Monday, October 3, 2011

Arctic Ozone loss caused by low temperatures

Man-made global warming is supposed to be increasing temperatures globally, right?
Or so were told. This seems a bit contradictory?

Scientists say an unprecedented ozone "hole" opened up above the Arctic last year, caused by an unusually prolonged period of extremely low temperatures

They found that at some altitudes, the cold period in the Arctic lasted more than 30 days longer in 2011 than in any previously studied Arctic winter, leading to the unprecedented ozone loss.


Or this? Brutal northern winter sees ozone hole open over the Arctic


Formed by a deep chill over the North Pole, the unprecedented hole at one point shifted over eastern Europe, Russia and Mongolia, exposing populations to higher, but unsustained, levels of ultraviolet light.

But the loss itself is driven by deep cold, which causes water vapour and molecules of nitric acid to condense into clouds in the lower stratosphere.
How about "Northern Chill produces Artic Ozone" ?

However, this year Arctic temperatures in the lower stratosphere were continuously cold from December until April, says Santee.

"This year in the Arctic temperatures did get cold, but more importantly they stayed cold for a really, really long time."

The Artic got cold and it stayed really cold. Curious?


15 comments:

  1. Hi Penny, back in my uni days while taking a climate course we discussed the ozone holes. A point brought up by our prof was that there was a growing number of researchers who hypothesized that the ozone 'holes' or 'thinning' at the poles was a natural phenomena. Keeping in mind the azimuth and the fact that nature is a conservative system there isn't really a 'need' for a thick layer of ozone around the poles themselves. Given that modern records only give a millisecond of a snapshot of geological history, it is quite plausable that the ozone layer has always been thinner in these zones.

    Food for thought.

    Buffy

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey Buff, long time no see. How are you?

    I think you're right of course. I have climatology, such as it is, pegged as an agenda pretending to be science. Every time people actually look into it and pull apart the methodology they use it's shockingly bad. Over and over again it's the same thing. "Here's the result we want, now how can we get the data we need to back it up." And in the Hadley Research Unit Climategate affair they were sprung saying precisely that.

    The fact is that climatology has no idea. Given that chaos theory was first discovered by way of early, and very basic, climate modelling, and that at its immutable core showed that such things can never be modelled, go figure the irony of climatology as some kind of bullet-proof Big-Don't-Argue.

    With irony of such proportions who needs the Earth? We could all just up and leave and go and live on that planet-sized body.

    Off I go now.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey Penny, way off topic, but just wanted to make sure you saw this regarding Fukushima:

    http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com/2011/10/fukushima-nuclear-disaster-is-this-what.html

    I thought Jim Stone was on to something back in June:

    http://mrfriendsblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/israel-behind-fukushima.html

    Of course global warming is a major fraud. The real environmental threats are coming from the governments, people, organizations and businesses discussed in the articles above.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey Buffy!

    "Keeping in mind the azimuth and the fact that nature is a conservative system there isn't really a 'need' for a thick layer of ozone around the poles themselves."

    Hm! Now there is an interesting thought.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nobody!

    "I think you're right of course. I have climatology, such as it is, pegged as an agenda pretending to be science."

    An agenda pretending to be science.
    I like that.

    Makes me think of a war monger, given a peace maker award.

    Just another one of those nonsensical happenings

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi nobody, things are going well, thank you - I hope the same goes for you too!

    WRT my earlier post, I do want to clarify that the chemical reaction resulting from CFCs and ozone is a real reaction, the chemistry is sound - however - and this is a big however it doesn't explain why we find the layer thinnest at the poles - as there simply isn't enough cfcs to mitigate such a massive differential between the layer thickness at the equator compared to the poles, unless it was naturally very thin to begin with (hence my earlier point). Also, keep in mind that not all of the cfcs released have even reached the upper limits in our atmosphere as that takes time, so technically we still have some effect of ozone destruction by ctcs to come.

    That said, I was lucky to have a free thinker as a prof back then, one who truly questioned the status quo and her related paradigms. I think he was spot on with his take on the ozone layer. If one thinks about it for a few minutes it makes perfect sense.

    As nobody says - science these days has turned into an agenda. Very sad indeed.

    Buffers

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey Buff!

    What I liked about that article also was how the unusual cold contributed to the whole Ozone loss

    Aren't we supposed to believe that the Arctic is warming???

    You know polar bears drowning etc.,
    Nasty humans and all

    Then we have the artic getting cold and staying cold which seems to be totally normal for the arctic

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hey Penny,

    The warmistas will have you believe that the stratospheric cooling is the result of greenhouse gases trapping the warmer surface air and not allowing heat exchange with the upper layers in our atmosphere. Personally, I think they are grasping at straws, esp. if they are touting the usual culprit - CO2.

    Keep in mind that we don't really understand how atmospheric chemistry works - yes yes we know some things - but we don't know ALL. There are so many variables which even with the super computers we have today are simply impossible to model correctly - at best we are guessing.

    It's all a nice distraction though to REAL pollutants which we CAN do something about: GMO, pharma chems in our water, loss of arable land, nuclear waste, poisoning of our food supplies - heck the list is endless. We don't need a co2 bogeyman. But then I am of the opinion that the environmental movement was hijacked a long time ago, as it was truly showing itself as something which united left/right and opposites all over - no one wants to live in a cesspool - hence global warming and the distraction from what is important.

    disinfo babe!

    Buffy

    ReplyDelete
  9. Buffy, well said, I totally agree.

    http://green-agenda.com/

    Disinfo baby-
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_t8uMcVjZ0

    ReplyDelete
  10. The ozone hole in the northern hemisphere and the unusually cold winter maybe two effects of a entirely separate cause.

    Buffy makes a good point regarding the cfc's needed to make an ozone hole.

    Another question is if it is the cfc's doing it, why has the southern hemisphere (which is mostly ocean) had the ozone hole trouble for so many years when 99% of industrialisation (and cfc use) is in the northern hemisphere?

    It might be just a natural process, but my personal experience with sunburn over the years says otherwise to me (I have lived in southern australia most of my life)

    Nobby makes good sense about the state of 'science'. But that being so, why is there such massive co-ordinated effort to push the current propaganda on these ozone holes if not to cover up something?

    It suits the global warming paradigm, of course, but maybe there is a more specific reason because they seem totally committed to laying the blame on one specific cause.

    What makes more sense to me is that the holes are caused by interventions in upper atmosphere through experimentations (There are lots of scientific stations in Antartica). HAARP being the first thing that comes to mind. The rest being gravy.

    ReplyDelete
  11. James: did you catch the interview with Rosalind Peterson?

    "What makes more sense to me is that the holes are caused by interventions in upper atmosphere through experimentations (There are lots of scientific stations in Antartica). HAARP being the first thing that comes to mind. The rest being gravy."

    She mentions this very fact in relation to the melting of Arctic Ice.
    I found the interview very good.
    I can't access the second hour because I am not a REd Ice subscriber, but, I wish I could!

    ReplyDelete
  12. James: did you catch the interview with Rosalind Peterson?

    No i haven't, Pen. I'll endeavour to do so later today

    ReplyDelete
  13. i listened to Rosalind. Sh e spoke very well and the whole thing she is talking about is just bizarre.
    What kind of moron messes with the weather and thinks they can control the outcomes?

    I guess it's the same sort of moron that promotes nuclear power stations that generate waste that is so highly toxic for thousands of years.

    Actually when you stand back and look at all the toxic environmental programs we are being afflicted with, you have to conclude it is a deliberate attempt to sabotage our environment and kill lots of people.

    ReplyDelete
  14. James!

    "What kind of moron messes with the weather and thinks they can control the outcomes?"

    Very good question?
    crazy morons? Psycho morons?
    Morons out of touch with reality?

    ReplyDelete

TROLLS & SPAM WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT HESITATION
KEEP IT RELEVANT. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS