Healthy. Does anyone think that “overturning” several 10s of million years’ worth of sequestered CO2 in a single year for years on end is … healthy?

Sounds more like spillage than (re)cycling to me.

Depletion of stratospheric ozone over Antarctica during spring and summer increases solar ultraviolet-B (UVB, 280-320 nm) radiation throughout the period of greatest biological production. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that UVB penetrates to biologically significant depths in the marine environment and is damaging to marine organisms. …

… Results indicate that UVB radiation can change the structure and function of the microbial community, reducing the uptake of CO2 by phytoplankton and increasing the CO2 respired by microbes. Thus, ozone depletion is likely to reduce the capacity of Antarctic waters to act as a sink for atmospheric CO2, and exacerbate global climate change due to ‘greenhouse’ warming.

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-antarctic-magazine/2001-2005/issue-1-autumn-2001/science/effect-of-ozone-depletion-on-antarctic-marine-microbes

Those type critters just sort of drift around with the current and, I suppose, it may be plausible that they get somewhat messed up (ha! like a bad sunburn in a child some summer family vacation) during their little excursions south.

There seems to be some study of the remote marine boundary layer and interplay of components of photochemical smog (natural, such as bromide (possibly), and manmade as well).

ps. ‘the benz’ above sb. ‘nitrogen narcosis’ but that analogy is not a very good one anyways and I’d certainly not wish to dissuade use of hydrogen, Brown’s gas, or fuel cells.

http://realclimate.org/

Might be worth giving that a go after all they are real climatologists unlike most (?) of us here, me for sure.

.Plus scientific method~wise you’ll need to show how and why and where your herbicides hypothesis explains things that the current GHGs theory does not.

Note that last word and the analogy being how Einsteinian Relativity explains how Newton’s older supplanted theory seems to work and also showed why the precession of Mercury’s orbit happened as it did for a couple of examples to illustrate my meaning here.

“Thx, Astrostevo #9. It was a pleasure to read.
ps. WTC7 won’t go away” 😉 .

Um, no worries! Also I certainly hope that’s true for the current (replacement) building & I do hope you’ are joking and not serious – its hard to know online these days sometimes!

@ 22. Tim :

“Ok, Astrostevo #9; I’ll throw one out there:

I speculate that some agent** in the environment (ED : ** either known and undisclosed or, as yet, undiscovered altogether) may be interfering with some metabolic pathway (either respiratory, or photosynthetic, or both) which is common to all of the most pertinent (for net oxygen recovery) photosynthetic organisms.

I further speculate that said ‘agent’ may be dose/concentration independent, possibly acting through receptor*** action: (ED : *** A small key may start a large car; Turning the key harder rarely proves more efficatious toward proper ignition. Imagine a push-button car instead). … (snip) .. I propose a possible causative agent may be herbicides.”

Well, that is a new one. I gotta give you points for originality here Tim first I’ve heard of that idea.

Thing is, there are all sorts of herbicides with different chemical compositions that we’ve used in different areas and different amounts and I’m not sure there are likely to be any one herbicide used in anywhere near the right quantities to explain this whole global phenomenon nor does it seem remotely likely that this herbicide effect could have been missed and not noticed so far. I’d really have to see the maths and specifics for that speculation.

Glyphosphate is deactivated with contact with the soil too from what I gather and one reason it is used in place of for example DDT is that it doesn’t bio-accumulate and build up in the environment or have dangerous by-products – that I’m aware of right now anyhow.

Thing is, climatologists and physicists know how much carbon dioxide and other GHGs have been put into the air and they know the basic physics of how they interact with heat and the observations match the known physics and expected outcome and has done ever since the days of Svante Arrhenius. (1896 for Svante’s first proposal of how the greenhouse effect works.)

Occam’s razor and all the evidence strongly, no make that overwhelmingly, supports the current climatologists consensus here. To prove your extraordinary claim that they got it wrong and its because of herbicides instead you’ll have to show extraordinary evidence noting exactly which herbicides and exactly how they co-relate precisely and make for a better explanation of the current Global Overheating phenomenon whilst also explaining how they’ve led to the “illusion” (*if* you are correct) of the current understanding of how GHG’s interact with our atmospheric and thermohaline circulation systems. Plus scientific method~wise you’ll need to show how and why and where your herbicides hypothesis explains things that the current GHGs theory does.

I wish you the best of luck with that – quite seriously! Do the science or convince others to help you, win the Nobel prize and I’ll gladly shout you a chosen beverage at the ceremony!

I think though on current evidence and observations, sadly for the world, everything points to the 98% majority of climatologist experts here being correct. I wish they weren’t but .. yeah.

I used to do a good bit of crawling around in a certain couple bowels-‘o’-the-earth and just a few hours in there was enough to become resensitized to ozone (due to its short environmental persistance without continual regeneration — dirt/moisture/rock..anything organic and it’s gone. ‘Dryrot’ is rubber oxidized by ozone, for instance. It is just as reactive as monatomic oxygen) whereupon exiting would elicit the taking of ones’ breath away with the choking/stinging sensation like spending too much time at the over-chlorinated pool or waterslide.

^^ It is for that reason that I believe that majority NOx is not due to combustion but is instead the combination of humidity, soil, soil bacteria, and vegetation — for we were many square miles deep into wilderness far away from traffic, agriculture, or roads of any account yet had the suffocating ppm concentrations which would stomp any Birmingham, Atlanta, or Nashville flat by EPA standards. The forest, blackberry, and swamp was busting through non-attainment** non-compliance at twice acceptable concentrations. Lightning may be another major contributor.

Now, while I don’t *feel* it a global problem, NOx et al. is certainly a local problem and for the reason that cities often grew up in basins where the soil was better and wealthy landowners concentrated first (Idk why? Farming first and then populations grew to service the wealthy landowners, perhaps?) — Inversions over the basins do the rest of the dirty work.

**Some pilot studies I’d heard of actually cut down the greenery ahead of the prevailing wind and planted trees within metro areas to lower temperature (This did, indeed, lower the surface ozone counts). Surely, nobody wants fits-all policy that causes cities to take make-waste action to escape an arbitrary non-attainment status through uglying up and laying barren everywhere else. Nobody, that is, that has a clue why.

*even the ‘clean’ tech of hydrogen.. It has to do with temp/pressure in the presence of nitrogen (think: the benz) and that is why we have the low thermodynamically inefficient compression ratios in the modern automobile today.