Remember the huge hole in the ozone layer thing that was going to kill us all in the 1980’s? You know, the one that led to the ban of CFC’s, propellants in air horns, hair spray, air conditioners, some plastics manufacturing, etc. Well, just like that famous 1980’s horror movie line form Poltergeist, "Their baaaaack"! That’s right, the good old ozone, the part of our atmosphere that protects us from harmful UV radiation from the Sun and space and keeps us from getting skin cancer, go blind, and fry all the vegetation on the surface. Below is a NEW article stating the ozone is getting better, much better in some places, not so hot in others, please read below for details and then we can discuss the article and its impact on our global warming, I mean climate change, thing.
Ozone Layer Faces Bumpy Return to Health
Emily Sohn, Discovery News
April 23, 2009
The Earth’s ailing ozone layer will probably recover, but it will never look exactly like it used to. That is the conclusion of a new study, which found that greenhouse gasses are interfering with ozone’s rebound in complicated ways. The study predicts a patchy future for the ozone layer, with some sections becoming even thicker than they were before bans on ozone-damaging chemicals kicked in. Other sections, meanwhile, may remain sparse.
"This shows that greenhouse gas increases could have some surprising effects on ozone," said Feng Li, an atmosheric scientist at NASA’s Goddard Earth Sciences and Technology Center in Greenbelt, Md.
The ozone layer lies in the stratosphere, the region of the atmosphere that stretches from about 10 miles to 30 miles above the planet’s surface. Up there, ozone gas plays an important, even life-saving role. By absorbing most of the sun’s ultraviolet rays, stratospheric ozone protects people from skin cancer and guards plants, animals, and ecosystems forms from the blistering effects of UV radiation.
Lower down, ozone has a worse reputation — as a major component of smog.
Stratospheric ozone was hard hit by emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and related chemicals, which used to be found in aerosol cans, refrigerants, aircraft, and other places. Then, in the late 1980s, as part of the international Montreal Protocol, many governments banned these chemicals. Those bans, said Darryn Waugh, an atmospheric scientist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, seem to have made a big difference: Chlorine, one component of CFCs, has peaked in the upper atmosphere, and scientists expect it to drop back to 1970s levels by 2060. But will the decline in chlorine and other ozone-damaging substances lead directly to the revival of ozone? That’s something researchers have been trying to figure out.
Scientists know that the accumulation of greenhouse gasses, including carbon dioxide, actually makes the stratosphere colder, even as it traps heats lower down. That’s a good thing for the ozone layer, because the reactions that break down ozone happen more slowly in colder conditions. But the increase in greenhouse gasses also speeds up the circulation of ozone through the atmosphere. Normally, ozone forms in the tropics, where it rises to the upper stratosphere and then moves toward the poles. Li wanted to know what a quickening of this process would do to the ozone layer. With a computer model that looked at how climate change might affect ozone recovery over the next century, his team found that faster circulation through the stratosphere is depositing lots of ozone in mid- and high-latitude regions — so much so that these areas are "super-recovering" to levels higher than in the pre-CFC era.
Faster circulation, however, is also bringing more ozone-poor air from the lower atmosphere into the stratosphere above the tropics. "This speeding up prevents the full recovery of tropical ozone," Li said. The study appeared in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
The findings may have policy implications, Waugh told Discovery News. "If all that mattered was the amount of chlorine in the atmosphere, and chlorine is expected to go back to what it was in 1970, then you would expect ozone to go back to what it was in 1970," he said. "Now they’re saying there are other things that are going to be impacting ozone." In that way, he added, the ozone layer’s healing process resembles a person’s recovery from serious disease. "If it takes you 30 years to recover from something, you’re not going to recover to how you were when you were 20," Waugh said. — copyright on above belongs to Discovery News.
So our efforts have not only stopped the spread of the gaping hole in the ozone, we have grown NEW ozone thicker then it was when I was born in 1970, the era of hair spray and modernizing the us by putting AC everywhere. Now there is no doubt that our pollutants released since the 1800’s industrial revolution have had impact on the environment, but it seems our efforts can do more in 20 years then in 200! Granted the hole is still there, but the ozone getting thicker then it was 20 years ago after 200 years of pollution then it seriously makes one think what is going on here. Only fully indoctrinated leftist eco-warriors will look past the science of this report and only to the hypothesis that questionably support for their cause. The truth is we have no definitive answer on our ability to impact the global environment of our planet. 2/3 of the globe is ocean, of the land mass the vast majority is NOT inhabited, deserts, mountains, high plains, rain forests, etc. So here were are, still believing we are such a powerful and overwhelming species as to impact our massive environment one way or the other is still not fully understood enough to know what is natural and what is man influenced.
Now trash in the ocean is one thing, so is pharmaceuticals in our rivers and lakes, the state of our spheres, ice caps, etc. is just speculation. All this is hypothesis based off of incomplete mathematic computations, incomplete data, and insufficient length of observation and computer models based off of the above data. You know, you can engineer a computer model to give you the answers you are expecting, subliminally of course. The jury is still out on this, in the mean time, cutting back on emitting bad things is a good course of action, but we should be moderate, not radical. By going into the sheer lunacy that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, and lefty idiots insist we do will only economically hamstring us, sell out our prosperity and economic status, and provide a windfall of opportunity to emerging markets that will take more US based jobs, influence, and global ability to be the masters of our own destiny.
Moderation my friends, moderation. Let’s cut back but not to a degree manufacturing goes overseas, energy costs for average Americans electricity goes up 30%, gas prices go up 20%, China, India, and South East Asia now steer the global economy, policy, and direction. Our policies need to maintain our world influence, not undercut it. Lets cut back at sustainable levels until the science Obama so proudly touts can give us a clearer picture and not use faith in Obama as he states is ignorant and backwards thinking. If we are to say yes to science and no to faith then let’s do it all the way in all instances, lets be consistent in our approaches, not pick and choose as it fits our needs.