🚀 go-pugleaf

Greig Ebeling wrote:

> >Wait a minute, you claimed that the trend was normal.
> 
> I did not.

You said:
-----------
Jay, you are missing the point.  That ozone depletion results in
increased UV is irrelevant.  It is the AMOUNT of increase which
matters, and IMO this is insignificant against the effects of human
behavioural patterns, and natural variations.
----------

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".

> >If it is caused by CFC's, then it makes no difference
> >whether or not it is still getting 6.8% worse per decade.
> >We need to put it back the way it was.
> 
> 1. Why?

Because it is harmful to life.
 
> 2. At whose expense?

How about the people who invented it?

> >> 2. Who or what is being exposed to UV-B, and how is this measured?
> 
> >It is measured by NASA's satellite, and it radiates
> >down on earth from above.  Everything under hole and
> >and in the sun gets additional UV radiation.
> 
> No, Jay.  NASA's satellite only measures ozone depletion.  It does not
> measure increases in surface UV-B, and certainly has no way of

You have it ass-backwards:

"The NASA-developed instrument, which measures ozone indirectly by
 monitoring ultraviolet light scattered by the atmosphere, produces
 daily maps of the global distribution of ozone in Earth's atmosphere
 and of the surface UV."

Jay