Ringworld

I'll have to consult the people at Cosmic Variance to get a rough estimate...

He's sort of right with the last sentence though. Really. If you believe the distance to the sun is one light year, or that the ozone layer is 3 mm thick, "you'll believe anything." I guess that's what's he's relying on.

He might've just got horribly confused after reading this line in the wikipedia article:

"If all of the ozone were compressed to the pressure of the air at sea level, it would be only a few millimeters thick."

Ooo, I wanna try!

1. So sheet metal is made of...not molecules?
2. I suspect ozone and CO2 are distributed in slightly different ways in the atmosphere...slightly.
3. Oh, also, they aren't the same molecule, so they wouldn't do the same thing. He's got some sort of reverse-homeopathy 'different is same' craziness thing going on there.
4. Apparently physics and chemistry is a belief system.
5. I have a theory that this guy might be a nudist, which is a whole different kind of wrong. Why wear clothes? You think that tiny bit of material can prevent photons from blasting their way in and out, exposing yourself for all to see? Of course not, they're PHOTONS! You know what else uses photons? Torpedoes on Star Trek. Debate over.
6. I'd like to hear where he got the 'sun is a light year away' idea. Maybe it's very cold where he lives. In New Zealand.
7. Just because he's being silly.

I've never seen such unbridled wrongness. His wrongitude is strong.

Wrongtacular.

"I've never seen such unbridled wrongness. His wrongitude is strong.

Wrongtacular."

It's interesting, because he's probably wrongophobic too, even though he displays tendencies that are just... wrong.

Gosh, I didn't know we were a whole light year from the Sun. I've been labouring under the false impression that we are only a few minutes from the Sun (when travelling at the speed of light).

I guess someone should go and tell the Gaia that she's supposed to be a whole light year from the Sun. Hopefully she'll quickly zoom out into the depths of space and the surface of the Earth will freeze to near absolute zero.

Now that would put an end to global warming!

Ken, if you're reading this, I know you're probably feeling pretty stupid right about now, but this might be the perfect time to trot out the Never-Fails⢠Pygmies + Dwarves argument

If you believe a 3mm Ozone layer is protecting the 200 million square miles of the surface of the Earth from the sun's intense energy that travels out one light year from source then you'll believe anything

I believe the rubes who are the intended audience will not think about whether this is, like, really wrong an' sh*t. I believe the rubes will laugh at their assuredness that the green environazis are dreamers too busy to worship Gaia to check the "facts" that Ringer presents.

Best,

D

All I know is that Earth must be moving awfully fast, especially since our orbit, if this is correct, requires us to go at least 6.29 light years per year.

So, if we are indeed moving faster than light in a our trip around the Sun, doesn't that mean we are actually moving backward in time, which also means that global warming will now reverse it's historical course? (and none too soon)

All I know is that this is obviously solved by some sort of tachyon pulse traveling backwards in time. Duh!

"Get it right Thomas, harms or protects, you can't have it both ways."
Oh yes we can.
http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/ozone/what.html

"sun's intense energy that travels out one light year from source" = good science

"earth's energy balance with the rest of the universe" = bad science.

Got it.

"how many basic science errors did Ring make in that one papragraph?"

HA! You said papragraph! Therefore there is no such thing as global warming or an ozone hole!

(although more sanely, the papragaph you provide is an excellent indication of the fractal nature of antiscientific argument pointed out previously)

Ken Ring "Isn't it funny how it is only warmers who say "scientific consensus" and "it is beyond doubt". Well it isn't to me and the climate scientists in this coalition and most of the skeptical public. Neither to David Bellamy, Bjorn Lomberg, Michael Crichton and many others."

I'm sure Bellam et al reallly appreciate being enlisted in Ken's support.

The wrong is strong in that one.

Use the wrong, Ring.

Ground-level ozone: no fun, no fun at all.
x.x

On the other hand, he is 100% correct when he points out that the ozone layer is not made of sheet metal.

To be fair, he doesn't say that we're a light year from the sun. He doesn't even suggest it. But by the time one gets to that point in his paragraph, after all the boggling wrongtacularity that precedes it, it is hard to resist a deliberate misunderstanding.

If you believe a 3mm Ozone layer is protecting the 200 million square miles of the surface of the Earth from the sun's intense energy that travels out one light year from source then you'll believe anything.

Ken's wording is clumsy, but I believe my interpretation is the most obvious one. Why else would Ken mention the Sun's energy travelling out one light year?

Then again maybe this is another trick, make one's wording so clumsy that it could mean anything.

I've just looked at Ken Ring's site. The first paragraph contains this gem:

For New Zealand and Australia you can view what daily weather may occur for the town near you over the next few days under Free Forecast. The predictions have been generated only by using the orbits of the moon. The database for this website was installed and sealed FIVE years ago - but it could just as easily have been twenty or 200. Meteorologists use daily satellite readouts to forecast for no more than the next 3-5 days, but the moon method makes it possible to go much further.

That's right folks, all those silly meterologists with their super-computers, all they really need is to study the moon.

I'm surprised there aren't men in white coats marching up his driveway right now!

In Ringworld the sun's rays ONLY travel one light year out at which point they are stopped by a 3 mm thick layer of stainless steel, known professionally as scrith material when used for that purpose. After a beer or two they do the reverse commute home.

Er, I hate to dispute an obvious brain like Eli, but if I remember my ringworld science correctly, the radius, (or is that circumference, I always get those confused. Then again, I am not as well versed in such subjects as Ken Ring, so I suppose there is no harm in admitting this) was 1 AU. So the light hitting that scrith travelled exactly the same distance that sunlight travels when hitting the earth.

That is, if we assume that the sun is actually not one light year away...

"if we assume that the sun is actually not one light year away"

The sun is clearly one light year away, because the Universe was only created 6,000 years ago.

I note that the NZCSC offers "commonsense about climate change."

Common sense (sic) would tend to suggest that one shouldn't take guidance on highly complex and important matters from people who incorporate spelling errors into their logo.

http://www.climatescience.org.nz/assets/2006512202690.KyotoC.TaxNoDiffe…

Brian Leyland, the chairman of the NZCSC's "Economic Panel" upholds the intellectual standards we've come to expect from that organisation.

Leyland complains about the cost of carbon trading then points to recent steep declines in the emission price to support his view.

Most people would assume that a lower price for a commodity meant that the cost of acquiring a given stock of that commodity was also going down.

Brian closes with: "New Zealand would lose a lot of money. (In the United Kingdom alone, $1.5 billion.)"

That wonderfully garbled parting shot suggests his communication skills are just as strong as his economic analysis skills and Ken's grasp of the physical sciences.

Another gem from Ken's predictweather site:

http://www.predictweather.com/articles.asp?ID=27

"There is no way that human or animal activity on those tiny imperceptible dots that we call cities, that contain those nasty factories, that are so far away you can't see them, on the vast landscape of the surface of the earth below, can make a jot of difference to influence, let alone permanently alter, those gigantic swirling systems that we call The Weather. The notion of a bunch of farts doing so is not only insane, it insults our intelligence. And didn't they teach us at school that gases disperse rather than accumulate?"

It's tempting to suggest that Ken put that theory about dispersal to the test by locking himself in a garage with a running car to see whether the carbon monoxide disperses or accumulates.

Hint: it doesn't disperse if there's nowhere for it to disperse TO.

"Guess how much methane is in the atmosphere at any one time. Well, CO2 occupies 350 parts per million, 0.03% at any one snapshot of time. That means 99% of CO2 is permanently NOT in the atmosphere but at or near ground level or under the sea. But methane? Only ONE part per million constitutes the atmosphere."

So if the carbon dioxide makes up one percent of the atmosphere, the atmosphere must contain only 1% of the CO2?

I note that the atmosphere is only around 20% oxygen - I wonder where the other 80% of the oxygen is?

I must apologize to Dominion, I was referring to KenRingworld (TM), an altogether more vacuous place. In answer to the obvious question, not only can't I resist, I absolutely, positively, REFUSE to even try.

a 3mm Ozone layer

3mm thick? I guess someone must have gone up in a balloon or something and measured with a ruler.

Or maybe it's those super accurate satellites, which as every person with "common sense" knows, are far better than those evil ground stations for measuring climate stuff, especially temperature.

"3mm Ozone layer"

Aha! first site coming up on google is....
http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=750
Australian Antarctic Division
Home > Experience Antarctica > Looking Up: Atmospheric Sciences >
» Looking Up: Atmospheric Sciences
» The ozone layer
» Step by Step guide to the atmosphere
The ozone layer
Life's protective blanket
"So small is the amount of ozone above us that if we brought all of the ozone down to sea level temperature and pressure, it would be equivalent to a layer of pure ozone approximately 3mm thick."

Apparently we have to add "Boyle's law" to the list of material to be covered in remedial classes.

If the sun really were one light year away, we'd be awful chilly right now.

"If the sun really were one light year away, we'd be awful chilly right now."

Which they are, in NZ!!! Ha!

Tim - I think he has been reading Louis Hissink's wonderful scientific work.

aw, common folks. You would all like New Zealand, a great socialist paradise that has high taxes, a homo sexual prime minister whose husband has just needed help from our consulate after an incident in San Fransisco, (needless to say not a buxom young whench involved), adherence to the Kyoto treaty and we want to pay Russia to buy their carbon credits. This will be far more pleasurable than living in Australia or the USA where oil rules and petrol is cheap. It is also cold at present but the mold wine, sold by the Greens will keep you warm on the long winter nights. Myself, i an thinking of leaving Aeotearoa to move to Australia, perhaps Perth where I can get involved in the mining or energy sector, where there is CO2 there is money.
Regards
Peter Bickle

Actually Peter, I am quite worried by NZ's educational system which produced a Ken. The only thing which would attract me is if you have Barbies who are just as smart.

I'm not sure I would judge the NZ educational system by one person.

There is more than ample evidence that even some of the best schools (Harvard, Yale) sometimes graduate complete idiots.

Should we hold the education system at large accountable for this? Or just the university administrators who were doing their "good friend" a favor by graduating his son?

Though he does not realize it, I think Ken Ring just might be onto something BIG with his "sheet metal covering the whole sky" statement.

It would certainly reduce global warming and might work as a shield against nukeyalur weapons as well. Admittedly, for this, it might have to be a bit more than 3mm thick. If my preliminary calculations (taking into acount the phase of the moon, of course) are correct, I think 7.27189m is the proper thickness.

We could put little trap doors (like a sun roof on a car) in it to allow some sunlight in now and then so things don't get too cold (and so the space shuttle and other rockets could get through) -- each trap door being controlled with a switch on the wall in our house.

But I think it just might work. It could be assembled in space like a giant jigsaw puzzle.

"Though he does not realize it, I think Ken Ring just might be onto something BIG with his "sheet metal covering the whole sky" statement."

Thinking way too small. We need a Dyson Sphere! Now!

If ozone really were "3 parts in 100,000" of the atmosphere, we'd be boned.

Ah ha!
This 3mm stuff looks funny. I see it has been used 4 years ago on a forum I frequent. Its obviously been floating around for a long, long time:
[quote]If you compress all ozone to sea level pressures, you'll get a mere 3 millimeters in average (that is what the Dobson Units are referring to), while compressing the oxygen and nitrogen will yield a layer of about 5 kilometers.

Besides that, the energy taken by oxygen molecules from UV photons is + 118,000 kilocalories/mol, and nitrogen molecules take 171,000 kilocalories/mol. Ozone just "steals" about 64 kilocalories/mol. Still thinking ozone is any good as a "shield"? [/quote]
From:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=12131&page=1

Now, I am fairly sure this bloke is wrong, but I dont know enough to tell.

Guthrie, if you look at a solar spectrum (for example http://www.csr.utexas.edu/projects/rs/hrs/pics/irradiance.gif) you see that it falls off rapidly from about 400 nm (that is .4 microns). The peak is in the green, and that is why our eyes have evolved to have maximum sensitivity in the green. Ozone starts absorbing at ~310 nm http://tinyurl.com/rbbrl and pretty much covers the region between 310 and 220 nm. Thus ozone protects us from energetic ultraviolet rays in that region which, as a practical matter, are not much absorbed by any other atmospheric species (If you really want to get technical there are some minor species which do absorb in that region such as SO2 and NO2, but there is not enough of them in the natural atmosphere to provide protection). The O2 spectrum grows in at ~220. Below 200 nm the oxygen molecules absorb light in a meter or two, so experiments have to be done in the vacuum (which is why below 190 is called the vacuum ultra violet. Although the cross-section for O2 molecular absorption is very low above 200 nm, there is a lot of O2. The upshot is that the combination of O2 and O3 protect the earth's surface from UV light at wavelengths less than 310 nm. Since this light is very energetic, this is important. Nitrogen only absorbs well into the VUV, where there is little solar intensity and oxygen absorbs anyhow.

The statement you found however is just pure ignorance. Since each molecule absorbs over a range of wavelengths and the solar spectrum covers a range, what is the "average" energy absorbed. Whoever wrote this should get him or herself to rent a cluse asap.

Thanks Eli. I didnt know much about the wavelength stuff. I need to read up more on it.
The entity I quoted is a notorious global warming denialist/ DDT is good for you/ environmentalists are evil person. I tangled with him a while ago, but he kept spitting out papers and scientific details that I still don't know enough to combat, although I am learning.

Guthrie, a good place to start on wavelength is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light. The long and short of it is that the energy of the light is inversely proportional to the wavelength. The wavelength determines the color of the light.

"We could put little trap doors (like a sun roof on a car) in it to allow some sunlight in now and then so things don't get too cold (and so the space shuttle and other rockets could get through) -- each trap door being controlled with a switch on the wall in our house."
Wasn't that a key plot element in Spaceballs? Just don't tell anyone that the code to open the doors is 1-2-3-4-5.

Thanks Eli- I do have a chemistry degree, although I have forgotten much of it, its just that integrating what I already know with climate stuff is quite hard.

If the sun really were one light year away, we'd be awful chilly right now.

Not to mention dead!

If the sun really were one light year away, we'd be awful chilly right now.

Not to mention dead!

Yes, but well preserved.

You people never look at the advantages of these things, such as looking at the advantages of global warming!

The latest from Ringworld:

Climate is a function of latitude, pure and simople, because that is how the word is defined. The only way to shift/change the climate is to change the latitude, which means moving the equator up or down or altering the position of the poles. We're smart but not that smart, and driving a few cars around won't do it.

(here)

You might enjoy the exchange here: Kenny's been on radio claiming to have predicted last weeks South Island blizzards...

I can only hope Peter Bickel's comment (complete with hilarious misspellings - "mold" for "mulled") is meant to be a clumsy parody. The claim that Helen Clark is a "homo sexual" (what's that - a new species of the genus Homo?) can only have come from NZ's leading woo-woo magagine, Investigate, which is edited by creationist Ian Wishart. I don't know where the latter stands on global warming but I bet he's a denier like just about every other right-winger. If Peter wants to shift to Oz, he would be most at home in some of the loopier parts of Queensland.

Hy Typhus
You are so correct. I am not a good speller, no spellcheck here! At least I put my name to my comments, not hide behind a name of a spineless sea shell. It is old news that Helen likes the ladies of the hairy leg genus, except for our speaker of the house who has only 1 leg, but 1 hairy one though. As far as I am aware wood does not grow hair. But Ian Wishart gets a lot of things right, David Parker and what John Tamihere really thought of his commie/homo limp wristed colleagues in the Labor party. (Maybe it should be called the Labrador party, when Helen speaks the caucus goes woof, woof, woof). I won't mention the dog chip proposal.
I am sure I would not like the loopy part of Queensland as I have a well above average IQ. Could speak to shellfish though if I was. I know having a high IQ usually means you end up being a liberal limp wristed lefty, but hell, I must have fallen thru the cracks in the schooling system. Yes I am a GW denier, you should see all of the snow in NZ at present. Kyoto means tax, tax and more tax. That is what are the scary things we hear ad nausium really mean. yep, overall i am a right wing, homo hating redneck and proud of it. You should try it some time, you do not end up being a misrible apologist.
Regards from New Zealand (hopefully Australia soon)
Peter Bickle
Yep

Please ignore the Bickle troll. He is a harmless fantasist and Australia will be most welcome to him.

Cheers,
RB

Typhis (not typhus, which is one of those groovy diseases) is in fact a very spiny "sea shell." Try googling images.
Anyway, why do invertebrates get such a bum rap? They have done very well for themselves in an evolutionary sense and are far more diverse than chordates.
Rest assured I have had numerous letters published under my real moniker in the Christchurch Press and Timaru Herald, and have managed to upset quite a few people (mostly creationists)without any recourse to abuse. I'm choosing to use a nomme de keyboard for the time being, but all will be revealed in due course (if anyone cares!)
As for Ian Wishart getting a "lot of things right", that's "right" as in Far Right, right? Sorry, I cannot take seriously the opinions of creationists! Anyway, so what if our Beloved Leader is a lesbian? That's just another richly deserved kick in the teeth for assorted bigots.
Yes, there are still a few small patches of snow in our Timaru garden, disappearing as the weather returns to normal winter conditions. So what? I'm sure Peter Bickle is well aware climatologists are interested in trends rather than short-term fluctuations (i.e. weather). Unfortunately, this distinction is lost on some people who write letters to local newspapers.
Agreed, there are undeniably plenty of very intelligent conservatives, and they are the ones who publicly repudiate creationism. Unfortunately, they are in the minority, particularly in the US where science is becoming increasingly politicised. There, global warming "scepticism" is almost de riguer for the Right, along with anti-evolution, opposition to stem-cell research and disdain for the environment.

Hi all
Sorry to disappoint but I never said the earth is a light year from the sun. I'm not that silly. I said the sun's energy emanates one light year from source, meaning into space. That is the extent of the solar wind. If you go back and read it properly, instead of just going along with the same hysteria that typifies global warming advocacy, that is a possible interpretation. The scorn heaped on me and the glee at finding a possible misinterpretation says a lot about lynch mob mentality and not much about a search for truth. Ozone IS one part per million of the atmosphere, negligible, yet it is supposed to be some RADIATION SHIELD. Anyone want to seriously dispute that with a different FACT?
Ken Ring
www.predictweather.com

Sorry, Ken.

Even if we assume that you meant what you now claim you meant you are simply factually wrong.

Firstly, the solar wind isn't "energy" it's charged particles. Second. it contains only a small part of the total energy emitted by the sun.

Leaving that aside, the heliopause, the point where the solar wind becomes so weak as to be indistinguishable from the interstellar vaccuum has been measured directly by Voyager 2 space probe at 76 Astronomical Units.

76 Au is 76 times the distance from the Earth to the sun (approximately 200 million kilometres). Hence 76 AU is 76 x 2x 10 to the 11th metres or approximately 15 billion kilometres.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliopause

Light travels at approximately 300,000 kilometres per second. A light-year is the distance light travels in a year so it's 300,000 kilomtres multiplied by the number of seconds in a year (roughly 31.5 million)or roughly 9.5 trillion kilometres.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light

Hence the solar wind actually extends approximately 0.0016 light-years from the Earth.

Given your general standard of reasoning and gernal comprehension of science, I'd say an error of almost three orders of magnitude really ins't that bad.

More facts:

Ozone doesn't "protect us from the sun's intense radiation" it blocks one very small part of the sun's radiation.

Here's a graph of the solar spectrum:

http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_4/4_Js/4-05.jpg

The y-axis represents energy received per unit of area. The X-axix represents the wavelength of light.

so the distance from the x-axis to the line at any point is a meaure of how much energy is reaching the Earth atthat wavelength. So the total area under the line represents the total energy received by the Earth from the sun at all wavelengths.

With me so far?

Now ozone absorbs UV radiation in a very narrow and specific range of wavelengths - 295 to 320 nanometres. This is a well-established physical fact that can confirmed in msot high school physcis labs in a matter of minutes.

Now take a look at the graph again -it's on a logarithmic scale. Would you like me to explain to you what that means?

So the wavelength range 295-320 nanometres would represent a hairs-breadth line in the extreme left-hand section of the graph.

I won't bother you with the math but can you agree that the energy received at those wavelengths is a very small part of the total.

Essentially your argument is on par with saying that a child couldn't possibly pick up sand with a toy spade because the beach is much too large and heavy for the child to lift - and so it is. Fortunately the child is only lifting a teensy-little wee bit of the beach.

Seems fair and balanced to me Ian.

I don't know where I read that the solar wind can be detected a light year from the sun but I certainly didn't make it up. But who cares? Jeez..The point I was making was that Earth is 8 minutes into the solar tail and so is well in receipt of blasts of electromagnetic energy. I'm not going to lose sleep if it ISN'T a light year. Are you with me? As to the ozone point, it got a bit lost, are you still maintaining that the ozone represents an effective radiation shield or not?

I hereby designate Ian Gould as Speaker to Idiots. Wu Wu

Ken, let me put it this way.

WE have measured the incoming solar radiation from above the ozone layer using both weather balloons and satellites.

We've also measured it at ground level.

We know that something is absorbing the UVB radiation which we measure above the stratoesphere but not at ground level.

Now the missing wavelengths jsut happen to be the exact same frequencies which we know from lab experiments are absorbed by ozone.

So if it isn;t the ozone doing it, it appears to be something invisible, intangible, massless and undetectable in any other way and which soemhow manages to vary in its effect exactly with the variations in ozone concentrations.

so, yes, in that one narrow band of the spectrum in which less than 1% of the sun's energy is emitted, ozone acts as an efficient barrier.

It's not a signficant amount of the sun's total output but it is vitally important to life on Earth because UVB radiation breaks down DNA.

If not for the ozone layer life on Earth would never have gotten out of the oceans (where water blocks UVB) or would have had to evolve using a compound other than DNA.

Just out of curiosity, since this isn't my field, what blocks radiation at short wave lengths (x-rays & gamma rays)?

I just read the "Holes In The Ozone-Layer?" article at Ring's predictweather.com site. If it werent so sad, itd be hilarious.

Here is an example:

'Just as the surf cannot in any way protect the land from the sea, ozone cannot 'protect' the air and our environment that is below it from UV. A result cannot be defined as a protector. To lament that ozone depletion is taking away "our protection" is the same as crying that surfers are wearing down the surf, and as the surf is all there is holding back the ocean, when the surf goes (due to human behavior) the water will flood over the land and destroy mankind."

"When in space the Sun's energy races down here to meet Earth's rising air, a certain amount of 03 is produced. But like the surf, it is merely the result of the photo-chemical process between oxygen and UV light. But it is the photo-chemical process itself which protects us; the ozone is a mere by-product. The air itself absorbs most of the UV radiation and disperses it. As the air contains ozone, so the ozone also combines with the UV."

"There is not a 'layer' of ozone at all, any more than there is single layer of air; and ozone doesn't protect us from anything. The Sun's rays hit us at exactly the same time as they hit the ozone. Therefore, protection is impossible."

"there is not one shred of supportable evidence that CFCs have found their way 40 miles up above the Earth. No one has ever found any up there because they are roughly five times heavier than air. They are like a brick in a swimming pool."

enough... this is ludicrous stuff.

"[...]what blocks radiation at short wave lengths (x-rays & gamma rays)?"
These radiations have enough energy to rip electrons from atoms, so all molecules of athmosphere help to filter them out.

DSW

Well Lee, thanks for posting my stuff. I note you don't have anything but a visceral comment to make. Perhaps you could explain to the folks how a tiny tiny amount acts as a shield, and if that infinitesimal amount was to diminish mankind would be doomed.

Okay, I asked a physicist, a physicist with an Oxford MA & PhD in physics no less (I call him dad).

Most of the Sun output is charged particles, which are deflected by the Earth's magnetic field, and "black body" radiation. The radiation produced by a "black body" is **not** uniform across the electromagnetic spectrum. Most is in the visual range, whereas the amount of high-energy radiation (ultra-violet, X-rays, & gamma rays) produced is relatively small. As Antoni has already said, the gamma & X-rays are absorbed by pretty much everything in the atmosphere. Ultra-violet is absorbed by the ozone layer.

This isn't my field, so to any passing physicists, I apologise for any errors, but I am trying my best (Ken Ring please take note).

To expand a bit on Meyrick Kirby's 7:09 comment: wavelengths shorter than about 200 nm are strongly absorbed by oxygen; shorter than 150 nm are absorbed by nitrogen as well. (Hence this region is often called "vacuum UV" by laboratory workers.) Between 200 and 240 nm oxygen still absorbs UV, but more weakly. The oxygen absorption cross section cuts off at about 240 nm. Between 240 and 320 nm, essentially all of the atmospheric absorption comes from ozone. Between 200 and 240, both ozone and oxygen contribute to atmospheric absorption.

Darwin gets the highest skin cancer figures in the world. It is as far from an ozone hole as you can get. The "shield" problem is one of dust acting as a radiation filter, not whether or not ozone is there to soak the radiation up. Darwin, as an outjutting of land, gets far less dust than say Brisbane. NZ also is dust-free so our cancer rates are also high. If all the ozone disappeared we would not be worse off, any more than if all the water isotopes disappeared.

"Darwin gets the highest skin cancer figures in the world. It is as far from an ozone hole as you can get."

Actually Ken the skin cancer rate in Darwin (and Queensland) can be accounted for by low levels of cloud cover (and hence more insolation) and the presence of a population of largely northern European extraction who are poorly adapted to living in a relatively high UV environment.

Tell you what - why don't you go look for the actual skin cancer rates for Brisbane and Darwin and we'll see if they support your hypothesis.

To help Ken with his homework assignment:

http://www.ncci.org.au/projects/skin/non_melan_survey.htm

These are the results of the 2003 Non-melanoma skin cancer report.

It doesn't permit us to compare "Darwin" and "Brisbane" specifically but Darwin represents around 50% of the NT population and the South East Queensland region - basically Brisbane plus Toowoomba; Sunshine Coast and Gold coast - represent a similar proportion of tthe Queensaldn population. It'd take a very big anomaly for the total rate for Queensland or NT to depart markedly from the rates for Brisbane and Darwin.

First question - is Ken correct in saying that the NT ahs a higher skin cancer rate than Queensland?

Not necessarily - if we look at table 9 on page 25 of the reprot we see that the rate of Basal-cell carcinoma is marginally higher in the NT (1550 cases per 100,000 persons per year vs. 1542) buy if we look at the accompanying 95% certainty inteveral figures we see that that difference is probably not statistically signficant. If we look at the rate for squamaous cell carcinoma, we fidn the reverse Queensland's rate is higher than NT's (705 vs. 284). Note that the rate figures for the NT are highly uncertain due to the small sample size.

Now I leave it to Ken to provide figures for melanoma thst may contradict me btu on the evidence here his basic argument that Darwin has a higher skin cancer rate than Brisbane simply seems mistaken.

Now if we move on to page 27 we can compare the skin cancer rates for the three disignated areas of Australia - Northern, Central and Southern - we find a near perfect correlation between latitude and cnacer rates. The futher north people live the higher the rate of skin cancer.

The futher north people live the higher the rate of skin cancer.
Agree. There is less dust further north, especially right at the top.

No Ken. THe further north people live IN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE the higher the rate of skin cancer.

Now can you offer any proof that dust levels are in fact related to the latitude?

Ummm, by the way, what do you mean by "the top"?

You know the Earth doesn;t have a top and a bottom don't you?

"I don't know where I read that the solar wind can be detected a light year from the sun but I certainly didn't make it up. But who cares? Jeez..The point I was making"

Weren't we all arguing a while ago about whether Gore's reference to "the balance of energy between the earth and the universe" represented some sort of outrageous misconception of physical reality, so vast in its scope as to constitute proof that there is no AGW?

"No Ken. THe further north people live IN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE the higher the rate of skin cancer."

Indeed; I never knew anyone in Canada who had skin cancer. Whereas people I know from Texas frequently have had multiple non-melanomas in their lives.

The futher north people live the higher the rate of skin cancer. Agree. There is less dust further north, especially right at the top.

You may be on to something here. I checked and at the North Pole there is 0.00000000000 incidence of cancer. You need to go about 1000 miles south before you find any incidence of cancer. The amazing thing is that there is no incidence of any cancer at all!!! That dust is a killer!

Ken,

Supposing dust is one factor that reduces UV levels at ground levels, and at face value I'd say it's a reasonable hypothesis, why would that discount (disprove?) all the other factors involved, including ozone levels? Have you any evidence that the effect of dust dwarfs or negates the effect of ozone?

Evidence of the importance of dust levels does **not** in itself disprove the effect/importance of ozone.

I don't know where I read that the solar wind can be detected a light year from the sun but I certainly didn't make it up. But who cares? Jeez...

Because precision is simply not that important on Ringworld.

I have to admit that watching Ring argue that "It's the dust man" is akin to watching a horrible car wreck. You hate yourself for looking, but you can't look away!

Evidence of the importance of dust levels does not in itself disprove the effect/importance of ozone..
No, but there has been a big climb-down lately by skin cancer specialists who were sucked into the ozone debate and blamed everything on ozone depletion until it was pointed out to them that dust and genetics are other factors. Since then their stance is that dust and genetics are the important ones and they don't discount ozone and anything else that might suggest itself. Me, I can't see that ozone depletion is anything other than a rort to make money. Look at the history of the ozone scare. It was started by Dupont when the 1963 patent ran out on CFCs as coolants for fridges. They brought in Freon and tried to ban the old coolants so they could exclusively sell the new, using legislation that could ban CFCs if a case could be brought that it was environmentally damaging. At the time the science world laughed. Then they realised research grants were available. They stopped laughing at the absurd concept, now they're laughing at us.

Ken,

Not to burst your bubble or anything, but the patents (plural) on use of CFCs as refrigerants were issued in the early 1930s, and ran out in the 1950s. "Freon" is not something they "brought in," it is DuPont's trade name for any CFC, HCFC, or HFC refrigerant, the name of each includes a number that indicates the molecular composition (R-11, R-12, R-22, R-134). R12 was the dominant formula before the "Freon" phaseout began.

At the time DuPont announced that it was abandoning the R12 market in 1988, before it was required to by law, the market for R12 was and had been competitive for a couple decades, and DuPoint dominated the market with a 25% international and 50% US market share. DuPont bitterly opposed the proposed phaseout, until the research made it clear that there was ozone damage, and when that research became compelling DuPont abandoned a competitive market that they dominated.

The market for 134a is similarly competitive, with at least 4 major independent suppliers of the refrigerant. 134a is also an ozone depleting compound and is beign phased out by 2020, with the most promising replacements NOT DuPont compounds.

You grasp of history is as poor as your grasp of chemistry.

Here is one (of many) links outlining the hsitory. This one is simplistic, but I chose it for that reason, 'specially for you to read, Ken.

http://www.imcool.com/articles/aircondition/refrigerant_history.htm

You might wonder how come all this hasn't come up for debate when mentioning ozone? I bet this is the first time folks are aware that a fridge company manipulating patents for profit might have had anything to do with ozone depletion!! The patent scam is in there big time, no use just putting up one link when lots more have a different view. Thanks for that link, Dupont were in the thick of it obviously, the ozone scam has always been over profits, twisting legislation to outlaw something, just as Al Gore tried to weasel CO2 taxes out of everybody for his own self-glorification.

Ken: "Since then their stance is that dust and genetics are the important ones and they don't discount ozone and anything else that might suggest itself...."

got a source for that claim Ken?

The patent scam is in there big time, no use just putting up one link when lots more have a different view.

And yet I can't help but note that Ken has not shared even one link proving his claims against DuPont. Just an assurance that "lots more have a different view".

Indeed it is to laugh...

Welcome to Ringworld, where patents run forever and urban legends come true. No Ken dear, the original patents on the CFCs were gone by the 1950s http://www.imcool.com/articles/aircondition/refrigerant_history.htm

Sorry, I missed Lee's comment. Blinded by Ken's ignorance I guess (that's my story and I am sticking to it).