On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 20:50:52 -0600, Jim Adney
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 08:58:51 -0700 Big Bill wrote:

It's a distinct change *over the period of time we've been measuring.*
We havn't been measuring even an eyeblink of time yet, so all we know
is that it's a change in extremely recent history.

It's true that the observation time is negligible in terms of the
earth's age. I'll grant you that. If you feel that only observation
over a significant portion of the earth's age will convince you, then
we will have to agree that you will never be convinced.

What fails to convince me that *this* is being caused by *us* is that
we have no idea of whether *this* is a one-tme thing, or a common
cycle,and, if it *is* a common thing, what caused it the other times.
To simply go to a new area, observe somehting that's happening, and
assume that *you* caused it is pretty arrogant, IMO.


We have absolutely no idea of how much the ozone layers have changed
over even the last century, much less long enough to make some sort of
rational claim of an abnormal change over a long period if time.
Maybe when we have been measuring the ozone layers for even as short a
time as 50 years, we might find a cycle that's simply repeating.
But to make such a claim with such an extremely short data gathering
period is simply bad science.

It's important to recognize that in addition to the ozone
concentrations, the fluorocarbon compound concentrations have also
been followed. The chemistry is known and the reaction rates are
known. We also know when Freon first entered the lower atmosphere, and
the rates of diffusion to the upper atmosphere have been calculated
and verified.

All this is true.
However, the fact remains that we simply don't *know* what's causing
the hole. We can model a change, but we still can't say for sure that
the model reflects reality. We can only say the model reflects a
*possible* reality.
Since the model can't take into account any previous occurrances, we
can only observe the change, and *postulate* what's actually causing
it.

The half-life of the fluorocarbons in the upper atmosphere is
extremely long, but it can be calculated, and the calculations agree
with the observed concentrations. The body of evidence is complete and
consistent. To my knowledge, all the debate on this topic withing the
scientific community was settled many years ago.

Then you simply do not see that the body of evidence is so skimpy that
we don't even know if this has happened before. Without that
knowledge, we can't say this is a *unique* happening, and that we are
responsible for it.

The claim that this may just be a normally occuring anomaly would be
reasonable if we didn't have additional data to support the
conclusions, but this is not the case. The claim of "bad science" is
really just the pot calling the kettle black. The science has all been
done; the fight is all in the political arena. Unfortunately, the
current political climate is more comfortable with faith than facts.

But it *is* the case. We simply do ot have enough data to say what is
causeing he hole. We only havbe data from the very recent past, and
that's just not enough to say even whether or not holes have occurred
before, much less why this one is occurring.
The evidence we have is enough to model a *possible* reason, but not
enough to say whether this hole is even unique.
The science has *not* been done; *some* science has been done. There
has not been enough observation done to know whether the hole is
unique or part of a not yet understood cycle.

-
-----------------------------------------------
Jim Adney
Madison, WI 53711 USA
-----------------------------------------------

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"