Ozone Depletion NOT MAN caused!

[westwall]

At least that is what this group of scientists say. Evidently there is far more evidence to support the theory that Cosmic Rays are the actual culprit. Don't tell Chris


http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/Lu-2009PRL.pdf

 

[Meister]

I'm waiting for roxie to come on and say they aren't peer reviewed scientists.

 

[IanC]

Oh my! not another manmade catastrophy that is found to be heavily influenced by previously unknown natural causes!

pretty soon I am going to stop believing that mankind will cease to exist in <insert favourite number> years.

 

[DiveCon]

:silence:

 

[westwall]

Yes it's deafening isn't it? The alarmists have spoken!

 

[mdn2000]

Laugh now, we will see who is laughing after Old Crock posts a link.

 

[editec]

At least that is what this group of scientists say. Evidently there is far more evidence to support the theory that Cosmic Rays are the actual culprit. Don't tell Chris


http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/Lu-2009PRL.pdf

Well Ozone is destroyed by cosmic rays, and if the cosmic rays intensify due to changes in solar activity, that certainly sounds plausible.

Consider the possibility that both manmade pollution AND solar activity can likewise have that effect.


That I don't doubt one bit.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, Editec has done it again. I suspect he did not even look at the article, but make a wise guess. What the article says is that cosmic rays and the CFCs work in a synergic relationship to deplete the O3 layer.

As for the rest of you assholes, did you ever even consider actually reading the article? Apparently you did not read the article, Walleyes, or you would have seen the following paragraph.

http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/Lu-2009PRL.pdf

Then the
evidence of the correlation between CRs, chlorofluorocarbon
(CFC) dissociation, and O3 loss was found from
satellite data by Lu and Sanche [8]: the O3 hole is exactly
located in the polar stratosphere and at the altitude of
18 km where the CR ionization shows a maximum.
CRs are the only electron source in the stratosphere, while
halogen (Cl, Br)-containing molecules are long known to
have extremely large cross sections of dissociative attachments
of low-energy electrons [9]. The latter reaction will
be greatly enhanced when halogenated molecules are adsorbed
or buried at the surfaces of polar molecular ice,
relevant to polar stratospheric cloud (PSC) ice in the winter
polar stratosphere, as firstly discovered by Lu and Madey
[6,7] and subsequently confirmed by others in experiments
and theoretical calculations [10&#8211;16]. For example, the
dissociative attachment cross section at 0 eV electrons
for CF2Cl2 adsorbed on the surface of water ice has been
measured to be 1  10
14 cm2, which is about 1  106
times the photolysis cross section of CF2Cl2 [6,10]. As
many challenges as the CR-cloud model has received [4,5],
however, the CR-related O3 depletion mechanism has also
been the subject of strong debate [17&#8211;23].

 

[Intense]

Well, Editec has done it again. I suspect he did not even look at the article, but make a wise guess. What the article says is that cosmic rays and the CFCs work in a synergic relationship to deplete the O3 layer.

As for the rest of you assholes, did you ever even consider actually reading the article? Apparently you did not read the article, Walleyes, or you would have seen the following paragraph.

http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/Lu-2009PRL.pdf

Then the
evidence of the correlation between CRs, chlorofluorocarbon
(CFC) dissociation, and O3 loss was found from
satellite data by Lu and Sanche [8]: the O3 hole is exactly
located in the polar stratosphere and at the altitude of
18 km where the CR ionization shows a maximum.
CRs are the only electron source in the stratosphere, while
halogen (Cl, Br)-containing molecules are long known to
have extremely large cross sections of dissociative attachments
of low-energy electrons [9]. The latter reaction will
be greatly enhanced when halogenated molecules are adsorbed
or buried at the surfaces of polar molecular ice,
relevant to polar stratospheric cloud (PSC) ice in the winter
polar stratosphere, as firstly discovered by Lu and Madey
[6,7] and subsequently confirmed by others in experiments
and theoretical calculations [10–16]. For example, the
dissociative attachment cross section at 0 eV electrons
for CF2Cl2 adsorbed on the surface of water ice has been
measured to be 1  10
14 cm2, which is about 1  106
times the photolysis cross section of CF2Cl2 [6,10]. As
many challenges as the CR-cloud model has received [4,5],
however, the CR-related O3 depletion mechanism has also
been the subject of strong debate [17–23].

Actually I did take the time to read it. You should too.

One might argue that a simply time correlation does not
guarantee a physical mechanism. However, there exist the
following facts. (1) As discussed above, there is no alternative
mechanism for the observed time correlation between
polar ozone loss and CR intensity, which cannot be
explained by the photochemical model predicting a monotonic
recovery (increase) of the polar total ozone since
2000. (2) There is also a strong spatial correlation observed:
the O3 hole is exactly located in the lower polar
stratosphere at 18 km where the ionization rate of CRs
producing electrons is the strongest [8,23]. (3) There are
known PSC ice particles in the winter polar stratosphere.
(4) Laboratory measurements and theoretical calculations
have clearly demonstrated that ice surfaces can trap electrons
and enhance the electron-induced reactions of halogenated
species (inorganic and organic) at the surfaces by
orders of magnitude, compared with corresponding gasphase
reactions [6–16]. (5) Even if one still assumes that
the photochemical model were the dominant mechanism,
FIG. 4 (color online). Percentage variation of mean total ozone
vs CR intensity with all the data from Figs. 1–3: solid circles for
annual O3 data with latitudes 0–60 S, upper triangles for
October O3 with latitudes 60–90 S, down triangles and diamonds
for annual O3 at Halley and Faraday/Vernadsky, respectively.
To plot all these data together, the October and annual O3
data for the polar region were reduced by factors of 5 and 2.5,
respectively. The solid line is the best fit to the data, giving a
linear equation (see text).
PRL 102, 118501 (2009) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS
week ending
20 MARCH 2009
118501-3
then a small amplitude (10%) of the CR-intensity oscillation
in an 11-yr cycle would cause a nonobservable variation
of the polar total ozone. To illustrate this, assuming
that the photochemical model accounted for 70% of O3
loss in the polar stratosphere (i.e., only the rest of 30%
were caused by the CR mechanism), then a variation of
10% in the CR intensity would cause only a 3% variation
of the polar total ozone, which would be even lower than
the fluctuation level of the ozone data (Fig. 2). This is
contradictory to the observed modulation amplitude of
about 12% in the polar total O3 during an 11-yr cycle, as
shown in Fig. 2. Thus, the above facts (1)–(5) force one to
conclude that the CR-driven electron-induced reaction is
the dominant mechanism for causing the polar O3 hole.
This mechanism must be input to remove the large discrepancy
between the simulated results and the observed
O3 loss [25,26].
Finally, a correct mechanism should be able to not only
explain the observed data, but also to predict future trends
of the O3 hole. Since the 11-yr cycle variation of the CR
intensity is predictable, the CR-driven electron reaction
mechanism leads to direct predictions of one of the severest
O3 losses (due to the CR peak) in 2008–2009, and of
probably another maximum around 2019–2020 if a large
halogen amount is still in the stratosphere.

http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/Lu-2009PRL.pdf

 

[mdn2000]

Well, Editec has done it again. I suspect he did not even look at the article, but make a wise guess. What the article says is that cosmic rays and the CFCs work in a synergic relationship to deplete the O3 layer.

As for the rest of you assholes, did you ever even consider actually reading the article? Apparently you did not read the article, Walleyes, or you would have seen the following paragraph.

http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/Lu-2009PRL.pdf

Then the
evidence of the correlation between CRs, chlorofluorocarbon
(CFC) dissociation, and O3 loss was found from
satellite data by Lu and Sanche [8]: the O3 hole is exactly
located in the polar stratosphere and at the altitude of
18 km where the CR ionization shows a maximum.
CRs are the only electron source in the stratosphere, while
halogen (Cl, Br)-containing molecules are long known to
have extremely large cross sections of dissociative attachments
of low-energy electrons [9]. The latter reaction will
be greatly enhanced when halogenated molecules are adsorbed
or buried at the surfaces of polar molecular ice,
relevant to polar stratospheric cloud (PSC) ice in the winter
polar stratosphere, as firstly discovered by Lu and Madey
[6,7] and subsequently confirmed by others in experiments
and theoretical calculations [10–16]. For example, the
dissociative attachment cross section at 0 eV electrons
for CF2Cl2 adsorbed on the surface of water ice has been
measured to be 1  10
14 cm2, which is about 1  106
times the photolysis cross section of CF2Cl2 [6,10]. As
many challenges as the CR-cloud model has received [4,5],
however, the CR-related O3 depletion mechanism has also
been the subject of strong debate [17–23].

The link, I told you guys, and whats funny Old Crock tells accuses others of not reading links. How many times have Old Crock's own links contradicted Old Crock, showing either Old Crock did not read his own link or he did not comprehend his own link.

I am on night shift, its the end of a 12 hour night, thanks for a great laugh "Old Crock", you can be a riot of ignorance and stupidity.

 

[mdn2000]

Well, Editec has done it again. I suspect he did not even look at the article, but make a wise guess. What the article says is that cosmic rays and the CFCs work in a synergic relationship to deplete the O3 layer.

As for the rest of you assholes, did you ever even consider actually reading the article? Apparently you did not read the article, Walleyes, or you would have seen the following paragraph.

http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/Lu-2009PRL.pdf

Then the
evidence of the correlation between CRs, chlorofluorocarbon
(CFC) dissociation, and O3 loss was found from
satellite data by Lu and Sanche [8]: the O3 hole is exactly
located in the polar stratosphere and at the altitude of
18 km where the CR ionization shows a maximum.
CRs are the only electron source in the stratosphere, while
halogen (Cl, Br)-containing molecules are long known to
have extremely large cross sections of dissociative attachments
of low-energy electrons [9]. The latter reaction will
be greatly enhanced when halogenated molecules are adsorbed
or buried at the surfaces of polar molecular ice,
relevant to polar stratospheric cloud (PSC) ice in the winter
polar stratosphere, as firstly discovered by Lu and Madey
[6,7] and subsequently confirmed by others in experiments
and theoretical calculations [10–16]. For example, the
dissociative attachment cross section at 0 eV electrons
for CF2Cl2 adsorbed on the surface of water ice has been
measured to be 1  10
14 cm2, which is about 1  106
times the photolysis cross section of CF2Cl2 [6,10]. As
many challenges as the CR-cloud model has received [4,5],
however, the CR-related O3 depletion mechanism has also
been the subject of strong debate [17–23].

Actually I did take the time to read it. You should too.

One might argue that a simply time correlation does not
guarantee a physical mechanism. However, there exist the
following facts. (1) As discussed above, there is no alternative
mechanism for the observed time correlation between
polar ozone loss and CR intensity, which cannot be
explained by the photochemical model predicting a monotonic
recovery (increase) of the polar total ozone since
2000. (2) There is also a strong spatial correlation observed:
the O3 hole is exactly located in the lower polar
stratosphere at 18 km where the ionization rate of CRs
producing electrons is the strongest [8,23]. (3) There are
known PSC ice particles in the winter polar stratosphere.
(4) Laboratory measurements and theoretical calculations
have clearly demonstrated that ice surfaces can trap electrons
and enhance the electron-induced reactions of halogenated
species (inorganic and organic) at the surfaces by
orders of magnitude, compared with corresponding gasphase
reactions [6–16]. (5) Even if one still assumes that
the photochemical model were the dominant mechanism,
FIG. 4 (color online). Percentage variation of mean total ozone
vs CR intensity with all the data from Figs. 1–3: solid circles for
annual O3 data with latitudes 0–60 S, upper triangles for
October O3 with latitudes 60–90 S, down triangles and diamonds
for annual O3 at Halley and Faraday/Vernadsky, respectively.
To plot all these data together, the October and annual O3
data for the polar region were reduced by factors of 5 and 2.5,
respectively. The solid line is the best fit to the data, giving a
linear equation (see text).
PRL 102, 118501 (2009) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS
week ending
20 MARCH 2009
118501-3
then a small amplitude (10%) of the CR-intensity oscillation
in an 11-yr cycle would cause a nonobservable variation
of the polar total ozone. To illustrate this, assuming
that the photochemical model accounted for 70% of O3
loss in the polar stratosphere (i.e., only the rest of 30%
were caused by the CR mechanism), then a variation of
10% in the CR intensity would cause only a 3% variation
of the polar total ozone, which would be even lower than
the fluctuation level of the ozone data (Fig. 2). This is
contradictory to the observed modulation amplitude of
about 12% in the polar total O3 during an 11-yr cycle, as
shown in Fig. 2. Thus, the above facts (1)–(5) force one to
conclude that the CR-driven electron-induced reaction is
the dominant mechanism for causing the polar O3 hole.
This mechanism must be input to remove the large discrepancy
between the simulated results and the observed
O3 loss [25,26].
Finally, a correct mechanism should be able to not only
explain the observed data, but also to predict future trends
of the O3 hole. Since the 11-yr cycle variation of the CR
intensity is predictable, the CR-driven electron reaction
mechanism leads to direct predictions of one of the severest
O3 losses (due to the CR peak) in 2008–2009, and of
probably another maximum around 2019–2020 if a large
halogen amount is still in the stratosphere.

http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/Lu-2009PRL.pdf

Yes but if the time continuum is broken and the flux capacitor goes critical the theory fails on its own.

 

[Intense]

Well, Editec has done it again. I suspect he did not even look at the article, but make a wise guess. What the article says is that cosmic rays and the CFCs work in a synergic relationship to deplete the O3 layer.

As for the rest of you assholes, did you ever even consider actually reading the article? Apparently you did not read the article, Walleyes, or you would have seen the following paragraph.

http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/Lu-2009PRL.pdf

Then the
evidence of the correlation between CRs, chlorofluorocarbon
(CFC) dissociation, and O3 loss was found from
satellite data by Lu and Sanche [8]: the O3 hole is exactly
located in the polar stratosphere and at the altitude of
18 km where the CR ionization shows a maximum.
CRs are the only electron source in the stratosphere, while
halogen (Cl, Br)-containing molecules are long known to
have extremely large cross sections of dissociative attachments
of low-energy electrons [9]. The latter reaction will
be greatly enhanced when halogenated molecules are adsorbed
or buried at the surfaces of polar molecular ice,
relevant to polar stratospheric cloud (PSC) ice in the winter
polar stratosphere, as firstly discovered by Lu and Madey
[6,7] and subsequently confirmed by others in experiments
and theoretical calculations [10–16]. For example, the
dissociative attachment cross section at 0 eV electrons
for CF2Cl2 adsorbed on the surface of water ice has been
measured to be 1  10
14 cm2, which is about 1  106
times the photolysis cross section of CF2Cl2 [6,10]. As
many challenges as the CR-cloud model has received [4,5],
however, the CR-related O3 depletion mechanism has also
been the subject of strong debate [17–23].

Actually I did take the time to read it. You should too.

One might argue that a simply time correlation does not
guarantee a physical mechanism. However, there exist the
following facts. (1) As discussed above, there is no alternative
mechanism for the observed time correlation between
polar ozone loss and CR intensity, which cannot be
explained by the photochemical model predicting a monotonic
recovery (increase) of the polar total ozone since
2000. (2) There is also a strong spatial correlation observed:
the O3 hole is exactly located in the lower polar
stratosphere at 18 km where the ionization rate of CRs
producing electrons is the strongest [8,23]. (3) There are
known PSC ice particles in the winter polar stratosphere.
(4) Laboratory measurements and theoretical calculations
have clearly demonstrated that ice surfaces can trap electrons
and enhance the electron-induced reactions of halogenated
species (inorganic and organic) at the surfaces by
orders of magnitude, compared with corresponding gasphase
reactions [6–16]. (5) Even if one still assumes that
the photochemical model were the dominant mechanism,
FIG. 4 (color online). Percentage variation of mean total ozone
vs CR intensity with all the data from Figs. 1–3: solid circles for
annual O3 data with latitudes 0–60 S, upper triangles for
October O3 with latitudes 60–90 S, down triangles and diamonds
for annual O3 at Halley and Faraday/Vernadsky, respectively.
To plot all these data together, the October and annual O3
data for the polar region were reduced by factors of 5 and 2.5,
respectively. The solid line is the best fit to the data, giving a
linear equation (see text).
PRL 102, 118501 (2009) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS
week ending
20 MARCH 2009
118501-3
then a small amplitude (10%) of the CR-intensity oscillation
in an 11-yr cycle would cause a nonobservable variation
of the polar total ozone. To illustrate this, assuming
that the photochemical model accounted for 70% of O3
loss in the polar stratosphere (i.e., only the rest of 30%
were caused by the CR mechanism), then a variation of
10% in the CR intensity would cause only a 3% variation
of the polar total ozone, which would be even lower than
the fluctuation level of the ozone data (Fig. 2). This is
contradictory to the observed modulation amplitude of
about 12% in the polar total O3 during an 11-yr cycle, as
shown in Fig. 2. Thus, the above facts (1)–(5) force one to
conclude that the CR-driven electron-induced reaction is
the dominant mechanism for causing the polar O3 hole.
This mechanism must be input to remove the large discrepancy
between the simulated results and the observed
O3 loss [25,26].
Finally, a correct mechanism should be able to not only
explain the observed data, but also to predict future trends
of the O3 hole. Since the 11-yr cycle variation of the CR
intensity is predictable, the CR-driven electron reaction
mechanism leads to direct predictions of one of the severest
O3 losses (due to the CR peak) in 2008–2009, and of
probably another maximum around 2019–2020 if a large
halogen amount is still in the stratosphere.

http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/Lu-2009PRL.pdf

Yes but if the time continuum is broken and the flux capacitor goes critical the theory fails on its own.

OMG!!! Wait ... look further.... we have discovered....dare I say.... Cold Fusion!!!! Look... we have also answered the question about .... Teleportation. I'm talking to you from Mars, and my internet connection is still good!!!!! Remarkable!!!

 

[westwall]

Well, Editec has done it again. I suspect he did not even look at the article, but make a wise guess. What the article says is that cosmic rays and the CFCs work in a synergic relationship to deplete the O3 layer.

As for the rest of you assholes, did you ever even consider actually reading the article? Apparently you did not read the article, Walleyes, or you would have seen the following paragraph.

http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/Lu-2009PRL.pdf

Then the
evidence of the correlation between CRs, chlorofluorocarbon
(CFC) dissociation, and O3 loss was found from
satellite data by Lu and Sanche [8]: the O3 hole is exactly
located in the polar stratosphere and at the altitude of
18 km where the CR ionization shows a maximum.
CRs are the only electron source in the stratosphere, while
halogen (Cl, Br)-containing molecules are long known to
have extremely large cross sections of dissociative attachments
of low-energy electrons [9]. The latter reaction will
be greatly enhanced when halogenated molecules are adsorbed
or buried at the surfaces of polar molecular ice,
relevant to polar stratospheric cloud (PSC) ice in the winter
polar stratosphere, as firstly discovered by Lu and Madey
[6,7] and subsequently confirmed by others in experiments
and theoretical calculations [10–16]. For example, the
dissociative attachment cross section at 0 eV electrons
for CF2Cl2 adsorbed on the surface of water ice has been
measured to be 1  10
14 cm2, which is about 1  106
times the photolysis cross section of CF2Cl2 [6,10]. As
many challenges as the CR-cloud model has received [4,5],
however, the CR-related O3 depletion mechanism has also
been the subject of strong debate [17–23].

Actually I did take the time to read it. You should too.

One might argue that a simply time correlation does not
guarantee a physical mechanism. However, there exist the
following facts. (1) As discussed above, there is no alternative
mechanism for the observed time correlation between
polar ozone loss and CR intensity, which cannot be
explained by the photochemical model predicting a monotonic
recovery (increase) of the polar total ozone since
2000. (2) There is also a strong spatial correlation observed:
the O3 hole is exactly located in the lower polar
stratosphere at 18 km where the ionization rate of CRs
producing electrons is the strongest [8,23]. (3) There are
known PSC ice particles in the winter polar stratosphere.
(4) Laboratory measurements and theoretical calculations
have clearly demonstrated that ice surfaces can trap electrons
and enhance the electron-induced reactions of halogenated
species (inorganic and organic) at the surfaces by
orders of magnitude, compared with corresponding gasphase
reactions [6–16]. (5) Even if one still assumes that
the photochemical model were the dominant mechanism,
FIG. 4 (color online). Percentage variation of mean total ozone
vs CR intensity with all the data from Figs. 1–3: solid circles for
annual O3 data with latitudes 0–60 S, upper triangles for
October O3 with latitudes 60–90 S, down triangles and diamonds
for annual O3 at Halley and Faraday/Vernadsky, respectively.
To plot all these data together, the October and annual O3
data for the polar region were reduced by factors of 5 and 2.5,
respectively. The solid line is the best fit to the data, giving a
linear equation (see text).
PRL 102, 118501 (2009) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS
week ending
20 MARCH 2009
118501-3
then a small amplitude (10%) of the CR-intensity oscillation
in an 11-yr cycle would cause a nonobservable variation
of the polar total ozone. To illustrate this, assuming
that the photochemical model accounted for 70% of O3
loss in the polar stratosphere (i.e., only the rest of 30%
were caused by the CR mechanism), then a variation of
10% in the CR intensity would cause only a 3% variation
of the polar total ozone, which would be even lower than
the fluctuation level of the ozone data (Fig. 2). This is
contradictory to the observed modulation amplitude of
about 12% in the polar total O3 during an 11-yr cycle, as
shown in Fig. 2. Thus, the above facts (1)–(5) force one to
conclude that the CR-driven electron-induced reaction is
the dominant mechanism for causing the polar O3 hole.
This mechanism must be input to remove the large discrepancy
between the simulated results and the observed
O3 loss [25,26].
Finally, a correct mechanism should be able to not only
explain the observed data, but also to predict future trends
of the O3 hole. Since the 11-yr cycle variation of the CR
intensity is predictable, the CR-driven electron reaction
mechanism leads to direct predictions of one of the severest
O3 losses (due to the CR peak) in 2008–2009, and of
probably another maximum around 2019–2020 if a large
halogen amount is still in the stratosphere.

http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/Lu-2009PRL.pdf

Oh I assure you he read it. He then found the section that supported his particuler POV, cut that section out and posted it then hoped no one had actually read the WHOLE thing.
Typical olfraud shenanigans....and he calls us liars What a dipshit!

 

[Old Rocks]

A bump in the spring of 2008, but not 2009. Not that severe, and less than the levels in the 1980's. Prediction based on CRs failed.

University World News - GLOBAL: Ozone layer stabilised but hole continues

A cold winter is associated with a large ozone hole and a mild winter is associated with a smaller ozone hole. The warmer conditions that prevailed over Antarctica in the winter of 2010 result in a smaller ozone hole as compared to previous years. Antarctic ozone is estimated to remain low through the next decade and the first unambiguous signs of recovery are not expected to be detected before 2020.

Arctic ozone depletion is strongly dependent on meteorological conditions which are highly variable in the Northern Hemisphere. The loss of ozone in total column ranges each year between 0% and 30%.

Since 2005, Arctic winter and spring ozone loss has been variable but has remained in a range comparable to the values that have prevailed over the last decade. Largest ozone losses were found in the springs of 2005 and 2008.

In the polar and sub-polar regions of the Southern Hemisphere, springtime solar UV-B radiation remains elevated compared with that during the pre-ozone hole period on average by up to 40%, directly related to the Antarctic ozone hole.

Return of the global ozone layer to its levels before 1980 is expected to occur around the middle of the 21st century, a result of the decrease of ozone-depleting substances regulated by the Montreal Protocol, the commission says.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ozone hole smaller in 2009 than 2008: WMO

 

[Old Rocks]

So the debate goes on. However, I see a distinct possibility that what we are seeing here is a synergic relationship, as I stated earlier.

Do cosmic rays destroy the ozone layer? - physicsworld.com

However, Neil Harris of the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit in Cambridge, UK, is not convinced. He told physicsworld.com that showing a statistical correlation is not enough to prove the validity of the cosmic-ray mechanism since there could be other causal factors varying throughout the solar cycle. In any case, he says, Lu is wrong to compare cosmic ray intensity against total ozone because measurements of the latter depend on the movement of ozone around the atmosphere as well as the actual disappearance of ozone.

"He has put forward an additional mechanism to explain the creation of atomic chlorine," adds Harris. "But there is no need for this extra mechanism because the chlorine can be produced by direct sunlight."

 

[westwall]

You can ALLWAYS tell when you've stung olfraud...he allways trots out three links to support his particular brand of BS.

Nice try there bunky...a little dated don't you think?

 

[mdn2000]

Old Crock, I did not read your links, did you win the argument.

 

[Chris]

At least that is what this group of scientists say. Evidently there is far more evidence to support the theory that Cosmic Rays are the actual culprit. Don't tell Chris


http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/Lu-2009PRL.pdf

You are an oil industry troll.

All your posts are about global warming or the oil industry.

I checked your profile and your stats.

 

[DiveCon]

At least that is what this group of scientists say. Evidently there is far more evidence to support the theory that Cosmic Rays are the actual culprit. Don't tell Chris


http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/Lu-2009PRL.pdf

You are an oil industry troll.

All your posts are about global warming or the oil industry.

I checked your profile and your stats.

what on his profile proves any of that bullshit?
you are a fucking idiot