Brett,

According to the laws of thermodynamics, the amount of incoming and outgoing energy must be identical for the earth. The idea of heat being "trapped" in the troposphere is a nonsensical concept generated by climate modelers trying to push their GIGO models.

Variations in solar radiation and reflectivity of the atmosphere are the only factors which affect the heat balance. If the sun outputs more energy, we receive more. If the atmosphere reflects more SW, we receive less. Either way, all the incoming energy escapes - with the exception of transient changes to the heat content of the oceans.

Interesting topic, but what can we as an individual do about it? I am under the impression that we are already (the human population of the Earth as a whole) reducing or have reduced ozone layer destroying chemical emissions, but regarding greenhouse gas emissions (mainly CO2); even if we each reduce our emissions, if there are more of us on the face of the Earth, then each one of us who is contributing to global warming would need to massively cut our own contributions.

To be more specific, if the human population doubles, then each human would need to halve the amount of pollution they create in order to stop an increase in total pollution. To reduce the total outputs of humans, we would need to each make a larger reduction in our own contribution.

The size of the hole was pretty average compared to the last 15 years, but very big when compared to the 1970's, when the hole did not yet exist.

Actually, this statement is not quite true. The ozone hole was "first recognized" in 1985. Actually, "In reviewing earlier data, they found that the "hole" first appeared in the late 1970s, according to satellite data." Ozone depletion was first noted at a surface station at Halley Bay, Antarctica in 1956. The depletion there and in the Arctic was attributed to bromine compounds originating from sea salt. Therefore, it is most likely that if satellite coverage had been available in the 1950s, ozone depletion would most likely have been found.

If naturally-occurring bromine compounds can destroy ozone at the surface in Antarctica in the late 1950s, I see no reason why these bromine compounds can't make it into the stratosphere also.

there has always been a hole in the ozone layer during the long winter at the poles as sunlight is needed to make ozone.
the real threat to our future is the politically correct junk science that keeps us from really understanding the complex mechanisms going on in our climate.

Hmmm...Will GW positively or negatively affect the ozone hole? Clearly the answer is YES. As I understand it, the current mantra with GW is that it causes, or effects everything, so YEP, it'll do something with it. Whatever the effect, I am certain it will be determined to be bad and the AGW crowd will want to punish the non-believers in some way for it. LOL

Actually, come to think of it, if there is a hole in the atmosphere, won't it let some of all of that bad SUV CO2 pollution and the excess heat out? I mean hot air rises, right? Seems like it should be a good thing huh? Oh wait, CO2 is heavier than air, rats, foiled again. LOL

Happy Halloween, even to the AGWers..

I was wondering if the ozone depletion could actually make global warming worse??? with the increase if uv radiation being let through the atmosphere, wouldn't that accelerate ice melt in the polar regions.. I was curious because closer to the end of winter you notice no matter how cold the temps are there still seems to be acclerated melting on road surfaces, does the increase in the uv reacing the earth during the last weeks of winter increase melting on the road surface... can the ultraviolet radiation actually weaken the ice even if the temps stay below freezing????

What ever the case for Ozone depletion is, my "TUNNELS" restore the Ozone since they remove the fossil fuels which one of the by products of combustion is NOX.The nitric acid in the clouds comes from nitrogen oxides (NOx) (the process of removing NOx from the atmosphere is called denoxification). Nitric acid normally slows the ozone depletion reactions, so its removal allows ozone destruction to continue unabated.
This sequestering of NOx can become permanent if the cloud grows so large that it eventually sinks into the troposphere (called denitrification).

Brett

It�s a fallacy to believe that ozone depleting gases have been replaced with harmless ones. (Reply: I did not say that Simon, The NASA article implied that.)Over the last twenty years Asia has become the worlds largest manufacturer of refrigeration equipment and they still use CFC gas. Enough of those products have already been crushed but the gas was not reclaimed. These units wind up in pre crashed or crushed cars, occupied homes serviced offices and even in the government departments that banned CFCs.

Thirty years ago aircons were not as popular and we all had only one fridge, but these days even the poor have a beer fridge while the rich call it a wine cellar and keep it, glass door and all in full view.

Most of us have access to control over their own climates, we have cooler cars, factory fitted standards, cooler homes and if not we can always spend our hot days at the mall pretending to shop.
Home computers were not available 30 years ago and in the manufacture and maintenance CFC is still used.

Over the last thirty years production of cfcs has remained steady, the industry lost a big slice of their market but new demand opened up other oppotunities.

Even if the product is banned here, it can still be made here and exported

Due to the increasing frequency of severe weather at sea the production of chlorides from the surf are also depleting the ozone, another symptom of AGW this new threat has now delivered exactly the same depleting effect as aerosols.

once again our best effort to solve the anthropological effects of human activity was not successful and we are no safer from ozone depletion despite the pat on the back.

Did you see what the world did when we all worked together? We transferred the blame along with our technology to Asia.

I can hear it now, in the future we will hear them all say it was'nt our fault it was the developing world. they took our jobs and our lifestyles, the used all the resources and they who destroyed the world, we just went shopping.

The increase in UV at the surface is pretty minimal because not very much of the sun's output is in the UV range. It's enough to cause sunburn obviously, but I don't think that extra UV light due to low ozone concentrations (there is still some ozone up there, and even normal diatomic oxygen helps to deplete UV) can really contribute to ice melt.

On another note... is it a possibility that since there is less ozone warming the stratosphere, the southern polar vortex could strengthen? If so, for one it prevents mixing of ozone-rich mid latitude air, but it also prevents mid-latitude air mixing with polar air, hence Antarctica stays pretty cold leading to results that don't match global warming, eg. this SH spring record ice maximum.

That "extra melting" under the ozone hole must be what is driving record high sea ice extent in Antarctica.

Kucinich has seen UFOs, realclimate wants to terraform Mars, Hansen and Gore think sea level is rising an inch a month. Lovelock thinks the earth has passed a tipping point. The Kyoto architect has stated he wants to wipe out industrial civilization.

Lets put loonies in charge of our lives by voting Democratic next fall!

Now Patrick H.,

There you go, injecting politics into this purely scientific discussion. That is definitely "bad form".

Several good graphics showing how different this fall is from last fall in the arctic.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.12.html
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html

The ice is freezing at a much faster rate this year, and will likely cross over last year's graphs before the end of the month.

BTW Mark, Looks like your buddies at moveon.org have been exposed again. Not to mention Harry Reid who was waving the white flag a few months ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7073160.stm

I question whether a warming troposphere causes a cooling stratosphere by "trapping" heat. It makes no sense.

The stratosphere heats from sunlight striking O3 and cools down towards the tropopause. This supposed trapped heat at the top of the troposphere, which is not reaching into the stratosphere, is already between -50 and -80 C. Calling it heat is also a misnomer. It is very low energy at this point.

Temperatures in the Stratosphere pretty closely follow ozone levels. In fact, temps go up in the summer when Ozone is high, and temps go down in the winter when Ozone is lower.

I keep hearing about how Greenhouse Gases, which are horribly misnamed (Greenhouses work by preventing convection), trap heat. This is simply not true. If a volume of gas heats up, it expands becomes less dense, then it rises. As it rises, it expands more because the pressure decreases, this actually lowers the energy because work is done during expansion. It is also working against gravity, and finally it is mixing with cooler air.

As far as IR reaching the tropopause, think of an electric stove. Directly above it is very hot, several inches and you can hold you hand above it, and by several feet, you are likely not even going to notice it.

With both convection and radiation "heating" high altitudes, it is at least -50 C at the tropopause and that is at the poles, the tropopause is more than twice as high at the equator than the poles and gets down to -80 C because humid convective cells push it even higher.

While the Sun heats the planet, convection cools it. One might argue that extra CO2 slows the cooling process, and my question is how much can an additional 250 billion tons of CO2 slow this process?

Not much, think of how there is less than a gram/m^3 CO2 at sea level. And convection is still taking place moving air masses skyward, losing energy while expanding and working against gravity, mixing with cooler air and then sinking again to repeat the process.

Are there any physicists in the house? Is Plank's Law applicable?

Regards,

Steve

my "TUNNELS" restore the Ozone since they remove the fossil fuels which one of the by products of combustion is NOX.

Patrick,

Can you explain what these tunnels are?

Thanks,

Steve

Patrick,

Can you explain what these tunnels are?

Thanks,

Steve

Sure Steve. This is only the tip of the iceburg of what the "TUNNELS" can do for us.

From: Stackgenerator
To: curryja@eas.gatech.edu
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 12:14 AM
Subject: TUNNELS REVERSE GLOBAL WARMING AND WEAKEN HURRICANES PRIOR TO LANDFALL!

Judith,
I have this theory I have thought about for years now! I need someone to computer model it! Frank Marks at HRD says I need to get it modeled along with Michael Oppenheimer and many other scientists! HRD says they can't model it because they are not funded for it! The Idea involves mixing ocean waters in the Gulfstream using Pascal and Bernoulli principles! The Idea can regulate SSTs anywhere from 72 degrees on up to 90+ degrees if needed! The tunnels basically upwell cooler waters to the surface like a Scoop as Hugh Willoughby once told me long ago! Flow occurs because of the pressure differential between the two openings.Basically, the inlet which I call F1 is > F2 at the tunnel outlet! Pascal says any pressure differential within an enclosed system where energy is conserved a flow will occur! Therefore, Pascal's law can be interpreted as saying that any change in pressure applied at any given point of the fluid is transmitted undiminished throughout the fluid including against the walls. F1 at depth opposes the flow of the gulfstream while F2 near the surface is faced away from the gulfstream causing this pressure differential! I call this the cooling stage of the tunnels as this will mix the warm surface waters with the cool water exiting the tunnel thus cooling them prior to a hurricanes landfall. Only if a storm is forecast to hit our coastlines will this stage be used to weaken the storm! During cooling stage the tunnels remove 26 trillion BTUs from the SSTs per/day. This now cooler layer of water flows at the rate of 120 miles per day to the North in the gulfstream. In just three days the whole East Coast, GOM states, and Mexico can be offered protection from any hurricane that may hit them! There are three tunnel locations one in the Yucatan Channel, near Key West and just offshore in St. Lucie Fla.! They cover the width of the Gulfstream and Yucatan Current. I keep getting emails like this:


From: Michael Oppenheimer [mailtomichael@Princeton.EDU]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 4:40 AM
To: Pat McNulty
Subject: RE: Bernoulli's equation used to modify hurricanes and tornado's



Sounds plausible. Questions I would ask include the cost of construction, cost of maintaining the system, side effects to the local marine environment. Whether it actually would work ought to be tested with some modeling. You could contact Kerry Emanuel at MIT to see what he thinks of the possibility of modeling it to see if it actually works as envisioned.



From: Kerry Emanuel [mailto:@texmex.mit.edu]
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 6:26 AM
To: Pat McNulty
Subject: RE: Pascal's and Bernoulli's principle weakens hurricanes

Pat: I have not had time to run calculations on your idea, but I do
not see an obvious reason why it might not work. The technical issue
would be with the volume of water required. Since you are effectively
mixing heat in ocean columns, you would be warming water at depth in
proportion to the surface cooling, and one should explore the
consequences of this.

As you may imagine, this past season's storms have renewed interest
in hurricane modification and quite a few proposals are being
fielded. I am working with some other faculty at MIT to initiate a
funding program for such proposals as yours; if we succeed I will let
you know and there would then be a mechanism for you to get funding
to work on this.

Yours, Kerry



From: willough@fiu.edu [mailto:willough@fiu.edu]
>Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 6:13 PM
>To: Pat McNulty
>Subject: Re: Scoops( Under water Tunnels)
>Hugh,
>I bet those tunnels are cost effective now???? ANY THOUGHTS?

As I wrote earlier, the loop current is hundreds of kilometers across and its position varies greatly from year to year. What makes the scoops not completely nuts as a proposal is the narrowness and fixed position of the Gulf Stream in the Straits and off Florida's SE coast. In terms of climatology, Greater Miami is the most vulnerable major city in the US. Only Miami has the configuration of a deep "western boundary" current directly offshore. Thus this scheme, if it proves feasible, would work only for Miami and only for Andrew-like storms. The city would remain vulnerable to late season storms, which approach from the SW, like WILMA


hew


----- Original Message -----
> From: "Frank Marks" Frank.Marks@noaa.gov
> To: "Stackgenerator" stackgenerator@cableone.net
> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 2:19 PM
> Subject: Re: TUNNEL IDEA??
>
>
> > Unfortunately there is a dearth of models capable of testing
> such a
> > hypothesis. The operational models are coupled to the ocean in
> a 1-D
> > sense eliminating any advection in the ocean. Research models
> are coming
> > along that could be used to look at 3-D interactions, but they
> are so
> > new I am not sure that you could be sure the results was caused
> by the
> > changes you induce or by other issues the new models have not been
> > tested for yet. The big challenge is the ocean modeling (there
> are some
> > good research ocean models, but the issue of forcing in a
> hurricane > environment is not completely understood yet - spray,
> wave breaking,
> > etc), and then the coupling of it to the atmosphere to get the
> > appropriate feedback. We are working on that for the next
> generation > operational models, but it still a work in progress.
> I think in a few
> > years we may have such a tool ready to test your idea in a
> credible
> > manner.


Whew! Were are almost there!

There are two stages for this idea, the one above prior to the emails is just 1/2 the story of the Tunnels! During both stages of operation I have designed them to produce electrical power through a venturi section of the tunnel near the discharge end. All totaled up I have calculated they produce 23 trillion joules of electrical power per /hour during both stages of operation! When not in cooling stage, which is only about 6 % of the time the flow is shunted or bypassed back to the surface where the warm surface water flows through the Tunnels and no cooling occurs!


I know it may sound complex but I hope you can see what I am trying to do with the Tunnels! I think they are the answer to the problem we face with the fossil fuels and Global Warming. Trust me I know it exists I was a control room operator for FPL at the Cutler Ridge Power plant for over 20 years and I am presently in the control room at the Anniston Army Depot in Alabama destroying this countries chemical stockpile of weapons of mass destruction! This is just an idea I came up with when hurricane Andrew rocked my world. It took about five years of thinking everyday. If you have any questions please feel free to get back with me! I also have a blog up about them at Jeff Masters Weatherunderground. If you would like to comment feel free, you are not intruding! Right now I am just having fun with it and kid around a lot. But trust me they are based on sound scientific principle! The idea solves over 300 global issues one of which is WAR!

My name is Cyclonebuster!

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/cyclonebuster/show.html

Yours truly,
Patrick McNulty

Patrick,

Sounds fairly viable for producing electricity, I have worked with venturi systems years ago in water treatment. I cannot see how they would reduce air pollution and as far as hurricanes, how much cool water do you think you can bring to the surface to affect the system?

Have you considered that water at depth contains more CO2 than surface waters? When you bring that water to the surface the CO2 concentrations will be higher then the water can contain and release it into the atmosphere. This is not a concern to me as I have seen any evidence that CO2 levels today or even doubled affect climate what-so-ever.

In any event, if you want to build your tunnels you should talk to venture capitalists or power companies, if they are truly viable, someone will invest.

Good luck,

Steve

Patrick,

As someone who deals with venture capitalists regularly I would suggest that you drop the hype and "cyclonebuster" nonsense. Present yourself in a serious fashion and maybe someone will take you seriously.