Ozone; The hole that always was

I’ve explained the Ozone layer so many times on other people’s blogs that I finally decided to write it up on my own blog so I could just point at it.  There’s an assumption that people make that the famous Ozone holes are man made.  While some pollutants can in fact destroy Ozone, the holes themselves are in fact natural.

Ozone exists as a layer of gas in the earth’s atmosphere.   The layer right underneath it is Oxygen.  Both are made of the same atoms (O) but Oxygen is two of them stuck together (O2) and Ozone is a threesome (O3).  So to illustrate, here’s a picture of earth surrounded by a layer of oxygen which is in turn surrounded by a layer of Ozone.  This is not to scale, it is not in the right proportions, there are many other layers, much mixing of gases in each layer, but this is close enough to explain the issues:

 

The next thing to understand is what happens when Ultraviolet light (UV) strikes the atmosphere.  There are various wavelengths of UV (most commonly grouped as UV-A, UV-B and UV-C).  Because of the big scare concerning Ozone, most people are aware that Ozone absorbs UV which can be harmful to people, so running out of it sounded awful bad.  But some frequencies of UV destroy Ozone, breaking the molecules apart.  Here’s a little movie that NASA made to show UV rays breaking apart Ozone http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a000800/a000824/a000824.mpg  As the various O and O2 float around, they will meet up and form Ozone again as the video shows.  What the video doesn’t show is that in the real Ozone layer there are all sorts of other molecules hanging around.  Everything from Hydrogen to Methane to sulfur to yes, CFC’s.  Since Oxygen is highly reactive, a free O or even O2 is more likely to combine with them to create H2O, CO2 and other compounds than to go right back to Ozone.

 Other frequencies of UV pass through the Ozone layer, some getting absorbed and some getting through and hitting Oxygen, which causes Ozone to be formed.  NASA made a movie to show that too http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a000800/a000823/a000823.mpg 

So what we have is a balanced system where Ozone is constantly being destroyed at the top of the Ozone layer, and constantly being created at the top of the Oxygen layer:

 

So what if something happens to destroy a lot of Ozone?  Well the Ozone layer would thin, and as a result less UV gets absorbed by the Ozone.  This means the amount of UV that gets through the Ozone layer to the Oxygen layer goes up, and so the rate of Ozone creation increases:

 

The same is true in reverse if the Ozone layer gets thicker .  Less UV reaches the Oxygen layer and so less Ozone is produced until it shrinks to normal once more:

 

So what about the Ozone holes over the poles?  They’re supposed to be there.  Consider what happens to sunlight as it goes through the atmosphere in earth’s higher latitudes.  Since it has to pass through the Ozone layer at an angle, a lot more gets absorbed than at lower altitudes.  But when we get to the very top of the planet, we reach a height at which the UV is destroying Ozone, but it never gets low enough to strike Oxygen, so the rate at which Ozone is being created falls off:

 

 As a consequence, most of the Ozone gets destroyed, leaving a “hole” in the Ozone layer.  Actually its not even a hole, its just an area where there are  O2 and O molecules hanging around that used to be Ozone:

 

Now its not like there is zero Ozone in that hole, there is some because there are Oxygen atoms left over from Ozone breaking down, and they can in fact form back into Oxygen molecules and then into Ozone if they get the right amount of UV (and don’t react with other things like Hydrogen and Methane).  It would be more accurate to call it a “depression” than an actual hole.  There is still “air” there, just not much Ozone in it.  In the early spring the hole starts to grow as the polar region comes out of darkness and the Sun’s rays can start destroying Ozone.  As summer progresses, the inclination to the sun becomes more direct, and the Sun’s rays start hitting the Oxygen layer, creating Ozone.  The reason that the Ozone hole over the south pole is bigger is because earth’s orbit is elliptical which tends to amplify the destruction cycle in the southern hemisphere and diminish it in the northern hemisphere.

So, do people in far northern communities (or far south in the southern hemisphere) need to panic?  In fact, the hole would have to get very big for that to be a problem.  The UV rays we are exposed to, even at very high latitudes don’t pass through the Ozone hole to get to earth surface:

So is the Ozone hole a complete hoax?  Pollutants like CFC’s could make the holes larger in theory, but the fact is that the holes are natural in the first place, and they fluctuate daily as the earth spins, seasonally as the earth’s inclination to the sun changes, annually as the earth’s orbit takes it closer and farther away from the sun, and from fluctuations in the sun’s output of UV in the first place.

NASA is keeping close tabs on the Ozone hole in the Antarctic.  Here’s a graphic that shows how the ozone hole grows quickly and then recovers again annually:

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Ozone; The hole that always was

  1. Denny says:

    Mr. Hoffer,

    Love you new site! Great job and keep up the great work that you do… 😉 On this article, I’ve “always” suspected this! Thanks again…

    • davidmhoffer says:

      Thanks Denny.
      I’ve added some very cool animations from NASA showing how UV destroys Ozone and created it from Oxygen as well as a graph showing the annual variation in the Antarctic Ozone hole.

  2. Kirk P. Fletcher says:

    Is it not true that New Zealand has the highest rate of skin cancer in the world? I read it is 4 times the rate of the US, UK & Canada and that they receive 40% more UVb than comparable latitudes in the northern hemisphere. Perhaps we see this because they are so close to Antarctica?

    Do electrical storms contribute in any significant amount to the creation of Ozone? I have read that there are a significantly higher number of electrical discharges in the northern hemisphere than the southern hemisphere. I have always believed that atmospheric friction is greater in the northern hemisphere than the southern hemisphere because of the greater surface area of land mass and this is why we see more electrical discharges in the northern hemisphere. I have assumed in the past that this partially explains the reason why the thickness of the Ozone layer can be the thinnest at the South Pole rather than the North Pole.

    • davidmhoffer says:

      I wouldn’t know about the cancer rate in New Zealand, nor what the UVb rates are. What I can suggest though is that the sun’s rays come through the atmosphere at an angle from the north. They don’t even pass through the region over Antarctica where the hole is. None of which changes the point of the article however, which is that the hole is natural.

    • Spencer Rapley says:

      maybe sunscreen gives skin cancer.

    • Manfred says:

      The incidence of melanoma in NZ is the highest in the World. The incidence rate of skin cancer in Australia and NZ is x4 Canada, US and UK. Given the small populations with a substantial Celtic component chiefly resident in coastal regions, leading sun exposed outdoor coastal lifestyles in frequently or always sunny warm weather, the environmental (UV) risk exposure (dose) is significant. Then consider the contribution made to ‘dose’ by the geography of lands that extend from Darwin (Lat 12degS) to Invercargill (Lat 46degS), and the negligible airborne particulate pollution. Doubtless there are additional environmental contributions and significantly, individual genetic predisposition but the citing the ozone hole as a putative cause is as David H explains, nonsense. However, never let the failed Fourth Estate and the force-fed policies of the UN “Sustainable” Development Agenda get in the way of an orchestrated “truth.” It entirely suits their MO and repellent objectives.

      • Michael says:

        If you have been to NZ you would know that the sun there is particularly harsh there. I’m talking burning from under 10 minutes of exposure. Even compared with Perth which is also in the southern hemisphere the sun is still noticeably more intense in New Zealand.

      • Bob Webster says:

        How do skin cancer rates in NZ compare with those in Florida, “the Sunshine State”? Florida (I understand from dermatologists) has the highest rate of skin cancer in the USA (for obvious reasons).

  3. Shibui says:

    Concerning the cancer rate, is that among all New Zealanders, or mainly among those of European extraction? My understanding is that in Australia, the local Aboriginal people have a very low skin cancer rate compared to those of European extraction. It would be interesting to compare Maori rates. If low, it could be mean that the Ozone hole is not a new problem, and the locals have adapted accordingly.

    • Shibui says:

      To answer my own question:
      According to the Cancer Society of New Zealand, in 2009 there were 326 deaths from Melanoma. There were 7 Maori deaths and 3 Pacifica deaths = 3.1 percent.

      • Kirk P. Fletcher says:

        That is a good indication that adaptation over time is occurring because of environmental factors.
        I live in the Phoenix, Arizona area and I do spend a lot of time outside so the exposed areas of my skin get tanned pretty well. When I travel to Anchorage, Alaska in July to visit family and friends for a couple of weeks I always get sun burned. It just seems weird to get sun burned up in Alaska. I understand that because of the Inclination Angle of the Earth , during Summer Anchorage is closer to the Sun than Phoenix but I have always thought that the Ozone layer is thinner there at that time of the year.

  4. dmh says:

    I understand that because of the Inclination Angle of the Earth , during Summer Anchorage is closer to the Sun than Phoenix but I have always thought that the Ozone layer is thinner there at that time of the year.

    1. Summer is caused by inclination to the sun, not distance. Distance is almost identical. In fact, Anchorage is closer to the sun in winter than it is in summer due to the elliptical orbit of the earth. It is entirely inclination that causes the effects you observe.

    2. Even in July, the sun’s rays come in from the south, essentially passing below the ozone hole. If they came from the north, they’d pass through the ozone hole, but they don’t. The effect you observe is entirely due to intensity, not the ozone hole.

    3. Length of day in summer is far longer in Anchorage than it is in Phoenix. You have a few more hours per day to get burned in Anchorage in July than you do in Phoenix.

  5. Bad_karma says:

    Brillient, I was wondering about this too, that there has been an assumption by the environmentalist movement (they seem to make a lot of them) that the hole is our fault, and is a new development is baseless, just because we discover that there is a hole does not mean that it is a new development, by that logic, nothing exists until we discover it……

    I was wondering about the reflected light also being a factor, since the south pole has year round ice coverage and the north does not, the light being reflected back into space and therefore making a second trip through the ozone layer should mean that the ozone and oxygen molecules get double the chance of being hit by a UV photon all year round, as opposed to the north pole where they only get that double chance half the year.

  6. Michael J. ELLIOTT says:

    Hello, when the panic set in, and the “Experts” started testing things to see which one would destroy Ozone, why did they stop looking when they found that the Cloroflocarbons did it. How do we know that many other well known chemicals can also destroy Ozone.

    Anyway does Nature all by itself also provide the equivelent chemicals which make up the ingredients in the Cloroflocarbons, I would suspect so.

    A lot of very good Refrig. machinery got Junked on the say so of some scientists, and we ended up with a infearer refrigation substance.

    This matter of a Ozone Hole reminds me of the “Consensus” over the dangers of DDT. Now of course even the UN has given DDT the green light.

    I rest my case.

    Michael Elliott.
    vk5ell@adam.com.au

  7. Why is the ozone hole growing back?

  8. Vince says:

    There is another natural reason for the south pole having a larger ozone hole. Ozone can’t be created when the temperature in the ozone layer goes below, IIRC, minus 135 degrees. Only the south pole gets this cold so it gets a bigger hole.

  9. Dan M. says:

    Good arguments, guys. I learned in high school physics in the 80’s that ozone is created by UV rays from the sun. It stands to reason that the area on Earth that gets the least amount of sun will also have the least ozone. I’ve also heard, please correct me if I’m wrong, that natural processes like volcanic eruptions and evaporation of ocean water, put far more ozone depleting chemicals into the atmosphere than man ever has. If it were possible to destroy the ozone layer, it would have happened long before we discovered it.

  10. Love your parody site. I’m sure that anyone without a background in science finds your arguments compelling. I was particularly intrigued by your picture showing an “oxygen layer” below an “ozone layer” – given that the percentage of molecular oxygen in the troposphere and stratosphere is essentially constant at slightly less than 21% by number. Easy to check – but you undoubtedly take in your audience, since they are unlikely to do so.

    • davidmhoffer says:

      Sure. There is no actual “layer” per se. More like lowered concentrations in some areas/levels. Going into that detail was not necessary to illustrate the concept. There are of course other mechanisms at play as well, including CFC’s. The point is that the natural cycle is very large and rather dominant.

  11. Chaam Jamal says:

    Total column ozone data from ground stations do not appear to support the Rowland-Molina theory. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2719537

  12. Chaam Jamal says:

    I would like to share two online documents.

    First, the history of the ozone scare episode 1969-2015 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291833573_ozonePaperResource

    and second, an empirical study of total column ozone data from 12 ground stations
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2719537

  13. ErikwithaK says:

    It looks as though you have this “layer of oxygen” at the surface of the Earth, the troposphere. The troposphere is mostly nitrogen, 78%, while only about 21% is oxygen.

  14. Jamal Munshi says:

    Ozone holes are localized and seasonal events and they do not constitute evidence of ozone depletion on a global scale as claimed by the UNEP in the Montreal Protocol. Please see
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2748016

  15. Roberts Grip says:

    According to an early 1980’s edition of the McGraw Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, the Ozone ‘thinning’ was actually discovered in 1946 (if memory serves) using weather balloons….not 1985 when they launched new satellites to observe it. In 1946, CFCs weren’t even in widespread use yet (and they can take many years to ascend into the Stratosphere). I have long suspected that this ‘thinning’ is a natural occurrence.

  16. Roberts Grip says:

    Another significant effect that could attribute to these ‘holes’ is charged particles from the sun funneled thru the Earths magnetic field (the Auroras are a famous example). These undoubtedly destroy O3 as well (a VERY unstable molecule). These could lead to seasonal variations in the size of the phenomenon…and I don’t think it is a coincidence that the earth is a bit closer to the sun when the hole forms in the Antarctic spring (much more significant thinning region than in the northern spring)….closer sun = greater potential charged particle density (not just from solar storms either, but normal solar emissions probably have an impact on the Stratosphere).

  17. Ronelyn says:

    I suspect the ‘ozone holes’ beat up has more to do with finding a way to ban efficient refrigerants that patents were running out on. The banning of R12 has seen a range of inefficient and more expensive replacements.. As usual the truth is at the end of the money trail.

    • Johnb33 says:

      Exactly! This was my thought process this morning and why I started researching it. I would love to find out who Rowland and Molina were related to, in cahoots with, or deeply invested in? I would love some investigative reporter to look at them or their families now and see what their financial picture looks like. It’s always follow the money. Look at Al Gore. When you find out that it was the Saudi’s who were funding the anti fracking movement through the UAE and our “useful idiots”in Hollywood (who have their heart in the right place but their heads up their Ozone holes). It’s amazing that this kind of just “disappeared” after the protocol was signed and the money started flowing for whomever was pushing for this. What a shame that those who live life in the emotional realm and only take short holidays in the logical realm, are the people who have the biggest platform.

      • kirk Fletcher says:

        R134a did the same work with less refrigerant weight and no chlorine. R1234yf does the same work with less refrigerant weight than r134a and it breaks down when leaked into the environment in 11 days compared to 14.7 years for r123a and 12.7 years for r12. The new refrigerant is safer for the environment.

      • Johnb33 says:

        Excuse my superfluous “When” following the Al Gore sentence.

  18. Essere says:

    Would be good to point out where the O2 originates from in the first place therefore others also understand the importance of plants; that animals should be grazing and not kept in factory farms.

    • Trevor says:

      Most OXYGEN comes from Oceanic Plankton , not forests as we are constantly told
      by “tree huggers” ( but I love my garden too ! ) .Even grasses ( think crops ) carry out
      photosynthesis and absorb CO2 and release O2 , but on a much shorter cycle than trees. At night PLANTS cease photosynthesis and revert to normal biological processes CROPS produce the food ( grain ) which humans eat and straw ( fodder ) which some animals eat. Either way , CO2 is ‘locked-up’ in crops just as efficiently as trees.
      Plankton has the great advantage in that when it dies it carries the carbon down to the ocean-depths , not to re-emerge for a long time , possibly thousands of years.
      So , with this constant loss of carbon it is good to think that WE HUMANS are able to burn carboniferous material and return it to the poor plants in the form of CO2.
      The amount of CARBON 13 produced by bombardment of NITROGEN 14 atoms in the
      upper atmosphere would hardly produce sufficient CO2 to meet the needs of our
      burgeoning population. Of course , some animals produce METHANE which also
      oxidises to CO2 , so I guess they are also making a contribution !

  19. Trevor Ridgway says:

    Essere………….Would you PLEASE point out WHAT , if any , of my comment was NONSENSE !
    Also , HOW is it at variance with the TWO (2) links you directed me to view ?
    What part of my comment constitutes BRAINWASHING ? ( or are you just especially sensitive ? )
    Are you an “animal rights” person with a particular view on food production such as “free-range”
    as opposed to “high intensity” farming ? If so , WHY are you attacking ME PERSONALLY instead of my logical comment , which merely observed that some animals “produce METHANE” which is only in dispute with regard to kangaroos…(.and that has been poo-poo-ed as well ) ?
    If you REALLY want to ATTACK SOMEONE why not pick on the UN IPCC that wants to REDUCE
    THE LEVEL of CO2 which will ADVERSELY affect plants ( and thereby animals ) which will produce less Oxygen and if that concentration drops then there will be less interacting to form Ozone
    and with less Ozone………….well , you know the story ( see above if not ).
    Hoping for a RATIONAL DISCUSSION , I remain your humble contributor ! Trevor.

    • Johnb33 says:

      It appears that Essere has a BLATANT agenda. Trevor yours was a very logical post, and his or her response was a huge non sequitur with the typical progressive condescension and insult at the end. Then to top it off the projection that you were doing the EXACT THING that the other poster was actually doing! It’s a neat trick that has been exposed now time and time again. This is how these hysterias start. Essere loves animals…but is motivated by that love to fabricate anything they can to stop the perceived harm some animals endure. When you attempt to set the record straight scientifically, they wouldn’t have it! It goes against their “righteous cause” where the ends always justify the means to them. Which in a scientific, ethical, and spiritual(karma or reaping what you sow which ever you prefer) sense just isn’t so. So how does an agenda driven(albeit an understandable agenda) person stop you from proceeding to tell the scientific facts? Shut you up in anyway possible!! There was a great parable about the “Emporer’s new clothes” that beautifully illustrates progressive’s strategy to stop facts that are inconvenient to them… if you can’t see it, you must not be smart enough to do so! Nice try though Essere, but some of us live in logic land.

      • Essere says:

        It is irrelevant whether animals produce methane or not because you can’t stop them from producing it. It is natural and the planet has been fine with them producing it all these millions of years.

        I’m for ending the enslavement of all animals, producing suicide bridges for humans, and humans hunting animals if they truly want to eat meat. Kill what you’re going to eat or jump off a bridge like an arrogant coward.

        CO2 from gasoline engines and nitrogen dioxide from diesel engines should be lowered or completely eliminated because it is poisoning us by causing cancer. Plain and simple.

        “Most OXYGEN comes from Oceanic Plankton , not forests as we are constantly told”

        It comes from both. Previous generations of humans have destroyed the land and have driven many animals to extinction and near extinction like the American bison.

        Listen to what this guy has to say regarding how deep soils use to be.

      • Trevor says:

        Essere………….whoever you are I have come to two conclusions , perhaps erroneously ,and they are as follows:1). English is NOT the language you use at home.
        2). You don’t particularly like humans and especially those who eat meat.
        .
        Given that that is the case , I can see where you and I will NEVER agree on some issues and yet
        we obviously agree on some others, such as the MAJOR SOURCE of atmospheric oxygen
        deriving from marine plants rather than terrestrial ones….but from BOTH types combined.
        .
        I don’t like “cruelty to animals” ( or to people either ) but eating meat is not a crime per se.
        Lions and tigers are meat-eaters and it is natural for them to hunt and kill.
        Humans have replaced the hunting process by domesticating animals which are killed
        (humanely in Australia ) and consumed as an important part of a balanced diet. Humans
        NEED vitamin B12 , it is VITAL . As we cannot produce it ourselves ( it is produced naturally by some forms of bacteria ) we NEED to take a B12 supplement or injection and , as it is a
        water-soluble vitamin , we cannot store it for any length of time either. So , we obtain it from
        our diet which generally includes some animal protein products which contain the B12 .
        Should we NOT EAT MEAT then there is a far greater chance that we would develop a B12
        deficiency which can then result in all sorts of adverse conditions including neurological ones.
        .
        Thankyou for providing the LINK to the video of Allan Savory.
        Having viewed it and understood his excellent English language I reached conclusion 1).
        He clearly pointed out that predatory animals ( meat eaters ) produced the “herd mentality”
        in grazing animals ( the safety-in-numbers behaviour ) that causes them to graze intensively,
        consume and then foul their pasture with their droppings and actually force themselves to move on to fresh grazing , having trodden the seeds into the now fertilised ground , as they moved on.
        This produces a form of mulch on the soil , the hooves break the soil crust and that allows rain
        to penetrate the soil and wash the nutrients from the droppings into the soil , when the mulch then
        protects the soil from the heat of the sun and reduces the evaporation. This allows pasture
        regeneration for the next cycle. He also said that HE RUNS DOMESTIC ANIMALS ( cows, sheep,
        goats ) TOGETHER WITH THE WILD ANIMAL HERDS to increase the herd numbers to a
        level where the process become self-supporting.His aim is to sequester carbon into the soil
        by using the plants to take Carbon Dioxide from the air and form it into the sugars , starches and cellulose which the animals convert to protein , methane , dung and energy …….the dung
        being the fertiliser for the new pasture ( and food for dung beetles ) .
        Since he lives in ZIMBABWE ( the former Rhodesia ) it seems that with their considerable lack
        of food that THE DOMESTICATED ANIMALS would be providing food for humans as well as
        lions ,leopards and hyenas ! Did you NOT draw that conclusion ?
        .
        .”Ending the enslavement of ALL animals”……nice cute furry ones in particular I am guessing ! .
        Most animals are NOT enslaved. Domesticated animals are raised and serve a purpose.
        Hunting animals may well be your idea of barbarity but it PALES INTO INSIGNIFICANCE
        against your proposed ” suicide bridges for humans” to “jump off like an arrogant coward”.
        Where DO you get such ideas and opinions and WHY do you hold them ?
        .Can’t you see how self-destructive they are ?
        .
        Even so , YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN OPINIONS
        BUT , YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN FACTS !
        Emissions from NEITHER diesel NOR petrol ENGINES cause CANCER.
        ………………………………………………………………………………………AND THAT IS A FACT !
        You may not like the noise or the odour or the thought that some human is deriving pleasure
        from the use of these engines……..BUT you are NOT ENTITLED TO DENY THE FACTS and MAKE SPURIOUS CLAIMS. Try GOOGLE or some other site before you make a claim.
        Particulate matter from diesel engines is NOT CANCER CAUSING but like any particle , it
        may have an adverse effect on the lungs and airways.Just like natural dust and dander.
        Nitrogen Dioxide can also irritate and inflame the airways in strong concentrations.
        I am NOT ADVOCATING that anyone should breathe them , just pointing out that there is a
        great difference between irritated airways and lungs and CANCER.
        .
        “Listen to what this guy has to say regarding how deep soils use to be” (sic.)
        { the word is past tense and is ‘used’ as in ‘used to be’ }
        Firstly: It was his SIDE-KICK who spoke about the depths of soil in America.
        I think he said 8 to 12 feet deep. In many places it is even deeper.
        Allan Savory himself said that “he would NOT get into discussing figures as it distracted people
        away from the topic “…………….and that was NOT the point of the discussion.
        I agree with him . Statistics can be and often are manipulated and distorted to prove anything you want them to prove. Take the CRU at the University of East Anglia ( or not ! )
        The “Climatic Research Unit ” admitted that it “tweaked” , “massaged” and “adjusted”
        readings and yet it asked to be regarded as honest and straight-forward and reliable.
        Kevin E.Trenberth of the US NCAR said ” The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t .” So , they FOUND another “solution”.
        How convenient AND HOW BELIEVABLE is that ? In fact THAT IS A TRAVESTY !
        .
        Essere , REMEMBER that Allan Savory is a Global Warming believer and his efforts to
        sequester carbon are ALL ABOUT REDUCING ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE to
        pre-industrial levels. He is NOT an animal-rights-person as far as I can tell.
        Also , remember that CO2 is PLANT FOOD. It supports ALL LIFE on the planet.
        Plants use it and (fortunately for us animals ) produce Oxygen ( O2 ) which we then use.
        Should the level of CO2 drop TOO FAR then the plants themselves will struggle and some types will die. None will thrive as they do at present levels of CO2 and present conducive temperature.
        Without the plants there will be NO ANIMALS or fish. So he may NOT be the friend you think ?!
        Also , REMEMBER that he said that Universities, Governments and almost ALL Institutions
        were “great deniers of truth , even though ALL the facts were known , they could NOT be relied upon to implement the truth . In the past ( he quoted use of Lime Juice as a Vit C source for
        prevention of scurvy ) it took 200 years for the British Navy to implement it even though it was
        well known about and used by the Dutch for centuries.
        AND even Allan Savory GOT IT WRONG ! The juice used which prevents scurvy is
        CONCENTRATED LEMON JUICE , NOT LIME JUICE. ( Read up on Scott’s Antarctic Expedition
        when LIME JUICE was used instead and proved disastrous ! ) .
        ..
        BY THE WAY : The irritating effects of Nitrogen Dioxide ( No2 ) are VERY MUCH LIKE
        the irritating effects of OZONE !
        Which brings us full-circle I think !
        .
        So , THAT IS MY LOT for now ! Make of it what you will
        but I urge you to check your facts and NOT rely on your feelings !
        .
        Regards & best wishes ! Trevor.

        .

  20. Pingback: International Preservation of the Ozone Layer Day – alice marie thorn

  21. Ozone holes are completely dependent on elevated chlorine and bromine in the stratosphere, and it is about 100% man-made. So that’s not a natural phenomenon at all. Most of the ozone in the polar stratosphere is actually produced in the tropical stratosphere and transported to the poles of the stratospheric circulation. The natural state is actually the ozone maximum over the poles due to this transport. Here is a update on it: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/twentyquestions/

    • Trevor says:

      Oh ! Dear Me ! IF I QUOTE THE BIBLE AT YOU WILL YOU TAKE CREATION
      AS YOUR NEW EVIDENCE AND REJECT EVOLUTION ?
      I DOUBT IT !
      So . please DON’T QUOTE NOAA or THE UNITED NATIONS at me as I DON’T
      RECOGNISE THEIR AUTHORITY due to their PERVERSE TREATMENT OF THE OBSERVABLE FACTS and their use of “modelling” to produce the statistics they “require” for their own
      purposes and their own “facts”.
      THEY HAVE BEEN DISCREDITED SO OFTEN AND SO REGULARLY THAT ONLY THE
      REALLY OBTUSE WOULD CONTINUE TO RESPECT THEM.
      NONE OF THEIR “DIRE PREDICTIONS” HAVE MATERIALISED AND DEAD-LINE AFTER
      DEAD-LINE HAS COME AND GONE ! Global Warming has ‘morphed’ into Climate Change
      which nobody denies is occurring, has always occurred and will continue to occur.
      BUT CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT ONLY IMPROBABLE but is
      not occurring !
      .
      READ THIS ARTICLE AGAIN and LISTEN FOR THE BIAS and the EMPHASIS with an
      open mind and see if it is “worth the paper it is written on “. IT’S NOT !
      .
      Regards , Trevor.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s