🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

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

>> >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.

To prove this, you need to show that life is being affected, or at the
very least, that UV-B EXPOSURE has increased.  There is no such data.

>> 2. At whose expense?

>How about the people who invented it?

They are raking in the money, with replacement chemicals.  No, Jay,
you and I are paying for it.  Let there be no mistake.

>> 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."

The TOMS satellite is intended to measure ozone depletion.  It also is
used to show surface UV-B, but it DOES NOT show UV-B EXPOSURE.  And it
is exposure which is relevant in speculations about health effects.


...Greig