New hole in the atmosphere discovered

page: 1
15
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   
It's over the tropics in the west Pacific. It contributes to ozone depletion by letting ozone depleting substances sail right into the stratosphere without any filter. Scientists think that this hole has a 'significant' impact on our climate.

Some are calling it a 'natural' hole. Some are saying that southeast Asia pollution is what is getting through this hole.

It was discovered by researchers sending up balloons to measure ozone concentration and finding almost nothing where there should have been something.

Scientists are saying that this hole, atmospherically, is in something called the 'OH shield.' 'OH' refers to, and I'm guessing here because I hadn't heard of it before, hydroxyl free radical. This item, per scientists, 'cleans' the air prior to reaching the stratosphere. (Except it doesn't get rid of chlorofluorocarbons, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide and works very slowly on methane.)

This hole is 9 miles high and some thousands of square miles wide.

Researchers have supposedly long been 'puzzled' by the rate of ozone depletion not matching up with modeling.

This hole also lets sulfur dioxide through (the volcano gas among other things.) Sulfur dioxide is what southeast Asia is, according to these news stories, releasing into this hole.

Hole Found in Natural Protective Layer of Earth's Atmosphere

Hole over tropical West Pacific reinforcing ozone depletion in polar regions

Oxidation and OH radicals

sulfur dioxide

There are a couple of issues here to discuss, imo. Previously (for the past 4 or 5 years) media spin on research has tried to pin excess sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere on 'smaller volcanoes' having a greater input to the stratosphere than physically possible. Does this current media spin (sulfur dioxide from southeast Asia going through this hole) mean that there are small volcanoes in southeast Asia which are erupting and going straight through this newly discovered hole?

Researchers sent up thousands of balloons in this area (over the course of time) and so they must have suspected something here in order to sort of intensify like this and so when exactly could this hole first have been suspected?

Since, according to these articles, this filter layer is sooo important for ozone in the stratosphere, why oh why are jet emissions DIRECTLY into the stratosphere never given their proper place?

Lastly, geo-engineers have proposed sulfur dioxide injections by projectiles, aircraft and balloons in order to mimic volcanoes and cool the planet. Was this actually done instead of just proposed the way we were all told? And did that create this hole? Because we really don't know squat about the atmosphere?




posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   
It was said that those SARs black budge Goverment programs that get trillions of dollars of funding had the kind of technology where 'Everything we can imagine, we can already do. Even go to the Stars'.

Well I'm imagining free eneregy and some kind artifical shield should be put up in orbit to protect the earth.

I guess Greed overcomes what is the right to do.

Shame.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   
They aren't going to cut back on the pollution till it is too late. What good will it do to blame things on others if we destroy the ability of the earth to provide for us. I suppose those with well stocked bunkers will make it through this, that means none of the regular people will make it. It appears to only be a couple of generations away, our grandchildren will have it hard.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 09:57 PM
link   
The only solution I can see is for humans to stop wanting. Then corporations will stop producing and bankers will stop funding.


I put my garden in today, hope it produces.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 09:59 PM
link   
SE Asia is largely COAL fired.....this creates an inordinate amount of the Sulphur stuff id say......
China uses a lot of coal and its smog is second only to Mexico city or maybe worse now....
Ther hole may be a cumulative event too......well have to wait and see because they WILL keep on using coal to power their industrialisation.....



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 10:02 PM
link   

MOMof3
The only solution I can see is for humans to stop wanting. Then corporations will stop producing and bankers will stop funding.


I put my garden in today, hope it produces.


Wow, we still have two feet of snow left and we are in middle of a small snowstorm at the moment. It might be the second week of june before the ground here is warm enough to plant everything this year.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 10:21 PM
link   

rickymouse

MOMof3
The only solution I can see is for humans to stop wanting. Then corporations will stop producing and bankers will stop funding.


I put my garden in today, hope it produces.


Wow, we still have two feet of snow left and we are in middle of a small snowstorm at the moment. It might be the second week of june before the ground here is warm enough to plant everything this year.


LOL still got 2 1/2 feet here Northern Ontario
Maybe in July for me
Still have 4 1/2 feet of ice on my lake may have to go ice fishing this May 15 LOL



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 





Researchers have supposedly long been 'puzzled' by the rate of ozone depletion not matching up with modeling.



I personally don't think that researchers take in all the facts when doing modeling. Some facts are unknown so the modeling is basically a guess.

Here is a new article that states how temperature affects ozone depletion above the arctic and antarctic. Although this is talking about the arctic holes, which is probably also the modeling you a referring to.



With a boost from Mother Nature, the worldwide ban on ozone-depleting chemicals stopped Arctic ozone from disappearing and forming an "ozone hole" similar in size to Antarctica's, a new study finds.
"It seems like we did just the right thing at the right time," said Susan Solomon, an atmospheric chemist at MIT and lead study author. "It's quite a success story."



But it turns out that Arctic ozone is protected by more than just environmental limits, the study also finds.
Natural differences between the Arctic and Antarctica, including warmer temperatures over the Arctic, different geographies and different sunlight amounts, kept ozone above the North Pole from disappearing as quickly it did above the South Pole. [North vs. South Pole: 10 Wild Differences]
"The main difference is a few degrees of extra cold temperature," Solomon told Live Science. "Antarctica really is the coldest wplace on Earth. The few degrees of extra cooling make a big difference in how effectively you destroy ozone."



The lowest ozone concentrations occur when air temperatures are minus 112 degrees to minus 121 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 80 degrees to minus 85 degrees Celsius), the researchers found. These extremely cold temperatures are closely linked with low nitric acid levels in the air, a key step in the chemical chain that destroys ozone, the study shows. And such bitter cold is much more common above Antarctica.


m.livescience.com...


Like I said I kow that this isn't above Asia, but it is all connected together and it seems that temperature plays a big role in ozone depletion.

Does a warmer Asia mean more ozone depletion in this area of the hole in the atmosphere?

I am curious for new data.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by MOMof3
 


I am working on a climate controlled greenhouse so I can grow most of year.

If all these climate changes are real, every home may need one.

Our weather here has definitely changed. Spring comes a lot earlier. But we live in a banana belt area, low altitude with mountains all around.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by luxordelphi
 


Does this current media spin (sulfur dioxide from southeast Asia going through this hole) mean that there are small volcanoes in southeast Asia which are erupting and going straight through this newly discovered hole?
It is possible that this previously unknown region of the atmosphere is, in part, what is allowing sulfates from smaller eruptions to reach the stratosphere.



Since, according to these articles, this filter layer is sooo important for ozone in the stratosphere, why oh why are jet emissions DIRECTLY into the stratosphere never given their proper place?
Actually, not many aircraft fly in the stratosphere but there has been quite a bit of study on that. It's interesting that some aircraft emissions (nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide in particular) enhance the production of O3 while others have a detrimental effect. When vertical air movement is considered it becomes very complex (because of how levels of UV radiation vary), however the net result is that air transport is likely to be pretty much O3 neutral. www.ipcc.ch...

However, sulphate injection into the stratosphere (as a suggested geoengineering technique) could very well have a very detrimental effect on O3 levels. Just one of the good reasons why such techniques should not be undertaken without very careful consideration.

In this case, the worry isn’t so much that it won’t work, but that it will, with ugly side effects. There are several potential environmental harms from spraying sulfur, including damage to the ozone layer that protects us from ultraviolet radiation.

But because Crutzen was awarded his Nobel for studying ozone depletion, “nobody could claim that he didn’t take ozone destruction seriously,” Keith says.
www.bostonglobe.com...



Lastly, geo-engineers have proposed sulfur dioxide injections by projectiles, aircraft and balloons in order to mimic volcanoes and cool the planet. Was this actually done instead of just proposed the way we were all told? And did that create this hole?
No, because sulphates did not create the "hole". Quite the opposite, in fact. It's very clean air that's the cause.

The air in the tropical West Pacific is extremely clean. Air masses in this area were transported across the expanse of the huge Pacific with the trade winds and for a long time no longer had contact with forests or other land ecosystems that produce innumerable short-lived hydrocarbons and release them into the air. Under these clean air conditions OH is formed from ozone through chemical transformation to a great degree. If there is hardly any ozone in the lower atmosphere (= troposphere), as is the case in the West Pacific, only little OH can be formed. The result is an OH hole.
www.awi.de...
edit on 4/17/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 03:45 AM
link   

luxordelphi

Since, according to these articles, this filter layer is sooo important for ozone in the stratosphere, why oh why are jet emissions DIRECTLY into the stratosphere never given their proper place?


Probably because since Concorde was retired very little jet exhaust happens in the stratosphere - most of it is in the troposphere and tropopause


Lastly, geo-engineers have proposed sulfur dioxide injections by projectiles, aircraft and balloons in order to mimic volcanoes and cool the planet. Was this actually done instead of just proposed the way we were all told? And did that create this hole? Because we really don't know squat about the atmosphere?


I've never seen any credible evidence that it is being done - your questions are easily answered by "no" - which would require some actual evidence to show otherwise.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 07:28 AM
link   

luxordelphi
Lastly, geo-engineers have proposed sulfur dioxide injections by projectiles, aircraft and balloons in order to mimic volcanoes and cool the planet. Was this actually done instead of just proposed the way we were all told? And did that create this hole? Because we really don't know squat about the atmosphere?


You confuse me. You have been saying, with authority, that this has been happening. Now, you ask the question?
I am not allowed to point out words to you, but I advise others to learn the meaning of "proposed" and "idea". And understand their context when coupled with geo-engineering. And the word "moratorium", which is what the UN has on geo-engineering.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Did hairspray cause this one?? Cow farts? Or was it propulsional exaust??? Or maybe it was one of those many nuclear bombs detonated by the US gov that opened a whole in the sky on it's way up???



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Fylgje
 


Of course, because only the US detonated any nuclear bombs in the atmosphere.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: liejunkie01

Thank you for bringing up the temperature issue. It's for sure a BIG factor. The Sudden Stratospheric Warming event seems to play a big role in ozone production and, by our experiences this past winter, also seems to affect our climate drastically.

In my simple understanding of this process, it's the ice clouds and how much they build up and how fast they break down that, in part, drive the conditions for ozone depletion. If it's warmer, they break down faster and have a harder time even forming and so less ozone gets destroyed. But what causes it to be warmer or colder - planetary waves - I, too, need more data!

The top of the tropical troposphere, the tropopause, is an interesting region, temperature-wise:

Tropopause


The Tropopause is a variable sector of the atmosphere separating the top of the Troposphere with falling temperatures from the bottom of the Stratosphere when atmospheric temperatures start to rise. The Tropopause is higher and colder in the tropics than in polar regions.


So your musing:




Does a warmer Asia mean more ozone depletion in this area of the hole in the atmosphere?


is interesting and complex and we need more data.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




It is possible that this previously unknown region of the atmosphere is, in part, what is allowing sulfates from smaller eruptions to reach the stratosphere.


I guess that what I need is some information on the dynamics of this 9 mile elevator. If hot air still rises and cool air still sinks, even within an OH free-zone, troposphere residence times are not going to change which means that a propulsion system is still missing. If the nature of the stratosphere is still static, where large areas of dryness don't move or mix much then some impetus is still required to kind of loft everything beyond these situations. Tropical storms are still tropical storms and here could be some of the fierceness needed but aren't those decreasing/predicted to decrease with climate change/global warming?




Actually, not many aircraft fly in the stratosphere but there has been quite a bit of study on that.



Why do you say this? I read that jets prefer the stratosphere for cruise because it is weather and turbulence free. Presumably they're not going to be in the stratosphere over the tropics because it's so high there but even the altitudes of the various atmospheric layers are changing with climate change/global warming - getting lower in some instances - so that may change too. And then there are the polar flights. And then there are the drones.

The Stratosphere


Commercial jet aircraft fly in the lower stratosphere to avoid the turbulence which is common in the troposphere below.


Noted what you had to say on the IPCC report regarding jet emissions and, for my part, I think it's interesting what a strong lobby they have and I think we are far from the truth on aviation's impact on the atmosphere and climate change. How neutral do you think water vapor in the stratosphere is?

Climate Change and the Stratosphere

Go to page 12:


Sources of stratospheric
water vapour
• Annual input
– Volcano [A] [ 40MT
– Tropical storm [A]
– Oxidation of methane [A] 40 MT
– Aviation (2004) 290 MT
• assuming an average of 10% of the total 320MT from fuel is
burnt during the climb [B]
• Assuming that most flights take place in northern latitudes (i.e.
above 20,000ft in the stratosphere)





No, because sulphates did not create the "hole". Quite the opposite, in fact. It's very clean air that's the cause.



So deforestation and such (the Amazon) could have done this? Very interesting and horrible at the same time.

Couple of questions...had you ever heard of an 'OH shield' as an atmospheric area/layer designation before these studies? If OH has a lifetime of less than a second and if OH decreases with altitude and latitude anyway and since transport is from the equator to the poles, what does this hole mean for mid-latitudes?



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul





Probably because since Concorde was retired very little jet exhaust happens in the stratosphere - most of it is in the troposphere and tropopause - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


I will grant you that it is possible there has been a re-think of flights that enter the stratosphere because of UV exposure for passengers and crew or for other reasons but these are not official beyond the odd news story about a re-route or lower altitude because of solar activity.

Transpolar flights, a shortcut through the Arctic


Nowadays, commercial traffic, connecting Europe, North America and Asia through the north polar routes is a routine.


Transpolar flights, a shortcut through the Arctic


According to Leo Brooks, an international senior captain for Continental Airlines, airplanes travel at an altitude of 31,000 to 39,000 feet and they generally fly 100 miles to the left or right of the North Pole.


The Stratosphere - overview


The bottom of the stratosphere is around 10 km (6.2 miles or about 33,000 feet) above the ground at middle latitudes. The top of the stratosphere occurs at an altitude of 50 km (31 miles). The height of the bottom of the stratosphere varies with latitude and with the seasons. The lower boundary of the stratosphere can be as high as 20 km (12 miles or 65,000 feet) near the equator and as low as 7 km (4 miles or 23,000 feet) at the poles in winter.


Just last night I watched a show where the pilot, over mid-latitudes, informed passengers that they had reached a cruising altitude of 35,000 feet. It's pretty common.




I've never seen any credible evidence that it is being done - your questions are easily answered by "no" - which would require some actual evidence to show otherwise. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


The evidence is the excess and the continuing speculation on where that excess came from. That speculation is not going to go away because it's based on something.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58
We detonated the most. I think.
Either way, their reasoning is always half-baked.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude




I advise others to learn the meaning of "proposed" and "idea". And understand their context when coupled with geo-engineering. And the word "moratorium", which is what the UN has on geo-engineering. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...



There seems to be some confusion between what is actually happening and what it's called.

Cloud seeding is openly and proudly practiced today on many continents even though in Viet Nam it was used to wage war.

Sulfates are and have been openly debated and tested and used as fuel additives even though as a geo-engineering option they are supposedly only proposed.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 10:50 PM
link   
Just to clear up who detonated what in the atmosphere:

Types of Nuclear Weapons


All told, of the over 2,000 nuclear explosions detonated worldwide between 16 July 1945 (United States) and 29 July 1996 (China), 25 % or over 500 bombs were exploded in the atmosphere: over 200 by the United States, over 200 by the Soviet Union, about 20 by Britain, about 50 by France and over 20 by China.





new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join