Posted on 07/04/2004 5:21:55 AM PDT by RetroSexual
On June 28, 1974, Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina, chemists at the University of California, Irvine, published the first scientific paper warning that human-generated chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) could cause serious harm to Earth's protective ozone layer (Molina and Rowland, 1974). They calculated that if CFC production continued to increase at the going rate of 10%/year until 1990, then remain steady, CFCs would cause a global 5 to 7 percent ozone loss by 1995 and 30-50% loss by 2050.
They warned that the loss of ozone would significantly increase the amount of skin-damaging ultraviolet UV-B light reaching the surface, greatly increasing skin cancer and cataracts. The loss of stratospheric ozone could also significantly cool the stratosphere, potentially causing destructive climate change. Although no stratospheric ozone loss had been observed yet, CFCs should be banned, they said. At the time, the CFC industry was worth about $8 billion in the U.S., employed over 600,000 people directly, and 1.4 million people indirectly (Roan, 1989).
Critics and skeptics--primarily industry spokespeople and scientists from conservative think tanks--immediately attacked the theory. Despite the fact that Molina and Rowland's theory had wide support in the scientific community, a handful of skeptics, their voices greatly amplified by the public relations machines of powerful corporations and politicians sympathetic to them, succeeded in delaying imposition of controls on CFCs for many years. However, the stunning discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985 proved the skeptics wrong. Human-generated CFCs were indeed destroying Earth's protective ozone layer. In fact, the ozone depletion was far worse than Molina and Roland had predicted. No one had imagined that ozone depletions like the 50% losses being observed by 1987 over Antarctica were possible so soon. Despite the continued opposition of many of the skeptics, the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to phase out ozone-destroying chemicals, was hurriedly approved in 1987 to address the threat.
Ozone depletion worsened globally throughout the 1990's, with peak ozone losses reaching 70% in Antarctica in Spring, 30% in the Arctic in Spring, 8% in Australia in summer, 10-15% in New Zealand in summer, and 3% globally year-round (WMO, 2002; Manin et. al., 2001; McKenzie et. al., 1999). In response, the international community adopted four amendments to the Montreal Protocol in the 1990's to promote an ever faster phase out of ozone-destroying chemicals. Finally, in the early 2000's, although the we cannot yet say that stratospheric ozone depletion has reached its maximum, atmospheric levels of ozone-destroying substances in the atmosphere are now declining, and a disappearance of the Antarctic ozone hole is expected by about 2050 (WMO, 2002). Molina and Rowland were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1995. The citation from the Nobel committee credited them with helping to deliver the Earth from a potential environmental disaster.
On this 30th anniversary of the beginning of the ozone depletion debate, it is revealing to review the techniques the skeptics used to mislead and distort the truth in the debate on the CFC-ozone depletion issue. All of them have parallels in the current global warming debate. Keep in mind that some environmentalists have used similar techniques to mislead and distort the truth. Several of these distortions are mentioned below.
(Excerpt) Read more at wunderground.com ...
Some alternatives:
http://www.weather.com
http://www.nws.noaa.gov
http://weather.yahoo.com
http://www.accuweather.com
Dupont was behind the whole thing because their patent on "Freon" had expired allowing competing companies to manufacture it and undercut Dupont's pricing.
Any advertising they did was to hide what they were actually up to.
The relationship between Freon and ozone depletion has never been proved and there is no proof that the ozone layer has not been in a growth/shrinkage cycle for a long time.
Seems like the enviro-whackos look for some "unknowns" in science and then fill them with scary theories that they can use to push their politics. The best targets are the areas of science where absolute proof is either impossible or very difficult (like long-term weather forecasting which loses 90% credibility 3 days out).
In "Global Warming" they are clearly trying to get control of energy. Once they control energy, they control just about everything.
bump for later
In other words, what that means is that the ozone depletion model constructed by Molina and Roland was incorrect.
Dr. Dewpoint at Intellicast.com
(Don't let the cutesy name fool you -- he will inundate you with hard data!)
The so-called ozone hole was greater when first discovered during the 1957-1958 International Geophysical Year than in recent times. This article is pure pseudoscience and bunk.
Here's a good set of backhoe links on Freon and ozone depletion claims.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/690933/posts?page=2#30
Very informative; thanks!
Nice link. I am glad to see that intellicast is interested in science, not in generating anti-capitalist controversies. Weather underground has been deleted from my bookmarks and I will get my weather information from professionals from now on.
A name like "Weather Underground", meant to remind people of a Marxist terroist group, should be a tip-off.
Source? I found this with Google, which appears to contradict your statement.
Beginning in 1957 to 1985, the British Antarctic Survey had measured the average ozone concentration over Halley Bay in Antarctica. Up until 1974, the ozone concentration remained stable. Yet after 1974, the team observed a decline of the ozone layer to levels less than 10%.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.