Thoughts on the Ozone hole size

Richard Holle | October 4, 2010 at 3:57 pm | Reply

The slow solar cycle of activity is causing a lowering of the magnetic output of the sun, which in turn is causing less magnetic induction affects into the geomagnetic fields of the Earth. The lower solar activity is resulting in less drive to convert O2 to O3.

At same time the decay or relaxation back to O2 is a factor of background levels of electromagnetic activity, and the amounts of natural Chlorine compounds in the atmosphere, along with any trace amounts of escaped HCFC’s that assist the break down of O3 back to O2 by catalyst actions, that do not destroy the HCFC compounds in the process, so they have long life times due to slow natural decay rates.

There are social economic factors rumored to have been the justification for the CFC scare and resultant change to a new refrigerant. DuPont’s patents for the formula of freon 12, were about to run out and it was going to be able to be manufactured world wide at greatly reduced prices, the CFC / Ozone hole, scam was introduced till a new patented refrigerant was produced by DuPont, thus avoiding loss of major market share. Google for the details.

As to why the background levels of solar activity is slowing down, nobody has concrete proof, or even a sound enough theory of what drives the solar activity levels, enough to make them predictable, as evidenced by the poor prediction of the progress of this solar cycle, coming through it’s transition, by almost every recognized “expert” in the field.

As usual a couple of outsiders did have realistic predictions of the length and activity of this solar cycle, but they are espousing orbital interactions of the planets, as a feed back to the solar cycles of the sunspots.
http://www.landscheidt.info/
Mainstream scientists are paranoid of “astrology” retaining it’s large following in public lay opinion, being carried in mass into the field of science, with out the progressive study of drives, that can be quantified, measured, and thus predicted by building a “NEW paradigm” to explain how it all happens.

Change is slow in established fields of study, and maintaining the old paradigm in fear of loosing control, is unfortunately what slows most progress. It would appear that retaining market share of established economic endeavors drive the research focus, through the direction of how and where grant monies are spent, sound familiar?

Filed under: In other online forums — by Richard Holle @ 3:57 am on October 4, 2010

Comments

There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment