Getting sunburnt more often?

[ltd]

I was asked by a mate the other day if I've noticed how you get sunburnt faster than normal, well, the amount of UV has steadily been increasing since we have taken so many clean air initiatives such as DPF filters on diesels, restrictions on burning off and other such goodies. For example, Australia has the cleanest skies in the world, yet the rate of melanoma has increased 10 fold in the last twenty years. Coincidence? I think not.

Less pollution 'means more hurricanes'

John Ross
The Australian
June 24, 2013 3:00AM

Print


EFFORTS to reduce air pollution could lead to more hurricanes, British climate scientists have warned.

A study by the UK’s national weather service has found that “anthropogenic aerosols” – tiny airborne particles emitted by transport, industry and households – helped keep a lid on the number of tropical storms in the North Atlantic for most of the twentieth century.

However, the frequency of storms increased after moves to fight pollution led to “sharp declines” in aerosol levels from 1990.

The researchers say their findings corroborate 2012 research which linked aerosols with hurricanes. “Continued mitigation of aerosols may lead to further increases in tropical storm frequency,” they report today in the journal Nature Geoscience.

“External factors, particularly anthropogenic aerosols, could be the dominant cause of historical tropical storm variability.”

Airborne particles can reduce the strength of storms by seeding clouds and encouraging rain. But the study found that aerosols had also helped prevent hurricanes by reducing North Atlantic surface temperatures.

The modelling found that aerosols were responsible for a 0.2C decline in average sea surface temperatures between about 1880 and 1980.

Johannes Quaas, a theoretical meteorologist at the University of Leipzig in Germany, said scientists had been “uncertain” about the effect of airborne particles on tropical storms. The latest study provided “convincing evidence for a significant influence”, Professor Quaas wrote in a separate article in Nature Geoscience.

What this basically eludes to as well is the fact that less pollution in the air has removed the natural sunblock we have enjoyed since the industrial revolution.

So, if you really are a patriot and want to fight cancer then you should go out and buy a V8, or buy a big diesel and let the coal roll. Have a firecracker night or a bonfire and lets stop UV from frying poor unsuspecting Aussies.

[superyob]

double post

[superyob]

Great idea! Could you have a chat with Christine Milne? She will be thrilled...

[ltd]

Originally Posted by superyob

Great idea! Could you have a chat with Christine Milne? She will be thrilled...

I've already sent her a video from the last summernats with the world record simultaneous burnouts and marked it as; "The solution to fixing the rising UV problems". I've not received a reply as of yet.

[Franco Cozzo]

Probably something to do with the hole in the Ozone layer which changes all the time, lets more UV rays in to burn the **** out of us.

[ltd]

No didn't that automatically get fixed when we banned CFC's?
That's what the science-stitions told us at the time.

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by ltd

No didn't that automatically get fixed when we banned CFC's?
That's what the science-stitions told us at the time.

China still pumps out a **** load of it

[ltd]

The problem:




The solution:



You know it makes sense!

[|||]

what about chemtrails

[ltd]

Originally Posted by |||

what about chemtrails

Oh please.
I've flown over 100 different jet aircraft amongst the 747, 777 and 737 makes and I can tell you, there ain't no "Chemtrails" button in the cockpit anywhere.

What we need to do is change the way we fly and bring back the old JT8D engines like these ones below.

[tweeked]

^^^^Looks like it has 4 Territory deisels in it!

[Geez Louise]

Yet another debate on Global warming and emissions...

Getting sunburnt more often? This may be a little too logical but...the older you get, the quicker you will get sunburnt as your skin ain't what it used to be. True story.

[superyob]

Originally Posted by Geez Louise

Yet another debate on Global warming and emissions...

Getting sunburnt more often? This may be a little too logical but...the older you get, the quicker you will get sunburnt as your skin ain't what it used to be. True story.

Oh lighten up! This could be fun...

[ltd]

Take your point but these days take a kid outside in the sun for an hour without sunbloc and they come back burnt.

Oh, and as for my thoughts on global warming; I think we're more at risk of global laming.

Whilst this is a light hearted look at it, there is actually some evidence to my theorem given the fact that we have more extreme UV days than ever before in Australia and not necessarily anywhere else. Been to China? If you can get sunburnt there you're doing well.

[chamb0]

But those climate scientists who said those things in the article make up lies so they can get money from the government. I read on the internet that climate science isn't really even science anyway. Their Computer at the IPCC with the model that this article talked about is flawed and is just programmed to say what the government wants. UV radiation is used as a weapon spread in chemtrails and used to conduct social engineering, they got it from KGB psyops when they combined power to make the secret NWO. Anyway, I have knowledge on this - the amount of UV stopped increasing years ago. Well ok, not stopped but slowed. Ok maybe not slowed but never happened. But see, an increase is actually a natural cycle - but it's not happening. Besides, even if it is, and it increases a lot, it will actually be good for us. The climate scientists in the article are really just socialist uni students paid to sit around and write biased articles for the media and Nature Geoscience and we should not listen to them. It's better to read Andrew Bolt. He is a genius and very funny. He makes me laugh with his attacks. He expresses exactly how I feel.

[neptune blue]

climate change is a money making scam , just like Y2K

[STINKY NINJA]

Wow,that sunburnt guy...
thats all.

[|||]

Originally Posted by neptune blue

climate change is a money making scam , just like Y2K

you said it brother. just like the moon landing. fake as all get out

[ltd]

Send in your solutions to the lack of pollution. The winner gets a free tour of the tim flannery climate centre in Bathurst, where you will be asked to do some circle work in the car park.

[burnz]

yeah you don't see the Chinese getting sunburnt or skin cancer!

[ltd]

I think I have a new hero.
This guy is doing EVERYTHING to stop the high UV light problem.
AND, he's a vascular surgeon for a living.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM7ksfRVF70

You know it makes sense.

[mik]

I don't know which rays are which , but they say our little earth is protected from much of the solar wind by the magnetic field generated by the hot spinning mass at the core of our little earth, apparently it is down in strength at this time by about 10 %,
if what I have read is right and there is some climate thing out of the ordinary happening on our little rock, I think it might well be a lot to do with the extra solar winds permeating the place, but I don't really know.
also it is said the sun and the earth both have magnetic pole shifts............. the sun apparently is nearly done and it occurs every 11 or 12 year iirc,
the earth takes much longer...................... if my grey matter is remembering the text, like thousands of years, but we are well on our way apparently........ regarding the co2 thing I saw a compelling video a few weeks ago looking at various bits of information and graphs etc, explained by one of these clever buggers, ......... honest !

I have to say the guy was very convincing that co2 is a much lesser problem, but methane might be a really big problem, the interesting thing was this bloke looked at graphs like good old mr gore uses and chucked in methane graphs and well I wouldn't know that other stuff from clay................ but i'm convinced the other bunch that want to charge us a tax on co2 are ..... and I'm being kind now ....... barking up the wrong bloody tree, and I too think someone is making a lot of money out of selling co2 fear and yep I reckon we do get burned quicker these days.

[yakcam]

Don't you guys realise that Global warming is a real issue here, I mean, it snowed in Egypt for god's sake...

Oh wait... DOH!

[Ben73]

Sunburnt less these days than I used to be. Southern European heritage ftw.

[zilo]

Lots of misinfo in this thread...LOL

Extreme sunburn and melanomas...?

It's the hole in the ozone layer causing it will take a hundred years or more to recover.
Just cause we stopped releasing CFC's doesn't mean its all forgiven straight away.

In 1986 the hole was half way through Tasmania.

It is now well into NSW.

Oh...and its only the southern hemisphere, so Europeans and yanks don't give a damn as they aren't affected.

Welcome to the environment...you're standing in it.

[superyob]

Originally Posted by zilo

Lots of misinfo in this thread...LOL

Extreme sunburn and melanomas...?

It's the hole in the ozone layer causing it will take a hundred years or more to recover.
Just cause we stopped releasing CFC's doesn't mean its all forgiven straight away.

In 1986 the hole was half way through Tasmania.

It is now well into NSW.

Oh...and its only the southern hemisphere, so Europeans and yanks don't give a damn as they aren't affected.

Welcome to the environment...you're standing in it.

So do people in Victoria and Tasmania get sunburnt quicker?

[zilo]

Originally Posted by superyob

So do people in Victoria and Tasmania get sunburnt quicker?

yes correct... if compared to say QLD.

[chamb0]

It looks like it will be a long road to recovery ahead (on a human timescale anyway)... According to the scientists, they aren't really yet able to measure any change in the size of the ozone hole that might be due to small changes in chlorine levels. Those observations are still being obscured by larger seasonal changes driven by variation in atmospheric winds and temperatures. Ltd - perhaps this may help partly explain your mate's observations about changes that he's noticed?

There's some maps and data here showing any changes in the hole over the year:
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl...17/3913079.htm

Originally Posted by ABC Science

Ozone hole healing a slow process
Tuesday, 17 December 2013 Irene Klotz
Reuters

Earth's upper atmosphere is still so saturated with ozone-eating chlorine that it will take about another decade for evidence that a nearly 25-year-old ban on such destructive chemicals is working, scientists say.

Full recovery of the ozone layer, which shields Earth from the Sun's harmful ultraviolet radiation, should occur around 2070, atmospheric scientist Natalya Kramarova, with NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, told reporters at the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco last week.

"Currently, we do not see that the ozone hole is recovering," she says. "It should become apparent in 2025."

Researchers report puzzlingly large variations in the size of the annual ozone hole over Antarctica.

In 2012 for example, the ozone hole was the second smallest on record, an apparently positive sign that the 1989 Montreal Protocol agreement - which called for the phasing out of Freon and other damaging chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs - was working.

But scientists say that meteorological effects masked the hole's true size. The year before, they point out, the ozone hole was nearly as big as it was in 2006, the largest on record.

"Currently, small declines in levels of ozone-depleting substances are far too small to show ozone recovery, in comparison with year to year variability," says Kramarova.

With the stratosphere still flush with ozone-destroying chlorine, the size of the annual hole over Antarctica is more dependent on temperature and upper atmospheric winds, scientists say.

As chlorine levels drop, however, the annual ozone holes over Antarctica will consistently decrease in size, they add.

"We've still got so much chlorine up there that the ozone hole area just doesn't depend on chlorine," says atmospheric scientist Susan Strahan, also with NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center.

As a result of the Montreal Protocol, scientists expected chlorine levels to decrease by about five per cent this decade.

Instead, measurements from instruments aboard satellites show chlorine levels increase or decrease by five per cent every year, says Strahan.

Chlorine is gradually declining, she says, "but it's a bumpy road down - some years it's higher, some years it's lower."

By the mid-2030s, chlorine levels are forecast to be 20 per cent lower than current levels, leading to consistently smaller ozone holes. A full recovery is expected between 2058 and 2090 and most likely around 2070.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/.../#.UrAJn-D1g8M

Originally Posted by NASA

NASA Reveals New Results From Inside the Ozone Hole
Dec. 11, 2013

NASA scientists have revealed the inner workings of the ozone hole that forms annually over Antarctica and found that declining chlorine in the stratosphere has not yet caused a recovery of the ozone hole.

More than 20 years after the Montreal Protocol agreement limited human emissions of ozone-depleting substances, satellites have monitored the area of the annual ozone hole and watched it essentially stabilize, ceasing to grow substantially larger. However, two new studies show that signs of recovery are not yet present, and that temperature and winds are still driving any annual changes in ozone hole size.

"Ozone holes with smaller areas and a larger total amount of ozone are not necessarily evidence of recovery attributable to the expected chlorine decline," said Susan Strahan of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "That assumption is like trying to understand what's wrong with your car's engine without lifting the hood."

To find out what's been happening under the ozone hole's hood, Strahan and Natalya Kramarova, also of NASA Goddard, used satellite data to peer inside the hole. The research was presented Wednesday at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.

Kramarova tackled the 2012 ozone hole, the second-smallest hole since the mid 1980s. To find out what caused the hole's diminutive area, she turned to data from the NASA-NOAA Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership satellite, and gained the first look inside the hole with the satellite's Ozone Mapper and Profiler Suite's Limb Profiler. Next, data were converted into a map that shows how the amount of ozone differed with altitude throughout the stratosphere in the center of the hole during the 2012 season, from September through November.

The map revealed that the 2012 ozone hole was more complex than previously thought. Increases of ozone at upper altitudes in early October, carried there by winds, occurred above the ozone destruction in the lower stratosphere.

"Our work shows that the classic metrics based on the total ozone values have limitations – they don't tell us the whole story," Kramarova said.

The classic metrics create the impression that the ozone hole has improved as a result of the Montreal protocol. In reality, meteorology was responsible for the increased ozone and resulting smaller hole, as ozone-depleting substances that year were still elevated. The study has been submitted to the journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

Separate research led by Strahan tackled the holes of 2006 and 2011 – two of the largest and deepest holes in the past decade. Despite their similar area, however, Strahan shows that they became that way for very different reasons.

Strahan used data from the NASA Aura satellite's Microwave Limb Sounder to track the amount of nitrous oxide, a tracer gas inversely related to the amount of ozone depleting chlorine. The researchers were surprised to find that the holes of 2006 and 2011 contained different amounts of ozone-depleting chlorine. Given that fact, how could the two holes be equally severe?

The researchers next used a model to simulate the chemistry and winds of the atmosphere. Then they re-ran the simulation with the ozone-destroying reactions turned off to understand the role that the winds played in bringing ozone to the Antarctic. Results showed that in 2011, there was less ozone destruction than in 2006 because the winds transported less ozone to the Antarctic – so there was less ozone to lose. This was a meteorological, not chemical effect. In contrast, wind blew more ozone to the Antarctic in 2006 and thus there was more ozone destruction. The research has been submitted to the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

This work shows that the severity of the ozone hole as measured by the classic total column measurements does not reveal the significant year-to-year variations in the two factors that control ozone: the winds that bring ozone to the Antarctic and the chemical loss due to chlorine.

Until chlorine levels in the lower stratosphere decline below the early 1990s level – expected sometime after 2015 but likely by 2030 – temperature and winds will continue to dictate the variable area of the hole in any given year. Not until after the mid 2030s will the decline stratospheric chlorine be the primary factor in the decline of ozone hole area.

"We are still in the period where small changes in chlorine do not affect the area of the ozone hole, which is why it's too soon to say the ozone hole is recovering," Strahan said. "We're going into a period of large variability and there will be bumps in the road before we can identify a clear recovery."