HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---------------------------
UNITE! Info #167en: The "ozone hole" hoax refuted
[Posted: 31.03.02]
Note / Anmerkung / Note / Nota / Anmärkning:
On the UNITE! / VEREINIGT EUCH! / UNISSEZ-VOUS! /
¡UNIOS! / FÖRENA ER! Info en/de/fr/es/se series:
See information on the last page / Siehe Information auf der
letzten Seite / Verrez information à la dernière page / Ver
información en la última página / Se information på sista sidan
INTRO NOTE:
In this Info simply is repeated a posting sent recently, on
29.03.02, to several newsgroups and e-mail addresses, '"Ozone
hole" hoax today easy for all to refute!'.
This brings, as a summary, some main points of the 8-part
Info #166en of 20.03.02, 'The "ozone hole" terror hoax', ad-
ding a couple of new informations.
The only "replies" to that posting, or to Info #166en, so far,
by writers to newsgroups 'sci.environment', 'sci.energy' etc
who have been making propaganda for the hoax have been the
self-revealing "comment" on 29.03 by Lloyd R. Parker <lparker
@emory.edu>, directed to me:
>You're not only ignorant, but a liar. Slink away.
(and nothing further)
and the "repeat performance" likewise on 29.03 by Paul F.
Dietz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, replying to Brad Tittle
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, who among other things had cited the
fact brought under point 1) in my posting below:
>Brad, do be aware that there is a tremendous amount of
>garbage out on the net purporting to debunk the very well
>established[! - RM] connection[!] between CFC emissions and
>the antarctic ozone hole. This pseudoscience has about the
>validity of creationism or flat earth geology...
(etcetera, likewise not citing one single "fact" "in support
of" the actual pseudoscience of the "ozone hole" hoax nor
commenting concretely on its refutation in Info #166en or in
my briefer 29.03 posting).
I commented briefly yesterday 30.03 on those two "replies",
under 'Yes, the game *is* up, "ozone hole" hoax defenders!'.
That posting isn't repeated here.
On 29.03 too, I sent publicly an "Invitation to join Thick
Ozone Layer Truth Bureau", referring to a planned small in-
stitution of some kind which there's a need for today, to in-
form governments, NGOs and not least the international public
of some easily ascertained basic facts concerning this ques-
tion, and to probe further into it too.
So far, nobody else has shown an interest in joining such a
Bureau. I've "established" one anyway, to be provisionally run
by me and to publish, from time to time, Bulletins from the
address <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Thick Ozone Layer Truth).
End of intro note
"Ozone hole" hoax today easy for all to refute!
[Originally posted on 29.03.2002]
The "CFC ozone depletion" hoax is a nasty one. It has served
to cover up bans, decided on by the governments of the main
"rich" countries in 1987-1995 (the "Montreal Protocol" etc)
and now coming into effect, more and more being forced on the
poorer countries too, against substances which are quite
vital for various branches of industry and which cannot be
effectively replaced. This hits practically everybody on
earth. The hoax continues today, in all the mass media, in
the school textbooks, etc, in a large number of countries.
Back in those days, 10-15 years ago, many scientists pointed
to the fact that the so-called "scientific basis" "justi-
fying" those bans, which certain politicians were in such
extreme hurry to enforce, at that time "at the very best" was
"quite shaky".
Today, "shaky" is no longer the word for that "basis".
Today, everybody can easily see that the so-called "manmade
ozone depletion" or "ozone hole" "theory" precisely *is* a
HOAX, a COMPLETE hoax and NOTHING BUT a hoax.
You don't have to be an atmospheric scientist, say, or a
"pro" chemist, physicist etc, to see this with your own eyes.
All the qualifications you need are a) ability to read, b)
some very elementary science education (9th-graders' level,
say), c) a rudimentary technique for finding your way through
the Internet World Wide Web.
True, the minds of a few people (including some rather well-
educated persons who've been debating this question on some
newsgroups, for instance) are blocked, so that they can't/
won't see even the most obvious of facts on such a matter,
irrespective of how many times they're pointed out to them.
But that's another matter; certain factors in the society of
today are causing this. Nobody - except, at best, they them-
selves - can help those people. To you others, I want to
show this:
THE SWINDLERS' "PREDICTIONS":
The "ozone depletion" propagandists have said that there
"has been" a "global ozone depletion" at least in the 1980s
("beginning", perhaps, a few years before 1980 too) and that
"it" "would continue" and "be even somewhat bigger" in the
1990s. Precisely "around the year 2000", they've said, the
ozone layer would be at its "most vulnerable" - "due to the
latency of effects of CFC etc releases before 1987".
A "depletion" of "some 3% per decade", that's been a typical
proposition of theirs. And any smaller one would be of no
interest. Even an "ozone level decrease" of 3% per decade
from 1980 on would only cause the ozone layer to be 20% thin-
ner by 2050, something which would have practically no effect
at all on human life - if any, the effects would be positive
ones. And in that theoretical case that it *did* have effects
and those were mainly negative, then at that time, in 2050,
that thinning-out could be prevented from later reaching 40%
(still clearly no big problem) by a then *justified* move
away from CFCs etc.
And a decrease in ozone layer thickness by 1%, that would
cause an increase in ultraviolet radiation reaching the
ground (actually, in UV-B, the most important type) by some
2%, they've said too.
So, the "predictions" on which those vile bans in 1987-95 were
"based", and on which their upholding today still are being
"based", were that:
* total global ozone today would be some 6% less than in 1980
* ground UV radiation today, over much of the globe, would be
some 12% more intensive than in 1980.
Now the facts of today are slapping these "predictions" most
squarely in the face.
I mean, even those facts which you and I can find out about.
Another matter is the "ozone depletion" propagandists' prac-
tically *total* silence, after 1998, on all facts which would
either confirm or else contradict these "predictions". That's
some not unimportant evidence too, though "only" indirect
such.
When presenting the below observations, which all can check
on, I'm taking into consideration also the fact that the
big local, seasonal and even day-to-day variations both in
ozone layer thickness and UV intensity do make it difficult
to ascertain somewhat minor long-term gobal trends, on the
basis of only some shorter period of measurements. But it
must be noted that there has now been a period of some 20
years of such - respectively, of possible such.
SOME FACTS WHICH ARE CLEARLY VISIBLE TODAY:
1) Over mid-Sweden (at 58º to 64º N), the ozone layer
has *not thinned out at all* between February 1988
and December 2001: A decrease or an increase by *0.0%
per decade* in that time, says the meteorological in-
stitute here, SMHI (at a somewhat hidden-away place
at its website; I shall show you how to find it).
"Just" a local set of observations, true, and one not
going all the way back to 1980. But certainly, a "de-
pletion" of "some 3-4% at least", over latitudes such
as these, as "predicted" by the propagandists for
1988-2001, would have shown up clearly in these data.
2) In mid-Sweden too, UV radiation by no means has in-
creased by anything even close to 12%. It between 1983
and 1998 has been approximately *constant*, or has
possibly *increased just a little*, by 1-1.5%, as seen
in the relevant SMHI graphs.
Ground UV radiation levels, true enough, also are in-
fluenced by cloud cover, which on the average may have
increased somewhat in later years. But still, there's
no question of any significant "net" UV level rise.
3) The ozone layer over the northern hemisphere in 2000-
2001 was *thicker than in many years before*. It still
today is. That's one other thing which the SMHI says
at its website.
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO), for in-
stance, has said *nothing whatsoever* about this.
Now it's no surprise that the ozone layer recently has
been, and still today is, so relatively quite thick.
It varies in 11-year periods following the sunspot
cycle, with maxima some 2% above the longer-term mean
in sunspot maximum years, such as 1957, 1968, 1979,
1990 and 2001, and minima some 2% below that mean in
sunspot minimum years. And in November 2001 was the
latest sunspot maximum. It over higher latitudes also
varies, with maxima and minima up to some 5% above/be-
low the mean, according to the 26-month cycle of winds
from the tropics known as the QBO (quasi-biennial
oscillation), which has recently been "positive" too.
4) In connection with point 3, a couple of things which
don't in themselves prove all that much about longer-
term trends since day-to-day variations are so big,
but which are some pointers anyway:
Over mid-Sweden, the ozone layer thickness varies
between some 420 DU (Dobson Units), as a monthly
mean, in the spring, and less than 300 DU in October.
Now on 23 February 2001, even an all-time high for
ozone levels over Sweden was recorded (at Norrköping,
58º N). It was much higher than the one from 1988,
521 DU, and much higher than an older one too, re-
corded at Uppsala (60º N) in April 1961 - long before
any possible "CFC influence" -, 536 DU.
Quite recenly too, on 2 March 2002, a level much
above that old maximum one in April 1961 was noted:
557 DU.
At the same time, not so long ago, on 30 November
1999, though ozone levels over Europe as a whole were
rather high in late 1999, there was an all-time low
for ozone levels over Sweden, 194 DU.
But certainly, had there really been a "6% decrease"
in global ozone level since 1980, the likelyhood of
such extremely high ozone levels, compared to 1961,
as those noted over Sweden on certain days recently
would have been rather small.
5) Now this is a point of *indirect* proof, as is the
next one. But given the importance which the govern-
ments of all the "rich" states and for instance the
WMO (actually, on "global warming" and on "ozone
depletion", and utter *swindle* institution, as many
things clearly show) *pretend* to attach to the
question of the ozone layer and that of UV radiation,
it's a tell-tale one anyway:
After 1998, *nobody* is saying *anything* at all
about what has turned out concerning a "global ozone
depletion trend" anymore.
6) And after 1998 too, *nobody* is saying *anything* at
all what has turned out concerning a "global UV ra-
diation trend" (more precisely, concerning a trend in
UV-B radiation) anymore either.
Since changes in UV radiation would be even bigger,
in percent, than such in the global ozone level,
this utter silence on it is even more telling.
From the mid-1980s on, there would have been very
good reasons, for the abovementioned governments,
to *monitor very closely* precisely UV levels and any
possible change in them, and to *publish continually*
the results of such monitoring, on a global scale,
*if* they *had* a genuine fear of "ozone depletion"
as the reason for their so hurried bans against the
CFCs etc. But that's precisely what has *not* mate-
rialized.
7) Even back in 1998, when the WMO (the main internatio-
nal institution purportedly "entrusted" with "monito-
ring" these things) made its *latest* "Scientific
Assessment" of "ozone depletion" so far - its "Ozone
Report No. 44" - it can be found on the Net) it had
to admit both that there:
A) had been *no* "ozone depletion" whatsoever between
1979 and 1994-1997, but *only* that *natural* de-
crease in the global ozone layer thickness in that
period due to the 11-year sunspot cycle with its
ensuing maximum of ozone, 2% above the long-term
mean, in 1979 and minimum, 2% below the mean, in
1994-1997 - the WMO in that "report" tried to
garble the result by not citing global figures but
only those for mid-latitudes (-4% or -5%) plus
those for the tropics (± 0%), but anyone who can
calculate a mean will find its result was precise-
ly that natural 4% peak-to-through difference - and
B) had been an increase in UV radiation in that same
period of 5% in the northern higher latitudes and
8% in the southern higher latitudes - while also
indirectly admitting these results were more or
less guessworks.
Such increases in that period, if they were ac-
tually there, would have been quite natural too,
because of the same 11-year sunspot cycle. +5% in
UV, that would correspond to some -2.5% in ozone
layer and +8% in UV would correspond to -4% in the
same, precisely the natural difference between
1979, on the one hand, and 1994-1997, on the other,
or, concerning the northern hemisphere, even a
somewhat smaller such than might be expected in a
situation which no "CFC ozone depletion" at all.
Just read that 1998 "WMO Ozone Report No. 44" somewhat care-
fully, and you'll find that it - already then, already back
in 1998 - completely refutes its own swindle propaganda!
And it's quite likely, readers, that none of you will find
any more recent reports whatsoever on *global* trends, either
in ozone layer thickness or in UV levels.
It might be worthwhile trying to find what the meteorological
(etc) institutes of *various countries* might be saying on
the respective local conditions in these respects - as I've
done (so far, only) concerning Sweden. That is, in case they
even have such statistics. (It seems the one of Australia
doesn't, for instance.)
I shall give you the more "concrete" "predictions" by the
WMO in their abovementioned 1998 "Ozone Report No. 44" here:
WMO bullshit 1998 "prediction" A:
"*The ozone layer is currently in its most vulnerable
state.* Total stratospheric loading of ozone-depleting
substances is expected to maximize before the year
2000. All other things being equal, the current ozone
losses (relative to the values observed in the 1970s)
would be close to the maximum. These are:
about 6% at Northern Hemisphere midlatitudes in
winter/spring;
about 3% at Northern Hemisphere midlatitudes in
summer/fall;
about 5% at Southern Hemisphere midlatitudes on a
year-round basis;
about 50% in the Antarctic spring; and
about 15% in the Arctic spring."
Compare this to what (seemingly not too unreliable) facts
of today you yourselves can find, readers!
Outdoing even the WMO in blatant lying was a more recent
press release, on 16 September 2001, the UN-decided "Day
for Preservation of the Ozone Layer"(!) since back in
1998, by the International Association of Meteorology and
International Ozone Commission (IO3C) of the Atmospheric
Sciences (IAMAS); this was really something:
"...The [1987 Montreal] Protocol controls the produc-
tion and use of anthropogenic species which, since
the early 1970s, have destroyed[!] about 10%[!!] of
the earth's ozone shield[!] which protects life from
the harmful solar ultraviolet radiation. ..."
*"Ten percent"* of the global ozone layer "just gone" since
the early 1970s! Which of course would also mean there was
now some *20% more* of UV radiation over much of the globe!
Persons who dare try such crude lies today certainly do de-
serve some places in a sciences' Hall of Shame, don't they:
The president, secretary repectively vice president of that
"IO3C" of the "IAMAS" at the time were Professors Robert
Hudson of the USA, Christos Zerefos of Greece and Toshihiro
Ogawa of Japan.
WMO bullshit 1998 "prediction" B:
Concerning UV levels, I've just seen one diagram
by the WMO appended to that "Report"; it "predicts"
"a sharp rise" in ground UV levels at higher lati-
tudes (those at the tropics remaining about constant,
as all agree/admit), of "some 8% at a maximum, com-
pared to in the 1970s, in the early 2000s", after
which they would presumably "fall again".
That "prediction" wasn't the same (any more) than those
earlier ones saying that "1% less ozone would make for 2%
more UV radiation", but a somewhat lower one than that.
But anyway, readers will find this too quite clearly refuted
by any actual local data they can find, I dare to predict
now.
There is also the (local) business of the so-called Antarctic
"ozone hole". The ozone layer over the Antarctic with its
quite particular conditions have always been quite low each
September-October (austral spring). But from the late 1970s
on, and up to the early 1990s, these dips got to be deeper,
down to some 100 DU instead of down to some 300 DU. Since
then, they have stabilized at some 100 DU. The greater depth
of that dip, that's what's being called the Antarctic "ozone
hole".
I on my part don't know why that change took place, in that
time. But it rather clearly certainly is *not* due to CFCs,
since 1) there was such an Antarctic "ozone hole" back in
1958 too, long before any possible significant CFC influence,
2) that "hole" hasn't gotten any bigger at all since 1994,
and even seems to decrease too (which the WMO etc are trying
to cover up); "CFC ozone depletion", if it were true, of
course would make it grow all the time.
8) So this Antarctic ozone "hole's" being rather con-
stant in later years is one further refutation of the
"CFC ozone depletion" hoax.
Antarctic life, by the way, doesn't suffer at all from the
ozone layer's being just 100 DU insteaad of 300 DU in the
austral spring, since in the austral summer, UV radiation
was always much more intensive than in the spring anyway,
because of the sun's angle being greater, and the plant and
animal life in that region since long is adapted to this.
The above facts, in most cases, were reported on in my 8-part
posting 'UNITE! Info #166en: The "ozone hole" terror hoax'
of 20.03 too, the result of some recent checking-out of va-
rious sources and some new analysis. But the thing in point
1) above, about the ozone layer over mid-Sweden having been
*precisely constant* between 1988 and 2001, change 0.0% per
decade, I hadn't seen when I wrote that posting.
Readers who wish to do so can see this for themselves by:
(1) Go to http://www.smhi.se/
(2) Proceed to "Klimat och miljö" (Climate and envi-
ronment) and there to "Ozonmätningar" (Ozone measure-
ments). You'll find a zipfile "ozondata" (ozone data).
(3) Download and unzip the zipfile; the resulting folder
will contain the file "ozdev" (ozone deviation; one
other, "longterm", is a good corollary, showing a
graph 1951-2002 with ozone level measurements by
3 successive stations, clearly not quite comparable
to each other but approximately so).
(4) That file "ozdev" will show two graphs with ozone de-
viations (for Norrköping at 58º N and Vindeln at 64º
N) in the time 1988-2002, and a horizontal line which
shows that the mean level has not changed at all. The
text reads in English:
"Monthly deviation (%) of total ozone Norrköping/
Vindeln
from Uppsala 1951-1966
Linear trend Feb 1988 - Dec 2001 +0.0 % / decade".
Which is just one of several *pretty hard facts* on this
subject, possible for everybody to ascertain for him/herself.
Rolf M.
Malmoe, Sweden
UNITE! / VEREINIGT EUCH! / UNISSEZ-VOUS! / ¡UNIOS! /
FÖRENA ER! Info en/de/fr/es/se series:
Advocates the political line of Marx, Lenin and Mao Zedong.
Each item # will be posted in one or more language(s). Leaf-
lets in the INFORMATIONSBLAD series published by me, mainly
in Swedish, since 1975 are available on request.
Befürwortet die politische Linie von Marx, Lenin und Mao Ze-
dong. Jedes Nummer # wird in einer oder mehreren Sprache(n)
gesandt werden. Flugblätter der Reihe INFORMATIONSBLAD, von
mir hauptsächlich in Schwedisch seit 1975 veröffentlicht,
sind auf Anfrage erhaltlich.
Avocate de la ligne politique de Marx, Lénine et Mao Zedong.
Chaque numéro # sera envoyé en une ou plusieurs langue(s).
Volantes de la série INFORMATIONSBLAD, publiée par moi prin-
cipalement en suédois depuis 1975, sont accessibles sur de-
mande.
Partidaria de la línea política de Marx, Lenin y Mao Zedong.
Cada número # se envía en uno o más idiomas. Están a su dis-
posición, bajo petición previa, distintos folletos de la
serie INFORMATIONSBLAD, publicada por mi principalmente en
sueco desde 1975.
Förespråkar Marx', Lenins och Mao Zedongs politiska linje.
Varje nummer # kommer att sändas på ett eller flera språk.
Flygblad i serien INFORMATIONSBLAD, publicerad av mig huvud-
sakligen på svenska sedan 1975, kan fås på begäran.
Postal address:
Rolf Martens
Nobelvaegen 38U4
SE - 214 33 Malmoe
SWEDEN
Tel: +46 - 40 - 124832
E-mail (main, since Oct 1995:)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(reserve, since Oct 2000:)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------
ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9617B
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
