🚀 go-pugleaf

eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling) wrote:

(among many other things)
>
>...along with a questionable relationship between ozone depletion and
>increased surface UVR, and the magnitude of any potential increase
>relative to natural variations...
>
>>That cannot be falsified, therefore is an unscientific 
>>statement.  A non sequitur.  Plus it is silly.  
>
>Oh rubbish. It is the whole point!  If ozone depletion cannot be
>correlated with increased human exposure to UVR, then this whole ozone
>depletion debate is (as I say) a "storm in a teacup" (for Doug's
>benefit - "unimportant").
>


I have occcasionally followed this thread for some time, but I must admit 
that I have not had the time to sort through the not always concise 
arguments. However, perhaps I can ask for some clarification based on the 
above statements. 
1. If there is no correlation between increased human exposure to UVR and 
ozone depletion, is it because the depletion levels in inhabited 
latitudes have not been large enough for this to be evident? If so, 
should we wait for the depletion to become large enough to show a 
correlation before expressing active concern?
2. Or, are you maintaining that anthropogenic sources of ozone depleting 
chemicals are negligible with respect to ongoing natural sources? If so, 
the science does not provide a comfortable support for this stand; 
again, should we wait to see if current scientific understanding is 
wrong?
3. Or, are you maintaining that no amount of ozone depleting chemicals 
will have a significant effect? If so, how do you account for the known 
chemical reactions?