zin said:
If there were only an event that could occur to knock out VLF long enough to let nature resume its course.
Without a doubt, from a certain angle it would be beneficial, but on the other hand, if it turns out that there is a positive correlation between the VLF waves and the destruction of the ozone layer (and, apparently, what it might look for). Exposes laura in volume 1 of the wave) in case this would lead us to a second correlation in which it would be necessary the deestruction of this so that the UV radiation or other wavelengths (or whatever) can do certain works In our DNA, to fabor by suspicion ... it is evident that I am referring to a possible case of making lemonade if they give us lemons and after all they are not lessons the only thing there is and the SAS only see what they want ... I will explain "briefly" what I found, from the start to say that in conjunction with the volcanic activity the impact although sum does not seem to be as high as this and the atmospheric chlorine released by these, many scientists say that this does not reach to reach The atmosphere p Orque is swept by the rains ... and others say that this does not eliminate everything and good part arrives, and I am more fabor of these last ones, in this link towards the BBC (some dignity is left to him)
http://www.bbc .com / news / science-environment-36674996
Speak of a study that says that the ozone layer would be healing but in the same report by the BBC say that this went to hell with the eruption of the volcano calbuco in chile in 2015 that deterioration The ozone layer creating a hole of record size ... these eruptions would facilitate the formation of stratospheric clouds formed in Antarctica by cold weather and great amount of light ... not by the chlorine mentioned but by the fact that sulfur Released works as seeds or apollo point to facilitate condensation as do bacteria or space dust then in these clouds (I do not know how well you are sure better than me but maybe you could use the "class" and Is supposed to be chlorine from CFCs that although they contribute to the deterioration seems to me a minor amount ... only the Erebus volcano in Antartica releases between 200 and 300 tons of chlorine daily that does not need to be dissociated as The CFCs to be active.
From left to right contribution of chlorine to the atmosphere: sea water, volcanic activity, burning of biomass, oceanic life, chlorine content in CFCs and chlorine released from CFC (a more real value)
Also to finish with the subject of the scientific CFCs have found behind of these deposited in the ice Antartico that would demonstrate that in spite of the prohibition of CFC still they continue being produced illegally ... they say that are smaller amounts than those of old ... but I would not trust this statement.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26485048
Good now to happen to the subject of the VLF waves and the precipitation of electrons that would contribute to the destruction of the ozone layer:
There is a certain range of these waves used in communication with submarines that would protect the earth from solar eruptions and coronal mass ejections ... (good thing this sounds for the SAS if we consider that this could have a high incidence in the interruption of light waves ) But at the same time VLF waves at certain frequencies cause the previously mentioned electron precipitation that would destroy the ozone layer, I quote from wikipedia:
Electron precipitation can lead to a substantial, short-term loss of ozone (capping out at around 90%). However, this phenomena also correlates to some long term ozone depletion as well.[6] Studies have revealed that 60 major electron precipitation events occurred from 2002 to 2012. Different measurement tools (see below) read different ozone depletion averages ranging from 5-90%. However, some of the tools (specifically the ones that reported lower averages) did not take accurate readings or missed a couple of years. Typically, ozone depletion resulting from electron precipitation is more common during the winter season. The largest EEP event from the studies during 2002 to 2012 was recorded in October 2003. This event caused an ozone depletion of up to 92%. It lasted for 15 days and the ozone layer was fully restored a couple of days afterwards. EEP ozone depletion studies are important for monitoring the safety of Earth's environment[7] and variations in the solar cycle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_precipitation
If I understood correctly could a large precipitation of these electrons disable much of the ozone layer for a while? (Although I do not want to say that this is uncommon according to law there are many situations in which the ozone is deteriorated but recovers quickly because only oxygen and ultraviolet radiation is needed).
Continuing these precipitations of electrons by means of several reactions form greater concentrations of hydroxyl radical that destroys the o3 the curious thing of this study is that it was realized during the solar minimum and I have already checked here that it is theorized a relation between the solar minimum and the increase of The cosmic rays
Energetic particles precipitating into the mesosphere and lower thermosphere are known to produce copious amounts of odd nitrogen (NOX: N, NO, NO2) and odd hydrogen (HOX: H, HO, HO2), which can contribute to ozone (O3) destruction [e.g., Jackman et al., 2005; Sinnhuber et al., 2012]. The energetic particles (electrons, protons, and heavier ions) have different solar drivers. Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) associated with sunspots predominantly occur during solar maximum and are the cause of solar proton events (SPEs) which can lead to strong geomagnetic activity. The influence of the infrequent SPEs upon the middle atmosphere has been extensively studied [see, e.g., Bates and Nicolet, 1950; Weeks et al., 1972; Swider and Keneshea, 1973; Crutzen and Solomon, 1980; Solomon et al., 1981; López-Puertas et al., 2005;Damiani et al., 2008, 2010; Verronen and Lehmann, 2013; Jackman et al., 2014; Nesse Tyssøy and Stadsnes, 2015]. The atmospheric effects of the more frequent energetic electron precipitation (EEP) events are less known and harder to detect. During geomagnetic storms energetic electrons are injected and stored in the magnetosphere where they can be accelerated to relativistic energies [Foster et al., 2014] and subsequently lost to the atmosphere [Turner et al., 2014]. The penetration depth varies with the particle energy, for example, a 30 keV electron will stop at ∼90 km, while a 1 MeV electron penetrates to about 60 km [Turunen et al., 2009]. Individually, such storms have weaker geomagnetic signatures than SPEs. It is, however, speculated that these events, because of their frequent occurrence, will have a strong impact on the atmosphere in general [Andersson et al., 2014a].
Bartels [1932] identified “M regions” on the solar surface as the source of the sequences of recurrent geomagnetic activity that occurred during minimum solar activity. M regions are in fact coronal holes (CHs) and are independent of sunspot activity [Allen, 1943]. They are associated with open magnetic field lines and, high-speed, low-density flows in the solar wind [Billings and Roberts, 1964]. CHs are the source of high-speed solar wind streams (HSSWS) and subsequent recurrent geomagnetic activity [e.g., Neupert and Pizzo, 1974; Burlaga and Lepping,1977; Sheeley and Harvey, 1981]. The interaction of the fast solar wind associated with CHs with the slow solar wind streams results in the compression of the magnetic field and plasma at their interfaces forming a corotating interaction region (CIR), which is the geoeffective structure [Tsurutani et al., 2006; Gopalswamy, 2008]. However, the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) associated with CIRs has a highly oscillating nature, which results in only moderate intensification of the magnetospheric currents and hence moderate geomagnetic signatures. The intensity of the resulting storm depends on the combination of solar wind speed and the direction of the Bz component [Gopalswamy, 2008].
Recent studies [Verronen et al., 2011; Andersson et al., 2012, 2014b, 2014a] provide observational evidence of radiation belt (geomagnetic latitudes 55°–65°) electron precipitation (100–300 keV) affecting mesospheric (71–78 km) OH. Based on two case studies in the declining phase of the solar cycle, Verronen et al. [2011] found that 56–87% of the changes in OH could be explained by changes in EEP. In a follow up study, Andersson et al. [2012] focused on a larger part of the solar cycle from solar maximum to solar minimum. They found months of high correlation between daily zonal mean OH mixing ratios at 70–78 km and the flux of 100–300 keV electrons. The correlation coefficients were highly dependent on season and the strength of the particle precipitation. Andersson et al. [2014b] studied the longitudinal response of nighttime mesospheric OH to >30 keV electron precipitation, contrasting days with daily mean count rates of >100 c/s to days with <5 c/s. In total 51 days between 2005 and 2009 met the first criteria. Generally, they concluded that clear effects of EEP were seen at magnetic latitudes 55°–72°. In the Southern Hemisphere (SH), the OH data revealed localized OH mixing ratio enhancements at longitudes between 150°W and 30°E, over West Antarctica, poleward of the South Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (SAMA) region. In the Northern Hemisphere (NH), EEP-induced OH variations were more equally distributed with longitude; however, two potential regions of enhanced OH mixing ratio above Northern America and Northern Russia were found.
The middle atmosphere has a strong seasonal dynamical variability, including both the background meridional and zonal winds, as well as the atmospheric wave activity [see, e.g.,Shepherd, 2000; Kleinknecht et al., 2014]. For example, Damiani et al. [2010] have shown that during sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs), the OH layer may show short-term variations comparable in strength to the OH increases during SPEs. Andersson et al. [2014b] did not include potential seasonal or meteorological factors when considering the particle impact upon the longitudinal distribution of OH, although there appears to be features less constrained to the magnetic latitudes and geomagnetic activity in both hemispheres. During strong particle precipitation events, the OH production due to background dynamics of the atmosphere might be overshadowed by the impact of energetic particle precipitation (EPP). However, during the more frequent and modest changes, the dynamical background will be of higher importance. Moreover, for the more frequent events, the magnitude of the direct EEP-induced HOX effect on O3 in the mesosphere is high enough to suspect that EEP could be an important contribution to the Sun-climate connection on solar cycle time scales [Andersson et al., 2014a]. Assessing the impact and spatial distribution of electron forcing is, therefore, important for more accurate modeling of its atmospheric and climate effects.
The quantification of relativistic electron precipitation has, however, proved difficult due to particle detector challenges [see, e.g., Nesse Tyssøy et al., 2016]. In addition, radiation belt electrons usually have strong anisotropic pitch angle distribution that needs to be accounted for when considering their impact upon the atmosphere [Rodger et al., 2013; Nesse Tyssøy et al., 2016]. In this study, we optimize the data from the Medium Energy Proton and Electron Detectors (MEPED) on the Polar Orbiting Environmental Satellite (POES) NOAA-18, taking into account detector degradation, proton contamination, and combining data from both the 0° and 90° telescopes to achieve a better estimate of the true loss cone fluxes. We also use electron fluxes with energy >1000 keV obtained from the proton telescopes to determine the EEP impact on OH in the middle atmosphere [Nesse Tyssøy et al., 2016]. Whereas Andersson et al. [2014b] used all available POES satellites, we only use NOAA-18, which is traversing the same local time as the Aura satellite making it possible to study the local effects of the energy deposition by relativistic electrons on OH. The data and its application are further explained in the next section.
Since most studies have focused on geomagnetic activity during solar maximum, it is paramount to get a deeper understanding of the contribution of EEP on HOX also during solar minimum. Therefore, we target the solar minimum year of 2008, where a sequence of weak to moderate storms triggered by HSSWS occurred. The low intensity of the recurrent storms implies that we need to carefully consider the role of the changing background dynamics upon the OH distribution. In addition to OH mixing ratios, the Aura MLS provides measurements of temperature, water vapor (H2O), and geopotential height (GPH) which reveal the background state of the atmosphere. Thus, extracting information on both the longitude and altitude distribution enables us for the first time, to separate the OH variability caused by EEP and by atmospheric dynamics. The resulting analysis is given in section 3, and the subsequent discussions and conclusion follows in sections 4 and 5.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016JA022371/full
OH + O3 → HO2 + O2 k1 (1.9) HO2 + O3 → OH + 2 O2 k2 (1.10) Although not affiliated with the mechanism for the Antarctic ozone hole, the above catalytic reaction is responsible for roughly half of the global ozone loss. 4 This cycle is active in the mid-latitudes, at an altitude of ≤ 25 km, which is in the lower stratosphere, just above the tropopause (see figure 1-2). Unlike the other chain reactions involving ozone, the above cycle does not involve O atoms as a reactant. This is important because, in the lower stratosphere, three-body recombination of O atoms with O2 is quite rapid. Therefore, O atom concentrations are quite low in this region.
https://jila.colorado.edu/sites/default/files/assets/files/publications/blackmon.pdf
Well, after all the presented one has to add the positions that all this is a farce, many people who affirm this of departure are also against the global warming antropogenico so at least the intentions of that are trying to speak the truth without without Second intentions is a little more plausible, in addition the way in which the ban on CFCs comes to mind reminds me a lot about "global warming" and the war on fats ... for example the "ozone hole" is not More that a decrease in the thickness of the layer and not a hole as such ... this would occur more in winter since the lack of UV radiation can not conbertir the oxygen in ozone to maintain the levels ... and in itself That the deterioration by natural sources would be of much greater impact
(Source in Spanish, pull google translator ... it is worth if you want to see the arguments against cfc)
Http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Ozo/Ozono-NAS.html
... where is the problem? Because it does not fit me with what they said cassiopaeios with respect to the CFC ... I do not want to unbundle their words that does not fit is due to the apparent minor impact in comparison to the already said natural sources ... what makes me think That this is a little turbulent for me and I want the others ... so I ask for help with pleasure, having to have to tell me.
