Tweet It is thought that ozone depletion and the separate issue of global warming have both already caused major changes all over the world. But certain areas are more at risk from ozone depletion — and although people in Britain may feel fairly safe, the fact is that changes elsewhere in the globe will eventually have worldwide consequences.
Peter, So according to Ghandi, are we supposed to fight now? In my post about Nasif Nahle I mention that there is a lack of sensible discourse on these issues, so we can definitely agree on the need to step back from political lines. I have a ton of specific questions and comments, too much for a blog comment.
Frequency is not additive. You cannot add blue light to red light to get ultraviolet light. There are many freely available climate model codes that allow you to study and tinker. If you are right, you should be able to easily demonstrate that the models are wrong with some simple idealized experiments.
How do you expect to convince anyone without showing some work?
And this is a perfect segue to my other big concern with all of your presentations. You never pose a question that can be answered with a quantitative measurement or calculation. This is how the scientific community operates, and it shows that a piece of work can be taken seriously.
I really think we can make a lot of progress with more respectful exchanges.
Walter April 6, at 4: It is summarized nicely in table 8. To get net radiative forcing, you add together the forcing from each component. Sorry, but thermal energy is not additive because it is an intensive physical property that permeates matter at the atomic level.
You have to read that paper carefully to really understand this or to challenge it intelligently. Current radiation codes used by climate models integrate across broadened spectral lines to calculate the thermal energy absorbed by a greenhouse gas.
The figure at ozonedepletiontheory. On this basis, current models conclude that there is more energy in the infrared absorbed by CO2 than the narrow sliver of ultraviolet energy reaching Earth when ozone is depleted around nanometers.
When you integrate, you add up, you calculate in effect the area under the curve. You assume that energy is the same at every wavelength.
It is on this basis that most climatologists dismiss ozone depletion as irrelevant regarding global warming. The effect of ozone as a greenhouse gas is minimal, but creation and destruction of ozone in the ongoing Chapman cycle is the primary heater of the stratosphere.
Dissociation directly heats air; absorption by greenhouse gases has yet to be proven to heat air substantially. Radiant energy is absorbed by greenhouse gases as energy internal to the bonds holding the greenhouse gas molecule together, which is not directly related to air temperature, which is proportional to the mean kinetic energy of all gas molecules.
These calculations are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what energy is. We all know that nuclear energy is more dangerous than X-rays, which are more dangerous than ultraviolet radiation, which is more dangerous than visible light, which is more dangerous than infrared, etc.
Dangerous means higher energy that can cause physical change harm. The Planck-Einstein relation defines this as the energy of a photon. UV-B is energetic enough to burn your skin. No amount of IR can burn your skin.
The more of this energy available, the longer the exposure, the more skin can be burned, but you need UV-B energy to burn skin. The closest thing to truth in science is quality observation of nature. Over ten years of full time work at an intensity only possible in retirement, I have pieced together the best observations I could find.
These observations are described in detail on my website, in my book, and summarized in my talks. They provide a very strong basis for questioning the foundation of our scientific belief systems not only in climate, but also in physics.
One of my best friends is a top theoretical physicist who got the Wolf Prize in Physics last year, second only to the Nobel.ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE ECONOMICS (third edition), by Tom Tietenberg; Harper Collins, ; ISBN THE BASIC PESSIMIST MODEL.
One end of the spectrum is defined by an ambitious study published in under the title The Limits to Growth. Based on a technique known as systems dynamics, developed by Professor Jay Forrester at MIT, a large-scale .
Abstract: The regeneration of diesel filters is characterized by a dynamic equilibrium between the soot being captured and the soot being oxidized in the plombier-nemours.com oxidation rates depend on the filter temperature, soot load in the filter, and a number of other factors.
Continuously regenerating filters operate at a balance temperature, which can be determined through a laboratory measurement. The one process ongoing that will take millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats.
WHY CARRYING CAPACITY? According to Garrett Hardin (), "carrying capacity is the fundamental basis for demographic accounting." On the other hand, conventional economists and planners generally ignore or dismiss the concept when applied to human beings.
It is thought that ozone depletion and the separate issue of global warming have both already caused major changes all over the world. But certain areas are more at risk from ozone depletion – and although people in Britain may feel fairly safe, the fact is that changes elsewhere in the globe will eventually have worldwide consequences.
Ozone depletion would magnify all of the effects of UV on human health, both positive (including production of vitamin D) and negative (including sunburn, skin cancer, and cataracts). In addition, increased surface UV leads to increased tropospheric ozone, which is a health risk to humans.