Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ozone Hole to Mend (Itself) by 2040-Japanese University Scientists
The Australian ^ | May 29, 2002 Australia Time | Stephen Lunn

Posted on 05/28/2002 5:36:54 PM PDT by codebreaker

The hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica will disappear by 2040, Japanese scientists forceasted yesterday, offering a far more hopeful timeline than previous reasearch predictions.

Using a supercomputer to model future global atmospheric conditions, scientists Tatsuya Nagashima and Masaaki Takahashi from Toyko University predicted that the next 15 years will see little or no change in the size of the ozone hole before a slow improvement begins in the late 2030's.

From that point on there will be a sudden increase in the amount of ozone into the stratosphere, leading to a full recovery by about 2040.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Japan; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2040; aussiepaper; enviralists; mending; ozone
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 last
To: Looking for Diogenes
The wackos are the environmentalists, who couldn't recognize reality, if it bit them on the butt. Yes, I actually subscribe to that theory. I believe DuPont had the Freon monopoly and came up with a replacement that is far, far more expensive. DuPont funds the Envirowacko organizations to agitate to ban Freon. They don't complain, indeed support the idea. Sis boom bah, Freon gets banned, the wackos celebrate a victory over the evil corporations, while DuPont quietly laughs behind their hands while making trips to the bank.

Who's wacko? Seriously!

61 posted on 08/12/2002 9:57:39 PM PDT by Kermit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Looking for Diogenes
Here's a couple of final comments:

As to the ozone hole, again, when first made an issue, the enviro-activists pretended that it was a whole new phenomena. There never was an ozone hole before. Then it came out, that there were measurements going back to the mid-50's. As far as I can tell, there are no measurements before that. Looking at an atmospheric phenomenon with data going back only less than 50 years, how do we really know anything about it. How do we not know that there is a natural cycle, if we don't have data for the entire cycle?

You write: "They are virtually inert in the troposphere, the lower atmosphere. Once they arrive in the upper stratosphere the intense ultraviolet rays tear the molecules aprt, releasing the chlorine."

Why shouldn't we look at that volcano on Antartica, which spews out tens of thousands of tons of chlorine, rather than underarm spray from Canada? Do we have any proof that spray in Canada ends up over Anartica. And would all those CFC sprays be spread through the entire atmosphere? Again, why would we believe that the concentration would be high enough to do anything to the ozone there? Why don't we have other ozone holes?

"According to NASA, natural causes are relatively insignificant:"

I hate to break it to you, but NASA has become totally politicized in the atmospheric sciences, in the global warming and ozone hole debates. I wouldn't trust what they say, they're clintonized.

62 posted on 08/12/2002 10:15:55 PM PDT by Kermit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Kermit
Why shouldn't we look at that volcano on Antartica, which spews out tens of thousands of tons of chlorine, rather than underarm spray from Canada? Do we have any proof that spray in Canada ends up over Anartica. And would all those CFC sprays be spread through the entire atmosphere? Again, why would we believe that the concentration would be high enough to do anything to the ozone there? Why don't we have other ozone holes? I hate to break it to you, but NASA has become totally politicized in the atmospheric sciences, in the global warming and ozone hole debates. I wouldn't trust what they say, they're clintonized.

I've already posted answers to all your questions on this thread. The volcanoes are not a significant source of chlorine in the stratosphere, CFCs are. There is solid science, research, experiments, measurements, and theories which back up the contention that CFC's deplete the ozone layer. It does not come from just a handful of scientists or a single government department. This is the consensus of the scientists working in the field.

The Montreal Protocol was negotiated and signed by the Reagan/Bush administrations. You don't have to be a clintonista to recognize that this is a settled matter of known science. You do have to be an ostrich to ignore the clear evidence and grasps at the straws of 'not yet proven, more research needed.' I'm glad that Presidents Reagan and Bush were wiser than that.

Unless you can give some evidence that DuPont supports the scientists who have proven that CFCs destroy the ozone layer, I'll have to assume you just made that part up.

63 posted on 08/12/2002 10:30:58 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Looking for Diogenes
Actually, you didn't post answers to all those questions. Some, I'd say are unknowable.

I've 46 and in my lifetime, I've seen "settled science" overturned. I'm suspicious of reports in atmospheric science, just as I'm suspicious of the pronunciations of AIDS scientists, because both areas of science have fallen out of the realm of science and into the realm of politics. Many of these scientists, especially those, whose reports are published by the media, have an agenda. For the scientists, there are a couple of major motivations, one is to get more money for themselves by promoting doom and gloom. Second, they get more power and get to exercise control over our lives.

For example, some scientists ignore the gases put out by volcanoes, because they are "natural". Only man is the cause of (fill in the blank).

Don't blame me for this, blame the political activists in white lab coats.

DuPont supported the environmental activists, who pushed the agenda of those scientists, who came up with that theory. I've also read that the change in ozone (if it is a change) is comparable to moving from Washington DC to Orlando and that we get more background radiation everytime we fly than decades worth of thinning ozone layers. No one is (yet) campaigning to end flying.

64 posted on 08/13/2002 6:20:43 AM PDT by Kermit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Kermit
Some, I'd say are unknowable....I've seen "settled science" overturned.

Of course. And what overturned "settled science"? Science. There is an old saying that science progresses, not one discovery at a time, but one death at a time. The old paradigms sometimes are so hard to get rid of that a new theory cannot gain acceptance until there is a personnel change in tenured academia.

But there are many things that are knowable and are known. We know that the Moon orbits the Earth. We know that atoms are made up of smaller particles. And we know a lot about how our atmosphere works. There is much more to learn and understand and probably a few wrong theories to overturn. Now, if you don't believe in science, don't believe in atoms, don't believe in moving continents, then there is no reason you should believe in this either.

I've also read that the change in ozone (if it is a change) is comparable to moving from Washington DC to Orlando and that we get more background radiation everytime we fly than decades worth of thinning ozone layers.

I've seen that WDC/Orlando comparison before and I don't know if it's right or wrong. It could well be true. The radiation you get on a plane is cosmic radiation, which is different from UV radiation.

DuPont supported the environmental activists, who pushed the agenda of those scientists, who came up with that theory.

I don't think you have anything to worry about from a thinning ozone layer. That tinfoil cap of yours will block the UV rays.

65 posted on 08/13/2002 5:06:31 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Looking for Diogenes
It was settled science that the speed of light was fixed. Now, they're saying that it was faster earlier in history and is slowing down. I first read about serious problems with Einstein's theory from alternative science folks, like Petr Beckman and others. Beckman and the other's were denounced by the "settled science" folks in what can only be described as theological terms.

You even said that it was unknown, why the ozone hole didn't show up elsewhere in the atmosphere. Now, you're jumping on me for bringing up the unknowable and accusing me of not believing in atoms. We're getting a little testy, aren't we?

"The radiation you get on a plane is cosmic radiation, which is different from UV radiation."

Well, d'oh, I wrote "background radiation" not UV. Isn't cosmic radiation also background radiation?

Why are you so emotionally tied to this ozone hole theory? To me, it's more a political campaign than science, just like Global Warming, AIDS in Africa, gun control and second-hand smoke. I'm going to remain very skeptical of this, until these scientists make a huge effort at honesty and cleaning out their stables of the political activists. You haven't given me a good reason to change that attitude.

66 posted on 08/14/2002 9:24:51 AM PDT by Kermit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Kermit
Now, they're saying that it was faster earlier in history and is slowing down.

Who are 'they?' There may be a few people who have theorized a changing speed of light, but there is no proof for it.

You even said that it was unknown, why the ozone hole didn't show up elsewhere in the atmosphere.

To the best of my knowledge, scientists working in the field are still refining their models for why there is a hole. But what do you care what they say anyway? You regard all scientists as political lackeys who can't or won't find the truth.

Isn't cosmic radiation also background radiation?

Cosmic rays are considered background radiation, along with the radioacive decay of normally occuring materials. They are mostly made up of atomic nuclei. UV rays are a form of light, made up from photons. They are dissimilar.

Why are you so emotionally tied to this ozone hole theory? You haven't given me a good reason to change that attitude.

I'm not emotionally tied to this theory. I do get upset to see what appear to be reasonable people think that they know more about an obscure scientific subject than a dozen universities full of researchers. You discount science as being 'clintonized', 'paid of by DuPont', dishonest, etc. Your cynicism is so profound that I can't see any argument that could convince you otherwise. Like the creationists, you choose to believe whatever you want, divorced from the physical and scientific realities. Fine.

67 posted on 08/14/2002 1:15:37 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Kermit
Why shouldn't we look at that volcano on Antartica, which spews out tens of thousands of tons of chlorine, rather than underarm spray from Canada?

Or more to the point, where is the north pole ozone hole? It's closer to the industrial nations spewing CFC's and should be larger since CFC's should travel to the north pole more easily than crossing hemispheres to make its way to the south pole. Right now there's only a slight thinning of ozone in the winter at the north pole. The northern pole should be huge compared to the southern hole.

68 posted on 08/14/2002 1:42:03 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
CFC's should travel to the north pole more easily than crossing hemispheres to make its way to the south pole.

What basis do you have for that? If the wind is blowing towards the south pole, why would it be easier for CFC's to travel in the opposite direction?

69 posted on 08/14/2002 3:31:25 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
Why Has an Ozone Hole Appeared over Antarctica When CFCs and Halons Are Released Mainly in the Northern Hemisphere?

World Meteorological Organization Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project

70 posted on 08/14/2002 3:52:15 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Looking for Diogenes
You've made up your mind about me and more than once, you've read into what I wrote, things that weren't there.

"You discount science as being 'clintonized', 'paid of by DuPont', dishonest, etc."

I don't discount "science", I discount what are political campaigns in the guise of science. I gave some examples: global warming, AIDS in Africa, CDC studies on guns as pathogens and I suspect the ozone hole as another campaign, not based on science. The whole premise of the ozone hole just doesn't make sense. They claim that it is new phenomena, not a natural process, but is caused by human action. As far as I can tell, we have data only going back to 1957. How do we NOT know, that the ozone hole has gone back millions of years? How do we NOT know, that the thinning and thickening is not part of some natural cycle?

You find my cynicism disturbing, I find your naivette and gullibility puzzling.

71 posted on 08/14/2002 4:02:19 PM PDT by Kermit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Looking for Diogenes
What basis do you have for that? If the wind is blowing towards the south pole, why would it be easier for CFC's to travel in the opposite direction?

Quick post. But I didn't see the answer there.

I'm working from memory again (getting worse all the time), but the Civil Defense manuals written from the old International Geophysical Year data, had always stated that air from the northern hemisphere wouldn't easily cross into the southern hemisphere. That's why all the science fiction writers would go to Australia after their nuclear wars.

Since almost all the CFC's come from the northern hemisphere, there would have to be a whopper of a mechanism to preserve CFC's all the way to the south pole when almost none get to north pole.

72 posted on 08/14/2002 4:50:20 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Kermit
I discount what are political campaigns in the guise of science.

And how do you decide which ones those are? What makes you think that the ozone depletion theory is a politicial campaign based on faulty science? Do you have any support for your assertion that it is paid for and directed by DuPont?

The whole premise of the ozone hole just doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense to a non-scientific layman, maybe. It makes plenty of sense to those who have training and experience in the field. Just because the conclusions don't fit with your beliefs doesn't make it false.

They claim that it is new phenomena, not a natural process, but is caused by human action. As far as I can tell, we have data only going back to 1957.

So? We only have data on a lot of things since 1957. Does that make all learning in the last 45 years suspect?

How do we NOT know, that the thinning and thickening is not part of some natural cycle?

Because scientists have sent probes up and made measurements. That is the way science works.

How has stratospheric chlorine changed with time?
The total amount of chlorine in the stratosphere has increased by a factor of 2.5 since 1975 [Solomon] During this time period the known natural sources have shown no major increases. On the other hand, emissions of CFC's and related manmade compounds have increased dramatically, reaching a peak in 1987.

I find your naivette and gullibility puzzling.

I am certainly open to the idea that a couple of scientists can be bought by corporate payoffs. But I do not think it is credible that hundreds of scientists from all over the world are being directed by DuPont to espouse a knowingly false scientific theory, create millions of faked data, and generally lie.

Am I gullible because I believe the analyses of chemical reactions agreed upon by the scientific community, instead of the unsupported assertions of an uncredentialed internet poster? Then call me gullible. Am I naive because I don't automatically believe what I read in a Lyndon LaRouche publication? Then I am very naive.

73 posted on 08/14/2002 5:03:28 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
I'm working from memory again (getting worse all the time), but the Civil Defense manuals written from the old International Geophysical Year data, had always stated that air from the northern hemisphere wouldn't easily cross into the southern hemisphere. That's why all the science fiction writers would go to Australia after their nuclear wars.

That is correct as far as it goes. But CFC molecules are very long-lived and are not washed out of the atmosphere. In time they spread evenly. It takes anywhere from 1 to 6 years for a CFC molecule to make it into the stratosphere, plenty of time for even distribution.

Since almost all the CFC's come from the northern hemisphere, there would have to be a whopper of a mechanism to preserve CFC's all the way to the south pole when almost none get to north pole.

First of all, there is a 'whopper of a mechanism.' CFCs are virtually inert in the lower atmosphere. They are not destroyed or washed out.

Second, I misspoke if I implied that there is a greater concentration of CFC at the north pole than the south. I was just trying to make a point about possible mechanisms. In fact, CFCs are fairly comparably distributed across the latitudes. It is the different meteorological conditions at the poles which lead to difference in ozone thinning. Here is a FAQ that specifically deals with the issue:
Ozone Depletion FAQ Part III: The Antarctic Ozone Hole

74 posted on 08/14/2002 5:30:15 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Looking for Diogenes
"I discount what are political campaigns in the guise of science.

And how do you decide which ones those are?"

Good question. You can identify the 'political campaigns' fairly easily. The usual suspects in the media come out with a wild doom and gloom story and immediately move on to how we must turn our lives over to government or we'll all die. With the ozone hole, a whole class of chemicals must be banned. Other wholesale changes have to be made in the economy, in business, in consumer products. All this is put on a moral pedestal, that if you question anything, you are FOR destroying the environment, starving children and throwing old people in the gutter with dog food and without their medicine. Global warming, SUV's, you name it follow the same template.

"It doesn't make sense to a non-scientific layman, maybe."

We've been burned by too many experts in the past 100 years. Sound common sense is a pretty good guide. The burden of proof is on those proposing the theory, not on me.

"We only have data on a lot of things since 1957. Does that make all learning in the last 45 years suspect?"

You're sounding desperate. 45 years of data on an worldwide atmospheric phenomenon is nothing. Let's say you only had 45 years of data on the Earth's magnetic field. You'd never know, that occassionally, the field flips and north becomes south. 45 years of data on fruit fly genetics is loads of data. If you only go back 45 years, fossils don't exist, they take longer than 45 years to form.

You keep accusing me of saying that corporations buy off scientists. I never said that. I said that the corporations backed the political campaign to ban CFC's. They backed the enviro-wackos, who took advantage of ozone data for their own nefarious purposes. As they do in the global warming debate, AIDS in Africa, CDC and gun control, etc., etc., etc. What's so hard to understand?

Question: Let's say you are correct on ozone. What are the ground level implications?

75 posted on 08/14/2002 6:38:15 PM PDT by Kermit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Looking for Diogenes
Good post. I bookmarked for further study. I admire your persistence. Mainliners usually get washed out of here. Do you follow the global warming threads?
76 posted on 08/14/2002 6:42:38 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Kermit
Question: Let's say you are correct on ozone. What are the ground level implications?

As the original posted article makes out, the implications are pretty good. CFC production has been cut way back, tropospheric concentrations of organic chlorine has fallen and the stratospheric concentrations have stopped rising. There is still a lot of material in the air, but it is quite possible that the article is right and the ozone levels will return to 1950's levels in a few decades. And who do we have to thank? Presidents Reagan and Bush, in part.

If the prevailing ozone depletion theory is wrong, then we don't know what is causing the ozone depletion. In that case it could as easily get a lot worse, for all we know.

77 posted on 08/14/2002 6:52:42 PM PDT by Looking for Diogenes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson