[Paul Ward]

You have quite an odd manner of discussion Derek.

You appear not to have researched the Antarctic ozone hole very closely, you won't find a single scientist or person with a scientific background who denies that the ozone hole is seasonal, which makes your opening remark rather odd.

By the time spring arrives and the sun comes back after the long polar night, the ozone levels are severely depleted around the Antarctic continent causing the "ozone hole". Unfortunately, there then follows a particularly long period of high sunshine and long days, just to make the effect of the ozone hole worse.

The key phrase is "effect of the ozone hole" - yes you are correct the ozone hole will start to repair, but after the winter in the Antarctic spring the hole is at it's maximum and the combination of long days and exposure to the sun means more uv gets through when the "defences" are down. You will notice that the hole begins to close again by December the Antarctic midsummer. I don't see any ambiguity there?

Ozone is broken down mainly by cfc's - I don't think it at all odd that the chemistry of this is well known - why would it be odd?

One last thing of note regarding ozone, and it's hole. What was the size of the hole before it was discovered, how much did it vary, perfectly naturally..
No one knows as far as I'm aware. So the constant reference to worst ever, etc, etc, in the linked to page, again, is at best, misleading.
Worst ever, for clarity presumeably means since satelites measured the phenomenon, which at the absolute most only goes back to 1979.
Given there may well be other natural factors

Before it was discovered there wasn't a ozone hole, measurements have been taken since the 1950's:

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_ba...ory.php?id=171

...just a little homework would mean you wouldn't ask such non-questions.

Then again you aren't really asking questions or discussing anything - you are trying to "catch me out" in some way as skeptics like you are wont to do.

Your initial post was regarding volcanic activity in the Ross Sea region and warming temperatures along the Peninsula - you appear to have dropped that when it's flaws were pointed out and have gone to something else that is readily explicable without your needing to express surprise at the "blithering obvious". This is why skeptics are not taken seriously and why I find it difficult to take you seriously.

You have made a decision and you quite like the idea of being a "maverick", you even referred to Alfred Wegener I believe, I suppose at least in your defence you haven't compared yourself to Gallileo as I have seen many times before from skeptics.

You then go and look for evidence to back your position up, the problem is you don't do your homework very well and end up effectively "arguing" with yourself and your own misunderstandings (seasonal ozone for instance). These arguments come as "What about this...?" when it's explained, you drop it and go to "What about that...?" - "What about this other thing...?"

The latest is:

Now, how about the Thermohaline circulation, you seem to have avoided that subject so far. Though I see you have said the Antarctic is effectively separated from the global climate....

I have not avoided anything other than trying to waste my time on an argumentative guy with a preferred (required) conclusion who lacks rigour and consistancy.

I will research and publish some starightforward comments on the thermohaline circulation before too long on the main website, I am not about to skip to your next "What about this...?" idea.

For your information:

• The great majority of academic research papers are NOT available freely on the web - up to date peer-reviewed scientific papers are available in print or on the web for a usually very significant fee. This means that little of the available evidence is readily presented on a web page - this however does NOT mean it doesn't exist just because you haven't seen it.
• "Natural Processes" - the sweetheart phrase of the skeptic. Never quite specified however. Please be aware that there are scientists who constantly monitor natural phenomena and cycles (ozone hole since the 50's for instance as pointed out above) and if global warming was a result of something simple like sun-spots or Milankovitch cycles, then the scientific community would spot it long in advance of some guy who has just discovered Google.
• If you wish to regain any degree of credibilty here, then please go back to your original post regarding Antarctic temperatures and Ross Sea area vulcanism while tying it with what Drummy said about rising temperatures on the Peninsula where there is little vulcanism.
• Polar bears are generally considered to be potentially endangered, it depends on whether you believe the jouralists with newspapers to sell or proper scientists:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...9/wpolar09.xml

But please read it all - beyond the headlines that is.

http://environment.newscientist.com/...ive-birth.html

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/

Did you know they are thought to be only 20,000 years old BTW?