Time Lapse Ozone Hole Over Antarctica

User avatar
Posts: 2370
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 11:43 am

PostWed Dec 02, 2009 7:39 pm » by Electrobadgr

Apologies, i posted the second article incomplete. Damn iphone!!! :hell:
check the link for the full story. This is only the first couple of aryicle i stumbled across whilst on my phone at work. There is definitely some conflicting science goin on here.
"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly. time-y wimey... stuff." - The Doctor

User avatar
Posts: 7420
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 9:24 pm

PostWed Dec 02, 2009 7:44 pm » by Pindz

cornbread714 wrote:Why bother posting scientific evidence?

No one here will believe it anyway. :D



User avatar
Posts: 2370
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 11:43 am

PostWed Dec 02, 2009 8:05 pm » by Electrobadgr

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/janet ... ood-thing/
By Janet Daley World Last updated: December 1st, 2009
29 Comments Comment on this article
Remember the last great climate change doomsday nightmare – the one we were all obsessed with a few years ago? The Hole in the Ozone Layer was going to permit dangerous amounts of ultra-violet radiation to penetrate the atmosphere of the planet causing a mass epidemic of skin cancer as well as irreversible global warming, blah-blah.
Unless you follow these things fairly closely, you may have found yourself wondering what had happened to the Great Hole – why is it never mentioned any longer as a threat to the earth’s future? Because it is repairing itself. Which was not supposed to be possible. But that isn’t all. According to the latest interpretation of the data from the climate change lobby, the closing of the hole is even more disastrous than the opening of it was thought to be.
It seems that the Hole in the ozone layer has been shielding Antarctica from the most severe effects of global warming, and that this has accounted for the otherwise inexplicable cooling of parts of the Antarctic continent (which has proved such an embarassment to the Warming Lobby). Now that the Hole is – miraculously – healing itself, that protection will disappear and the alleged catastrophic warming of the region will accelerate at a rate even faster than was earlier predicted. Have you got that?
So yesterday’s great threat to the planet (hole in the ozone layer) turns out not to have been a threat at all but a form of protection against the real great threat (CO2-generated global warming). Question: if the experts who gave us melodramatic warnings about the terrors of the damaged ozone layer got it so spectacularly wrong, why should we trust their equally alarming predictions about the dangers of its disappearance?
"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly. time-y wimey... stuff." - The Doctor

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 10120
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:10 pm
Location: Packing my stuff and moving to Denver like you should be doing

PostWed Dec 02, 2009 8:38 pm » by Savwafair2012

Common ozone depletion myths

There is overwhelming evidence that humans are responsible for the Antarctic ozone "hole". And there is strong evidence that the ozone layer elsewhere has been damaged. Three scientists who developed the ozone depletion theory were awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry. With so much evidence for an environmental crises, it is little wonder that so many anti-environmental myths have developed about ozone depletion.

Common myths about ozone depletion:

Myth: CFCs cannot reach the stratosphere because they are heavier than air.

Fact: Air in the lower atmosphere (which extends far above the stratosphere) moves in masses, not as individual molecules. A number of studies have found CFCs and the products of their breakdown in the stratosphere (Rowland, EPA).

Myth: Volcanoes and other natural sources contribute much more chlorine than CFCs to the ozone layer.

Fact: Chlorine compounds from natural sources are soluble, and so are washed out of the atmosphere. CFCs, by contrast, are not soluble and so are able to reach the stratosphere. A number of studies have shown that the majority of chlorine in the stratosphere comes from man-made chemicals (Rowland, Taubes, Russell et al, EPA).

Myth: The Antarctic ozone "hole" was there all along, it was discovered in the 1970's because that's when satellite measurements started.

Fact: The hole was discovered using a ground based instrument that had been in use since 1956. There was no hole until about 1976. That means about 20 years with no hole. Since the 70s the hole has continued to increase in size and intensity (Farman, et al, Jones & Shanklin).

Myth: The "hole" was present when the first measurements were made in 1956.

Fact: The first ozone measurements made in the Antarctic were lower than similar measurements made in the Arctic. However, this is the natural condition, not the decrease that is referred to as the ozone "hole". As noted above, there was no "hole" during the first 20 or so years of measurement. (Parson, Christie).

Myth: Some French researchers found an ozone hole in 1958.

Fact: Paul A. Newman (Newman) looked at all the facts and found that "There is no credible evidence for an ozone hole in 1958."

Myth: Spray cans deplete the ozone layer.

Fact: Spray cans (in the United States) have not used CFCs as propellants for about 20 years.

Myth: Of course there is an ozone hole in the winter, there is no sunlight to make new ozone.

Fact: The ozone hole occurs in the spring, after the sunlight returns. There is little destruction or creation of ozone during the winter (Parson)

Myth: DuPont supported the ban on freon because the patent was about to run out.

Fact: The patent for making freon was issued in 1928, it ran out in the 1940s, long before any concern about ozone depletion. (The History of Freon)
Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, . http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml


  • Related topics
    Last post