Topic: Whatever Happened to the Ozone Hole?

[sam]

Oh yes I'd forgotten about congestion charges... oh what - isn't that about cars on the road and pollution... 

And yes I agree its kind of like that, but the thing is - if you don't understand the basics of the science then when you get into the tiny details its very hard to explain never mind appreciate it. I'd suggest that you could appreciate a beautiful image produced from science in the same way as music but the fundamental processes that went into producing the image / what's going on in it, require a much higher level of understanding. You can be awed and enjoy what scientists tell you, but would you walk up the worlds best Cellist and tell them how to play? Probably not eh. You can say you didn't like how they played but you can't tell them how todo it.    I'm one for public engagement, don't get me wrong some of my most fun comes out about talking about my science to people, but then again am I really going to rant on to them how the result is due to their being a non-Gaussian noise statistics in my image which results in a the Ricean Distribution to be modified... no - I'm going to tell them that the image has issues with it, show them a picture and move on.

End of I the day the real problem we have is a scientific illiterate society. Given we rely on high tech industry - that really really worries me.

[Sandra]

Oh yes I'd forgotten about congestion charges... oh what - isn't that about cars on the road and pollution...  

Theres very little pollution caused by cars these days Sam.
A few years back there was something about the air now coming out of cars exhausts was cleaner than the air going into the engines in California.
Its purely a carbon tax. Dont forget also that there are people like Al Gore who are making millions if not billions from companies through trading in carbon credits. Its in his interest, and seemingly lots of others, to promote the idea of man made global warming to make lots of money.

The main thing that worries me is that while there is no disputing that the earths climate has, does and will continue to change, is that it has done so for billions of years whether man has been around or not. Some scientists say the change has been speeded up by mankind, other scientists claim the opposite. Ice core samples, which seem to me to be the most reliable method for determining the concentration of atmospheric gasses and other things over many centuries, show that greenhouse gasses rise and fall but often the rise and fall in temperature precedes the changes in the concentration of these gasses. Also over the last few decades that we have experienced this so called man made global warming, mars has show the same rates of warming. I havent heard any scientists dispute that mars has been changing at the same rate so why do they disagree about it here on earth ?

[Rik]

End of I the day the real problem we have is a scientific illiterate society. Given we rely on high tech industry - that really really worries me.

I'm sorry to say that I find that remark slightly arrogant, Sam. We have long since, imo, passed that point where it's possible for any one person to understand all fields of human knowledge, everywhere there are specialists.

At the most mundane level, for example, when I was your age, you could service a car with a feeler gauge, a set of spanners and a couple of screwdrivers. That's no longer possible, and it's next to impossible for people to do their own servicing, due to the increasing use of computers within the vehicle. A software engineer might manage, but how good would he be with the spanners?

Music is one of mankind's greatest achievements, but the vast majority of people couldn't sit down and write a symphony, but they can sit down and enjoy one. Some people are great cooks, some produce charcoal. Some people have a way with words and can write, some can't. The list is endless. My nephew is well known in his field, and is currently working in Miami before moving on to Japan. Despite the fact I don't understand his subject in any great depth, he still runs his papers and presentations past me, to draw on my own small skills.

Because we are not trained scientists does not mean we are ignorant or uneducated. It means we haven't chosen a particular speciality. Some of the best scientists in their field worked on Thalidomide, but look how badly wrong they got that. Science isn't always right because scientists are human. To set them on a pillar is to really put the world at risk.

[sam]

I havent heard any scientists dispute that mars has been changing at the same rate so why do they disagree about it here on earth ?

I've not heard any arguing that it is changing the same way. Read: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11642-climate-myths-mars-and-pluto-are-warming-too.html / http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

I'm sorry to say that I find that remark slightly arrogant, Sam. We have long since, imo, passed that point where it's possible for any one person to understand all fields of human knowledge, everywhere there are specialists.

I don't think I've ever been called arrogant before - and you know what I take exception to that. Did I not basically say the same thing you are saying there? I agree that we can't all be specialists, so occasionally you have to frigging listen to them!

Because we are not trained scientists does not mean we are ignorant or uneducated.

My point was more that a large portion of our society can't even do simple maths, nevermind recall any scientific knowledge past the age of 14.

Science isn't always right because scientists are human.

That's exactly the point - and that's the scientific process, something most people don't understand. I make measurements, make an hypothesis and try and prove it / disprove it by other measurements and refine it. Then we develop more sophisticated theories, but theories are very much fact.  It takes time to come to the complete truth and I'm sure we are far from it in many fields... but we are slowly iterating to a solution. Its something the anti-climate change people don't understand - because I produce a null result does not mean everything changes.

and finally:

Despite the fact I don't understand his subject in any great depth, he still runs his papers and presentations past me, to draw on my own small skills.

I bet you find most scientists do that - I still talk at length with my parents about my work - their understanding of what I did probably ended well before I went to University - but I still enjoy getting my thoughts in order and the fun of explaining what I do to them. I've given around 40 public talks across the UK about my work and very much enjoy the fun of talking about what I do - I like to think I'm pretty good at it - ask Clive I'm sure he can give a breakdown. :-D

[Clive]

Yup - I can vouch for that.  Sam has given several talks to my local society and they have always been very well received.  Incidentally you have a good write up in the latest edition of the  FAS Newsletter Sam.   

[Rik]

I don't think I've ever been called arrogant before - and you know what I take exception to that.

I'm sorry that you feel that way, Sam, but then I take exception to being dumped into such a broad category as a "scientific illiterate society".

[Sandra]

I've not heard any arguing that it is changing the same way.

You just have to read more papers and watch and listen to more news then Sam as its been reported many times.

Have a look at what this guy says, 3rd reply down on this page :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3354073/Man-is-to-blame-for-Antarctic-temperature-rise.html

We must fight this madness with proven theories, I have just posted this to the space interest group of Mensa Global warming on Mars has increased the temperature by 0.65°C between 1975 & 2000, melting the ice caps. Jupiter is developing a second giant red spot, an enormous hurricane-like storm, thought to be the result of a sudden warming on the planet. Some parts of Jupiter are now as much as 6°C warmer than just a few years ago. Neptune's moon, Triton, studied in 1989 after the unmanned Voyager probe flew past warmed up by 5% by 1998. Parts of its frozen nitrogen surface have begun melting and turning to gas, making Triton's atmosphere denser. Even Pluto has warmed in recent years, from -233°C to -230°C (3°C warmer). Seasons and distance from the Sun have been taken into account but no theories as to how the warming process occurs for each planet have been proven until now. The theory that says that the length of the Solar Cycle determines the temperatures on Earth has been proven by two facts (1) The changes in the brightness of Neptune correlate with the changes i n the Earths Global temperature. (2) The theory predicted the sharp drop in Global temperatures from 2007. The increase in temperature due to CO² is logarithmical not linear as in some computer models. linear predictions produce the runaway temperature increases & therefore the Global Warming scare, logarithmical means that CO² becomes increasingly negligible in increasing Global temperatures, CO² has increased from 280ppm to 380ppm due to both man & the 800 year CO² lag after the medieval warm period, adding only 0.125º Kelvin to the 4º Kelvin that CO² gives to the green house effect, with the addition of water vapour on temperatures of 13% this means that CO² has only increased the temperature by 0.15º Kelvin over a 200 year period. This suggests that man-made CO² is almost an irrelevance. This is proved by two facts (1) Ice cores show that when the oceans warm up CO² is gradually released & peaks 800 years after Global Warming has peaked but does not lead to a further warming or a runaway warming effect. (2) Tropospheric temperatures increasing at a faster rate than surface temperatures are undetectable. I sent a letter to Astronomer Sir Patrick Moore asking about the latest findings on Solar System warming and asking him to confirm his opinion that man-made Global Warming is “Bunkum”. There seems to be nothing on television about the detailed science of Global Warming, even the BBC limited its debate about Climate Change after 1997 in the documentary called ‘The Climate Wars’ presented by Iain Stewart, who in an exchange of emails would not debate about anything exept the shape of the Hockey Stick, this is the same dumbed down debate as with the Royal Society which sent a letter to the Guardian criticising Oil Companies financing science such as boorhole temperature data which damages the Hockey Stick. I do not know about you but to me it has become far to politicized. A politician winning the Nobel Peace prize for his contribution to Climate Science and an International Quango deciding what the Scientific consensus is when it really means Political concensus. The head of NASA Michael Griffin said ‘this is an issue which has become far more political than technical’. I wish that Sir Patrick could be brave enough to do an episode on this with the Astronomers involved with Neptunes brightness and the Solar Cycle length.

Seems hes a member of a mensa specialist group discussing global warming so he may know what hes talking about and it doesnt sound like hes being paid by any government like the people in the IPCC are.

[Sandra]

He has posted this on another site in march this year, sorry its a bit long as he gives more detail :

Global Warming on Mars and Climate Change from Space
Mars Global Surveyor studied the surface of Mars from 1999 to 2006, four Martian years, this coincided with a five and a half year rise in solar activity reaching the Solar Cycle peak in 2002. During a Solar Cycle maximum the Sun irradiates 0.1 percent more energy than at a Solar Cycle minimum, for Mars this means an increase in Global temperature of 0.21 Kelvin in three Martian years. At Perihelion Mars receives 44 percent (6.8 percent for Earth) more radiation than at Aphelion as the orbit of Mars is seven times more eccentric than Earths, a 21 percent eccentricity. Mercury is the only planet to have a more eccentric orbit than Mars. Perihelion occurs during the Southern Summer and ever since the 1830s it has been noted that during warming periods a dark band appears around the periphery of the shrinking polar cap, and with dust storms being more common during this period, this has decreased the Martian Albedo from 0.16 to 0.15 and increased the Martian Global temperature by 0.65 Kelvin. This has also caused more frozen CO2 to melt and turn into gas than usual for three Southern Summers in a row. With 95 percent of the Martian atmosphere made up of CO2 (0.038 percent on Earth) and only 0.03 percent Water vapour (1 percent on Earth). CO2 induced Global Warming is almost an irrelevance for Mars as it is for the Earth, as the CO2 has already absorbed most of the radiation available for absorption. The Warming on Mars raises the average surface temperature by 3 Kelvin to 211 Kelvin from 208 Kelvin. Both Planets can cool much faster than they can warm up, so Mars with almost a 100 percent transparent dry CO2 Atmosphere and without the problems with feedback (other than dust storms) from Water Vapour, Clouds, Oceans or an Atmospheric Mass 2,600 times that of CO2. Then Mars is the perfect example to use to test the theory of CO2 warming on Earth. Mars receives 81.5 percent less Solar Radiation than the Earth. The surface has a 7 millibar CO2 atmosphere (0.39 millibar CO2 atmosphere on Earth). So the equivalent 7 millibar CO2 Atmosphere on Earth would produce a temperature of 3.68 Kelvin. If you deduct the 0.24 Kelvin increase for a doubling of CO2, four times you get 2.72 Kelvin for a 0.4375 millibar Atmosphere. This makes 2.7 Kelvin for a 0.39 millibar Atmosphere. The 2.7 Kelvin includes, 1.2 Kelvin for CO2 absorption only, plus half of the 1.5 Kelvin that CO2 absorption shares with Water vapour. Confirming that the CO2 induced Warming on Earth is about 2 Kelvin, and also four times weaker than on Mars. Confirming the irrelevance of its ability to increase Global temperature much more, even with significant increases in Carbon Dioxide.
Man made CO2 is natural CO2 which has been fossilised for millions of years and does not have the Carbon-14 Isotope. Levels of this Isotope show that 4 percent or 15ppm of the increase in CO2 in the last 200 years is due to Man & 85ppm due to Nature, this is also confirmed by the ratio of Carbon-12 to Carbon-13 in the Atmosphere. All evidence in Ice core data and direct measurements point to changes in the temperature causing the changes in CO2 levels as on Mars, this increase being due to the 0.76 Kelvin increase in Global Atmospheric temperature over the last 200 year bounce back from the Little Ice Age. But ice core data shows that this is mainly due to the 800 year lag in the changes in deep ocean CO2 levels after the Medieval Warm Period, the ocean contains 93.5 percent of the Earths CO2. The increase has added only 0.1 Kelvin to the 2 Kelvin that CO2 gives to the Warming of the Earths Surface Temperature. This means that man-made CO2 has only increased the Global temperature by 0.015 Kelvin. The Solar Cycle Amplitude and more importantly the Solar Cycle Length and the Forbush Effect being responsible for the further 0.66 Kelvin increase.
The largest effect on Climate Change is the Length of the Solar Cycle, short Solar Cycles cause a warming and long Solar Cycles cause a cooling. Between 1913 and 1996, only one of eight Solar Cycles was longer than the mean Solar Cycle length of 11.04 years. The last of these was the shortest Solar Cycle for more than 200 years. Short Solar Cycles cause a decrease in cosmic rays when Solar activity is high, decreasing cloud cover and leading to the enhancement of Global Warming on the Earth, a 1 percent decrease in cosmic rays causes a 0.13 Kelvin increase in Global temperature. This is called the Forbush effect and is caused by coronal mass ejections which are ten times more common during Solar maximum and have a ten day period that can be predicted four days before the event. This is carried by the solar wind to the Earth on the Suns magnetic field lines.
A study of Luna Earthshine shows that the Albedo of the Earth decreased from 0.32 in 1985 to 0.29 in 1997 showing a 6.5 percent decrease in cloud cover. The Earths Albedo has since increased to 0.31 showing that 69 percent of solar energy is absorbed, 50 percent by the Surface, 19 percent by the Atmosphere (13.3 percent by Water Vapour, 1.6 percent by Carbon Dioxide and 4.1 percent by Dust, Ozone, Nitrous-Oxide, Methane and other gases). In the last hundred years the Earths Albedo has been as high as 0.44 and as low as 0.29 with an average of 0.36. The Albedo effects the North more than the South because the land snow zone for the south is mainly in the sea.
Weather from the Sun was first postulated two hundred years ago when William Herschel tried to prove the price of grain was inversely correlated with the sunspot number, which was subsequently proven, the sunspot number being low during the Dalton Minimum (1790-1820) at the end of the Little Ice Age. The sunspot number was close to zero during the earlier Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) during the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, this is also confirmed by tree rings formed at sunspot minimum which have a higher amount of carbon-14 due to the Forbush Effect.
The enhancing effects of the Albedo changes on the Earth and Mars would more than explain Global Warming on both Planets and would explain why the cause of Global Warming on other Planets is not that definite other than the finding that the changes in the brightness of Neptune correlate with the changes in the Earths Global temperature.
When the Earths temperature increased, the Atmospheric Water Vapour content increased, but if this increase had been due to CO2 then the Tropospheric temperature would have increased at twice the rate of the Surface temperature increase. This did not happen. Over half of all Solar radiation is absorbed by the Earths Oceans which are almost 300 times the mass of the Earths Atmosphere. This helps to regulate the effects of the changes in the Earths climate which then responds to these changes after a five year lag. Global Warming peaked in 1998 and ended with the last Solar Cycle peak, and after a five year lag in the Climate. Global Warming finally ended in 2007. As did the increase in Atmospheric Methane. So it seems quite clear that Climate Change is ruled by the Sun.
There are also long-term future causes of Climate Change in Astronomy. The inclination of Mars varies between 35 degrees and 14 degrees over a period of 50,000 years while that of the Earth only varies between 22.1 degrees and 24.1 degrees over a period of 41,000 years, both planets are at the half way point, Mars at 25.19 degrees and the Earth at 23.44 degrees. This cycle and other changes in planetary axis and orbit produce Ice ages every 100,000 years, in periods when more ice is exposed to the Sun heightening the Albedo, which causes the cooling. The Galactic Orbit of the Solar System every 240 million years produces Ice Age Epochs every 120 million years which are caused by the Sun passing through the Galactic spiral arms increasing the level of cosmic rays and therefore cloudiness, we are at present in an ice age epoch caused by our presence in the Orion armlet.
The information above comes from many sources such as The Guinness Book of Astronomy Facts and Feats by Sir Patrick Moore, Encyclopaedia Britannica but mainly from Scientific papers found on Google Scholar.

[sam]

I'm sorry that you feel that way, Sam, but then I take exception to being dumped into such a broad category as a "scientific illiterate society".

Rik - I wasn't targeting you or anyone personally. I was merely making an observation of the UK at large. I strongly feel that scientific understanding in the UK is pretty poor.

[sam]

You just have to read more papers and watch and listen to more news then Sam as its been reported many times.

Have a look at what this guy says, 3rd reply down on this page :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3354073/Man-is-to-blame-for-Antarctic-temperature-rise.html

Sorry Sandra, but I can't even read that properly (well either of them), after a few sentences it was glaringly full of mistakes (the longer one):

Mars' Eccentricity:   0.093315
Earth's Eccentricity: 0.016710219

So that's a 5.5 factor different. Not 7. Also this changes with time, over millions of year but still it changes.  Then the quote is that is it is an eccentricity of 21 percent eccentricity. So this then means that one of the two objects, I'm unsure which one is actually refered to has an eccentricity of 0.21 assuming we are dealing with elliptical orbits (the scale goes from 0 to 1, with 0 being a circle and 1 a parabola).  We can't start from such a flawed start and then continue. 

The information above comes from many sources such as The Guinness Book of Astronomy Facts and Feats by Sir Patrick Moore, Encyclopaedia Britannica but mainly from Scientific papers found on Google Scholar.

Not to be overly pick but, that's really a great way to do referencing! That's got to be equivalent to what would be expected of 12 year olds.

Did you read the new scientist article I posted? I think that really does set the playing field on why this argument is crap. If you want to here from a very well respected astronomy blog try: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/

[Sandra]

I didnt realise youd posted 2 links Sam, I only read the first one initially and that didnt sound too convincing to me. I will try and find time to read the articles from the second link later.

I always thought that the Encyclopaedia Britannica was a good reference tool and verified published scientific papers arent usually dismissed offhand. Patrick Moore has been around for a long time and as far as I know is a respected and knowledgeable astronomer.

Reading parts of that blog it appears not everyone is convinced that global warming is man made with a few references to the little ice age of the middle ages proving that climate change has always gone on pre and post the industrial revolution.

[sam]

I'm not arguing that the climate doesn't change in cycles and I don't think most scientists in support of man-made climate change would argue against that. Its just that man has enhanced this and really quite messed up the planet.

I always thought that the Encyclopaedia Britannica was a good reference tool

Well its not bad, but there is still flaws, and its out-of-date.

and verified published scientific papers arent usually dismissed offhand.

But he didn't actually give a list of papers or quote where the values come from. If you are going to be robust you have todo something like "Mass of Earth = 1 Earth Mass (Sam et al. 2010)" which no-one ever does in these off-hand remarks. You can't just go an trust statements like "Scientific papers". Its just daft.

Patrick Moore has been around for a long time and as far as I know is a respected and knowledgeable astronomer.

He's a very knowledgeable amateur astronomer indeed, but he's not a physicist, and has no professional training (to which he has admited many times). Would you trust an amateur architect to build your house? Anyway, I wasn't specially arguing against the references used (well "paper" that's b******t) its just they seem to have just been added at the end for effect, to make it look like some research was done. If you use references you quote them in the text.

What about the eccentricities, eh? It all falls down from there anyway.




Simon fixed quote.

[Sandra]

Being an amateur doesnt mean that you cant be as good as if not better than a professional Sam.
It may take an amateur longer to do something due to a lack of specialist equipment or tools but they often are more conscientious and diligent as they love their work.
A friend of mine was a lecturer in midwifery at a couple of universities for a long time and she always said that if she was having a baby shed rather be looked after by a 3rd year student nearing the end of her course than a midwife whod been qualified for 10 years, as theyd be more up to date on the latest procedures and be extra careful of anything they did.
I expect its a bit like when I did my first solo, it was probably my best ever landing as I did everything by the book and was extremely cautious. After youve done 50 or more it becomes second nature and more like driving the car.

[sam]

btw I'm an amateur astronomer too. There is a big difference between astronomy and astrophysics.

[Simon]

A friend of mine was a lecturer in midwifery at a couple of universities for a long time and she always said that if she was having a baby shed rather be looked after by a 3rd year student nearing the end of her course than a midwife whod been qualified for 10 years, as theyd be more up to date on the latest procedures and be extra careful of anything they did.
I expect its a bit like when I did my first solo, it was probably my best ever landing as I did everything by the book and was extremely cautious. After youve done 50 or more it becomes second nature and more like driving the car.

I have to disagree there, Sandra.  If I was going to have a big operation, say, open heart surgery, I'd much rather have someone with 10 or 20 years experience doing the job, than some new kid on the block who's working from a book.  Yes, 'the book' is there for guidance and reference, but with experience, you learn the invaluable 'tricks of the trade', which you can't possibly learn from books.

Same goes for driving.  OK, so, technically, I was good enough to pass my test first time, back in 1981, thanks to a good tutor, but I am a far better driver now than I was then, due to having 25 years of experience on the road, being able to anticipate dangers, eg, what other motorists might be about to do, and having a much greater 'feel' and understanding of the vehicle I am driving.

You can learn a subject through books, but experience brings expertise, in my opinion.