NASA: Ozone Layer Disaster Averted

(AP)  Here's rare good news about an environmental crisis: We dodged disaster with the ozone layer.

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."

---

Read the NASA study

---

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.

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."

[louiville2]

From 1997 it's good to see James Hanson funding wh*res are playing out propaganda.

"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."

[louiville2]

AGW religious faithful steps to finding the truth:

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.

[formrusmcsgt]

"In significant cases, human beings can get together and arrive at international or global principles and avoid ecological catastrophe."
----
Only those who do not contend that it's "hogwash"...

[zipperfalcon]

Hey, **********:

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.

[scottyusa]

Some believe the earth will end in 2012. Some believe rich nations will be poor and poor nations rich towards the end. Some believe in God some believe in evolution and some believe in global warming. All good things to ponder and debate. For me I just carry on and enjoy life and let our leaders worry about that stuff. That is what they are there for. On the other side of my coin I recycle, don't litter, don't use fertilizer on my lawn and conserve as much gas and oil as I can (for monetary reasons I admit). Oh and I don't own cows I just eat them.

[jroach31]

Tee hee. Who would have thought that Z i p p e r h e a d would be censored by CBS?

[jroach31]

Hey, **********:

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.

[zipperfalcon]

Anyone want to pony up $35 each for a copy of these articles?
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.

[iDragon13]

skyk, I would disagree with one or two statements you made. Simply because someone has something to gain does not mean they do not speak the truth. I happen to agree with the rest of what you've said except that one additional disadvantage to global warming prevention initiatives is that it could end up being economically detrimental in the short term (i.e. cap and trade). We'll have to wait and see how it plays out.

[ibzjem]

http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
--

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!!!