HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---------------------------
UNITE! Info #166en: 3/8 The "ozone hole" terror hoax
[Posted: 20.03.02]
[Continued from part 2/8]
06. A BRIEF LOOK AT SOME RECENT SWEDISH OZONE LEVEL
DATA, AND AT SOME OLDER ONES TOO - LAYER NOW
THICKER THAN IN MANY YEARS BEFORE
Over Sweden, as over other countries rather far away from the
equator, ozone levels vary quite considerably, from day to
day even, and in particular with the seasons. And there are
some - smaller but important - periodic year-to-year varia-
tions too. More on this under points 08 and 11 below.
"Normally, the ozone layer at our latitudes is at its thick-
est in the spring...Typical levels for March and April over
Sweden are between 350 and 450 DU", SMHI, the meteorological
instiute here, says at its homepage (in Swedish, which I'm
translating here). The thickness of the ozone layer is mea-
sured in Dobson Units (DU - for a definition, see under point
08 below). I assume that in other seasons of the year, ozone
levels over this country often fall to under 300 DU, and that
an annual mean for Sweden may be something like 330 DU.
Thus, there are seasonal variations of sometimes over 30 per-
cent. These SMHI informations tally with those in Maduro's
and Schauerhammer's 1992 book:
"...in northern latitudes the thickness of the ozone
layer is almost 500 dobson units in March (spring),
dropping down to less than 300 dobson units by Octo-
ber (fall) - a depletion of 40 percent on the average
each year. In contrast, in the tropics (close to the
equator), the thickness of the ozone layer is 220 to
250 dobson units and shows little change on a seaso-
nal basis."
Parson's 1997 "FAQ" shows ozone levels and their seasonal va-
riations over St. Petersburg (at 60 degrees North, approxima-
tely the same as mid-Sweden) in a simliar way:
Location Column thickness, Dobson Units
Jan Apr Jul Oct
St. Petersburg, Russia (60º N) 360 425 345 300
Now some recent or relatively recent data reported by the
SMHI are quite interesting - concerning the question of
whether there in the last few decades may have have been some
more important trend of global ozone depletion (one conside-
rably larger, say, than 3 percent per decade) or not:
"Generally speaking" (the SMHI said recently at its
homepage) "the ozone layer over the northern hemi-
sphere has been much thicker, during the years 2000
and 2001, than in many years before."
"In the latest few weeks" (up until 15.03.2002) "the
ozone layer over Sweden has been relatively thick. On
2 March, a level of 556.7 DU was measured over Norr-
köping" (which is at 58 degrees North) "and a some-
what lower one over Vindeln" (at 64 degrees N).
"Solar activity is likely to remain high this year
too but is expected to decrease the next year."
(Meaning that ozone production, which is caused by
the sun's UV radiation, will still be large too for
a while, over the globe as a whole, and later de-
crease. See also under point 11 below.)
"The QBO" (a quasi-biennial oscillation of the winds
blowing from the tropical regions, which have the
highest ozone production, to higher latitudes; the
ozone transport due to these winds is at its biggest
in periods with some 26 months in between) "will
change its phase rather soon, and this means that
ozone levels will decrease in the coming winter and
spring." (More on the QBO too under point 11 below.)
And under "Old News", the SMHI says, in a report from March
2001:
"OZONE ALL-TIME HIGH
In Norrköping, on 23 February 2001 a new absolute
maximum record for measurements since 1988 was noted,
at 574 DU. The old all-time high was from 9 April
1988 and was 521 DU. A considerable increase!
...
In Uppsala" (at 60 degrees N, thus quite similar to
Norrköping) "the level was measured at 536 DU in
April 1961, which was an all-time high for the mea-
surements at that station, between 1951 and 1966. At
Vindeln, the all-time high since 1991 is 535 DU.
Probably there too, the level was higher on 23 Febru-
ary this year" (2001).
So, not only was the ozone layer over the northern hemisphere
"much thicker", in 2000-2001, than in "many years before".
(How many years, the SMHI didn't say.) There even was an all-
time high (574 DU), on one day in 2001, not only considerably
above the previous one measured by the same station, at Norr-
köping, in 1988, its starting year (521 DU), but also consi-
derably above the all-time high (536 DU) reported way back in
1961 by the Uppsala station, which operated between 1951 and
1966. And that quite recent level too, from 2 March 2002, of
557 DU, likewise was considerably above both of these former
all-time highs, from 1988 respectively 1961.
Were these things perhaps reported in the Swedish news media,
do you think? "OZONE LAYER OVER SWEDEN THICKER AND FATTER
THAN EVER", for instance, or even some small notices? Those
readers who'd guess "no" would be right - not unsurprisingly.
Now how strongly do these data speak against a possibility of
some rather small longer-term global ozone depletion starting
in, say, the late 1970s? Not all that strongly, of course,
because of those quite large day-to-day and seasonal varia-
tions which there have always been. Under "Old News" too,
SMHI says, now in a report from early 2000:
"In December," (1999) "the ozone layer over northern
Europe was thicker than normal for the season. But on
30 November," (1999) "an all-time low for the ozone
level was noted, 193.8 DU" (at what Swedish station
isn't specified). "This was a record minumum for all
Swedish measurements."
So, while the ozone layer here in late 1999 was "thicker than
normal", there nevertheless in one day then was a reading as
low as 194 DU, even an all-time low for Sweden.
What these data as a whole at least do speak strongly against
is the existence of some larger long-term global ozone deple-
tion trend (6% per decade, say) in the last 2-3 decades.
True enough, the SMHI also says (in a more complete quote
than one I brought above):
"Normally, the ozone layer at our latitudes is at its
thickest in the spring. It is only in connection with
considerable thinning-outs in the last few decades
that this pattern has been broken. Typical levels for
March and April over Sweden are between 350 and 450
DU."
But what the SMHI means here by "considerable thinning-outs
in the last few decades" it doesn't say, nor are any data
shown to support this - obviously - BIG FAT LIE, brought for
the "usual" arch-reactionary propaganda resaons. In what man-
ner a "pattern" of maximum ozone layer thickness here in the
spring (supposedly) has been "broken" in later years isn't
elaborated on in any way either. Clearly, the maximum still
*is* in the spring. If "max-max time" perhaps has moved a
couple of week forwards or backwards, this would hardly be of
much importance as to the question of long-term level trends.
07. WAS THERE A GLOBAL OZONE DEPLETION TREND
IN (OR AROUND) THE 1980S? AND IF SO, WERE
ITS CAUSES MANMADE OR NATURAL?
The answers to those questions of course are important for
the answer to that most vital (scientific) one in this con-
text:
Would a revoking of those bans against CFCs and a number of
similar (likewise very important) substances, which were de-
cided on 10-15 years ago and which have gradually been acted
on, internationally, more and more since then, pose a danger
to the ozone layer, or would it not?
In this respect, the question of what trend, if any, there
may have been in the 1990s could have a slightly different
significance. If the "CFC (etc) ozone depletion" hoax were a
correct theory and the use of CFCs etc *had* caused a certain
depletion in the 1980s, then on account of the later gradual-
ly diminishing use of them, and depending on various "laten-
cy factors", perhaps a somewhat smaller such depletion would
be expected in the 1990s.
But, according to the abovementioned 1998 WMO "Ozone Report
No. 44", i.e. according to one of the main "CFC ozone deple-
tion" propagandists itself, those purported "latency factors"
precisely were "expected to" have "their greatest effects" in
that decade, the 1990s, so that "ozone depletion" "caused by
CFCs" "was expected to" be no smaller at all in the 1990s
than in the 1980s.
Anyway, I shall treat the question of the 1990s separately
- facts versus the "CFC ozone depletion" hoax - under point
14 below, after the one of the 1980s.
In order to answer those questions, in the header above, con-
cerning (approximately) the 1980s, I shall first - finally,
and rather briefly - go into, what is the ozone layer and how
more precisely does it function, basing myself on the various
bits of information on this given by Maduro and Schauenhammer
(1992) and Parson (1997) - see intro note in part 1/8. This
comes under 08. Points 11 to 13 below also will be about
this: What can be concluded now concerning global ozone le-
vels in the 1980s?
08. THE OZONE LAYER AND HOW IT'S CONTINUOSLY
BEING REFILLED AND DEPLETED
The atmosphere of course mainly consists of nitrogen, N2
(some 79%) and oxygen, O2 (some 21%). Other gases exist in
trace amounts, above all water vapour and for instance carbon
dioxide CO2 (some 380 ppmv - parts per million volume parts).
Ozone (O3) there is mainly in the stratosphere, 15-50 km
above the ground. Parson says on this:
"How is ozone distributed in the stratosphere?
In absolute terms: about 10^12 molecules/cm^3 at 15
km, rising to nearly 10^13 at 25 km, then falling to
10^11 at 45 km.
In relative terms: ~0.5 parts per million by volume
(ppmv) at 15 km, rising to ~8 ppmv at ~35 km, falling
to ~3 ppmv at 45 km.
Even in the thickest part of the layer, ozone is a
trace gas. In all, there are about 3 billion metric
tons, or 3x10^15 grams, of ozone in the earth's atmo-
sphere; about 90% of this is in the stratosphere."
And some 10% of the ozone is in the troposphere, 0-15 km up.
In the stratosphere, ozone is continually being created, by
ultraviolet radiation of wavelengths less than some 240 nano-
meters (nm). Such radiation, which is in the UV-C region (see
below), breaks up O2 molecules into O atoms, which then com-
bine with other O2 molecules to form ozone, O3. The main re-
gion of ozone formation is at heights above 30 km.
Ozone continually is being destroyed too, above all by three
natural processes (and also by a fourth, which only occurs
intermittently and has to do with volcano eruptions):
Firstly, in the stratosphere, by UV radiation of the same
wavelenghts, less than 240 nm, breaking up O2 molecules and
then some resulting O atoms not combining with O2 but with
O3, destroying that ozone and creating two O2 molecules.
Secondly, in the stratosphere too, by UV radiation of some-
what larger wavelengths, between 240 and 320 nm (which is in
part in the UV-C region, in part in the UV-B one; see below),
which hits an O3 molecule, breaking it up into O2 + O. A few
of the O atoms resulting from this will combine with another
O3 molecule to create two O2 ones.
Most of the O atoms produced in this way of course will com-
bine with O2 instead, of which there is much more, and re-
create O3. The net result of this is that UV light of the
wavelengths 240 to 320 nm gets converted into heat, while
ozone is preserved; it has absorbed the UV radiation without
itself being consumed. This part of the processes in the
stratosphere heats it up, in contrast to the otherwise gene-
ral falling of the temperature in the atmosphere with increa-
sing height. A warmer inversion layer in the stratosphere im-
impedes transport of molecules up there from the troposphere.
Those two firstmentioned processes of ozone destruction,
which have that in common that O3 and O "recombine" to form
two O2 molecules, are both rather slow. If this recombination
were the only process for ozone loss, Parson says, the ozone
layer would be about twice as thick as it is.
But there is a third main natural process destroying ozone
too (not mentioned by Parson - rather strange for such a
"FAQ" as his not to go into at all what, apparently, it is
that does contribute so importantly to the ozone layer's
being kept down to its actual thickness). G.M.B. Dobson, the
pioneer in ozone layer research, wrote on this in 1968, as
quoted by Maduro and Schauerhammer (p. 326):
"In the 'photochemical' region of the upper atmo-
sphere" (meaning, certain parts of the stratosphere)
"these processes of formation and decomposition go on
at the same time and there will finally be an equi-
librium between the amount of ozone being formed and
the amount being destroyed.
Any ozone which may be carried down to the ground is
immediately destroyed by contact with smoke and with
vegetation. In the photochemical region there may be
as much as one part of ozone by volume to every
100,000 parts of air." (That is, 10 ppmv, the condi-
tions at a height of 30-35 km, as confirmed by Par-
son - ~8 ppmv - and also by Maduro and Schauerhammer
in an introductionary diagram, which however, in the
1992 paperback edition, obviously has an error here,
saying '10 parts per trillion' instead of 10 parts
per million.)
"The ozone in the photochemical region will be slowly
mixed with all the rest of the atmosphere and if
there was no destruction of ozone near the ground,
the whole atmosphere would contain something like
this proportion of ozone, an amount that would be
extremely unpleasant to breathe. While, therefore,
the ozone is useful in cutting off injurious ultra-
violet sunlight, it is fortunate that it is so rapid-
ly destroyed at the ground!
Because the ozone is destroyed at the ground there is
a gradual drift of ozone from the photochemical re-
gion downwards through the whole of the lower atmo-
sphere. Any ozone which comes below a height of about
20 km will be protected from the Sun's ultraviolet
light by the ozone above it and will have a life of
several months, provided that it does not come near
the ground.
On a still night, when there is little turbulence in
the lower air, the downward transport of ozone is
greatly reduced and then all the air for many meters
above the ground may be almost free from ozone. In
smoky air it is generally impossible to detect any
ozone. (The ozone which is said to be formed by sun-
light on the 'smog' of Los Angeles is a peculiar case
and not yet thoroughly understood.)"
So far on the continuous natural formation and natural de-
struction of ozone.
A fourth natural cause of ozone destruction is volcano erup-
tions, unusually strong such. This, in the main, not by their
emitting chlorine into the stratosphere (as Maduro and Schau-
erhammer wrongly thought, in 1992); hardly any volcano erup-
tion in recent decades has been strong enough to eject much
of chlorine (compounds) up to so high altitudes, and the
amounts of such which do reach the stratoshpere from volcano
eruptions decline rather quickly, get "washed out" of it, as
(no doubt correctly) pointed out by Parson and also by Bidi-
notto.
The main factor in ozone destruction by strong volcano erup-
tions is the aerosols (mostly sulfates) which such eruptions
can eject, in quantities having considerable effects, into
the stratoshpere. Two volcano eruptions in recent decades had
temporary and measurable effects on global ozone levels: The
El Cichón one, in Mexico in 1982; its effects lasted until
1986 (says Bidinotto), and the Mount Pinatubo one, in the
Philippines in 1991, the largest since 1912, which ejected
some three times as much aerosols into the stratosphere as
that of El Cichón and made Northen Hemisphere ozone levels
decrease markedly in 1992-1993 (according to WMO and others).
On the question of whether ozone is also, from the late 1970s
on, say, to some important extent being destroyed by the re-
lease of CFCs etc - purportedly, then, by chlorine in the
stratosphere from such CFC (etc) molecules as have reached
that part of the atmosphere and have decomposed, likewise due
to the ultraviolet radiation there - or not, see points 16 to
17 below.
The measure for thickness of the ozone layer - more precise-
ly, for the total amount of ozone occupying a column over-
head, thus comprising the smaller amount in the troposphere
over a given location too, not only that bigger amount which
is in the stratosphere - a Dobson Unit (DU), is defined thus
(in Parson's 1997 "FAQ"):
"If the ozone layer over the US were compressed to 0
degrees Celsius and 1 atmosphere pressure, it would
be about 3 mm thick. So, 0.01 mm thickness at 0 C and
1 at is defined to be 1 DU; this makes the average
thickness of the ozone layer over the US come out to
be about 300 DU. In absolute terms, 1 DU is about
2.7 x 10^16 molecules/cm^2."
[Continued in part 4/8]
---------------------------
ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9617B
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
