From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Ozone FAQ: Comments
Date: 29 Nov 1995 01:07:58 -0500
Lines: 218

Robert Parson's ozone faqs are a valuable
reference to the subject. Particularly noteworthy
is that his latest update includes the new
findings on the rapid degradation of methyl
bromide in soil (J. H. Shorter et al, Nature 377,
717, 1995).

I offer the following updates and comments (in
CAPS). (Please read the introduction to the
relevant faq before using or citing the faq
extracts that follow.) 

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric network (SPAN)


ozfaq.pt2:

Subject: 1.2) How has stratospheric chlorine
changed with time?

The total amount of chlorine in the stratosphere
has increased by a factor of 2.5 since 1975
[Solomon] During this time period the known
natural sources have shown no major increases.  

COMMENTS: AS NOTED ELSEWHERE IN THE FAQ, NATURAL
METHYL CHLORIDE MAY ACCOUNT FOR 15-20% OF
CHLORINE IN THE STRATOSPHERE. PERHAPS IT HAS NOT
INCREASED, BUT THE RESULTS OF MANY INQUIRIES ON
THE NET, PHONE CALLS AND A LITERATURE SEARCH SHOW
THAT THIS GAS IS APPARENTLY NOT REGULARLY
MONITORED IN THE STRATOSPHERE. SINCE A MAJOR
SOURCE IS BIOMASS BURNING, WHICH HAS INCREASED
SUBSTANTIALLY SINCE 1978, IS IT NOT PREMATURE TO
STATE IT HAS NOT INCREASED?


Subject: 4.4) Volcanoes put more chlorine into
the stratosphere than CFC's.

Short Reply: False. Volcanoes account for at most
a few percent of the chlorine in the
stratosphere.

Long reply:  This is one of the most persistent
myths in this area. As is so often the case,
there is a seed of truth at the root of the myth. 
Volcanic gases are rich in Hydrogen Chloride,
HCl.  As we have discussed, this gas is very
soluble in water and is removed from the
troposphere on a time scale of 1-7 days, so we
can dismiss quietly simmering volcanoes as a
stratospheric source, just as we can neglect sea
salt and other natural sources of HCl. 

COMMENTS: A WORD SEARCH DID NOT FIND MOUNT EREBUS
IN THE FAQ (BUT THE END OF THREE PARTS WAS
SOMEHOW CUT OFF WHAT I RECEIVED). EREBUS, A VERY
UNUSUAL AND PERSISTENTLY ACTIVE VOLCANO, IS A
MAJOR SOURCE OF CHLORINE IN ANTARCTICA, WHICH IS
NOTED FOR ITS EXCEPTIONALLY DRY ATMOSPHERE.
CLEARLY THIS CHLORINE IS NOT REMOVED AS RAPIDLY
AS IN WETTER LOCATIONS. THE SUMMIT OF EREBUS IS
BELOW THE TROPOPAUSE, AND I AM AWARE OF NO
MECHANISM WHICH MIGHT TRANSPORT SOME OF THIS
CHLORINE INTO THE STRATOSPHERE. BUT CURRENT
OBSERVATIONS HAVE YET TO COMPLETELY RULE OUT A
CONTRIBUTION OF EREBUS EMISSIONS TO OZONE DECLINE
IN ANTARCTICA. FOR EXAMPLE, PHILIP R. KYLE HAS
WRITTEN,"SUCH SPECULATION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY
CURRENT OBSERVATIONS MADE AT MOUNT EREBUS, BUT IT
IS IMPORTANT THAT THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY NOT
DISMISS THE IDEA OUT OF HAND WITHOUT MAKING THE
APPROPRIATE SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATIONS AND
EVALUATIONS." ("VOLCANOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDIES OF MOUNT EREBUS, ANTARCTICA, ANTARCTIC
RESEARCH SERIES, VOL. 66, AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL
UNION, 1994, P. xiv.)


ozfaq.pt3:

Subject: 5.) How far back do antarctic ozone
measurements go?

...Today there are several satellites monitoring
ozone and other atmospheric gases; the Russian
Meteor-3 carries a new TOMS....

COMMENTS: UNFORTUNATELY, METEOR-3/TOMS CEASED
FUNCTIONING NEARLY A YEAR AGO (DECEMBER 1994).
THIS IS A MAJOR SETBACK TO GLOBAL OZONE
MONITORING SINCE TOMS IS BY FAR THE BEST AND MOST
ACCURATE SATELLITE OZONE MAPPING INSTRUMENT.
ALTHOUGH TOMS CANNOT MEASURE OZONE IN THE LOWER
TROPOSPHERE, WHEN A CORRECTION FACTOR IS ADDED
ITS MEASUREMENTS ARE WITHIN A FEW PERCENT OF
THOSE BY GROUND-BASED INSTRUMENTS, INCLUDING
THOSE OF THE SUN PHOTOMETER ATMOSPHERIC NETWORK
(SPAN). PRESENT PLANS CALL FOR LAUNCHING AT LEAST
ONE NEW TOMS IN 1995. ONE IS SCHEDULED AS AN
EARTH PROBE AND THE OTHER FOR A JAPANESE
SATELLITE. THE TOMS OZONE PROCESSING TEAM AT
NASA'S GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER HAS USED THE
TIME WITHOUT AN ACTIVE TOMS TO REFINE THE
ALGORITHM THAT CALCULATES OZONE FROM TOMS
MEASUREMENTS OF BACKSCATTERED UV-B. THE NEW DATA
SET, WHICH IS CALLED VERSION 7, IS SCHEDULED FOR
RELEASE SOON.

IN A TIME WHEN GOVERNMENT SCIENCE BUDGETS ARE
UNDER CAREFUL AND APPROPRIATE REVIEW BY THE
CONGRESS, IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THE
ORIGINAL TOMS ABOARD THE NIMBUS-7 LASTED 14
YEARS. IT'S PLANNED LIFE WAS ONLY 2-3 YEARS. 


ozfaq.pt4:

Subject: 3.) Is UV-B at the earth's surface
increasing?

... Several studies [Kerr and McElroy] [Mims]
[Seckmayer et al.]  [Zerefos et al.] have
presented evidence of short-term UV-B increases
at middle latitudes associated with the record
low ozone levels in 1992-93. As discussed in Part
I, these low ozone levels are probably due to
stratospheric sulfate aerosols from the 1991
eruption of Mt.Pinatubo;....  

COMMENTS: THE SIGNIFICANT OZONE LOWS (AND UV-B
HIGHS) THAT I OBSERVED AND REPORTED ON IN GRL
WERE ASSOCIATED WITH UNUSUAL CLIMATOLOGY, NOT
PINATUBO AEROSOLS. THE RECORD LOW OZONE OVER
TEXAS AND MUCH OF THE SE UNITED STATES IN
NOVEMBER 1994 (SEE EOS, MARCH 1995), WAS ALSO
ASSOCIATED WITH UNUSUAL CLIMATOLOGY. OF COURSE IT
IS POSSIBLE THAT PINATUBO MAY HAVE CAUSED CHANGES
THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE UNUSUAL CLIMATOLOGY OF
THESE TWO EVENTS.


Subject: 8.) What effects does increased UV have
upon plant life?  Generally harmful, but hard to
quantify.   

COMMENTS: IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THE MANY
COUNTER-INTUITIVE EFFECTS THAT OCCUR. RICE, FOR
EXAMPLE, MAY BE STUNTED BY HIGH UV-B--BUT MAY
STILL DO BETTER THAN RICE ABSENT UV-B SINCE THE
UV-B ATTACKS AT LEAST ONE DISEASE THAT ATTACKS
RICE. VARIOUS PAPERS HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED ON
SIMILAR UNEXPECTED EFFECTS.


Subject: 9.) What effects does increased UV have
on marine life?

Again, generally harmful but hard to quantify.
Seawater is surprisingly transparent to UV-B. In
clear waters radiation at 315 nm is attenuated by
only 14% per meter depth. [Jerlov].  

COMMENTS: AT HAPUNA BAY, HAWAII, IN JUNE 1994, MY
SON AND I FOUND THAT THE UV-B (310 NM PEAK
RESPONSE) AT 1 METER BELOW THE SURFACE OF VERY
CLEAR WATER WAS ABOUT 85% OF THAT AT THE SURFACE,
WHICH IS VERY CLOSE AGREEMENT TO JERLOV. ON THE
OTHER HAND, WE MEASURED NO UV-B ONLY CENTIMETERS
BELOW THE SURFACE AT PADRE ISLAND, TEXAS, DUE TO
THE EXTREME TURBIDITY CAUSED BY WAVES.


Subject: 10.) Is UV-B responsible for the
amphibian decline?  

UV-B may be part of the story, although it is
unlikely to be the principal cause of this
mysterious event....  Contrary to the impression
given by some media reports, Blaustein and
coworkers did *not* claim that ozone depletion is
"the cause" of the amphibian decline. The decline
appears to be world-wide, whereas ozone depletion
is restricted to middle and high latitudes. Also,
many amphibian species lay their eggs under dense
canopies or underground where there is little
solar radiation. So, UV should be regarded as one
of many stresses that may be acting on amphibian
populations. 

COMMENTS: BLAUSTEIN'S PAPER HAVE ATTRACTED
CRITICAL ATTENTION IN VARIOUS JOURNALS DEVOTED TO
BIOLOGY. THE MOST IMPORTANT MISSING INGREDIENT TO
HIS OTHERWISE WELL PLANNED EXPERIMENTS IS THE
LACK OF UV-B DATA. PERHAPS BLAUSTEIN SHOULD
COLLABORATE WITH ONE OF THE SEVERAL WORKERS NOW
ESTIMATING SURFACE UV-B FROM SATELLITE OZONE
MEASUREMENTS. THIS WOULD CERTAINLY GIVE AN IDEA
OF THE TREND SINCE 1978.

OF COURSE OZONE IS NOT THE ONLY FACTOR THAT
MODULATES UV-B. MANY PAPERS HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED
ON THE ATTENUATION CAUSED BY CLOUDS. I HAVE
DESCRIBED THE VERY SIGNIFICANT ROLES OF HAZE (NEW
SCIENTIST, DEC. 1994) AND CUMULUS CLOUDS (NATURE
22 SEP 1994) IN REDISTRIBUTING THE AVAILABLE UV-
B. SINCE HAZE AND CLOUDS ARE SO VERY IMPORTANT
AND USUALLY CAUSE MUCH MORE MODULATION THAN
OZONE, PERHAPS THESE FACTS SHOULD ALSO BE INCLUDED IN
THE FAQ.
  
Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)
Phone: 210-372-0548
Fax: 210-372-2284
e-mail: fmims@aol.com

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re. Ozone faq: Comments
Date: 29 Nov 1995 23:27:48 -0500
Lines: 255

In article <49igdd$7jc@peabody.Colorado.EDU>,
rparson@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert Parson) wrote in
response to my comments about his very useful
ozone faqs. His response and my comments follow.

First I wish to thank Robert Parson for the
considerable time he has devoted to explaining
ozone and UV in his faqs, which I highly
recommend. The purpose of my comments is to point
out areas of ozone and UV research that are far
from complete or where questions remain
unanswered. Unfortunately, the ozone matter has
for many become a paradigm where science has all
the answers. This leaves some of us who actually
measure ozone and UV open to criticism from those
who question or reject the paradigm. (I have
experienced such criticism.)

An excellent and highly unfortunate example of a
paradigm gone awry might very well be the recent
paper by Shorter et al. in NATURE that concludes
bacteria in soil are a highly significant sink for
methyl bromide. Most methyl bromide is produced by
marine creatures and biomass burning. Some is
manufactured and used to fumigate soil in which
certain important crops are grown (tomatoes and
strawberries come to mind). Although the Shorter
paper casts serious doubt on the need for EPA
rules that ban methyl bromide production or
importation after 1 Jan 2001, EPA has a new web
page on methyl bromide which has not been updated
since the Shorter paper was published. The page
firmly states that manufacturerd methyl bromide
poses a serious hazard to the ozone layer and
offers rather stern advice and warnings to those
who would attempt to delay the methyl bromide ban.
This is precisely the kind of material that will
result in phone calls to SPAN. (I am awaiting a
response to a phone call and an e-mail to EPA
representatives on this. A preliminary response
was that the EPA position and even incorrect
statements on its web page will remain in place
for the time being.)

The obvious lesson is that scientific studies
should be completed before, not after, significant
policy decisions are made. (In the case of methyl
bromide, there are no known substitutes for
fumigating soils in which certain crops are
raised.) I am very pleased that Robert Parson
discussed the latest findings on methyl bromide in
his recent faq update. This certainly enhances the
objectivity and credibility of his faqs.

In the interest of full disclosure, it seems
appropriate to point out that the Sun Photometer
Atmospheric Network strives to make objective and
accurate scientific measurements and has received
no support from any group or corporation that may
benefit from production of substances believed to
deplete ozone. Our instruments were financed with
a 1993 Rolex Award. We have also received two
small grants from the Informedia Group, which has
a special interest in monitoring UV. I have
personally financed much of SPAN's work, and any
money I receive over expenses from a recent trip
to Brazil to measure ozone and UV-B for NASA will
be used to purchase SPAN research instruments. The 
source of virtually all my income since 1970 has
been the sale of my books, articles and
photographs about science, technology and various
other subjects. I have received personal income
for writing news and feature articles about ozone
and UV. SPAN gladly cooperates with any objective
scientists and educators who measure ozone, UV,
optical depth and related parameters. We have
worked closely and exchanged data with scientists
at various universities, NASA, NOAA, EPA and other
organizations and hope to continue to do so in the
future.

My reply (IN CAPS) to Robert Parson follows:

In article <49gtbu$6t1@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
FMims <fmims@aol.com> wrote:
>
>I offer the following updates and comments (in
>CAPS). (Please read the introduction to the
>relevant faq before using or citing the faq
>extracts that follow.) 
>
>Subject: 1.2) How has stratospheric chlorine
>changed with time?
>
>The total amount of chlorine in the stratosphere
>has increased by a factor of 2.5 since 1975
>[Solomon] During this time period the known
>natural sources have shown no major increases.  
>
>COMMENTS: AS NOTED ELSEWHERE IN THE FAQ, NATURAL
>METHYL CHLORIDE MAY ACCOUNT FOR 15-20% OF
>CHLORINE IN THE STRATOSPHERE. PERHAPS IT HAS NOT
>INCREASED, BUT THE RESULTS OF MANY INQUIRIES ON
>THE NET, PHONE CALLS AND A LITERATURE SEARCH SHOW
>THAT THIS GAS IS APPARENTLY NOT REGULARLY
>MONITORED IN THE STRATOSPHERE. SINCE A MAJOR
>SOURCE IS BIOMASS BURNING, WHICH HAS INCREASED
>SUBSTANTIALLY SINCE 1978, IS IT NOT PREMATURE TO
>STATE IT HAS NOT INCREASED?

 According to WMO 1994, p 2.7, "Data collected
from the late 1970's to mid 1980's showed no long
term trends." (Reference is given to work by
Khalil and Rasmussen; I'll check this when I get a
chance.)

I AM QUITE SURPRISED THAT WMO RELIED ON A SINGLE
CITATION TO CONCLUDE THAT UNSPECIFIED OBSERVATIONS
OVER ONLY CA. 6-7 YEARS RULE OUT A "LONG-TERM
TREND." ALTHOUGH I NOW HAVE MORE THAN 6 YEARS OF
CONTINUOUS OZONE, UV-B AND AOT DATA IT NEVER
OCCURRED TO ME THAT WMO MIGHT CONSIDER THIS AS
"LONG TERM DATA."

 This is the period when manmade halocarbon
abundances were increasing by a factor of two. 
You have elsewhere suggested that since biomass
burning increased dramatically in the late 1980's, 
there may subsequently have been an increase in
CH3Cl. This is an interesting suggestion but it
does not affect the argument being made in this
part of the FAQ. (The post-1985 measurements that
I've found so far are all in the neighborhood of
0.6 ppbv, which suggest to me that increases since
1985 have not been dramatic, though I agree
that individual measurements made in different
places using different techniques are no
substitute for continuous monitoring.)

IF CH3CL HAS INCREASED, THEN IT DOES MAKE A
DIFFERENCE. FOR EXAMPLE, COULD A CH3CL INCREASE
NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN CURRENT MODELS EXPLAIN WHY
THE MODELS HAVE NOT FULLY EXPLAINED THE MAGNITUDE
OF OZONE LOSS? 


>COMMENTS: A WORD SEARCH DID NOT FIND MOUNT EREBUS
>IN THE FAQ (BUT THE END OF THREE PARTS WAS
>SOMEHOW CUT OFF WHAT I RECEIVED). EREBUS, A VERY
>UNUSUAL AND PERSISTENTLY ACTIVE VOLCANO, IS A
>MAJOR SOURCE OF CHLORINE IN ANTARCTICA, WHICH IS
>NOTED FOR ITS EXCEPTIONALLY DRY ATMOSPHERE.

 The dryness doesn't seem too important given the
amount of water vapor in the volcanic plume in the
first place.

ARE YOU SURE? CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE A REFERENCE
FOR THE AMOUNT OF WATER VAPOR IN THE EREBUS PLUME?
MY PRRIMARY SOURCE (D. S. SHEPPARD, "COMPOSITIONS
AND MASS FLUXES OF THE MOUNT EREBUS VOLCANIC
PLUME," VOLCANOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
OF MOUNT EREBUS, ANTARCTICA, ANTARCTIC RESEARCH
SERIES, VOL. 66, AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION, 1994,
PP. 83-96) DOES NOT DISCUSS WATER VAPOR. IT DOES,
HOWEVER, REPORT 6.5 Mg/D CL AND 2.4 Mg/D SO2 ON 1
JAN 1990.

>CLEARLY THIS CHLORINE IS NOT REMOVED AS RAPIDLY
>AS IN WETTER LOCATIONS. THE SUMMIT OF EREBUS IS
>BELOW THE TROPOPAUSE, AND I AM AWARE OF NO
>MECHANISM WHICH MIGHT TRANSPORT SOME OF THIS
>CHLORINE INTO THE STRATOSPHERE. BUT CURRENT
>OBSERVATIONS HAVE YET TO COMPLETELY RULE OUT A
>CONTRIBUTION OF EREBUS EMISSIONS TO OZONE DECLINE
>IN ANTARCTICA.

 I think that the HALOE measurements of
stratospheric HCl concentrations count strongly
against any tropospheric HCl source, volcanic or
otherwise. There just isn't any HCl
in the lowest part of the stratosphere over
antarctica or anywhere else. (There's a link to
the HALOE home page in my FAQ.)

I AM AWARE OF THE HALOE RESULTS. THE QUESTION, IS
WHERE DOES THE CL (AND THE FL) FROM EREBUS
EVENTUALLY GO? WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT ALL THE
CL IN THE PLUME IS IN THE FORM OF HCL? HCL HAS
BEEN FOUND IN SNOW NEAR THE VOLCANO.

>...Today there are several satellites monitoring
>ozone and other atmospheric gases; the Russian
>Meteor-3 carries a new TOMS....
>
>COMMENTS: UNFORTUNATELY, METEOR-3/TOMS CEASED
>FUNCTIONING NEARLY A YEAR AGO (DECEMBER 1994).

 Right. I try to keep things up to date but I
always miss something.

>THIS IS A MAJOR SETBACK TO GLOBAL OZONE
>MONITORING SINCE TOMS IS BY FAR THE BEST AND MOST
>ACCURATE SATELLITE OZONE MAPPING INSTRUMENT.
>ALTHOUGH TOMS CANNOT MEASURE OZONE IN THE LOWER
>TROPOSPHERE, WHEN A CORRECTION FACTOR IS ADDED
>ITS MEASUREMENTS ARE WITHIN A FEW PERCENT OF
>THOSE BY GROUND-BASED INSTRUMENTS, INCLUDING
>THOSE OF THE SUN PHOTOMETER ATMOSPHERIC NETWORK
>(SPAN).

 Actually I ought to put in a reference to SPAN
here; if you'ld like to write a 1-paragraph
description (or point me to a reference giving a
brief overview) I'll put it in.

THANK YOU KINDLY. I WILL SEND YOU A PARAGRAPH
SOON.

>... Several studies [Kerr and McElroy] [Mims]
>[Seckmayer et al.]  [Zerefos et al.] have
>presented evidence of short-term UV-B increases
>at middle latitudes associated with the record
>low ozone levels in 1992-93. As discussed in Part
>I, these low ozone levels are probably due to
>stratospheric sulfate aerosols from the 1991
>eruption of Mt.Pinatubo;....  
>
>COMMENTS: THE SIGNIFICANT OZONE LOWS (AND UV-B
>HIGHS) THAT I OBSERVED AND REPORTED ON IN GRL
>WERE ASSOCIATED WITH UNUSUAL CLIMATOLOGY, NOT
>PINATUBO AEROSOLS.

 Yes, that was the wrong place to put the
reference to your paper; the second sentence
refers properly to the other three citations but
not to yours. Sorry. (Gack - I cited
 your paper in part because Michaels et al.
misintepreted your preprint, but I ended up
implying the same sort of misinterpretation.)


AS AN ASIDE, MY PAPER IN GRL WAS ORIGINALLY SENT
TO SCIENCE, WHERE IT RECEIVED WHAT SCIENCE
CHARACTERIZED AS 2 "FAVORABLE" REVIEWS. THEY THEN
DECLINED TO PUBLISH IT. I THEN SENT THE PAPER TO
GRL. WHILE I WAS GLAD TO PERMIT MICHAELS AND
SINGER TO CITE THE UNPUBLISHED PAPER IN THEIR
LETTER IN SCIENCE, I WAS DISAPPOINTED THAT THEY
MISINTERPRETED MY FINDINGS. SCIENCE PERMITTED ME
TO CORRECT THE RECORD IN A SUBSEQUENT LETTER TO
THE EDITOR.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: House Global Warming Hearing
Date: 3 Dec 1995 17:45:56 -0500

This is in response to posts questioning my prior assertions
regarding government scientists and administrations that advocate
specific scientific agendas before the requisite research has
been completed.

Recently while speaking with a prominent government scientist, I
specifically asked if he knew of instances in which political
agendas had ever interfered with scientific research. The
response was laughter and surprise that I would ask about what is
such common knowledge. (I am aware of several such instances at
this scientist's laboratory.)

On a related topic, Rich Puchalsky wrote that the firing of a
Department of Energy (DOE) scientist by the Clinton
administration was "probably mythical," and Len Evens asked for
verification. The story is quite true, and I have personal
knowledge that the Happer incident made an impact on at least
some government scientists and contractors who study
environmental matters.

Since the story received widespread media coverage, I am
surprised it is unknown to Puchalsky and Evens. According to
SCIENCE (vol. 260, p. 743, 7 May 93), William Happer, former
energy research director at DOE, was "...popular enough in the
scientific community that he was among a handful of Bush
appointees whom the Clinton administration specifically retained
earlier this year. But he's now leaving--apparently given the
boot, that is because of some of his environmental views."

"Happer's fall from grace, according to associates, can be
traced to his very public opinion that the health threat of ozone
depletion is overstated. Specifically, Happer points out what he
sees as a 'discrepancy' between predicted levels of UV-B, the
cancer-causing radiation that ozone normally blocks, and levels
actually measured on the ground....Contrast Happer's views with
those of Vice President Al Gore, whose apocalyptic vision of an
environmentally ravaged Earth drew the epithet 'Ozone Man' during
the presidential race last year. Something was bound to give, and
that, it seems, was Happer's job. DOE sources say Gore's office
made it clear that Happer was no longer welcome to stay." (The
news story continues along these lines.)

While I do not necessarily agree with Happer's conclusions, one
can hardly disagree with his call for for the establishment of a
scientific network to monitor UV-B. Funding for the NOAA
supported Berger network was ended in 1988 after publication of a
paper in SCIENCE reporting a slight decline in UV-B when
concurrent slight decline in ozone was expected to have caused an
increase. (This is the study to which Happer referred. The
difference has been attributed to the location of the instruments
in regions with growing air pollution and to calibration
uncertainties in the instruments.) While there is no such UV
network as yet, within the past few years more than a dozen
Federal agencies have established various kinds of UV-B
monitoring programs. Unfortunately, these programs are largely
uncoordinated and use different kinds of instruments.

SPAN is an independent network of volunteers who objectively
monitor total ozone, direct UV-B and optical depth. The views in
this post are my own.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: House Global Warming Hearing
Date: 6 Dec 1995 11:59:45 -0500
Lines: 83

In a prior post to this thread about the unfortunate case of William
Happer, I quoted from a news article in SCIENCE about the incident,
which one poster had claimed was mythical. This post raised further
questions from respondents.  And subsequent posts have continued to ask
if the incident actually occurred.  Some posts and a private e-mail
from persons who originally questioned the facts in this matter have
now suggested that the matter should now be closed.

As stated earlier, the incident did indeed occur and received widespread
coverage in the media. A much longer account (including an interview)
than the SCIENCE story appeared in the highly reputable magazine
PHYSICS TODAY (June 1993):
 

"HAPPER LEAVES DOE UNDER OZONE CLOUD FOR VIOLATING POLITICAL
CORRECTNESS"

"These are turbulent times in Washington for science. Consider the case
of William Happer, who was dismissed from his post as director of energy
research at the Department of Energy after opposing the prevailing views
of Vice President Al Gore Jr. and his environmental aides on the harmful
effects of ozone depletion and greenhouse gases on the Earth's
environment and on human health. Happer's dispute with Gore's people is
the first instance of the Clinton Administration enforcing its version
of 'political correctness' on scientists in its midst. The sacking of
Happer, a former Princeton University physics professor with impressive
credentials, raises questions about whether the Administration will be
able to recruit scientists for sensitive positions when science
conflicts with politics." 

(From Physics Today, June 1993, pp. 89-91; copyright 1993 by Physics
Today)

The lengthy article goes on to point out how Happer recommended "new and
better placed instrumentation to measure UV-B" and that Robert T.
Watson, who is now at the White House, and other advocates of the
current ozone paradigm reviewed the proposal. "The response, not
surprisingly under the circumstances, was that Happer's advice was no
longer needed." The article includes an interview with Happer, who, it
says, "spoke with candor and some courage."

While I do not necessarily agree with all of Happer's positions, it is
absolutely astonishing that his recommendation to establish a UV network
was considered out of order. This is not new. Under a different
administration the government ceased funding the Berger UV network when
it showed that UV had decreased during the same period that ozone had
also decreased. (This occurred in 1999 and is why I then began
designing and making instruments to measure UV-B and total ozone.)

The Happer episode clearly establishes that the validity of the points I
raised early on in this debate concerning the difficulty of keeping
science objective when politicians in charge at the time have
conflicting agendas. The Clinton Administration certainly has no
monopoly on the unfortunate practice of suppressing the views of
scientists with which it disagrees since previous administrations have
done the same thing.

The Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN) cooperates with many
individual, university, and government scientists and observers. SPAN
has absolutely no political agenda and advocates only the gathering of
objective scientific data. The views herein are my own.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric network (SPAN) 

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: House Global Warming Hearing
Date: 7 Dec 1995 14:45:49 -0500

This is in response to Rich Puchalsky (richp@upx.net) and Tom
Gray (tomgray@igc.apc.org).

Rich Puchalsky wrote (in part):

>Whoa.  No one has suggested that Mims is not a
>dedicated and intelligent scientist.  I, at
>least, was only objecting to his repeated
>summarizing of the Happer story in a way that
>seemed to evoke a certain partisan political
>slant. Specifically, the first time the story was
>told Happer was not mentioned by name, although
>Gore was.

The Happer incident was not what I had in mind
when my initial post was sent. I had in mind
specific examples of civil servants--not political
appointees--whose research has been affected by
various political agendas. I did not go into
detail because I was asked not to do so.

As for Happer, I posted the excerpt from SCIENCE
only because Pulasky characterized it as mythical.

"Partisan political slant": As I have stated
elsewhere in this forum, the Happer incident is
not original with the current administration. It
simply corroborates my original point about the
difficulty of attempting to reconciling objective
science with political agendas, any political
agendas. My personal belief about political
appointees is that administrations should hire and
fire whoever they want. The public can evaluate
such actions as it chooses. One way to keep
science objective is to keep scientists from
becoming political appointees. Another is to erect
buffers between science and government funding of
science.

As for Gore, I invoked his name only because he
was mentioned in the hearings about which this
thread was begun.

Tom Gray writes: 

>Thanks for the PHYSICS TODAY excerpt on Hopper's
>dismissal, Forrest.
  
>I'll simply point out that again, only one side
>of the story--Hopper's--is given.  If there is a
>response, any response, from  Gore's office, it
>is missing from the excerpt.  Details of such a 
>response, even if it is "no comment," are
>required for any semblance of balanced reporting.

The PHYSICS TODAY article does include a brief
paraphrase of a response from a Gore aide that
doesn't directly pertain to the issue at hand.

The level of this discussion would be raised if par-
ticipants would read this and other contemporaneous
accounts of the Happer episode. I would post more
of the PHYSICS TODAY piece, but it is quite long,
and it is also copyrighted. It should be available
in most libraries. (See PHYSICS TODAY, Vol. 46,
No. 6, June 1993, pp. 89-91.) 

These comments are my own.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: House Global Warming Hearing
Date: 8 Dec 1995 16:00:42 -0500
Lines: 19

Rich Puchalsky writes:

>And to complete the muddying of the issue,
>Mims has now clarified that he
>at least wasn't even talking about Happer originally,
>although he can't reveal just who he was talking about.

An issue is not muddied by clarification.
I did not introduce the Happer matter because it was not on my mind. 
I merely confirmed it with quotes from news stories after Puchalsky
claimed it was a myth. Apparently he now accepts the story. 

Since this issue came up, I have heard from
various scientists who have personal knowledge of the suppression of
appropriate scientific inquiry. While it would be best if they would come
forward, that is their decision, not mine.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: HR 475, More Freon = Less Ozone
Date: 22 Dec 1995 12:45:22 -0500

Len Evans (len@schur.math.nwu.edu) responded to
John McCarthy's (jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU) comments on
ozone and UV-B. I would like to append the
following comments to their exchange and to other
comments made about UV-B in Antarctica:

McCarthy:

>And yet, there is one small problem left.  The
>harm from thinning the ozone layer is supposed to
>be increased UV-B at ground level. There
>is apparently a lack of evidence that this has
>occurred.

Significant ozone decline over Antarctica during
the spring causes significant increases in UV-B.
There are various reports about increased UV-B
where people live, but most of the increases may
not exceed natural variation. Exceptions have
occurred at times of the year when the Sun angle
is well below the summer maximum. Keep in mind
that total ozone in 1962 was apparently lower
(over the U.S.) than just prior to the eruption of
Pinatubo in 1991. Indeed, the ozone increase
during the 1960s is similar to the decrease
observed since the 1980's. 

Various other posts discussed UV-B in Antarctica.
One of the best sources on this is "Ultraviolet
Radiation in Antarctica: Measurements and
Biological Effects" (C. S. Weiler & P. A. Penhale,
eds., Antarctic Research Series, Vol. 62, American
Geophysical Union, 1994).

From my personal experience measuring UV-B, water
vapor-based haze (both natural and anthropogenic);
volcanic haze (Big Island of Hawaii); and smoke
(1988: Yellowstone fire smoke over Texas; 1995:
biomass smoke in Brazil) reduce UV-B far more than
ozone changes during a typical summer (paper in
preparation). And scattering from cumulus and cum.
congestus clouds increases UV-B far more than
ozone changes during a typical summer (F. M. Mims
II, Nature, 22 Sep 1994).

Evans:

>Do you mean there is no evidence of increased UVB
>at ground level or that there is not a large
>amount of evidence? Other factors
>being kept eual, it has been fairly well
>established that where the ozone level is thinned
>there is increased UVB at the surface.

The problem is that it's virtually impossible to
keep things equal in places where people live. 
Anthropogenic pollution can significantly reduce
UV-B over very large geographic regions (a by-
product of multiple scattering caused by aerosols
and absorption caused by ozone). This is
especially obvious in the Eastern U.S. during
summer.  

>This is clear on rather simple theoretical
>grounds and also by observational studies. Read
>Robert Parson's FAQ and see in particular his
>remarks about the Antarctic where the evidence is
>absolutely clear and also about the Toronto
>studies.


Parson's FAQ is a very good start, but it fails to
discuss modulating influences that, from a purely
practical perspective, remain much more important
than column ozone. Cumulus clouds in a clear sky
can increase UV-B by 25% for 30 minutes or longer.
This is a measured, not modelled, result. The
measurement has been repeated and validated for
Hawaii (1994-5).

>The problem in science in general and geoscience
>in particular is that other factors are
>seldom kept constant. It seems to me that some
>people have used this fact to muddy the basic
>point.

Good point. The various ozone FAQs either ignore
or fail to adequately discuss the modulating
effects of haze, smoke and clouds. The "Scientific
Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1994 (WMO Report
No. 37, 1995), which devotes more than 500 pages
to ozone and only 22 to UV-B. The report does not
give explain exactly how the sites used to compute
ozone trends are selected (data from many sites
are not used). The report overemphasizes
atmospheric chemistry and underemphasizes
meteorology. The report is not unanimously
endorsed by its writers (as implied in WMO and EPA
statements). The discussion of contamination of
the trend record by changes in sulfur dioxide
pollution is inadequate (see p. 1.7). The study
arbitrarily associates population density with SO2
pollution. The study also claims that the SO2-
induced erroneous ozone decline at Uccle, Belgium,
occurred in a region more polluted than other
regions of Europe. However, various published maps
of sulfates over Europe and Asia show very high
levels over much of Europe and Russia. (No such
maps are shown in the WMO report.) This report
includes many other gaps and inconsistencies which
I plan to address later.

>One cannot approach this sort
>of thing at a purely empirical level:   I
>measured UVB at such and such a location for such
>and such a period and this is what I saw. The
>observations have to be fit into the overall
>theoretical structure.   Often that requires a
>quite broad understanding of the whole field.

I agree. This is why SPAN observers measure ozone,
direct UV-B, column water vapor and optical depth
simultaneously and with the same instrument.
Papers (and FAQS) that describe only one parameter
(say UV-B) without also providing data about other
parameters that modulate the measured parameter
are incomplete and should not be published. But
they continue to be published.


>The whole issue has been complicated by the
>absence of an extensive network of stations to
>observe UVB.   This should be funded.  I've
>seem at least two explanations of why this has
>not yet been done, one suggesting failure or
>conspiracy among some group or other and
>the other suggesting a lack of agreement among
>scientists on how best to measure the relevant
>frequencies.   In any case it should
>be done.   However, given the many confounding
>factors and the so far moderate decline in ozone
>levels in temperate regions, it
>may take quite a while before observations catch
>up with theory in this matter.

Many scientists have long recommended this. As of
1995, some 13 U.S. Federal agencies are now
measuring UV-B. But the effort is highly
uncoordinated and the instruments are not
necessarily compatible. It is urgent that the
Federal effort be coordinated and placed under the
umbrella of an experienced senior scientist.
NOAA's John DeLuisi comes to mind. Another good
candidate is John Frederick, who heads the
geoscience department at the University of
Chicago.

>And it is always possible we may be surprised.  
>For example, although  UVB increases in the
>Antarctic have been clearly demonstrated to be
>related to ozone depletion, it is possible that
>there is some as yet not understood factor which
>will prevent similar things from happening in
>temperate regions given large ozone
>depletion there.

Right. Like sulfate haze. The kind most of us
produce when we drive, fly and send e-mail like
this. (Fortunately my PC power comes from a
hydroelectric power plant.)

>But at present we have to go with the best
>knowledge we have.   And that suggests that
>allowing the ozone layer to continue to thin with
>extreme perturbations already observed in polar
>regions is not a sensible experiment.

Your premise is that ozone thinning is strictly a
byproduct of CFCs and that human activity can
somehow alter the rate of decline. But there are
other possibilities, and present trend studies do
not all agree. The 1994 Ozone Assessment so often
cited in this news group and by the EPA states on
p. 1.7, "Sulfur dioxide (SO2) absorbs ultraviolet
at the wavelengths used by Dobson and Brewer
instruments to measure total ozone. The presence
of SO2 causes a false increase of total ozone
measured by Dobson instruments...." (See my
comments above.) 

Also, various published papers, some very recent,
take issue with the prevailing view that
decomposed CFCs and related compounds cause most
ozone decline. Few such papers are cited in the
1994 assessment.

One recent paper attributes ozone decline to
predominantly meteorological processes and
concludes, "The question of so-called 'ozone
depletion' has to be investigated from the point
of view of long-term variations of general
circulation in the atmosphere. Models of 'the
depletion', as summarized in the WMO Report
(1991), must realize that the meteorological
conditions have significant effects on the ozone
layer, being the main cause of seasonal as well as
most of the shorter and apparently arbitrary
density and thermal variations." (K. Henriksen &
V. Roldugin, "Total Ozone Variations in Middle
Asia and Dynamic Meteorological Processes in the
Atmosphere," Geophysical Research Letters, 22, 23,
3219-3222, 1 Dec 1995.) 

Hopefully this paper will be cited in the next WMO
report. Since some scientists who do not
necessarily agree with the prevailing ozone
depletion hypothesis have been criticized or
ignored, I know from personal experience that
papers published in GRL are subjected to vigorous
peer review. This is probably why the paper cited
above was revised after initial submission.   

>Since the economic effects of shifts to
>substitutes for CFCs are already
>underway---without disasterous consequences, by
>the way---we should
>continue on the current path.   We certainly
>won't get absolutely everything just exactly
>right, but that is is no reason for overturning
>the mechanisms previously agreed to by our
>government.


About all I can say to this is that current policy
is based on incomplete and even questionable
science. When I asked a contributor to the 1994
ozone assessment why the same people seem to
rotate as leaders of this effort and why the WMO
studies are dominated by atmospheric chemistry
and devote so little space to meteorology and UV-B,
he laughed and said, "They reappoint each other."

While I'll be glad to respond to respondents, I
will be in and out during January and may not be
able to respond promptly.

These comments are my own and do not necessarily
reflect the position of SPAN. The sole purpose of
SPAN is to collect objective data.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: House Global Warming Hearing
Date: 22 Dec 1995 12:51:29 -0500
Lines: 62

R. T. Pierrehumbert <rtp1@midway.uchicago.edu>,
in response to my previous comment, writes:
 
>Mims:

>>Since CO2 levels were considerably higher in the
>>distant past, it's reasonable to assume that a
>>negative feedback mechanism of some kind does
>>exist.

Pierrehumbert:

>Actually, the inference from paleoclimate is
>exactly the reverse of this.  The usual problem
>with explaining Cretaceous climates is
>not that they are too warm but that even with 6x
>CO2 they can be, if anything, too cool.  With
>something like 6xCO2, one can get a climate that
>is roughly as warm as the Cretaceous
>in models where the water vapor feedback behaves
>as it does in the models that predict fairly
>large global warming from doubling CO2; the water
>vapor feedback in such models behaves such that
>the relative humidity stays roughly constant.

[deletion...]

You cite models. Although I make use of UV-B and
total ozone models several times each day (while
measuring these parameters), I have learned to
respect their limitations. Have your models been
tested and, if so, can they explain the long-term
trend in increased cloud cover? 

An increase in cloudiness is commonly mentioned as
a possible negative feedback consequence of global
warming. A very obvious increase in cloudiness has
occurred since the turn of the century over
various regions. For example:

Six sites in Illinois reported a significant
increase in cloudy days from 1901-10 (1120 cloudy
days) to 1971-80 (1710 cloudy days). (See S. A.
Changnon, "Climate Fluctuations and Impacts," Bul.
of the Am. Meteo. Soc., 66, 142-151, 1984.)

Average cloudiness over the United States rose
from 0.5 of the full sky to 0.61 between 1900 and
1980. An increase over this period was reported by
76 of 77 U. S. stations. (See Edward Linacre,
"Climate Data and Resources," 190, Routledge,
London, 1992.)

These increases in cloud cover approximately match
the increase in global temperatures since the turn
of the century. I will be most appreciative if you
cite references in which models explain these
changes in cloud cover.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: OZONE DEPLETION & HEALTH RISKS
Date: 23 Dec 1995 23:13:08 -0500

In article <4bfgm7$jlg@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, Carl J. Lydick
<carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:

>In article <APC&1'0'576a999e'a97@igc.apc.org>, "Nicholas A. Sundt"
><nsundt@igc.apc.org> writes:
>=                                
>=     MIDDLE-LATITUDE OZONE DEPLETION INCREASES HEALTH RISKS
>=
>=According to the National Cancer Institute, between 1973 and 1992
>=the incidence of melanoma, a serious form of skin cancer,
>=increased faster than any other cancer among caucasians in the
>=US.  Now accounting for 3% of cancers diagnosed nationwide, the
>=American Academy of Dermatology calls melanoma "an undeclared
>=epidemic."
>=
>=This alarming trend may persist or even accelerate for at least
>=one reason: stratospheric ozone is being depleted, allowing
>=additional damaging ultraviolet (UV-B) radiation to penetrate
>=into the lower atmosphere.

>Of course, that trend occurred after a decade or two of folks being
>obsessed with tanning.  Why is it that you fail to mention that rather
>relevant fact?

The connection of melanoma with UV-B remains tenuous. For example, it is
believed by some that susceptability to melanoma in adulthood can be
enhanced by a predisposition to the disease and by as few as one or two
severe sunburns during youth. There are other possible correlations. As
Lydick observes, this is a lifestyle problem having nothing to do with
observed increases in UV-B due to changes in ozone, at least to date.

A major Canadian study found a correlation of skin cancer and exposure to
the Sun received by Canadians who visit the Caribbean, certainly not an
unexpected finding. Ozone decline is involved here only to the extent that
there is ordinarily less column ozone over the latitudes of the Caribbean
than over Canada. (This doesn't always hold in the post-Pinatubo era.)

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: House Global Warming Hearing
Date: 24 Dec 1995 00:11:21 -0500
Lines: 110

Pierrehumbert wrote:

>Mims:
>>You cite models. Although I make use of UV-B and
>>total ozone models several times each day (while
>>measuring these parameters), 

>No, I cite paleoclimate history as evidence of
>consistency with model behavior.

Then, as I wrote, you cite models. (See below...)

>The sort of behavior I am talking about is
>really pretty robust and not so much in the
>details about how the models are written. If
>there is a strong stabilizing water vapor
>feedback (contrary to what models yield) then it
>is very hard indeed to account for warm
>Cretaceous temperatures.

>You cite a lot of cloud observations that are
>mostly irrelevant to the question of Cretaceous 
>warmth.  If you have a way of accounting for 
>Cretaceous warmth with cloud effects and
>no CO2 increase, you should publish it and you'll
>become instantly famous.  I've been trying to get
>clouds to bump up Cretaceous warmth myself. It's
>not so easy.

I cited only the increase in cloud cover since the
turn of the present century. I have no idea how
one can extrapolate present cloudiness to that
during the Cretaceous. The present concerns over
global warming apply to the present and proposed
temperature increases over the next century.  

Pierrehumbert posted a followup before this
response: 

>I forgot to mention also that Mims failed to
>respond to my comment pointing out that his
>measurement does not measure the aspect of water
>vapor of relevance to global warming.

Total column water vapor and the stratification of
water vapor are absolutely relevant to global
warming. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But the
greenhouse effect of water vapor dwarfs that of
CO2.

>All he's interested in doing is taking potshots
>at models.

As noted in my post, I use models daily. But I use
them with due caution and, as stated, have learned
to understand their limitations. Here is the exact
wording I used: 

>You cite models. Although I make use of UV-B and
>total ozone models several times each day (while
>measuring these parameters), I have learned to
>respect their limitations. Have your models been
>tested and, if so, can they explain the long-term
>trend in increased cloud cover? 

Models are simply models. Heterogeneous and gas-
phase chemistry models that attempt to explain the
decline in ozone observed since the 1980's
underestimate the decline. These same models also
fail to explain the significant increase in ozone
that occurred during the 1960's. The Canadian AES
model I use that predicts total-sky UV-B (knowing
the column ozone and the Sun angle) works quite
well when the optical depth is relatively small
(i.e. little haze). The model estimates are always
too high when haze is present.

Models must consider all relevant variables. In
Brazil this August, I was surprised to find that
the measured UV-B was sometimes only 20% of the
modeled UV-B because the model fails to take into
account the absorption of UV-B by black carbon in
the abundant smoke from biomass burning. None of
the UV-B models can adequately account for smoke
and haze.

Although I am not a climate modeler, I have read
several reports that some climate models have
failed to adequately track recent climatology. So
I repeat my questions: 

1. Have any of your models been tested against
known climatology? What were the results of the
test(s)? (Please indicate if your model(s) are not
designed for such short term tests.)

2. Do your models explain the increase in cloud
cover since the turn of the century?

I add an additional question about a topic in
which I have considerable interest:

3. Do your model(s) account for changes in
aerosols? If so, can you study the separate
effects of changes in stratospheric and
tropospheric aerosols? (I particularly have in
mind aerosols arising from volcanoes and fires.)

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: HR 475, More Freon = Less Ozone
Date: 26 Dec 1995 13:33:57 -0500

Len Evens (len@schur.math.nwu.edu) writes(in part):

[Mims:]

>>About all I can say to this is that current policy
>>is based on incomplete and even questionable
>>science. When I asked a contributor to the 1994
>>ozone assessment why the same people seem to
>>rotate as leaders of this effort and why the WMO
>>studies are dominated by atmospheric chemistry
>>and devote so little space to meteorology and UV-B,
>>he laughed and said, "They reappoint each other."

[Evans:]

>I think this is the same argument which various
>critics of the ozone ban have been claiming since
>the beginning: since we don't know everything, we
>don't know anything. 

I do not accept the premise that nothing
is known until all is known. If I have ever posted such,
I request that Evans provide the citation.

> Mims doesn't say outright that he
>opposes the ban, but the above quote certainly suggests
>that it is not warranted by the scientific evidence.
>Let me say again what I consider
>the obvious.  Without getting mired in detail,  the appearance
>of the antarctic ozone hole alone---which by the way is
>explained in part by `meteorological' analysis---is
>dramatic reason enough to justify the ban.   THIS IS A
>VERY MAJOR CHANGE in the atmosphere which as best we can
>tell so far is unprecedented.   I speak simply as a 
>as an informed amateur, and I am afraid I cannot side with
>Mims in his apparent battle with the `atmospheric chemists'.

I have no battle with chemists. The most important
member of the SPAN network and the developer of
the SPAN ozone algorithm is a professor of
chemistry.

My only "battle" is with incomplete and non-
objective science. I decided to begin measuring
UV-B in 1988 after the government decided to stop
measuring UV-B (by funding the country's only UV-B
network) at the same time the same government
claimed there was significant ozone decline. There
was clearly something amiss then, and there is
more amiss now.

I have discussed the Antarctic ozone hole in prior
posts. Yes, there is a strong inverse correlation
in ozone and Cl0 during the ozone hole season. Yet
James Lovelock believes the hole might be the
consequence of increasing methane. Walter Komhyr
(see below) believes it may be largely a
consequence of warming of the tropical Pacific.

I cited various significant problems in measuring
ozone decline in the post to which Evans responds.
But he did not respond to these.

So here's another from my list: One-third of the
global ground-based ozone network uses Russian M83
or M124 ozonometers. These data are used in the
trend analysis given in various papers and in the
1994 assessment. Yet the M83/M124 can have
significant errors. For example, A. M. Thompson et
al. reported in "Ozone Observations and a Model of
Marine Boundary Layer Photochemistry During SAGA
3" (J. of Geophysical Research, 98, D9, 16,955-
16,968, 20 Sep 1993) that the M-83 from the Main
Geophysical Observatory at St. Petersburg, Russia,
gave ozone amounts from 10 to 30 Dobson units
below TOMS. They cite a prominent Russian expert
in affirming that the "TOMS-SAGA-M83 discrepancy,
which ranges from 10 to 30 DU (4-11% of TOMS O3),
is probably within the accuracy of the M83
instrument." (See p. 16, 960; see also Fig. 5 on
p. 16, 961.)

I have measured very similar differences during
fall and winter between TOMS and one of two M-124s
in South Texas from summer 1992 to summer 1994
(including three calibration checks at Mauna Loa
Observatory) (paper in preparation). I acquired
two M-124's from Russia when I learned in 1992
that M124 data was actually used in trend
analysis.

If the M-124 data are consistently off due only to
solar zenith angle (or air mass) effects, then the
data might be usable in limited trend analysis.
However, the M124 is also very subject to error
from aerosol changes (due to its very large field
of view, wide filter bandpass of 20 nm, a very
wide separation between observing wavelengths of
24 nm, and the fact wavelengths are not observed
simultaneously). The M-124 accuracy problem is
simply not mentioned in the various ozone faqs or
adequately discussed in the 1994 assessment.

>By the way, is there any strong evidence, as shown in the
>literature, that a sizeable number of people in meteorology
>and related areas of atmospheric science, agree that CFSs
>may not be a major factor in ozone depletion and who thus
>oppose the ban on CFCs on scientific grounds of incomplete
>knowledge?    I wasn't aware of it, but maybe I read the
>wrong journals.   I've seen references to papers which
>suggest that other factors may also be important and shouldn't
>be ignored in modelling the response.   But it was my impression
>these were secondary factors and the authors did not oppose
>the ban on CFCs.

Some papers are cited below. First, it is very difficult for a
paper that challenges the conventional paradigm in any field to
be published in the first place. For example, in the fall of 1991
after the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, my son and I measured slight
but obvious ozone reductions associated with the Pinatubo aerosol
cloud. We also found similar reductions in TOMS zonal means over
our latitudinal belt. We wrote a paper which stated that Pinatubo
aerosols were associated with a slight but measured reduction in
ozone at our Texas site and sent same to a leading journal. The
two peer reviewers castigated us, our instruments and the fact we
were unknowns in the field for making such a claim. The paper was
promptly rejected. Later, of course, our finding was widely
confirmed when ozone declined significantly, and many papers were
published, including some of mine. (But my initial paper still
resides in the folder where it was placed after being rejected.)

Walter Komhyr, a contributor to the widely cited "Scientific
Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1994," is the leading U.S. expert
on the ground-based measurement of ozone. He established the
calibration methods used to make Dobson spectrophotometers 83 and
65 the world's primary and secondary ozone measurement standards.
He has long been responsible for the reduction of Dobson 83 data
used each year since 1978 to check the calibration of NASA's
Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer. Yet when Komhyr and others
wrote a paper on how Pacific warming might play a very
significant role in the development of the Antarctic ozone hole,
leading U.S. journals rejected his paper. Eventually the paper
was published in the CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS. And Komhyr's
paper on the significant increase in ozone during the 1960's is
all but ignored in trend analysis work and in the various faqs.
Yet the magnitude of the increase in the 60's approximates that
of the decrease since about 1985. 

Now, you asked:

>...is there any strong evidence, as shown in the
>literature, that a sizeable number of people in meteorology
>and related areas of atmospheric science, agree that CFSs
>may not be a major factor in ozone depletion and who thus
>oppose the ban on CFCs on scientific grounds of incomplete
>knowledge? 

I don't know. I do know that a sizable number of
scientists with whom I have spoken and who give
talks at conferences believe that the role of
factors aside from CFCs is being overlooked while
the bulk of research money goes to study the CFC
paradigm. Yet despite incredibly expensive
research over 20+ years, many recent papers and
the 1994 assessment have noted that the current
models, developed primarily by atmospheric
chemists, simply do not account for the magnitude
of ongoing ozone decline. The role of meteorology
in redistributing ozone is crucial. And there are
very few measurements of the stratospheric
concentration of such important natural ozone
depleting gases such as methyl chloride, methyl
bromide and methyl iodide. 

Here are some representative papers that clearly
illustrate the difficulty inherent in blaming all
of the current ozone situation on CFCs or which
seriously question widely held assumptions about
ozone decline (please note the paper titles):

1. Komhyr, W. D., S. J. Oltmans, R. D. Grass, and
R. K. Leonard, "Possible influence of long-term
sea surface temperature anomalies in the tropical
Pacific on global ozone," Canadian J. of Physics,
65, 1093-1102, 1991.

2. Henriksen, K. T. Svenoe and S. H. H. Larsen,
"On the stability of the ozone layer at Tromso,"
J. of Atmos. Terr. Phys., 54, 1113-1117, 1992.

3. Henriksen, K. T., E. I. Terez, G. A. Terez, V.
Roldugin, T. Svenoe and S. H. H. Larsen, "On the
stationarity of the ozone layer in Norway and
U.S.S.R.," J. Atmos. Terr. Phys., 55, 145-154,
1993.

4. DeMuer, D. and H. DeBacker, "Revision of 20
years of Dobson total ozone data at Uccle
(Belgium): Fictitious Dobson total ozone trends
induced by sulphur dioxide trends," J. Geophys.
Res., 97, 5921-5937, 1992.

5. DeMuer, D. and H. DeBacker, "Influence of
sulphur dioxide trends on Dobson measurements and
on electrochemical ozone soundings," Proc. of the
Soc. of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers,
2047, 33, 18-26, 1993.

6. DeMuer, D. and H. DeBacker, "Trend analysis of
25 years of regular ozone soundings at Uccle
(Belgium), Abstract, EUROTRAC Meeting, Garmisch-
Partenkirchen, April 1994.

7. Henriksen K and V. Roldugin, "Total Ozone
Variations in Middle
Asia and Dynamic Meteorological Processes in the
Atmosphere," Geophysical Research Letters, 22, 23,
3219-3222, 1 Dec 1995.

Since the last paper is the most recent, it is
interesting to note that it directly confronts the
conventional ozone paradigm by attributing ozone
changes to predominantly meteorological processes.
The paper concludes, "The question of so-called
'ozone depletion' has to be investigated from the
point of view of long-term variations of general
circulation in the atmosphere. Models of 'the
depletion', as summarized in the WMO Report
(1991), must realize that the meteorological
conditions have significant effects on the ozone
layer, being the main cause of seasonal as well as
most of the shorter and apparently arbitrary
density and thermal variations." 

I began measuring UV in 1988 and ozone in 1989
because I accepted without question the hypothesis
that ozone was then in a dangerous and
unprecedented decline. I have since personally
measured total ozone, UV-B and aerosols in
Switzerland, Japan, Hawaii, Brazil and across the
U.S. I have learned from attending many meetings
and visiting with ozone scientists from dozens of
countries that the views espoused by various
political organizations and in faqs are sometimes
very different from those expressed by scientists
who actually measure ozone.

I very much hope this discussion will encourage an
open-minded, objective view of the ozone
situation. And I hope those interested in the
ozone layer, especially faq writers, will take the
time to read some of the papers cited above.  

These views are my own. From past experience, I
know this post may attract private e-mail from
scientists who actually measure or study ozone.
While I have very much appreciated such private
comments, I encourage them to post their comments
on this forum as well.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: HR 475, More Freon = Less Ozone
Date: 26 Dec 1995 17:51:57 -0500

My apologies to Len Evens for misspelling his last name on my previous
post.

Forrest M. Mims III
SPAN

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: Jim Scanlon <jscanlon@linex.com>
Subject: Ultraviolet Studies Ignored orvoided
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 05:20:34 GMT

I received the following notice of a symposium on Stratospheric Ozone. 
Please note that in neither Synopsis nor the program is there any 
mention of Ultraviolet Radiation, the immediate, direct menace to life 
on earth.
Perhaps someone can explain why an indirect study of a surrogate is 
acceptable so as to infer, or insinuate the direct threat? t? 

STRATOSPHERIC OZONE SYMPOSIUM

AMSIE '96, AAAS Annual Meeting
Monday, 12 February 1996,1:00 -5.30 pm
Baltimore Convention Center, Baltimore, Maryland

Organized by
Manvendra K. Dubey, SRI International, Telephone: 415-859-2048
and Darin W. Toohey, University of California-Irvine

SYNOPSIS

The ongoing global thinning of the stratospheric ozone layer has been 
attributed to anthropogenically released halogen compounds. The 
subsequent international control of halocarbons is a paradigm for 
societal action, based on sound atmospheric science, to a global change 
problem. The efficacy of this action in reducing the release of 
halocarbons has been observed. In addition, significant strides in our 
knowledge of stratospheric chemistry have been made. In spite of this 
progress, the magnitude of persistent ozone reductions remains less 
predictable than desired. Improved understanding will be needed to 
manage decisions on the future of supersonic aviation and methyl bromide 
use.

A concerted effort using stratospheric measurements and improved 
laboratory studies is underway to refine models of stratospheric 
photochemistry and circulation. This effort has demonstrated that 
catalytic ozone destruction by chlorine is pervasive. This symposium 
will present evidence for known mechanisms of halogen-induced ozone 
losses and will address efforts to assess its future evolution. The 
following questions will be discussed:

1) What observational facts demonstrate stratospheric ozone depletion? 
What is the temporal evolution and global distribution of ozone losses?

2) What are the known mechanisms of ozone destruction by halogens? How 
do they vary with latitude and season? Why do volcanoes exacerbate ozone 
losses by halogen catalysis?

3) How effective is the Montreal Protocol in reducing stratospheric 
chlorine and bromine levels? What threats are still faced by 
stratospheric ozone?

4) What future perturbations to stratospheric ozone need assessment? 
Examples of potential perturbations include the evolution of halocarbon, 
methyl bromide, and hydrogenated halocarbon fluxes; injection of odd 
nitrogen, water, and soot by future stratospheric aviation; and a higher 
and cooler stratosphere resulting from the buildup of greenhouse gases.

For registration information and details contact AAAS - Meetings
Telephone: 202-326-6417
Fax: 202-289-4021
http://www.aaas.org/meetings/meetings.htm
 AMSIE '96, AAAS Annual Meeting
Monday, 12 February 1996,1:00 -5:30 pm
Baltimore Convention Center, Baltimore, Maryland

STRATOSPHERIC OZONE SYMPOSIUM
PROGRAM

1:00 pm Topical Lecture: Halocarbons and stratospheric ozone depletion 
Prof. F. Sherwood Rowland, University of California-Irvine

2:30 pm Session: Stratospheric ozone depletion by halogens: Recent 
achievements and continuing challenges

Organizers: Dr. Manvendra K. Dubey, SRI International
Dr. Darin W. Toohey, University of California-Irvine
Chair: Prof. Mario J. Molina, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2:30 pm Introduction: Stratospheric ozone depletion by halogens
Dr. Manvendra K. Dubey, SRI International

2:45 pm Observations of global ozone change Dr. Richard S. Stolarski, 
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

3:15 pm Hydrogen- and halogen-catalyzed destruction of ozone: Observed 
response of the stratosphere Prof. James G. Anderson, Harvard University

3:45 pm Satellite observations of stratospheric reactive chlorine: 
Implications for ozone Dr. Joe W. Waters, Jet Propulsion Laboratory

4:15 pm Atmospheric impact of Mt. Pinatubo aerosols Dr. M. Patrick 
McCormick, NASA Langley Research Center

4:45 pm Panel Discussion: Stratospheric ozone depletion: Facts and 
future issues F. S. Rowland, M. J. Molina, R. S. Stolarski, J. G. 
Anderson, J. W. Waters, and M. P. McCormick

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: HR 475, More Freon = Less Ozone
Date: 28 Dec 1995 10:18:57 -0500

Hugh Easton <hugh@daflight.demon.co.uk> provided an article from NEW
SCIENTIST on unusual deaths of penguins and krill. I am no expert on these
phenomena. However, I have measured UV-B in the very clear waters off
Hawaii and found that the UV-B one meter under the surface retains about
85% of the irradiance at the surface. In short, clean ocean water is
highly transparent to UV-B wavelengths.

For more information, see "Ultraviolet Radiation in Antarctica:
Measurements and Biological Effects" edited by C. S. Weiler and P. A.
Penhale (Antarctic Research Series, vo. 62, American Geophysical Union,
1994).

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Ultraviolet Studies Ignored orvoided
Date: 28 Dec 1995 10:21:37 -0500

Jim Scanlon's post about the forthcoming meeting on ozone is precisely on
target. It is scandalous that so much is spent to measure ozone when so
little is spent to measure UV.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: HR 475, More Freon = Less Ozone
Date: 8 Jan 1996 00:43:16 -0500

Joshua Halpern (jbh@haven.ios.com), responding to
Andrew Russell (arussell@bix.com) on another
thread, made various comments about ozone. I will
respond to some of them in this and subsequent
posts.

Halpern suggested:

>See the WMO Scientific Assessment of
Stratospheric Ozone 1995

While the WMO assessment is an excellent
reference, it is incomplete. Here are several
problems I noted while scanning this 550+ page
document:

1. It fails to adequately discuss the derivation
of trends from ground-based data. (I am unaware of
any publications in the peer-reviewed literature
that describe how ozone time series are corrected
and the criteria for rejecting and accepting data
from specific instruments. If such publications
are available, I will be most grateful to receive
their citations.)

2. It fails to adequately discuss significant
limitations (described in the peer reviewed
literature) of the M-124, the instrument which
comprises 1/3 of the ground-based ozone network.
The M-124 typically indicates too little ozone at
high solar zenith angles (10-40 Dobson units
typical) and significant error in the presence of
aerosols (due to its large field of view and the
wide bandpass of the filters--20 nm--and their
wide spacing of 24 nm). M-124 data are completely
unreliable when clouds fragments or variable
density cloud haze cross the sun during
observations. This is because the instrument
observes only one channel at any time, and several
seconds or more must be allowed for its mechanical
meter movement to be checked for zero and to then
settle before the second channel is measured. (I
used an M-124 regularly for 2+ years and made
Langley plots using it at Mauna Loa Observatory in
Hawaii in 1992, 1993 and 1994. These limitations
of the M-124 are well known, which explains why
NASA and NOAA declined my offer of a free M-124.

3. Its discussion of solar ultraviolet is much too
brief (only 22 pages).

4. It fails to provide any kind of cost-benefit
analysis of ozone research. Nor does it include
(unless I missed it) any summaries of money spent
on ozone research.

5. It's discussion of volcanic effects on ozone is
incomplete.

6. It fails to adequately discuss significant
changes in climatology and increases in methane,
either of which may lead to significant ozone
reductions in polar regions.  

7. It's discussion of the sulfur dioxide
contamination at Uccle, Belgium, does not provide
references for its conclusion that such pollution
is highly localized at Uccle when, in fact,
several widely available publications describe
significant sulfur dioxide and/or sulfate
pollution over substantial regions of Europe,
Eurasia and North America. (The Uccle group has
published papers claiming that ozone decline at
their site and possibly elsewhere is "fictitious."
They attribute the apparent decline to a reduction
of sulfur dioxide as sulfur dioxide pollution has
been reduced. The UV absorption bands of sulfur
dioxide overlay those of ozone, and, therefore,
the presence of SO2 can cause an apparent, not
real, increase in ozone.)  

8. It devotes little space to the naturally
occurring fraction of such ozone depleting gases
as methyl chloride, methyl bromide and methyl
iodide (all the latter, a "significant" ozone
depleter, is believed to be natural in origin).

While the WMO and various other groups have
depicted the 1995 assessment as a consensus
document, it apparently is not. It is simply a
selective review and discussion of some of the
peer-reviewed literature. I discussed this with a
leading scientist listed as a contributor, who
stated he had not even seen a copy of the report
(beyond his contribution). 

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: HR 475, More Freon = Less Ozone
Date: 8 Jan 1996 00:43:21 -0500

Joshua Halpern (jbh@haven.ios.com), responding to
Andrew Russell, made various comments. I will
respond to some of them in this and subsequent
posts.

Halpern asked Russell:

>By the way, can you provide a source claiming a
>significant *rise* in ozone occurred during the 60's.

A rise in total ozone during the 1960's that matches
or exceeds the decline since the mid-1980's is described
in several papers. Walter Komhyr, one of the world's leading
experts on the ground-based measurement of total ozone,
wrote at least two such papers (1, 2). I cite only Komhyr's
papers because of their very careful presentation
and analysis of the data. Also, he used only data
based on a calibration obtained "...on very clear
half-days when the ozone amount was believed to
remain nearly steady...." (1).

The following is from Table 3 in ref. 1 (p. 998):

  Tallahassee: +4.7% (+/- 1.3)
  Nashville:   +8.8% (+/- 0.7)
  Boulder:     +4,4% (+/- 1.3)
  Bedford:     +5.3% (+/- 1.3)
  Toronto:     +2.7% (+/- 0.9)
  Green Bay:   +2.0% (+/- 1.2)
  Caribou:     +5.9% (+/- 0.9)
  Goose Bay:   +4.4% (+/- 1.1 )
  Bismarck:    +6.9% (+/- 1.1)
  Edmonton:    +5.1% (+/- 1.0)

The mean increase in ozone for these stations
matches or slightly exceeds the mean decline in
ozone given in the 1995 ozone assessment. The
decline since the mid-1980's has been influenced
significantly by the annual Antarctic ozone
minimum. 

Please note that the change in ozone absorption
coefficients used in this paper (Vigroux) to the
new values (Bass-Paur) will affect absolute values
by about 5% but should not affect these trends.

Walter Kohmyr's expertise and international
reputation are well known to those who measure
ozone. For many years he was at NOAA's Climate
Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory (CMDL),
where, I believe, he is now on contract through
CIRES. Komhyr established the calibration methods
used to establish Dobson-83 as the World Standard
Dobson Spectrometer (and Dobson 65 as the
secondary standard). Since 1978, he has
coordinated the annual comparison of Dobson 83 and
Nimbus-7/TOMS and, later, Meteor-3 TOMS at Mauna
Loa Observatory. Komhyr is also an expert in the
measurement of tropospheric ozone and the inventor
of a well known ozone sonde flown from
meteorological balloons. Komhyr's versatility and
his incredibly wide range of experience remind me
of Gotz, the pioneering observer who worked
closely with Gordon Dobson to establish regular
ozone observations in Arosa, Switzerland, in about
1926.

If there is serious interest (and if I can find
the time), I can discuss very long ozone time
series made by the Smithsonian Astrophysical
Observatory and at Arosa. I am unaware if the
papers published by Komhyr and others on the ozone
increase in the 1960's have been retracted by
their authors. If this is the case, I will retract
this posting.

REFERENCES:

1. W. D. Komhyr, R. D. Grass and G. Slocum, "Total
Ozone Increase over North America During the
1960's," Pure and Applied Geophysics, 106-108,
981-999, 1973.

2. W. D. Komhyr, E. W. Barrett, G. Slocum and H.
K. Weickmass, "Atmospheric Total Ozone Increase
during the 1960's," Nature, 232, 390, 1971.


Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Ozone and UV-B Science
Date: 8 Jan 1996 20:10:40 -0500

Discussions of ozone decline on the net are often
based on emotional convictions rather than
scientific studies. Hence this new thread. I am
hopeful that the level of this discussion will be
raised by the inclusion of comments from
professionals in the field. I am also hopeful that
non-specialists will also make contributions.

I am hopeful this discussion can follow the
"Nullius in verba" motto adopted in 1660 by the
Royal Society of London. A rough translation is 
"no word is final." (Better translations will be
appreciated.)

Here I present a brief review of my ozone and UV-B
measurement program. Later I will present some
reviews of the literature. As time permits, I will
try to respond to questions and criticisms. First,
like Robert Parson, who has written a nice series
of faqs on ozone, let me state that I entered this
field as an amateur. This is not unusual, as there
are apparently no degrees for the measurement of
ozone. I have learned that anyone with some basic
experience designing opto-electronic circuits can
design and make instruments that measure total
ozone, UV-B and atmospheric aerosols. I have
published plans for such instruments in SCIENTIFIC
AMERICAN (August 1990), SCIENCE PROBE (several
issues) and in several Radio Shack books. I have
also learned that anyone with a basic knowledge of
statistics and a personal computer can evaluate
ozone trends.

I come to the table with no agenda other than
accurate and objective scientific measurements.
The continuation of my measurement program is
completely unaffected by any outside support which
may cease should my findings not be as expected.
In 1988 I began a program to measure total ozone,
UV-B (total, diffuse and direct Sun), aerosol
optical thickness (AOT), depth and column water
vapor. This work has resulted in a 6-year data
base of total ozone, AOT, column water vapor and
direct UV-B. I also have a 2-year data base of
total, direct and diffuse UV-B. 

My only sources of funding for this work, aside
from substantial personal funds, are a 1993 Rolex
Award, two small grants from Informedia, a PR
company that publishes a UV newsletter for TV
weathercasters, and a NASA contract to make
measurements in Brazil in 1995. Any royalties I
will receive from the sale of MicroTOPS
ozonometers will be in the form of additional
instrumentation for the Sun Photometer Atmospheric
Network (SPAN). While I hope to some day expand
SPAN with outside funding, I will never accept
support from any organization that does not
support totally independent and objective
collection and analysis of data. For this reason,
I recently rejected offers of support from a
company that hopes to move a medical waste
incinerator near my site.

My early ozone measurements (1990-1993) were based
on a calibration against NASA's Nimbus-7/TOMS
conducted during the fall of 1990. This comparison
enabled me to find an extrapolated calibration
drift in NASA's Nimbus-7/TOMS beginning in the
fall of 1991 and through August 1992. Although
NASA rejected (politely, I might add) the apparent
drift, they were unable to perform a calibration
check themselves due to a drift in the Nimbus
orbit that blocked the direct Sun. In August 1992,
Dobson-83 measurements from MLO confirmed the
drift, and in November 1992 NASA informed me by
fax and telephone that my earlier concern about
the drift was warranted. I published this work as
"Satellite Ozone Monitoring Error," Nature, 361,
291, 1993. 

Since early 1994, my ozone measurements are based
on a comparison of my best instrument (SuperTOPS,
filter bandpass of 2.2 nm; band spacing of 5 nm; 2
degree field of view; virtually simultaneous
observations of multiple wavelengths; direct
download to hand-held computer for quick ozone
determination) with Dobson-83, the world standard
ozone instrument, at Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO),
Hawaii. (Although NOAA provides Dobson-83 data,
NOAA does not necessarily support or endorse this
comparison.) There was no measurable drift in my
principle ozonometer calibration between the 1994
and 1995 tests at MLO.

I began measuring ozone in 1989, and the ozone at
my principle site has declined significantly since
then. For example:

In the summer of 1993 I measured record low summer
ozone at my site and corresponding increases in
UV-B. This event was caused by an unusual
intrusion of tropical air over Texas. Although a
paper on this finding was approved by two peer
reviewers, Science rejected the paper. The paper
was then published as "Increased solar
ultraviolet-B associated with record low ozone
over Texas" by Forrest M. Mims III, SPAN, and
Judson W. Ladd and Robert A. Blaha, National
Weather Service. 

Last November, I measured record low ozone amounts
at my site. These measurements were soon confirmed
at the 1% level by NASA's Meteor-3/TOMS, NOAA's
TOVs and by ground observations by EPA Brewer
spectrophotometers in Georgia, North Carolina and
Washington, DC. They were reported in "Unusually
Low Ozone Detected Over South-Central U.S." by
Forrest M. Mims III, SPAN, William F. Barnard,
EPA, Arthur C. Neuendorffer, NESDIS Satellite
Research Laboratory (NOAA) and Gordon J. Labow,
Hughes STX (GSFC). As in the previous paper, this
unusual ozone event followed an unusual movement
of tropical air over the SE U.S. (The tropical
stratosphere ordinarily holds less column ozone
than at mid-latitudes.)

Although ozone during the summer of 1995 was lower
than during summer 1994, there has been a very
significant increase in ozone at my Texas site
since October 1995. Indeed, a preliminary study
shows that ozone measured so far this winter
exceeds that measured during this same time
interval since satellite measurements were begun
in 1978. What is particularly interesting is that
winter values have already matched or exceeded
spring maximum values during 1994-5. (Details will
be reported in a forthcoming paper.)

This recent finding illustrates the variability of
ozone--and the need for the scientific community
and interested observers to retain a traditionally
skeptical scientific view.  

These views are my own. SPAN is a global network
of volunteer observers who measure total ozone,
UV-B, AOT and column water vapor from Paraguay,
Togo, Falkland Islands, 4 Pacific islands,
California, Colorado and Texas (with South Africa
and other sites soon to be added).

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Ozone and UV-B Science
Date: 8 Jan 1996 21:50:07 -0500

Brief reviews of representative peer-
reviewed publications that demonstrate the
importance of maintaining an objective perspective
when considering the current state of the ozone
layer:

1. World Meteorological Organization, "Scientific
Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1994," Report No.
37, 1995.

Must reading. This report illustrates both the
strengths and weaknesses of the prevailing ozone
depletion paradigm. Excellent and thorough
discussion of atmospheric chemistry. But coverage
of meteorological influences on ozone is
inadequate, as is the discussion of how trends are
computed. The section on ultraviolet is only 22
pages of this 578-page document. The discussion of
accuracy problems with the M-124 ozonometer, used
in 1/3 of the ground-based ozone network, is
inadequate. If the report discusses the measured
ozone increases in the 1960's and the measured
ozone decline following the eruption of Katmai, I
missed both. (Katmai erupted in 1912. The ozone
decline that followed was described by Gotz and is
also detectable in Chappuis band ozone
measurements made at Mt. Wilson, California, by
the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.)

An important caveat: The WMO and others have
stated or implied that this report is a consensus
document, but this is misleading since the
contributors and reviewers were apparently asked
to pass only on specific areas of the report and
not the entire document. The first contributor I
called stated he had not even seen the complete
report.  

2. Komhyr, W. D., S. J. Oltmans, R. D. Grass, and
R. K. Leonard, "Possible influence of long-term
sea surface temperature anomalies in the tropical
Pacific on global ozone," Canadian J. of Physics,
65, 1093-1102, 1991.

When submitted to more prominent journals, this
paper was apparently rejected by peer reviewers
more knowledgeable of atmospheric chemistry than
meteorology. Nevertheless, the paper presents a
convincing case that long-term climatological
change may have a very significant impact on the
ozone layer and, specifically, the annual
Antarctic ozone minimum popularly known as the
ozone hole.

3. Henriksen, K. T. Svenoe and S. H. H. Larsen,
"On the stability of the ozone layer at Tromso,"
J. of Atmos. Terr. Phys., 54, 1113-1117, 1992.


The essential claim of this paper is that there is
no significant long term change in the ozone layer
above Tromso. The paper is carefully written and
based on data acquired using an instrument with a
good calibration record.


4. Henriksen, K. T., E. I. Terez, G. A. Terez, V.
Roldugin, T. Svenoe and S. H. H. Larsen, "On the
stationarity of the ozone layer in Norway and
U.S.S.R.," J. Atmos. Terr. Phys., 55, 145-154,
1993.

This paper follows the theme of (3) but for a
significantly expanded geographic region. 

5. DeMuer, D. and H. DeBacker, "Revision of 20
years of Dobson total ozone data at Uccle
(Belgium): Fictitious Dobson total ozone trends
induced by sulphur dioxide trends," J. Geophys.
Res., 97, 5921-5937, 1992.

This paper, which is discussed in (1), has raised
concern about possible contamination of ground-
based data elsewhere. The 1994 assessment (1)
discusses this issue on p. 1.7 and concludes that
the maximum error due to SO2 at Toronto, the most
polluted site in Canada, is about 1% "in the early
part of the record." The 1994 assessment
concludes, "Work still needs to be done to assess
the impact of SO2 on O3 measurements at many
individual stations." Surprisingly, the 1994
assessment does not show nor does it even cite any
of the published regional or northern hemisphere
SO2 maps, which show very significant SO2
pollution over vast regions of Eurasia and North
America.   

6. DeMuer, D. and H. DeBacker, "Influence of
sulphur dioxide trends on Dobson measurements and
on electrochemical ozone soundings," Proc. of the
Soc. of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers,
2047, 33, 18-26, 1993.

See review of (5) above.

7. DeMuer, D. and H. DeBacker, "Trend analysis of
25 years of regular ozone soundings at Uccle
(Belgium), Abstract, EUROTRAC Meeting, Garmisch-
Partenkirchen, April 1994.

See review of (5) above.

8. Henriksen K. and V. Roldugin, "Total Ozone
Variations in Middle Asia and Dynamic
Meteorological Processes in the Atmosphere,"
Geophysical Research Letters, 22, 23,
3219-3222, 1 Dec 1995.

This recent paper, which is based on ground-based
data from several sites, claims that the current
ozone paradigm is excessively influenced by
atmospheric chemistry and that the role of
dynamical processes is vastly underrated. The
paper uses the provocative phrase "so-called
'ozone depletion'."

9. W. D. Komhyr, R. D. Grass and G. Slocum, "Total
Ozone Increase over North America During the
1960's," Pure and Applied Geophysics, 106-108,
981-999, 1973.

According to various international papers, there
was a significant increase in total ozone during
the 1960's. (If this is discussed in the 1994
assessment (1), I did not notice.) Walter Komhyr,
one of the world's leading experts on the ground-
based measurement of total ozone, wrote at least
two such papers, which are included here because
of Kohmyr's reputation and because of their very
careful presentation and analysis of the data.
Also, Kohmyr used only data based on a calibration
obtained "...on very clear half-days when the
ozone amount was believed to remain nearly
steady...."

The following trends during all or part of the
1960's are from Table 3 (p. 998):

  Tallahassee: +4.7% (+/- 1.3)
  Nashville:   +8.8% (+/- 0.7)
  Boulder:     +4,4% (+/- 1.3)
  Bedford:     +5.3% (+/- 1.3)
  Toronto:     +2.7% (+/- 0.9)
  Green Bay: +2.0% (+/- 1.2)
  Caribou:      +5.9% (+/- 0.9)
  Goose Bay: +4.4% (+/- 1.1)
  Bismarck:   +6.9% (+/- 1.1)
  Edmonton:  +5.1% (+/- 1.0)

The mean increase in ozone for these stations
matches or slightly exceeds the mean decline in
ozone given in the 1994 ozone assessment. The
decline since the mid-1980's has been influenced
significantly by the annual Antarctic ozone
minimum. (The change in ozone absorption
coefficients used in this paper (Vigroux) to the
new values (Bass-Paur) will affect absolute values
by about 5% but should not affect these trends.)

10. W. D. Komhyr, E. W. Barrett, G. Slocum and H.
K. Weickmass, "Atmospheric Total Ozone Increase
during the 1960's," Nature, 232, 390, 1971.

See (9) above.


These reviews are my own and do not necessarily
represent the views of SPAN or its network of
observers.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: CFCs in the atmosphere (was Re: Why do the green movement dislike 
	nuclear power?
Date: 8 Jan 1996 22:13:38 -0500

Len Evens writes (in part):

>Mims himself has indicated from his personal experiments
>various complex effects, and it would be helpful if others would
>repeat these experiments or do other related experiments which would
>put his work in perspective.

Actually, my ozone measurements are original only for my sites. My cloud
studies showing increased UV are based on phenomena that are well known by
practitioners but simply not very widely published. My papers on record
low ozone  have been corrobrated by others. Please see my discussion of
this on the new thread "Ozone and UV-B Science."

>However, despite all this, there is no doubt today that CFCs have
>been established as a very significant cause of ozone depletion.
>If Forrest Mims disagrees that this has been established he should
>say so.

I have discussed this matter in great detail on this and other threads.
Please see the new thread "Ozone and UV-B Science."

>And if so he should explain why his opinion is worth more than
>that of the vast majority of atmospheric chemists and other scientists
>who have studied this question, who appear to say otherwise.

By this I hope Len Evens does not wish me to base my views on scientific
matters on majority vote. Paradigms can be very useful, but ozone science
is much too young to be a paradigm. I do hope that Len Evens will review
some of the scientific publications I have reviewed in the thread "Ozone
and UV-B Science" that come to different conclusions than the WMO 1994
Assessment.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)  

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Ozone and UV-B Science
Date: 10 Jan 1996 01:54:39 -0500

Robert Parson (rparson@spot.Colorado.EDU)
responded to some of my recent comments on the WMO
ozone assessment:

>OK, I'll begin by responding to your comments on
>the 1994 WMO Assessment.

>>While the WMO assessment is an excellent
>>reference, it is incomplete.

>It is necessary to realize that the WMO
>assessments are incremental,
>rather than cumulative; the 1994 assessment
>concentrates on developments since 1991. Some of
>the incompleteness may be due to this.

Yes, but those who are unaware of its incremental
status have referred to it as an absolutist
statement. For example, EPA web pages on ozone and
bromine both agree to update their contents with
new scientific findings. Yet when I recently
suggested the addition of a citation of an
important new finding re. bromine (published in a
peer-reviewed paper), both web pages promptly
rejected my suggestion since it was not, in their
view, a consensus statement. (I am glad to report
that the bromine page relented and did update some
of its contents.)

>>1. It fails to adequately discuss the derivation
>>of trends from ground-based data. (I am unaware
>>of any publications in the peer-reviewed
>>literature that describe how ozone time series
>>are corrected and the criteria for rejecting and
>>accepting data from specific instruments. If
>>such publications are available, I will be most
>>grateful to receive their citations.)

>There are fairly extensive discussions of the
>procedures in the 1989 Assessment (Report #20)
>and the 1988 Assessment (Report #18). For primary
>sources I would consult the papers of Rumen
>Bojkov and his collaborators, e.g. "A statistical
>trend analysis of revised Dobson total ozone data
>over the northern hemisphere", J.G.R. _95_, 9785,
>1990. I don't know if they contain sufficient
>detail for your purposes; on this subject
>your expertise far exceeds my own.

But all your citations were published prior to the
1992 Quadrennial Ozone Symposium, which I attended
and where Rumen Bojkov hosted a meeting, which I
also attended, on the urgency to reprocess ground-
based data. Since not all ground data have been
reprocessed even today, and since there is
controversy over the reprocessing procedure,
concerns that have been expressed about the
validity of trends of ground-based data remain
valid.

I also (again) point out that Bojkov uses M-124
data (1/3 of the ground-based network) in WMO
trend studies. The significant errors of this
instrument (caused primarily by its aerosol and
air mass dependence and also by the time required
to make an observation) may not seriously affect
trend studies if the errors can be viewed as a
known offset. However, since there are so many
variables in M-124 observations (e.g. time of day.
presence of aerosols, cloud fragments or variable
haze at the sun, etc.) how does one establish a
consistent criteria for which M-124 data are
usable in trend studies? If the procedure has been
published in detail, I am unaware of it and will
be appreciative of receiving a citation. 

>>6. It fails to adequately discuss significant
>>changes in climatology and increases in methane,
>>either of which may lead to significant ozone
>>reductions in polar regions.  

>I have read speculations that increasing methane
>concentrations may, by increasing stratospheric
>water vapor, contribute to polar stratospheric
>cloud formation and thus to enhanced polar ozone
>loss. However I haven't seen much in the way of
>actual research on the subject. 

James Lovelock discusses in his book "Healing
Gaia" a possible role for increased methane in
establishing the Antartic ozone minima. It was
Lovelock who first discovered the ubiquous
presence of CFCs in the atmosphere between England
and Antarctica. He also discovered the presence of
natural methyl chloride and methyl iodide, both
ozone depleters.

Research on the role of methane in psc formation
costs money, and in ozone research the vast
majority of the funds have gone to CFC studies.
Even the stratospheric amounts and trends of
methyl chloride, methyl bromide methyl iodide are
inadequately known, since the research community
decided from the outset that CFCs were more
important. (Of course measured global trends of
UV-B are not known either, since nearly all the
money in this field goes to measuring ozone and
the factors which afffect it.)

>>7. It's discussion of the sulfur dioxide
>>contamination at Uccle, Belgium, does not
>>provide references for its conclusion that such 
>>pollution is highly localized at Uccle when, in
>>fact, several widely available publications
>>describe significant sulfur dioxide and/or
>>sulfate pollution over substantial regions of
>>Europe, Eurasia and North America. 

>What is important for the ozone trends is not so
>much the absolute amounts of SO2 pollution, but
>the _changes_ in those amounts. At Uccle, surface
>SO2 changed by a factor of 5 over the period
>1972-1991.  Have you consulted the Mylona et al. 
>reference that they give (I have not)? 
>One thing I noted in the first DeMuer-DeBacker
>paper was that the contaminated Dobson trend was
>_larger_ (more negative) than the
>TOMS trend for the same region, over the period
>where the comparison can be made. Most of the
>time Dobson trends are somewhat smaller than
>TOMS trends; this has been ascribed to differing
>sensitivity to tropospheric ozone. When the SO2
>contamination is accounted for, the Dobson trend
>and the TOMS trend agree better. This suggests to
>me that there is indeed something special about
>Uccle.

But even the 1994 assessment specifically states
that the SO2 data contamination problem requires
further study--which is what De Muer and De Backer
have claimed in their papers.

I recently queried Rumen Bojkov about this very
issue. He responded along the lines of the 1994
assessment and informed me that he used the Uccle
data as submitted by the Belgians (i.e. with the
SO2 effect subtracted). Of course you are correct
that it is the change in SO2 that matters. While
Uccle did have a significant SO2 problem, it is
important to understand that SO2 lingers a while
before combining with water vapor to become H2SO4
and other byproducts. In short, SO2 problem at
Uccle must be considered a regional, not merely
local, phenomenon.

During the summer of 1995, an EPA Brewer
spectrophotometer was at my site for 62 days. It
daily measured a total column SO2 abundance of
several Dobson units or more (once 16 DU!) which
originated from points hundreds of kilometers away
(paper in preparation). I even detected sulfate
haze that apparently originated from the TVA
region, drifted south over the central Gulf of
Mexico (where I observed it on 8 Sept while flying
from Brazil to Dallas), and then circulated up
over Texas.

[remainder of this response to be posted...]



Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Ozone and UV-B Science
Date: 10 Jan 1996 02:00:28 -0500

Robert Parson (rparson@spot.Colorado.EDU)
responded to some of my recent comments on the WMO
ozone assessment. I responded to the first half of
his response in a prior post. Here is the
remainder of my response:

>>8. It devotes little space to the naturally
>>occurring fraction of such ozone depleting gases
>>as methyl chloride, methyl bromide and methyl
>>iodide (all the latter, a "significant" ozone
>>depleter, is believed to be natural in origin).

>There is an entire chapter devoted to methyl
>bromide. As for methyl iodide as a contributor to
>ozone depletion, that is a recent speculation
>which post-dates the writing of the WMO report -
>the executive summary was written in August 1994,
>and the various chapters were written before
>that.
 
The methyl bromide chapter, which is longer than
the tiny UV chapter, devotes, about 2 pages to
naturally occurring methyl bromide sources, which,
as I stated, means the assessment "devotes little
space to the naturally occurring fraction of" this
and other natural ozone depleters. My interest in
this topic was raised last summer when I flew for
hours through and over smoke from biomass burning
in Brazil. As you know, biomass burning is a
significant source of methyl chloride and methyl
bromide. In my opinion it is important to quickly
establish a means for monitoring the stratospheric
burden of these gases. 

>The methyl iodide papers appeared in the Fall of
>1994. 

Yes, and at least two methyl iodide papers are
cited in the 1994 assessment. Susan Solomon's
paper in JGR (99, 20491-20499, 1994) is discussed
on p. 4.16.

>>While the WMO and various other groups have
>>depicted the 1995 assessment as a consensus
>>document, it apparently is not. It is simply a
>>selective review and discussion of some of the
>>peer-reviewed literature. I discussed this
>>with a leading scientist listed as a
>>contributor, who
>>stated he had not even seen a copy of the report
>>(beyond his contribution). 

>The WMO reports are as comprehensive a review of
>the literature as
>exist anywhere, and the people who I have spoken
>to around here do consider them to represent a
>consensus. It will inevitably be the case
>that some of the contributors will disagree with
>the conclusions that the lead authors of the
>chapters draw, since there will never be
>universal agreement on any scientific subject
>that is still a topic of active research.
>Nevertheless the chapters are written by leading
>researchers in each area and peer-reviewed by
>others, and the authors rotate from one
>assessment to the next. People who are seriously
>interested in the subject should not, of course,
>stop at the WMO assessments but should dig up the
>papers cited therein (as Forrest Mims has.)

While I appreciate the importance of consensus
science, there are simply too many papers that
raise important questions about trend analysis and
overlooked dynamical processes judged less
important than anthropogenic chlorine and bromine
by many in the atmopsheric chemistry community--
who clearly have dominated the WMO assessments.

I could site a dozen instances where consensus
science which later proved to be in error delayed
important research. I'll just cite one:

For many years the consensus science of the USGS
was that Arizona's Barringer crater was volcanic.
Barringer spent 25 years trying to prove the
crater was formed by a meteorite. Although he was
criticized severely, he was eventually proved
right. (I once found bits of meteorite, one the
size of a pea, in ant hills at the bottom of the
crater.)

I am well aware of ongoing, significant ozone
changes from considerably personal experience
measuring them. If the scientific community is
seriously concerned that ozone depletion presents
a bonafide threat to life on Earth, then it would
have long ago established a coordinated,
international solar UV-B observing network using
compatible instruments. Although leading
scientists have called for the establishment of
such a network for more than 20 years, the
scientific community has yet to establish one.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Ozone and UV-B Science
Date: 11 Jan 1996 21:12:34 -0500

Joshua Halpern (jbh@haven.ios.com) responded to my
comments on "Scientific Assessment of Ozone
Depletion: 1994. I appreciate his response and
look forward to his response to my post re. his
request for citations about the well documented,
significant rise of ozone during the 1960's which
I have not yet found reference to in the 1994
assessment:

>:FMims (fmims@aol.com) wrote:
>: Joshua Halpern (jbh@haven.ios.com), responding
>to
>: Andrew Russell (arussell@bix.com) on another
>: thread, made various comments about ozone....
[cut]

>: Halpern suggested:

>: >See the WMO Scientific Assessment of
>: Stratospheric Ozone 1995

>: While the WMO assessment is an excellent
>: reference, it is incomplete. Here are several
>: problems I noted while scanning this 550+ page
>: document:

>Well, you have to read all the  references too!
>Seriously, this seemed the best place to start
>and you are really nigling below.

See below...

>: 1. It fails to adequately discuss the derivation
>: of trends from ground-based data. (I am unaware of
>: any publications in the peer-reviewed literature
>: that describe how ozone time series are corrected
>: and the criteria for rejecting and accepting data
>: from specific instruments. If such publications
>: are available, I will be most grateful to receive
>: their citations.)>

>There is a long discussion of these issues in
>the WMO 1989 reoirt in the global trends
>section, with references to various 
>intercomparisons.

You cite the 1989 report--which was old news when
I attended the 1992 Quadrennial Ozone Symposium,
and where Rumen Bojkov hosted a meeting, which I
also attended, on the urgency to reprocess ground-
based data. Since not all ground data have been
reprocessed even today, and since there is
controversy over the reprocessing procedure,
concerns that have been expressed about the
validity of trends of ground-based data are as
remain as valid today as ever. This is a common
topic of discussion among those who measure ozone.

>: 2. It fails to adequately discuss significant
>: limitations (described in the peer reviewed
>: literature) of the M-124, the instrument which
>: comprises 1/3 of the ground-based ozone network.
>: The M-124 typically indicates too little ozone at
>: high solar zenith angles (10-40 Dobson units
>: typical) and significant error in the presence of
>: aerosols (due to its large field of view and the
>: wide bandpass of the filters--20 nm--and their
>: wide spacing of 24 nm). M-124 data are completely
>: unreliable when clouds fragments or variable
>: density cloud haze cross the sun during
>: observations. This is because the instrument
>: observes only one channel at any time, and several
>: seconds or more must be allowed for its mechanical
>: meter movement to be checked for zero and to then
>: settle before the second channel is measured. (I
>: used an M-124 regularly for 2+ years and made
>: Langley plots using it at Mauna Loa Observatory in
>: Hawaii in 1992, 1993 and 1994. These limitations
>: of the M-124 are well known, which explains why
>: NASA and NOAA declined my offer of a free M-124.

>Again, see the WMO 1989 report.  Specifically,
>references to intercomparisons with Dobsons
>were given as Bojkov Ann Geophys 25 (1969)293
>and the 1980 and 83 WMO ozone reports for
>comparisons after the filters in the M-83
>were improved in 73.

Yes, the instrument was improved, but it retains a significant
air mass and aerosol dependence. 

>As to the M-124, the report states:No trend data
>with the M-124 can be expected for about a decade
>unless the data can be satisfactorily cross
>calibrated with the M-83 data from the same location.

But I wrote about the 1994 report, and it does use M-124 data.
See pp. 1.15-1.16, etc. 

>: 3. Its discussion of solar ultraviolet is much too
>: brief (only 22 pages).

>This is a SUMMARY report.  Like I said, read the
>references.  Its not as if the stuff were
>hidden.

I have read the references. My point is that the tiny size of the
UV section illustrates the well known lack of interest by the
well financed ozone community in actually monitoring the UV about
which they are so concerned. 


>: 4. It fails to provide any kind of cost-benefit
>: analysis of ozone research. Nor does it include
>: (unless I missed it) any summaries of money spent
>: on ozone research.

>Not the charge of the WMO.  The WMO report is a
>_Scientific Assessment of Stratospheric Ozone_
>Governmental organizations cannot go beyond
>their assignment.  Intergovernmental organizations
>cannot even get that far.

>This is a red herring.

I completely disagree. Science should not be
immune to presenting financial audits of its work.
The U.N. and virtually all other governmental
bodies do this frequently, as do corporations.
Financial accounting is a well established means
for evaluating the success of programs. Consider
the TOMS ozone mapper aboard NASA's remarkable
Nimbus-7 satellite, which lasted more than 14
years when it was expected to last only about 3.
The taxpayers received a bargain for this major
technlogical achievement, but I have yet to see
any accounting that explains this. 

>: 5. It's discussion of volcanic effects on ozone is
>: incomplete.

[No response by Halpern.]

This response will continue in a subsequent post.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)  

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Ozone and UV-B Science
Date: 11 Jan 1996 21:12:36 -0500

Thanks to Joshua Halpern (jbh@haven.ios.com)
for his response to my comments on
"Scientific Assessment of Ozone
Depletion: 1994." This is a continuation of my
response:

>: 6. It fails to adequately discuss significant
>: changes in climatology and increases in methane,
>: either of which may lead to significant ozone
>: reductions in polar regions.  

[No response by Halpern.]

>: 7. It's discussion of the sulfur dioxide
>: contamination at Uccle, Belgium, does not provide
>: references for its conclusion that such pollution
>: is highly localized at Uccle when, in fact,

>If you've ever been there, you know that Uccle
>is special.  Although much improved, it was in
>its time like Gary, IN, Lackawana, NY and other
>garden spots of pollution.

If anecdotal accounts are acceptable, then you
would have observed even worse pollution in parts
of Eastern Europe. Also, it's important to realize
that SO2 does not immediately sulfate. It has a
finite lifetime, and is therefore a major regional
problem. (See below.)

>: several widely available publications describe
>: significant sulfur dioxide and/or sulfate
>: pollution over substantial regions of Europe,
>: Eurasia and North America. 

>You are folding together a few orders of magnitude
>here.  

Can you provide a citation? Last summer a Brewer
spectrophotometer at my Seguin, Texas, site measured SO2 levels
of from several to as much as 16 Dobson units each day. Weather
patterns show that some of this SO2 apparently drifted from as
far as the TVA.

>: (The Uccle group has
>: published papers claiming that ozone decline at
>: their site and possibly elsewhere is "fictitious."
>: They attribute the apparent decline to a reduction
>: of sulfur dioxide as sulfur dioxide pollution has
>: been reduced. The UV absorption bands of sulfur
>: dioxide overlay those of ozone, and, therefore,
>: the presence of SO2 can cause an apparent, not
>: real, increase in ozone.)  

>: 8. It devotes little space to the naturally
>: occurring fraction of such ozone depleting gases
>: as methyl chloride, methyl bromide and methyl
>: iodide (all the latter, a "significant" ozone
>: depleter, is believed to be natural in origin).

>Again, you want an encylopedia, write an 
>encyclopedia.  Or are you saying that the
>role of the methyl halides has not been
>properly treated, in the measurements, models,
>and depletion potential work.

As with the tiny UV chapter, my point is that we simply know
little about the stratospheric amount, distribution and trends of
naturally occurring methyl chloride, methyl bromide and methyl
iodide. The 2 pages devoted to naturally occurring methyl bromide
(vs. hundreds for CFCs) illustrates my point.

As I wrote Robert Parson, my interest in natural ozone depleters
was raised last summer when I flew for hours through and over
smoke from biomass burning in Brazil. As you know, biomass
burning is a significant source of methyl chloride and methyl
bromide. In my opinion, it is important to quickly establish a
means for monitoring the stratospheric burden of these gases. 


>Further, as in the CO2 debate, no one is 
>saying that the man made depletion is the
>only depletion mechanism, but we are saying
>that the man made depletion is having a 
>significant effect on the atmosphere

But this is simply not the slant of the 1994
assessment and the various "sky is falling" press
releases that have come from the WMO and other
organizations.

If the scientific community seriously believes
that increased UV-B resulting from ozone depletion
poses a serious threat to life on Earth, then it
is irresponsible for it not to have established a
coordinated, international network of compatible
instruments to measure that threat. The cost of
such a network would be a small fraction of the
enormous sums already spent on satellites, polar
expeditions, cruises and conferences to study
CFCs.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)  

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.chem
Subject: Re: Ozone layer/Dobson Units
Date: 12 Jan 1996 02:00:09 -0500

Amy Hansen (ahansen@sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us) asked:
  
>I have tried to research what a dobson unit is but haven't been able to find
>anything.  Does anyone know?

>I was also wanting to know more information about the ozone and how it is
>affected by the seasons.  If anyone can help me I would greatly appreciate
>it. 

At standard temperature and pressure (i.e. at the Earth's surface on a
pleasant spring day) 100 Dobson units (DU) of ozone would equal a layer of
ozone 1 mm thick. The average amount of ozone around the Earth is about
300 DU (or 3 mm) at STP).

Ozone peaks in the spring and reaches a minimum in the early winter. For
my site, typical peaks in May are 350 DU while typical minimums in
December are 240 nm. The records here are 460 DU (16 Mar 1990) and 220 DU
(17 Nov 95).

Last winter, ozone was recond low at my site. This winter it is record
high, with one day at 340 DU. Today was 303 DU.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmiospheric Network (SPAN)  

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Ozone and UV-B Science
Date: 12 Jan 1996 10:25:16 -0500

Rich Puchalsky (richp@upx.net) wrote:

>Robert Parson (rparson@spot.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
>:Forrest Mims' comments, unlike nearly all of
>:the examples of "ozone skepticism" that I have
>:seen in newsgroups and elsewhere,
>:are based upon a thorough study of the
>:underlying science. I urge sci.env readers not
>:to respond in a knee-jerk fashion, but to
>:consider his points seriously. 

>It is good to see some intelligent criticism by a
>real scientist rather than the usual
>Limbaugh-inspired nonsense.  Although I tend to
>think that Mims over-emphasizes the political
>aspect of science funding in relation
>to a ground-based UV monitoring project, I'm glad
>to see that he's elevating the level of
>scientific discussion here.

I appreciate receiving Rich Puchalsky's (and
Robert Parson's) comments. Puchalsky has a valid
point if he feels I have over-emphasized the
political aspect of the lack of UV funding. This
may trace from my input to the discussions some
time back over the firing of William Happer from
the Department of Energy over his outspoken views
on the need for a UV network and related matters.

A more accurate view of this matter is that the
scientific community has simply failed to
recognize the vital importance of measuring UV-B.
While a few billion dollars or more were going to
ozone research, very little was going to actually
measure the hypothetically higher UV levels that
inspired the ozone research. Now, as so lucidly
pointed out by Sasha Madronich of NCAR and various
other scientists who advocate the measurement of
UV-B, we simply have no baseline with which to
compare contemporary measurements of UV-B.
 
Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN) 

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: CFCs (was: Why do the green movement dislike nuclear)
Date: 13 Jan 1996 10:48:43 -0500

James Hammerton (james@tardis.ed.ac.u) wrote about the supposedly minimal
effect of volcanic emissions on the ozone layer. Time prevents a more
detailed response now (and I have addressed this matter earlier). But I
wish to point out the following:

1. The latest American Geophysical Union publication on Mount Erebus
specifically states that the possibility of Erebus (which is continuously
active in a very dry, high-altitude environment) contributions to the
Antarctic ozone hole should not be ruled out until further studies are
conducted.

2. Published data from the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
observations at Mount Wilson showed signficant depletion of ozone
following the eruption of Katmai in 1912, long before the development of
CFCs. This was addressed by Dobson's collaborator Gotz in two publications
and the decline can be seen in a publication by R. Roosen. 

Hammerton also discussed the anthropogenic nature of CFCs. It is
interesting to note that published papers have shown a very significant
presence of CFCs during forest fires. This is apparently because CFCs
become trapped in wood as a byproduct of the respiration of these plants. 

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Ozone and UV-B Science
Date: 15 Jan 1996 00:58:40 -0500

Joshua Halpern (jbh@haven.ios.com) wrote (in part):

FMims (fmims@aol.com) wrote:

[cut...]

>: I appreciate his response and
>: look forward to his response to my post re. his
>: request for citations about the well documented,
>: significant rise of ozone during the 1960's which

>Just as soon as you respond to my original point
>(made in response to Russell's post) that if
>you claim UV-B is constant, in light of the 
>over twenty year Dobson record showing increased
>flux below 320 nm relative to the flux above 320 nm,
>you must admit that there is less absolute light
>intensity above 320 nm. A very worrying prospect.

In view of my publications on measurements of
significant increases in UV-B, I do not understand
why you believe that I have claimed UV-B has
remained constant. Please explain.

>Well, you did get me to the library, but the papers
>are sitting on my desk at work.  With just a little
>bit of digging, I have the following questions about
>Komhyr's work: (all based on stuff that I found
>in twenty minutes walking thru the library.  References
>provided later)

>Actually, let me add a caveat.  Komhyr is an
>excellent scientist.

Clearly among the very best in the field.

>My questions arise because 
>we are asking 1996 questions about 1970's data
>and interpretations

But the instrument remains identical (ca. 1926
with later addition of an electro-optical detector
means). Many of the Dobson's in Komhyr's paper are
still in use today. Only the ozone absorption
coefficients have been changed. (Formerly Vigroux;
now Bass-Paur. This changes the absolute amount of
ozone by about 5%--but has no effect on trends.) 

>Why do the annual maxima show an increase and not the 
>minima?

Komhyr doesn't say, but I offer this: Ozone minima
in the northern hemisphere occur in early winter.
With some occasional exceptions in post-Pinatubo
years, the lowest ozone almost always accompanies
intrusions of tropical air. Since nearly all
studies show no significant trends for tropical
ozone, the minima would be relatively stable from
year to year.  

>Is a simple annual averaging of the data
>as Komhyr did, an appropriate method, or is
>a more sophisticated time series analysis appropriate?

This question is at the core of ozone trend
studies. The latest trend study (must reading) was
just published: Rumen D. Bojkov, Lane Bishop &
Vitali E. Fioletov, "Total ozone trends from
quality-controlled ground-based data (1964-1994),"
J. of Geophys. Research 100, D12, 25,867-25,876,
20 Dec 1995. Statistical filters have been applied
to the time series to remove solar cycle and QBO
effects. (This was evidently not done by Komhyr.)
A hockey stick analysis was then applied,
evidently mean data from 1964-70 being the
baseline, and a linear trend fit applied to 1970-
94. The results are presented for 46 Dobson
stations and, with some M-83/M-124 data, for 4
major geographic regions.

Overall, this paper, which is an expanded account
of information in the 1994 WMO assessment, ranks
among the very best yet published. However, the
report raises some important new questions:

1. The hockey stick analysis uses 1970 as the
breakpoint "...to be sensitive to a possible
effect of chlorofluorocarbons on total ozone,
which photochemical models predict to be minimal
before 1970." But the 1964-70 period is far to
brief to serve as a baseline for a climatological
trend study, especially since there were very
significant ozone fluctuations during this period.
For example, Fig. 1 (p. 25,870) shows a very
substantial increase in ozone over Europe (>8%)
from 1964 to 1970. Quality pre-1964 data were
available for 3 of the 4 regions but were not used
(see below).

2. The report includes no data prior to 1964
"since before 1964 a sufficiently dense set of
stations was operating only in Europe, Japan, and
Australia." (p. 25,868.) Yet the only other region
summarized in Fig. 1 is "North America," and
quality ozone data were collected in North America
before 1964 (see Komhyr's paper). But even
ignoring the North American data, it is puzzling
why pre-1964 data from the three other regions
were not included, especially since the baseline
time series for the hockey stick anaysis is so
brief, and because Komhyr and others described
such a significant rise in ozone during the
1960's. 

3. All 4 regional trend plots in Fig. 1 show great
variability but no obviously significant trends
prior to the El Chichon-Pinatubo era. Perhaps the
trends need to be rexamined in light of the
various known and hypothesized volcanic effects.
It appears that a hockey stick analysis using 1964
to 1981 as the base would provide a different
result and would show a powerful correlation of
ozone decline and volcanic activity (the ozone
destruction caused by SO2 aerosols being enhanced
by the presence of Cl).

I will query Rumen Bojkov about these and other
points in this paper--which, imo, surpasses all
previous efforts.

>If you extend the data record Komhyr used to a 
>longer time period (up to the present), is
>the trend he observed still statistically
>significant for the 1960-1969 time period?

>Was the data Komhyr used ever reanalyzed with 
>corrections for SO2 and NO2 interferences
>and corrections for revised ozone absorption
>cross-sections

>Was the data Komhyr used ever reanalyzed with
>corrections for nuclear test effect?

I don't know. Some published references show
nuclear tests may have had some effects; others
say no. 

(cut...)

: >:FMims (fmims@aol.com) wrote:
: >: Joshua Halpern (jbh@haven.ios.com), responding
: >to
: >: Andrew Russell (arussell@bix.com)

(delete previous, lenthy exchanges re. WMO report...)

: You cite the 1989 report--which was old news when
: I attended the 1992 Quadrennial Ozone Symposium,
: and where Rumen Bojkov hosted a meeting, which I
: also attended, on the urgency to reprocess ground-
: based data. 

>Once again, you are confounding two separate issues.
>Again, were I mistrustful, I would assume this was 
>in an attempt to avoid admitting that your original
>statement was false.  My response was to a direct 
>challange from you to cite a source where these 
>problems were discussed.  The 1989 WMO SASO and 
>references therein are such sources.  Parson's cited
>the same source in his response.  Therefore your 
>implication, that this problem has been not even
>commented on by the community ill taken.

But I did not state of imply that the problem has
"not even been commented on." Indeed, I wrote:

>: >: It fails to adequately discuss the derivation
>: >: of trends from ground-based data.

>An additional point you now raise is that not all
>ground based data has actually been 
>reprocessed.

Correct.

: Since not all ground data have been
: reprocessed even today, and since there is
: controversy over the reprocessing procedure,
: concerns that have been expressed about the
: validity of trends of ground-based data are as
: remain as valid today as ever. This is a common
: topic of discussion among those who measure ozone.

>Again, this is an immature demand for perfection.
>Significant parts of the data record have been
>reprocessed, especially, the Dobson network and 
>even from the most reliable parts of the old M-83
>network (see the 1989 SASO which is the one I have
>at home). 

Why were carefully processed data from many
stations prior to 1970 not used in compiling the
1994 assessment? (See discussion of Rumen Bojkov's
recent paper above.) As for Russian M-83 data, my
comments on the serious deficiencies of this
instrument have been previously posted. My
comments were based on peer-reviewed publications
and my extensive experience with the Russian M-
124, the improved successor to the M-83. 

>By the way, I note that as a result of 18 years of further
>analysis, the rise noted by Komhyr in his 1971 analysis 
>has essentially disappeared (See figures2.2-1 and 2.2-2
>pp 197 in the 1989 report) Unless someone tells me why
>here, I guess I have more library work ahead of me.

See Bojkov's recent paper cited above. Even with
1964 as a start point, he shows an enormous
increase in ozone (>8% in Fig. 1) over European
stations during the 1960's.

: >: 2. It fails to adequately discuss significant 
: >: limitations (described in the peer reviewed
: >: literature) of the M-124, the instrument which
: >: comprises 1/3 of the ground-based ozone network.

>Well, this again is a red-herring.  The number of
>M-124s may be large, but they are known to
>be less reliable than the Dobsons.  Most analyses
>that I have seen, at least initially separate
>measurements with different types of instruments,
>then discuss corss-calibration, and only in a last
>step, if then, combine the data records from 
>different instruments.  

Use of an inferior instrument to establish trends
having global implications a red herring? I
suggest you speak with any professional ozone
scientist about this. (Call me at 210-372-0548 and
I'll give you some names.) As I posted earlier,
when I asked the lead author of a major paper on
ozone trends why M-83/M-124 data were used, he
specifically stated "for political reasons." (By
this he did not mean political conspiracy; one of
his co-authors is a leading proponent of the M-
124.) 

Response to Halpern continues on subsequent post...

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Ozone and UV-B Science
Date: 15 Jan 1996 01:11:34 -0500

This is part 2 of response to Joshua Halpern
(jbh@haven.ios.com), who wrote (in part):

>FMims (fmims@aol.com) wrote:

(See part 1)

: >: The M-124 typically indicates too little ozone at
: >: high solar zenith angles (10-40 Dobson units
: >: typical) and significant error in the presence of
: >: aerosols (due to its large field of view and the
: >: wide bandpass of the filters--20 nm--and their
: >: wide spacing of 24 nm).

>Wide bandpass would, however, decrease the falsifying
>effect of SO2 interferences.

Unlikely. See a plot of the highly structured,
comb-like SO2 absorption spectrum, and you'll
understand why. In any event, the aerosol, FOV and
air mass dependence are so severe that they can
cause errors of 40 Dobson units or more.

: >: M-124 data are completely
: >: unreliable when clouds fragments or variable
: >: density cloud haze cross the sun during
: >: observations. This is because the instrument
: >: observes only one channel at any time, and several
: >: seconds or more must be allowed for its mechanical
: >: meter movement to be checked for zero and to then
: >: settle before the second channel is measured. (I
: >: used an M-124 regularly for 2+ years and made
: >: Langley plots using it at Mauna Loa Observatory in
: >: Hawaii in 1992, 1993 and 1994. These limitations
: >: of the M-124 are well known, which explains why
: >: NASA and NOAA declined my offer of a free M-124.

>True, but all you are saying is that a Dobson is
>better.  The extent of the variable haze problem
>is operator and weather dependent, and I assume that this
>means that some M-124 sites will be better than others.

>An implication of your statement is that one should
>immediately replace any instrument which is in 
>any way inferior to the state of the art.  This
>is a terrible strategy for long term measurements.

No. The Russians developed and perfected a filter
ozonometer having characteristics virtually as
good as the Dobson in the late 1960's, long before
the M-83/M-124 became so firmly established. This
instrument was described in the peer-reviewed
literature (ref. sent on request), and it
stimulated much of my own development of improved
filter ozonometers. It is very unfortunate that
this improved instrument was not used instead of
the M-83/M-124. (The only reason I can think of is
that the very narrow bandpass filters it used were
much more expensive and difficult to make than the
very wideband filters used in the M-83/M-124.) 

: >Again, see the WMO 1989 report.  Specifically,
: >references to intercomparisons with Dobsons
: >were given as Bojkov Ann Geophys 25 (1969)293
: >and the 1980 and 83 WMO ozone reports for
: >comparisons after the filters in the M-83
: >were improved in 73.

: Yes, the instrument was improved, but it retains a significant
: air mass and aerosol dependence. 

>Look, to someone who works with fairly high resolution
>lasers, spectrometers and interferometers, Dobsons
>ain't so hot either.

The key Dobson wavelengths have a width of 1 nm,
which is far superior to the 20 nm bandpass of the
M-83/M-124. As for "lasers, spectrometers and
interferometers," I, too, work with and have
designed, built, tested and characterized all the
above. But this work hasn't affected my ozone and
UV-B work.

>An obvious point of weakness
>is the poor choice of measurement wavelengths
>with respect to the somewhat structured absorption
>of SO2, the lack of a wavelength at which neither SO2 
>or NO2 absorb, etc.

This is preciusely why the Brewer was developed.
But for various reasons Brewer data do not appear
in the 1994 WMO repoprt. 

(cut unimportant M-124 stuff...)


>: >: 3. Its discussion of solar ultraviolet is much too
>: >: brief (only 22 pages).

(cut...)

>:My point is that the tiny size of the
>:UV section illustrates the well known lack of interest by the
>:well financed ozone community in actually monitoring the UV
>:about which they are so concerned. 

>My, is this special pleading for a GRANT????
 
I have no pending grant applications. (Although a
few universities are now doing so based on
proposed work with instruments I have developed.)
I make a decent living writing books and articles
about science, and, at this point in my career, I
have no plans or desire to make money from doing
science. (Disclaimer: NASA hired me to measure
ozone, UV, etc. in Brazil during SCAR-B. All money
above my expenses will go to my work with SPAN.) 

(cut rockets...)

>With
>respect to the ozone depletion, there are two
>problems with ground level observations of UV.

>a.  If it is hard enough to do a set of relative
>intensity measurements at a few wavelengths, then
>it would be impossible to do measurements of
>absolute intensity across 100 nm.  My initial
>impression is that doing a total intensity
>measurement through a broad band filter is an
>invitation to taking a lot of meaningless data,
>subject to all types of falsification.

Wrong. As discussed countless times in the
photobiology literature, the effects of UV-B on
living systems are broadband in nature. Thus a
detector that models the spectral response of the
action spectrum in question is an ideal approach.
As for narrow spectrum vs. broadband measurements,
for 62 days last summer I compared a 1-nm
resolution Brewer spectrophotometer (courtesy of
EPA and University of Georgia) with a broadband
UV-B 501 Biometer (courtesy of Solar Light
Company), various 2.2-, 5-and 8-nm UV-B detectors
of my own design, a broadband UV-B Vital
Technologies BW-10, and a broadband UV-B Sunsor.
This work, which is now being prepared for
publication, clearly shows very significant
advantages of a broadband instrument such as the
501. For example, the Brewer requires 8 minutes to
do a complete DUV scan, which means transitory
clouds, changes in transparency and enhanced
scattering from moving clouds can cause important
errors. Other work has shown that integrating
narrow-wavelength measurements of UV-B to arrive
at a desired action spectrum is subject to a
variety of errors. The principle advantage of
narrowly resolved measurements of UV-B is the
identification of various trace species,
especially SO2. Recently published
intercomparisons show agreement of very expensive
scanning spectral radiometers is much too coarse
for trend studies.
 

>b.  Measuring total UV, am I measuring the effects
>of ozone depletion, local pollution or global
>warming.  How do I tear all of this apart.

Perhaps you missed my many earlier posts on UV-B
and aerosols. (I am not sure what you mean by
global warming--increased clouds?). Smoke in
Brazil reduced UV-B by 80% last August-September.
Haze over Washington on 6 July 1994 reduced UV-B
around 20% and caused 88% of the UV to be
scattered from the sky. UV-B stations MUST measure
the diffuse UV-B as well as the total sky UV-B to
identify aerosol and cloud effects. I also
recommend direct measurements of optical depth,
total ozone, total water vapor and basic weather
paramaters. (I have made such measurements for 6
years using homemade, very accurate instruments,
some described in the peer-reviewed literature.)
Unfortunately, only a tiny number of stations do
all this. (The result is an absolutely major gap
in the data base for an era when a few billion
dollars have been spent on studying the ozone
problem--hence my concern about cost-benefit
analysis of ozone research.)

>: >: 4. It fails to provide any kind of cost-benefit
>: >: analysis of ozone research. Nor does it include
>: >: (unless I missed it) any summaries of money spent
>: >: on ozone research.

(cut details...)
 
>: >This is a red herring.

>: I completely disagree. Science should not be
>: immune to presenting financial audits of its work.

(cut remainder of my response...)

>An even redder herring.

(cut stuff about budgeting...)

I still disagree. In the face of increasing scrutiny (and
skepticism) from those who provide their funding, scientists
would do well to include a few pie charts of where the money
goes, especially in such widely cited summary reports as the WMO
assessments. 

(cut Nimbus-7...)

>: >: 5. It's discussion of volcanic effects on ozone
>: >is incomplete.

>: [No response by Halpern.]

>Basically, if I had bothered, the response would be
>the same as Parson's. It was discussed. It was discussed
>previously in other SASO reports, the SASO reports are
>incremental, the SASO reports are not encyclopedias, etc.  

There is a need for more studty of the effects of
volcanoes on ozone. (During the Pinatubo era I
often observed that high optical depth caused by
volcanic aerosols was accompanied by reduced
ozone. Balloon measurements by various others
showed the same.) To my knowledge, previous
reports and Parson's (excellent) faq do not
include:

1. Publications by ozone pioneer (and co-worker
with Gordon Dobson) Paul Gotz describe significant
total ozone decline following the eruption of
Katmai, a major SO2 emitter, in 1912. (See also
the outstanding papers by Robert Roosen on the
early Smithsonian work, one of which shows low
ozone in 1912). This work was based on careful
spectral observations from Mt. Wilson and possibly
Algeria by the Smithsonian Astrophysical
Observatory. (See, for example, F. W. Paul Gotz,
"Ozone in the Atmosphere" in "Compendium of
Meteorology, ed. T. F. Malone, 275-291, 1951, for
brief mention of "very slight ozone amount during
the year 1912" on p. 280 and specific references.)

2. With regard to the relationhip, if any, of
emissions from Mt. Erebus and the annual spring
ozone minimum over Antarctica, Philip R. Kyle
wrote in his preface to "Volcanological and
Environmental Studies of Mount Erebus, Antarctica"
(Antarctic Research Series, Vol. 66, 1995): "Such
speculation is not supported by current
observations made at Mount Erebus, but it is
important that the scientific community not
dismiss the idea out of hand without making the
appropriate scientific observations and
evaluations."

The same could be said about other ozone
paradigms.


Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: HR 475, More Freon = Less Ozone
Date: 15 Jan 1996 01:26:30 -0500

Joshua Halpern wrote about ozone: 

>Total mid latitude depletion appears to be
>over ten percent since 1960.

I am unaware of any paper or study
that makes this claim. Can you please
provide your source? 

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric network (SPAN

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,alt.catastrophism
Subject: Re: Safe places in ozone depletion??
Date: 18 Jan 1996 21:33:55 -0500

Jeffrey Levy wrote (in part):

>Ozone depletion of 10% in Winter and 5% in Summer has been
>measured over most of the US.

A measured ozone increase of from 5 to 11 % (location dependent) occurred
during the 1960's. (For details and citations, see my posts under "Ozone
and UV-B Science" on sci.env.) Fig. 1 in Rumen Bojkov's current paper on
ozone trends (see latest issue of J. of Geophysical Research) shows an
increase of 8% in Europe between 1964 and 1970.

I do not doubt that ozone is now declining; indeed, I have measured a
decline since 1990. However, I have questions about the statistical
analysis of the various time series.

Incidentally, while total ozone over my site (and the SE U.S.) during Nov.
1994 was the lowest ever measured over the U.S., total ozone was a record
high for this site during NOv-Dec 1995.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospherci network (SPAN) 

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,alt.catastrophism
Subject: Re: Safe places in ozone depletion??
Date: 19 Jan 1996 10:58:10 -0500

Greig Ebeling (eggsoft@sydney.DIALix.oz.au) cited Robert Parson's
excellent ozone faq when he wrote (in part):

>[from Parsons FAQ, Copyright 1995]
>Several studies [Kerr and McElroy] [Mims] [Seckmayer et al.]  [Zerefos
>et al.] have presented evidence of short-term UV-B increases at middle
>latitudes associated with the record low ozone levels in 1992-93. As
>discussed in Part I, these low ozone levels are probably due to
>stratospheric sulfate aerosols from the 1991 eruption of Mt.Pinatubo;

Actually, the paper I wrote (Geophysical Research Letters, 1995) clearly
explained how the low ozone I observed in 1993 was directly related to an
unusual intrusion of very clear tropical air, which characteristically has
a high tropopause and lower ozone. If there was a Pinatubo effect, it was
a change in circulation that  brought the tropical air up over Texas. Of
course this might have also been caused buy the ongoing El Nino.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,alt.catastrophism
Subject: Re: Safe places in ozone depletion??
Date: 20 Jan 1996 00:28:08 -0500

Don Lowry (jlowry@tfb.com) wrote:

>steve@unidata.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson) wrote:

>>According to the FAQ, between 66 degrees north latitude and 66 degrees
>>south latitude, ozone has decreased by about 3% per decade for the
>>period 1978-1991.  It is left to the reader to decide whether or not
>>this is "significant".

>There's only one decade between 1978 and 1991!!  OK, 1 1/3.   How can
>such a statistic be based on such a small sample?  Why not say .3% per
>year?  Or does that not sound scary enough?  And what it the margin of
>error for this figure (surely not 0).  Is it more or less than .3%? 

This post is precisely why I began the thread "Ozone and UV-B Science" on
sci.env. I very much encourage those interested in ozone trends to refer
to this thread. For example, while ozone has declined as noted above,
ozone increased even more during the 1960's. See the thread for
references.

Incidentally, over the past few months TOVS (satellite) observations and
my own observations in Texas have shown a dramatic increase in total ozone
between the tropics and mid-latitudes. Of course this does not mean a
"trend" toward higher ozone anymore than the record lows over my site and
the SE U.S. in NOv 1994 indicated a "trend" toward lower values.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN) 

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.ecology,sci.environment,alt.catastrophism
Subject: Re: Safe places in ozone depletion??
Date: 29 Jan 1996 16:55:09 -0500

Responding to Jim Scanlon, Timothy J. Thompson
(Timothy.J.Thompson@jpl.nasa.gov) wrote (in part):
....
>> One can plausible imagine occasionla intense peaks of light containing
>> more energetic UV-B (but the same UVA) sweeping across the earth along
>> with small weather systems. The intensity of the UVB would depend on
the
>> season, geography and altitude and be highly variable.

>I don't know about this for sure, but I would tend to doubt it. I don't
>think that solar UV is that variable.

Actually, Jim Scanlon is correct. The clouds that accompany weather
systems cause profound changes in global (meaning total sky) UV-B. Cumulus
clouds (including alto cumulus with spacing between clouds) can cause
increases of up to 27% in UV-B. (See my note on this in NATURE, 22 Sep
1994.) These increases can accompany cold fronts or warm fronts,
especially when the sky between clouds is clear and not hazy.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Ozone and UV-B Science
Date: 31 Jan 1996 18:07:37 -0500

Steve Emmerson (steve@unidata.ucar.edu) asked:

>Now I'm curious.  What is your best estimate of the global ozone trend?

You'll have to give me a start point for the trend. Very generally, ozone is
now in a post-Pinatubo recovery phase. According to TOVS observation
(thanks to Arthur Neuendorffer at NOAA NESDIS), ozone at my latitude is
definitely returning to pre-Pinatubo levels. This certainly confirms my
observations using SuperTOPS. However, the Antarctic ozone minimum
continues to show very low ozone and significant depletion has been noted
in the arctic this winter.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN) 

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: *A rainforest question -- please advice
Date: 31 Jan 1996 18:14:52 -0500

Brandon:

I spent 3 weeks in Brazil measuring ozone and UV for NASA. I learned that
people burn trees simply to make a living for their families. Burning is
now illegal without a permit--but they burn anyway. Otherwise they have no
place to plant crops. It's a major problem. Last August-September, smoke
often covered half the country. We burned most of our forests the same way
long ago, and much has grown back. Tropical forests might not grow back as
readily because of erosion and thin soil.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: New Ozone Web Site
Date: 1 Feb 1996 20:20:31 -0500

Rob Simmon <simmon@daac.gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote (in part):

>This data [from the TOMS instrument aboard Nimbus-7] along
>with observations from Antarctica, first revealed the ozone hole.

While it is true that Nimbus-7/TOMS provided outstanding maps of the
annual Antarctic ozone minimum, the phenomenon was first observed by
and reported on by a Japanese team using an antique Dobson
spectrophotometer. When Farman's British team, also equipped with a
Dobson, confirmed the Japanese findings, the NASA TOMS team took
another look at their raw data and realized that they had erred in
programming their system to ignore what they thought to be ozone values
that were too low.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jscanlon@linex.com (Jim Scanlon)
Subject: Re: Safe places in ozone depletion??
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 04:57:28 GMT

> > <fmims@aol.com> wrote:

>  the clouds scatter UV radiation toward some areas while blocking it
> from others. There is no net global (i.e. total-sky) increase in UV-B.
> Since writing the publication cited above, I have confirmed its result
> many times with actual measurements and simultaneous all-sky photos using
> a fisheye lens. A new publication will follow. During typical summers at
> my site since 1990, the modulation of UV-B by clouds is far more dramatic
> than that by ozone.

This would appear to confirm my (common sense) observation, that it would
make sense to look for ozone induced UVR trends in areas that are the
least cloudy.

For example, the WMO has chosen Ushuaia as one of it climate monitoring
stations. NSF also has one of it's six UVR stations there, which it
operates in cooperation with the Argentinean Government. This is a
pleasant city, but it is very cloudy. It would make more sense to locate
instruments on the lee side of the Andes where it is less cloudy. The same
goes for polluted areas. It is convenient for the operators to be located
near cities (their natural habitat) but this is not the best place for
getting trends in solar radiation. If gigantic telescopes on isolated
mountain tops can be operated remotely, it would seem that simple UVR
instruments can be made to do the same. It does not seem possible that
astronomy is considered intrinsically more important than UVR.

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Safe places in ozone depletion??
Date: 5 Feb 1996 09:40:14 -0500

Jim Scanlon (jscanlon@linex.com) wrote about the placement of UV-B sensing
instruments. I could not agree more with his suggestions. For those who do
not know, Jim has actually made visits to the tip of South America, and he
is quite familiar with the cloud cover there. He has also made ozone
observations there. The data he collected will be analyzed by SPAN.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmopsheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Safe places in ozone depletion??
Date: 5 Feb 1996 09:40:20 -0500

Rich Puchalsky (richp@upx.net) wrote in response to Jim Scanlon, in part):

[deletions...]

>That, by the way, is one of the problems I see with Mim's project for
>ground-based UV sensing (sorry, I forget the acronym off-hand).  It doesn't
>appear to have a connection with tenured faculty who will work on it and
>steer graduate students into the project.  That's critical for support of
>a project like this, since graduate students go on to become the people
>who largely influence the funding decisions.

The Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network works very closely with the
University of Oklahoma (which operates 4 sites in the Pacific through its
SPaRCE program), Colorado Christian University (which sent a student to
accompany to Brazil last summer) and Westmont College (where Stan
Anderson, professor of chemistry, has derived very good equations for
reducing total ozone from MicroTOPS observations).  SPAN is discussing
additional cooperation with other universities.

As for funding, SPAN has received none beyond a Rolex Prize, two small
unsolicited grants from Informedia and an unsolicited NASA contract (for
work in Brazil). Yet SPAN observations have led to a number of original
papers in the peer-reviewed literature. Six new papers are now in
preparation. Clearly waiting for universities or the Federal government to
establish a UV network has not worked. SPAN has shown it can be done on a
shoe string budget.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: New Ozone Web Site
Date: 5 Feb 1996 13:55:16 -0500

Barry M. Schlesinger (bschlesinger@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:

>In article <4erosv$44b@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, fmims@aol.com (FMims)
>writes...
> 
>>While it is true that Nimbus-7/TOMS provided outstanding maps of the
>>annual Antarctic ozone minimum, the phenomenon was first observed by
>>and reported on by a Japanese team using an antique Dobson
>>spectrophotometer. 
	
>It is my understanding that a reexamination of the older Japanese data
>shows that the measurements have very large errors, and that any very
>low ozone values -- and some high ones also reported -- cannot be 
>considered reliable.

If so, I have not seen anything in the peer-reviewed literature. I have ,
however, read discussions of the Japanese work in the literature,
including the 1994 WMO ozone assessment. Do you have a citation?

>>When Farman's British team, also equipped with a
>>Dobson,  [sic] confirmed the Japanese findings, 
>>the NASA TOMS team took
>>another look at their raw data and realized that they had erred in
>>programming their system to ignore what they thought to be ozone values
>>that were too low.

>I've told the details before.  The Ozone Processing Team saw that the
>low values were being thrown out by the software and was in the
>process of investigating whether the values were correct or an
>artifact of the algorithm or instrument calibration.  The
>Amundsen-Scott South Pole station was as that time reporting normal
>ozone values, since corrected. 

(Why the sic? The Farman team did indeed use a Dobson.) As for the TOMS
Antarctic data, the ozone minimum evolved over a period of years, and the
fact remains it was first identified and confirmed by ground-based
observations. TOMS later confirmed the extent of the minimum.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Safe places in ozone depletion??
Date: 6 Feb 1996 11:36:58 -0500

Rich Puchalsky (richp@upx.net ) wrote:

>Jim Scanlon (jscanlon@linex.com) wrote:
>: In article <4f54sk$d9n@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, fmims@aol.com (FMims)
>wrote
>: in response to Rich Puchalsky:
>: [edit]
>:  SPAN[Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network] observations have led to a
>: number of original
>: > papers in the peer-reviewed literature. Six new papers are now in
>: > preparation.
>: Isn't this the "bottom line" in academic research?  To be cited ?  I am

>Yes.

>But the bottom line in _funding_ for academic research is to be part of
>the academic organizational structure.

Puchalsky is certainly correct. But I feel it's important to recognize
that the dominance of academic and, especially, government science is a
comparatively recent development. Consider, for example, that Federal
expenditures for science and technology have increased 4000% since 1955
(constant dollars; source: 1995 budget historical tables). Reading the
works of 19th century naturalists and that of today's amateur astronomers
will demonstrate that solid science can be readily conducted by
individuals or small teams with comparatively little funding. Even
amateurs have demonstrated that homemade instruments can perform just as
well as their professional counterparts which cost many times more. 

Consider that James Lovelock was first to discover the widespread presence
of CFCs and other trace gases using an electron capture instrument of his
own design and construction paid for with his own funds.

While Puchalsky is correct about the current situation, I hope we will
return to an era when individual workers who do not line up for Federal
money are again taken as seriously as they once were.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN) 

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Safe places in ozone depletion??
Date: 8 Feb 1996 13:27:45 -0500

Rich Puchalsky (richp@upx.net)wrote (in part):

>I also think that individual, non-academic scientists
>should be taken seriously, as long as they publish in
>the peer-reviewed literature (as Mims does).

>However, I am a bit puzzled by your (Mims) attitude
>towards funding.  You seem to be proud that SPAN
>doesn't receive much government funding, and if I
>remember a previous post on SPAN correctly you aren't
>avidly seeking it for SPAN.

Correct.

>Yet you have often stated that the government should
>fund a ground-based ozone-monitoring network, if I
>remember the old threads about Happer et al correctly. 

My comments in this regard were about UV-B, not ozone.
The government has spent billions of dollars on various
ozone networks and ozone satellites (NOAA, EPA and
NASA). I wrote only about the fact that in 1988 the
government stopped funding its only UV-B network when
that network showed a slight decline in UV-B rather
than the expected increase. Governments spend far more
on ozone research than on measuring UV-B that leaks
through the ozone layer. As I have stated previously,
if the government seriously believes that declining
ozone poses a threat to the ecology and to human
health, then it is incredibly irresponsible that the
government has yet to seriously undertake the
establishment of a dedicated, long-term national UV-B
network. (I refer to the U.S. government. Canada,
Austria, Australia and a few other companies have such
UV networks.) The measurement of UV-B is at least as
important as the measurement of basic weather
parameters. 
 
>There seems to be some contradiction between your
>scientific interest in having a functioning
>ground-based UV monitioring network and your apparent
>desire to keep SPAN as a showpiece of privately funded
>science. Perhaps you could explain this a bit further.

There is no contradiction in what you describe. SPAN is
an ozone network, not a UV-B network. Except for my
site, SPAN sites measure only direct Sun UV-B, not
total-sky UV-B. If you are referring to my comments
about the great imbalance in government funded UV-B and
ozone research. Again, I find it quite astonishing that
to this day the government which measures ozone so
effectively has yet to make a commitment to the
effective measurement of UV-B. The Dept. of Agriculture
has made a good start with its climatic network. But
this network is destined for a major disappointment if
the DOA follows through with plans to eventually
replace the present sensors (Yankee broadband
instruments with a long life) with scanning filter
radiometers (the filters will degrade and they are
subject to near-IR and UV-A leakage). To preserve the
time series, they should supplement the existing
instruments, not replace them.   

A very positive aspect of the DOA network is that it is
operated by a university, not the government. This is
precisely the model I have advocated in prior posts.
Academic researchers have a much-needed buffer between
themselves and policy makers.

>To confuse things even further, people seem to be
>referring to you as an "ozone sceptic" in ways that I
>haven't seen supported in your posts here.  For
>instance, a Rohm & Haas employee E-mailled me to say
>that at least one respected scientist, Forrest Mims,
>didn't beleive that current CFC policy (i.e. the CFC
>ban) was warrented.  Is this true, or was he 
>misrepresenting you?  I know of your views as
>expressed here on UV data but I don't know your
>opinion of CFC policy as opposed to research policy.

My work for SPAN has absolutely nothing to do with my
personal views about government funding of ozone and
UV-B measurements or CFC policy. (I began measuring UV-
B in 1988 when I learned the government had stopped
doing so. Several government and university scientists
encouraged me in this effort, and my first publication
on the subject was an article in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN on
how to make two kinds of direct-Sun UV-B radiometers.
This article resulted in hundreds of leters from people
who wanted to measure UV and ozone, which I why I
stayed with the project.)

But since you have asked, my personal view about the
CFC ban is that it was a very wise move to eliminate
the use of CFCs as propellants, foaming agents and pc
board cleaning solvents. All these uses resulted in
enormous amounts of CFCs being injected into the
atmosphere.

On the other hand, CFC's are perfectly safe when used
in closed systems (air conditioners and refrigeration
systems) that do not leak so long as the CFCs are
properly collected when the system is either repaired
or dumped. I assume these are the reasons the ban was
made total. But it is important to note that while car
air conditioners are notorious leakers, refrigerators
are not. While in college back in 1965, I worked for a
small but very sophisticated refrigeration and air
conditioning repair company that efficiently recycled
CFCs. Repairs were not conducted in the field. Instead,
ALL CFC transfers were conducted inside a sealed room
with a sump for the collection of any leaked material.
To avoid additional repairs caused by oxidation
problems (scale can block capillaries), all seals were
soldered only while dry nitrogen was pumped through the
tubes.

Having observed first hand the very efficient recycling
of CFCs and the repair of systems using CFCs by a
company that developed its own methodology, I wonder
why the use of CFCs in closed systems was banned
entirely instead of being regulated. (Should you
comment on this, please note the conditional nature of
the previous statement.) And, as I have discussed in
great detail (with citations from the peer-reviewed
literature) on the sci.env thread "Ozone and UV-B
Science," I also wonder about some of the questionable
statistical methods which have been used to describe
the ongoing decline (which I have measured) in total
ozone. (It appears from TOVS data that mid-latitude
ozone levels in the NH are returning to pre-Pinatubo
levels this winter. My measurements here certainly
confirm this. SH values and those in the Arctic and
Antarctic remain low.)

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)   

From: labow@wrabbit.gsfc.nasa.gov (Gordon Labow)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: re:Why are they lying to us about CFCs?
Date: 9 Feb 1996 18:08:25 GMT

bachert@ix.netcom.com(Richard Bachert) writes:


>..... how these CFCs -- which are many times heavier than air --
> make their way across the equatorial zones to gather high above 
>the South Pole for the sole purpose of punching a hole in the 
>ozone layer and upsetting Algore et al?  If any of you can help with 
>this, please contact me.

I'll answer this question with another question:  Why isn't all
the salt at the bottom of the ocean??  NaCl is much heavier
than water, right?  (28 to 10)  By your reasoning the salt CAN'T 
POSSIBLY be near the surface, can it?
If you can't figure out the answer to this question, I would recommend 
taking a high school chemisty or physics course.


G.L.

P.S.  There is also SAND from the Sahara that gets blown into
the Stratosphere and carried to places like Texas & Florida.
How could this happen? Sand is WAY heavier than air......

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Safe places in ozone depletion??
Date: 10 Feb 1996 12:44:04 -0500

Rich Puchalsky (richp@upx.net) wrote (in part):

>FMims (fmims@aol.com) wrote:
>: There is no contradiction in what you describe. SPAN is
>: an ozone network, not a UV-B network. Except for my
>: site, SPAN sites measure only direct Sun UV-B, not
>: total-sky UV-B. If you are referring to my comments

>I have to admit that I've gotten hazy on the differences between the 
>instruments used to measure total-sky and direct UV-B.  Let me re-read the 
>FAQ and some old posts and get back to you once I can ask
>a more intelligent followup question.

I don't recall seeing the following definitions in Robert Parson's faq, so
here they are:

Direct Sun UV-B: That UV-B received directly from the Sun (as in looking
at the Sun through a collimator tube having a field of view equal to the
diameter of the Sun or about 0.5 degree).

Diffuse UV-B: The UV-B scattered from the air molecules in the sky and
anything floating in it (clouds, smoke, dust, pollen, spider webs,
volcanic aerosols, sulphates, etc.).

Total-Sky (or Global) UV-B: The sum of direct and diffuse UV-B as received
by a detector with a cosine response that looks straight up at the zenith
sky. (Global is the traditional term, but an anonymous reviewer of one of
my papers criticized its use since satellite observations have given a
more literal meaning to the term.)

A thin layer of Teflon provides a good diffuser to measure total-sky UV-B
with a cosine response. Shadow the diffuser with a blackened disk on a
thin rod and you measure only the diffuse UV-B. Subtract the latter from
the former and you find the direct Sun UV-B. I also measure direct Sun
UV-B with instruments designed solely for that purpose (MicroTOPS and
radiometers described in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN and SCIENCE PROBE).

If there is sufficient interest and if I can find the time, I may develop
a faq to be called "Ozone and UV-B Science." This faq will not duplicate
Parson's. It will, however, stress real-world problems in measuring ozone
and UV-B and will also discuss the importance of proper statistical
methods in ascertaining trends in tinme series of both kinds of data.

Incidentally, I very appreciate the tone of Puchalsky's response. If more
participants on sci.env would return to this approach, the forum would
again be taken more seriously. 

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: re:Why are they lying to us about CFCs?
Date: 10 Feb 1996 12:58:20 -0500

Gordon Labow (labow@wrabbit.gsfc.nasa.gov) responded with appropriate
examples to Richard Bachert's (bachert@ix.netcom.com) comments about CFCs
being heavier than air. When I worked for a refrigeration company back in
college, it was interesting to watch leaked CFC flow down the sloped floor
of the specially enclosed room where all CFC exchanges were made. The CFCs
flowed into a sump, where they were recovered. The reason the room was
carefully sealed, of course, is that any breeze from air conditioners and
opening doors would quickly dissipate the material and disperse it
throughout the building. 

There are several very valid questions about the current ozone paradigm,
including, for example, the selective nature of data used in ground-based
trend studies. Perpetuating the myth that CFCs cannot be distributed
throughout the atmosphere because they are heavier than air serves no
purpose other than to muddle the question.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Lost in the Ozone Again (was: Economic Freedom...)
Date: 15 Feb 1996 09:26:47 -0500

>Sam McClintock <sammcc@nando.net> wrote: 
>FMims wrote:

>> Those who work in any field of science quite
>> properly lose credibility with the general
>> public when they limit their criticism to
>> books that do not support a particular
>> paradigm. 

>This goes a lot deeper that just supporting a
>particular paradigm.  First, scientists are not
>obligated to criticise or support any book that is not
>scientifically rigorous. A scientist is judged first
>and foremost by his work, not his  external
>criticisms.  Are you saying that those atmospheric
>scientists that fail to criticize Gore's book are not
>producing credible research?  Which would lead us to
>the question, since most scientists have yet to yield
>any written criticism of any book, that the CFC/ozone
>research is not credible?

Gore's book was a best seller and received considerably
more attention than Ray's book. The ozone and UV-B
sections of both books are flawed. Yet I have only seen
Ray's book attacked in this forum. Could there be a
connection with the dismissal of William Happer by Gore
for his statements regarding the lack of measurements
of UV-B? 

[deleted redundancies...]

>Are you supporting this book to make a similar claim,
>e.g. that CFCs do not pose a threat to the ozone
>layer?

But I don't support Ray's book. As noted in my post to
which you have responded, I have criticized Ray in a
published magazine article and in this forum. Consider
another book that gives the erroneous impression
that Ushuaia is always under the ozone hole and which
claims that, "In Patagonia, hunters now report finding
blind rabbits; fishermen catch blind salmon."  (From
"Earth in the Balance" by Al Gore. See the chapter
titled "Buddha's Breath," p. 85.) Do you support this
book?

These statements represent my personal views and are
offered in an ongoing effort to return objectivity to
the ozone and UV-B debate.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Lost in the Ozone Again (was: Economic Freedom...)
Date: 15 Feb 1996 15:00:38 -0500

d.soft@freenet.hamilton.on.ca wrote in response to my
post:

>In article <4fvfr7$qs5@newsbf02.news.aol.com> you
wrote:
>: Gore's book was a best seller and received
>:considerably more attention than Ray's book. The
>:ozone and UV-B sections of both books are flawed. Yet
>:I have only seen Ray's book attacked in this forum. 

>  The reason for this observation is crystal clear. 
><Never> have I seen anyone here defend a position
>through references to Gore's book.  Yet <REGULARLY> we
>see ditto-heads referring to Decomposing Dixy's book
>in their rabid denouncements of any and all science
>that produces results that are outside their political
>model of how the world must work.

Agreed. Yet Gore's book was widely praised and cited in
the popular press, which, may I say, has considerably
greater circulation than this forum. Ray's book was
widely ignored in the popular press.
 
>  What is to be said of the quality of science in a
>publication that states that CFC's can not reach the
>stratosphere because they are heavier than air?
 
>  Such a statement is not only patently false, but it
>is ignorant of basic science.  If such a statement is
>made and not retracted for years after the statement
>is made, either the person making the statment is 
>being dishonest, or must be profoundly ignorant of
>science to reject the criticism.

I have already written that I criticized Ray for this
serious error in a published magazine article, as I
have done in this forum. Do you apply the same criteria
to "Earth in the Balance", a book that gives the
erroneous impression that Ushuaia is always under the
ozone hole and which claims that, "In Patagonia,
hunters now report finding blind rabbits; fishermen
catch blind salmon."  (Quotation from a chapter titled
"Buddha's Breath," p. 85.) As noted elsewhere, this
book was a best-seller; Ray's book was not.
 
>  If we assume that Decomposing Dixy's comments were
>not a result of dishonesty - we are forced to conclude
>that they were made out of ignorance.  And if here
>comments were made out if ignorance of such basic 
>science, we should conclude that she, like Gore, was
>not writing as a scientist - she simply was not
>qualified at that point to do so.

While taking credit for any errors in his book, Gore
acknowledged by name several prominent, well known
scientists who reviewed his chapters on ozone and UV-B. 


These comments are my own. They are offered in an ongoing effort
to return objectivity to the ozone-UV-B controversy.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: roosen@netcom.com (Robert Roosen)
Subject: Re: Discovery of the ozone hole
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 22:15:22 GMT

Jim Scanlon (jscanlon@linex.com) wrote:

:  This would then appear to be a case of withholding preliminary data to
: forestall being pre empted. i.e.,. having your ideas stolen.
: For example, if NASA, or others, had known of the suspicious decline, they
: could have gone over their data and "discovered" the Ozone Hole, just as
: they did later. (They often get credit for the discovery anyway!)

	Data analysis is one of the least appreciated and funded parts of 
the scientific process.  Most observers are quite overwhelmed after a few 
years of collecting data.  Changes and glitches are continually 
introducing themselves.  Getting long term records on a single, accurate 
scale is a massive undertaking.
	It is not unusual for a researcher to take years to analyze data 
to the point where a new result is announced.  A few reasons that come to 
mind are:
1)  Science is based on re-search.  
2)  Observers hate to have to retract published data.
3)  It takes a while to realize that the observations are correct.
4)  There are always further refinements possible, and most people tend 
to analyze until the results are acceptable in public, then stop :-)

	According to Stigler's Law of Eponomy, it is usually the second 
person to announce a discovery that gets the public credit.  imo, this is 
partly because the "pure scientist" does not push for credit, and usually 
only a few specialists accept and understand the announced result at 
first.  Then someone more politically aware actually gets the result 
publicly accepted.

	Of course, there are also fads in science.  Right now the fad 
seems to be to believe theories that are way beyond what the observations 
can support and that ignore observations that the theoreticians cannot 
handle.  Many years ago it was known that total ozone above any given 
site can be extremely variable.  Changes of thirty per cent in a few 
hours are not unusual.  Changes of one hundred per cent in a day have 
been reported more than once.  In the face of this knowledge, few 
observers accept the ozone trend analyses that keep on being published.  
The data sets are far too limited to support those speculations.
	Still, the public view is of "the ozone layer" as some amorphous, 
homogeneous place.  I prefer to call it "the ozone region", where clouds 
of ozone blow around, forming eddies and pools.
	At some point, the variability of ozone will be recognized.  I 
wonder who will get credit for that "discovery" :-)

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: roosen@netcom.com (Robert Roosen)
Subject: Pinatubo and Ozone--a Question
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 07:35:29 GMT

        Ozone amounts measured in the UV are commonly reported
in Dobson units, rather than the metric units used for 
measurements in the visible spectrum ozone band.
        One reason that an esoteric unit like the Dobson unit 
is used is that the absorption of UV light by ozone is 
strongly affected by the temperature of the ozone that is 
doing the absorbing.  Atmosospheric temperatures vary as 
a function of altitude, season and other factors.  Hence I 
guess that analyzing UV observations includes some sort of model 
assumptions about the distribution of temperature and ozone.
        When sulfur dioxide is injected into the stratosphere 
by volcanic activity, it soon forms a sulfuric acid coating on 
available condensation nuclei.  This coating is quite black in 
the thermal IR, and hence the stratosphere is cooled by
the increased thermal emission.
  This produces a reduction in measured amounts of ozone reported
 in Dobson units due to the decreased absorption of UV that 
results from the temperature decrease.
        My question is this:
        How much of the apparent decrease in ozone amounts 
reported by some UV observers is actually due to the change in 
stratospheric temperatures that resulted from the Pinatubo 
eruption?         

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Discovery of the ozone hole
Date: 19 Feb 1996 01:38:17 -0500

Robert Roosen (roosen@netcom.com) wrote in response to 

>Jim Scanlon (jscanlon@linex.com) wrote:

>:  This would then appear to be a case of withholding
>:preliminary data to forestall being pre empted.
>:i.e.,. having your ideas stolen.

[snip]

Roosen responded:

>    Data analysis is one of the least appreciated and
>funded parts of the scientific process.  Most
>observers are quite overwhelmed after a few years of
>collecting data.  Changes and glitches are continually
>introducing themselves.  Getting long term records on
>a single, accurate scale is a massive undertaking.

This is an amazing development. A scientist known for
analyzing (and publishing) ozone, optical depth and
water vapor time series of 30 years or more has joined
this forum. His point about the difficulty of getting
funding for studying long-term records is well
illustrated by the failure of NOAA to support a careful
reprocessing of the Berger network data which would
include important corrections identified by John
DeLuisi and others. (Jim Scanlon has discussed this
need in this forum.)

>    It is not unusual for a researcher to take years
>to analyze data to the point where a new result is
>announced.  A few reasons that come to 
>mind are:
>1)  Science is based on re-search.  
>2)  Observers hate to have to retract published data.
>3)  It takes a while to realize that the observations
>are correct.
>4)  There are always further refinements possible, and
>most people tend to analyze until the results are
>acceptable in public, then stop :-)

[snip]

>    Of course, there are also fads in science.  Right
>now the fad seems to be to believe theories that are
>way beyond what the observations can support and that
>ignore observations that the theoreticians cannot 
>handle.  Many years ago it was known that total ozone
>above any given site can be extremely variable. 
>Changes of thirty per cent in a few hours are not
>unusual.  Changes of one hundred per cent in a day
>have been reported more than once.  In the face of
>this knowledge, few observers accept the ozone trend
>analyses that keep on being published.  
>The data sets are far too limited to support those
>speculations.

Actually, many people do indeed accept the published
ozone trend studies, in spite of the questionable
statistical methods employed in some. For example, the
often cited 1994 WMO ozone assessment includes ground-
based trend studies that fail to include substantial
data collected during the 1960s. Since significant
increases in ozone were measured (and published) during
the 1960's, the failure to include all the data is a
serious omission. Problems in other published studies
include the mixing of satellite with ground-based data,
the use of preliminary Meteor-3/TOMS (satellite) data
which NASA has specifically warned are not suitable for
publication, the selective use of Dobson data (data
from various stations are not used for various reasons,
which, to my knowledge, have never been fully
explained) and, possibly, the use of substantial data
from instruments subject to significant air mass and
aerosol dependent errors (M-124).

I also wonder about artefacts caused by the diurnal
cycle of tropospheric ozone. Last summer at my site, a
Brewer and a SuperTOPS measured diurnal changes of up
to 15 Dobson units or some 5% of the total ozone caused
by tropospheric ozone. Finally, to my knowledge, no
recent trend studies have considered the lengthy time
series from the Astrophysical Observatory of the
Smithsonian Institution (which cover ca. 1924 to about
1964 or so). (Roosen and others have published papers
on this work.)

>    Still, the public view is of "the ozone layer" as
>some amorphous, homogeneous place.  I prefer to call
>it "the ozone region", where clouds of ozone blow
>around, forming eddies and pools.
>    At some point, the variability of ozone will be
>recognized.  I wonder who will get credit for that
>"discovery" :-)

These points, which are obvious to Roosen and anyone
else who has actually measured ozone in the field, are
just not widely understood. As Roosen notes above, very
major changes can occur over a day or so. Several years
ago my son Eric and I studied ozone fluctuations across
the width of a TOMS resolution element about the time
Nimbus-7/TOMS was overhead. While driving east-west
along various interstate highways in Texas, New Mexico
and Arizona, we found fluctuations of up to a few
percent within a single TOMS resolution element (to be
published when I can find the time). In the grand
scheme of things, these ripples are smoothed by the
satellite's mapping capability. But they show that
there are very interesting short-term changes in total
ozone. Make 100 ozone observations during any 10-minute
period, and you'll almost always see changes. Careful
statistical methods can accomodate some, perhaps most,
such fluctuations.   

These comments are offered in an effort to add
objectivity to the ongoing ozone-UV-B controversy.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Safe places in ozone depletion??
Date: 19 Feb 1996 01:38:18 -0500

Robert Roosen (roosen@netcom.com) wrote to either this
or a relarted thread (sorry, I lost the citation):

>        Ozone amounts measured in the UV are commonly
>reported in Dobson units, rather than the metric units
>used for measurements in the visible spectrum ozone
>band.
>        One reason that an esoteric unit like the
>Dobson unit is used is that the absorption of UV light
>by ozone is strongly affected by the temperature of
>the ozone that is doing the absorbing.  Atmosospheric
>temperatures vary as a function of altitude, season
>and other factors.  Hence I guess that analyzing UV
>observations includes some sort of model assumptions
>about the distribution of temperature and ozone.

Roosen makes an important point, for most ozone
measurements are not corrected for the impact of
stratospheric temperature changes on the Bass-Paur (or
the older Vigroux) ozone absorption coefficients. Both
ground and satellite inferences of total ozone from
ratiometric measurements (a.k.a. dual differential
absorption spectroscopy) in the UV-B can be affected by
temperature-induced shifts in the absorption
coefficients.

>        When sulfur dioxide is injected into the
>stratosphere by volcanic activity, it soon forms a
>sulfuric acid coating on available condensation
>nuclei.  This coating is quite black in the thermal
>IR, and hence the stratosphere is cooled by the
>increased thermal emission.
>  This produces a reduction in measured amounts of
>ozone reported in Dobson units due to the decreased
>absorption of UV that results from the temperature
>decrease.

Another factor is that the SO2 aerosols scatter UV-B
more efficiently at some wavelengths than others. This
has caused well known errors of up to a few percent in
some satellite and ground-based measurements. Dobson
and Brewer spectrophotometers cancel much or all of
aerosol-induced error by measuring at two pairs of
wavelengths. Aerosol errors can also be minimized by
observing a single pair of closely-spaced wavelengths
(which is why I have concentrated on designing
instruments that measure total ozone at, e.g., 300 and
305 nm or 303 and 310 nm rather than using the
traditional 20 nm spacing).   

Incidentally, readers of Roosen's post should know that
he has specialized at measuring total ozone in the
visible Chappuis band, which has two peaks in the
orange near 600 nm and which extends from the green to
the red wavelengths. Roosen has also specialized in
evaluating Chappuis band (and other) observations by
the Astrophysical Observatory of the Smithsonian
Institution at various sites going back to the 1920's
and even before. (For example, as noted in a
publication by Paul Gotz in 1954 and by others,
Chappuis band observations by the AOSI show significant
ozone loss following the eruption of Katmai in 1912.)
Although ozone absorption at Chappuis wavelengths is
much less (typically <10%) than in the UV-B, the
Chappuis band is unaffected by temperature variations
within the ozone layer.

        My question is this:
>        How much of the apparent decrease in ozone
>amounts reported by some UV observers is actually due
>to the change in stratospheric temperatures that
>resulted from the Pinatubo eruption? 

I measured distinct drops in ozone associated with
sharp increases in aerosols during the first few years
after Pinatubo. Balloon observations around the world
also gave similar results. But Roosen's question
requires that we now use ozone absorption coefficients
that reflect the temperature drop within an aerosol
layer. This is complicated, since the aerosols were
never uniformly distributed within the entire ozone
layer. But it does warrant more study. If anyone is
aware of any publications or studies that show ground-
or satellite-based ozone measurements corrected for
temperature-induced absorption coefficient changes, I
would very much appreciate receiving e-mail with the
details.

These comments are offered in an effort to add
objectivity to the ongoing ozone-UV-B controversy.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)         

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: CFCs Dominate Ozone Depletion Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Date: 19 Feb 1996 01:38:55 -0500

Len Evens (len@schur.math.nwu.edu) wrote in response to
Jim Scanlon's post on the recent paper in NATURE on
CFCs and ozone loss:

[summary of paper deleted...]

>By the way.   Since we know as well as we know
>anything else in science that the ozone layer filters
>out UV radiation (in fact that is what creates it),
>suppose we found that on a world wide basis the ground
>level UV B stayed more or less constant over a long
>period of time.  Wouldn't you conclude there must be
>something else funny happpening on a large scale in
>the atmosphere?   Any ideas for such a phenomenon?

Contributing factors would be increasing anthropogenic
and natural haze combined with significant increases in
tropospheric ozone (which, on a molecule per molecule
basis, absorbs UV-B more efficiently than stratospheric
ozone because of multiple scattering from aerosols in
the troposphere). Measured increases in global cloud
cover may also plan a significant role. Billions of
dollars have been spent measuring and studying ozone,
but these fundamental issues regarding UV-B have simply
not been adequately stuidied.

>Also, if we are to establish this worldwide network to
>measure UV B, we had better be quick about it.   Since
>CFCs have been banned, it is estimated I believe that
>ozone levels will decrease for another ten years or so
>and then start to rebound.   Since ozone and UV
>B vary locally for a large number of other reasons,
>sorting this all out may take longer than the CFCs
>will play a significant role.

As Jim Scanlon and I have pointed out, serious
scientists have been calling for a global UV-B network
since at least 1974, four years before the launch of
Nimbus-7/TOMS and long before the current ozone decline
was known or predicted.

>This will surely be interesting science, but somehow I
>suspect that at least some of the motivation behind
>the push for a UV measurement network is a hope that
>it will be proved that CFCs are innocuous and there is
>no ground level effect.   The scientifically curious
>among us will still want to know the answers, but
>there are proably a few pwople who will lose interest.

Perhaps I missed it, but this is the first time I've
read or even thought of this prospect. I have, however,
heard professional scientists suggest that government
UV-B measurements in the U.S. were stopped and not
resumed (until recently) because of concerns that the
measured values did not reflect predicted values. (This
matter was discussed some time ago in sci.env. with
regard to the dismissal of William Happer of the Dept.
of Energy after he made public statements about the
need to measure UV-B.) 

Ozone changes notwithstanding, the most important
reason to establish a global network of uniform (or
standardized) UV-B instruments is that excessive
exposure to UV-B can cause cancer while other things we
measure do not. It's simply not an issue of curiosity-
driven science. Measuring UV-B should be as routine as
measuring barometric pressure, temperature, wind speed
and even ozone. 

These comments are my own and are offered in an effort
to lend objectiviy to the ongoing ozone-UV-B
controversy.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: roosen@netcom.com (Robert Roosen)
Subject: Re: Discovery of the ozone hole
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 20:47:41 GMT

Forrest Mims wrote:
 
 
>Several years
>ago my son Eric and I studied ozone fluctuations across
>the width of a TOMS resolution element about the time
>Nimbus-7/TOMS was overhead. While driving east-west
>along various interstate highways in Texas, New Mexico
>and Arizona, we found fluctuations of up to a few
>percent within a single TOMS resolution element (to be
>published when I can find the time). In the grand
>scheme of things, these ripples are smoothed by the
>satellite's mapping capability. But they show that
>there are very interesting short-term changes in total
>ozone. Make 100 ozone observations during any 10-minute
>period, and you'll almost always see changes. Careful
>statistical methods can accomodate some, perhaps most,
>such fluctuations.   
 
        We are coming to recognize that there is a 
considerable amount of fine structure in the ozone region.  
The amount of variability reported depends in part on the 
field of view of the instrument used to make the measurements.  
        The Chappuis band observations that I work with are 
based on the measurement of normal incident solar radiation.  
The angular diameter of the sun is about half a degree, or 
1/100th of a radian.  Thus I am working with the cone of 
atmosphere illuminated by the solar disc.
        To give some idea of the size of this cone, here are a 
few example calculations:
        If the sun is at the zenith (air mass = 1.0), then the 
diameter of the cone at twenty five kilometers altitude is 
        25km X .01 = 250 meters.
At air mass ten (close to the horizon), the diameter is
        250km X .01 = 2.5 km.
        Near the horizon, we are looking at more of the sky 
and averaging over a longer path length.  We observe what is 
expected.  Namely, the detected variability is greatest near 
the zenith and least near the horizon.  This is true for all 
the parameters measured--ozone, aerosols and water vapor.
        When we first published a comparison of the Dobson and 
Smithsonian results from Table Mountain Obs. in the 1920s, we 
found that the Smithsonian Chappuis band results were more 
variable than the Dobson values for the same days.  This 
caused us to question the accuracy of the Smithsonian data. 
We did not realize at the time that there is always a large 
scattered light component in Dobson measurements and the 
effective "head print" of a Dobson instrument is much larger 
than that of our instruments.  A rough guess puts the area of 
sky covered by a Dobson at 25 to 50 km in diameter at an 
altitude of 25 km.
        The "head print" of an ozonesonde is effectively a 
line running from the earth to the stratosphere.  Looking at 
some of the work of DeLuisi and Sticksel done in the 1960s, it 
seems that ozonesondes measure even more variability than the 
Chappuis band work.  In other words, the vertical variations 
may be even more pronounced than the horizontal ones 
derived from ground based work.
        It will not surprise me if it turns out that ozone 
sometimes has fine structure on the order of ten per cent or 
more over a horizontal range of less than a kilometer.  We 
need more and better observations in order to find out.
        My plan is to set up an array of about 100 Chappuis 
band instruments here in San Diego County, spaced about
20 km apart.  Such an array will make it possible to detect 
clouds and gaps in the ozone region on a real time basis.  
This will be useful for ozone climatology studies as well as 
providing predictions in real time of the UV hazard.

        I heartily endorse Jim Scanlon's comments on the 
Berger/Briggs UV studies.  Having the person who made the 
observations available to update the data set and correct the 
older work is a great stroke of luck.  There have been many 
times that I wished I had F. E. Fowle or Dr. Abbot available 
to help me reduce their data :-)  I hope that Berger is able 
to get started on that analysis as soon as possible.
 
Robert
        
        

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Lost in the Ozone Again (was: Economic Freedom...)
Date: 19 Feb 1996 16:28:41 -0500

Scott Nudds (af329@freenet.hamilton.on.ca) responded to some of
my comments about errors in the books by Dixy Ray lee and Al Gore.

Clearly Gore's book received more publicity because of his office.
As for his scientific background, the book clearly acknowledges by name
various scientists who reviewed his material on ozone and UV-B, including
Sherwood Rowland. I do not know if Rowland was aware that the book
includes
the following:

[snip]

[Mims wrote:]

>: and which claims that, "In Patagonia,
>: hunters now report finding blind rabbits; fishermen
>: catch blind salmon."

>  I have not read Gore's book, so I can't defend such comments.  But this
>statement may very well be accurate.  What hunters <report> and what is 
>real, may however, be two different things.  I remember reports of blind 
>sheep, don't you?

As I keep sheep, I am particularly interested in this subject. The blind
sheep reports have been widely published and broadcast. I was sent a TV
video broadcast a few years ago (by the producer) which is used in schools
that states that sheep have been blinded by high UV-B. However, these
reports have been checked by various workers, and published papers and
articles blame the problem on various eye diseses unrelated to high levels
of UV-B. However, some eye diseases may be related to higher than normal
UV-B, so I don't completely rule anything out at this point. Perhaps Jim
Scanlon, who has twice visited the region from where such reports came,
can comment on this again.

Incidentally, Gore's book with the blind rabbits and salmon anecdote was
reprinted with the anecdote intact, even though the stories were never
substantiated.  

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Discovery of the ozone hole
Date: 19 Feb 1996 22:56:50 -0500

Robert Roosen discussed the angular field of view of ozone monitoring
instruments and related topics. I was especially interested in his
comments
re. Jim Scanlon's suggestions on the Berger time series.

It is obvious that we have both made very similar observations of fine
structure in the ozone "layer," he in the Chappuis band and me in the
UV-B. I have two questions:

1. Do you know the angular field of view (fov) of the old Smithsonian
instruments?

2. Do you see any merit to designing an instrumnt with a fov smaller than
the angle subtended by the solar disk, say 0.25 degrees or even less? (I
understand that such an instrument would be difficult to point and might
require optics rather than a simple collimator.)

Thanks very much for your input on this.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Lost in the Ozone Again (was: Economic Freedom...)
Date: 20 Feb 1996 11:10:07 -0500

Scott Nudds wrote:

[snip]

[F. Mims wrote:]

: Incidentally, Gore's book with the blind rabbits and salmon anecdote was
: reprinted with the anecdote intact, even though the stories were never
: substantiated.  

  Why not call the publisher and find out why?

Besides keeping sheep for fun, I write books for a living. Publishing
contracts always leave the correction and updating of new printings to the
author. Perhaps Gore was simply not aware that these reports have been
checked and found wanting. I would suggest that Gore be asked, but when I
sent him two faxes in 1993 re. the very high UV-B levels that summer, he
never responded. One of his staffers told me by phone that he (Gore) would
have "no" interest in measurements of high UV-B. Similar faxes to Robert
Watson (a White House science advisor) were also unanswered. If I ever
find time to do a UV-B faq, perhaps I can include these faxes and my notes
in a separate file. 

(Lest the impression be left that I am cynical of the government's
interest in UV-B, I should add that the EPA responded very rapidly and
professionally to my inputs, sent me to Japan to give a paper, and asked
me to visit Washington to give a second paper. They also arranged an
interview with Congressional staffers, who were quite knowldegeable and
who asked the right questions.)

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Ozone Questions:  was Re: Ozone and UV-B Science
Date: 21 Feb 1996 10:02:51 -0500

Andrew Russell (arussell@BIX.com) wrote (in part):

>Why did the global ozone layer *rise*
>so dramatically during the 60's?  Why did it *rise*
>from 1985 to 1991?

The increase during the 1960's is discussed in detail
in various papers I cited previously. The 1994 WMO
ozone assessment begins trends at 1964, thus missing
much of the increase, even though abundant data are available.
There Antarctic trends begin in 1957.

Various climatological
factors modulate the amount of ozone.
Circulation changes can cause total ozone to
increase or decrease. For example, at my Texas site
persistent tropical flow from the Gulf of Mexico almost
always means low ozone. While being persistently under
the arctic jet may mean high ozone. Various reactions
with volcanic aerosols (SO2), chlorine, fluorine,
iodine and water vapor in the stratosphere (which may
come from the dissolution of methane) can cause ozone
to decline. Globally, ozone declined and did not
increase from 1985 to 1991.

>    3)  Decreased ozone will result in increased UV-B.

>False (partly).  It's usually not measurable from
>slight decreases in the stratospheric ozone layer.  In
>the case of very large scale decreases in
>the ozone layer, yes.  But such decreases are
>significantly beyond the scientific claims of damage
>from CFCs (on a global basis, Antarctica is of
>course a special case).  Forrest Mims' SPAN data has
>shown that factors (esp. meteorological) other than
>the ozone layer can have a very large effect on UV-B
>levels.  Since the Scotto study in the 1980's, there
>has been *no* government funded research in UV-B
>levels.  In fact, such measurements are *opposed* by
>politicians (notably Albert Gore) who claim
>that ozone depletion requires desperate measures.

Changes in ozone almost always are accompanied by
easily measured inverse changes in UV-B. Some ozone
changes are huge (rarely up to 100% in a single
afternoon when a system moves in). What I have found so
interesting is that factors other than ozone generally
have a much greater effect on UV-B than typical changes
in ozone. Just a few days ago I observed two sustained
(ca. 1 hour) 20-25% increases in UV-B caused by
scattering from slow moving cumulus clouds. In my
experience, such increases resulting from low ozone are
much less common than those caused by clouds. I have
observed this phenomenon many times in New Mexico,
Texas, Colorado and Hawaii.

On the other hand, anthropogenic haze and smoke
containing black carbon can cause very significant
reductions in UV-B even when the total ozone amount is
lower than normal. I have observed this many times in
Texas, Maryland, Washington, DC and Brazil.

Biomass burning in Brazil can cause a measured
reduction in UV-B of 80% (as it did at Cuiaba on 31 Aug
95, a day when thick smoke covered much of the country
and even closed airports).

The famous volcanic fog or vog of Hawaii is very
unusual in that it causes a slight increase in UV-B as
opposed to the UV-B in a clear area without vog. I have
observed this using various instruments (including
automated data loggers) and will report my findings
when time permits. Typically, the UV-B at Kona
will be higher than at Hapuna Beach some 30-40 km north
when the former is under a layer of vog and the latter
is clear. I don't believe the increase is an anomalous
effect of my instrument's slightly imperfect cosine
response since water vapor haze causes a decrease in
UV-B. One published study based on model results has
shown that stratospheric volcanic aerosols can cause an
increase in UV-B. But Hawaiian vog is low altitude
stuff. Perhaps the high acidic content of vog somehow
reduces tropospheric ozone. (But total ozone at both
sites is usually about the same.) Or perhaps the very
small size of the aerosols plays a role. 

>    4)  Increased UV-B will result in increased  
>incidences of skin cancer.

Not my field.

[snip...]


Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Lost in the Ozone Again (was: Economic Freedom...)
Date: 24 Feb 1996 00:33:29 -0500

Jim Scanlon (jscanlon@linex.com) related a fascinating
account of his visits to the southern tip of South
America in his personal 
effort to track down the tales about blind rabbits and
sheep. I very much enjoyed reading this.

While Scanlon's impressions of the heat of the Sun on
his face are anecdotal, I experienced a similar
phenomenon during episodes of very high UV-B that
occurred in Texas for a few days in 1993. Experiences
like these will forever remain anecdotal--although mine
was corroborated by actual measurements.

Scanlon's reports about increased rates of sunburn are
also anecdotal. I heard similar reports here in South
Texas during the high UV-B episodes during the summer
of 1993. For example, an Hispanic woman at my church in
her 30's received her first ever sunburn, a painter was
sunburned although he stayed in the shade all day, etc.
The major grocery store chain in South Texas (HEB Co.)
was kind enough to provide sales figures for its
various sunburn ointments, and there was a
statistically significant increase in the sales of
certain products over the previous 2 years. I presented
these findings along with considerably more robust data
on UV and ozone in an invited paper at a conference
sponsored by the EPA in Washington. (The ozone and UV-B
data were published in Geophysical Research Letters.)

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: CFCs (was re: what about 25000 nuclear reactors)
Date: 24 Feb 1996 10:58:17 -0500

Bernd Kuemmel <BEK@MMF.ruc.dk> wrote in response to a post by
Greig Ebeling:

[much deleted...] 

>> This figure has never been confirmed, and shows a complete
>> lack of understanding of the high variability of ozone daily,
>> seasonally and globally, and as a result of natural phenomenon
>> such as volcanic activity.

>The only problem with volcanic chlorine is, that it is in the
>form of HCl. As eruptions also are accompanied by water
>emissions most of the volcanic chlorine does not stay in the
>stratosphere!


The significant ozone decline that followed the major
eruption of Katmai (Alaska) in 1912 deserves much more
study. Instead, it is never cited in current papers.

Measurements in the Chappuis ozone absorption band by
the Astrophysical Observatory of the Smithsonian
Institution at Mount Wilson, California, in 1912 were
studied by Gotz and others, who reported on the ozone
decline in various publications. Katmai erupted when
inorganic chlorine from anthropogenic sources was
probably at negligible levels (excepting haloids such
as methyl bromide and methyl bromide from the
intentional burning of grass and woodlands).

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Ozone Hole = Blind Sheep?
Date: 24 Feb 1996 19:21:34 -0500

There has been much speculation about whether increased
solar UV-B that accompanies passage of the ozone hole
over the tip of South America has caused blindness in
sheep, rabbits and salmon. (See, for example, "Earth in
the Balance" by Al Gore.) Various visits to the region
(including by Jim Scanlon, a contributor to sci.env)
have failed to verify such claims.

A newly published paper reports on surface UV-B
measured at Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina, by an
SUV-100 scanning spectroradiometer during all of 1992.
Susana Diaz, John Frederick, Tom Lucas, Rocky Booth and
Irina Smolskaia report in "Solar ultraviolet irradiance
at Tierra del Fuego: Comparison of measurements and
calculations over a full annual cycle" (GEOPHYSICAL
RESEARCH LETTERS, 23, 355-358, 15 Feb 1996) that
passage of the ozone hole over Ushuaia during the
spring of 1992 caused two sharp spikes in UV-B at 305
nm. An examination of their Fig. 1 (p. 356) shows that
these two spikes are both higher than the mean summer
levels of UV-B but below two summer peaks. (Total ozone
during the spring spikes was much lower than those that
occurred in summer, but the higher sun angle in spring
reduces the UV.) 

In view of the brief duration of the spring spikes and
the fact they do not exceed the summer spikes, it would
seem unlikely that the enhanced UV-B would be
sufficient to cause blindness in sheep, rabbits and
salmon. However, possible effects on organisms that
inhabit areas shaded by shrubs and trees cannot be
ruled out if such vegetation had not fully leafed out
at the time of the spikes. Such effects, which have
been little studied, can be counter-intuitive and
highly complex (e.g. UV-B may kill or stunt predatory
microorganisms, thus allowing their prey to flourish).

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: funding science
Date: 24 Feb 1996 23:59:44 -0500

Len Evens wrote (in part):

>Might I humbly suggest that Forrest Mims might also make
>mistakes.   Indeed, it is even possible that he in entirely
>in the dark about some issue, including ones he comments on.

I have posted numerous comments in sci.env regarding the ozone layer, UV-B
and the atmosphere's optical depth. If Len Evens or any others have noted
any errors in these posts (which can be retrieved from various net
archives), I will immediately correct them.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Why are they lying to us about CFCs??
Date: 26 Feb 1996 02:37:47 -0500

Len Evens (len@schur.math.nwu.edu) wrote about CFCs,
misinformation and related topics. He then wrote about
volcanoes:

[snip...]

>Forrest Mims refers regularly to an
>eruption in about 1912 after which supposedly there was
>an effect on ozone levels.   So maybe that happened
>then.   However, the recorded ozone depletion since the
>introduction of CFCs cannot be reasonably attributed to
>Chlorine from volcanos, at least if Robert Parson, the
>WMO, and almost the entire community of atmospheric
>chemists are to be believed.   While we are at it,
>throw in the committee which awarded the Nobel prize in
>chemistry this year.

What Evens describes as a supposed effect was measured
by the Astrophysical Observatory of the Smithsonian
Institution at Mount Wilson, California. Although the
data clearly show a marked decline in ozone following
the 1912 eruption of Katmai, quite possibly the biggest
eruption until Agung (1963) or El Chichon (1982), this
event is not cited in the WMO assessment or any other
recent paper of which I am aware. See F.W. Paul Gotz,
"Ozone in the Atmosphere" in Compendium of Meteorology,
American Meteorological Society, p. 280 (1951) and
Gotz, "Das atmospharische Ozon," Beitr. Geophys.,
(Supp.) 1, 180-235 (1931). Gotz, in collaboration with
Dobson, began the first ozone observations at Arosa,
Switzerland, where the longest continuous series of
such measurements have been made.

Although they do not discuss the reason, Ronald
Angione, Edward Medeiros and Robert Roosen show a plot
depicting generally low ozone at Mt. Wilson in Fig. 2
of "Stratospheric ozone as viewed from the Chappuis
band" in Nature, 261, 289-290 (1976). The plot also
shows other dips in ozone.

I cannot vouch for Paul Gotz's conclusions about
Erebus. But, in view of his extraordinarily careful
work in this field over many decades and the
professionalism of the Smithsonian observers, Gotz work
should not be lightly dismissed or ignored.

[snip...]

>Forrest Mims has
>suggested that because of special conditions at the
>poles, Mt. Erebus might be a potential source for some
>of the Chlorine, but Parson answered him, and in my
>mind demolished his argument.    However, I am not an
>expert in this subject so I could be wrong.  In any
>case, I do not believe Mims has suggested that Mt.
>Erebus is the primary source of Chlorine and hence an
>explanation for the antarctic ozone hole which shows
>that CFCs are innocuous.

My impression of Parson's response was opposite your's.

>  In other words I interpreted his suggestion as not
>questioning the consensus view that it is wrong to
>cite Mt. Erebus as the cause but only as suggesting
>that there might be a small kernel of truth and it
>might be a contributing source for a small part of the
>Chlorine.   In any case, the truth or falsity of the
>claim that Mt. Erebus plays any interesting role or
>not, even a minor one, should be a subject for
>discussion in the peer reviewed scientific literature,
>not sci.envioronment.

But Erebus has been addressed in the literature. First,
some background: Erebus is a stratovolcano with a peak
elevation of 3794 m (see T. Simkin & L. Siebert,
"Volcanoes of the World," Smithsonian Institution &
Geoscience Press, 1994, p. 161). The elevation of
Erebus means its emissions are closer to the tropopause
for its latitude than if it were at middle latitudes.
As for the scavenging of chlorine by water vapor,
Antarctica is extremely dry, especially at the summit
elevation of Erebus. Mt. Erebus has been in a continual
eruptive state since at least 1841. Each day several
eruptions occur, and photos show long streamers of
vapor trailing away from the summit.

Now, as I posted a few months ago on sci.env.:

EREBUS, A VERY UNUSUAL AND PERSISTENTLY ACTIVE VOLCANO,
IS A MAJOR SOURCE OF CHLORINE IN ANTARCTICA, WHICH IS
NOTED FOR ITS EXCEPTIONALLY DRY ATMOSPHERE. CLEARLY
THIS CHLORINE IS NOT REMOVED AS RAPIDLY AS IN WETTER
LOCATIONS. THE SUMMIT OF EREBUS IS BELOW THE
TROPOPAUSE, AND I AM AWARE OF NO MECHANISM WHICH MIGHT
TRANSPORT SOME OF THIS CHLORINE INTO THE STRATOSPHERE.
BUT CURRENT OBSERVATIONS HAVE YET TO COMPLETELY RULE
OUT A CONTRIBUTION OF EREBUS EMISSIONS TO OZONE DECLINE
IN ANTARCTICA. FOR EXAMPLE, PHILIP R. KYLE HAS
WRITTEN,"SUCH SPECULATION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY CURRENT
OBSERVATIONS MADE AT MOUNT EREBUS, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT
THAT THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY NOT DISMISS THE IDEA OUT
OF HAND WITHOUT MAKING THE APPROPRIATE SCIENTIFIC
OBSERVATIONS AND EVALUATIONS." ("VOLCANOLOGICAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES OF MOUNT EREBUS, ANTARCTICA,
ANTARCTIC RESEARCH SERIES, VOL. 66, AMERICAN
GEOPHYSICAL UNION, 1994, P. xiv.)

Kyle's comment seems as reasonable now as when this was
posted.

 
[snip...]


Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: funding science
Date: 26 Feb 1996 02:37:49 -0500

Rich Puchalsky (richp@upx.net) asks a highly relevant
question re. the effect of clouds on UV-B, which I will
get to below (see also "UV-B vs Clouds" under sci.env):

>FMims (fmims@aol.com) wrote:

>: Len Evens wrote (in part):

>: >Might I humbly suggest that Forrest Mims might also make
>: >mistakes.   Indeed, it is even possible that he in entirely
>: >in the dark about some issue, including ones he comments on.

: I have posted numerous comments in sci.env regarding
: the ozone layer, UV-B and the atmosphere's optical :
: depth. If Len Evens or any others have noted
: any errors in these posts (which can be retrieved
: from various net archives), I will immediately
: correct them.

>I, for what it's worth, disagree with Mims about many
>policy and political issues.  For instance, I think
>the complete CFC ban is good policy while Mims has
>stated that he thinks recycling might have been
>sufficient to prevent release of CFCs from fixed air
>conditioning facilities.  As another example, I tend
>to be more blase/sceptical than Mims about claims that
>various scientists have been unduly punished by
>politicians for their views or that various research
>plans have been unduly unfunded because of political
>pressure.  But these disagreements are completely
>unrelated to the _science_ involved in the matter. 
>Mims publishes in peer-reviewed journals and is a
>recognized expert in his sub-specialty.

While Puchalsky and I may differ over some of the
policy, I'm glad that we can agree on some of the
science. 

[deleted comments re. scientific consensus...]

>Of course, certain propagandists will pretend to be
>scientists in that field so that they can support
>their own politically-motivated views.  They can be
>easily distinguished, as they don't publish in the
>peer-reviewed literature and they aren't really
>familiar with the scientific evidence that they're
>arguing against.  Instead, they focus on reaching the
>public directly, and the scientific quality of their
>work is generally very shoddy in every respect.

I have accumulated a file of such material.

>Mims has always stated the observations motivating his
>views, which he publishes, and appears to be familiar
>with the work that others have done.

>So, having made it clear why I regard Mims differently
>than, say, Thomas Gale Moore, I'll proceed on to my
>one scientific disagreement with Mims' posts, as he
>invites people to do above.  I'm not a scientist, so I
>ask those who are to humor me if I make an obvious
>error.

>My primary disagreement is that Mims often talks about
>variation of ground-level UV-B due to clouds.  For
>instance, he has stated that scattering from clouds
>can increase UV-B at his detector.  I don't see why
>this should matter, since any particular UV-B photon
>scattered into the detector would have otherwise hit
>the Earth somewhere else.  In effect, the cloud might
>act as a giant magnifying lens of sorts, which might
>have bad consequences biologically for anyone standing
>directly under the lens for some period of time, but
>the overall amount of UV-B reaching the surface would
>not change.  When Mims discusses this, he often seems
>to refer to the UV-B level changing in a way that
>implies that the level is changing in a broader sense.

Puchalsky asks an important question, and here is
posted a brief response. On a new sci.env thread ("UV-B
vs Clouds") I will post some background on how I began
studying the effects of clouds on UV-B plus give
some actual measurements.

My observations from South Texas since 1989 show that,
during summer, certain clouds can cause UV-B increases
which far exceed any changes caused by summer
variations in ozone. 

Certain very bright, white clouds (usually cumulus and,
especially, cumulus congestus; somerimes alto-cumulus)
can efficiently scatter UV, visible and near-IR
wavelengths very efficiently. A person who notices such
a cloud near the Sun, will usually measure a transient
increase in sunlight at all wavelengths. However,
should he cloud block the Sun, there will be a
transient decrease at all wavelengths. Thus the
enhanced UV-B (and other wavelengths) caused by
scattering from the sides of such clouds is balanced by
the absorption caused by the same clouds. There is no
net overall increase in the UV-B but rather a
redistribution of what is there already. 

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN) 

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: UV-B vs Clouds
Date: 26 Feb 1996 02:37:50 -0500

Rich Puchalsky asked an important question about the
effect of certain clouds on UV-B., which I briefly
answered elsewhere (see "Funding Science" under sci.env).

This repeats that reply, adds some
background on how I first learned about the effects of
clouds on UV-B, and gives some actual measurements.

My observations from South Texas since 1989 show that,
during summer, certain clouds can cause UV-B increases
which far exceed any changes caused by summer
variations in ozone. 

Certain very bright, white clouds (usually cumulus and,
especially, cumulus congestus; sometimes alto-cumulus)
can efficiently scatter UV, visible and near-IR
wavelengths very efficiently. A person who notices such
a cloud near the Sun, will usually measure a transient
increase in sunlight at all wavelengths. However,
should he cloud block the Sun, there will be a
transient decrease at all wavelengths. Thus the
enhanced UV-B (and other wavelengths) caused by
scattering from the sides of such clouds is balanced by
the absorption caused by the same clouds. There is no
net overall increase in the UV-B but rather a
redistribution of what is there already. 

I have collected many measurements (complete with all-
sky 360 degree color and/or b&w photos) showing this
phenomenon. In my experiences in Texas, New Mexico,
Colorado and Hawaii, enhanced UV-B caused by scattering
from the sides of clouds often lasts long enough for
erythemal effects and significantly exceeds UV-B
increases caused by ordinary ozone changes. This is
because ozone is usually very stable during the summer
months when erythemal effects are of concern. (Ozone
variations are usually much greater in the late fall,
winter and early spring.)

Based on my measurements in Maryland, Washington, DC,
and Brazil, thick haze and smoke eliminate the cloud
scattering effect entirely.  

When I began measuring direct UV-B at 300 nm through a
collimator with a 2 degree field of view (the Sun
subtends 0.5 degree) in the fall of 1988, I often
noticed a sharp spike in the UV-B when a cloud passed
near the Sun. To check this out, I bought a $179
telescope tracker and a $1200 chart recorder and began
measuring direct UV-B in real time for entire days over
a period of months. This study conclusively showed that
clouds near the Sun cause a transient increase in direct
UV-B, but I didn't then think the effect was significant
since it probably didn't cause a major effect on the
total sky UV-B (the sum of the direct UV from the Sun
and that scattered by air molecules, clouds, haze,
dust, etc.). Plans for the radiometer used in this work
were published in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ("The Amateur
Scientist," Aug 1991).

For an ongoing UV study during my annual Hawaii trip
(to teach a class on experimental science for
humanities majors at the University of the Nations) in
the spring of 1994, I designed a miniature UV-B data
logger. This little instrument can store up to 1800
samples at programmable intervals ranging from 1 per
0.5 sec. to one per 4 hours. I placed 14 of these data
loggers all around the Big Island for a 3-day test. All
were programmed to switch on at 6:00 am the next
morning and then run for 3 full days. (How the loggers
were concealed in lava, sometimes at night, and then
recovered is a story of its own.)

My intent was to study the variation of UV-B from sea
level to the Mauna Loa Observatory (3.4 km above MSL).
But what surprised me most was that some of the loggers
showed very significant and sustained spikes of up to
27 minutes in the midday UV-B.

After I traced the phenomenon to cumulus clouds near
the Sun, it was obvious that my earlier conclusion that
the cloud effect wasn't significant was clearly in
error. I immediately called John Frederick at the
University of Chicago. Frederick is a highly recognized
authority on the effects of clouds and UV, and his
advice played a key role in my decision to measure
direct UV-B. Frederick's models (at that time) did not
allow for an increase in UV, even though he had long
suspected that clouds could cause increases. Frederick
studied my data, and joined me in a note to NATURE,
which was published on 22 Sep 94. A peer reviewer noted
that while the phenomenon was well known to the limited
number of workers who make such measurements, he was
unaware of a publication reporting it.  

Last spring, I repeated this work with modified data
loggers capable of detecting UV-B, visible sunlight
(500 nm) and near IR (1020 nm). This time I stayed at
my detector array with a camera equipped with a fisheye
lens. The very first day, low cumulus clouds swept over
Mauna Loa Observatory just past noon and caused
significant (ca. 25%) increases in UV and even much
greater (ca. 40%) increases at 500 nm. Although I had
no way of knowing what the detectors were seeing, I
made a number of full-sky photos at the time. The
result is a good set of photos AND data that show the
phenomenon very nicely. When time permits, I'll prepare
a paper on these results.

Meanwhile, allow me to share a few results from my 9-
year old daughter's (Sarah Anna Mims) latest science
fair project. I loaned Sarah a Vital Technology BW-10
UV-B meter, which she used much of last summer
(alongside a $115,000 or so EPA Brewer
spectrophotometer and a Solar Light 501 Biometer). She
used a disposable Kodak camera to make sky photos each
time she measured the UV-B. Ozone was fairly constant
all summer. Here are some typical results copied from
actual photos on her poster, which she has just laid on
the floor next to my chair:

Date      Sky            UV-B Index

28 Jun    totally clear       7.0
03 Jul    totally clear       7.6

04 Jul    clouds near Sun     7.8
04 Aug    clouds near Sun     7.9

29 Jul    nearly overcast     4.0
30 Jul    nearly overcast     4.2

The increases caused by clouds near the Sun that Sarah
measured are not as great as those I regularly measure.
This is probably because the BW-10 has much more UV-A
response (ca. 25%) than my instruments (<1%) and its
cosine response is not as good. What is fascinating
about her project is that I have yet to see anyone
actually publish sky photos that show the cloud effect.

Incidentally, Sarah also measured UV-B atop Mount
Evans, the highest paved road in the U.S. (ca. 4.4 km).
She found that UV-B atop Mount Evans on a July day is
only slightly higher than what we observe in Texas for
much of the summer. (I got similar results.)

The point of all this is that simple equipment can be
used by a patient observer to make worthwhile findings.
I am now writing new papers about some of my
instruments in the hope others will build them.  If
readers or contributors to this forum would like to
begin making their own measurements, I will try to find
time to post some tips.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN) 

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: roosen@netcom.com (Robert Roosen)
Subject: Re: Pinatubo and Ozone--a Question
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 02:54:24 GMT

FMims (fmims@aol.com) wrote:
: John R Christie (chejrc@lure.latrobe.edu.au) suggested that the visible
: (Chappuis) and UV-B (Huggins, I believe) ozone absorption coeffcients are
: equally susceptible to temeprature changes. This is not correct. It is
: well established that the Chappuis band is not sensitive to temperature
: changes, while the near UV-B bands are.

: This would appear to make the Chappuis band (which has two nearby peaks at
: about 610 nm in the orange) better suited for measuring ozone. The
: limiting factor here is that the Chappuis band absorbs only around 10% of
: that absorbed by the UV-B. (10% is generic since the absorption in the
: UV-B increases sharply as wavelength falls.)

: Forrest M. Mims III
: Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

	Yes, the Chappuis band is a weak band.  At its peak it reduces 
the solar energy by three or four per cent.  This requires astronomical 
accuracy (better than one per cent) in the radiometer in order to 
separate the relatively small effect due to ozone.
	Another advantage of using this weak band is that the absorption 
remains linear with a large range of air mass.  In the UV, the Forbes 
effect becomes important by air mass 2 or three and a real stumbling  
block near the horizon, where a substantial component of the scattered UV 
light is found.  In general, reduction of normal incidence measurements 
in the visible is much more straightforward than UV measurements, which 
require all sky scattering models filled with assumptions.
	Such models were not really very good before the mid-1960s, which 
may be one reason why Bojkov's recent paper on trends does not attempt to 
include data before that epoch, even though Dobson was making 
measurements since the 1920s.

Robert

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: roosen@netcom.com (Robert Roosen)
Subject: Re: Demonizing S. Schneider (was Re: CFCs in the atmosphere (was Re: W
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 08:20:54 GMT

Steve Emmerson (steve@unidata.ucar.edu) wrote:
: roosen@netcom.com (Robert Roosen) writes:

: >	Schneider is a theoretician.  As such he is able in good 
: >conscience to ignore data sets that disagree with his theories and to 
: >extrapolate existing data way beyond what they are capable of telling us.

: Possibly.  In order to convince me, however, would you please provide
: a reference to a peer-reviewed paper that indicates that Schneider has
: ignored data sets that disagree with his theories.

: Would you also please provide a reference to a peer-reviewed paper that
: indicates that the IPCC Working Group I has extrapolated existing data
: way beyond what it is capable of telling us.


	That is easy.  Here are ten peer reviewed papers that present a 
much different view than Schneider's.  
	Now I challenge you to provide one reference in which Schneider 
uses the information provided in these papers.
         Publications Related to Weather and Climate
 
                          by
 
                Robert G. Roosen, PhD
 
1.  Worldwide Variations in Atmospheric Transmission:  1.  Baseline Results
from Smithsonian Observations.  Bulletin of the American Meteorological 
Society 54, 307-316 (1973).  With RJA and C. H. Klemcke.  
(RJA is Ronald J. Angione.)  
 
2.  Possible Relationships Between Solar Activity and Atmospheric 
Constituents.  in "Possible Relationships Between Solar Activity and 
Meteorological Phenomena" W. R. Bandeen and S. P. Maran, eds.  
NASA SP-366, 149-154 (1973).  With RJA.
 
3.  Drought Prediction.  Science 186, 393-394 (1974).  With RJA.
 
4.  Climate Prediction.  Bulletin of the American Physical Society 
Series II 20, 93 (1975).
 
5.  Earth Tides, Volcanos and Climatic Change.  Nature 261, 680-682 
(1976).  With R. S. Harrington, J. Giles and I. Browning.
 
6.  Stratospheric Ozone as Viewed from the Chappuis Band.  
Nature 261,289-290 (1976).  With RJA and E. J. Medeiros.
 
7.  Variations in Atmospheric Water Vapor:  Baseline Results from 
Smithsonian Observations.  Publications of the Astronomical Society 
of the Pacific 89, 814-822 (1977).  With RJA.
 
8.  Use of the Chappuis band for determination of modern and 
Historical Ozone Levels.  Final Report to NASA/Langley Research 
Center on Grant NSG 1430 (1981).  With RJA.
 
9.  Baseline Ozone Results from 1923 to 1955.  Journal of Climate 
and Applied Meteorology 22, 1377-1383 (1983).  With RJA.
 
10. Atmospheric Transmission and Climate:  Results from Smithsonian 
Measurements.  Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 65, 
950-957 (1984).  With RJA.    

	Of course, Schneider also completely ignores the original 
Smithsonian APO work (Annals, vols. 1-7 and hundreds of other publications.)

Robert

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Why are they lying to us about CFCs??
Date: 4 Mar 1996 00:49:02 -0500

Josh Halpern, responding to my earlier post, wrote (in part):

>: Kyle's comment seems as reasonable now as when this was
>:posted.

>Yes, but folks on some other side might say, this is merely
>a plea for more grant funds so that he can continue his work
>on measuring Erebus' output, while we really need to spend 
>the money setting up a UV monitoring station.

While I agree some may make such a claim about Kyle, it is impossible to
detect anything other than objectivity in his work. As for the "other
side," since at least 1988 it appears that the principle advocates of the
ozone paradigm have not been in favor of a ground-based UV-B network. For
example, last fall I was personally criticized by Sherwood Rowland for
advocating a global UV-B network. (When I was informed of this, I asked
why, and Rowland sent an e-mail apology.)

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: HELP! UV radiation at night
Date: 9 Mar 1996 10:58:26 -0500

Ralph Cutter asked about night levels of UV. The moon reflects enought UV
from the Sun to make ozone measurements possible at night when the moon is
bright. Thus there is some UV--although very little--when the moon is
visible.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: CFCs (was re: what about 25000 nuclear reactors)
Date: 10 Mar 1996 00:34:28 -0500

steve@unidata.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson) writes:

>eggsoft@sydney.DIALix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling) writes:

>>In the absence of PSCs (at mid-latitudes), the ClO never forms, and so ozone 
>>depletion does not take place there.

>The Nature paper by Russel et al. provides evidence that ozone depletion
>does occur at mid-latitudes due to CFCs.

I read the Russel et al. paper and the accompanying commentary. Perhaps I
missed something, but can you please point me to the portion of the paper
that asserts that CFCs cause ozone destruction at mid-latitudes? I do not
recall seeing any correlation of the abundance of CFCs and/or their
byproducts with the abundance of ozone.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: CFCs
Date: 10 Mar 1996 01:37:55 -0500

Bruce Hamilton wrote (in part):

>It should be noted that the producers were not alone in their
>skepicism, Jame Lovelock, who invented the cfc-measuring
>Electron Capture Detector and who first reported that CFCs were
>pervasive in the atmosphere ( were not being rained out as most
>other chemicals were ), was also publically highly sceptical of
>the Rowland and Molina hypothesis.

Fred Singer, who is also a skeptic of the CFC-ozone destruction model,
proposed long ago that increasing methane could cause ozone decline.
Lovelock has proposed the same thing and even suggested that increasing
methane could have caused the ozone hole without CFCs. Others have
proposed that increased stratospheric water vapor can cause significant
ozone destruction. Time will tell: CFCs are being phased out while methane
and water vapor continue to increase in the stratosphere.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: the sun and climate
Date: 12 Mar 1996 09:04:13 -0500

Paul Farrar wrote about solar effects on climate.

I would like to add that fluctuations in ozone can have an important
effect on temperature. Although ozone absorbs best in the UV-C and UV-B,
it also absorbs  in the Chappuis band centered at 2 points at about 590
and 610 nm in the yellow and orange part of the spectrum. The Chappuis
band extends across much of the visible spectrum. Since the irradiance of
sunlight peaks at about 500-550 nm, absoprption by the Chappuis band,
although less than in the UV-C and UV-B, can play a significant role in
moderating the sunlight that reachers the surface. Less ozone means more
warming.

Incidentally, total ozone over South Texas since January has returned to
levels not seen since the early 1980's. On 9 Mar 96, total ozone reached a
record (for that day) of 363 Dobson units, the highest measured here since
before Pinatubo erupted in 1991. Ozone last summer was very low, and
during Nov 94 was the lowest ever measured in North America to that time.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Publishing criticism
Date: 12 Mar 1996 19:46:14 -0500

James Acker responded to my comments on peer review. The media which
permits this exchange of opinions is even now causing major changes in
peer review that will hasten the publication of important findings. See
the excellent news article on this in NATURE, 29 Feb 1996 (vol. 379, p.
758).

As for my rejected paper on significant ozone decline following Pinatubo,
the fact remains that the peer reviewers claimed the finding was not
possible. It was not long before they were proved wrong, but the paper was
never published.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,alt.catastrophism
Subject: Re: CFCs (was re: what about 25000 nuclear reactors)
Date: 12 Mar 1996 19:56:28 -0500

Rich Puchlasky wrote about the contrarian point of view on ozone depletion
(in part):

>You're contradicting the mainstream ozone theory, which has a tremendous
>amount of evidence supporting it.  Almost all scientists in the field
>are rightly convinced by this evidence. 

Puchalsky is correct about ozone depletion in polar regions that involve
heterogenous chemistry suggested by Solomon in which reactions take place
on the surface of particles in PSCs and on ozone decline elsewhere where
volcanic aerosols provide a suitable surface. The major remaining
controversy is the gas-phase chemistry proposed by Rowland and Molina. I
was present at the 1992 Quadrennial Ozone Symposium when Susan Solomon
stated flatly in a keynote speech that, "Gas phase chemistry is dead."
Based on the lack of public replies and the abundance of private comments
from scientists who study ozone in response to my previous questions
regarding publications on the correlation, if any, of the abundance of
chlorine and ozone at middle latitudes and the fact that, in the absence
of volcanic aerosols, ozone decline in this region should be based on
gas-phases processes, I conclude that no such correlation has been
demonstrated. This is also apparently the conclusion of the 1994 WMO
assessment, and it is definitely the conclusion of ozone scientists who
have contacted me.

None of this rules out the impact of ozone-depleted air from polar regions
drifting over middle latitudes and causing episodic low ozone. This
phenomenon has been well documented in the literature, and a recent paper
suggests it contributes to the lower abundance of ozone in the Southern
Hemisphere.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)   

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: CFCs
Date: 13 Mar 1996 08:57:02 -0500

"Mark A. Friesel" <mfriesel@beta.tricity.wsu.edu> wrote:

>On 10 Mar 1996, FMims wrote:

>> Bruce Hamilton wrote (in part):
>> 
>....del
>> 
>> Fred Singer, who is also a skeptic of the CFC-ozone destruction model,
>> proposed long ago that increasing methane could cause ozone decline.
>> Lovelock has proposed the same thing and even suggested that increasing
>> methane could have caused the ozone hole without CFCs. Others have
>> proposed that increased stratospheric water vapor can cause significant
>> ozone destruction. Time will tell: CFCs are being phased out while methane
>> and water vapor continue to increase in the stratosphere.
>> 
>> Forrest M. Mims III
>> Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)
>> 
>Let's say that CFC's contribute to atmospheric ozone depletion.  Let's 
>say water vapor and methane do likewise.  Phasing out CFC's while 
>increasing vapor and methane could result in only a minor change in ozone if 
>any, and small changes could be very difficult to identify.  A result 
>that no significant change in ozone has been noted after replacement of 
>CFCs by methane and water vapor could be interpreted as meaning that none of 
>the above appreciably affect atmospheric ozone.  The experiment, in this sense,
>is not definitive and may be misleading.

Another problem is that the monitoring of important chlorine and bromine
sources in the stratosphere is simply inadequate or non-existent. Biomass
burning, a significant source of methyl chloride and methyl bromide, has
increased at exponential rates in some regions since the late 1970's.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Publishing criticism
Date: 13 Mar 1996 19:58:25 -0500

James G. Acker responded to my comments on peer review (in part):

[Mims wrote:]

>: As for my rejected paper on significant ozone decline following Pinatubo,
>: the fact remains that the peer reviewers claimed the finding was not
>: possible. It was not long before they were proved wrong, but the paper was
>: never published.

>	You did see that in my response where I said that reviewers can 
>be wrong, didn't you?
>	Out of curiousity, did you try to resubmit the paper to a different
>journal after the rejection from the first journal?  If you didn't, 
>my question does not constitute criticism.  I don't think that your 
>personal livelihood is as tied to the necessity to publish as it is for
>many academic scientists, so you might not have tried again.

I didn't resubmit elsewhere since by the time the lengthy review process
was completed I learned others with far more resources at their disposal
had also detected post-Pinatubo ozone decline. As you probably know,
dozens of papers were eventually published and major sessions in various
conferences and meetings were dedicated to the ozone decline that
followed Pinatubo.

[snip...]
	
> It is my perception (based on very limited data) that you tend 
>to focus your efforts on the big-name journals such as _Science_ or
>_Nature_, which due to both their prestige and the volume of submissions,
>have a much higher rejection rate. 

Actually, I have written articles for more than 70 publications, a dozen
or so being peer-reviewed. Some magazines are much tougher to crack than
SCIENCE and NATURE. As an aside, none of the peer-reviewed journals has
ever asked to see the instruments I made to collect the reported data.
But I have sometimes had to produce instruments or circuits for non-peer
reviewed magazines when I claimed some degree of novelty.

Some magazines not known for being peer reviewed sometimes use peer
review. 
An editor at SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN told me that my letter on haze and UV-B
(Sep 1995) was peer reviewed.  

>  I would think that their 
>prestige also makes them very conservative, as they wouldn't want an
>egregiously wrong paper to get in very often.  That's why _Nature_
>went to such extraordinary lengths regarding Benveniste's work.
>Since, apparently, all that you submitted was observational data with 
>no discussion of possible cause (CORRECT me if I'm wrong, please!), 
>then with no theoretical underpinning the reviewers seemed to 
>side with the likelihood of anomalous observations.

The data were from 2 ground-based ozonometers and from Nimbus-7/TOMS
(obtained through the former NSSDCA link). This was well before the TOMS
calibration began to drift, and ozone retrievals from TOPS and TOMS had a
very high correlation.

[snip...]	
	
>You definitely measured effect.  It seems to me that the
>reviewers were questioning whether you had cause.  If you did,
>then I'm way off base.  Did you?

I have not looked at the reviews recently, but I distinctly recall that
one was especially adamant in claiming the improbability of ozone decline
following a volcanic eruption.

As I have posted here and elsewhere, various peer-reviewed sources show an
ozone decline following the eruption of Katmai. When I mentioned this to a
leading atmospheric chemist, he ridiculed both the prospect of volcanic
ozone decline without the presence of anthropogenic chlorine required by
current models and the primitive nature of the instruments, about which he
was completely unaware. This is unfortunate, for the instruments used by
the Astrophysical Observatory of the Smithsonian Institution were
certainly not primitive. Indeed, they measured the solar constant to a
high degree of accuracy over many decades. Preconceived notions such as
those by this leading scientist harm the practice of science, especially
when they lead to the rejection of new findings.

I close by noting that some famous rejected papers were written by
scientists or engineers who were simply peerless. Consider Theodore
Maiman, whose seminal paper on the first working laser was rejected by a
leading journal of physics before NATURE published it. 

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: the sun and climate
Date: 14 Mar 1996 09:52:37 -0500

14 March 1996

Joshua Halpern suggests that my comments about the
optical effects of ozone mix apples and oranges, when
the effects I listed are both well established in the
literature and correct.

The Apple: Ozone is, as Halpern agrees, a greenhouse
gas.

The Orange: Besides its steep absorption in the UV-B,
ozone absorbs light across the visible spectrum from
500 to 700 nm, peaking in the orange near 610 nm.
Halpern wonders if the 2% absorption of visible
sunlight by ozone he found in a reference might be
high. It is not. Though this topic is discussed in
various papers, it appears not to be well known among
those who study the relationship of ozone and UV-B. 

According to "Prediction of Solar Radiation on Inclined
Surfaces; Series F: Solar Radiation Data" (S. K. Page,
ed., D. Reidel Pub. Co., 1986), the direct beam
absorption by ozone (380 DU) at 550 nm varies from 1%
at an air mass of 1 (sun at zenith) to about 3.5% at an
air mass of 4 (sun 14.5 degrees above horizon). (For
this range of values, the air mass, m, is the
reciprocal of the sine of the Sun's angle over the
horizon.)    

Consider this observation by Angione, Medeiros and
Roosen in "Stratospheric ozone as viewed from the
Chappuis band (NATURE, 261, 289-290, 1976):

"...because of its location near the peak of the solar
energy spectrum, the Chappuis band [i.e. the visible
absorption band] absorbs on average ~2% of the total
solar flux at midlatitudes (11). Thus, for example, if
solar variations and transport combine to produce an
increase in stratospheric ozone of 25% over a given
mid-latitude station, the total solar energy reaching
the troposphere above that station would be decreased
by ~0.5%, an amount of importance to both weather and
climate....Because of the longer slant path lengths
[i.e. higher air mass], the effect is much larger in
the polar regions." 

The absorption of ozone in the Chappuis band can be
readily observed using a simple Sun photometer fitted
with filtered detectors at 600 and 700 nm. The changes
are especially obvious when there are wide swings in
ozone, as happened over South Texas recently when ozone
reached an unusually high (for this region) 363 Dobson
units around the same time portions of the Arctic were
experiencing record ozone lows.

Time precludes a more thorough discussion of this very
interesting topic. Thus I close by standing by the
points in my original comments.


Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

SPAN has MicroTOPS ozonometers in Paraguay, Togo, South
Africa, 4 Pacific islands, Falkland Islands,
California, Maryland, Colorado and Texas. New sites are
slated for Central Equatorial Africa and Hawaii. SPAN
operators include students and their teachers,
missionaries and professional scientists.

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: 50 percent ozone loss over Britain
Date: 5 Apr 1996 10:27:31 -0500

With regard to the recent ozone decline over portions of Europe,
I would like to point out that TOVS observations show ozone at
pre-Pinatubo levels over middle latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere.

SPAN ozone measurements in South Texas and Santa Barbara, CA
since January 1996 show ozone at levels not seen since the early 1980's.

The UV-B index at South Texas at solar noon now exceeds 8 on days when
the Sun is visible.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: 50 percent ozone loss over Britain
Date: 7 Apr 1996 20:47:57 -0400

Jim Scanlon wrote in response to Mims:

>> With regard to the recent ozone decline over portions of Europe,
>> I would like to point out that TOVS observations show ozone at
>> pre-Pinatubo levels over middle latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere.

>What do you think this means ? Perhaps that ozone decline is prpblematic
>only where there are colder than average temperatures. I am not sure what
>to include in "middle latitides". The ozone decline reported so far seems
>to go from 50 North (southern England} north. This is approximately the
>limit of the springtime  Antarctic ozone hole.

There have been previous major ozone declines over the arctic. They can be
seen in the TOMS record. Also, some ozone numbers for Asia are to be
considered only with care if measured with the Russian M-124. I have had
much to say about this instrument in prior posts. I used an M-124 for 2
years.
It simply does not give sufficient ozone when the Sun is low in the sky
(as in winter).

>> SPAN ozone measurements in South Texas and Santa Barbara, CA
>> since January 1996 show ozone at levels not seen since the early 1980's.

>I assume you mean that they are higher than they have been for some time.

Yes. If we consider only the Nimbus-7/TOMS record since 1978, then ozone
here is completely "normal." Of course this may change.

>> The UV-B index at South Texas at solar noon now exceeds 8 on days when
>> the Sun is visible.

>Would you please provide a brief explanaton of what this means?  I have
>trouble remembering.

It simply means the UV here is rather normal. Actually, since ozone
here is pleasantly higher than in past years, the UV is somewhat
lower than last year at this time. Here in South Texas the UV
index will range from 9.5 to 11.5 all summer. In Hawaii it may reach
 12 to 13 (at sea level) and higher at Mauna Loa Observatory (elev. 3.4
km).

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: 50 percent ozone loss over Britain
Date: 9 Apr 1996 18:19:00 -0400

Jim Scanlon wonders why there have been no reports in
the general media on UV-B during the recent ozone minimum
over northern Europe, especially since the affected regions
are well equipped with instruments.

When ozone reached a record low for the SE U.S. in Nov 1994
(220 Dobson units at South Texas), UV-B measured by various
instruments showed only a very modest increase. This is because
the angle of the Sun was such that the UV had to penetrate the
equivalent of about 1.5 ozone layers. The areas of Europe affected
by the recent ozone anomoly also had very low Sun angles.
Therefore, while UV-B most certainly would have increased, the
increase would not have exceeded summer levels.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Dust to dust
Date: 17 Apr 1996 02:33:30 -0400

Jan Schloerer wrote about the optical thickness of dust.

This is a fascinating and very important topic. I would like to
add that satellite optical depth measurements are limited in
accuracy. SAGE II does not have daily global coverage and
it works best only in the stratosphere. The AVHRR works
best over water. It is also subject to underestimating optical
depth--as I demonstrated in 1992-3 by comparing AOT data
from my site and AVHRR data from over the nearby Gulf of
Mexico.

Jan Schloerer also wrote:

>Forrest Mims might wish to add ground-based UV
>as a third example.   What about a letter to Nature ?  ;)

Actually, I am just completing a short paper on this
right now. My emphasis is on very significant
measured reductions in UV-B during the burning season
in Brazil.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: 50 percent ozone loss over Britain
Date: 17 Apr 1996 02:34:32 -0400

Jim Wise wisely asks:

>As a middle school earth science teacher,  what do I tell the kids?

>*Record low ozone levels recently recorded over Europe

True. It was a transient event. Some of the ground data is quite good;
some is based on instruments of highly questionable accuracy.

>*UV levels depend on sun angle (thus season and latitude)

True. When record low ozone occurred over the SE U.S. in
November 1994, the Sun angle at noon was so low that the UV-B
increase was insignificant. (I wrote about this in EOS in March 1995.)
You should also be aware that during summer over most of the
Eastern U.S., haze has much more influence on UV-B than ozone.
I have found that sulfate haze over Washington, DC, for example,
reduces UV-B by from 12% to 30% in July.

>*Importance of UV levels reported depend on whether UVA or UVB
>measured

UV-A is unaffected by ozone changes. UV-B is more biologically
active than UV-A.

>*Some scientists feel disgraced that more UV measurements have
>not been made

Many UV scientists think it is disgraceful that UV-B is not properly
monitored by a global network of compatible instruments. The same
can be said of the vertical clarity of the atmosphere (optical
thickness).

>I have been teaching this unit based on NASA lesson materials
>and am about to teach it this next week. I want to be accurate.

Having been asked to review some school books about ecology and
the environment which contained very serious flaws, it is reassuring
to know that at least some teachers are concerned about presenting
accurate information.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)



>Jim Wise
>Parker Middle School
>Edinboro. Pa. 16412

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: 50 percent ozone loss over Britain, also Contrails thread
Date: 22 Apr 1996 10:12:00 -0400

In message dated 04-10-96 CLAIRE GILBERT wrote :

> So, are you Woody and Forrest saying that ozone loss is NOT significant
> if it doesn't directly affect us with UV-B?


I wrote only that sharp declines in the wintertime ozone at
northern latitudes have minimal effects on UV-B due to the
very low Sun angle. This is based on actual observations and a
peer-reviewed paper (F. Mims et al., EOS, March 1995).

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Record low ozone over Hawaii, winter 1994-5
Date: 7 Jul 1996 22:13:18 -0400

Bruce Hamilton writes that New Zealand might
discontinue a UV-B monitoring network that, I
gather, uses broadband instruments. This is
quite unfortunate, as such instruments are
generally very reliable and, based on my working
experience with a scanning radiometer, provide
excellent erythemally-weighted data.

Perhaps Bruce Hamilton could post an address
where polite letters of support for this program can
be sent. Thank you.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Record low ozone over Hawaii, winter 1994-5
Date: 7 Jul 1996 22:21:31 -0400

 I remember reading some of these articles.

  It is a fact that Harper was fired.
Scott Nudds wrote about the firing of Happer
from DOE (in part):

>  It is pure speculation that he was fired for calling for UV-B measurements.

>  What would be required to prove Andrew Russell's statement would be an
>admission from Gore, a Memo stating the motivation, or substantial
><evidence>, [not speculation], that provides the motivation for the
>firing, as well as a trail connecting the firing with Gore.

>  Have you seen anything <more> than <speculation> on this matter?  I

>  I have seen speculation, but no evidence.

When time permits I'll look for the old posts on this. As I recall, the
articles
in the science press were rather specific about Happer's troubles
over calling for UV-B measurements. As for V.P. Gore, in July 1993 I
sent him two faxes re. record high UV-B (and record low ozone)
in Texas. He never replied. I then called two members of his staff
who told me that Gore might be interested in record high UV-B. They
asked to see my faxes and said they would pass them to
Gore. I never heard from them again nor did I ever hear from Gore.
My data were eventually published in GRL, and the EPA sent me to
Japan to give a paper on the data at an international UV-B conference
as one of its U.S. representatives (though I did this work on
my own).

A few months later I was invited to Washington by the EPA to give a talk
on my measurements. They arranged a meeting with some Con-
gressional staffers who apparently played a supportive role in the
EPA-NOAA UV-B forecast operation.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: fmims@aol.com (FMims)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: Re: Ozone hole <-> defoliation corellation?
Date: 9 Jul 1996 19:59:56 -0400

Thanks to Robert Parson for pointing out that methyl bromide
is a significant byproduct of biomass burning. I
had this in mind when I mistakenly typed methyl iodide.

To place some perspective on this from an anecdotal viewpoint,
there were days last August and September when fully
half of Brazil and much of Bolivia, Paraguay, and northern
Argentina were under a thick layer of smoke from the burning
of savannah and rain forest. It was truly an amazing site
to fly many hundreds of kilometers and see smoke extending
from horizon to horizon. The smoke was clearly visible on
satellite images as well. On some days at Cuiaba, I found that
40% of the green light (500 nm) was attenuated.

Forrest M. Mims III
Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network (SPAN)

From: rparson@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert Parson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Ozone hole=storm in a teacup
Date: 5 Dec 1996 02:05:48 GMT

Greig Ebeling's posts in this thread contain many mistakes and many
fallacious assertions. I am collecting my responses into a single post.

In article <57d02n$4lh$1@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>
Greig Ebeling <eggsoft@sydney.DIALix.oz.au> wrote:

>My initial impression was that research into ozone depletion seemed
>to be conducted in an unscientific manner.  The original observation
>of Antarctic ozone depletion immediately generated theories involving
>human disruption of the environment, and little interest was shown in
>investigating the chemistry, and dealing with the causes (if possible)
>when the theories were proven valid.

 This is completely wrong. During the first two years after the
 discovery of the ozone hole was announced, a *lot* of effort was
 devoted to hypotheses that made no reference to halogen chemistry.
 Many of the scientists whose names are now associated with the
 "Standard Model" of Antarctic Ozone Depletion, such as Mark Schoeberl
 and Jerry Mahlman, were originally committed to purely dynamical
 theories. They published thier hypotheses in the scientific literature
 (many of them can be found in the last issue of GRL for the year 1986)
 and made definite, testable predictions. When their predictions
 were refuted they changed their positions. (Yes, in spite of Kuhn
 et al., in science people really do change their minds when confronted
 with contrary evidence. Not always, but often.)

>The fact that the investigation seemed from the outset to be a witch
>hunt for CFCs, that Dupont's patent on CFCs had recently expired,

 Urban legend which has been refuted several times on the net.
 The original patents expired long ago. And they didn't belong
 to DuPont anyway. From a post by Bruce Hamilton:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Subject:      Re: Freon R12 is Safe
**From:         B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
**Date:         1996/09/18
**Message-Id:   <9137cc$0181f.360@HERMES>

** There were many patents for the manufacture of CFCs
** issued in the 1930s, and Kinetic Chemicals actually received theirs (June
** 1935 ) before Midgley and Henne ( July 1935 ). There were plenty of
** competitors, and, as most were process patents, they were continually
** being replaced by more efficient and less polluting processes right up
** until the 1980s.  No monopoly or conspiracy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> and that Dupont was funding the bulk of the research

 Ridiculous. Last time I checked Dupont's in-house Atmospheric Science
 Group consisted of about two people. The only other atmospheric
 science funding I can think of that has any connection to DuPont
 is the Chemical Manufacturer's Association, which funded some grants
 (awarded by an independent board of scientists on the basis of peer
 reviewed proposals) for research into
 possible tropospheric sinks for CFCs during the late 1970s, and also
 put some money into the AAOE mission (which was primarily supported
 by NASA and NOAA). In the first instance, the hope of the companies
 that put up the money that CMA gave out was clearly that
 sinks _would_ be found (they weren't). If anything, CMA was funding
 research that was aimed at _refuting_ the CFC-ozone link. And at the
 time of AAOE, DuPont still opposed CFC reductions.

>was, you must agree, more than a coincidence.

 Indeed. It's simple fabrication.

 To anyone familiar with the early history of this subject, the
 idea that DuPont is behind it all is utterly ludicrous. DuPont
 was just about the most adamant _opponent_ of the Rowland-Molina
 hypothesis between 1974 and 1988. Go look up ~1975 issues of
 _Science_ or _New Scientist_ and you'll see that they took out
 full-page ads attacking the research. (For the most part the
 attacks were well-informed and based on genuine scientific questions;
 in my opinion they played fair but rough.) Even after
 the 1987 AAOE Mission and the 1988 Ozone Trends Panel report, the
 initial response of DuPont was to oppose reductions in CFC
 emissions. It was only upon urging from their own scientific staff
 that the executives reversed their position.

>Also the Montreal Protocol, touted as a solution to the "problem" of
>ozone depletion, was completely ineffective in reducing CFCs.  Four
>major industrialised countries (Japan, Korea, Indonesia, China) did not
>sign it, and continue to use CFCs

 Japan signed the original protocol in 1987 and ratified it in 1988.
 China ratified in 1992, South Korea and Indonesia in 1992,
 North Korea in 1995. As of 30 June 1995, 149 nations had ratified; see
 gopher://unephq.unep.org:70/00/un/unep/convent/montreal/mon-rat

>As , as do developing countries.  The
>rate of increase in CFC mixing ratios is not expected to level out
>for decades.

 Again false. From the FAQ, Part II,

*                Growth Rate, pptv/yr

*Year            CFC-12          CFC-11

*1977-84          17               9      [Elkins et al. 1993]
*1985-88          19.5            11	          "
*1993             10.5             2.7	          "
*1995		  5.9		 -0.6	 [Montzka et al. 1996]

*Methyl chloroform and carbon tetrachloride are also decreasing, while
*CFC-113 has stabilized. Overall, tropospheric chlorine from halocarbons
*peaked in 1995 and has begun to decline.

 [while the last line of the table went in sometime in 1996, I know
 that I put in the first three lines shortly after the Elkins et al.
 paper appeared in late 1993.]

>My calculations suggest that the natural burden of inorganic Cl was
>quite sufficient.  Rowland's response seemed rather subjective, and
>seemed to be based on the following:

> "The measurements in Antarctica
> in the late 1950s and 1960s do not indicate any loss being observed
> there.See Dobson's quote in his book Exploring the Atmosphere--the amount of
> ozone did not rise much during the winter, or even the early spring".
> Note "rise", not "fall"."

>IMO the evidence of a scientist using comparatively primitive techniques
>is not strong evidence.

 "Primitive techniques"? Dobson spectrophotomers are still in use today.
 The ozone hole was discovered with one.

>Also the notion that increased ozone depletion is entirely due to
>synthetic organochlorides must be in doubt, since the "ozone hole" has
>recently reduced in intensity, whilst chlorine levels have continued to
>increase.  Both Cicerone and Rowlands agreed that PSCs are both critical

 No, except for a temporary _increase_ around 1993, probably due to
 Pinatubo aerosols extending the range of the heterogeneous chemistry,
 the ozone hole has maintained a rather constant size and depth since
 since 1989. As discussed in the FAQ, this is expected since in
 the region where the heterogenous chemistry operates (lower half
 of the stratosphere, nearly _all_ of the ozone is destroyed when
 the hole forms.) Further incremental increases in stratospheric Cl
 won't influence the size or depth much, although they may increase
 the duration of the hole (with more reservoir Cl, the threshold for
 massive ozone destruction can be reached earlier in August.)

>Finally, I am yet to see any evidence that ozone depletion occurs at
>mid-latitudes, that it results in a net loss in ozone from year to year,

 Evidence and references are presented in part I of the FAQ. See also
 the 1991 and 1994 WMO Scientific assessments. The Executive Summary
 of the latter is on the Web at the NOAA Aeronomy Lab, http://www.al.noaa.gov/
 Mid-latitude ozone depletion is thoroughly documented.

>or that the seasonal losses cause any damage to the biosphere.

 What about the antarctic phytoplankton? See the Smith et al. paper,
 cited in Part IV of the FAQ.

> (Claims that skin cancer in humans may be attributed to ozone depletion is
> nonsense.)

 Not at all. See DeGruijl's paper in CONSEQUENCES, on the web at
 http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/summer95/impacts.html
 Just because the media exagerrates the effects, does not mean that
 the effects do not exist.

In article <57jj97$qmn$1@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>,
Greig Ebeling <eggsoft@sydney.DIALix.oz.au> wrote:

>(2) There has always been a relatively large burden of inorganic Cl
>    present.

>Methyl chloride (CH3Cl) comes mostly from natural (biological) sources, and
>is estimated to pass from the troposphere to the stratosphere at the rate of
>about 1 Mt/year.

 That estimate is at least an order of magnitude too large. _Total_
 organic chlorine entering the stratosphere in the 1980's was
 around 300 kt/year, of which only ~20% was MeCl. This figure is
 given and cited in the FAQ, Part II, Section 4.4.

> It is reasonable to assume that this flux has been
>occurring, at least at this rate, for about a billion years.
>Whilst there are well known natural sources of organic and inorganic chlorine,
>and proven mechanisms for the transportation to the stratosphere, there are
>no demonstrable mechanisms for the removal of HCl from the
>stratosphere.

 Completely wrong - the mechanism is simply stratosphere/troposphere
 exchange, with a time scale of about two years.

>  The
>argument that a drop off of HCl with altitude in the troposphere is evidence
>of a low natural upward flux, may also be applied to the stratosphere in
>reverse.

>[From Parsons FAQ, Copyright 1995]
> "...the mixing ratio of HCl _decreases_ with altitude in the troposphere,
> reaching vanishingly small values at the tropopause, and then _increases_
> with altitude in the stratosphere.  This rules out all processes in
> which HCl slowly drifts upward from the troposphere."
>
>This also implies that there is no downward drift either.

 It most emphatically does not. *There is a sink in the troposphere.*

>Consider that mixing ratio measurements for HCl from Kitt Peak go from 1.6e15
>molecules/cm^2 in 1977 to ~2.6e15 molecules/cm^2 in 1990.  The source for
>this is Rinland et al., J. Geophys. Res. _96_, 15523, 20 Aug 1991 (with
>thanks to Robert Parsons).  I assume these figures are for stratospheric
>HCl only.
>Assuming the above figures to be correct, then I calculate:
>
>HCl Mixing ratio  = 2.6e15 molecules/cm^2 in 1990

 [Minor quibble: this isn't a "mixing ratio", it's a column height.
 A mixing ratio is a mole fraction and must be integrated vertically
 to get a column height.]

>Area of earth     = 510E6km^2 = 5.1E18cm^2
>
>No. molecules HCl = 1.326E34 molecules
>
>No. moles HCl     = 1.326E34/6.02E23
>                  = 2.2E10 moles
>
>Mass of HCl       = 2.2E10 * 36 grams/mole
>                  = 7.9E11 g
>                  = 790 kt
>
>Assuming that the increase is entirely from CFCs (ie avoiding the volcano
>debate), the contribution from CFCs is about 2.3kt /year or less than 3%
>of total Cl from CFC flux (~1-2Mt/year).

>Also calculating the mass of HCl in 1977 and extrapolating backwards, the
>natural burden of HCl is about 450 kt.

 Ebeling does not say how he "extrapolates backwards", but he has
 clearly made a mistake. The above figures give 490 kt for 1977, so
 somehow he is assuming only 40 kt anthropogenic Cl prior to 1977 which
 is absurd since CFC emissions had already reached their first peak
 before this.

>Therefore inorganic Cl compound flux from CFCs is small compared to the
>natural burden of HCl in the stratosphere.

>Also from Parson - Copyright 1995:
>
>                                           "The total amount of HF
> in the stratosphere increased by a factor of 3-4 between 1978 and
> 1989 [Zander et al., 1990] [Rinsland et al.]; the relative increase
> is larger for HF than for HCl (a factor of 2.2 over the same period)
> because the natural source, and hence the baseline concentration,
> is much smaller."
>
>Translation:  there is much more natural stratospheric HCl than HF
>arising from anthropogenic sources.

 *MIS*-translation. The paragraph neither says nor implies any
 such thing. It simply says that natural HCl exceeds natural HF.

 In fact, the comparison between HF and HCl mixing ratios, recently
 carried out on a global scale by the HALOE project, demonstrates
 clearly that stratospheric HCl is primarily anthropogenic.
 See http://haloedata.larc.nasa.gov/home.html, and read the
 published papers.

> The reasoning is that since PSCs are naturally
>ubiquitous (and ASSUMED a constant factor)

 Not assumed. PSC's correlate closely with lower stratospheric
 temperatures, which have been measured at the same stations that
 measure ozone. See below.

>2. Ozone depletion causes no biological damage.
>
>Ozone depletion at the poles results in insignificant UV increase,
>because the sun is so low on the horizon.

 The FAQ documents _measured_ springtime UV in Antarctica that
 exceeded _midsummer_ UV in San Diego, Ca. Why was that left out?

>  Also the area affected is
>almost entirely devoid of life larger than microbes.
                                            ^^^^^^^^
 YM "whales" - HTH. :-)

 The Antarctic Ocean is hardly "devoid of life larger than microbes."
 And why were the Smith et al. phytoplankton experiments left out?

>At mid-latitudes increase in UV due to ozone depletion is very low
>compared to daily, seasonal and global variations.  This is due to an
>absence of PSCs (at mid-latitudes) and so ozone depletion only takes
>place there in the presence of sulphate aerosols from volcanic activity
>(which is natural).

 The chlorine - which is what actually destroys the ozone - is
 predominantly anthropogenic. And, there is a background aerosol
 layer in the absence of volcanic eruptions. And, ozone depletion
 also takes place through purely gas-phase mechanisms - this was
 the original Molina-Rowland process.

In article <582229$fce$1@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>,
Greig Ebeling <eggsoft@sydney.DIALix.oz.au> wrote:
>Barry M. Schlesinger (bschlesinger@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
>>eggsoft@sydney.DIALix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling) writes...
>>>I disagree with this.  A lot of it is anthropogenic, but quite a
>>>lot existed prior to CFCs, arising from the photolysis of methyl
>>>chloride.
>>
>>What did Rowland and Molina have to say about this particular claim?
>
>Rowland relies on the lack of observation by Dobson (which IMO is
>anecdotal).  I have not posed the question to Molina.

 "Anecdotal"?!! The 1956-58 results are in the published literature
 (reference: the Applied Optics paper cited in the FAQ, and an earlier
 paper: G.M.B. Dobson, "Annual Variation of ozone in Antarctica",
 _Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society_, 1966, p. 549
  as well.) Halley Bay has a continuous record of springtime ozone
 going back to 1956. The original discovery of the ozone hole
 was based upon comparison to this long-term record. The October
 means from Halley are in the FAQ, were in the 1985 Farman et al.
 paper, and are reproduced in practically every review article
 on the subject as well as textbooks. You can find data for other
 times of year, as well as from other antarctic stations (some of
 which go back almost as far as Halley) in the primary literature,
 or in the 1988 and 1989 WMO Scientific Assessments.

 By the way, Dobson didn't make the observations. He supervised them
 from England.

>>>My point is, all the ingredients for ozone depletion existed long before
>>>CFCs, so it must be a natural phenomenon....
>>
>>But there is no evidence for an ozone hole before CFCs, and, as my
>>earlier post pointed out, accepted ground and satellite measuremnts
>>showing no hole in 1959, 1970, and 1979.
>
>When you say "no hole", I think you mean "small hole".

 No, he means "no hole." An ozone hole is a _decrease_ in total
 column ozone beginning in late winter or early spring. There is
 no such decline in the 1950's or 1960's data. It may alternatively
 (and somewhat more precisely) be defined as a decline in ozone
 concentration in the lower stratosphere. No such decline is
 visible in the early data. Take a look at the Newman et al. paper.
 cited by Schlesinger, or at Dobson's 1968 paper.

>It is therefore inappropriate to assume a linear correlation between
>increased inorganic Cl due to CFCs, and ozone depletion.

 See: M. R. Schoeberl, A. R. Douglass, S. R. Kawa,
 A. E. Dessler, P. A. Newman, R. S. Stolarski, A. E. Roche, J. W. Waters,
 and J. M. Russell III, "Development of the Antarctic ozone hole",
 J. Geophys. Res. _101_, 20909, 1996.

 They show that the development of the ozone hole in the 1980's and
 1990's can be reproduced using measured increases in
 stratospheric inorganic chlorine and known atmospheric chemistry
 and dynamics. There is no need to assume any "linear correlations"
 (in fact, a linear correlation isn't to be expected: what has
 happened in the antarctic ozone hole is that the inorganic Cl
 reservoirs are now large enough to overwhelm the "buffering" effect
 of stratospheric NOx when the latter is low, and produce very
 high concentrations of active Cl.)

>Exactly!  And my calcs indicate that there WAS enough Cl, and has
>been for a very long time.  I have not seen any calcs or models which
>suggest otherwise.

 The calculations are wrong in a number of respects. For one thing,
 they were based upon a fundamentally incorrrect picture of atmospheric
 dynamics (strat/trop exchange in particular.) For another, they compare
 annual flux of CFCs into the stratosphere with annual increase of
 HCl, a meaningless exercise since they do not include either the
 HCl sink or the subsequent behavior of the CFCs after their entry
 into the stratosphere. For a third, some of the numbers themselves
 are way off (for example, an estimate of ~1 Mt of methyl chloride
 per year entering the stratosphere, which is at least an order of
 magnitude too large.) For a fourth, additional Cl reservoirs such
 as ClONO2 are left out. The partitioning of Cl between HCl and ClONO2
 varies with latitude and season. And so on and so forth.

 The budget calculation simply _cannot_ be done in this way. It is
 much more involved. To see how to do it correctly, read some of the
 papers cited in the FAQ. In particular, the papers associated with
 the HALOE project, cited at http://haloedata.larc.nasa.gov/home.html

 Since the stratospheric lifetime of HCl is about two years, it
 follows that the relative amounts of anthropogenic and natural
 inorganic chlorine reflect the relative source strengths (with
 some corrections due to differing photolysis cross sections, etc.)
 The conclusion that ~80% of the Cl now in the stratosphere is
 anthropogenic holds for the reservoirs and active Cl, just as
 it does for the source gases.

>>>measurement of the natural state is not possible, and all discussion on
>>>this subject is of course speculative.
>>>
>>No.  One could assume only the natural CH3Cl and then calculate a
>>model to see if and when an ozone hole can be produced.
> ^^^^^
>I count this as speculative.  Also, does such a model exist which counters
>my claims?

 See above.

>>And what was different in 1959, 1970, and 1979 that there was no hole
>>then?  The CFC model has an explanation.
>
>Perhaps higher than normal polar temps.  It is not without precedent.

 Except that stratospheric temperatures have been _measured_, and there
 is no such trend. See pp. 117-121 of the 1989 WMO Scientific Assessment.
 Fig. 1.8.2-2 on p. 121 (taken from B. G. Gardiner, _Weather_
 _44_, 291-98, 1989) shows that there was _no_ significant change in
 mean September lower stratospheric temperatures (100 mbar) over
 Halley between 1957 and 1987.  (There is, on the other hand, a
 definite decline in _November_ temperatures beginning about 1980 -
 clearly an _effect_ of the ozone hole rather than a cause.)

 The idea that a decline in stratospheric temperatures might
 have something to do with the opening of the ozone hole is an old one
 - it was one of a number of hypotheses floated in 1985-86. (See, for
 example, K. K. Tung, _Geophys. Res. Lett._ _13_, 1308, 1986.)
 Once the timing of the ozone hole and of the temperature trends
 were clearly set out, however, this hypothesis was abandoned.
 (Singer rediscovered it in his 1989 _National Review_ article,
 but failed to notice that the temperature trend follows rather
 than precedes the formation of the ozone hole.)

>>>It is worth noting that one of Dobson's co-workers, Marcel Nicolet, admitted
>>>in a TV interview, that during the 50s and 60s, anomalous readings below
>>>250 DU were not officially recorded because, said Dobson: "Noone
>>>will believe them".

 Now this is what I call "anecdotal evidence"! A distinguished but
 elderly atmospheric scientist speaking from memory of what another
 scientist _told_ him some 35 years previously? In contrast, we
 have the data published in the IGY Annals at the time of the
 project, published again in 1966 in __Quart. J. Roy. Met. Soc._,
 and  yet again in the 1968 Applied Optics article,
 which clearly show that there was no ozone hole in the late 1950's.

 By the way, Marcel Nicolet was not one of Dobson's coworkers.

>>There were some published.
>
>Yes, in 1958 at the French station Dumont d'Urville,
>a drop in ozone to 110 DU was measured.

 With an unconventional and extremely difficult (at the time) method -
 spectroscopic measurements of UV using stars as sources. The data
 is subject to large fluctuations and was already marked as questionable
 in the IGY Annals. It is contradicted by measurements from
 several other stations, as well as by the meteorological data:
 Dumon d'Urville wasn't even inside the polar vortex when the
 purported low values were measured. This is discussed in the Newman
 article which Schlesinger cited.

>The Japanese also measured a drop during the 70s.

 Wrong, they measured the same drop as the Halley team, in the
 same time period: early 1980s. In other words, they independently
 discovered the ozone hole. The measurements from the Japanese
 station (Syowa) are on p. 8 of the 1980 WMO Scientific Assessment.
 You should be able to find them in J. Geophys. Res. or GRL around 1986-88.
 Syowa, Halley, and South Pole all show the same trend in October means.
 The October means at Syowa in the 1970's are rather high, in fact.
 Look them up.

 ------
 Robert

From: rparson@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert Parson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,aus.politics
Subject: Re: Ozone hole=storm in a teacup
Date: 13 Dec 1996 02:46:41 GMT

In article <58l6jt$spd$3@coffee.DIALix.COM>,
Greig Ebeling <eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au> wrote:

>>>IMO the evidence of a scientist using comparatively primitive techniques
>>>is not strong evidence.
>>
>> "Primitive techniques"? Dobson spectrophotomers are still in use today.
>> The ozone hole was discovered with one.
>
>COMPARATIVELY primitive.  Compared to TOMS.  Admit it Robert, before
>TOMS there was considerable doubt the accuracy of spectrophotomers.

 Precisely the opposite is the case. TOMS is actually calibrated against
 Dobson (or used to be). Errors in the early TOMS estimates were
 identified by comparison with the Dobson measurements. It took a
 long time for all the bugs in TOMS to be worked out.

 TOMS complements Dobson in that it provides global coverage. It is
 not intrinsically more accurate. (Perhaps Barry Schlesinger can
 comment on this - he knows this aspect much better than I)

>>>Also the notion that increased ozone depletion is entirely due to
>>>synthetic organochlorides must be in doubt, since the "ozone hole" has
>>>recently reduced in intensity, whilst chlorine levels have continued to
>>>increase.  Both Cicerone and Rowlands agreed that PSCs are both critical
>>
>> No, except for a temporary _increase_ around 1993, probably due to
>> Pinatubo aerosols extending the range of the heterogeneous chemistry,
>> the ozone hole has maintained a rather constant size and depth since
>> since 1989.                     ^^^^^^
>
>You have conveniently missed the 1988 observation which shows that
>PSCs are critical (which is my point).

 In 1988 the hole had not fully formed. (And even so, the 1988 hole
 is remarkable by pre-1985 standards.) Your claim was that the
 "ozone hole has recently reduced in intensity." It has not (aside
 from the post-Pinatubo recovery.)

>> As discussed in the FAQ, this is expected since in
>> the region where the heterogenous chemistry operates (lower half
>> of the stratosphere, nearly _all_ of the ozone is destroyed when
>> the hole forms.) Further incremental increases in stratospheric Cl
>> won't influence the size or depth much, although they may increase
>> the duration of the hole (with more reservoir Cl, the threshold for
>> massive ozone destruction can be reached earlier in August.)
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, Robert, but aren't you saying here that polar
>stratospheric ozone depletion has basically peaked, and will not
>increase appreciably no matter how much CFC is placed in the
>atmosphere.

 Plateau'd, rather than peaked. _Incremental_ further increases in Cl
 will have little effect. _Large_ increases, that could allow rapid
 depletion to occur in other altitude or latitude ranges, is another
 story altogether.

> If this is what you are saying, then if ozone depletion
>does not cause biological harm (more on this later), then the
>Montreal Protocol is pointless*, and the "ozone hole" is a storm in a
>teacup.

 Consider the Arctic. Consider middle latitudes. The antarctic is
 simply the place where the stratosphere's 'buffer' is weakest.
 2.5 ppbv stratospheric chlorine produced ~50% depletion over
 antarctica. 3.5 ppbv stratospheric chlorine has produced incipient
 ozone hole phenomena in the arctic. And on top of this the stratosphere
 is cooling and is likely to continue doing so for many decades
 Do you know what the third coldest place in the stratosphere is?
 No, not middle latitudes - it's the _tropical_ stratosphere.

 As Prather et al. showed back in the pre-ozone hole days
( _Nature_ _312_, 227, 1984) ozone depletion chemistry
 has a natural threshold built into it: the effect of incremental
 increases in stratospheric chlorine increases dramatically when
 stratospheric Cl begins to exceed stratospheric NOx. On the basis
 of gas phase chemistry alone, they estimated 15% *global*
 depletion by the middle of the next century. What they did not
 foresee was that heterogeneous chemistry would increase the
 ClOx/NOx ratio and lower that threshold. In the heavily deNoxified
 springtime antarctic stratosphere the threshold has
 been passed. In the arctic stratosphere we are getting close to it.
 Antarctic ozone depletion  arises from an intensified variant of
 chemistry that occurs throughout the stratosphere. It is not a
 fundamentally different phenomenon.

>* If evidence of bio harm is not forth-coming, it is possible that
>developing countries can delay signing the MP, and thereby continue to
>use CFCs indefinitely.

 They've already signed. And the fact that tropospheric halocarbons
 are already beginning to decrease makes this a moot point.

>> Mid-latitude ozone depletion is thoroughly documented.
>
>Let's deal with each of these seperately.
>
>1. Mid-latitude ozone depletion.
>
>Whilst I agree that measurements of ozone LOSS are well documented,
>the mechanism for loss has not been proven to be DEPLETION at
>mid-latitudes (except due to volcanic activity).  Your references
>suggest (as I do) that ozone loss is due to "transport of chemically
>perturbed polar air to mid-latitudes".

 That is _one_ mechanism. Here is the complete sentence, from WMO 1991:

"Plausible mechanisms include heterogeneous chemistry on sulfate
 aerosols [which convert reservoir chlorine to active chlorine -
 R.P.] and the transport of chemically perturbed polar air to middle
 latitudes."

 WMO 1991 presents the two mechanisms - local depletion on the aerosol
 layer (which is always there; volcanic eruptions enhance it, but there
 is a background arising from stratospheric OCS) and transport from
 polar regions - on the same footing. Note that "chemically perturbed"
 doesn't just mean ozone-poor, it may also be ClOx-rich, so it
 can chew up mid-latitude ozone. Since the time of that report, the
 balance of opinion seems to be shifting away from the "transport"
 mechanism and towards mid-latitude heterogenous chemistry on the
 sulfate aerosol layer. (See WMO 1994).

>2. Net loss in ozone.
>
>Your references demonstrate that there is a trend in PEAK ozone loss,
>but does not indicate a NET loss.  Each year, in summer, ozone levels
>return to seasonal normal levels.

 False. Mid-lat Ozone depletion is seen in _all seasons_.
 From the FAQ:

-------------------------------------------------------------
 The following table, extracted from a much more detailed one in
[Herman et al.], illustrates the seasonal and regional trends in
_percent per decade_ for the period 1979-1990:

 Latitude      Jan     Apr     Jul     Oct      Example

  65 N        -3.0    -6.6    -3.8    -5.6      Iceland
  55 N        -4.6    -6.7    -3.1    -4.4      Moscow, Russia
  45 N        -7.0    -6.8    -2.4    -3.1      Minneapolis, USA
  35 N        -7.3    -4.7    -1.9    -1.6      Tokyo
  25 N        -4.2    -2.9    -1.0    -0.8      Miami, FL, USA
   5 N        -0.1    +1.0    -0.1    +1.3      Somalia

   5 S        +0.2    +1.0    -0.2    +1.3      New Guinea
  25 S        -2.1    -1.6    -1.6    -1.1      Pretoria, S. Africa
  35 S        -3.6    -3.2    -4.5    -2.6      Buenos Aires
  45 S        -4.8    -4.2    -7.7    -4.4      New Zealand
  55 S        -6.1    -5.6    -9.8    -9.7      Tierra del Fuego
  65 S        -6.0    -8.6   -13.1   -19.5      Palmer Peninsula
---------------------------------------------------------------

>To suggest a trend of 3%/decade,
>considering the moderation in the rate of increase in polar depletion,
>is disingenuous.

 The fact is, the "saturation" of antarctic ozone depletion has had
 no observable effect on the downward trend in mid-latitude ozone.
 BTW, the mid-latitude trend is more like 4.5% per decade. You get
 3% when you average in the tropics as well.

> Also, and by your own admission in your FAQ, the
>current levels are very small compared to daily, seasonal and global
>variations,

 So what? That does not render them irrelevant. Seasonal variations
 in the monthly mean temperature in Boulder, Colorado amount to
 about 20 degree C. Daily variations are far larger - I have experienced
 a temperature drop of 40C in a 48 hour period. Does that mean that
 a 1.0 degree C change in _global, annual_ temperature is irrelevant?
 Well, -1.0 C gets us into the "Little Ice Age" of the 18th century.
 -10 C gets us into the Big Ice Age.

 Compare apples to apples - compare the present downward trend to
 natural variations on similar spatial and temporal scales, such
 as the solar cycle and the QBO. The fact is, the present downward
 trend is comparable to, indeed rather larger than, these variations.

>insufficient to overcome the so-called "self-healing" mechanism

 False. The fact that the downward trend occurs primarily in the
 lower stratosphere renders "self healing" irrelevant.

>(as backed up by the lack of conclusive evidence of increased UV-B),

 The lack of conclusive evidence of increased UV-B is primarily due
 to the fact that we do not have a "pre-ozone-depletion" baseline for it.

>>>or that the seasonal losses cause any damage to the biosphere.
>>
>> What about the antarctic phytoplankton? See the Smith et al. paper,
>> cited in Part IV of the FAQ.
>
>As Smith points out, the damage is several orders of magnitude too
>small to be considered significant.

 Smith points out no such thing. His results are far from catastrophic.
 That does not render them insignificant.

>>> (Claims that skin cancer in humans may be attributed to ozone depletion is
>>> nonsense.)
>>
>> Not at all. See DeGruijl's paper in CONSEQUENCES, on the web at
>> http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/summer95/impacts.html
>> Just because the media exagerrates the effects, does not mean that
>> the effects do not exist.
>
>"[...] Although the rate of loss has now been slowed, total ozone is
>expected to continue to drop through the present decade, when the
>decrease at mid latitudes in the Northern hemisphere in summer and
>fall should maximize at 6 to 7%.  A reduction in ozone of this amount
>would correspond to a resulting 6  to 12% increase in the average
>annual dose of biologically-harmful UV  radiation." [DeGruijl]
>
>Interesting assumption on which to base a THEORETICAL analysis.  And
>where is the data to back up this assumption?  D'oh!

 Why not pursue the subject and learn where the data is? Learn
 something about atmospheric radiative transfer and UV photobiology.
 These are mature subjects with an extensive literature. Nonmelanoma
 skin cancer, particularly squamous cell carcinoma, is one of the
 best understood of all cancers - the mechanism is known in detail
 at the molecular level. The dose-response curve is well known.
 The UV trends themselves aren't well known, but that situation
 is finally changing.

>>>Methyl chloride (CH3Cl) comes mostly from natural (biological) sources, and
>>>is estimated to pass from the troposphere to the stratosphere at
>>> the rate of about 1 Mt/year.
>>
>> That estimate is at least an order of magnitude too large. _Total_
>> organic chlorine entering the stratosphere in the 1980's was
>> around 300 kt/year, of which only ~20% was MeCl. This figure is
>> given and cited in the FAQ, Part II, Section 4.4.
>
>[from your FAQ]
>"During the 1980's emissions of CFC's and related
>compounds contributed ~1 Mt of chlorine per year to the
>atmosphere. [Prather et al.] This results in an annual flux of >0.3
>Mt/yr of chlorine into the stratosphere."
>
>Here you are talking about total chlorine flux, as opposed to total
>flux of chlorine compounds, which is what I am talking about.  It is a
>little unfair of you to compare oranges to apples, don't you think,
>Robert?

 Doesn't affect the argument. (0.20)(.300Mt/yr) = .060 Mt/yr Cl from
 MeCl. Multiply by (12+3+35.5)/35.5 to get .085 Mt MeCl/yr. Which
 is still more than an order of magnitude off from your claimed 1 Mt/yr,
 as I asserted.

>>>This also implies that there is no downward drift either.
>>
>> It most emphatically does not. *There is a sink in the troposphere.*
>
>Well, hang on, you can't have it both ways.  If HCl is passing through
>the tropopause to this sink, why isn't it measured at the tropopause?

 Because it's being drained throughout the tropopause region. What
 does the solution to the diffusion equation with an absorbing boundary
 condition on one wall look like? A smooth increase away from the wall.

>> In fact, the comparison between HF and HCl mixing ratios, recently
>> carried out on a global scale by the HALOE project, demonstrates
>> clearly that stratospheric HCl is primarily anthropogenic.
>> See http://haloedata.larc.nasa.gov/home.html, and read the
>> published papers.
>
>And I do not deny this, although to say "primarily" without further
>quantification is little misleading.  But that is not the thrust of my
>argument.  I am merely pointing out that there was lots of
>stratospheric Cl prior to CFCs ie all the ingredients of ozone
>depletion were there prior to CFCs.

 You claimed that the natural background is larger than the
 anthropogenic component. That claim is false.

>>>2. Ozone depletion causes no biological damage.
>>>
>>>Ozone depletion at the poles results in insignificant UV increase,
>>>because the sun is so low on the horizon.
>>
>> The FAQ documents _measured_ springtime UV in Antarctica that
>> exceeded _midsummer_ UV in San Diego, Ca. Why was that left out?
>
>As I have already pointed out, mid-latitude UV-B measurements are not
>relatively high, particularly when the measurements are made under a
>photochemical haze.

 The latitude of San Diego is about the same as Casablanca, Morocco;
 Jerusalem, Israel; or Lahore, India. These are not exactly low-UVB
 environs. As for "photochemical haze", San Diego is not Los Angeles.
 You claimed that "ozone depletion at the poles results in insignificant
 UV increase." I submit that springtime UV on the Antarctic Peninsula
 that exceeds summertime UV in San Diego is hardly "insignificant."

>
>You also know that the hole centres over the Antarctic continent.

 Not always - it is often off-center.

>> The Antarctic Ocean is hardly "devoid of life larger than microbes."
>
>Lower depletion levels do (I admit) extend over Antarctic Ocean
>waters, but the depletion levels are much lower than the maximum
>levels at the centre.

 No. Look at the TOMS maps. Severe depletion can extend far over
 the ocean. The UV-B measurements referred to above were made at
 Palmer Station, far out on the Antarctic Peninsula which extends
 far into the ocean from the main part of the continent.

>>>At mid-latitudes increase in UV due to ozone depletion is very low
>>>compared to daily, seasonal and global variations.  This is due to an
>>>absence of PSCs (at mid-latitudes) and so ozone depletion only takes
>>>place there in the presence of sulphate aerosols from volcanic activity
>>>(which is natural).
>>
>> The chlorine - which is what actually destroys the ozone - is
>> predominantly anthropogenic. And, there is a background aerosol
>> layer in the absence of volcanic eruptions. And, ozone depletion
>> also takes place through purely gas-phase mechanisms - this was
>> the original Molina-Rowland process.
>
>Proof!?

 1.) Observation of high ClO concentrations in the upper stratosphere,
 first seen in 1977. Direct evidence that the Rowland Molina mechanism
 is operating up there. (The only way to get ClO in the upper strat.
 is from Cl attack on O3.)

 2. Observed _upper_ stratospheric ozone depletion at all latitudes.
 5% per decade at the equator, 10% per decade at high mid latitudes.
 See WMO 1994, p. 1.28. (It's an old result, actually; it just hasn't
 gotten much attention because of the more dramatic depletion in
 lower stratospheric ozone; most of the ozone layer is in the lower
 stratosphere.)

> Significance to biological harm!?

 Smaller in magnitude, and a much longer time lag before the effects
 become important, but nevertheless significant in the long term.
 (Since ozone is produced in the upper stratosphere and mesosphere,
 depletion of upper stratosphere ozone will eventually lead to
 losses throughout the stratosphere.)

>>>Rowland relies on the lack of observation by Dobson (which IMO is
>>>anecdotal).  I have not posed the question to Molina.
>>
>> "Anecdotal"?!! The 1956-58 results are in the published literature
>> (reference: the Applied Optics paper cited in the FAQ, and an earlier
>
>[...etc...]
>
>I know.  But there was, and still is, conjecture over whether what was
>published, and what was observed, are the same thing.

 Conjecture by whom? All I've seen is the reminiscences of an old
 atmospheric dynamicist regarding what Dobson told him some 35 years ago.

 And don't forget to read the Newman paper, which reproduces antarctic
 ozone measurements from several locations during IGY.

>   OK, I admit
>that formal publication is the only thing scientists can go on, but
>the seeds of doubt are there.

>> The calculations are wrong in a number of respects. For one thing,
>> they were based upon a fundamentally incorrrect picture of atmospheric
>> dynamics (strat/trop exchange in particular.)
>
>1. As I have already said, I appreciate you correcting my
>understanding re strat/trop exchange.  However, since my calcs are
>based on direct measurement of HCl, the results do not rely on this
>issue.

 They do indeed rely upon it. You compare
 the HCl annual increase to the annual halocarbon influx. This
 only makes sense if these are the only places for the Cl to go.
 By omitting the HCl efflux from the stratosphere _and_ omitting
 photolysis of CFCs already in the stratosphere you are leaving
 out a huge portion of the balance.

>2. By comparing DIRECT measurement of increased HCl (which of course
>includes any sink for HCl which may exist) with known CFC flux, I calc
>the natural vs anthropogenic ratio in terms of flux.  This leads to a
>figure for the natural burden.

 You act as if the only CFCs that can dissociate in year n, are those
 that cross the tropopause in year n. This is not a sensible procedure.

>> are way off (for example, an estimate of ~1 Mt of methyl chloride
>> per year entering the stratosphere, which is at least an order of
>> magnitude too large.)
>
>3.  As I have already pointed out, the calcs are a BOTE and therefore
>very rough, but I do not concede that they are "way off".  You appear
>to have arrived at your conclusion by failing to recognise the
>difference between total CH3Cl flux and total Cl flux.  There is a
>difference.

 You are still more than an order of magnitude off.

>> For a fourth, additional Cl reservoirs such
>> as ClONO2 are left out. The partitioning of Cl between HCl and ClONO2
>> varies with latitude and season.
>
>I understand the importance of ClONO2, but could find no base
>measurement data in order to include it in my calcs.  Perhaps you can
>point out to me how it's exclusion from my calcs affects my conclusion
>re natural burden of Cl.

 Once again, you are leaving a major part of the Cl out of the balance.
 Suppose, for example, that 99% of the halocarbon Cl went into ClONO2.
 Clearly, the increase in HCl would _not_ correspond to the
 rate at which halocarbons were producing Cl in that case!

 I repeat, that such mass-balance analyses _have_ been done and are
 in the literature. The Rinsland et al. paper has references to one.
 And any attempt to estimate the stratospheric chlorine balance _has_
 to deal with the HALOE data.

 ------
 Robert

Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,aus.politics
From: B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton)
Subject: Re: Ozone hole=storm in a teacup
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 19:38:08 GMT

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

>"Sam McClintock" <scmcclintock@ipass.net> wrote:
>>Greig Ebeling <eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au> wrote:
>>> If ozone depletion does not cause biological harm, then why do we need
>>> to go to all this effort to make the hole disappear?
>>How silly of me. I am so terribly sorry, but I seemed to have overlooked
>>that criteria.  Please explain to us how losing the ozone layer will not do
>>any harm.  It would be an important point.
>Try this quick quiz.

Oh goody! A quiz, but no prizes for correct answers?
How miserable.... Anyway, onwards....

>1.  Who says that we are ever going to "lose" the ozone layer?
>(Statistical evidence of a NET loss in ozone required, along with
>proof of an on-going downward trend).

I would prefer to leave some of this to people with access to
the appropriate journals and reports, but in "Estimates of
ozone depletion and skin cancer incidence to examine the
Vienna Convention achievements". H.Slaper et al ( Nature
v.384 p.256-258 21 November 1996 ) start their abstract
 with " Depletion of the ozone layer has been observed
on a global scale ", and cite the 1995 WMO Report 37 "Scientific
Assessment of Ozone Depletion:1994 Global Ozone Research
and Monitoring Project  as the reference. The proof of a
on-going global downward trend will presumably also be
obtained from the same reference by comparisation with
earlier assesments from the from the same project.. But
I don't have access to those reports, so....

A more accessible plot of the % Mean Global Ozone Depletion
relative to 1980, averaged annually and over the latitutes
65S to 65N, as measured by the TOMS/SBUV satellite is
available in "The ozone layer, the road not taken" M.Prather,
P.Midgley, F.S.Rowland, R.Stolarski. ( Nature v.381 p.551-554)
From eyeballing the plot,
Year	Total Ozone
1979	0.8
1980	0.0
1981	0.1
1982	-0.2
1983	-1.8
1984	-1.7
1985	-3.3
1986	-2.8
1987	-2.5
1988	-2.4
1989	-2.3
1990	-1.0
1991	-2.2
1992	-1.4
1993	-3.4
1994	-5.5

Now please let me know which graphing package shows that
as no change in ozone, or an increase. Such software whould
be a great help to me when I have inconvenient data.

Down here, a nice Figure in " Ozone depletion and UV radiation:
A health risk for New Zealanders?" R.McKenzie ( The New
Zealand Public Health Report. October 1996 p75-77 ) plots the
Annual Mean Ozone measured over southern New Zealand for
the years 1971-1995.

In the Results section, the author notes;
"Ozone declined by approximately 5-7% in New Zealand between
the mid 1970s and the 1990s (Figure 1). Based on this rate of ozone
depletion, erythemal UV has been calculated to have increased
by 6-9% in NZ since the 1970s. Since the early 1990s, ozone levels
in NZ have stabilised, but globally they have continued to decline.
Further ozone depletion over NZ may be expected as the
concentrations of ozone-depleting chemicals continue to increase."
Direct measurements of UVR ( ultraviolet radiation ), from the R-B
meter in Invercargill for part of the period, also indicate that there
has been an increase in UVR... Spectrally-resolved measurements
have clearly shown the expected inverse correlation between
ozone and UVR [ the 1994 WMO report above is indicated as the
source of that data ] "

" NZ experiences  relatively intense erythemal UV during the summer
months, whose levels can approach those at the equator, and can
exceed those at comparable northern latitudes by 40% [GRL v22
p1889-92] This difference between NZ and comparable northern
latitudes is due to: (1) the sun-earth separtion being minimal in
December/January; (2) hemispheric differences in ozone which result
in less ozone in the summer hemisphere summer; and (3) the generally
more polluted skies in the northern hemisphere providing further
shielding.

UV shows a strong diurnal variation, peaking when the sun is highest
in the sky - about 130pm NZ DST. UV also shows a strong seasonal
variation  ( figure 2 ). Clouds influence UVR. However, over the course
of a day , clounds that block the sunlight have a surprisingly small
effect, with the total UVR rarely being reduced by more than 50%.
Over a full year, the presence of clouds reduces the clear skies UVR
by approximately 25%. Clouds that do not actually block the sun can
be brighter than the sky, resulting in UV increases that sometimes
exceed 20% [ R.L.McKenzie, G.E.Bodeker et al. Weather & Climate,
in press ].

UVR is more intense in the north of NZ where solar elevations are
higher and where there is less ozone, despite the fact that the ozone
depletion is more rapid in the south. In the summer there is about 10%
more erthymal UV in the north, and in the winter over twice as much.
Averaged over a year, the north receives 25% more than the south".

[ same "in press" reference, but similar NZ data using actinic UV
radiometers from 1988-1995 is available in "Erythemal Ultraviolet
Insolation in New Zealand at solar Zenith Angles of 30 and 45 degrees.
K.G.Ryan et al. Photochemistry and Photobiology v63 p628-632 (1996) ]
- which also shows that an average monthly rate of increase in UVR
of 9.1% (SZA=30 degrees) and 8.3% (SZA = 45 degrees ) going from
spring to autumn. An earlier paper ( P&P v57 p513-517 ) by the same
group also shows higher UV radiant energies at lower latitudes for
the same time of the year.

>2.  How do you know that ozone depletion causes harm? (references
>showing a correlation between ozone loss and significant statistical
>evidence of harm are compulsory in answering this question)

In the same Public Health journal issue, and paired with the above article,
is "Recent trends in melanoma in New Zealand" J.L.Bulliard, B.Cox
( The New Zealand Public Health Report. October 1996 p73-75 )
[ I'm not going to list all the references in detail, and "melanoma" will
refer to CMM ]

" Cutaneous malignant melanoma is of concern because of its frequency,
the rapid increases observed in incidence and mortality over the last few
decades in most populations of Eurpeoan descent [1], the relatively young
age distribution of patients, and the poor survival among those with thicker
lesions. Incidence rates in the non-Maori population of NZ have continuously
been among the highest registered worldwide, and are only exceeded by
rates in some Australian states and among white Hawaiian men [2]. NZ
males and females have the highest melanoma mortatily rates in the world [3].
..
About 9 out of 10 melanomas occurring among populations of European
descent in NZ and Australia are attributable to sun exposure [5], which makes
melanoma potentially one of the preventable cancers."

The article has some nice plots of the age-standardised incidence and
mortality rate data from 1968-1993 for the non-Maori population if NZ.
and notes that overall mean annual increase of incidence over the period
was approximately 5% for males and 3% for females, going from around
8/100,000(1968) to 25/100,000(1993). The mortality rates have climbed from
about 2.5/100,000 to 5.5(men) and 3.5(women) - with the early detection
and spot check programmes starting in the mid 1980s believed to have
been responsible for the mortality not tracking the incidence.  Melanoma
was the leading cancer for males under 50 years, and females under 35
years. They also note that there has been little change during the
1930-80 period to the histopathological diagnosis of  melanoma, and
that the large increases in age standardised incidence rates are real.

So how does this relate to UV?. The article provides a table of
age-standardised incidence rates by regional health authority and
gender from 1968-93.
RHA	Mean Latitude	Males	Females
North	36 degrees S	20.7	25.0
Midland	38 degrees S	19.2	24.2
Central	41 degrees S	16.3	20.3
South	44 degrees S	13.8	18.6

They then note,
"Overall, incidence rates of Melanoma in NZ are higher than expected
on the basis of the country's latitude, being about 50% higher than in
Australian states of similar latitude [2]. The north-south orientation of
NZ ( extending from 34S to 47S ) results in different levels in UV from
the northen to southern part of the country ( see accompanying article
[10]), producing a large variation in incidence rates within NZ [above
table ]. When measured by the mean % change per degree of latitute,
the differences with latitude were found to be greater for males than
females, and for incidence compared to mortality [11]"

Both papers extensively discuss confounding factors like lifestyle
choices and host factors that affect exposure and susceptibility, as
well as the difficulty of recalling historical exposures decades later.

So, NZ has unusually high UV levels for its latitude, and the UV levels
are inversely correlated with the ozone levels. NZ also has unusually
high incidence of, and mortality from, cutaneous malignant melanoma
- a cancer that  is linked to previous episodes of sunburn in sun-sensitive
people ( Controversies in the Role of Sunlight in the Pathogenesis of
Cutaneous Melanoma - P&P  v63 p406-409, or Photobiology of
Photocarcinogenesis on p372-375 of the same journal ). The NZ
population most at risk arrived from northern latitudes where UV levels
were much lower.

Undoubtably you can choose to dream up possible confounding factors
to explain the higher UV = higher CMM in sensitive populations, such as
the issues of tanning and pigmentation, but the Maori and Pacific Island
communities in NZ migrated from a higher UV environment to NZ, enjoy
similar lifestyle choices to the Europeans, and yet melanoma is much
rarer in their populations. The European populations have also settled
elsewhere in the world during the same period, but it is the areas with
abnormally high UVR without extreme heat ( like NZ, Hawaii - where people
can work/play all day in the sun without apparent discomfort ( but
damage is occuring in sensitive people ) that have elevated rates of skin
cancer.

I suppose I could repeat the above exercise with non-melanoma skin
cancer, where a recent estimate [ UNEP, Environmental Effects of Ozone
Depletion. Ambio v24 p137-197  ] has estimated that for each 1% depletion
of ozone, the associated UVR increases will result in a 2% increase in
non-melanoma skin cancer - if all other factors remain the same. UVR
has also been implicated skin ageing and cataract formation, but as I'm
already convinced, I don't intend to waste time finding all the data,
but I'm sure the WMO, UNEP, and Photochemistry and Photobiology
journals will have plenty if you want the evidence.

For those poor souls who strayed this far, as a present, here is a chart
from the Public Health journal that gives the relationship between UV
Index, Burn Time, and Relative Risk. The approximate conversion is
Burn Time (minutes) = 144/UV Index. The UV index is the standard
International scale.

UV Index		Burn Time	Relative Risk
		(minutes0
0 ( dark )		-		no danger
1		144		minimal
2		72		"
3		48		low
4		36		"
5		29		moderate
6		24		"
7		21		high
8		18		"
9		16		"
10		14		very high
11		13		"
12		12		extreme
13		11		"
14		10		"

The highest NZ summer UV Index exceeds 12.

        Bruce Hamilton

From: rparson@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert Parson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,aus.politics
Subject: Re: Ozone hole=storm in a teacup
Date: 15 Dec 1996 00:59:03 GMT

In article <58su7v$ari$2@coffee.DIALix.COM>,
Greig Ebeling <eggsoft@sydney.dialix.oz.au> wrote:
>rparson@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert Parson) wrote:

>>_Incremental_ further increases in Cl will have little effect.
>
>Interesting.
>
>>_Large_ increases, that could allow rapid
>> depletion to occur in other altitude or latitude ranges, is another
>> story altogether.
>
>Another story indeed.  Whether ozone depletion occurs significantly in
>the absence of PSCs (ie at other latitudes and altitudes), remains
>highly questionable.  A reasonable amount of observational data
>demonstrating that this actually can/does occur would be necessary,
>before a confident prediction can be made.

 Stratospheric cooling can stabilize the vortex and increase the
 latitude  range over which PSCs are abundant. This is discussed in the
 Schoeberl and Hartmann paper cited in the FAQ.

>[snip]
>
>> Consider the Arctic. Consider middle latitudes. The antarctic is
>> simply the place where the stratosphere's 'buffer' is weakest.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by this, Robert.  My understanding is that
>the antarctic is unique because stratospheric temperatures are  more
>persistently low, resulting in more PSCs, hence more ClO is available.

 And if you have more total inorganic Cl, you need fewer PSCs to
 reach the threshold of nonlinear ozone destruction. Indeed this
 is probably the reason why the Antarctic
 Ozone Hole seems to be growing in _duration_ - opening earlier
 in August. With enough inorganic Cl you won't need PSCs at all -
 that is the point of the Prather et al. paper, which was written
 before anybody knew about the effects of PSCs.
 PSCs are basically an amplifier.

>> 2.5 ppbv stratospheric chlorine produced ~50% depletion over
>> antarctica. 3.5 ppbv stratospheric chlorine has produced incipient
>> ozone hole phenomena in the arctic.
>
>PSCs also occur to a lesser extent over the arctic, but they are less
>persistent than in the south, so polar ozone depletion is much less
>than in the south.  To suggest that it is incipient wrt Cl ppvs is not
>consistent with the observation of "plateau'ing" in the south, which
>is due (put simply) to exhaustion of the ClO generation process due to
>PSCs.

 No, no, no. The "plateau" is due to exhaution of the _ozone_ in the
 vortex core, not to exhaustion of the ClO generation process.

>  The observation indicates that increased Cl concentration will
>not increase polar ozone depletion, since PSC supply is the limiting
>factor.

 No, With fewer PSCs, you need more total Cl to reach the threshold
 of nonlinear ozone depletion.

>> And on top of this the stratosphere
>> is cooling and is likely to continue doing so for many decades
>
>Yes indeed, there appears to be a cooling trend, which I understand is
>due partly to increased CO2, but mostly due to ozone depletion itself.
>With the current "plateau'ing" of ozone depletion, we could perhaps
>predict a corresponding plateau wrt to stratospheric temperature.

 There is no sign of a "plateau" in ozone depletion outside the antarctic.
 And the CO2 cooling will continue to increase in importance. (This
 is largely independent of the extent to which greenhouse _warming_
 takes place at the surface - greenhouse stratospheric cooling is a
 much more robust result.)

>> Do you know what the third coldest place in the stratosphere is?
>> No, not middle latitudes - it's the _tropical_ stratosphere.
>
>Unless you are prepared to predict the appearance of PSCs, or a long
>polar night, at the tropics, then I fail to see the relevance of this
>observation to ozone depletion.

 There have, in fact, been a few reports of PSCs in the tropics.

>[snip]
>
>[snip]
>
>> The following table, extracted from a much more detailed one in
>>[Herman et al.], illustrates the seasonal and regional trends in
>>_percent per decade_ for the period 1979-1990:
>
>> Latitude      Jan     Apr     Jul     Oct      Example
>
>>  65 N        -3.0    -6.6    -3.8    -5.6      Iceland
>>  55 N        -4.6    -6.7    -3.1    -4.4      Moscow, Russia
>>  45 N        -7.0    -6.8    -2.4    -3.1      Minneapolis, USA
>>  35 N        -7.3    -4.7    -1.9    -1.6      Tokyo
>>  25 N        -4.2    -2.9    -1.0    -0.8      Miami, FL, USA
>>   5 N        -0.1    +1.0    -0.1    +1.3      Somalia
>>
>>   5 S        +0.2    +1.0    -0.2    +1.3      New Guinea
>>  25 S        -2.1    -1.6    -1.6    -1.1      Pretoria, S. Africa
>>  35 S        -3.6    -3.2    -4.5    -2.6      Buenos Aires
>>  45 S        -4.8    -4.2    -7.7    -4.4      New Zealand
>>  55 S        -6.1    -5.6    -9.8    -9.7      Tierra del Fuego
>>  65 S        -6.0    -8.6   -13.1   -19.5      Palmer Peninsula
>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Bearing in mind that this table does not actually show seasonal
>variations, but the variations for each season from year to year.  It
>also does not show daily and global variations which are also very
>large by comparison with the figures.

 Once again, the fact that the seasonal variations are larger
 than the long-term trend does not make the latter unimportant.

>Since I have not seen the original table in Hermann et al., I am left
>to wonder how these figures were extracted.  Are they a direct
>comparison between 1979 and 1990, or perhaps between the peak values
>during that period?  Since I presume you made the extraction, Robert,
>perhaps you could satisify my curiosity.

 The complete table contains all months and more latitudes. I just
 didn't feel like typing it all in.

 This is _not_ a spot comparison. The trends are obtained from a
 statistical analysis of the entire time series in each latitude band.

>> BTW, the mid-latitude trend is more like 4.5% per decade. You get
>> 3% when you average in the tropics as well.
>
>Why is it not appropriate to include the tropics?  Surely the
>mid-latitude process (action on the sulphate aerosol layer and gas
>phase mechanism), should occur equally at the tropics.  I note that
>the table extracted from Hermann et al. shows that this does not
>occur.  Why is that?

 For a variety of reasons, some having to do with the temperature
 dependence of the reaction rates (some get faster at higher temps,
 some slower) some having to do with the height of the tropopause,
 (the whole stratosphere is at higher altitudes in the tropics, and
 this affects the density of the aerosol layer and other things)
 some having to do with transport (in middle latitudes, chemistry and
 transport are strongly coupled; ozone being destroyed here shows up
 as ozone loss somewhere else). I don't know if a simple rationale
 is possible; calculations based on known chemistry and dynamics
 do show local depletion increasing away from the tropics. (In fact
 this even shows up in the calculations in WMO 1985, which use
 only gas-phase chemistry.)

>>> Also, and by your own admission in your FAQ, the
>>>current levels are very small compared to daily, seasonal and global
>>>variations,
>
>> So what? That does not render them irrelevant.
>
>Well, no, not irrelevant.  Just insignificant wrt terrestrial UV-B
>levels and natural biological resistance to UV damage.  And at the end
>of the day, that is what is important.

 Not so. A small change in the mean of a fluctuating quantity results
 in a _large_ change in the probability of extreme events. And at the
 end of the day, it is the extreme events that count. You aren't likely
 to get DNA damage on an average day, you get in on a very high UV day.

 The calculated increases in nonmelanoma skin cancer, mentioned
 elsewhere in this thread, are based upon precisely these supposedly
 "insignificant" increases in UV.

>> The lack of conclusive evidence of increased UV-B is primarily due
>> to the fact that we do not have a "pre-ozone-depletion" baseline for it.
>
>But we do have a sufficient "pre-ozone-depletion" baseline for
>prediction of trends in ozone loss?

 Of course. We have the world-wide network of Dobson stations going back
 to the 1950's. We have single-station measurements going back to the
 20's and '30s. For total UV we have nothing remotely comparable.
 The data simply aren't there.

> You can't have it both ways.

 We can, and do.

>>>Interesting assumption on which to base a THEORETICAL analysis.  And
>>>where is the data to back up this assumption?  D'oh!
>
>> Why not pursue the subject and learn where the data is? Learn
>> something about atmospheric radiative transfer and UV photobiology.
>
>I have become quite used to individuals accusing me of ignorance, as a
>cover for their own lack of ability to engage the questions I raise.
>I had previously thought, Robert, that you are above that method of
>obfuscation.

 I am not trying to obfuscate. I am suggesting that you should spend
 some time investigating the literature before passing judgement on
 a paper. You did _not_ do this when you tried to model the
 Cl balance, for example, and as a result got terribly confused.
 Seriously, you need to start doing your homework _first_, instead of
 continually tossing out assertions and challenging others to refute
 them, and then coming back with _more_ assertions.

>DeGruijl's paper predicts a correlation between ozone loss and cancer.
>If the correlation was between UV-B exposure and cancer, I would
>accept it.  But since the jury is out when it comes to correlating
>ozone loss and increase UV-B exposure, DeGruijl has made an
>inappropriate leap of faith in his conclusion.

>> These are mature subjects with an extensive literature. Nonmelanoma
>> skin cancer, particularly squamous cell carcinoma, is one of the
>> best understood of all cancers - the mechanism is known in detail
>> at the molecular level. The dose-response curve is well known.
>> The UV trends themselves aren't well known, but that situation
>> is finally changing.
>
>I don't doubt any of this Robert.  But it's off the point.  The issue
>is this: is there a correlation between ozone depletion and
>significant increases in exposure to UV-B, and if/when this occurs is
>the harm consistent with our efforts to prevent it.  If a correlation
>or cost/benefit can't be shown, then all the knowledge in the world
>about UV/cancer and CFC/ozone loss yields nothing of any relevance (ie
>its a storm in a teacup).

 There _is_ evidence of a correlation. At this time it is indirect,
 because of the lack of surface UV measurements - in particular,
 the absence of a pre-ozone-depletion base line. Nevertheless
 there is a good deal of indirect evidence, based upon measurements
 of ozone-UV correlations at particular locations. I have cited some
 of these in the FAQ. Total UV measurements are inherently more
 difficult than ozone measurements (after all, what the Dobson
 spectrophotometer actually measures is relative UV-B intensities,
 and absolute measurements are always more difficult than relative
 ones, a fortiori when the latter must include scattered as well
 as direct solar radiation.) Combining this with the absence of
 a pre-ozone-depletion baseline, and the very limited amount of
 data available prior to the past couple of years,I don't think it
 particularly surprising that the present level of mid-latitude ozone
 depletion has not _yet_ been identified as a trend in measured surface
 UV-B. It means that we need to improve the quality and quantity of
 the measurements, while at the same time investigating the physics
 to make sure that we have identified all confounding factors.

>> As for "photochemical haze", San Diego is not Los Angeles.
>
>Show me a North American city unaffected by car exhaust pollution.

 I stand by my statement: measured springtime UV on the Antarctic
 peninsula exceeded measured UV in San Diego in all seasons, including
 midsummer.

>> You claimed that "ozone depletion at the poles results in insignificant
>> UV increase." I submit that springtime UV on the Antarctic Peninsula
>> that exceeds summertime UV in San Diego is hardly "insignificant."
>
>I did not say that UV increase AT the poles was insignificant, only
>that polar ozone depletion resulted in insignificant increases in UV
>exposure (in populated areas ie mid latitudes).

 Nope. What you said was:

 >>>Ozone depletion at the poles results in insignificant UV increase,
 >>>because the sun is so low on the horizon.

 To me that implies that you were talking about UV at the poles.

>PS I have snipped the issues, history of photospectrometric
>measurement, and natural stratospheric chlorine budget.  For brevity
>and the sake of others, I must concede, bowing to Robert Parsons
>greater knowledge on these subjects.  They are also not very important
>to my overall thesis regarding the state of the tea-leaves in my
>morning cuppa.

 I commend Greig Ebeling's willingness to publicly retract his
 assertions when presented with contrary evidence, although, as
 noted above, I am frustrated by always having to be the one to
 provide the evidence, even when it's already in the damn FAQ.
 I have never been interested in convincing anyone to adopt any
 particular position on matters of policy. My observation has been
 that the great majority of people who actually take the trouble
 to investigate the science in depth  have ended up supporting
 a relatively swift CFC phaseout. This includes people of all sorts
 of political persuasions and indeed of a variety of position on
 environmental issues in general - Paul Dietz, Steinn Sigurdsson,
 and the late Carl J. Lydick are not usually regarded as
 environmental extremists :-).

 ------
 Robert

From: Jonathan Shanklin <j.shanklin@bas.ac.uk>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Ozone Depletion is a FRAUD !!!
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 10:28:34 +0100

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------446B794B15FB


--
Jon Shanklin
j.shanklin@bas.ac.uk
British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, England
http://www.nbs.ac.uk/public/icd/jds/ozone/

--------------446B794B15FB

There is an oft quoted statement that the Antarctic ozone hole was
discovered in 1956 and therefore it can't be caused by CFCs.  This remark
originates from a paper by Professor G M B Dobson, the scientist who
designed the ozone spectrophotometer which has been the standard for
ozone measurements since the 1930s.  The big advantage in standardising
on one make of instrument is that we can be certain that changes in ozone
amount that are measured, are changes in the atmosphere rather than
changes due to observational technique.  The following is taken from
Dobson's paper in Applied Optics, March 1968, Vol 7, No3.

'One of the more interesting results on atmospheric ozone which came out
of the IGY (International Geophysical Year) was the discovery of the
peculiar annual variation of ozone at Halley Bay (76 south, 26 west).  The
annual variation of ozone at Spitzbergen was fairly well known at that time,
so, assuming a six months difference, we knew what to expect.  However,
when the monthly telegrams from Halley Bay began to arrive and were
plotted alongside the Spitzbergen curve, the values for September and
October 1956 were about 150 units lower than was expected.  We naturally
thought that Evans has made some large mistake or that, in spite of checking
just before leaving England, the instrument had developed some fault.  In
November the ozone values suddenly jumped up to those expected from the
Spitzbergen results.  It was not until a year later, when the same type of
annual variation was repeated, that we realized that the early results were
indeed correct and that Halley Bay showed a most interesting difference
from other parts of the world.  It was clear that the winter vortex over the
South Pole was maintained late into the spring and that this kept the ozone
values low.  When it suddenly broke up in November both the ozone values
and the stratosphere temperatures suddenly rose.'

This table shows the difference between what Dobson expected from
Spitzbergen, the normal values observed at Halley between 1956 and 1975
and the values presently observed.  Mean October ozone values have fallen
by around 3% per year since 1976, while the amount of chlorine has risen
by 3% per year.

Spitz	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct
1956	440	470	450	400	350	320	300	280	280
Halley	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr
1956	300	300	300	330	350	320	300	280	280
1996	172	155	149	181	260	278	265	245	242

The Antarctic ozone hole is the depletion in the spring over and above that
caused by the different atmospheric circulations in the two hemispheres.
Signs can be seen in data from 1976 when you know what to look for, but
suspicion didn't really arise until the end of the decade and the paper
announcing the discovery of ozone loss in the Antarctic was not published
until 1985.  When American satellite data was reanalysed it became
apparent that it was a phenomena that covered the whole of the Antarctic
and it was given the name ozone hole.  The latest data also show ozone
depletion during the summer and autumn months, in addition to the spring-
time 'hole'.

--------------446B794B15FB--