WASHINGTON, March 19, 2009
NASA: Ozone Layer Disaster Averted
1980s Push To Cut CFCs Prevented Rapid Global Warming, Dangerous UV Levels
-
This image provided by NASA was compiled by the Ozone Monitoring Instrument on NASA's Aura satellite from Sept. 21-30, 2006 showing a large ozone hole. NASA scientists say in a new study that the Earth could have faced disastrous consequences had nations not moved to curb the use of ozone-destroying gases in the late 80s and 90s. (AP/NASA)
-
Interactive Global Warming The greenhouse effect, a look at the Kyoto Protocol and a history of the Earth's climate.
-
Photo Essay Earth Day Celebrations and protests around the world.
A NASA study about ozone-munching chemicals from aerosol sprays and refrigeration used a computer model to play a game of what-if. What if the world 22 years ago didn't agree to cut back on chlorofluorocarbons which cause a seasonal ozone hole to form near the South Pole?
NASA atmospheric scientist Paul Newman said the answer is a "bizarre world."
By 2065, two-thirds of the protective ozone layer would have vanished and "the ozone hole covers the Earth." And the CFCs, which are long-lived potent greenhouse gases, would have pushed the world's temperature up an extra 4 degrees.
Read the NASA study
In mid-latitudes like Washington, DNA-damaging ultraviolet radiation would have increased more than sixfold. Just 5 minutes in the summer sunshine would have caused a sunburn, instead of 15. Typical midsummer UV levels, now around 10 or 11, would have soared to 30. Summer thunderstorms in the Northern Hemisphere would have been much stronger.
"It is a real horrible place," Newman told The Associated Press.
But that dreadful scenario was "a world avoided," according to the paper published this week in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
After scientists raised warnings in the early 1970s - later earning a Nobel Prize - 193 nations agreed in the 1987 treaty called the Montreal Protocol to cut CFC emissions. CFCs had been used in air conditioning, aerosol sprays, foam packaging and other products.
Newman, the co-chair of the protocol's scientific panel, said the study provides hope that the world can do the same thing on another looming but even harder to solve environmental problem: Global warming.
"There's a huge lesson to be learned here," said Paul Wapner, director of Global Environmental Politics at American University. "In significant cases, human beings can get together and arrive at international or global principles and avoid ecological catastrophe."
© MMIX The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From SciTech
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 44 Comments"Scientists claim that CFCs alone could not have the profound impact on the ozone that is
being observed. The impact of CFCs on the ozone layer is not fully understood. Changes in weather
patterns, eruptions of volcanoes, changes in the ultraviolet radiation from the sun which changes through
a ten year cycle, and other phenomena can, like CFCs, inhibit the production of ozone (NCPPR,
tp 12.html).
"To contradict a rising amount of ultraviolet radiation that the alarmists claim would be present if the
ozone layer were destroyed, Hogan points out that actual ultraviolet levels have been decreasing over the past decade.
He also attacks their idea of CFCs eating up oxygen molecules in the atmosphere. For each CFC
and oxygen collision, ozone is actually created. The breakup of paired oxygen releases the free oxygen molecules
to bond with other free molecules to form ozone. Hogan attacks the way scientists gathered their data. The
research station that announced alarming amounts of chlorine in the atmosphere, supposedly released from
cooling devices as CFCs, is in fact downwind from an active volcano that released an average of 1,000 tons of
chlorine per day in 1983 (Easton, 164). To argue the record low 1985 levels of ozone over Antarctica, Hogan
refers to the extremely low levels discovered by Gordon Dobson in 1956, when CFCs were barely in use.
Hogan's basic stance is that the claims being made that the ozone hole is increasing are fraud. The ozone
layer is constantly in flux, changing yearly and seasonally. It has increased between 1962 and 1979, while
decreasing from 1979 to 1986. Since 1986 the levels of global ozone have increased at a steady rate (Easton,
166). The ozone hole is, in his eyes, a fad for science that will end once something more interesting enters the
public eye.
YES, TIME WILL TELL
In the end, only time will tell which side is correct. Current observations do show a shift in the ozone
layer over Antarctica. However, the Earth, on average, is increasing in the amount of ozone; the amount of
ultraviolet radiation reaching the ground in decreasing as well. Time will show that the alarmists claiming that the
ozone layer will be gone over the next few years were wrong.
Faulty research and the need for political influence tainted the results of NASA and other government
agencies. A research site downwind from an active volcano had better pick up alarming amounts of chlorine in
the air. Worst case scenarios are needed to motivate the public to demand the passing of laws. Once the laws get
passed, then the agency that prompted them looks like a hero.
We will find out that we do have a profound impact on the environment. Impacts occur when an
abundance of a substance is produced. The manmade CFCs posed no additional harm to the environment than
natural made ones. Science will turn from this fad and onto another when the opportunity presents itself. Until
that time, we will continually be warned about the "depleting ozone hole" and "deadly ultraviolet radiation."
1. Find a problem any problem.
2. Find something happening at the same time, preferably manmade.
3. Declare the correlation is the cause.
4. Declare the debate over and anyone who questions it a heretic.
5. Perform human sacrifice on someone, anyone.
6. Drag their entrails around the fire and dance to the earth god for forgiveness.
7. Declare victory
8. Self-flog for a week for good measures.
Hey it worked for our ancestors and sure seems to work on the current "age of stupid" AGW self loathing nut cases. Go ahead and run back to your fearing wealthy hypocritical leaders.
Burned any witches lately?
Burned any witches lately?
Posted by louiville2 at 7:51 AM : Mar 20, 2009
LOL Let me guess! You got your degree in the Bathroom at J.C. Penny's? LOL
Posted by skyk-2009 at 9:45 AM
If it isn't true why is Gores carbon foot print so LARGE, you can tell he dosn't believe it.
A quote from Gore opps Goebbels;
National Socialism is a religion. All we lack is a religious genius capable of uprooting outmoded religious practices and putting new ones in their place. We lack traditions and ritual. One day soon National Socialism will be the religion of all Germans. My Party is my church, and I believe I serve the Lord best if I do his will, and liberate my oppressed people from the fetters of slavery. That is my gospel." - Joseph Goebbels
Just substitute National for Green and American for German and you get the idea.
----
Only those who do not contend that it's "hogwash"...
Your list of "peer reviewed articles" runs from 1991 through 2000. Not one of them addresses in any way at all, an impending ice age. So:
1. You ducked my point on both counts. These articles do not date from the 1960's or 1970's or even the 1980's, AND they have nothing to do with claiming an impending ice age. Can you hold a coherent thought in your head long enough to actually address the points other people make?--never mind the answer to that is quite obvious.
2. Your articles do address some of the complexities of climate cycles, modeling and measurement. NONE of them directly conclude, or even address the conclusion of the hundreds of peer reviewed studies that DO directly conclude that AGW is very real.
You're a loser, son. And your delusional world is very easily punctured by anyone who actually checks on the claims you make.
Posted by jroach31 at 1:04 PM : Mar 20, 2009
You know - you could be correct.... I have not read every single article on the topic. The ones that I have draw conclusions based on past observations and possible future direction. But I'll hold off on the name-calling and juvenile insults if you do just this one thing for me. Find one - Just ONE article of the same criteria you list that conclusively proves your position. I don't care what time frame it was authored in - only that it was peer reviewed and independantly proven. (that's less of a challenge than you held my articles to)
Now, just so you are clear on this... not an article that says 'if the trend continues' or 'based upon our observation' or any of the other statements that you claim do not prove anything in the five papers I submitted.... but just ONE that is subjected to your own criteria and PROVES that your position is correct.
And, just so you don't lose any sleep over it - I'm not going to come down to your level and call you names - regardless of what you do or can't do.
Your list of "peer reviewed articles" runs from 1991 through 2000. Not one of them addresses in any way at all, an impending ice age. So:
1. You ducked my point on both counts. These articles do not date from the 1960's or 1970's or even the 1980's, AND they have nothing to do with claiming an impending ice age. Can you hold a coherent thought in your head long enough to actually address the points other people make?--never mind the answer to that is quite obvious.
2. Your articles do address some of the complexities of climate cycles, modeling and measurement. NONE of them directly conclude, or even address the conclusion of the hundreds of peer reviewed studies that DO directly conclude that AGW is very real.
You're a loser, son. And your delusional world is very easily punctured by anyone who actually checks on the claims you make.
Posted by ibzjem at 8:46 AM : Mar 20, 2009
They (and the hundreds of others) are all available free at any University library. If you don't have access to one, ask your local librarian to request them for you.
The point being made - is that the poster who claimed there is no research - is wrong.
--
Oh I don't think I"m going to take a politician's word (any politician) over the majority of scientific study ever! Let alone a Republican from Oklahoma. We've had enough of that this decade. This speech is nothing but a rant against the media, remember the "liberal" media? Talk about having an agenda!!!
Posted by Aldymac at 6:22 AM
Do you have a NAME, just ONE NAME? I can find NO member of the Scientific Community who would say anything like this TODAY! NASA has no reason to lie about this and there is NO creditable evidence that they are wrong... ABSOLUTELY NONE!!
Burned any witches lately?
Posted by louiville2 at 7:51 AM : Mar 20, 2009
LOL Let me guess! You got your degree in the Bathroom at J.C. Penny's? LOL
Posted by louiville2 at 8:37 AM : Mar 20, 2009
You are going to have to show me evidence of this! I know of NO creditable scientist that has debunked ANYTHING involved with Global Warming and the Reality of another possible Ice Age. Just because the term "Global Warming" is used does NOT mean we aren't going to suffer very bad results HOT and COLD. IF you opened you mind just a crack and let a little light in, listen to people who know what they are talking about, not with the intent of finding some reason to NOT BELIEVE them, but with the intent of hearing what they say... then stop listening to those who only tell you what you want to hear, you might learn something.
This is what AGW do. They just say something has been debunked and offer no evidence. Then they call you a fearmonger. That's rich considering that pretty much all that same person does regarding every other subject. It's what they do. They make things up and then use that information as some sort of factual jumping off point. Don't be fooled or initimidated by these cretins. They are mentally challenged.
2) A Review of the Contemporary Global Carbon Cycle and as seen a century ago by Arrhenius and HoEgbom
3) Temporal and spatial variation of surface air temperature over the period of instrumental observations in the Arctic
4) A contemporary assessment of the mesospheric energy budget
5) Changes in the water regime of the caspian sea through the last 400 years
Posted by zipperfalcon at 7:45 AM : Mar 20, 2009
Anyone want to pony up $35 each for a copy of these articles?
Posted by iDragon13 at 7:00 AM
That was debunked years ago and only exists in fictional fear mongering movies. Is that where you get your "scientific" information? Or from all the high school/college dropout Hollywood alleged "Stars".
1. Find a problem any problem.
2. Find something happening at the same time, preferably manmade.
3. Declare the correlation is the cause.
4. Declare the debate over and anyone who questions it a heretic.
5. Perform human sacrifice on someone, anyone.
6. Drag their entrails around the fire and dance to the earth god for forgiveness.
7. Declare victory
8. Self-flog for a week for good measures.
Hey it worked for our ancestors and sure seems to work on the current "age of stupid" AGW self loathing nut cases. Go ahead and run back to your fearing wealthy hypocritical leaders.
Burned any witches lately?
Had you lived in the 1970's and stayed away from Haight-Asbury you would know that it was far more than 'a couple stories' or 'a politician or two'. The hype was every bit as intense as the global warming stuff of today - sans the internet.
Here are five peer reviewed aticles published in scholarly journals - they exist - they just don't get much hype because they don't sell newspapers or fit the current agenda.
1) Some implications of paleoecology for contemporary ecology
2) A Review of the Contemporary Global Carbon Cycle and as seen a century ago by Arrhenius and HoEgbom
3) Temporal and spatial variation of surface air temperature over the period of instrumental observations in the Arctic
4) A contemporary assessment of the mesospheric energy budget
5) Changes in the water regime of the caspian sea through the last 400 years
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 44 Comments