🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5ehhfr$ich$3@coffee.DIALix.COM>,
Greig Ebeling <eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au> wrote:
>Jay Hanson <jhanson@ilhawaii.net> wrote:
>
>>NASA reports that:
>>-----------------
>>In the paper, Herman finds that annual average UV-B exposure has
>>increased by 6.8 percent per decade at 55 degrees north latitude,
>>-----------------
>
>>Now please show me that an increase of 6.8 % per year is
>>a "natural variation".
>
>I did not say it was anatural variation, I said the amount is small
>compared to natural variations.

Please cite your references. ;-)

>And I still don;t think the Herman et al figure has anything to do
>with UV-B EXPOSURE.

Surely this can't be an appeal to your own authority in this area?
I was under the impression that a small increase in UV variation
was believed to result in a dis-proportionate increase in skin
cancers (e.g.), one metric of "exposure".

For a more detailed data on UV irradiation vs absorbed dose,
see (e.g.) <http://www.ciesin.org/docs/001-503/001-503.html>.

For a reference to any other claims Mr Ebeling may object to,
I refer to (e.g.) <http://www.nas.nasa.gov/NAS/Education/TeacherWork/Ozone/UV.radiation.html>
which, in summary, claims:

"A 1%decrease in the ozone layer will cause a estimated 2%increase in 
UV-B irradiation; it is estimated that this will lead to a 4%increase in 
basal carcinomas and 6%increase in squamous-cell carcinomas.[Graedel&Crutzen].
90% of the skin carcinomas are attributed to UV-B exposure [Wayne] and the 
chemical mechanism by which it causes skin cancer has been identified 
[Tevini]. The above named carcinomas are relatively easy to treat, if 
detected in time, and are rarely fatal. But the much more dangerous 
malignant melanoma is not as well understood. "

No doubt this will be seen to fall under the heading "mere
speculation".

-- 
R. Kym Horsell
KHorsell@EE.Latrobe.EDU.AU              kym@CS.Binghamton.EDU 
http://WWW.EE.LaTrobe.EDU.AU/~khorsell  http://CS.Binghamton.EDU/~kym