barfbag

while your ideas and notions are fun to think upon, it is not very plausible. Maybe it is a Multiverse, but I prefer interpretations of the Copenhagen Interpretations.(seem to be several versions of that).

Maybe Aliens do exist in a multiverse we are not aware of... but...

Mankind is doing a horrible job at looking after its own planet. We run the bodies of our ancestors through automobiles to create pollution and greenhouse gases. We overpopulate and destroy native wildlife and plants. who are we as a species to protect anybody never mind our Galaxy.

If Aliens are present it is likely to stop us from killing ourselves or polluting our planet beyond repair. We are the last species to be trusted with our environment never mind The galaxy.

Imagine The President Of the United States declared Everyobody would need to double the price they pay for gas for the next 20 years to pay for environmental damage we have done. How would you react? Would you "a) Happily pay double at gas pump for 20+ years or b) simply vote in another president who is not such an idiot". You choose b. I choose b. Everybody chooses b, and that is why we cannot even take care of our planet. Our politics are designed for short term change and that is bad for our environments.

I liked answer 10 so far.

A carpenter can build and repair a house, but it takes an Architect to design the house.

A mechanic can build and repair an engine, but it takes an Engineer to design it.

The Architect must calculate weights, structural supports, and even evaluate the soil (Consider reports).

The Mechanical Engineer must calculate piston circumferences, Metal stresses and much more than a mechanic when designing the engine.

An Engineer is capable of design or manipulating the machines in their care.

Imagine you were the department of defense and you bought a new truck. Would you want to hire a $65k/year mechanic to maintain it, or a $90k/year Engineer. The answer is a mechanic because most cars have been engineered down to the last nuts and bolts.

Now imagine you (same department of defense) were buying a $20 million dollar Prototype self driving car. Would you want the same mechanic overseeing the project? No. This is because the machine is both very expensive, and it needs to be streamlined and improved over time. Each succeeding prototype needs to be smaller, faster, and more efficient than the next, and require calculations of various motor stresses and strengths along with many other self driving related equipment such as cameras and software.

In the last situation though it would be a mechanic normally repairing the vehicle but would follow Engineer suggestions regarding all new self driving equipment.

The Engineer can calculate the strength of every bolt, or cast metal/plastics in the project, but the mechanic can only screw them together.

It sounds like your friend is servicing a rare type of machine that is still in some need of development. A regular mechanic would be fine once all the bugs were worked out, but he should consult with an Engineer before modifying the machine. Imagine a well meaning mechanic filed down an Engine block to reduce the weight of the car. WoW; the car runs so fast.... Until the Engine explodes and everyone gets killed. Who goes to jail then? The Mechanic or Engineer?

But many Engineers may also describe themselves as overpriced Mechanics, especially if they are performing mechanic type duties on a unique machine. It is because the machine is requiring improvements. I can go one better. I am a soil Engineer so must have helpers and myself drive to various locations and stake out drilling locations, property inspections, and land title inspections. I tell people I am a glorified driver because I am in my car half of the time, and half my wages seem to be gas reimbursements+. I send everything to labs and do not need to even handle the soil (except in containers for mailing), and everything I write is sent to an editor. Yep. Glorified Driving is fun...

act as if other people should believe my guess just because I believe it.

 

The second sentence in my last post covered this,

I must admit I do feel sorry for those who lack experience in PSI fields because they must only believe what they read in Nature Magazine.

Anybody who makes legitimate attempts at telepathy with a friend or associate will soon realize it is possible. It is not hard to do despite whatever anyone can say otherwise. I think that if James Randi himself was willing to really try telepathy with someone on a regular basis he too would be convinced, but his living has been parodying PSI topics, so I doubt that will happen.

 

 

 

Now, today we have psychologists (among others) whose research depends entirely on statistically valid differences in outcome from the outcome that would be predicted in the absence of some effect.

Those differences are real and can be shown to be repeatable.

The point is that, while any given observation might not be repeatable, the pattern of observations is repeatable when analysed statistically.

So, If I ask a psychologist to explain some effect they may not have a definitive explanation.

But they can prove that the effect is real.

You can not do that for the effects you assert.

 

It is funny that Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung were considered founding fathers of this psychology you speak of, and yet they were both at one point heavy advocates for Telepathy. The term "Synchronicity" in PSI effects was coined by Carl Jung.

The first person in modern times to document telepathic dreaming was Sigmund Freud

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

Freud, who wrote several articles on purported telepathic dreams, was a member of the Society for Psychical Research, founded in London in 1882. This society was the first major organization to assess anomalous experiences scientifically, by collecting case studies, conducting surveys, and applying probability theory to the outcome of "guessing" experiments. Among the topics investigated by the society were hypnosis, multiple personalities, near-death experiences, reincarnation, lucid dreaming, out-of-body experiences, and so-called “psychic phenomena” or "psi" that appeared to transcend the constraints of space, time, and energy. Most of these topics, including lucid dreaming, have passed into the scientific mainstream, even though their explanatory mechanisms are still a matter of conjecture (Krippner, 2005). Psi phenomena remained outside of mainstream science, and became the focus of investigations at a "parapsychology laboratory" at Duke University in North Carolina, bearing that appellation to indicate that these studies were "alongside" (i.e., "para") conventional science rather than opposing it.

 

My comment about personal beliefs regarding the Universe (How do you explain The Universe and Matter? were in a context trying to explain why I dislike the use of decrepit old religions to discredit the notion of god. If telepathy is real, then on some level mass consciousness must also be real, and is god much of a stretch from there?

I agree god (if it exists) must be a part of our collective unconscious, but disagree that there is a Heaven, Hell, Pearly Gates, and more.

I have already said directly that proof can never be attained until we have tools better than people to measure such an energy.

This is why I feel no "Burden of Proof" is necessary. I actually think it is your way of thinking that has less basis. I think it is your claim that is outrageous. I think it is silly to ignore PSI fields, but I have been involved with them for many years and have seen much firsthand evidence that would seem impossible to explain by chance. There is NO such thing as a telepathy experiment without at least one witness (It always takes at least two).

 

but don't expect to be taken seriously unless you can support it.

 

Yes. I think I made this clear now. I don't care if anyone takes this seriously. My position is I dislike the use of decrepit old religions to write of the notion of a god (if a god exists).

@ Moontanman,

You are indeed completely correct, nonetheless the burden of proof weighs on your shoulders not mine. I have asked several times for something to back up your horse feathers with something beside i believe so it must be true.

 

Why do I care if you believe or not? I must admit I do feel sorry for those who lack experience in PSI fields because they must only believe what they read in Nature Magazine.

However...

A person professing radio waves existed 1000 years ago would have faced the exact same burden of proof, and in my position the opinions would alter as much.

Without physical tools to measure psychic phenomenon there can be no proof other than percentages and odds which are normally dismissed by anyone familiar with the Scientific method which assumes results must be replicable.

So. As happy as I am to have the Burden of Proof shifted to me, I could care less. Believe what you want, there is no skin off my nose.

Instead I think the burden of proof is upon anyone who wants to understand our reality. I think there are good reasons to want to know if death is the end or a beginning. But I am curious that way. Your scientific curiosity has obviously brought you somewhere else.

Telepathic subjects have already been deemed by a moderator here to be unrelated to mass consciousness or god so I cannot express my views again without going off topic, but if you accept the later then the former becomes a higher probability.

@ Swanson,

No, you miss the point. I don't deem RC cars "worthy" as a threat. They are as ridiculous a threat as RC killer copters. The technology exists and nobody is being killed this way, because it's an absurd way to kill someone.

 

If you are equating RC cars as being as efficient at killing as flying drones then I must assume you think they are comparable on some level. To be honest though that is not even a decent movie plot. Have a shipping container full of 1000 drones carrying C4 to places of interest however does sound like a convincing movie plot, and sadly is not hard to imagine or likely do.

By the way.. Remote control implies human control which is only partially correct. If you tell your dog to go sit somewhere is he being autonomous or being controlled. Many quad copter drones have the ability to follow maps, return to sender, remain in one spot in high winds (or correct), navigate obstacles without the need for people.

you said,

Having a mannequin talk to me does not require that it identify who I am, just that someone be nearby. That's a red herring argument.

 

Yes, but in a conversation specifically discussing Facial Recognition Software, you should be able to jump to the conclusion that we are discussing being recognized by you know (Facial Recognition Software).

From the above and also this comment,

Once again we have a claim but no supporting link. Until you demonstrate this, I will assume it's not true.

 

after I had said,"You can even get Facial Recognition to Lock your phone or Computer."

I suppose I now need to update your education on Facial Recognition Software even though you could easily google this yourself.

From

http://www.androidcentral.com/how-set-face-unlock-your-htc-one-x-or-evo-4g-lte

As facial recognition software gets more and more sophisticated, it will also become more and more affordable – appearing on many of our electronic devices. While not foolproof – just yet – the Face Unlock feature built into your new Android phone does pretty well.

The argument against using facial recognition software is that it is too easy to “fool” the software into thinking you are the owner. Fortunately, Samsung also includes a “backup” recognition using standard PIN or Pattern input.

 

So it is not perfect, but it is certainly able to pick someone out of a crowd who is not trying to fool it. If someone was wearing a mask of the victim at the right locations then it might be fooled, but FR software is very capable.

Similar articles in Time magazine, etc..

http://techland.time.com/2012/01/10/unlock-your-iphone-with-your-face/

http://www.iclarified.com/entry/index.php?enid=19867

Plus hundreds of articles in Nature Magazine on it,

example.. http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v310/n1/full/scientificamerican0114-10.html

This article discusses how our governments will be able to use our faces without our permission like fingerprints.

No worries though. After a brief search I realize there are 100's of videos supporting my position. The idea of this being a movie plot is not as unique as you think. Are not most movies based on things that can and do occur?

The military has one Micro drone designed to search and destroy snipers. One state is considering issuing Drone Hunting Licenses to rid their skies of them. Drones are commonplace in war now. There is no reason to walk into a dangerous area now, clear it with drones.

Anyways Swansontea,. It helps to keep current on technology, especially if you aim to jest at the future of it. Try reading about things before you comment. It is fairly common knowledge that FR software has strong roots in the Scientific Community, so I really do not understand the incredulity you have towards it.

These inexpensive drones all require a pilot to steer them, I assume. It would not seem that difficult to incorporate navigation via GPS satellites into these drones, which would allow them to be used to deliver a cargo like a bomb or an air bourne toxin to a building, automatically

 

Yes. Already some cheap ones are getting a "call Home" feature that is a one button recall for the device. After you took your film you just press the button and it flies in autopilot mode to your controller.I'm sure there is over the counter drone software out there.

How about you save us some time and tell me what evidence there is for anything but evolution?

 

I don't profess evolution is false. I am stating that things cannot be proven either way on many things. I personally am convinced through life experiences or insanity that telepathy and precognition both exist, so I will not be happy with explanations that discount the idea of Mass Consciousness and God.

You have no more proof that there is no god than I have of there being one. I doubt I would ever convince you, and I am pretty set in my views also.

I think God is a part of everything and it's about experiencing. I think creation happens slowly through evolution, but the balances in nature that are necessary to create life are here.

@ Swans on Tea,

Evidence that convicted killers can't get car licenses is? (this is the part where you provide a link, because bald assertion doesn't cut it)

 

That's too bad then for you. In my country if a killer used a car to kill or injure a variety of traffic violations Reckless Driving, Driving under the influence, Speeding, running red lights, Manslaughter, etc.

We take dangerous drivers off the road.

If your countries allow killers who kill with cars to drive again then try discussing that with a politician, and maybe you can get them fixed.

It's ridiculous to be focusing on the possibility that someone might use this particular method to kill someone, and then fixate on the method.

 

Why is discussing this "fixating"?

 

ou're overselling the ease, for one. You need to show that facial recognition is where you claim it to be, and are ignoring that these (as shown in the paintball video) are short-range devices that need two operators; one to fly and one to shoot. This doesn't remove you very far from the scene of the crime and it's not easier than other methods. A recipe for non-adoption.

 

If you are going to make predictions about the future you need to update your thinking. Facial recognition is fast growing in the private sector and you will be forced to wear a mask to the mall if you don't want mannequin's or animations talking to you. I suppose it is natural you did not know this, but Facial recognition software is abundant and not hard to use.

You can even get Facial Recognition to Lock your phone or Computer.

Quite the opposite. I see them, and they are ridiculous. Using an RC vehicle as an instrument of death is literally a movie plot threat. In the 25 years afterwards, has there been a rash of RC car bombs? Have we banned RC cars as a result?

 

I've seen ridiculous RC cars in movies that are supposedly as fast as street cars. It is a fun idea I suppose.

I do not see them as much of a threat as you seem to deem them worthy. I have never heard of the Military deploying drone/RC land based vehicles for murderous intent although I'm sure they must have them.

Flying drones on the other hand can operate from a position of impunity because of their flying abilities.

You need to show that facial recognition is where you claim it to be

 

Okay, here is a link showing Facial Recognition and Drones are already compatible,

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-09/army-wants-drones-can-recognize-your-face-and-read-your-mind

How did I misconstrue the abilities of FR software?

Plotting a search grid with a land based vehicle is intrinsically harder than programming a search grid in a flying drone. Have you ever seen that little Japanese Robot that's always at shows? It takes them days of programming just to get it to move for 20 seconds.

It's ridiculous to be focusing on the possibility that someone might use this particular method

 

So when should this idea be discussed? The day after a terrorist cell launches 10 000 exploding $100 drones on City Hall, or targets police uniforms and cars, or targets children? Perhaps it might be too little too late.

We are talking about a method of murder that is commonplace with the military.

 

Under the Air Vehicles Directorate branch of the US Air Force, research is being conducted to perfect remote-controlled micro air vehicles (MAVs) that are expected to "become a vital element in the ever-changing war-fighting environment and will help ensure success on the battlefield of the future."

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/045495_assassination_drones_autonomous_killing_facial_recognition.html#ixzz36M7i12Te

 

@ moontanman,

Pork kills you when you eat it? Citation please..

 

That is not what I had said, but if you doubt Pork has any dangers to it then eat up. I am fine with your opinion.

Eat...

If you wish to further your scientific investigation of Pork I suggest Nature Magazine. It is a well known fact that Pork is one of the least healthy meats prone to parasites and disease. This sort of common knowledge is abundant however and it is surprising anyone did not know this.

The only evidence we have is that humans evolved..

 

.

Which is then being turned into evidence against possible evidence.

@ Phiforall,

How many Catholics suffered in the afterlife because they ate meat on Friday? Did they get a pardon when the Pope decreed it was now okay not to eat fish?

 

You can sum a position up as relating to religion above, and yet if I said something comparable, like "I don't believe in god because the pope says Pork is Evil and I likes my Bacon",

Both statements refer to the pope as if that human could make decisions for god, and yet mine is supposed to be straw man?

Well if (as you claim) you are not parodying the notion of god you certainly threw a jab at the pope.

You were the one getting all Catholic in this discussion, yet religion is not really the topic.

What are we to do — ban cars, because killers use cars, and ban cell phones, because killers use cell phones?

 

I missed the Cell Phone Killer rampage, but I imagine if you live for another 30 years you will see actions taken to license drone use because of violence.

If a Killer uses a car he will be prevented from driving again if possible.

This reminds me of what Bruce Schneier calls a movie-plot threat, except it's not specifically incorporating terrorism.

 

I said in the Opening Post this might make a better ethics debate as the Engineering aspects have all been solved.

I have more of a problem understanding how anyone claiming intelligence cannot view the drone possibilities in our future.

I imagine killing someone would be as easy with a knife in some cases, but killers like guns because there is physical distance between the combatants. To kill someone in the Dark Ages you would need to carve into them with a blade. Killing is becoming easier for the private individual.

Soon I might be able to dispatch a tiny fleet of drones from my garage that will hunt for you based on your latest profile pic simply by hitting F12.

This makes it easier to kill, and may also have less crossfire. Maybe less kids would be shot everyday if gangs started using drones that shoot the target instead of pointing the guns themselves through playgrounds.

If you think Drone attacks will not rise in popularity among civilians then feel free to say so. I think it is misguided, but let's hear it. How can it not become popular?

Religion has always suffered from falsification. How many Catholics suffered in the afterlife because they ate meat on Friday? Did they get a pardon when the Pope decreed it was now okay not to eat fish?

 

This is not really on topic is it?

The Opening Poster is discussing if proof for god is possible and people automatically look at religions that are thousands of years old as justification for their beliefs.

"I don't believe in god because the pope says Pork is Evil and I likes my Bacon"....

This is like an argument a child would use to disclaim a god.

Scientifically we have learned that Pork is a dangerous food that requires thorough cooking and lots of hand washing to stay alive. Is it surprising our ancestors thought of Pork as evil when their families start dying from it.

I think if anyone wants to think of or discuss a god type entity much care would be required to think practically how such an entity would operate. Would entity have a beard and cane? Would the pearly gates exist in actuality or thought if it existed at all?

@ Phiforall,

We already know many people have faith. We asked for scientifically valid supportive evidence for the existence of any god.

 

Okay. Sounds fair. Show us the proof no god exist. Oh... Is it cheating to use reverse logic? Shouldn't someone claiming god does not exist have some sort of proof, or does that only work if I stand on that side of the fence?

@ Mondie,

These are not idle notions you are tossing about. This discussion has plagued mankind since the dawn of time. Are we created or evolved, or both?

I think of god as apart of everything and all in a Russellian Science type way. I also see mass consciousness as a possibility within the framework.

No math or science can prove that a god does not exist, and even popular opinion would not rule out a god. God is mostly ruled out by those who feel intellectually superior to those who believe (popular opinion is obviously out here) in god.

So if any or all here wish to choose god does not exist then that is a choice based on your opinion. It is not backed up by facts (neither is gods existence). It is also not popular opinion as most of mankind is religious.

Medical advice is always best, but many people react in different ways to symptoms.

Are you taking Vitamin B supplements? Too much Vitamin B 12 for example can dull your senses until your tongue and fingers go numb. If someone takes Niacin they frequently get a "Niacin Flush" which is a reddening of the skin (like sunburn) accompanied by heat and itchiness. Do you take Niacin heavy foods?

It sounds like your doctor has diagnosed the problem, and you should be thankful you are not suffering.

Always take every last pill when prescribed Penicillin

England's hypothesis now needs to be tested. If it is valid, then life should be common in the Universe. However, IMO it says very little about the probability of technological cultures occurring.

 

This discovery sounds like it might need to alter our life definition. Is that acting towards self preservation?

Imagine it was or is life by all definitions though. Then this would mean life is practically everywhere in the Universe even at microscopic levels. As Tim The Plumber seems to state, the odds of intelligent civilizations coming to communicate with us having duplicated our own multi million year evolution is scarce. This discovery should make it much less scarce (if true), as it would put the building blocks in so many more locations.

@ Timtheplumber,

A civilization does not need to have space travel for us to locate them and study them. If ways exist to travel via space I would think many intelligent species could be detected. It would depend upon our speed of exploration. If travel was instant for example we could easily map out millions of galaxies.

@ InogoMontoya,

The military has been using drones for decades (more than 10 years). This topic concerns the idea killer drones may soon be very cheap. A drone with facial recognition could soon (20 years or less) be the weapon of choice for gangs, or used for home invasions and robbery.

If the Military is keeping up with Civilian killing hardware then that's something at least.

A universe limited in size seems crazy for what lies outside its walls.

An infinite universe is also crazy because infinite goes forever in all directions, and that is too much.

So there is no sane answer to us as a species... yet.

I rationalize it by thinking of it as either real or unreal and that we are collapsing light to suit our expectations as a group, but any way we look at it would seem insane for the present. Even the Big Bang Theory proposes the entire Universe exploded out of basically nothing.

Ridiculous, ridiculous, ridiculous. That is what we can think of here on our best days.

It's a bizarre topic no matter how you think the Universe exists.

Majorgeeks is a popular website for computer techies and often has some of the better free tech software around all in one place.

Often websites will trick you into downloading and installing viruses/malware, etc.. If you use free software be sure to unclick all the "FREE" bundles are included.

You can sometimes google how your computer is acting and find the installation name, and a)Remove it via remove programs b) turn it off in Start up.

If you are not computer savvy, I recommend "Start up Buddy" from that website that will remove these sneaky programs from the start up list.

99% of the time I've had computer headaches Majorgeeks had a solution.

For a paid antivirus Webroot has an amazing award winning antivirus system that seems too cheap.

A few of the previous posts mentioned some decent software, but those downloads can be found at Majorgeeks.

Here is a link. It should help rid your computer of unwanted programs.

http://www.majorgeeks.com/

Simple works. Nice solution.

These are free surgery games. Mostly to allow patients to understand the process, but still free...

http://www.agame.com/games/surgery_games/

Most courses seem to follow a prescribed textbook, but because of short print runs the costs are usually several hundred dollars. I'd advise buying University texts on preferred areas of knowledge but try to get an older printing (To save $) or use the textbook used previously for that course.

Some printing or drafting companies will blow up any photo for approx $8 per square foot. This might be a cheap way to get some of your favorite charts enlarged for your room.

I keep thinking they should learn to walk before they run and build something permanent on the moon first.

Sending a community there would be a lifetime commitment to sending them supplies.

What if the funding dries up for this in 50 years after a generation of new young martians. All those beautiful pictures we see on video every week will be forced to starve or worse because nobody here wants to keep paying.

A moon based community would offer greater chances at rescue or replacing personnel, and could even score high in the tourist industry. Chances are less billionaires would opt for mars based on it's distance.

It may cut our chances of finding a real Russell's Teapot (I'd put one there), but it makes much more sense.

@ Phi,

I took it to mean that it's ironic because Moontanman said he happily keeps a loaded shotgun beside his bed, but the same guy thinks that it is borderline mental disorder to bring that same shotgun outside only yards away. It definitely displays a contradiction in feelings about gun use in a short post. It's okay to keep a loaded gun ready to kill in your home, but a mental disorder label is hoisted upon any who carry openly.

You seem clear the only worthwhile effort you can envision is reducing cfc's." is plainly wrong too.

If I thought that was the only game in town, I wouldn't have said "of things that might possibly work"

Did you not understand the use of the plural there, or did you just nort read it?

 

Yes I had missed this part. It seems like a reverse in thinking, but this is all you had to say..

I am

of the opinion that internet never can not become a conscious mind. I think it is impossible.

 

According to this it appears you believe the Internet will become conscious. I am thinking though that it is a Grammatical error though.

Using a double negative changes your position entirely.

I agree (I think), but reasoning is helpful.

Because the short wave UV you need to make ozone (typically <200 nm) doesn't reach the ground because it's absorbed by oxygen, ozone etc, on the way down.

 

The mirror on the ground idea was simply to show a very simplistic way to add a tiny amount of Ozone and to refute an earlier notion that this topic was a waste of thought.

However now you are suggesting it won't work because (in your opinion) none of the UV-C or UV-B could cause ozone by reflection. UV-B can and does cause Ozone and is well known to impact the Earth so any argument otherwise is wrong.

Do I need to cite papers that show UV-B can be reflected and can create ozone?

This is merely a point however, as my main position was that discussing this topic cannot hurt, and your position you clearly outlined again ...

OK, Since Barfbag seems very concerned that I wrote "why would we carry on talking about something else which is never going to work?"

perhaps I should remind people of the context. What I wrote was

OK, should we discuss shouting at clouds as a way to repair the ozone layer?

If, after some consideration, we realise that such shouting won't ever help, should we carry on discussing it, or should we turn our attention to other matters- possibly other solutions (like axing CFC use), or possibly other uses to which you could productively dedicate a trillion dollars?

 

By the same token, why would we carry on talking about something else which is never going to work?

 

and I think it's clear from that I meant we shouldn't waste time on things like C/W multipliers, shouting at clouds, or mirrors because they are never going to work.

 

Discussion of things that might possibly work (like, as I said, axing the use of CFCs) is obviously not a waste of time, but, so far, nobody here has come up with one.

 

 

That quote is pretty much how I had summed it up previously even with context. You seem clear the only worthwhile effort you can envision is reducing cfc's.

I am not even clear why you are saying "shouting at clouds". Who is endorsing shouting at a cloud? Is that supposed to be a Straw Man suggesting someone has said to do such a thing. I assumed "Shouting at the clouds" was possibly a cliche I was unaware of, but I cannot find the meaning if it is. Shouting at anything to get it to work sounds silly.

My reasoning for entering this thread was because you said basically what you stated (in context) in the above quote. You seem to be of the opinion that nothing good can come from it. This assumes you know more than all on the topic. I thought it seemed mildly oppressive and vain to suggest nothing else (no other solutions) are possible.

That was the discussion.

Yes I know Global Warming is likely not good for our planet especially based on the overwhelming data that says so. Several of the ideas I suggested were obviously not practical, but they both would add ozone (or retard depletion).

@ JohnC,

Perhaps websites such as

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ozone-hole-and-gw-faq.html#Does_climate_change_have_an_impact_on_th

do have an iota of correct information and possibly is reviewed at some peer level.

This Magazine has a fairly known reputation though.

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090812/full/460792a.html

In 1992, researchers predicted that greenhouse warming would speed up the destruction so strongly that it would cause ozone holes to open above the Arctic as well⁷. But that analysis left out an important effect, says John Austin, an author of the study and a modeller at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, New Jersey. Normal atmospheric flow, called the Brewer–Dobson circulation, causes air to rise into the stratosphere over the tropics, and then travel towards the higher latitudes, where it sinks back into the lower atmosphere (and heats up as it gets compressed). If climate change accelerates that cycle, it will speed up the downward flow above the polar regions, which would enhance the compression of the sinking air and raise atmospheric temperatures there. Especially in the Arctic, that heating effect in the polar stratosphere will impede ozone loss, says Austin.

 

There are a variety of opinions on the matter it seems. Maybe you are right or maybe this article is?

Another increase in CO2 will come from the melting ice .

So according to you any UV light reflected from a mirror on the ground would not make it back to the stratosphere to make regular ozone?

I'm not as inclined to believe things in that website you quoted 100%. Maybe it is right, but I trust Nature Magazine more.

@ Opening Poster,

It would be fun if you gave us an update after the assignment is over and let us know what the intended meaning turned out to be.

I'm curious now.

Cheers.