"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A7F78C.301ABA52@***.net...

> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> >
> > <>
> > We think that within the next 20 years we are likely to see an ozone
hole
> > perhaps as big as the present one over Antarctica but over the North
Pole."
> > Joseph Farman, Brian Gardiner and Jonathan Shanklin, are the BAS
scientists
> > who discovered the Antarctic ozone hole.
> > Professor Shanklin also is the Director of the British Astronomical
> > Association's Comet Section and the President of the Cambridge Natural
> > History Society

> Another study you free loaders don't take into consideration is
> that the ozone layer has always naturally fluctuated on an eleven year
> sun spot cycle. I bet you haven't even heard of the almost direct solar
> flare hits earth's taken in just this last year:

> http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/sunspots.htm Of course not! It doesn't
> fit your Chlorofluorocarbons scenario.

The word 'ozone' does not appear on that page...
neither do the words 'CFC, flouro-, chloro'...
you're just posting the first thing Google gives
you, like that crystal mysticism link. Find some
more of that crap, that was funny!

I hear about *every* 'burp' the sun makes... I'm a ham,
remember?

The more you try to spin, the more stupid you look...

Read this some more:

<>
Myth: The Antarctic ozone "hole" was there all along, it was discovered in
the 1970's because that's when satellite measurements started.
Fact: The hole was discovered using a ground based instrument that had been
in use since 1956. There was no hole until about 1976. That means about 20
years with no hole. Since the 70s the hole has continued to increase in size
and intensity (Farman, et al, Jones & Shanklin).
Myth: The "hole" was present when the first measurements were made in 1956.
Fact: The first ozone measurements made in the Antarctic were lower than
similar measurements made in the Arctic. However, this is the natural
condition, not the decrease that is referred to as the ozone "hole". As
noted above, there was no "hole" during the first 20 or so years of
measurement. (Parson, Christie).
Myth: Some French researchers found an ozone hole in 1958.
Fact: Paul A. Newman (Newman) looked at all the facts and found that "There
is no credible evidence for an ozone hole in 1958."
</>
__
Steve
..

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A7F78C.301ABA52@***.net...

> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> >
> > <>
> > We think that within the next 20 years we are likely to see an ozone
hole
> > perhaps as big as the present one over Antarctica but over the North
Pole."
> > Joseph Farman, Brian Gardiner and Jonathan Shanklin, are the BAS
scientists
> > who discovered the Antarctic ozone hole.
> > Professor Shanklin also is the Director of the British Astronomical
> > Association's Comet Section and the President of the Cambridge Natural
> > History Society

> Another study you free loaders don't take into consideration is
> that the ozone layer has always naturally fluctuated on an eleven year
> sun spot cycle. I bet you haven't even heard of the almost direct solar
> flare hits earth's taken in just this last year:

> http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/sunspots.htm Of course not! It doesn't
> fit your Chlorofluorocarbons scenario.

The word 'ozone' does not appear on that page...
neither do the words 'CFC, flouro-, chloro'...
you're just posting the first thing Google gives
you, like that crystal mysticism link. Find some
more of that crap, that was funny!

I hear about *every* 'burp' the sun makes... I'm a ham,
remember?

The more you try to spin, the more stupid you look...

Read this some more:

<>
Myth: The Antarctic ozone "hole" was there all along, it was discovered in
the 1970's because that's when satellite measurements started.
Fact: The hole was discovered using a ground based instrument that had been
in use since 1956. There was no hole until about 1976. That means about 20
years with no hole. Since the 70s the hole has continued to increase in size
and intensity (Farman, et al, Jones & Shanklin).
Myth: The "hole" was present when the first measurements were made in 1956.
Fact: The first ozone measurements made in the Antarctic were lower than
similar measurements made in the Arctic. However, this is the natural
condition, not the decrease that is referred to as the ozone "hole". As
noted above, there was no "hole" during the first 20 or so years of
measurement. (Parson, Christie).
Myth: Some French researchers found an ozone hole in 1958.
Fact: Paul A. Newman (Newman) looked at all the facts and found that "There
is no credible evidence for an ozone hole in 1958."
</>
__
Steve
..

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A7F78C.301ABA52@***.net...

> Stephen Cowell wrote:
> >
> > <>
> > We think that within the next 20 years we are likely to see an ozone
hole
> > perhaps as big as the present one over Antarctica but over the North
Pole."
> > Joseph Farman, Brian Gardiner and Jonathan Shanklin, are the BAS
scientists
> > who discovered the Antarctic ozone hole.
> > Professor Shanklin also is the Director of the British Astronomical
> > Association's Comet Section and the President of the Cambridge Natural
> > History Society

> Another study you free loaders don't take into consideration is
> that the ozone layer has always naturally fluctuated on an eleven year
> sun spot cycle. I bet you haven't even heard of the almost direct solar
> flare hits earth's taken in just this last year:

> http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/sunspots.htm Of course not! It doesn't
> fit your Chlorofluorocarbons scenario.

The word 'ozone' does not appear on that page...
neither do the words 'CFC, flouro-, chloro'...
you're just posting the first thing Google gives
you, like that crystal mysticism link. Find some
more of that crap, that was funny!

I hear about *every* 'burp' the sun makes... I'm a ham,
remember?

The more you try to spin, the more stupid you look...

Read this some more:

<>
Myth: The Antarctic ozone "hole" was there all along, it was discovered in
the 1970's because that's when satellite measurements started.
Fact: The hole was discovered using a ground based instrument that had been
in use since 1956. There was no hole until about 1976. That means about 20
years with no hole. Since the 70s the hole has continued to increase in size
and intensity (Farman, et al, Jones & Shanklin).
Myth: The "hole" was present when the first measurements were made in 1956.
Fact: The first ozone measurements made in the Antarctic were lower than
similar measurements made in the Arctic. However, this is the natural
condition, not the decrease that is referred to as the ozone "hole". As
noted above, there was no "hole" during the first 20 or so years of
measurement. (Parson, Christie).
Myth: Some French researchers found an ozone hole in 1958.
Fact: Paul A. Newman (Newman) looked at all the facts and found that "There
is no credible evidence for an ozone hole in 1958."
</>
__
Steve
..

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A7FA1B.D24ABD3@***.net...
> I want to see this BS degree, if you can't display it then we will
> know you are a liar.

It should be in your inbox now, as a .tiff inside a .zip.
Let me know if you can't open it.... let everyone here
know that you received it, and that it appears genuine.
__
Steve
BS, with no bs
..

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A7FA1B.D24ABD3@***.net...
> I want to see this BS degree, if you can't display it then we will
> know you are a liar.

It should be in your inbox now, as a .tiff inside a .zip.
Let me know if you can't open it.... let everyone here
know that you received it, and that it appears genuine.
__
Steve
BS, with no bs
..

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A7FA1B.D24ABD3@***.net...
> I want to see this BS degree, if you can't display it then we will
> know you are a liar.

It should be in your inbox now, as a .tiff inside a .zip.
Let me know if you can't open it.... let everyone here
know that you received it, and that it appears genuine.
__
Steve
BS, with no bs
..

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A7FFD4.70EF927E@***.net...
> Fact: Evidence confirms a long-held theory that solar storms
> deplete the upper-level ozone:
>
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom..._010828-3.html

Well, let's read the link you posted!

<>
Most researchers agree that the increased depletion is caused by the human
production of chlorofluorocarbons, which means the human impact far exceeds
that of the solar cycle.
</>

Once again, hoisted on his own petard. Best stop
posting those petards!
__
Steve
..

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A7FFD4.70EF927E@***.net...
> Fact: Evidence confirms a long-held theory that solar storms
> deplete the upper-level ozone:
>
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom..._010828-3.html

Well, let's read the link you posted!

<>
Most researchers agree that the increased depletion is caused by the human
production of chlorofluorocarbons, which means the human impact far exceeds
that of the solar cycle.
</>

Once again, hoisted on his own petard. Best stop
posting those petards!
__
Steve
..

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A7FFD4.70EF927E@***.net...
> Fact: Evidence confirms a long-held theory that solar storms
> deplete the upper-level ozone:
>
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom..._010828-3.html

Well, let's read the link you posted!

<>
Most researchers agree that the increased depletion is caused by the human
production of chlorofluorocarbons, which means the human impact far exceeds
that of the solar cycle.
</>

Once again, hoisted on his own petard. Best stop
posting those petards!
__
Steve
..

 

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:42A7FA1B.D24ABD3@***.net...
> I want to see this BS degree, if you can't display it then we will
> know you are a liar.

It should be in your inbox now, as a .tiff inside a .zip.
Let me know if you can't open it.... let everyone here
know that you received it, and that it appears genuine.
__
Steve
BS, with no bs
..