to 1940 in fact.

If they were not there actually collecting UV reading, they themselves through skin cancer rates would be able to show a correlationship, and are 2nd hand data themselves.

Is Sesame Street science where they say mankind created the ozone layer and if we hadn't stopped producing CFCs that it would have continued to grow? ;)

Anka, I don't think yours are "conclusions" but rather regurgitations of what you have read. Fyyr seems to play "devil's advocate" quite often to see if people really believe what they say, and whether or not they know WHY they believe it.

Fyyr, regardless whether you believe that man is depleting the ozone layer which may result in global annihilation, you have to admit that it's more pleasant to breathe in Sacramento today than it would have been in 1975. Lessening pollutants is almost always a good thing.

Sorry to interrupt, kids. Go back to your Googling frenzy! :flowers2:

But you need to have the knowledge and education to understand it all Fyyr. I'm sure you're a fairly smart guy, but you're not that smart that you can somehow intuit all of what has been built on over a long period of time by people that make us look like drooling idiots.

I think you've vastly overestimated your ability to understand everything.

/smile

Sounds like that religion thing again.
Most scientists are just data collectors.
Once the data is collected I am smart enough to form my own conclusions.

Fyyr, regardless whether you believe that man is depleting the ozone layer which may result in global annhialation, you have to admit that it's more pleasant to breathe in Sacramento today than it would have been in 1975. Lessening pollutants is almost always a good thing.


Abso-frelling-utly!

I don't need a red herring to convince me of that, though.

Of course, my conclusions are stupid, despite their total agreement with the entire scientific community, whilst your home grown science isn't? Perhaps you should write to the President and advise him to fly some planes about with Ozone cannisters to fill the holes?
What does the number of who believe have to do with what is?
Have you considered that they are wrong?
Have you considered that it is a great place to make a buck?

You like the cannister idea, good, I came up with it 23 years ago.



I'm not talking about the 30 year old Rowland model. (I notice that Rowlands work on the ozone layer was good enough to win the Nobel prize for science, but clearly you think that's a bunkum award too?). The science shows that the ozone layer will be delpeted at the poles, it is heavily depleted at the south pole, nobody expects anything else. Perhaps you do, if you're still working with 30 year old ideas.
The science shows that there is a hole in the ozone layer at the polar region SINCE 1975.



No use stringing a lot of suppositions together when you start from the wrong assumptions.
Have you even read the paper, the report?



How does measuring oustide the hole in the ozone layer show the dangerous UV effects from the hole in the ozone layer?
Because that is what matters. I don't care about the polar hole. No one lives there. It has not been determined that it is not naturally occuring, the data collection did not start until AFTER the theory.


I've posted Australian data, it clearly showed ozone levels depleting for 25 years, UV increasing for 25 years, and every peak and trough in the ozone levels being matched in the UV levels. You can't suddenly ask for northern hemisphere data because you don't like the utterly conclusive southern hemisphere data provided.

Why would you include Austrialian data, it is right by the polar region?


There is increased UV levels around the globe. I posted a link to the US goverment saying exacly that, and the UK I think, and the Australian figures are utterly conclusive. I don't know how many more English speaking nations you need data from.
Geographically, it is not isolated from the polar phenomenon.



Why? The whole world doesn't live in Northern Hemisphere cities. The hole in the ozone layer isn't above Northern Hemisphere cities.
It should be equally as thin over the entirety of the globe. Have you not factored in that melanin in local native populations of Southern Hemisphere peoples was there for a reason. Have you not factored in that higher levels of UV radiation in Southern Hemisphere inhabited regions for eons? They got dark skin for a reason man, it protects from UV radiation.



Most cities seem to have only rainfall, temperature, and sunlight records going back a long way.
There has to be someplace that recorded UV reading to back then. And if not, then skin cancer or cateract rates would be a good indicator. Albeit arguable.



You sound like you're ordering ice cream and don't know your favourite flavour. I've posted a surplus of good links so it's about time you found something to support your conjectures before I give you a link to Sesame Street science. You'd probably find something to argue about with them too.
You have not given me any data, only conclusions and opinions. With a sprinkling of knowledge base stuff I already know. You are the one who is saying something is happening, it is your job to support your conjectures.

Is Sesame Street science where they say mankind created the ozone layer and if we hadn't stopped producing CFCs that it would have continued to grow?


Excuse me a typo or two please. I've gone through a lot of links here :).

ftp://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov./pub/eptoms/images/

ftp://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov./pub/eptoms/images/global/Y2005/IM_ozgbl_ept_20050722.png

ftp://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov./pub/eptoms/images/global/Y1996/IM_ozgbl_ept_19960722.png

edit: Gonna have to do that the hard way.

Once the data is collected I am smart enough to form my own conclusions.
Proove it! :D

Have you considered that they are wrong?
Have you considered that it is a great place to make a buck?

Yes. I have considered that almost everybody that has measured, investigated, and reseached the ozone layer is wrong. Their cogent, integrated arguments backed up with results and observations might have been totally wrong. All the leading climatologists have got it wrong. Then again a bating, obtuse, and argumentative, poster on a messageboard might be wrong. Guess what my conclusion was?

I did post about the conspiracy theory angle. I'm glad you've woken up to it 20 posts later. Go back and read what I said.

It has not been determined that it is not naturally occuring, the data collection did not start until AFTER the theory.

So? We know there's good evidence for ice ages despite nobody having a thermometer and notepad at the time. You've just ignored every link posted and repeated a tired assertion. Try this for readings going back to 1955. www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/part1.html

It should be equally as thin over the entirety of the globe.


Why? Are you still arguing against 30 year old models? Modern science shows there is no reason for that at all. You've ignored everything and repeated a tired assertion.

Why would you include Austrialian data, it is right by the polar region?


Why shouldn't I? Their data is as good as anyone elses, if not better. If you want to measure the effect of changes in ozone levels you measure it in a country with clear skies and changing ozone levels. You don't measure the furthest point away from the effects.

You have not given me any data, only conclusions and opinions.

No Australian data then? You've being your usual trick of baiting, refusing to post your own opinions, then sniping at comments from other people. It's tiresome.

Proove it! :D

Give me the data, I will.

Or graciously concede defeat.

The TOMS data that I found looks promising. It is only from 1996, but that is ok, we were pumping out CFCs until almost then. Considering that it takes 10 to 150 years, according to Rowland, for the CFCs to reach the stratosphere. There should be a noticable incline of the graphs the reading from the TOMS satellite, for years to come.

Yes. I have considered that almost everybody that has measured, investigated, and reseached the ozone layer is wrong. Their cogent, integrated arguments backed up with results and observations might have been totally wrong. All the leading climatologists have got it wrong. Then again a bating, obtuse, and argumentative, poster on a messageboard might be wrong. Guess what my conclusion was?
Hehe, you are good.


I did post about the conspiracy theory angle. I'm glad you've woken up to it 20 posts later. Go back and read what I said.
What conspiracy?



So? We know there's good evidence for ice ages despite nobody having a thermometer and notepad at the time. You've just ignored every link posted and repeated a tired assertion. Try this for readings going back to 1955. www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/part1.html
I have read that. That is basic chemistry. It is also taken directly from the Rowland papers.

From your own link...
Dramatic loss of ozone in the lower stratosphere over Antarctica was first noticed in the 1970s by a research group from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) who were monitoring the atmosphere above Antarctica from a research station much like the picture to the right.
Of course it was noticed in the 1970s, that was because they started looking for it AFTER the 1974 Rowland paper. Show me the numbers BEFORE the 1970s.



Why? Are you still arguing against 30 year old models? Modern science shows there is no reason for that at all. You've ignored everything and repeated a tired assertion.
Ok, so you are saying then that CFCs do not go into the stratosphere over the rest of the globe? Are you saying that. Because that is what it sounds like.



Why shouldn't I? Their data is as good as anyone elses, if not better. If you want to measure the effect of changes in ozone levels you measure it in a country with clear skies and changing ozone levels. You don't measure the furthest point away from the effects.
You have not ISOLATED those effects.



No Australian data then? You've being your usual trick of baiting, refusing to post your own opinions, then sniping at comments from other people. It's tiresome.
Again, let me say it for you another way. Austrailians are black because there is naturally occuring MORE UV radiation in Austrailia! Naturally. There is an evolutionary reason why they are black. Those that were not died and did not reproduce.

I am conceding that there are higher readings of UV in Austrailia. Of course there is. There always was, well for as long as people have been there. High UV readings in Austrialia does not tell me anything. Why else would they have more melanin than you? Geez.

I bet if I were to find the Shackleton and Byrd voyage logs, that people died from those expeditions from sunburn and sunstroke.

IE, that there has always been more UV hitting the Earth in Antarctica. Than the rest of the Earth.

Strong enough to kill people.

Long before the first CFC was ever produced.

I bet you I could find it.
Do you dare me?

The issue isn't there is always more UV hitting the antarctica or Autralia. The issue is, is that amount increasing.

Of course it was noticed in the 1970s, that was because they started looking for it AFTER the 1974 Rowland paper. Show me the numbers BEFORE the 1970s.


There was a graph was in the Antarctic survey link. It went back to 1955. Don't cherry pick data.

Ok, so you are saying then that CFCs do not go into the stratosphere over the rest of the globe? Are you saying that. Because that is what it sounds like.


You've deliberately ignored all the linked science. If I've read it correctly, CFCs accelerate ozone delpletion at low temperatures. This is why ozone depletion is seasonal and most measurable at the poles. There is no mystery there.

You have not ISOLATED those effects.

So you're suggesting that a city in areas with the least expected ozone changes, least expected UV changes, with localised atmospheric pollution from cities, provide isolated results for what exactly? You actually posted one thing right earlier: localised city tropospheric ozone will have an effect on UV penetration, even if it's not in the quantities of the ozone layer.

Again, let me say it for you another way. Austrailians are black because there is naturally occuring MORE UV radiation in Austrailia! Naturally. There is an evolutionary reason why they are black. Those that were not died and did not reproduce.


That strange piece of blather doesn't hide the fact those clever Australians collected exactly the information needed. It demonstrates that measured UV increases as ozone decreases and ozone has been decreasing over the last 25 years.

I know your obstinacy has taken over any genuine scientific analysis you were bringing to the discussion, but you don't need to stretch this any further. You don't have to argue to the most ridiculous conclusions.

Excuse me a typo or two please. I've gone through a lot of links here :).Heh. That was from your very first post on this thread. Your second post was an argument to support your first post.

Anyway... posting a lot of links is fine, but have you considered what Fyyr is saying? The argument in this thread appears (by my scanning) to be the following:

"Hurricanes are getting stronger. The reason given for this is global warming. The reason given for global warming is because man has created a hole in the ozone layer."

Fyyr simply stated that he believes that the change in hurricane strength is very possibly explained as a natural cycle of nature. I don't recall that Fyyr has made a statement as to whether he believes in global warming, but he definitely has stated that he doesn't believe that man is responsible for the creation of the hole in the ozone and that he has seen no proof that this hole is anything more than a normal force of nature.

Arguing that statistics PROVES man created (and is expanding) the hole in the ozone layer is not going to sway Fyyr because, and correctly so, he says that the statistics are only available for a limited few years and they were created to SUPPORT the "man created the hole" theory. Ask any statistician and he or she will tell you that data is easily manipulated to prove whatever result you need.

Anka, you're fighting a windmill. It makes no difference what links you post, Fyyr isn't going to be swayed because his beliefs are based on the fact that there really is no RELIABLE proof. Only collected and manipulated data and theories as explanations. *Just* like beliefs in a God, this whole thing still boils down to whether or not you believe a theory.

The only thing I have seen "proven" by the links is that people DO have theories on this subject (ozone hole) yet there is no way to PROVE that the theories are fact. This is EXACTLY what Fyyr has been saying all along. :/ It's just a "gut feeling", no matter how many numbers you throw at it.

Did Don Quixote ever win his fight?

The reason given for global warming is because man has created a hole in the ozone layer.
No, actually the ozone hole is a tangent. The real discussion started out on global warming. Which is measurable and pretty hard to refute. The only question is, is man the cause and can we do anything to reverse it. Somehow we got diverted into the ozone layer.

In fact, here's the quote that started the tangent:

CFCs did not create the ozone layer. They created a hole (supposedly) in the ozone layer. But who's to say the hole isn't a naturally occurring thing and we have only had the ability to measure it the past couple of decades?


Now that statement is totally unsupported by anything but a strong personal belief.

There is evidence that CFC's destroy ozone. There is evidence they are in the place where they can destroy the ozone layer and that they are, in fact, nibbling at it and will continue to do so for quite some time.

Then Fyyr asked questions that are covered in some of the more rudimentary FAQ's for the Ozone Hole

What is the CFC content of the atmosphere at 30-50Km? Most CFCs are heavier than air, how do they get up there? Answer: Wind
What are the UV radiation readings from a sea level city over the last 100 years?Answer: That isn't relevant because too many things interfere at sea level and around cities.
Is the change of the ozone layer a naturally occuring phenomenon? Answer: Probably not the extent it has been occuring
The ozone layer is 3 millimeters thick, a swallow could fart and make a hole in it, how do we know that jet exhaust is not the real culprit instead of RightGuard?Answer: Swallows don't fly that high
If there really is a change, is the change in the ozone layer really going to affect me?Answer: If it affects the sea, plankton, fish, plants, etc then yes. It will eventually affect you. Maybe not directly, but in the way global famine and the panic caused by such would.

Maybe its just me but it seems like if you have a reasonable doubt that something we're doing is going to have a long term deleterious effect on humanities chances at long term survival, you do what you can to change that. There's too many people on the planet to let things run unchecked. If CFC's are truly harming the ozone layer, and it seems to me they are, and we continued to dump them unchecked for the last 30 or so years, we might be at a point today where we couldn't recover from it, or it might take us hundreds of years of truly miserable experience to recover from.

If you're like Fyyr, you don't do anything about it until you actually see your own case of melanoma developing.

And with India and China, that have much much larger populations than we do, starting to emulate the West with pollution and industry, whatever problem humans are creating with the environment is only going to accellerate. If Africa and the rest of Asia develop at that sort of rate, we're gonna be in a heap of trouble.

Are we being quixotic debating with Fyyr? Sure.

Did Don Quixote ever win his fight?
Well, the windmill sure as hell didn't. :) Given the fact that most policy makers are on board with the whole CFCs-are-the-problem thing I think it's safe to say that, on this issue, Don Quixote kicked some windmill ass.

Arguing that statistics PROVES man created (and is expanding) the hole in the ozone layer is not going to sway Fyyr because, and correctly so, he says that the statistics are only available for a limited few years and they were created to SUPPORT the "man created the hole" theory.

There is enough supporting evidence without going back through 100 years of UV measurements. There is the detailed measurements of CFCs and ozone across the atmosphere that show that wherever there are high pockets of CFCs there is heavy ozone depletion, and visa versa. That's hard to dismiss as coincidence. The very chemisty of CFCs explains ozone depletion to the point where we would expect them to erode the ozone layer. The characteristics of the ozone hole itself, such as it's seasonal behavior, are also evidence. Ice cores and other historical records may also provide evidence. The case for CFCs affecting the ozone layer isn't based on single pieces of data but unified through many separate measurements. One piece of conflicting data might destroy the theories, but one piece of missing data will not.

There is a speculative argument that the ozone layer might correct itself if left alone. That's only as valid though as a speculative argument that the ozone layer might destroy itself entirely if CFCs get too dense. You can't base any decision process on those sort of speculations though. The science all points to CFCs eroding the ozone layer and a decision restricting CFCs surely has to be correct.

There isn't a consistent model for global warming in the same way as there is for the ozone layer. I'd personally believe it was happening, but not with the same conviction as for the ozone layer. For me, the case for preventing global warming is as much about risk prevention as science.

Well, the windmill sure as hell didn't. :) Given the fact that most policy makers are on board with the whole CFCs-are-the-problem thing I think it's safe to say that, on this issue, Don Quixote kicked some windmill ass.Ahh... but the windmill didn't lose. It never yielded and lost no ground whatsoever. When the fight was done, the windmill stood as it always had, none the worse for the wear and tear. :) In this case as in the case of Quixote and the windmill, "who won" is a matter of opinion.

Let the windmill and Quixote fight on....
Oh wait! I mean let Quixote keep taking pot shots at the windmill! I don't think a windmill really fights, but simply deflects blows. :p

Well, this time Quixote is armed with a very large, flame spewing gun with nasty bits of burnt and twisted metal that make it look really dangerous. The windmill is a smoking pile of rubble. :p Quixote for the win!

Swallows don't fly that high

African or European swallow?>

There was a graph was in the Antarctic survey link. It went back to 1955. Don't cherry pick data.
I saw a chicken scratch graph, yes, the black and grey one. That is not numbers. Give me the data, I can make my own graphs.

You've deliberately ignored all the linked science. If I've read it correctly, CFCs accelerate ozone delpletion at low temperatures. This is why ozone depletion is seasonal and most measurable at the poles. There is no mystery there.
Opinions, not science. CFCs do not accelerate anything. Chlorine does. It is a highly reactive chemical. CFCs are inert. I have no problem dismissing opinions.


So you're suggesting that a city in areas with the least expected ozone changes, least expected UV changes, with localised atmospheric pollution from cities, provide isolated results for what exactly? You actually posted one thing right earlier: localised city tropospheric ozone will have an effect on UV penetration, even if it's not in the quantities of the ozone layer.
I am saying that if CFC pollution is equally distributed in the atmosphere then the readings of UV radiation will show that. If you are saying that CFCs congeal over the polar region only, then we don't have anything to really worry about then do we. Unless you own property in Antarctica.

If you want to present numbers from smoggy cities, by all means do. I was asking for coastal cities because they have less smog. I specifically asked for readings from known places of human habitation, that would have the least amount of smog. According to your model, local ozone will have an effect on UV radiation. If you want to contaminate your readings from a smoggy city by all means do, I was trying to make it easy on you. I don't know how you plan to correlate the UV readings to stratospheric ozone as opposed to tropospheric ozone though, without isolating one or the other. Mix them all up, I don't care.


That strange piece of blather doesn't hide the fact those clever Australians collected exactly the information needed. It demonstrates that measured UV increases as ozone decreases and ozone has been decreasing over the last 25 years.
It is only blather if you believe in gods.
It demonstrates that measured UV reading fluctuate wildly at the southern pole, I give you that. They had not collected the data before the hypothesis. So how can you say that any increase(decreases) is not natural. You do not have a baseline. The blather says that there has been higher levels of UV radiation there for millenia. I have no idea why that does not make sense to you.

Look at Panamah's Atmospheric CFC graph.
See the great upturn to the volume of CFCs in the atmosphere.
Now look at the San Diego Ultra Violet Index Graph.
Am I the only one who sees that the graphs do not match?
That the increase of CFCs in the atmosphere does not correlate to an increase in the UV radiation in San Diego.
(ps, I still have not gotten to looking at the TOMS data)

I am saying that if CFC pollution is equally distributed in the atmosphere then the readings of UV radiation will show that.
If you are going to play scientist then at least try to make scientific observations that account for the variables in the system. This statement ignores the mechanisms that create and distribute ozone.

If you are saying that CFCs congeal over the polar region only, then we don't have anything to really worry about then do we. Unless you own property in Antarctica.
Nobody is saying that CFCs congeal over the polar region only. The ozone hole is located over the southern polar region because ozone tends to be replenished from the tropics and distributed towards the poles. Peculiarities of the weather over the southern pole (Antarctic Vortex) create a barrier to the distribution of the ozone from the tropics. It is exactly for this reason that a depletion of the ozone from the ozone layer will be concentrated in (but not restricted to) the southern polar region.

then we don't have anything to really worry about then do we. Unless you own property in Antarctica.
That's just plain retarded.

I saw a chicken scratch graph, yes, the black and grey one. That is not numbers. Give me the data, I can make my own graphs.

Look at Panamah's Atmospheric CFC graph.
See the great upturn to the volume of CFCs in the atmosphere.

So you like Panamah's graph? Is that drawn in prettier colours than the one's you don't like?

Opinions, not science. CFCs do not accelerate anything. Chlorine does. It is a highly reactive chemical. CFCs are inert. I have no problem dismissing opinions.


Nope. You're posting half facts and trying to convert them to half truths. You know that CFCs break down and release chlorine in strong UV light, as found at the edge of the stratosphere. You're deliberately misleading and it's painfully obvious.

I am saying that if CFC pollution is equally distributed in the atmosphere then the readings of UV radiation will show that.

CFCs do not accelerate anything. Chlorine does

Can't you maintain coherent through for two sentences now? The depletion of the ozone layer, accelerated by CFCs degrading to chlorine at low temperatures, affects UV light. The temperature is not evenly distributed through the atmosphere so neither is ozone depletion.

It demonstrates that measured UV reading fluctuate wildly at the southern pole, I give you that. They had not collected the data before the hypothesis. So how can you say that any increase(decreases) is not natural.

On it's own one piece of data doesn't prove or disprove the entire theory. You are looking at a piece of data that proves that UV levels are linked to ozone and claiming it shows nothing about natural levels. It wasn't meant to. You'll then look at a piece of data that proves CFCs erode the ozone layer and claim it shows nothing about UV levels, still claiming that UV levels aren't linked to ozone. You're deliberately misusing data and it's getting more obvious the more often you do it.

Again, let me say it for you another way. Austrailians are black because there is naturally occuring MORE UV radiation in Austrailia! Naturally. There is an evolutionary reason why they are black. Those that were not died and did not reproduce.

Explain Northern Europe, or better yet, Inuits, then =P They are even closer to a pole.

Why would Africans be black but not native South Americans, along the same latitude? I find fault with your hypothesis, as it stands heh.

Explain Northern Europe, or better yet, Inuits, then =P They are even closer to a pole.
There isn't a hole in the Arctic Ozone Layer. It does have a seasonal variation in thickness, but there are no holes.


Why would Africans be black but not native South Americans, along the same latitude?

Anthropologist currently believe that humans migrated to the America's from Asia and the Western Pacific Rim around the time of the Last Ice Age and Native South American's skin tone reflect that lineage. Native Africans have been in the region far longer.

There isn't a hole in the Arctic Ozone Layer. It does have a seasonal variation in thickness, but there are no holes.



Anthropologist currently believe that humans migrated to the America's from Asia and the Western Pacific Rim around the time of the Last Ice Age and Native South American's skin tone reflect that lineage. Native Africans have been in the region far longer.

Yes, but supposing that a hole over the southern pole is the reason why aboriginies are black doesn't follow, either. First of all we have no idea of what holes there may or may not have been in the region. Secondly, they, too, emigrated to Australia during the last ice age, theoretically from southeast asia about 40,000 years ago. Thus, the native amazonian tribes (and further south) on the South American continent, by Fy'yr's hypothesis, should be as black as native australians.

Yes, but supposing that a hole over the southern pole is the reason why aboriginies are black doesn't follow, either.

I'm not saying I agree with either of you. I just pointed out the flaws in your questions.


First of all we have no idea of what holes there may or may not have been in the region.

Two problems with this statement.
1. We do know what holes may or may have not be in the Ozone above the Arctic in recent times, just as we know there is one in the Antarctic.
2. This statement also supports Fyrr's original comment on the inability to know what the ozone layer was like before we started studying it.



Secondly, they, too, emigrated to Australia during the last ice age, theoretically from southeast asia about 40,000 years ago.

The america's are thought to have been populated around 12,500 years ago, allowing for 27,500 or so extra years to adapt. Clovis is thought to have moved in from the Asian/American Landbridge in Alaska late in the ice age. And, so far, the earliest evidence of humans in South America are in Brazil about 11,000 years ago.

Recently, there is evidence of man in North American (Eastern US) as early as 50,000 years ago, but this is all very new and highly contested in the scientific community. But, even if it turns out to be true, there is no evidence of humans in South America until 29,000 years after Australia was populated.

Thus, the native amazonian tribes (and further south) on the South American continent, by Fy'yr's hypothesis, should be as black as native australians.

As I said, I didn't say I agreed with him. I think Climate played a huge role in the Evolution of man as well. I personally think that played a bigger role. The South American Continent offers a significanly different climate than Africa. At least the area's that early man occupied. I'm not sure about Australia, but I suspect it's climate was closer to that of Africa than South America.

penguins are black

Only half black! Ah ha! Gotcha in a major error completely proving that everything you know is wrong!

Technically everything is black by nature, only with the addition of light do you get colors.

Score one for the literalists.

Yes, but supposing that a hole over the southern pole is the reason why aboriginies are black doesn't follow, either. First of all we have no idea of what holes there may or may not have been in the region. Secondly, they, too, emigrated to Australia during the last ice age, theoretically from southeast asia about 40,000 years ago. Thus, the native amazonian tribes (and further south) on the South American continent, by Fy'yr's hypothesis, should be as black as native australians.

Yes and no.

I think that Austrialians have been there for a very long time, far longer than
40,000.

South Americans have been there a very much shorter period of time. Less than 20K years.

New Zealanders(Mowris) certainly have migrated there more recently.

Explain Northern Europe, or better yet, Inuits, then =P They are even closer to a pole.

Why would Africans be black but not native South Americans, along the same latitude? I find fault with your hypothesis, as it stands heh.

So if you don't buy the hypothesis.

I will ask you, Why do YOU think that Aborigines are black?

Why are white skinned peoples 20-30 times more likely to develop melanoma than dark skinned peoples?

First of all we have no idea of what holes there may or may not have been in the region.
Thank you, btw.

Only half black! Ah ha! Gotcha in a major error completely proving that everything you know is wrong!Their backs are black and their bellies are white. Back to the sun and belly to the snow! The prime example of the evolution of skintones!! :)

Too late, I caught you! No going back now. :p

Their backs are black and their bellies are white. Back to the sun and belly to the snow! The prime example of the evolution of skintones!! :)

That one is due to predatory forces, than sunlight, it would seem.

Most marine vertebrates are light on the bottom and dark on the top because of camo from predators, while in the water.

I wonder if the Aborigines used to swim a lot, rolling over sometimes to get an all over tan?

No, that was just the Pygmies.

Being scared of the killer whales made them short too. They were always shrugging their shoulders(to hide behind coral) that they just developed shorter spines.

They have webbed toes too, but I think there is a conspiracy of anthropologists who are actively concealing that scientific fact.

Yes and no.

I think that Austrialians have been there for a very long time, far longer than
40,000.

South Americans have been there a very much shorter period of time. Less than 20K years.

New Zealanders(Mowris) certainly have migrated there more recently.

The accepted time for the various aboriginal tribes of Australia is 40k, with some suggestion perhaps 50k, but the technology that 50k time is based on is considered suspect by many.

Maori are much more recent, yes, if I recall they left the polynesian islands even later than the hawaiians.

The real question might not be why are they black, but why are some of us white? If humans originated in Africa, chances are all humans were once dark colored.

I suspect we'll never know the reason for the major racial distinctions (Asian/African/Caucasian).

The melamine protect from the UV but lesser the prodution of the D vitamine (vital for the solodity of the bones).

Also when you are under the sun all day, the human that have a near of alnino mutation (like the one with blonde and russet-red hair) will have not lasted long. But in UK when the sun is a lot rarer it was the people with dark skin that will have been lest healty becose they production less D vitamine. And add the glaciation of europa at that time too to reduce even more the sunny time.

For the color of the skin, I recall from my biology course that was taking some 10k years for a local population to settle to the right color (and it was needing no new genetic material from outside population).It was some time ago, the science may have invalidated this theory since.

Eridalafar

I was thinking it might be related to Vit D production too.

The real question might not be why are they black, but why are some of us white? If humans originated in Africa, chances are all humans were once dark colored.

I assume that is true.

I suspect we'll never know the reason for the major racial distinctions (Asian/African/Caucasian).

A combination of natural factors and sexual preference.



One of the things that is most interesting is the level of beauty attained by high end humans increasing since the advent of the camera.

As males and females determine their own physical beauty's worth, and they know that there are comparable mates, they hold out until they find those compatible partners.

Prior to the advent of the camera, males and females were generally only allowed to chose those in their 'village'.

For example, if Monica Bellucci were born 200 years ago(unlikely of course), her mating pool would have been limited to her small Italian town. At most Italy proper. But she, because of cameras, knows that there are many males which fit her equally in regard to beauty. And instead of her mating pool being limited, it is now worldwide, she now waits and mates with someone more her equal. And the chances that her offspring are more attractive are higher, than if she mated with the local baker.

Looking at film sex goddess and leading men backs this up from the 1800's to the present. Another example: The character who Keira Knightly played in Pirates of the Carribean would in all actuality, would have been rather homely to us, yet attractive to her contemporaries(because they did not know better, and we do). Of course the character is fictional, but you get the point.

Human beings are becoming more attractive, the film record shows that.

Human beings are becoming more attractive, the film record shows that.


Each generation changes its perception of beauty. Each generation also changes its diet, cosmetics, artistry, clothing, medicine, and physical work. Once you've excluded those factors it is massive leap forward to say that humans are gaining genetic beauty in each generation.

Each generation changes its perception of beauty. Each generation also changes its diet, cosmetics, artistry, clothing, medicine, and physical work. Once you've excluded those factors it is massive leap forward to say that humans are gaining genetic beauty in each generation.

If you say so.

I thought that Monica Bellucci and Kiera Knightly were beautiful the very first seconds I saw them.

I was not taught that they were beautiful.

They don't look like anyone else I have ever seen before, or since. They both have intrinsic qualities and features which I found attractive instinctively and instantly.

Society has not taught me who is attractive and who is not. I know already. I did when I was 5. I had that code when I was in utero. Society does allow me with its tools, say cameras in this case, the ability to see females in 'other villages'; thus I can determine more wisely or judiciously my choice of mates. I or any other can compare from a greater variety of stock now, and do.

I did not mean to say that humans as a whole are getting more attractive. Far from it...ugly people will always mate with ugly people(because that is the only choice for them/us).I am not talking about averages. I am only talking about the high end humans, the top of the pyramid, that top is moving higher and getting larger compared to past generations.

No one told me that Monica Bellucci was beautiful. I knew it.

Pretty people do not want to have sex with ugly people, no one told them that, they already knew it. They want to have sex with other pretty people, from the beginning. And now they have better choices and access to that, than say 100 years ago. And their children will be more attractive still, generally speaking.

Society has not taught me who is attractive and who is not.

Yes it has. Most people marry within their own racial groups.

This doesn't just apply to attractiveness either. People from different racial backgrounds tend to recognise people by different features, so caucasians would differentiate by hair colour or freckles while a black africans look at different features. When someone says "those black people all look the same to me" they might not be just racist, they might be genuinely incapable of differentiating black faces in the same way as people who have been brought up in an environment with many black people.

Also more and more often, with the modern technology, smalls but signifiants "errors" are corected in the picture and movies that show peoples. Just see the topic "before and after" that Panamah have postes a few months ago.

We may going to have beauty's criteres that we will never meet in reality soon.

Eridalafar

If you say so.

I thought that Monica Bellucci and Kiera Knightly were beautiful the very first seconds I saw them.

I was not taught that they were beautiful.

Yes you were. The same way you were taught that you're supposed to schtupp women or that eating human flesh was a bad thing. Through a thousand and one little unremembered social teachings.

There is a certain level of innate beauty, for certain. Much of it is based on social ideologies, however. What was beautiful in 1870 was not in 1920 which wasn't in 1980, which isn't today (Grace Jones anyone?).

Further, two pretty people mating != pretty child all the time.

Anyone here ever hear of DaisyWorld? Its a simple model for showing how life on earth stabilizes the environment, made by the guy who figured out there is no life on Mars by using spectroscopy from earth to look at the chemical makeup of mars.

Anyway, I'm reading this article (http://motivate.maths.org/conferences/conf16/c16_talk.shtml), that is about Daisyworld and Diabetes, and I stumbled across this, which strikes me as being relevant. The basic premise is Daisyworld is covered in black or white daisy's and depending upon a variety of things, one color or the other predominates and controls the earth's equilibrium.

The Breakdown of Regulation.

If you think that the Earth might be alive, you can ask whether it could die. Put another way, suppose human life depends on the Earth remaining much the same as it is. If these conditions depend on regulation, can this regulation fail, and how could we tell if it was likely to?

Let's suppose that Daisyworld's sun is getting hotter, only now let us also imagine that there are intelligent beings on Daisyworld who have discovered how to control the sun. Naturally, this is very expensive to do, so their government is reluctant to act unless it is absolutely necessary.

Now for a long period of time the increasing brightness of the sun wil not make Daisyworld warmer. In fact it will actually become slightly cooler. When L reaches 1.38, however, the temperature of the planet, which is then only about 19C, will start to rise.

You can imagine there might be "green" Daisyworlders, maybe even an organisation called "Friends of Daisyworld" and that they would start to campaign to have something done about this. On the other side, lots of people would be more worried about the cost. They will point out that the increase is relatively small and that the temperature is still not as great as it was many centuries before, when the sun was roughly half as bright as it is now. Since the temperature has been falling for some time, if it is now rising that is surely on account of some cyclical phenomenon. True, there are no longer any black daisies, but there are still plenty of white ones, and those are the important kind that do the cooling. Why spend large amounts of the taxpayers' money just to preserve biological diversity?

But consider what may happen if nothing is done. As L continues to increase, so will the temperature, though still not so much as to make the planet unbearably hot. If L is allowed to reach 1.58, however, the daisies will suddenly disappear and the temperature will rise abruptly from 31C to 62C. The Daisyworlders may not survive this, and even if they do, to restore the temperature regulating system they will have to reduce the luminosity to 1.22, which will presumably cost them much more than it would have done to have held it at about 1.5.

This little oversimplified model suggests a number of points.

If the Earth has not warmed up as much as we'd expect considering how much hotter the Sun has become, that suggests that its temperature is being regulated.

If after all this time it is now starting to warm up, that may mean that the regulation is breaking down.
If that is so, then the temperature will rise a lot sooner and to a much higher level than you'd expect if you go by what has happened recently.

A breakdown of regulation is essentially a change from a stable to an unstable equilibrium. As this happens, the system passes through a state in which it is stable but takes a long time to return to equilibrium. So while a general increase in the temperature is a sign of trouble, so is any tendency to much more extremes of weather than we are used to, even some much colder weather.

I've used the word "may" a lot here. We can't be sure that our simple model is telling us what will really happen, and even if it does we don't know how soon. What I find very worrying is that the people who do the climate modelling in the Metereological Office are finding effects that look very much like the sort of thing I've described here.

Besides, the only way to be absolutely certain about what will happen is to wait until it does. Only then it's too late. When the forests are all gone and the temperature is 50C or whatever, we won't even need a model to tell us it's going to be very hard to get back to where we were.

The moral of the story. If the Unn-Green Daisylanders prevail, they may be unable to react in time to save their world because the series of events that will cause a cateclysmic change of events that will kill off all the daisys. Thus their system of regulation is gone and they're out 1 perfectly fine world.

Oh yeah... just had to comment on this:

There is a certain level of innate beauty, for certain. Much of it is based on social ideologies, however. What was beautiful in 1870 was not in 1920 which wasn't in 1980, which isn't today (Grace Jones anyone?).

Judging from those fertility goddess things that have been found, standards of beauty have changed a lot. If you plopped a super model in the midst of a tribe of aboriginies who haven't encountered Western civilization and been indoctrinated in our ideals, do you think they'd find her beautiful? I bet they would find her quite ugly.

Pretty people do not want to have sex with ugly people, no one told them that, they already knew it. They want to have sex with other pretty people, from the beginning. ...Julia Roberts married Lyle Lovett. I think when you make that statement you are speaking from a male perspective. Yes, there are women who look for asthetics, but most women will tell you that there are other characteristics that top their priority list.

A very handsome friend of mine married an extremely obese woman, who was in all ways of extremely good character. My SIL, a psychologist, made the very astute comment, "Your friend must have some depth of character". Darned tootin' he does.

A very handsome friend of mine married an extremely obese woman, who was in all ways of extremely good character. My SIL, a psychologist, made the very astute comment, "Your friend must have some depth of character". Darned tootin' he does.
I don't mean to question your friends depth of character but maybe he finds large women attractive. If we can learn anything from the vast variety of internet **** it's that different people are turned on by different things.

Heh! Well, she's actually lost close to 200 pounds and he seems to still love her. So I don't think that is the case. :p

If all that drew people together was their looks, no one would be married past middle-age, unless they had a plastic surgeon on call.

Julia Roberts married Lyle Lovett. I think when you make that statement you are speaking from a male perspective. Yes, there are women who look for asthetics, but most women will tell you that there are other characteristics that top their priority list.

I don't think of it is so much as list, but a whole bunch of equalizer slider switches side to side. When the right combinations of decibels is reached mating occurs.

I can tell you from a male perspective, certain asthetics are generally required to attract and maintain the attention of attractive females.

Having extreme notable exceptions like Julia Roberts or Heidi Klum does not mean that most women are like that. Look how many women who have ****ed Mic Jagger or Steve Tyler.

And, I don't particularly think that Julia Roberts is all that beautiful anyway. Attractive and kinda cute sure.

I don't mean to question your friends depth of character but maybe he finds large women attractive. If we can learn anything from the vast variety of internet **** it's that different people are turned on by different things.

Agreed.

Having two simultaneous opposing instincts is not all that unusual. It is physiologically the norm. The Sympathetic and Para-Sympathetic Nervous systems for example.

I can't see how it has anything to do with character, unless you think that someone is noble for having sex with ugly or fat people; that it is some form of virtue or something.

It is like saying, "You should do the ugly homeless guy, it will make a better woman of you".

Ummm... I would imagine it would take a little depth of character to understand why someone could find someone else who isn't necessarily attractive to be a suitable mate or someone you want to marry. So perhaps you're ... out of your depth here. :p

Ummm... I would imagine it would take a little depth of character to understand why someone could find someone else who is (edit: substitute obese) a suitable mate...

No need to imagine.
I understand why that is true.
I just don't understand why it was important for the discussion.(actually I do, but refrain from that derail for lack of interest and decorum).