OZONE is significant?

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm not certain but surely this gives higher toxicity to bacteria, thus reducing background counts? Still not good for the immune system in the long run, but good for where large groups of people collect? Pros and cons to everything.

I'll grudgingly accept that Hiya (LOL) I suppose if H5N1 were to become an issue this year a 'mis-firing' immune system could save a lot of young lives (however perverse it seems!).

[HighPressure]

Ozone doesn't have a lot going for it, plenty of things catalyse their destruction, nitrates, sulphates and even ice particles provide a surface for heterogeneous catalysis, so an undiscovered one is probable. A carbon nanoparticle springs to mind, might have a look on google and see if anyone has done experiments with that.

I agree with P3, the article is written from top heavy dramatic way.

Hi Hiya:

I will bow to your greater chemistry knowledge (which is not difficult), do you have any thoughts of the effect of UV-B on photoplankton production. Do you think there is any mileage in the area of hindered ocean CO2 take up as an indirect effect of Ozone depletion?

[Hiya]

Hi Hiya:

I will bow to your greater chemistry knowledge (which is not difficult), do you have any thoughts of the effect of UV-B on photoplankton production. Do you think there is any mileage in the area of hindered ocean CO2 take up as an indirect effect of Ozone depletion?

I couldn't really comment to be honest I don't know much about that area, sorry.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Hiya:

I will bow to your greater chemistry knowledge (which is not difficult), do you have any thoughts of the effect of UV-B on phytoplankton production. Do you think there is any mileage in the area of hindered ocean CO2 take up as an indirect effect of Ozone depletion?

It is another 'new area of research' to find out just why our oceanic 'CO" sinks' are standing still in their absorption rates whilst the atmospheric CO2 increases. Surely it cannot just be 'saturation point' being reached. Whatever has caused it has thrown another spanner in the CO2 equations though!

[HighPressure]

I have been reading up on the latest research into Phytoplankton and how it is effected by UV-B radiation as a result of ozone depletion. Another effect is increased wind speed causing reduced CO2 take up, which leads to research suggesting ocean CO2 take up has stood still with increased atmospheric CO2? This is not what was predicted and could cause GW to be far greater, the issue here being that CO2 is the direct cause of warming although oceans sink failure is the indirect cause. I fear that reducing CO2 emissions will achieve nothing if the sinks continue to perform badly, although solar and orbital effects may also be present after a good few months looking at this from my very limited scientific understanding if someone gave me decent odds on ozone being the underlying cause of GW I would take it at this point.

You can shoot me now I don't care

Edited October 15, 2007 by HighPressure

[Gray-Wolf]

I think that , because there is so much focus on CO2, many folk do not realise just how many other factors human tinkering have caused that help reinforce the trend for warming. I'd be very wary of focusing on just one area and instead maybe weight the many factors in our recent (last 150yrs) warming to find how significant you find each to be.

The poor functioning due to the effects of warming, of many varied carbon sinks is another great worry as, as you say, it is not factored into many of the current predictive models.

Like the computer once a model is published it appears to be out of date!

[HighPressure]

I think that , because there is so much focus on CO2, many folk do not realise just how many other factors human tinkering have caused that help reinforce the trend for warming. I'd be very wary of focusing on just one area and instead maybe weight the many factors in our recent (last 150yrs) warming to find how significant you find each to be.

The poor functioning due to the effects of warming, of many varied carbon sinks is another great worry as, as you say, it is not factored into many of the current predictive models.

Like the computer once a model is published it appears to be out of date!

OK: I say a major contributory factor then

What would the IPCC sea ice loss graph look like if ozone depletion was factored in as a positive forcing and not the negative they suggest? Maybe somewhat closer to reality?

[Gray-Wolf]

From a personal perspective I believe we are in the final phase of arctic summer ice and, as such, many of our natural drivers will have a large part in the final melt of the remaining 'multiyear ice'. We may well have instigated the losses to a point but then nature will take over and 'balence out' the new set of drivers. With the remnant multiyear ice on the verge of losing it's 'Greenland cover' it will fall prey to the same factors that have ablated the rest of the multiyear ice. We must also understand that as the 'chunk' reduces the ratio of mass to surface area also changes accelleration the demise further.

Ozone may be found to have played a much greater role in the ablation of the previous 50% of multiyear ice but now I fear that warmer arctic oceans over summer (increased absorbtion of incoming solar radiation) and new/altered weather types (including the rain at the pole that the IPY folk had to deal with) will do for the rest!

Edited October 15, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[HighPressure]

I find this interesting:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7050132.stm

Although no link is being suggested if Ozone depletion is known to have a proven effect on wind speed I see no reason why that could not translate into wind pattern shifts.

I pose the question to myself as much as anyone else, can ozone depletion be driving wind pattern changes bringing warming air to the artic and could this be the reason for recent dramtic ice loss well ahead of IPCC original predictions?

Just to add that winds play a big role in ocean sinks ability to absorb CO2, maybe 2+2 don't = 5 but I am not letting go just yet :lol:

Edited October 19, 2007 by HighPressure

[HighPressure]

Back to Ozone again although not mentioned at all in this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7058074.stm

It is here:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/oce...8995364373.html

I don't know why the BBC want to edit out the vital point about ozone depletion from their article, could there be a hidden agenda?

I think we are about to the ozone / climate change link get much stronger over the next few years, the IPCC have got this totally wrong!

[johnholmes]

Just a simple question from me, that I have asked before but I don't think has ever been answered.

If I'm correct, the ozone hole was "discovered". Do we know, & if so how, that it is not an entirely normal phenomenon that has always existed to a greater or lesser degree?

It reminds me of the old trick question of "what was the highest mountain in the world before Everest was discovered?".

Not being provocative or anything, it is a genuine question that has sometimes puzzled me.

Dave

it was discovered by (BAS)British Antarctic Survey scientists. It took them a long time to prove it existed against NASA opposition as 'their' satellites' showed nothing.

Its main immediate danger is anyone going out without full head, body, eye protection will suffer damage sometimes ireeparable damage to eyesight etc.

For the most southern countries daily ozone warnings are issued when the risk rises to a certain level.

Try the BAS web site for the full account and explanation.