Lakagigar 1783

Rodney Blackall wrote:

In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:


ISTR there was another powerful vulcanism in Iceland in the Middle Ages
that also had serious weather repercussions but the date escapes me.


Lahki?

George wrote:
"bob" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 02:08:08 -0500, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:

In the northern latitudes where I live this summer is proving nice
and cool. Tonight it is expected to fall to 41 degrees F whereas
last summer it was 80 degrees at night.

It may be cooler where you live but it's warmer than usual in Tampa.
The water in the Gulf (in this region) is already 30C.

Ouch. How is that affecting the fishing?

Shorter cooking times... ;^)

"Bob Harrington" wrote in message
news:O3oEc.702$MB3.496@attbi_s04...
George wrote:
"bob" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 02:08:08 -0500, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:

In the northern latitudes where I live this summer is proving nice
and cool. Tonight it is expected to fall to 41 degrees F whereas
last summer it was 80 degrees at night.

It may be cooler where you live but it's warmer than usual in Tampa.
The water in the Gulf (in this region) is already 30C.

Ouch. How is that affecting the fishing?

Shorter cooking times... ;^)


Ha ha ha. Cute.

[SNIP]
I suspect that advances in Drilling will someday gain us control over
both
volcanoes and earthquakes. Where we pump some material into a earthquake
epicenter or down a volcano conduit and alter the course of those big
events.

Oh brother!

A drill bit: If its durable it melts first, if it is heat resistant it
shatters!

--
Timothy Casey GPEMC! 11950 is the 2email
Terms & conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
Discover the most advanced speed comprehension application at:
www.fieldcraft.biz/shop BRef http://www.fieldcraft.biz/ki.htm

"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Timothy Casey" z
wrote:
The fact that we did not begin to measure the ozone hole before the
mid-20th
century does not mean that it was constant before that time. Has a
constancy
of atmospheric ozone ever been measured?

We know what has caused the ozone depletion, and CFCs weren't around
before
the 1930s or so.

Isn't the basic premise of science that we know nothing for certain, and
that all conclusions are subject to additional data?



There is geological evidence for the existence of ozone hole variations
for
much longer than Homo Sapiens have been around. Oxygen and ozone are in
equilibrium -


Wrong. Small cyclic variations, but not of this magnitude.

Variations in atmospheric oxygen/ozone in the earth's atmosphere were
neither seasonal nor small in the geological time scale. Eg. it is well
known that atmospheric oxygen reached a peak of 26% 150 mya. This would have
had a profound effecto on the amount of atmospheric ozone...


a decrease in one will bring about a decrease in the other, so
CFCs are not the only issue here;

The one thing thrown into what was an equilibrium.


and atmospheric oxygen content has been
shown to vary widely throughout geological history - implying a parallel
variation in available ozone.


Not really. The ozone layer is pretty thin anyway; the O2 side of the
equilibrium is in large excess.

So it would not take a large decrease in atmospheric oxygen to deplete the
ozone layer a great deal here.


For example, it is highly unlikely that there
was any ozone in the earth's atmosphere prior to 2800mya. It is thought
that
back in those days there was no atmospheric oxygen, as this would not
have
allowed iron to remain in solution in the oceans...

But we didn't worry about life on land then!

Irrespective, since then there is a wild variation in atmospheric oxygen and
ergo, ozone...



Also, it is the Antarctic volcanoes that are the big Cl and F producers,
not
Pinatubo et al. - and interestingly enough, it is Antarctica that has the
Ozone depletion; Not New York, Paris, or for that matter the Arctic
Circle...

Sorry, volcanoes have been shown to NOT put Cl atoms into the
stratosphere,

I did not mean to imply that they did. Apologies for my poor expression: I
was talking about Cl/F bearing gases (Eg. ClO, ClO2, HCL, HF, etc...)

at least not in a form that isn't quickly removed. CFCs are nasty because
they are inert and not water soluble, so they get up to the stratosphere
and
then stay there.

According to the web site of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the score is Humans 82% and Volcanoes 18%. However, Molina's
explanation that CFCs are carried up by atmospheric turbulence could be
applied equally to oceanic HCl and Volcanic F/Cl bearing gases - especially
considering that the heat and impulse of an eruption will give the lighter
volcanic gases a head start on their way up. Is there a peered reviewed
paper that deals with this?

As for the Winter/Summer cycle of Ozone breakdown over Antarctica - how is
it that this does not apply equally, if at all over the Arctic circle -
Would there not be more man-made Cl/F bearing gases in the Northern
hemisphere?

Also, has any work been done to overlay recent peaks in Antarctic volcanic
activity against ozone layer thickness over Antarctica?

One more question - given that the ozone layer is a gas and not a viscous
fluid, how is it that its topography does not settle? IE. Why is there an
ozone peak over the Southern Ocean, right next to the Antarctic ozone hole,
if the ozone hole is not the result of local mechanisms? What mechanism
causes the southern ozone peak?

--
Timothy Casey GPEMC! 11950 is the 2email
Terms & conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
Discover the most advanced speed comprehension application at:
www.fieldcraft.biz/shop BRef http://www.fieldcraft.biz/ki.htm

In article ,
"Timothy Casey" z wrote:
"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Timothy Casey" z
wrote:
The fact that we did not begin to measure the ozone hole before the
mid-20th
century does not mean that it was constant before that time. Has a
constancy
of atmospheric ozone ever been measured?

We know what has caused the ozone depletion, and CFCs weren't around
before
the 1930s or so.

Isn't the basic premise of science that we know nothing for certain, and
that all conclusions are subject to additional data?

No. In quantum mechanics, we know nothing for certain, but otherwise, we
know a lot. Carbon atoms have 6 protons; the earth is several billion years
old; etc.




There is geological evidence for the existence of ozone hole variations
for
much longer than Homo Sapiens have been around. Oxygen and ozone are in
equilibrium -


Wrong. Small cyclic variations, but not of this magnitude.

Variations in atmospheric oxygen/ozone in the earth's atmosphere were
neither seasonal nor small in the geological time scale.


I was talking about the ozone layer.

Eg. it is well
known that atmospheric oxygen reached a peak of 26% 150 mya. This would have
had a profound effecto on the amount of atmospheric ozone...


a decrease in one will bring about a decrease in the other, so
CFCs are not the only issue here;

The one thing thrown into what was an equilibrium.


and atmospheric oxygen content has been
shown to vary widely throughout geological history - implying a parallel
variation in available ozone.


Not really. The ozone layer is pretty thin anyway; the O2 side of the
equilibrium is in large excess.

So it would not take a large decrease in atmospheric oxygen to deplete the
ozone layer a great deal here.


For example, it is highly unlikely that there
was any ozone in the earth's atmosphere prior to 2800mya. It is thought
that
back in those days there was no atmospheric oxygen, as this would not
have
allowed iron to remain in solution in the oceans...

But we didn't worry about life on land then!

Irrespective, since then there is a wild variation in atmospheric oxygen and
ergo, ozone...

Not since humans walked the planet.




Also, it is the Antarctic volcanoes that are the big Cl and F producers,
not
Pinatubo et al. - and interestingly enough, it is Antarctica that has the
Ozone depletion; Not New York, Paris, or for that matter the Arctic
Circle...

Sorry, volcanoes have been shown to NOT put Cl atoms into the
stratosphere,

I did not mean to imply that they did. Apologies for my poor expression: I
was talking about Cl/F bearing gases (Eg. ClO, ClO2, HCL, HF, etc...)

at least not in a form that isn't quickly removed. CFCs are nasty because
they are inert and not water soluble, so they get up to the stratosphere
and
then stay there.

According to the web site of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the score is Humans 82% and Volcanoes 18%.

And the human contribution is in the form of CFCs, which are inert and
water-soluble.


However, Molina's
explanation that CFCs are carried up by atmospheric turbulence could be
applied equally to oceanic HCl and Volcanic F/Cl bearing gases - especially
considering that the heat and impulse of an eruption will give the lighter
volcanic gases a head start on their way up. Is there a peered reviewed
paper that deals with this?

Again, the form Cl is emitted by volcanoes is HCL, which is water soluble.
Volcanoes also emit a lot of water; this tends to dissolve the HCl and rain
it out.

The nasty thing about CFCs, as I said, is they're inert and not
water-soluble.


As for the Winter/Summer cycle of Ozone breakdown over Antarctica - how is
it that this does not apply equally, if at all over the Arctic circle -
Would there not be more man-made Cl/F bearing gases in the Northern
hemisphere?

Also, has any work been done to overlay recent peaks in Antarctic volcanic
activity against ozone layer thickness over Antarctica?

One more question - given that the ozone layer is a gas and not a viscous
fluid, how is it that its topography does not settle? IE. Why is there an
ozone peak over the Southern Ocean, right next to the Antarctic ozone hole,
if the ozone hole is not the result of local mechanisms? What mechanism
causes the southern ozone peak?

On Wed, 30 Jun 04 12:15:32 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

No. In quantum mechanics, we know nothing for certain, but otherwise, we
know a lot. Carbon atoms have 6 protons; the earth is several billion years
old; etc.

What hubris. Just as the earth was obviously flat -- elementary
observation once "proved" it. And there was no such thing as
elemental transmutation ... until radioactivity was inconveniently
discovered.

Steve Turner

In article ,
Steve Turner wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 04 12:15:32 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

No. In quantum mechanics, we know nothing for certain, but otherwise, we
know a lot. Carbon atoms have 6 protons; the earth is several billion
years
old; etc.

What hubris.

Are you saying carbon might have 5 or 7 protons?


Just as the earth was obviously flat -- elementary
observation once "proved" it. And there was no such thing as
elemental transmutation ... until radioactivity was inconveniently
discovered.

Steve Turner

You're saying science is useless. Sorry, I don't buy that, and I bet nobody
else here does either.

On Thu, 01 Jul 04 12:06:25 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

You're saying science is useless. Sorry, I don't buy that, and I bet nobody
else here does either.

Sorry, but you're putting words in my mouth. I wouldn't be a
scientist if I thought science was useless. But I'm also not naive
enough to believe that science necessarily has the correct answer all
of the time. That's not science, it's arrogance.

Steve Turner

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

In the northern latitudes where I live this summer is proving nice and
cool. Tonight it is expected to fall to 41 degrees F whereas last summer
it was 80 degrees at night.

You must be joking! Here in Alaska it is hotter than hell, but it allows me
to experiment with growing things like cucumbers without a greenhouse.
Unfortunately all the forest fires are partially obscuring the sunlight.

Dennis
--
http://alaska-freegold.com/html/index.html