We used to debate ozone like man caused climate is debated today. But though they said man caused the ozone level to deplete, nobody said it was caused by climate. Now comes a report from NASA blaming the shrinking Ozone levels on climate. Guess sooner or later it came to this. By the way, we were told the shrinking ozone level was great for the earth. Funny how it changes. http://earthsky.org/earth/2017-anta...ince-1988?mc_cid=0f120afd7e&mc_eid=60325daa3c
CFC11 on the rise... Emissions of Banned Ozone-Eating Chemical Are Rising May 16, 2018 - Something strange is happening with a now-banned chemical that eats away at Earth's protective ozone layer: Scientists say there's more of it — not less — going into the atmosphere and they don't know where it is coming from.
Likely cheating on ozone treaty found... Likely cheating on ozone treaty found Fri, May 18, 2018 - CONTRAVENTION: NOAA chemist Stephen Montzka said either the banned chemical is being made or its byproducts are not being reported as required by a 1987 treaty
Scientists like to overreact. It makes their daily boring lives seem important. "Oh my God!.....all the ice is melting". No its not.
Well NASA make it up as they go along, don't you know that? They have an in-house monthly prize for who can come up with the dottiest theories.
Ozone cycle is rather short so the reduction in cfc's worldwide and 2 decades the Ozone is showing signs of recovery already. When I was at uni the estimates were it would take a century to return to pre industrial revolution days that's probably changed now. It's created by UV-b and UV-c as the rays filter through the atmosphere. Without Ozone there would no life on land! Only in the sea.
I really don't get it. Your first sentence suggests you believe climatologists. Your second sentence suggests you DON'T believe climatologists, and think they are such unbelievable fools as to not recognize their own findings.
"We used to debate ozone like man caused climate is debated today." We looked to data back then and determined that action was required. The result was a treaty signed by numerous nations oriented to reducing the presence in our atmosphere of the offending chemicals. We all paid a price for that, as it meant that numerous devices (refrigerators, cars, etc.) had to move to different chemistry and were thus slightly less efficient. It meant labor was required as well - paid for by individuals as well as corporations. And the result was that we made an important difference in earth's atmosphere. Today, the climate change issue is not opposed by data, but almost purely by politics, with opinion divided along partisan political lines. And, that divide includes the division in belief in whether we can (or ever could have) made a difference. The divide includes opposition to the idea of cooperation on a world wide basis. The divide is bolstered by acceptance of the idea that science is corrupt and that there is a world wide conspiracy. The divide includes notions that someone is trying to get rich. It includes denial of science based on concern that solutions to the problem could be expensive - without much if any attempt to understand what the actual costs of various solutions might be. It comes with moves by the current president to increase tariffs on alternative energy technology, damaging the alternative energy corporations in America - which hire more than 3X what coal hires. It comes with denial of projections of the impact of a warming climate - on food, on various populations, etc. What is going on today bears NO similarity to what was going on when Earth worked together to solve an atmospheric ozone problem.
One sentence of my opinion followed by the rest being your opinion. Thanks for being an alarmist. I am not in the mood to care.
You were wrong about something that you really SHOULD care about. The fact that a decision on a topic of science that is of major world wide interest is being decided on nothing more that party line should hit you as incredibly disgusting. Think were that leads.
Completely different. The Earth does not have a history of naturally removing the Ozone layer. It does have a natural history of changing the climate. This isn't something we can prevent from happening.
No, it's a factual statement concerning the difference between the ozone debate and the partisan political decision making process that ignores science today.
We knew how long ozone remains in the atmosphere - just like we know how long co2 stays in the atmosphere. This isn't true. Besides that, the causes of the excess warming going on today (that is, the part that is not related to sun activity) is pretty darn well known. Let's remember, too, that this started with deniers actually denying that the climate isn't actually changing!!! We know how to make a difference. Stopping climate change in any kind of short time fram would be extremelyh hard, but simply slowing it down is a serious advantage in that it allows for human response to the change. And today, the deniers are even refusing to take action on the ramifications of warming that is clearly happening. That is, their simple refusal to accept what the source might be is bleeding into the realm of refusing to accept that the earth is actually warming, and that warming is having increasingly serious effects.
You can't slow down the natural cycle unless you know how to control the tilt of the earth. We have a recorded, documented history of the earth going from hot to cold and back again, you can't prevent it, you can't slow it down. Right now we are in an inter-glacial period of the current ice-age and we will be coming out of it. It doesn't matter what we do, we aren't going to change that cycle. We could speed it up or slow it down by a couple of hundred years but in the 100,000 year cycle its fairly irrelevant. The ice will melt, oceans will rise....then the planet will freeze again as the poles tilt away from the sun on its cycle. Your little carbon emission tax won't prevent that from happening.
Climatologists show how your assumption that humans have no effect on climate is wrong - and they do so in great detail. In fact, the vast majority of climatologists from all over the world agree you are wrong.
I have never seen anyone say we can prevent the natural cycle. But please post that for us. All we can do is alter our effect on the climate, not nature's but please show us that.
That's called jumping on the bandwagon. History has proven if you don't you can lose your position or never get one. That is how authoritarian the dogma has become.
