|
Debunking myths about the ozone hole and greenhous
DEBUNKING MEDIA MITHS ABOUT THE OZONE HOLE AND GREENHOUSE WARMING
The surface of this planet is covered by dry bits, called "land," and
wet bits, called "water." Where these two bodies meet is termed a "beach,"
which may be sandy, rocky, cliff face, or any one of many other types.
Where these "beaches" occur, there is, to a greater or lesser extent, a
certain amount of wave activity called "surf." Imagine you are strolling
along a beach somewhere, minding your own business, and enjoying the view,
when, out of nowhere, comes a demented, hysterical character who wants to
enlist your help in freeing the beach of board-riders, because they are
"wearing down the surf." He goes on to earnestly explain that the thin line
of "surf" is the only thing "holding back" the ocean, and if the
board-riders wear it out enough, the "layer of surf" will become so
depleted that it can no longer "hold back" the ocean, and the ocean will
flood over the land and destroy mankind. What would be your reaction to
such a person? You'd quite possibly conclude, quite correctly, that such a
person should be confined to the local "funny farm" as quickly as possible,
wouldn't you?
And yet, this is exactly the kind of logic being used to support the
"hole in the ozone layer" scam. And erstwhile intelligent people are
running around with varying versions of this Chicken Little story that the
"sky is falling," without ever making even the slightest attempt to find
out what is really happening, and why. As with the "greenhouse effect," it
is only necessary to understand a few very simple scientific facts, to
totally debunk this "scam." First of all, what exactly is the "ozone
layer," or "ozone mantle" as it is now being called, which supposedly
"protects" us from all that unwanted ultraviolet light? Well, quite simply
and bluntly, there ISN'T one!! Just as the surf is not a magical barrier to
the ocean flooding the land, and is, in reality simply an EFFECT of where
land a water meet, so too is the so-called "ozone layer" merely an area
where an effect can be detected, not a CAUSE. Let's start with a very
basic chemistry lesson, which again can be confirmed with junior high
school textbooks. First of all, existing on this planet Earth, and
probably elsewhere, is an element called "oxygen." According to my
dictionary, oxygen is an element, with the chemical symbol "O." Now,
oxygen, for reasons I won't go into here, but which you can readily find
out for yourself from the aforementioned junior high school chemistry book,
rarely, if ever, exists as the single atom "O." Such a single atom of
oxygen or most other "elements," is called an "ion," and it is very
difficult for most substances to exist freely in their "ionic" state. What
normally happens is that two atoms of "O" combine, or "stick" together, and
form the molecule "O2," of "oxygen" as you and I know it. This is the
stuff you and I and all other living creatures breathe in and expel as
"carbon dioxide," or CO2 (one carbon atom, two oxygen atoms). In yet
another of nature's wonderful balancing acts, green plants "breathe" in the
CO2, extract the atom of carbon (C) as a "building block" in their cellular
growth, and expel oxygen, or "O2." This is why it is so important that we
stop destroying all the green stuff on the land by overclearing, and stop
polluting up the oceans, and thereby killing all the little green plants
known as "plankton."
"O2," or two oxygen atoms "stuck together" if you like, is the
"normal, or most prevalent form of oxygen in the atmosphere. But it is by
no means the only one. If one applies various forms of energy to the "O2"
molecule, it will break down to its ionic state and reform into another
configuration, one where THREE, not two, atoms of oxygen "stick together"
to form a new molecule called "O3," or "ozone." Now, the "energy" required
to perform this little trick can come from a variety of sources. An
electrical discharge through the air will do it. Unlike "oxygen" (O2),
which is odorless, "ozone" has a distinct, pungent smell. Pick up your
kid's electric train engine, or radio-controlled car, after it has been
operating a while, and you will smell this odor. The electrical discharge
where the bushes run on the motor turns a certain amount of "oxygen" (O2),
into "ozone" (O3). Electrical storms, or at least the subsequent bolts of
lightning, ionize a great deal of the surrounding air, and create a certain
amount of "ozone."
By far and away the biggest "source" of energy for the conversion of
"oxygen" (O2) into "ozone" (O3), however, comes from the Sun, in the form
of ultraviolet light. What happens is a cycle something like this: You
and I breathe in oxygen (O2), and breathe out CO2, carbon dioxide. Plants
on the other hand "breathe in" carbon dioxide, and expel oxygen (O2). This
cycle is more or less endless. Oxygen (O2), however, is slightly lighter
than the other elements which make up the "air" (nitrogen, carbon dioxide,
and so on), and so a certain proportion of the molecules of oxygen drift
upwards to the outer fringes of that blanket of gases that surround the
planet, which we call our atmosphere. From the other direction, light from
the Sun streams in. A certain amount of this light is absorbed or
deflected by various elements, atoms, molecules, and particles of other
matter. The bulk of this light from the Sun, however, continues its
downward journey toward the planet's surface, until it encounters the
oxygen (O2) molecules rising up from the surface. At the point where the
sunlight reaches a sufficient concentration of O2 molecules, a "reaction"
takes place. A certain portion of the light from the Sun, that portion
known as the "ultraviolet" section, strikes the rising O2 molecules, and
imparts its energy to the oxygen molecule it has struck. This has two
effects. First, it greatly reduces the amount of ultraviolet light which
would otherwise reach the Earth's surface, because the "ray," or unit, or
"beam" of light loses energy and becomes light in the lower spectrums, the
ones we call "colors." This is one of the causes of that spectacular light
show called the "Southern," or "Northern" Lights. Second, it converts the
"oxygen" molecules (O2), into "ozone" molecules (O3).
There is a portion of the atmosphere, from 10, to 50 kilometers up,
which does not, however, get this name because it contains some magical,
mysterious "layer" of matter known as "ozone" which exists, and has
existed, from the beginning of time to "protect" us from ultraviolet light,
and which is now under "dire threat" from various man-made products. It is
called this name because this is the region where rising O2 oxygen
molecules are struck by incoming ultraviolet light, and convert to O3 ozone
molecules, and it therefore has a higher proportion of "O3" molecules to
"O2" molecules. There will continue to be an "ozonosphere," or, as it is
incorrectly termed, an "ozone layer," for as long as the planet's surface
continues to manufacture oxygen to rise, and for as long as the Sun
continues to emit light to encounter that rising oxygen. Just as there
will always be "surf," for as long as there are places where "water" meets
"land." The misnamed "ozone layer" will continue to simply be the end
result of where two opposing forces and systems meet, until such time as
one or the other of those forces or systems ceases to exist. Just as there
will always be "surf," for as long as there is "land" and "water," there
will be an "ozonosphere" as long as there is "oxygen" and sunlight. If
either one of these packs up, we will have long since suffocated, or frozen
to death, before we develop skin cancer. As I said, this is stuff you can
check out for yourself with the simplest of reference books.
FACTS ABOUT THE OZONOSPHERE
Okay. What about the so-called "holes" in the "ozone layer"? Well,
as we have seen, there is no such thing as a magical, mysterious "ozone
layer," so there can't be any "holes" in it. There IS however, a region
called the "ozonosphere" which normally has a higher incidence of "O3" than
"O2" simply and purely because it is a region where a segment of sunlight
(ultraviolet light) strikes O2 molecules, and converts them into O2
molecules. Now, given the chemical-physical explanation of the
ozonosphere, as opposed to the "hysterical" version currently being peddled
by the media, it becomes immensely easy to "predict" in said ozonosphere at
certain times of the year. As has been demonstrated, the so-called "ozone
layer" requires for its very existence, that oxygen (O2) molecules interact
with incoming sunlight (ultraviolet light), in order to create "O3"
molecules, which can then be measured and referred to as the magical "ozone
mantle."
Now, there are two places on the face of the planet where, for a
portion of the year, NO ULTRAVIOLET LIGHT strikes rising O2 molecules, and
therefore, where there can be NO large formation of O3 molecules (ozone).
I am referring, of course, to the Northern (Arctic) Circle in the Northern
Hemisphere winter, and to the Southern (Antarctic) Circle in the Southern
Hemisphere winter. The Earth, thankfully, is not positioned exactly
perpendicular to the rays of the Sun. If it was, the Sun would be overhead
in the small place all the time, and the so-called tropical regions would
just get hotter and hotter, until they became uninhabitable deserts, and
the polar regions would just keep freezing. The bulk of the Earth's surface
would either be too hot, or too cold, to live in with only a thin region
where the two extremities met, capable of supporting life as we know it.
Fortunately, this is not the case; the Earth is, in fact "tilted over"
to one side with respect to the Sun, and it is this tilt that gives us our
"seasons." In Figure 1 [figure deleted], we have a representation of the
Earth at what is known in the Northern Hemisphere as the "summer solstice,"
that is, when the Sun is directly "overhead" at the Tropic of Cancer. This
is the height of the Northern Hemisphere summer. As can clearly be seen
from the diagram, NO sunlight is contacting the atmosphere above the
Antarctic Circle, and therefore there simply cannot be any conversion of
"O2" into "O3." Hence, there is a measurable "hole" in the amount of ozone
in the ozonosphere at that time. As the Sun's "overhead" position
gradually changes, and the Sun "moves" back across the Equator, the amount
of sunlight reaching the Antarctic Circle gradually increases, thus giving
rise to an increase in the incidence of ultraviolet light striking the
atmosphere, thus causing the "hole" to "shrink."
In Figure 2 [figure deleted] we have the exact opposite conditions,
the "summer solstice" for the Southern Hemisphere. This occurs on Dec. 22
each year, when the Sun is directly "overhead" at the Tropic of Capricorn.
Again, it can readily be seen that now the Arctic Circle lies completely in
the dark, and, surprise, surprise, there is a measurable "hole" there in
the amount of O3 in the ozonosphere. After the Southern Hemisphere
solstice, the Sun begins its journey northward again, and as we here in
Australia slip into our autumn, the "hole" at the Antarctic Circle starts
to "grow" again, and the one at the Arctic Circle starts to "shrink." This
is a natural cycle which has existed, and will continue to exist, for as
long as the Earth is tilted, the atmosphere contains O2 molecules, and
ultraviolet light continues to come from the Sun to convert them to O3
molecules. There are no laws that puny men can pass to stop the awesome
forces and cycles of Nature, as King Canute learned when he attempted to
"order" the tides to turn back. "Laws" to attempt to prevent the natural
cycle of "holes" in the ozonosphere, fall into the same category, and
should be treated with equal contempt.
So where did all this nonsense about "holes" in the ozone layer come
from, anyway? Well, back in 1985, the British Climatological Team in
Antarctica discovered the first "hole." There was a relatively short bout
of hysteria, as always, whipped up by a compliant media because the whole
thing was in "somebody's" interest; all front-page hype and speculation
about how half the world's population would be dead from skin cancer by the
year 2000, and similar preposterous stuff. If you think back to the late
1985-early 1986, you should be able to remember it all. You should also be
able to remember that it had all just died away by late 1986-early 1987,
and you heard nothing more about "holes" in the ozone layer until quite
recently. But do you know why? Well, I'll tell you. It all died away
because by the time the British scientists at the South Pole had been
studying the phenomenon long enough to realize that it was not some
hideous, dire threat to mankind's future, but part of a natural, endless,
repetitive cycle. This was actually reported in the papers, but naturally
enough, not in screaming page-one headlines, but buried up on page 53 or
so, somewhere between the comics and the obituaries.
What was also reported at the time was that the scientists, who now
know exactly what they were dealing with, were packing up in Antarctica,
and moving camp to the Northern Polar regions to test their own prediction
that there would be a similar "hole" there, at the opposite time of the
year, thereby proving that the "holes" were not a new threat to the
environment and to mankind, but part of a natural cycle. And that, of
course, is exactly what they did, and that is exactly what they found. Of
course, such a reassurance would not suit those who wish us to live our
lives in a constant state of near panic, and therefore ever more prepared
to hand over control of our lives to some form of "Big Brother" to save us
from these imaginary "threats."
And so, rather than the papers correctly reporting that the British
team had discovered a second hole above the Arctic Circle, a hole they had
already predicted and they had gone there specifically to confirm, thereby
proving their theory that such phenomena were part of a natural cycle, the
papers instead screamed out from their front pages, "Second Hole in Ozone
Layer Discovered: Dire Double Threat to Mankind," and other similar
hysterical drivel. And now, Maggie Thatcher, the head of government in
Britain, the person who was ultimately responsible for the team that
discovered the first "hole," and the person ultimately responsible for
sending the team to the Arctic Circle to substantiate their theories, the
person with access to ALL this information, and the person who should be
leading the way in debunking this scam, is the person inviting scientists
and leaders from all over the world, to formulate "policies," and
"agreements," and if necessary, "world laws" to be administered by the
United States, to tackle this new "threat." And there are STILL people
trying to convince me she's one of the "good guys."
Now, don't get me wrong; I'm not in favor of ANY strange
laboratory-created substances polluting the air I have to breathe, and I
wholeheartedly endorse the current campaign to rid the atmosphere of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the atoms being blamed for the so-called
"holes" in the ozone layer. But just stop for a minute and think: If CFCs
caused the so-called "holes," why are they ONLY over the polar regions?
Are the polar explorers and scientists using too much spray-on deodorant
and fly-killer? Of course not. If CFCs had much to do at all with the
so-called "holes," then the "holes" would be over New York, or Tokyo, or
London, or at least somewhere relative to these places where it could be
shown that the air currents were causing the CFCs to accumulate. But they
are not. The "holes" only occur in two places, over the North and South
Polar regions, exactly in accordance with natural forces which create the
bulk of ozone, and exactly in accordance with the theories and predictions
of the scientists who discovered them in the first place.
AEROSOL CANS AND JET PLANES
Think about something else for a moment. Imagine a can of spray. If
you like, think about a whole supermarket shelf of cans of fly spray or
even an entire supermarket full of nothing else but cans of fly-spray.
Picture in you mind how much CFCs are involved, and will find their way
into the atmosphere to somehow (never actually explained) "destroy" ozone
(O3). Now picture in your mind a Boeing 747 jet, with its four massive
engines. Now imagine that jet hurling through the sky at hundreds of miles
an hour, scooping literally TONS of air into its jet engines every minute
or so. Now, what those jet engines are doing with that air, is extracting
the available oxygen, tons and tons of the stuff, and using it to burn
kerosene, thereby using up the oxygen and creating carbonic gases. And
where do these jets fly? Why, predominantly in the ozonosphere.
That's right: The "oxygen" these jets destroy by the ton every minute
or so, is not the "O2" variety you and I breathe, it's the "O3" variety
which SUPPOSEDLY exists as some kind of "protective mantle" and which we
must now "save" at all costs, even at the sacrifice of democracy and
freedom. Every time a jet takes off and flies somewhere, it destroys more
ozone than you or I could ever imagine, let alone use, as CFCs, in a
lifetime. We're not talking about amounts that can even be conceived in
terms of fly-spray cans; we're talking volumes of ozone similar to the
amount of water in Sydney Harbor at any given time. And that's ONE Boeing.
Thousands, if not tens of thousands of such flights occur all over the
world each and every day (except in Australia at Christmas, when, as
everybody knows, all the airline staff go on strike). But have you heard
anybody suggest that jet flight be banned, or at least kept below the
ozonosphere? No, of course not. You are supposed to believe that all this
massive consumption, millions of tons of O3 (ozone) every day, is perfectly
safe and poses no threat, but the next time you reach for the can of
Mortein, you may just bring about the end of civilization as we know it.
If you accept this, then you probably really do believe that the surf
protects us from the ocean, and we should stop the board-riders from
"wearing it away."
Now, I ask you, just who is kidding whom?
-------------------------------------------
SCAM TWO: THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
-------------------------------------------
The other current "scare" is based on the so-called "greenhouse
effect." The scenario goes something like this; increases in the
atmosphere of various gasses, principally carbon dioxide, will cause an
increase in the Earth's mean atmospheric temperature. This, in turn, will
cause amongst other things, a melting of the ice caps, making the ocean
levels rise, thereby causing terrible coastal flooding; it will also turn
currently arable farmlands into deserts, because there will be less rain in
most places (but more in others). Now, just for a moment, forget all the
hysterical garbage you've been reading in the papers, most written by
"journalists" who can't even spell anymore, let alone actually "research" a
story, and let's have a look at the cold, hard facts.
First of all, it hasn't even been fully accepted by the mainstream
scientific community, that levels of carbon dioxide are, in fact rising,
or, if they have, that they are continuing to rise. There is a narrow band
of statistical data that tends to suggest that this MAY be the case, but it
has been collated over such a short period of time that it is impossible
yet to accurately predict whether this is a "new" phenomenon, or part of a
cycle. Even amongst supporters of the theory that there has been a
significant increase, there is a sizable proportion who argue that the
situation has already stabilized, and that there is no further increase to
be expected. And even then, there is widespread scientific speculation as
to whether such an increase in carbon dioxide, has actually caused an
increase in temperatures. There is no doubt that such "increases" have
been recorded at least in some places. But whether it is "global" or not,
and regardless, whether increase in carbon dioxide have caused it or not,
are still mere speculation. One highly respected scientist has already
pointed out that these "high temperature" statistics have all been
collected in, or near, major cities, which not only have significantly
higher levels of many gases like carbon dioxide, but are also veritable
concrete and bitumen "jungles," which act as "heat-sinks," and will
invariably produce higher temperature readings than the surrounding rural
areas. While they may be bad news for people living in the very big
cities, it is hardly indicative of what is happening globally.
For the moment, however, let us assume both factors needed to support
the "greenhouse effect": that the level of carbon dioxide IS increasing,
and that this WILL cause the Earth's mean temperature to rise, as accepted
facts, rather than speculation. Does it follow that sometime in the future
we will see our costal cities turned into new "Venices," and see the ocean
"rise," or that our rural farmlands will become dust bowls? No, in fact,
exactly the OPPOSITE would be true....
To understand what WOULD happen, if the Earth's temperature increased,
for whatever reason, one must first of all understand a few simple,
scientific facts. The first is that there is only a certain, relatively
fixed amount of "water" on the planet. This water exists in four physical
or geographical states. The bulk, of course exists in a liquid state as
oceans and seas. It also exists in its liquid state as lakes, rivers, and
ground water, most of which, at any given time, is involved in an
inexorable trip back to the oceans. Another large amount exists as vapor in
the form of clouds, and a certain amount is locked up as a solid, in the
form of ice, principally at the polar caps. Now, changes in the Earth's
mean temperature will change the PROPORTION of water found in each of these
states, but NOT the total amount.
The second fact to understand is that three of these forms are in a
constant state of movement. The waters of the oceans are constantly
evaporated into clouds. The cloud move over the land, where, under certain
circumstances, it falls as rain. The rain becomes ground water of one form
or another, which starts its journey back to the oceans, where the process
starts all over again. So, at any given moment, there is a certain amount
of water lying in the oceans, a certain amount evaporate, on its way to
become rain, and a certain amount on the land for the farmers to use. Now,
the real scientific fact to understand, is that if you raise air
temperatures, you INCREASE the rate of evaporation. If you doubt this,
simply take two shallow beakers of tap water, put one in the refrigerator
(not the freezer), and the other on the kitchen window sill. The one on
the window sill will very quickly evaporate away; the one in the
refrigerator will last significantly longer.
So what does this mean in terms of the "greenhouse effect"? Simply,
that if the Earth's temperature increases, it would rain MORE, not less.
Marginal farmland would become more abundant, temperate climates would
become subtropical, and so on. There would be far more fresh water in the
rivers, and lakes, for irrigation, and, if you think about it, the ocean
levels would drop (discounting for a moment, the "melting ice caps" which
we will come to). Conversely, if the temperature were to decrease, there
would be LESS evaporation, and therefore LESS rain, and therefore LESS
agriculture. This is substantiated historically, as well as
scientifically, in almost every major drought and famine in mankind's
history has been accompanied by severe WINTERS, not summers. Historically,
it is the COLD which destroys agriculture, not a rise in temperatures,
principally for the reasons cited above. (Incidentally, we all know it
rains a lot in the tropics, but do you know which is the driest--least
precipitation--continent on the planet? Antarctica!!!)
So, all things being equal, a slight rise in temperature would lead to
a boom in world agriculture, not the desert wastelands scenario we are
currently being fed. But is such a situation likely, even if temperatures
are going up at the moment? As we have seen, if mean temperature goes up,
evaporation goes up. That means a great increase in cloud cover. Now ask
yourself, is it hotter on a sunny day or a cloudy day? You already know
the answer. IF the temperature were to go up, for whatever reason, there
would be a corresponding increase in cloud cover. This, in turn, would
cause a corresponding DECREASE in mean temperature. Within certain very
confined parameters, the overall "system" is self-regulating, and will
remain so as long as we don't replace too much green with concrete, stop
polluting the oceans with oil the interrupts the evaporation process, and
refrain from blowing ourselves and the planet to oblivion. Whoever
designed the place, howsoever you conceive Him, certainly knew what He was
doing.
Ahh, you say. That's all very well. Okay, the crops won't fail, but
what about when the ice caps start to melt, and the oceans rise, and flood
all of us living by the coast? Well, as I have said above, I doubt that
such rises are sustainable over any period of time, and the polar regions
are well capable of bearing significant temperature rises for limited
periods. The Arctic regions of Alaska, for instance, enjoy temperatures of
around 20-25 degrees in the "month of the midnight Sun" each year. This is
comparable to a pleasant spring day. But even if the "greenhouse" scenario
were true, AND sustainable, and the ice caps melted, would that mean the
ocean levels would rise sufficiently to "flood us out." Again, no. Let's
look at the two ice caps separately, as they are very different.
WHAT HAPPENS AT THE POLES
First, the Northern ice cap, better known as Arctica. Contrary to
what many people believe, there is no "land" under the Arctic ice cap, it
consists entirely of frozen water, ice, "floating" on liquid water. Water
is a strange substance, in that instead of getting denser and denser as it
turns from a liquid to a solid, below 4 degrees C, which is just above
freezing, it begins to expand. Once it is "frozen" (becomes a solid), it
is actually 10% less dense than in its liquid form, and occupies 10% more
space. This is why ice cubes float, and bottles of beer explode in the
freezer. Taken in isolation, if the Northern ice-cap melted totally,
coupled to the increase in evaporation that would be associated with a
"greenhouse effect," the levels of the oceans would DROP. Of course, these
things can't be taken in isolation, and this "drop" would, in fact be
almost exactly offset by the corresponding melting of all the ice currently
existing in the form of glaciers and snow. (The Northern ice cap, plus ALL
the glaciers and snow on all the continents, together only account for 10%
of the Earth's frozen water. The other 90% in on Antarctica.)
Now let's turn to the Southern ice-cap, Antarctica. Unlike Arctica,
Antarctic IS a continent; the ice there is sitting out of the water "up" on
land. If it all melted, it WOULD affect water levels, and quite
significantly. But how likely is this? The average temperature at
Antarctica is -50 degrees, with temperatures as low as -88 degrees, being
recorded. Even the most ardent supporters of the "greenhouse effect" only
claim sustained mean rises of 2 to 4 degrees. That would mean Antarctica
would enjoy an average of -46 degrees. Not much ice melts at -46 degrees.
Even if by some extraordinary convolution of all the known laws of physics,
a full 10% of the Antarctic could be induced to melt, at an average
temperature of -46 degrees, the end result wouldn't even raise the average
height of the world's oceans two feet!!! And if, by some as yet
undiscovered means such a feat could be induced to happen, the subsequent
changes to the weight distribution on the Earth's surface would probably
mean a total realignment of our rotational axis, with consequent volcanoes,
earthquakes, and possibly even whole continents sinking. Somehow, under
those circumstances, I doubt that we would be worrying too much about an
extra two feet of water where the beach at Surfer's Paradise used to be.
"Inside News" is published by Cambaroora Publishing, P.O. Box 389,
Tewamtom. Queensland, Australia. Subscriptions to the U.S. cost US $65.
|
|
