Ozone Hole Swaps Pole

Well, this is, how you say, Very Interesting….

Sun takes a nap, UV falls off a cliff, a bunch of other ‘odd things’ happens, and now the Ozone Hole has abandoned Antarctica and headed to the Arctic…

Here is a live map (that will initially be the same) for comparison to the static map in the posting below:

Ozone Anomaly Map

Ozone Anomaly Map

For some time now I’ve been watching the Ozone Deviation Map from this site:

http://woudc.ec.gc.ca/e/ozone/Curr_allmap_g.htm

For posterity, I’m saving a static image of that map here:

Ozone Anomaly 1 April 2011

Ozone Anomaly 1 April 2011

In a posting some time back, I’d noted that it looked like the North Pole was ‘thinning’ a bit:

https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/ozone-hole-history/

Ozone Map 19 July 2010

Ozone Map 19 July 2010

There are a couple of areas of low ozone at the North Pole, but strong variations on the south. That’s what I used to see on the opposite pole before. Here is a quasi-representative map selected from 1998 (but with a really strong “ozone hole” over the south pole):

OK, so in this “anomaly” map, we’re not seeing much wrong at the North Pole, but the South Pole as “two red eyes” of higher than normal ozone. That is a feature I’d noted more commonly on the North Pole (and I speculate is the ‘landing zone’ of a Birkeland Current, so you get the twin current creating two places with added ozone from electrical discharge). More typical of the South Pole “Ozone Hole” is this next anomaly map showing the strongly depleted “Ozone Hole” over the South Pole and two “yellow eyes” over the North. That has been “typical” for a while.

Ozone 28 September 1998

Ozone 28 September 1998

So, OK, what does this mean? Nothing? Who knows what? That the Birkland Current has swapped polarity? That we’re going to get an Ozone Hole at the North Pole? That I ‘randomly’ sampled on a too small biased basis as I was just browsing? That a day by day look is prone to wild meaningless swings and we need annual average maps?

Well, looks like we are getting our answer to that question from the last posting. The Ozone Hole is swapping poles. Now just wait for all the hand wringing about the “added” or “new” ozone hole (and complete silence about the other end of the planet, or how one can get bigger and the other smaller both caused by people and a well distributed gas… at about the equinox and on an “anomaly” basis…)

Some other images from that earlier posting are reproduced here as well. These are total ozone, not just the anomaly:

Update 7 March 2011

Just adding a couple of maps for further data points. First up is an average of Ozone (not the deviation, actual ozone levels) for February 2011. Notice that Ozone level is quite high, up where it’s supposed to be dark in winter… so if UV isn’t making that Ozone, what is?

Average Total Ozone February 2010

Average Total Ozone February 2010

Solar UV output is ‘way down’ and we see fairly low ozone levels around the entire equator (where one would expect solar UV to be quite high) but with ‘hot spots’ over the North high latitude areas that have quite high levels. From day to day and month to month the location of those “ozone eyes” changes, but they tend to be a persistent effect.

Here is “March 1998 Average” actual ozone so you can see what the typical pattern has been:

March 1998 Average Ozone

March 1998 Average Ozone

Notice the two “bright red eyes” at the North Pole? This is the month of the Equinox, so day length is roughly equal everywhere on the planet. Solar angle will change, so the poles will both be getting low angle light.

And for comparison, here is the current “live map” of “all ozone”:

Daily "All Ozone" Live Map

Daily "All Ozone" Live Map

And the April “normal” historical. To me it looks like excess ozone at the North Pole and more or less constant ozone over the rest of the planet with a 250-300 ish range:

"Normal" April Ozone

"Normal" April Ozone

From: http://woudc.ec.gc.ca/e/ozone/normalozone.htm#gl

It looks to me like whatever was making the “excess ozone” at the North Pole has throttled back and it’s drifting down to match the South Pole; which is similarly losing it’s “ozone hole” anomaly.

And this is explained by well mixed gasses how?

Update 4 April 2011

OK, here is a custom made map showing the March 2011 “anomaly” (which they call “deviation” – and is more accurate a term, btw) and the March 2011 Total Ozone. Also, just as a “things that make you go Hmmmm” I’ve added the ozone chart for 11 March 2011 when the Japan 9.0 quake happened. Notice that if the “Bright Red Eye” is made by the landing of a Birkeland Current flow, it was landing near Japan…

Ozone Anomaly March 2011

Ozone Anomaly March 2011

As you can see, there is a very broad North Pole “deviation” or “anomaly” to the negative side over the entire month of March.

Ozone Total March 2011

Ozone Total March 2011

Here we see a weaker than usual form of the “red eyes” higher ozone levels that I speculate is the landing zone of a Birkeland Current. And what about on the day of the 9.0 Quake in Japan?

11 March 2011 Ozone

11 March 2011 Ozone

Things that make you go “Hmmmm”… A Bright Orange Spot right near Japan… And the day before the quake? Even brighter spot… but further away and aproaching Japan…

10 March 2011 Ozone

10 March 2011 Ozone

Does it mean anything? I have no idea… Hmmmm…. But when all those aftershocks were happening?

12 March 2011 Ozone

12 March 2011 Ozone

That is one mighty strange “coincidence”… Hmmmm… mmm…mmmm…

Subscribe to feed

Advertisements

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW and Weather News Events and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to Ozone Hole Swaps Pole

  1. mt says:

    The “ozone hole” is seasonal. Wikipedia has a lot of useful information on this.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer

  2. E.M.Smith says:

    Looking around a bit, I found this site:

    http://www.theozonehole.com/arctic2001loss.htm

    with that panic already being hawked:

    Developing low ozone event approaches Europe

    An exceptionally large area of depleted ozone has formed over the North Pole, and scientists warn that it could settle over Scandinavia and Eastern Europe on 30-31 March.

    The fast-thinning Arctic ozone layer was first detected by an international network of over 30 ozone sounding stations spread across the Arctic and sub-Arctic, and coordinated by the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research.

    The institute’s latest predictions, based on data collated from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts, are that it will affect parts of Scandinavia and Eastern Europe on 30 March and 31 March.
    14 March 2011: Arctic on the verge of record ozone loss – Arctic-wide measurements verify rapid depletion in recent days

    Potsdam/Bremerhaven, March 14th, 2011. Unusually low temperatures in the Arctic ozone layer have recently initiated massive ozone depletion. The Arctic appears to be heading for a record loss of this trace gas that protects the Earth’s surface against ultraviolet radiation from the sun. This result has been found by measurements carried out by an international network of over 30 ozone sounding stations spread all over the Arctic and Subarctic and coordinated by the Potsdam Research Unit of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association (AWI) in Germany.

    OK, they are being whacked with a Giant Clue Stick. IT’S THE TEMPERATURE, STUPID! That then points back to the loss of UV mediated heating and what do they find instead?

    Complete double-speak nonsense. In their view, it’s all about us, and they don’t see the contradictions at all… It’s getting colder because it’s getting hotter and CFCs are increasing now that we’ve banned them and all the CO2 is trapping the heat in the Troposphere (where all the convection dominates… and where CO2 does diddly squat) and not letting it get to the stratosphere (despite the fact that it’s known that UV heating is what drives the stratosphere to get WARMER with ALTITUDE not warming from the bottom…)

    Ozone is lost when breakdown products of anthropogenic chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are turned into aggressive, ozone destroying substances during exposure to extremely cold conditions. For several years now scientists have pointed to a connection between ozone loss and climate change, and particularly to the fact that in the Arctic stratosphere at about 20km altitude, where the ozone layer is, the coldest winters seem to have been getting colder and leading to larger ozone losses. “The current winter is a continuation of this development, which may indeed be connected to global warming,” atmosphere researcher Rex explains the connection that appears paradoxical only at first glance. “To put it in a simplified manner, increasing greenhouse gas concentrations retain the Earth’s thermal radiation at lower layers of the atmosphere, thus heating up these layers. Less of the heat radiation reaches the stratosphere, intensifying the cooling effect there.” This cooling takes place in the ozone layer and can contribute to larger ozone depletion. “However, the complicated details of the interactions between the ozone layer and climate change haven’t been completely understood yet and are the subject of current research projects,” states Rex. The European Union finances this work in the RECONCILE project, a research programme supported with 3.5 million euros in which 16 research institutions from eight European countries are working towards improved understanding of the Arctic ozone layer.

    $3.5 Million Euros of “sucking at the trough” to make that bilge water?…

    I think Mr. Rex wouldn’t know a clue stick if he was hit with one… Oh, Wait, he WAS hit with one and still missed it…

    But don’t worry, just send money at it will all get better…

    In the long term the ozone layer will recover thanks to extensive environmental policy measures enacted for its protection. This winter’s likely record-breaking ozone loss does not alter this expectation. “By virtue of the long-term effect of the Montreal Protocol, significant ozone destruction will no longer occur during the second half of this century,” explains Rex. The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty adopted under the UN umbrella in 1987 to protect the ozone layer and for all practical purposes bans the production of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) worldwide today. CFCs released during prior decades however, will not vanish from the atmosphere until many decades from now. Until that time the fate of the Arctic ozone layer essentially depends on the temperature in the stratosphere at an altitude of around 20 km and is thus linked to the development of earth’s climate.
    Contacts at Alfred Wegener Institute

    Your contact at the Potsdam Research Unit of the Alfred Wegener Institute is Dr Markus Rex (tel.: +49 (0)174 311 8070, +49 (0)331 288 2127; e-mail: Markus.Rex(at)awi.de). Your contact in the Communications and Media Department is Ralf Röchert (tel: +49 (0)471 4831-1680; e-mail: Ralf.Roechert@awi.de).

    Just amazing…. I really do wonder how hard one must work to so regularly get causality exactly wrong and so regularly not ask any “awkward” quesitons…

  3. George says:

    The ozone hole swaps poles once each year. It forms in winter when the pole is in Earth’s shadow and the air receives no ultraviolet light to create ozone. The strong circumpolar jet in winter sequesters that ozone depleted air. The stronger the circumpolar jet, the deeper the “ozone hole”. Then in spring, the circumpolar jet weakens and the “hole” spills out and mixes with the rest of the atmosphere.

    But right now there should be ozone depleted air at the North pole as it is just coming out of winter. It will take a while for it to form at the South pole. Check it in about 6 months time.

  4. E.M.Smith says:

    @mt:

    But a MONTHLY ANOMALY is by definition NOT seasonal….

    and the wiki is substantially clueless on anything that is “green” (as in, with mold, rotted…)

    Ozone is driven by UV and cold, and cold is driven by UV and that is driven by solar changes. People don’t even enter the picture. The simple fact that it wobbles all over the place on daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly basis says that there is nearly nothing to do with CFC’s. That it’s directly tracking UV level speaks loudly to UV as the real driver long term (with temp cycling shorter term).

    That the poles are now “swapping role” also makes it pretty clear that it’s nothing to do with people. (And that’s a swap on a MONTHLY ANOMALY basis, so no seasonality need apply…)

  5. George says:

    Oh, yeah, ozone depletion has nothing to do with people. It was there the first time they looked and they tried to come up with all sorts of ways to leverage that fact to introduce all sorts of new regulations.

    The patent was about to run out on Freon making it a generic substance no longer requiring a license from DuPont … so Freon was banned. At the cost of the lives of the Columbia shuttle crew.

    But yeah, a weakening of the polar jet at any time can allow mixing with ozone rich air and the hole can disappear, or a strong jet preventing mixing can make a “deeper” hole.

    Ozone is naturally unstable. It doesn’t want to exist. Two molecules of ozone (O3) are going to want to become three molecules of oxygen (O2). It takes energy in the form of UV light to manufacture O3 at a higher rate than it wants to break down.

    Put pure ozone in a tank, walk away, come back in a few days and it will have all turned to oxygen … all by itself. You don’t need to add any chemical to destroy ozone, it “wants” to destroy itself!

  6. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    Could be a bit like Greenland and Antarctica. If one melts the other grows, they are connected, it’s basic geology.

    The ozone is another story, the “hole” was already there before satellites went up. The sun regulates it, not spray cans

  7. E.M.Smith says:

    @George:

    I’ve added some clarifying text to the posting pointing out the anomaly basis of my “complaint”. Frankly, that the N.H. has traditionally kept “way high” absolute ozone compared to the S.H. has in itself been “an issue” for the “people did it” argument, IMHO.

    Now we’re going to “about the same” at both poles, but it is showing up as a “way low anomaly” at the N.Pole… and this is atributable to people how?… Sigh…

    I suspect that there was excess ozone production at the N.Pole due to the landing point of a Birkeland Current (the “two eyes” effect). If that current is diminished, we ought to be headed for “about the same everywhere” (and if it reverses pole landing points, it will be “very interesting” ;-)

    Oh, and IMHO, the “cold destroying ozone” chemistry argument breaks down when you look at that absolute ozone map and see “way low” over the tropics…

  8. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/violent_sun.html

    “The study gives detailed and quantified knowledge of how a solar storm affects upper-level ozone. As scientists race to better understand humankind’s role in ozone loss, they must first be able to tease out the natural causes. ”

    shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh keep it quiet the sun controls the ozone

  9. George says:

    The reason why ozone is low in the tropics is because it only gets 12 hrs of sun. Polar summer gets sun 24hrs/day and the polar jet breaking down in summer allows this ozone to mix with the rest of the atmosphere. So you go from significant production of ozone in summer with 24 hr sunshine to 0 production with 24 hrs of darkness. Tropical stays roughly the same year-round.

  10. George says:

    “Notice that this is an April anomaly map, so it is showing how much UV is down right now compared to a normal 1 April date. Seasonality is not involved in this comparison of “like dates”.”

    Ok, now I am better following.

    Well, we just came through a cold winter. UV wouldn’t make any difference as that area doesn’t get much sunlight to begin with in winter and you would see the most UV related anomaly showing up in the SH which just had 24hrs of daylight until recently.

    We had a cold winter and a polar jet that moved South from what it has been in recent years. This would have “cut off” more of the high latitudes from mixing with ozone rich air. In other words, this anomaly is exactly what I would expect to see in response to the performance of the polar jet this winter.

    See what Bastardi might have to say on the subject.

  11. George says:

    Here’s Bastardi’s new blog:

    http://www.weatherbell.com/jb/?category_name=blog_home_page

    “MegaPositive” AO (Atlantic Anomaly) means a very strong circumpolar jet.

  12. E.M.Smith says:

    @George:

    http://www.ozoneapplications.com/info/ozone_properties.htm

    lists the half life of ozone as:

    Gaseous 
    Temp (C)	half-life *
    
    -50	3-months
    -35	18-days
    -25	8-days
    20	3-days
    120	1.5-hours
    

    So looks to me like with our present “near equinox” date at both poles, the whole planet ought to be about the same concentration of O3 inside a few days…

    The equinox was about 2 weeks ago, so I don’t think there’s going to be a whole lot more hours of daylight making all that extra ozone at the N. H. just yet… and that S.H. “excess light” from a month ago, given that it’s below -35 C there, ought to still have the O3 hanging arround…

    Unless, of course, the “hours in the day” are not what is driving the present distribution of O3 …

    Again, you are answering correctly with all the ‘annual chart’ answers; but I’m talking about, and looking at, the MARCH and APRIL monthly data… so “equinox rules, day length drools…” ;-)

    Look again at that “March 1998 Total Ozone” graph.

    Look again at that “‘Normal’ April Ozone” graph.

    Think “equinox”.

    Ask: WHY in THOSE MONTHS is the equator lacking Ozone?

    Ask: WHY coming out of N.H. Winter is the N.H. high in ozone and the S.H. low in absolute terms? (And if you answer “S.H. has extra cold so gets Ozone Hole” then ask “Why is the N.H. now getting that low anomaly”?)

    The pattern does not fit the standard narrative.

    It just doesn’t.

    It does fit, and fairly nicely, UV makes ozone. UV is down, so Ozone is down. Poles get some added “juice” where the Birkeland Current lands. It didn’t land at the S.Pole, so S.Pole got a “hole”.

    But now, “something has changed”…

    And that something is?…. (Not the distribution of the UV. Quantity is down, yes. Distribution, no… )

    Your choices are:

    1) It’s gotten darned cold and that changed the N.H. chemistry. (Which then implies it was cold that made the S.Pole hole, not people… oh, and that cold was not caused by people, so neither was the prior warmth…)

    2) The Birkeland current is changing. (Solar changes: Which then implies it was not people…)

    3) CFCs are another “magical gas” like CO2… with differential action based on your needs for today. (You have the makings of a “climate scientist”…)

    4) “Global Warming” makes ozone change, so it’s still our fault (“Some assembly required. Not all parts included. May cause mental confusion and stupor if consumed daily.)

    5) Let your imagination run wild… (The default in “climate science” it would seem.)

    Personally, I vote for:

    Some of 1 (dropping UV leads to cold stratosphere and overall drop of Ozone but more so at the N.Pole as it’s ‘at the margin’ of stable O3.)

    with some of 2 as a possible (solar UV output and lower Birkeland current coming together when they come) so we get less “boost” to the N.Pole UV creation and it tends toward “equilibrium” which would be lower.

    So Try again, but this time explain it in the context of “equinox” ;-)

    (And remember that at the equinox the sunlight passes sideways through the air AT the polar stratosphere… so it gets lots of illumination…)

  13. E.M.Smith says:

    For a really fun time, look at the bottom of this page:

    http://woudc.ec.gc.ca/e/ozone/normalozone.htm

    And then try to explain why the N.H. gets THE MOST ABSOLUTE OZONE just as it is coming out of winter and into the Equinox…

    Lowest levels in August Sept October just as it is leaving summer and headed into the other Equinox…

    (Hint: Earth Perihelion is in January… Aphelion in July, so with a little lag time for trends to establish themselves and things to ‘flow’…)

    While it’s a bit heavy on “adverts” this page:

    http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Birkeland_current

    has the interesting quote:

    In 2007, NASA’s THEMIS (Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms) project “found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth’s upper atmosphere directly to the sun,” [9] [10] noting “that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras,” thus reconfirming Birkeland’s model of solar-terrestrial electrical interaction. NASA also likened the interaction to a “30 kiloVolt battery in space,” noting the “flux rope pumps 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic!”

    Notice it says “Arctic”… now where did I leave that cluestick laying… ;-)

  14. George says:

    The issue as I see it is that strong polar jet that prevents the highest latitude air from mixing, or more precisely, the lower latitude O3 rich air from seeping in to the North. That strong jet keeps the pole “sequestered” from the rest of the atmosphere to some degree. Add to that the reduced solar UV and some pretty cold temperatures; note this … sea ice has actually been increasing over the past several days:

    and you would expect to see some reduced O3.

    That will likely go away as soon as that AO settles down in a week or two (according to the models mentioned by Bastardi).

    Thing is, Bastardi specializes in Northern Hemisphere and North America / Europe in particular (Northwestern quad). He pays close attention to what is going on in the Arctic and the Atlantic. So he is my “go to” source for polar goings on. You might want to send him an email and ask him what he makes of that anomaly.

  15. Level_Head says:

    The total variation on the anomaly chart is about 10% of the total concentration, despite the large range of concentration effects. It is more than I would have expected — the “hole” up north looks like a reduction of a minimum-normal 300 to 260 or so.

    Not quite panic time, it seems, though the media can do little else.

    ===|==============/ Level Head

  16. E.M.Smith says:

    I’ve added a ‘totals for March’ set at the bottom of the posting, and also had an interesting WT? moment on the March date of the Japan Quake.

    I mean, it’s just, well, it just can’t be…

  17. R. de Haan says:

    It’s the Catlin Crew, still motionless after two weeks (LOL)
    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/03/catlin-crew-still-motionless-after-two-weeks/

    Seriously, this is an interesting observation.
    I am going to do some digging in older publications about the subject I have stored on a desktop.

  18. tonyb says:

    Hi Chiefio

    A couple of years ago I contacted the two leading experts on the ozone hole at Cambridge University and the Max Planck institute. Because of my particular interst in history I asked them the very simple question ‘how do we know whether the ozone hole hasn’t always been there?’

    They admitted they didn’t know as instruments had only been available to measure the ‘hole’ since the 1950’s. They agreed it was perfectly possible that we are seeing a recurring event of thinning and thickening of the hole that has gone on since time immemeorial.

    As far as I am aware there are no methods to ‘reconstruct’ 19th century levels of ozone.

    tonyb

  19. Mike Jonas says:

    The shrinking Antarctic ozone hole is reported here too:
    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast12dec_1/
    “The Incredible Shrinking Ozone Hole
    After reaching record-breaking proportions earlier this year the ozone hole over Antarctica has made a surprisingly hasty retreat.”

    The odd thing about this is that the report is dated December 12, 2000.

    After emphasising how variable the ozone hole is, the report ends:

    This year’s ozone hole doesn’t by itself give any indication of the long-term trend, but measurements show that CFC concentrations in the stratosphere have leveled off and in the lowest layer of the atmosphere, the troposphere, CFC concentrations have started to decline.

    These measurements indicate that the ozone hole is not worsening, and may soon start to improve. But this improvement is going to come very slowly, Newman said.

    “The ozone hole isn’t going to go away for a long time,” he said. “This is because the lifetimes of CFCs and HCFCs and halons are so long. We might be back to 1979 levels sometime around 2050 or so.”

    Does the ozone hole bear any relationship at all to chlorine/CFCs over any time scale?

  20. Hugo M says:

    @E.M. Smith,

    re your idea about Ozone as a possible indicator of Birkeland currents and earth quakes. It should be possible to test this hypothesis at least partially by correlating ozone data sets with quake data sets. Data sets from the Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (plus some Fortran code on how to read the text data files) are here:

    http://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/omi/omi_data_access.html

  21. Ian W says:

    Interesting quote:

    “Pioneer 10 established that the solar wind extends beyond Neptune. Voyager 2 found that Neptune’s magnetic field is tilted from the planet’s rotational axis and is offset from the center of the planet. This causes marked changes in the magnetic field as the planet rotates in the solar wind. Its field strength varies from 0.1 gauss in the northern hemisphere to more than 1.0 gauss in the southern hemisphere. Voyager 2 also detected auroras similar to those on Earth, but Neptune’s registered 50 million watts, compared to Earth’s 100 billion watts and occurred over wide regions of the planet’s surface.”

    http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/gm2/science/solarmax_modules/solarmax_planets.htm

    100 Billion Watts is a lot of power.

  22. Another Ian says:

    E.M. FWIW

    Somewhere in my paper collection I have a Marshall Institute publication which I can’t locate at the moment.

    I think Sally Baliunas was an author and as I recall it had a graph of Arctic type ozone levels from a fair way back (might even have been pre-Freon) which might be of interest.

    As I recall this showed the levels bouncing about like a fart in a bottle.

    I can’t find this on a google so will update when I find the paper.

  23. mt says:

    The antarctic ozone hole is seasonal. Looking at the monthly normal maps, it almost looks like the antarctic is a ozone sink, and the ozone hole forms when the polar vortex speeds up and prevents new ozone from reaching the pole. The existing ozone at the pole is destroyed, while ozone accumulates around the pole.

    As for this arctic anomaly, it’s happened before. I’m guessing it’s the equivalent of the russian heat wave. Just a cold version.


    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/releases/2000/ozone.html

  24. It´s all about the simplest thing WE DON WANT TO TALK ABOUT: Electricity.
    Go anywhere where you can get an ozone producing gadget and you´ll prove it.
    Time ago, here and at WUWT I wrote: What if the water cycle is not closed but opened?. During summer time above the pole and due to increased radiation, atmosphere´s oxygen is turned into Ozone (O3), which during winter time and specially when there are proton flares from the sun or increased cosmic rays, as during solar minimums (mainly composed of protons-90%-, which, btw, we must remember are Hydrogen Nucleii), then these react with ozone to produce water 2H+…O3=H2O+O2 and increase the “Ozone Hole” once again , then snow fall increases ice. So we have an ice cube making machine over there.
    And those “two red eyes” above:
    M.Vukcevic http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MF.htm
    This is the expected magnetic “flip-flop”in process:
    Since anti-photons are not dark or evil or anything else, this spin and magnetic reversal is not any sort of catastrophe. Scientists admit that the Earth has gone through pole reversals many times without extinctions or inundations or anything else. Miles Mathis:

    http://milesmathis.com/sunhole.html

  25. The good news is that you will have a very good tanning next summer.
    The kind of 1997-1998 El Niño Sun it was described thousand years ago, as in the following Moche culture fresco:

  26. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program

    Could HAARP be involved, it was built in 1993?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_nuclear_explosion

    ooooo I wonder why there is an ozone hole, it’s so hard to work out, just like why is the Air France plane in pieces with no black box, it’s soooooooo hard to think

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_radiation_belts

    Starfish Prime damaged a whole heap of satellites, what did it do to the ozone layer?

  27. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_electrojet

    BTW it’s interesting that this goes to the area of heavy gravity shown recently

  28. E.M.Smith says:

    @Adolfo:

    GAK! I hope not!

    @Scarlet Pumpernickel:

    I don’t think HAARP does anything of real interest. If you look at pictures of the antenna, it’s just a very large antenna farm of the phased array sort, but for longer wavelengths than your typical radar. IMHO, It’s most likely used to communicate with submarines (though I could see using it to bounce signals off the ionosphere as it is claimed to be used, but it would be easy enough to do that with a smaller machine…)

    And as nuke testing in the air was banned some time ago, I think you may be just being a bit silly with that one… and while the artificial radiation belts is an interesting link, the fact that they make rotation geometries means “no joy” on explaining asymetries (even if somehow they did manage to persist 1/2 century…).

    So “interesting things” but I just don’t see any connection of them with ozone…

  29. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    This electrojet is amazing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar3RQ8CvucM

    What if we could harness the energy of it. Back to the HAARP thing, yeah it probably is communication, but it could also heat the ionsphere?

    It would be good if like Tesla we could harness the energy of the ionsphere, there is all this energy up there from the energy of the sun. Maybe wireless electricity is achievable and energy from the skies? Intel recently did some short distance wireless transmission for laptops but why can’t we transmit long distance, is it really a problem or can it just not be metered then?

    http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jn6duu12s7ujb6ByZ1wuv389gooQ

  30. E.M.Smith says:

    @Scarlet Pumpernickel:

    HAARP is smaller than a whisper next to a nuclear explosion.

    Look at the size of the power cables going in. Now think how many thousands of megawatts are being dumped into the ionosphere… HAARP is, quite litterally, as nothing.

    At most you could get some kind of ‘spot heating’. Like a microwave oven heating a bowl of soup. But any area of any size and you just can’t cut it. The antenna array is large, but if you start to diffuse that power density by putting it into any area larger than it is, you rapidly approach “nothing” as your power density. It is, at best, a complete waste of time to even look at HAARP. ( I know, I have and I regret the lost time…)

    And yes, we can transmit power wirelessly long distances. Focused microwaves do it just fine. There are two problems, one solvable, the other not so much.

    1) Very inefficient conversion back to electricity. You can solve this partially with a concentrated beam. To the extent you solve that:

    2) Concentrated beams cook things, like birds, butterflies, and teenage kids on a dare… This problem is not solvable.

    So you will hear about all kinds of “wireless transmission of power” schemes for the rest of your life. There is even someone pushing for a “space to ground” link in California.

    Yeah, just what you want in the middle of the Pacific Flyway… Roast Duck anyone?…

    The problem with trying to get such power “from the skies” as it stands now is that there is a lot of TOTAL power up there, but it is so diffuse that the power density sucks. Then it becomes hard (and power consuming) to try holding a few million tons of collector up in the sky to try to gather it.

    The only system that looks workable to me is an orbital one that drags a collector below it in the lower charge levels. That then puts you back into the “beam power to earth” problem. Roast Goose anyone?… Or maybe Roast Cessna? …

    It’s a nice dream. It will be a nice dream 20 years from now. It will be a nice dream after I am dead and gone…

    It’s a whole lot easier to use the effectively infinite power we have readily available laying all over the planet in systems that are already shown to work. Effectively, ALL power is free, you just have to collect it. And it’s a lot easier to pick up a chunk of coal off the ground that to collect electrons from a few miles in the sky…

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/there-is-no-energy-shortage/

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/ulum-ultra-large-uranium-miner-ship/

    The problem is not any shortage of energy. The problem is that you must find one that is cheaper than the cost of coal and natural gas. Right now nat gas is going for about $4 per MILLION BTUs.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/ngw/ngupdate.asp

    If you can’t beat that, you get no advantage.

    So not to be a killjoy, as it is great fun to dream, but the simple reality is that one number: $4 / MBTU.

    That’s your hurdle price. If you can’t get below that price, you are just another of the thousands of perfectly viable and already existing energy sources we have in abundance and don’t use as they cost more than that.

    So, take some time, do some calculations. Figure you need to hold a ton of “stuff” in the upper atmosphere to gather, oh, about a kW? Then figure how much “stuff” you will need to get down to the ground. Then distributed to homes. If you can get the energy all that consumes to be less than you gather AND have the excess sell for less than $4 / MBTU, then and only then you might have something of interest. Until that point, you are just buying in to the fantasy that there is some shortage of energy and that folks need to “develop” something new… Loads of stuff are developed, what’s needed is “cheaper than dirt” (as that is all coal is… dirt that burns…)

    Have I made my point?

  31. Level_Head says:

    Well, you’ve asserted that wireless power transmission is not practical. I think you’ll find this to be a fascinating area, once you did into it and pursue it with the same intensity as you have so many other topics.

    Some points:

    I’ve stood in a wireless power beam — about a meter in diameter — that light up a bank of incandescent lights after passing through and around me.

    I was involved in a small way in NASA’s “Fresh Look” at wireless power transmission and space solar power in general — and the only technological issues remaining on WPT were the concept of pilot beams and appropriate feedback, because people were being told that a wandering beam could fry ducks and Cessnas. Not true, of course, but otherwise intelligent people have been known to say it.

    The conversion on the ground is reasonably efficient, on the order of 50% end to end. And since the power is out there anyway, whether we harvest it or not, the efficiency is not as large an issue as you might think.

    We’ve done studies with birds, large and small, being exposed to the projected WPT beam for months or years at a time. Very small birds work somewhat harder in a wind tunnel, but the effect is mild. Larger birds don’t seem to notice at all. Families of birds have been raised in the beam, including the eggs.

    Not hard boiled.

    The real issue is efficient, lightweight power collection and conversion on-orbit, and we could build this entire system now for less than what Obama wants to spend to tax every mile of every car driven on US roads. And once space solar power gets built, more is easier — and we could sell power all over the world.

    Because the sunlight is reduced by around 20% from the shadow of the rectenna net, crops could be grown in the desert, right under the net would would be strung on poles similar to streetlight stanchions.

    It is rare that you dismiss something that you’ve not dug into adequately — I encourage you to consider this area again.

    Here’s a nice collection of papers, including ones from the 1997 NASA Fresh Look work.

    ===|==============/ Level Head

  32. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    Yeah I agree, there is no shortage of energy, but for humans to advance we need to use more energy not less. We will only progress if we use more. At the moment, its quiet dangerous, as we have the same groups like the Medieval times and book burners of Alexandra around who want people to limit their energy usage. Nothing good comes out of limiting energy usage. There is plenty of energy, peak oil is a bigger hoax then climate change (notice its gone again lol). We have heaps of coal, gas.

    But still it would be interesting to try these different forms of energy. Tesla’s tower was never completed for wireless energy transmission.

    I find it hard to believe that we can send wireless internet with so much complexity and data through the air, but you can’t send electricity? But electricity is all around us.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOa3MMd5n3U I mean we can even get reverse lighting. Energy is surrounding us all around.

    The other interesting one is the solar space energy. http://inhabitat.com/japan-plans-21-billion-solar-space-post-to-power-294000-homes/

    I mean these things should be looked into, not prehistoric wind mills

    http://www.physorg.com/news172224356.html

    I mean Tesla wasn’t stupid, he pretty much invented electricity, wireless radio remote control ect.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardenclyffe_Tower

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_energy_transmission

    Nice timeline of wireless energy development

    http://www.teslaradio.com/pages/wireless.htm

    Nikola Tesla’s Wireless Work

    The development of a ground-based system for wireless transmission

    “The tower was destroyed two years ago but my projects are being developed and another one, improved in some features, will be constructed. . . . My project was retarded by laws of nature. The world was not prepared for it. It was too far ahead of time, but the same laws will prevail in the end and make it a triumphal success.” Nikola Tesla, My Inventions, 1919

  33. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/record-ozone-depletion-over-arctic/story-e6frf7jx-1226034263616

    Here we go again, the Global Cooling and Spray cans that don’t exist anymore are ripping that hole bigger

    I guess that’s the global warming that’s causing the cooling, like the warm sea that’s causing the cooling in USA LOL

  34. E.M.Smith says:

    @Level_Head:

    Last time I looked at it was about 20 30+ years ago. (My how time flys… but I’m still waiting for that first system to be installed…) Then it was all microwaves to earth and the power densities would cause issues. (Though I thought they had efficiencies closer to 70%, but that might have been projected).

    To the extent I have a fault in this regard it is that once I’ve looked into something, I tend to “stick at that point” until sent back to it again. (And “then” the story was that the microwaves heated things…)

    So you say “things have changed”; what changed?

    Power density? Frequencies used? No longer talking about gigaWatt beams in an acre at 2 gHz?

  35. E.M.Smith says:

    OK, from the wiki link it looks like “low power density”:

    For example, the 1978 NASA Study of solar power satellites required a 1-km diameter transmitting antenna, and a 10 km diameter receiving rectenna, for a microwave beam at 2.45 GHz. These sizes can be somewhat decreased by using shorter wavelengths, although short wavelengths may have difficulties with atmospheric absorption and beam blockage by rain or water droplets.
    […]
    For earthbound applications a large area 10 km diameter receiving array allows large total power levels to be used while operating at the low power density suggested for human electromagnetic exposure safety. A human safe power density of 1 mW/cm2 distributed across a 10 km diameter area corresponds to 750 megawatts total power level. This is the power level found in many modern electric power plants.

    That makes it 10,000 mW or 10 Watts / sq. meter. at roughly cell phone frequencies.

    As cell phones are 400 mW and folks are in a tizzy over some recent evidence of medical impacts at that level, I think It’s “gonna be a problem” even if you are not immediately fried. (they seem to have gone from a 1 km beam to a 10 km beam since I last heard about it, so have gotten out of the fried duck scheme and into the “expensive antenna and medical issues” part of the problem…)

    I’m not gonna hold my breath… I’d rather buy some CNG gas turbines…

  36. Interesting Connections says:

    Hmmm, I thought that density would be per m^3 and that flux would be per m^2.

  37. E.M.Smith says:

    @Interesting Connections:

    “antenna guys are different” ;-)

    Power density
    McGraw-Hill Science & Technology Dictionary:

    power density

    (electromagnetism) The amount of power per unit area in a radiated microwave or other electromagnetic field, usually expressed in units of watts per square centimeter.
    (nucleonics) The power generation per unit volume of a nuclear-reactor core.

    So while I might think the nuclear reactor guys are “more right”… well, we’re talking antennas here… and “when in Rome”…

  38. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    I just learnt something today http://www.good.is/post/what-the-ozone-hole-can-teach-us-about-stopping-climate-change/

    The ozone can’t teach us things about Climate Change LOL

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12969167

    tsk tsk

    Can I have the spray can back and a tax refund?

  39. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    But didn’t the hole appear in the 1960s LOL

  40. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    This one was a classic, the Russian’s were crazier then us!

  41. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    http://www.veoh.com/watch/v431780P6nDTePq

    Really good for the ozone to detonate in the ionosphere?

  42. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    LOL

  43. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    http://www.atomicarchive.com/Store/Products/Nukesinspacedvd.shtml

    20 Hydrogen bombs were detonated in the ionsphere, well that’s the amount they admit to now lol

  44. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20110224_3136.php

    So we had so many tests, and the ozone layer has a hole? Is there a connection lol…

  45. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:
  46. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    Interesting Freeman Dyson talking about this hole a while back?

  47. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    Hey they can’t blame ozone on Antarctica http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110410181313.htm now :P

Comments are closed.