The Missing Ozone; A Global Problem? Do WE Have All the Answers?

Maybe a better title for your post would be "Do We Have All the Facts?"

We need your input, not your nit-picking. Thanks just the same!

Who are 'we'.....???

Anonymous Hero: I think you are right; "Do We Have All the Facts?" should be part of the title. Thank You Erich

It was kind of a rhetorical question, too. The answer is, arguably, no, we don't.

When that happens, as a scientist, I become very skeptical about any conclusions someone may draw. Inconclusive data can be a good tool to use as a pointer for where to look for confirmation that a theory has the ability to hold water. It can narrow the playground a little to allow us to focus better for what we are searching.

However, too often the process is shortcut and conclusions are made on unsupportive data or presented with enough smoke and mirrors to be taken as fact. Correlation is not causation.

If one were to take a 200 mile piece of the horizon, and draw a side view scale drawing showing the curvature of the earth, and the layers of air. If one were to take the smallest to largest nuclear blasts tested, drew them to the same scale, and superimpose them onto the drawing of the horizon, taking into consideration the concussion waves as well. We would also draw a top view. Would this be a good start, Anonymous Hero?

Honestly, no. It really tells me very little. Even looking at weather and climate data isn't enough.

A comprehensive set of data is required.

NASA has proven beyond a doubt that we have last a tremendous amount of atmosphere possibly up to 1 kilometers of thickness which varies around the globe. Where did it go? There is no loss of atmosphere when they send rockets into space, due to downward thrust. Meteorites don't cause atmosphere loss. The few volcanic eruptions have different effects. A comet did not come close enough to effect our atmosphere loss. Where is the missing atmosphere???

Einstein has unproven theories. I can prove his theory of relativity in a mechanical motion method which you don't even know about.

You want a 2-10 year comprehensive study with precise documented data. A study which will cost the government 2 million dollars is not worth it, the damage is done and they stopped their fire cracker experiments.

It seems to me I was specific on what my thought [theory] was. Let me explain again in a different way. The earth has lost some of it's atmosphere, and I believe that this was caused by nuclear blasts. I even gave a precise description of how I thought this happened. I am not here to prove anything to you. If you want your comprehensive set of data you get it yourself.

Weather and climate data are irrelevant at this time, because their records only included the moment, not the long term effect. I don't even think they had a clue at that time, that they were blowing the atmosphere into outer space. Something so basic was overlooked, how sad.

There is a way to simulate all of this and come out with a fairly accurate representation of how we could have lost the atmosphere. A computer, needs to be programmed to do this. Would that be comprehensive enough for you?

The only other way then, is to arrange for another hydrogen nuclear blast, to study the phenomenon, like the firecracker boys did years ago. This time , let us have teams of documenters so that we can have every comprehensive data detail available for people like you to examen and study. The whole world would waiting for your yes or no, and you would not have to be an Anonymous Hero any more.

Well, show me the data. What paper do you refer to from NASA? I did a quick search and only found one paper dated December 8th, 1998, which describes loss of atmosphere due to the effects of Solar Wind. I don't think that was the paper you referenced.

Another thing I am struggling with is what effect this has. Any appreciable loss of atmosphere would result in a net drop in barometric pressure at sea level. Sea level atmospheric pressure is a direct result of the total atmospheric mass and Earth's gravity, of course. Any loss in atmosphere must yield a lowering in average barometric pressure, so it could be easily tracked. We have a fairly long historical record of barometric pressure for centuries and it is easy to get accurate (at least fairly accurate) measurements of this quanta.

The closest information I can pull off the web is loss of ozone in the atmosphere, but that is primarily a global warming subject and there is nothing suggesting a sudden shift in ozone levels between the 1940's and 1960's. For that matter, if memory serves, I think it has been determined that previous measurement techniques for computing ozone amounts are flawed and did not present an accurate accounting of the levels. So, long term historical data is difficult to interpret with accuracy.

Can you pointy me to the NASA paper? Is there other scholarly papers that you can point us to?

I receive the [Spaceref-daily] Special Newsletter every day. < Spaceref-daily@mail.aterra.com > This article was in one of their letters which I received last year. Unfortunately this information was on my lost last hard drive. There was a significant loss of atmosphere, enough for them to be concerned about. This was from the outer layer, the most delicate. They were also concerned with he rocket disturbances.

I also read an article where the Soviet Union blew a mega hydrogen bomb in Siberia which which rattled windows etc in a Scandinavian country. This is a huge distance between these two points. If the concussion could be felt this distance on the surface of the earth, then for sure the giant mushroom cloud would be felt directly above the blast.

There is a tremendous amount of energy in a concussion. I was unfortunate to have gone through one many years ago, I was picked up and thrown about 100 ft.

If a small bomb can do this, just multiply that be a few million times. Don't forget the shock waves go straight up too. You also have this giant mushroom pushing straight up. You have seen videos of how they had test areas set up, showing the effects of the blast. Things were torn apart. Now the air has a greater mass on the surface which has to be considered. Don't forget that as pressure waves go up from the blast, the heavier air is blasted or pushed up into the lighter air. This is a huge volume of air with nowhere to go but up. It took millions-billions of years for such a super delicate environment to evolve. This is all common sense.

You must remember that the air up there is so light that it may not show up on our barometers. Maybe our instruments are not sensitive enough? We don't have accurate data, I can understand that, However, something is different, just ask the people in New Zealand, Australia etc etc.

I think you have to look at the whole picture, for one thing, the scientists who caused this, would want to cover up their blunder, as well as the crazy governments who got involved in this arms race. There are numerous scapegoat situations, where if something or a product is proven to destroy our atmosphere, it will get all the blame. We have inherited what we have and the blaming game is fruitless.

Okay, I did another quick search on the web to see what data I could gather to substantiate your claim. What I found was this:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977JGR....82.3119J

Harvard is a scholarly institution, so I would put some credit to their work. The nut of the article shows a net gain in ozone, at least for a period of time, due to air-bursted nuclear weapons. This would run counter to your claim and counter to what I was searching for.

As air having a greater mass at the surface goes, yes, lighter molecules tend to percolate to the top of the atmosphere, but the net mass of the total composition of the atmosphere is what makes the barometric pressure what it is on Earth. Scoop off any portion of the atmosphere and the total atmospheric mass must decrease and so must the barometric pressure.

Personally, I am trying to enter this debate with an open mind to your claim, but there has been nothing submitted so far to back your claim. The only thing you have stated is that blast concussion ripples long distances. I don't see an argument with you there. Where things get thin, no pun intended, is the postulation that the atmosphere must therefore be blown off the Earth. The only data you bring to the table is "that it is common sense."

I submit that it is not common sense because it is first, an uncommon event, and second, something not well understood by the average person. By definition it can not be common sense.

I would expect an air-burst nuclear weapon would indeed propel part of the atmosphere upward, but I have no idea how much and how far. Remember, in order to escape the Earth's gravity an object needs an escape velocity greater than 25,000 mph. So I would expect most of the ejecta to return to Earth. Some may be scrubbed off by solar winds.

The last thing that disturbs me about this is the hint of a conspiracy theory that you postulate. While it is no doubt that there are conspiracies running amok on this planet, most of these theories have no substance at all and are shrouded with only selected portions of facts so as to appear to have substance, but when all of the facts are brought to light another picture emerges that does not support such theories.

I shudder when I hear the words 'conspiracy theory' because they are almost always wrong and themselves a means to an end that requires deception to get people to get onboard.

For some reason, we as humans, seem drawn to these theories of conspiracies like a magnet to steel. There are vast numbers of web sites that serve these theories and perpetuate what is almost always junk science. When it comes to junk science I have some knowledge about the subject since it was both one of my undergraduate thesis and a pet peeve.

So far Roger has brought the most data to the table. A quick scan of the link (thank you Roger) found nothing on the subject of nuclear weapons and its impact to the atmosphere. So all I am asking for is raw and real data concerning the effect you postulate. Common sense does not count in the arena of science. Empirical data rules the day here (this forum) and the world of science.

If you got it, flaunt it! If not, I think you will find your postulate a very hard sell to the minds on this forum.

You are right about the conspiracy classifications, however they do exist. We did loose some atmosphere, but the question is how much. I feel bad I don't have the NASA write up, regarding the loss of atmosphere. I know as a scientist you can't trust anything to hearsay. And I apologize I can't produce the original NASA web location.

Many of your questions could be answered by this link. Please take a look.

http://www.theozonehole.com/

Thank You Roger! Look at the graph on the ultraviolet, superimpose a mega hydrogen bomb blast onto that graph and what do you get? I rest my case! I just talked to my friend regarding the loss of atmosphere article, because I pointed it out to her. She agrees that I told her; both of us read the article last year, and that it really was a significant amount. [It was also a NASA Site]

Sure looks like all of the jet planes are scrambling our ozone layer. Is it possible, that it is scrambled [mixed] with other layers; that it is loosing its function in various parts of the planet? Like whipping cream on a hot drink, mix it and before you know it, it is all part of the drink.

Um, there were words too. You were supposed to read the words too.

O K Thanks