Subject: Re: Brashears on Hanson
From: "D. Braun"
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 13:19:23 -0800
extraneous newsgroups snipped.
On 11 Dec 1996, John McCarthy wrote:
> In article "D. Braun" writes:
>
> > On 10 Dec 1996, John McCarthy wrote:
> >
> > > Dave Braun includes:
> > >
> > > Generalists like rats and roaches (particular species of
> > > these which are generalists) will probably outlive humans as
> > > a species.
> > >
> > > This nonsense has been around for decades and is a triumph of theory
> > > over experience. With his other hat on, Dave Braun sees plenty of
> > > differences between humans and all other animals. However, when
> > > survival of species are concerned, he (and others) fit humans into the
> > > Procrustean bed of his niche theory of species. The human race
> > > recognizes even minor threats to its survival and takes action earlier
> > > and earlier on the basis of more and more knowledge. Humanity would
> > > survive any of the catastrophes of the past that have produced mass
> > > extinctions.
What "hat" are you refering to, anyway? As for your "procrustean" comment,
I consider that to be an insult; it also reflects your ignorance about
biologial evolution. So, maybe you can describe how and why it is that
Homo sapiens sapiens is immune to natural selection? Why did our ancestors
go extinct? They had societal adaptations and technology as well--- and
affected their environment immensly less. All species are affected by
their environments, even us.
Certainly, our ability to shape the environment to our needs is great---
but the pronouncement that this is somehow absolute, to the point of
insulating our species from natural selection for all time is rediculous.
Consider that many ethnic groups have "winked out" or have been subsumed,
and genetic differences intermingled, in recent history. This is the
evolutionary process at work. In your view, this has not, can not, and
will not happen.
> > You should really stick to things you know about, John.
> > "My" niche theory? Here I thought that it was proposed in the late 50's by
> > MacArthur. I could dig up the citation, but I won't bother. You sure get
> > your dander up when someone doubts that Homo sapiens sapiens will be
> > around in 5 or 10 or 50 million years, or that the human experiment on
> > changing world-wide and local environmental conditions in radical ways,
> > some little understood, will for all time be balanced by our species'
> > ability to adapt, don't you? Well, perhaps; there is also
> > reason to believe otherwise. For one who takes the minority view, and
> > poo-poos theories out of hand that conflict with your world view, your
> > absolute certainty about humans (see your last sentence) is curious.
> >
> > Alternatively, in a 5, 10, or 50 million year time span, we
> > may also so adapt to changing conditions that we will become the extinct
> > common ancestor to several other species. Are you proposing that humans
are somehow special, in being immutable? Are you a Creationist by any
chance?
> >
> >
> > Dave Braun
>
> It was nonsense originally, and it is nonsense now.
An unsupported conclusion. What is "it"? Why is it nonsense? Based on
what theory, or basis in fact? Everyone is entitled to an opinion--- but
you go to great pains to promote yourself as a "...thoroughly familiar
with science and technology..." (see below). Something doesn't add
up here. Well, here are the citations for niche theory wich you believe
is "my nonsense":
Hutchinson, G. E. 1958. Concluding remarks. Cold Spring Harbor
Symposium on Quantitative Biology. 22:415-427
MacArthur, R. 1968. The theory of the niche. pp. 159-176 In: R. C.
Lewontin (Ed.). Population Biology and Evolution. Syracuse University
Publ., Syracuse, New York.
> Biological evolution produced an animal with hands, speech and capable
> of cultural evolution. Cultural evolution produced science and
> technology. Science and technology put humans in a unique position
> among all other animals.
And I agree; nothing in my post contaradicted this. Re-read my post (which
I typed in again, below).
> I am thoroughly familiar with science and technology, which are what I
> consider relevant.
You have demonstrated that this is far from true, and that even given that
fact, you feel qualified to dismiss entire fields of science that have
developed over the past 40 years. One could conclude that you are (a)
extremly sloppy in reading comprehension, (b) biased in your scientific
views, (c) extremely arrogant and prejudiced in dismissing
other scientists' opinions, or some combination of these.
You also imply that I am not familiar with the science behind my short
post; that is where you went wrong. If someone posts a comment about
niches, and the ability of species to adapt to environmental change on
sci.environment, you might want to assume that the poster knows what they
are talking about.
>
Why does Braun and why did MacArthur (with whom I am not familiar), if
> MacArthur did, consider all these considerations to be irrelevant? Do
> they live in caves? Don't they wear clothes and drive cars?
As I said above, I do not consider the considerations you listed as
irrevelant; that was your interpretation of my scientific opinion. You did
not actually address my opinion at all, except to display your ignorance
of the subject matter, which was no impediment to your dismisal of it.
This was not very scientific of you.
> Braun won't bother to produce any evidence for his strange view but
> merely refers to someone who said the same thing previously by surname
> only. If he sticks to that, there is no point in further discussion.
I just provided references to two seminal works in niche theory. The
concept of "n-dimensional hyperspace" might appeal to you. To scientists
with even a little knowledge of ecology, Hutchinson and MacArther are
familiar names. What, exactly, is my "strange view"? Because you snipped
my post, as well as the previous post of someone else to whom I was
replying, it is really hard to say. Here they are:
On Dec. 9, Fred McGalliard said:
"...We may be an important predator, and responsible for some of the
changes that wipe out species...we are clearly in the middle of a die-off
of large proportions but I do not think we are the prime cause. The
question should be, why have the species stopped adapting to the change
that we and other factors are making in the environment?..."
To which I replied"
?! The question is rather easily answered by students of ecology and
evolutionary biology, never mind by experts. Habitat change, caused by
humans for the most part, has occurred and continues to occur more rapidly
than species can adapt. Species with limited ranges, or narrow niche
requirements go first. Generalists like rats and roaches (particular
species of these) will probably outlive humans as a species.
Apparently, you are less qualified than students of ecology or
evolutionary biology to respond to this paragraph.
I certainly recognize that humans are generalists, and therefore resilient
to environmental changes, whether brought about by us or not. However, the
changes we produce are so widespread and profound that a hypothesis, that
Homo sapiens sapiens will not outlive other "lower life forms" at our feet
is entirely reasonable. There are many examples of species which have
little changed over spans of time much greater than the existance of our
species. The dissapearence of humans, which will happen eventually, can
leave species related to us, or we can be a dead end. Hard to say which
will happen.
However, it is also true that none of our ancestors were
around for more than several million years---whereas many insects, fish,
and reptiles have been little changed in 10s of millions of years. Of
course, determining species from the fossil record is somewhat less
sure than the methods of taxonomists on current species--- but
paeontologists will certainly agree with what I have just discussed,
about relative residence times of various life-forms/species.
I expect that you will snip all but a tiny portion of this post, and
engage in more ad hoc allegations. So be it.
Dave Braun
Subject: CFP: The Tunisian Water Forum
From: Jomaa Ben-Hassine
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 17:13:02 -0500
Call for Papers
THE TUNISIAN WATER FORUM
Water resources development, protection, management, economy,
conservation, forecasting and technology
Organized by
Tunisian Institute for Strategic Studies (ITES)
and
Tunisian Scientific Consortium (TSC)
July 16-18, 1997
Tunis, Tunisia
in Collaboration with
Ministry of Agriculture
Minsitry of the Environment
Ministry of Economic Development
Secretariat of State for Scientific Research and Technology
URL:
Water is a resource that is key to the survival of mankind, nations and
all living organisms. Many factors are negatively impacting the
availability of this vital resource in clean, life-sustaining forms.
Water is particularly important to North African and Middle Eastern
countries where the environment is arid or semi-arid, the climate is dry
and the available water resources are scarce, over-taxed and quite-often
severely damaged by pollution. Particularly for these countries, water
is a strategic resource that must be developed, protected and
well-managed.
The Tunisian Water Forum (TWF) is an opportunity to present latest
technology and research in various aspects of water resources
development, protection and management. It is a forum for debating
policy matters relative to such pressing issues as water conservation
and environmental protection. It is also an opportunity to present the
latest technological developments in such fields as energy-efficient
desalination processes, artificial precipitation, groundwater pollution
remediation, integrated environmental management systems, used water
recycling, geographic information systems applications and effective use
of modern networking technology in water-related fields. Finally, the
forum will address the issues of water costing, pricing and
value-adding.
Organizers
The Tunisian Institute for Strategic Studies (ITES) is a public
institution acting under the oversight of the office of the President of
Tunisia. Its mission is to carry out research, studies, analysis and
forecasting regarding short and longer-term horizons for all issues
related to various national and international phenomena that are liable
to affect the process of development of Tunisia in all fields-
political, economic, social and cultural.
The Tunisian Scientific Consortium (TSC) is a non-government,
not-for-profit scientific organization of Tunisian scientists around the
world. It was established in May 1995 and now counts more than 200
members that are active researchers or professionals in Europe, North
America, Tunisia and Asia.
Potential Sponsors and Co-organizers
Ministry of Economic Development, Ministry of Agriculture (SONEDE, DRE),
Ministry of Environment (ANPE, ONTEAT), Ministry of Social Affairs
(OTE), Institut Mediterrann=E9 de l=92Eau (France), United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) and other national, regional and
international development institutions and firms with research and
development activities.
Topics/Issues
Groundwater resources: artificial recharge of groundwater, groundwater
quality control and seawater intrusion, water level control and
measurement;
Surface water resources: river basin management, reservoir
development, silt control, watersheds, cloud seeding and artificial
precipitation. Of particular interest are case studies and experiences
in countries and regions with characteristics similar to Tunisias;
Other water resources: used water treatment and uses, desalination
processes and energy-efficient desalination technology.
Water Economics: pricing/costing, value added, public education,
demand management, transfer loss, water markets;
Irrigation: efficient irrigation technology in arid and semi-arid
environments, irrigation network technology and efficiency, irrigated
crops management, yield per cubic meter;
Environmental issues: risk assessment in water pollution clean up,
preventing groundwater pollution from septic systems and other common
sources, ecological impacts, remediation of polluted groundwater;
Computer Tools: water modeling (econometric, integrated,..), Water
Information Systems, decision support systems, Geographic Information
Systems, integrated Environmental Management Systems (EMS).
Program
-Lectures by invited international and national experts and technical
presentations by active researchers;
-Parallel round table and panel discussions on critical issues;
-Exhibition of water and environment-related products & services by
international and local firms;
-Exhibition of innovative national and international programs and
projects. Sample national programs include those by SONEDE, DRE and DGR
for the Ministry of Agriculture and ANPE and ONTEAT from the Ministry of
the Environment.
-Site visit to a water-related facility such as a dam under
construction or a wastewater treatment facility.
Participants & Target Audience
The TWF is open to all international and national experts working in
fields related to water with an interest in the issues and topics
mentioned above. A strong presence from Tunisian policy makers,
municipal leaders and professionals is expected. International experts
and high level policy makers from North African and Middle Eastern
countries will be invited to attend. The exhibition, which will be
organized during this event, will be a golden opportunity for
international and national firms to present their water and
environment-related products and services.
To Submit Papers or for More Information:
International experts, water specialists, researchers and graduate
students are invited to submit abstracts for papers dealing with any of
the topics described above. Papers can be in English, French or Arabic.
It is preferable that abstracts be in French and English. Abstracts
(300-400 words) along with biographies of the authors shall be received
by January 15, 1997. Final versions of the papers shall be received in
duplicates by April 15, 1997. To send abstracts and papers and for
further information, please write to:
ITES
85 Avenue de la Libert
Tunis 1002, Tunisia
Fax: +216 (1) 802 377
E-mail: ites@ites.rnrt.tn
or
TSC-Tunisian Water Forum
P. O. Box 13238
Minneapolis, MN 55414, USA
Fax: +1 (612) 624-5230 (Att. Salim Khemakhem)
E-mail: TWF-CC@me.umn.edu
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: Jim
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 16:50:21 -0700
>
> I don't advocate that we just ignore the issue. But the models do
> indicate that we can delay doing anything will little effect on the
> ultimate outcome. Thus, if the models are right, we have time to do
> more research and let our economy and technology build in such a way
> that the ultimate reductions, if necessary, are more technologically
> and politically feasable.
On the contrary, the longer we wait, the more carbon dioxide will be
emitted, and the greater the climate change will be. Doubling the CO2
content of the atmosphere (which we have done) has already committed us
to a certain amount of warming.
> And furthermore, you don't know what the cost would be if the current
> scenario is right. And you don't know it is right.
Projected consequences to our own interests include a rising of sea
level, a changing of rainfall patters, impacts on currently productive
agricultural lands, and a decrease in forest area in the temperate
zones.
No, we don't know if it's right, but it's the most likely scenario with
the data at hand.
> Of course not, and we are significantly increasing one greenhouse gas
> (CO2) which, by pure physics if there is not feedback, will result in
> a temperature rise. That's quite a caveat. On the other hand, we are
> also introducing things that reduce the greenhouse effect - certain
> aerosols.
There may be negative feedback loops to mitigate global warming, and
there could also be positive ones to magnify it. Possibilities of these
currently being investigated include tundra warming and methane
emissions, forest dieback and CO2 emissions, and the CO2 storage
capacity of the oceans as related to their temperature. I have seen
articles suggesting that aerosols will decrease the amount of light
coming in, thus reducing average temperature. If true, I am pleased to
hear this, but I still reccomend action to prevent the substantial
warming still predicted. As we also have many other excellent reasons to
reduce fossil fuel use, I hope that support to do this will not be
diminished either.
> Complex models, with adequate calibration, can be useful in some
> fields. On the other hand, we know that the best models, with lots of
> research feeding them and enormous computers, are extremely poor at
> forecasting weather (certainly a related phenomenon to global warming)
> beyond about 7 days.
Weather, because of its chaotic nature, cannot be finely predicted. We
can, for example, predict a total amount of precipitation for an area
over a time period, but cannot predict on which days and times it will
fall. Your statement is not relavant to the reliability of global
warming predictions, which predicts changing averages and trends, not
the weather on a specific day.
> And how about the people who will inevitably die as a result of the
> economic consequences of significant emissions reductions? We are
> already killing several thousand per year in the US due to traffic
> accidents with reduced-sized cars - reduced to meet environmental
> standards.
I would state that we take the same risk in regard to the effect of
global warming on agriculture. Also, I do not believe that "several
thousand" deaths annually can be attributed to better gas mileages.
> How about the billions of folks in the third world who are likely to
> simply ignore the requirements? A couple of decades and we might have
> a lot less poverty there, with a resulting willingness to worry about
> the environment.
This is an excellent reason for the U.S. to take the lead on global
warming and apply pressure to other countries to agree to emission
reductions. I am in agreement with your statement about poverty and
willingness for conservation. However, if third-world countries take the
centralized, industrial, western course of economic development, CO2
emissions will be greatly increased, and much of the third-world poor
will not benefit. On the other hand, with issues concerning rural
poverty, deforestation and CO2 emssions, economic development would
greatly assist in forest conservation and thus in global warming
reduction.
> Finally, although it is true that runaway warming hasn't been rules
> out, it is also true that the foreseen effects of the expected warming
> are not as bad as most fear mongers (ie, reporters) allege. For
> example, a little warming in the winter in the arctic may not be a bad
> thing. Increased CO2 leads to increased crop yields.
Because of the thin acidic soil in tundra areas, don't hold your breath
for this possibility.
Subject: Re: Ozone hole=storm in a teacup
From: gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com)
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 23:32:04 GMT
eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling) wrote:
>bashford@psnw.com (Doug Bashford) wrote:
>Thanks, Doug, I have seen the information in your links, and read
>Parsons FAQ, and quite a lot more than that.
>What you don't seem to understand is that none of the material you
>think proves me wrong, actually addresses the issues which I am
>raising:
>That ozone depletion is a natural phenomenon.
wrong ozone depletion is strongly correlated with fluorine
concetration, of which there is no nature source other thanCFCs.
"Satellite confirmation of the dominance of cfcs in the global
stratospheric chlorine budget, J.M. Russell III,Nature
>That there is no evidence of biological harm from ozone loss.
you really need to start reading a little
"Ozone depletion:UV radiation and phytoplankton biology in Antartic
waters", RC Smith,Science,255,952-959
"morpholocial responses of crop and weed species to different growth
forms to UV-B radiation",P Barnes,American Journal of
Botony,77:1354-60
"Potential impacts of increased solar UV-B on global plant
productivity",A.H Teramura Photobiology,1991,625-34
>That the Montreal Protocol addresses the issue appropriately.
>Now, I have posted a suitably referenced article on these issues (it
>follows). If you wish to discuss this matter further, I strongly
>recommend that you address each of these issues, with adequate
>references drawn from your links. Otherwise you identify yourself as
>one of those "dittohead parrots" you despise.
>-----------------
>1. Ozone depletion is a natural phenomenon.
>The chemistry involved in polar stratospheric ozone depletion has been
>well researched and is described in a number of excellent
>publications.
>The following description of the ozone depletion chemistry is derived
>from Parson's Ozone FAQ at http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu
>/hypertext/faq/usenet/ozone-depletion/antarctic/faq-doc-12.html.
>Briefly, ozone depletion results from the reaction of inorganic
>chlorine compounds (HCl, ClONO2) on the surface of polar stratospheric
>clouds PSCs.The inorganic Cl compounds arise from the photolysis of
>organic compounds which rise to the stratosphere by eddy diffusion.
>These organochlorides include methyl chloride (natural) and CFCs.
>PSCs are crystals of nitrogen compounds (eg nitric acid) and water.
>They occur at -80 deg C. PSCs do not occur at greater than this
>temperature.
>During winter, inorganic Cl compounds HCl and ClONO2 react with the
>PSCs to form large amounts of ClO. When the sun returns in spring,
>the ClO reacts rapidly as follows:
> ClO + ClO -> ClOOCl
> ClOOCl + hv -> Cl + ClOO
> ClOO -> Cl + O2
> 2 Cl + 2 O3 -> 2 ClO + 2 O2
> ^^^^
>In recent times ozone Antarctic ozone depletion has been measured to
>increase each year. This correlates with the increased abundance of
>inorganic Cl due to the increase of man-made CFCs. However there are
>a number of anomalies which cast doubt on the idea that this is the
>sole cause of the so-callesd ozone hole.
>(1) Ozone depletion also correlates very strongly with PSC
>concentration.
>For example consider the correlation between observed temperature
>rise, and decrease in observed ozone depletion in 1988. [Shanklin].
>In that case, reduced PSCs due to relatively high temperatures
>resulted in a dramatic decline in ozone depletion rates.
>Since inorganic Cl compounds and PSCs occur naturally, and 1993 UARS
>measurements and studies of Arctic ozone depletion [Waters et al]
>[Gleason et al] show that PSCs are critical in the reaction, the
>entire observation of Antarctic ozone depletion can be logically
>expained by natural mechanisms involving cyclical stratospheric
>temperature variations.
>(2) There has always been a relatively large burden of inorganic Cl
> present.
>Since direct measurement of the gaseous composition of the
>stratospherehas been occurring only for the last 20 or so years, proof
>by direct measurement of the natural state is not possible, and all
>discussion on this subject is of course speculative.
>However HCl was first measured in 1976 [Farmer et al.] [Eyre and
>Roscoe].It is now well known that in the stratosphere the HCl mixing
>ratio increases with altitude, rapidly up to about 35 km, and then
>more slowly up to 55km and beyond.
>Also it is known that the mixing ratios of naturally occurring CH3Cl
>shows a rapid decrease with altitude in the stratosphere. The
>turnover in organic chlorine correlates nicely with the increase in
>inorganic chlorine. This suggests that CH3Cl may be being photolyzed
>as it rises high enough in the stratosphere to experience enough
>short-wavelength UV. [Fabian et al. ] [Zander et al. 1987] [Zander et
>al. 1992] [Penkett et al.]
>Methyl chloride (CH3Cl) comes mostly from natural (biological)
>sources, and is estimated to pass from the troposphere to the
>stratosphere at the rate of about 1 Mt/year. It is reasonable to
>assume that this flux has been occurring, at least at this rate, for
>about a billion years.
>Whilst there are well known natural sources of organic and inorganic
>chlorine, and proven mechanisms for the transportation to the
>stratosphere, there are no demonstrable mechanisms for the removal of
>HCl from the stratosphere. The argument that a drop off of HCl with
>altitude in the troposphere is evidence of a low natural upward flux,
>may also be applied to the stratosphere in reverse.
>[From Parsons FAQ, Copyright 1995]
> "...the mixing ratio of HCl _decreases_ with altitude in the
>troposphere,
> reaching vanishingly small values at the tropopause, and then
>_increases_
> with altitude in the stratosphere. This rules out all processes in
> which HCl slowly drifts upward from the troposphere."
>This also implies that there is no downward drift either.
>Therefore, if there is no significant sink for HCl in the
>stratosphere, then a low flux over millenia of volcanic and biological
>activity will produce a large natural burden of inorgnic chlorine
>reservoir compounds in the stratosphere, at least as significant as
>the natural tropospheric burden.
>Consider that mixing ratio measurements for HCl from Kitt Peak go from
>1.6e15 molecules/cm^2 in 1977 to ~2.6e15 molecules/cm^2 in 1990. The
>source for this is Rinland et al., J. Geophys. Res. _96_, 15523, 20
>Aug 1991 (with thanks to Robert Parsons). I assume these figures are
>for stratospheric HCl only.
>Assuming the above figures to be correct, then I calculate:
>HCl Mixing ratio = 2.6e15 molecules/cm^2 in 1990
>Area of earth = 510E6km^2 = 5.1E18cm^2
>No. molecules HCl = 1.326E34 molecules
>No. moles HCl = 1.326E34/6.02E23
> = 2.2E10 moles
>Mass of HCl = 2.2E10 * 36 grams/mole
> = 7.9E11 g
> = 790 kt
>Assuming that the increase is entirely from CFCs (ie avoiding the
>volcano debate), the contribution from CFCs is about 23kt /year or
>less than 3% of total Cl from CFC flux (~1-2Mt/year).
>Also calculating the mass of HCl in 1977 and extrapolating backwards,
>the natural burden of HCl is about 450 kt.
>Therefore inorganic Cl compound flux from CFCs is small compared to
>the natural burden of HCl in the stratosphere.
>BTW the contribution from natural sources -photolysing of methyl
>chloride and perhaps (gasp) volcanos - is about 1/4 of that from CFCs
>[WMO 1991] [Solomon] [AASE] [Rowland 1989,1991] [Wayne], or about 500
>t/year. This is the mechanism for generating the 450kt natural
>burden.
>One observation which suggests a natural burden of inorganic Cl
>follows:
> Measurements in the Chappuis ozone absorption band by the
>Astrophysical Observatory of the Smithsonian Institution at Mount
>Wilson, California, in 1912 were studied by Gotz and others, who
>reported on the ozone decline in various publications. Katmai erupted
>when inorganic chlorine from anthropogenic sources was probably at
>negligible levels.
>
> Courtesy Forrest M. Mims III, Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network
>(SPAN)
>Also from Parson - Copyright 1995:
> "The total amount of HF
> in the stratosphere increased by a factor of 3-4 between 1978 and
> 1989 [Zander et al., 1990] [Rinsland et al.]; the relative increase
> is larger for HF than for HCl (a factor of 2.2 over the same period)
> because the natural source, and hence the baseline concentration,
> is much smaller."
>Translation: there is much more natural stratospheric HCl than HF
>arising from anthropogenic sources.
>The only evidence against the notion of a large natural burden of
>inorganic Cl compounds is that Dobson, as quoted in his book Exploring
>the Atmosphere failed to measure a significant drop in ozone in his
>initial observations during the 50s and 60s. The reasoning is that
>since PSCs are naturally ubiquitous (and ASSUMED a constant factor)
>then no observed ozone depletion means no stratospheric Cl compounds.
>It is worth noting that one of Dobson's co-workers, Marcel Nicolet,
>admitted in a TV interview, that during the 50s and 60s, anomalous
>readings below 250 DU were not officially recorded because, said
>Dobson: "Noone will believe them". (ref: Interview on Belgian TV "Fair
>skin, stay in." Sept 18, 1992).
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>2. Ozone depletion causes no biological damage.
>Ozone depletion at the poles results in insignificant UV increase,
>because the sun is so low on the horizon. Also the area affected is
>almost entirely devoid of life larger than microbes.
>At mid-latitudes increase in UV due to ozone depletion is very low
>compared to daily, seasonal and global variations. This is due to an
>absence of PSCs (at mid-latitudes) and so ozone depletion only takes
>place there in the presence of sulphate aerosols from volcanic
>activity (which is natural).
>In urban areas of the US, UV-B levels showed no significant increase
>(and in most cases actually decreased a little) between 1974 and
>1985. [Scotto et al.]. This is probably due to increasing urban
>pollution, including low-level ozone and aerosols. [Grant]
>[from Parsons FAQ, Copyright 1995] Several studies [Kerr and McElroy]
>[Mims] [Seckmayer et al.] [Zerefos et al.] have presented evidence of
>short-term UV-B increases at middle latitudes associated with the
>record low ozone levels in 1992-93. As discussed in Part I, these low
>ozone levels are probably due to stratospheric sulfate aerosols from
>the 1991 eruption of Mt.Pinatubo;
>Studies done prior to the Mt Pinatubo eruption show no more than a
>correlation with the flow of ozone poor polar air during the
>summertime breakdown of the polar vorticies. At most the effects are
>only a few percent, which is insignificant relative to daily, seasonal
>and global variations.
>There is also considerable evidence which supports the assertion that
>fatal melanomas are related to UV-A and natural light (and not UV-B).
>This means that it is not possible to correlate ozone depletion with
>human fatality. [Balliunas]
>Considering the fact that UV levels have not risen significantly in
>populated areas and that it is unlikely that small increases in UV-B
>will have negative effects anyway, it is difficult formulate a
>testable hypothesis, let alone devise a test to prove that ozone
>depletion causes biological harm.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>3. The Montreal Protocol is expensive, and ineffective in curbing
>ozone depletion.
>From MONTREAL PROTOCOL ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE THE OZONE LAYER
>LONDON, 27-29 JUNE 1990
> ARTICLE 5: SPECIAL SITUATION OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES18
> 1. Any Party that is a developing country and whose annual
>calculated level of consumption of the controlled substances in Annex
>A is less than 0.3 kilograms per capita on the date of the entry into
>force of the Protocol for it, or any time thereafter [within ten years
>of the date of entry into force of the Protocol] until 1 January 1999,
>shall, in order to meet its basic domestic needs, be entitled to delay
>for ten years its compliance with the control measures set out in
>Articles 2A to 2E [...]
>That is over 100 Mt of CFCs, which developing countries may release
>into the atmosphere, which is far more than the 1990 annual rate for
>developing countries. What's more, further restrictions are based on
>the funding of technology transfers from developed to developing
>countries, a hidden cost in the abolition of CFCs for countries like
>Australia.
>Also China, Japan, Indonesia and Korea are not party to the Montreal
>Protocol, while developed countries (which are party to the MP) like
>Australia are obliged, according to the Montreal Protocol, to pay for
>the changes in infrastructure in developing countries.
>Not only is the MP an ineffective solution, but it is expensive.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>References:
>Robert Parsons Ozone FAQ Copyright 1995. In particular
>sections (2.6) How is chlorine distributed in the stratosphere?, and
>(7.) Why is the hole in the Antarctic?
>[Balliunas] Dr Sallie Balliunas PHD, 13th
>annual congress of doctors for disaster preparation - "Is the ozone
>layer threatened?" 1995.)
>[Shanklin]J. D. Shanklin, British Antarctic Survey, personal
>communications, 1993-95.
>[Rinland et al]Rinland et al., J. Geophys. Res. _96_, 15523, 20 Aug
>1991
>[Waters et al.] J. Waters, L. Froidevaux, W. Read, G. Manney, L.
>Elson, D. Flower, R. Jarnot, and R. Harwood, "Stratospheric ClO and
>ozone from the Microwave Limb Sounder on the Upper Atmosphere
>Research Satellite", _Nature_ _362_, 597, 1993.
>[Gleason et al.] J. Gleason, P. Bhatia, J. Herman, R. McPeters, P.
>Newman, R. Stolarski, L. Flynn, G. Labow, D. Larko, C. Seftor, C.
>Wellemeyer, W. Komhyr, A. Miller, and W. Planet, "Record Low Global
>Ozone in 1992", _Science_ _260_, 523, 1993.
>[Farmer et al.] C.B. Farmer, O.F. Raper, and R.H. Norton,
>"Spectroscopic detection and vertical distribution of HCl in the
>troposphere and stratosphere", Geophys. Res. Lett. 3, 13, 1975.
>[Eyre and Roscoe] J. Eyre and H. Roscoe, "Radiometric measurement
>of stratospheric HCl", Nature 266, 243, 1977.
>[Fabian et al. 1979] P. Fabian, R. Borchers, K.H. Weiler, U.
>Schmidt, A. Volz, D.H. Erhalt, W. Seiler, and F. Mueller,
>"Simultaneously measured vertical profile of H2, CH4, CO, N2O,
>CFCl3, and CF2Cl2 in the mid-latitude stratosphere and
>troposphere", J. Geophys. Res. 84, 3149, 1979.
>[Fabian et al. 1981] P. Fabian, R. Borchers, S.A. Penkett, and
>N.J.D. Prosser, "Halocarbons in the Stratosphere", Nature 294,
>733, 1981.
>[Penkett et al.] S.A. Penkett, R.G. Derwent, P. Fabian, R.
>Borchers, and U. Schmidt, "Methyl Chloride in the Stratosphere",
>Nature 283, 58, 1980.
>[Zander et al. 1987] R. Zander, C. P. Rinsland, C. B. Farmer, and
>R. H. Norton, "Infrared Spectroscopic measurements of halogenated
>source gases in the stratosphere with the ATMOS instrument", J.
>Geophys. Res. 92, 9836, 1987.
>[Zander et al. 1992] R. Zander, M. R. Gunson, C. B. Farmer, C. P.
>Rinsland, F. W. Irion, and E. Mahieu, "The 1985 chlorine and
>fluorine inventories in the stratosphere based on ATMOS observations
>at 30 degrees North latitude", J. Atmos. Chem. 15, 171, 1992.
