MadMacs wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:39 amYears ago a student from Stellenbosch University did a thesis on how the ozone layer hole size was a natural cycle. I remember this as it was shown on SABC tv and when submitted for peer review every scientist shot him down and I wonder what ever happened to this poor guy as he has since been proven to be correct. So much for the term scientist, I would rather trust an engineer any day.
By the way that was when freon was banned and the company that supplied its replacement made billions. Makes you think.
Gotta love how deniers argue, i give this 10 out of 10 for bogus entertainment.
First You talk about some university student without experience using a mere thesis trying to prove it as a natural cycle.
Then without much thought talk about how this poor student was proven correct without providing any credible evidence or source to back it up.
Then the most hilarious part, saying you would trust and engineer rather than a scientist that actually specializes in the field devoting his life to the truth.
Do you also go to the Sangoma when they tell you to go to the surgeon ?
The Ozone Layer Isn't Healing Itself After All
Throughout the history of life on Earth, there's been a little-noticed helper: a thin but important layer of ozone in our planet's stratosphere. Transparent to visible light, this trioxygen molecule isn't the type you breathe, but rather successfully absorbs incoming high-energy ultraviolet light. Without the ozone layer, this light would propagate down to the surface, where it's capable of breaking organic bonds and working to counteract the natural life processes we hold so dear. Inadvertently, the widespread rise in chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and their use in aerosol cans began to destroy the protective ozone layer, and some 30 years ago, humanity banded together to virtually eliminate CFC use. We thought the hole would close and the problem would solve itself. But a new study, surveying a part of the ozone layer that hadn't been examined before, shows that the overall problem hasn't improved in 20 years.
Ultraviolet radiation is known to be dangerous, and our stratospheric ozone is our first line of defense. With the widespread adoption of and compliance with the Montreal Protocol, atmospheric ozone stopped decreasing, and measurements of the upper stratosphere indicated that ozone levels were recovering. The recovery was so significant that the leading models predicted a 100% recovery at most human-populated latitudes by the year 2100. But one unknown had yet to be investigated to the required level of scrutiny: the concentration of ozone at lower altitudes. Contrary to expectations and with no explanation for how it's happened, the lower stratosphere appears to be losing ozone, so much so that the total amount of ozone over the most densely populated areas isn't increasing at all.
In what promises to be the first unexpected result from atmospheric sciences in 2018, a team of researchers gathered four different datasets that have been monitoring the higher altitudes of Earth's atmosphere, and analyzed them for changes in ozone concentrations. While the upper stratosphere showed the same increases in ozone densities, the lower stratosphere, carefully analyzed for the first time, showed the opposite effect. This is something none of the best ozone-layer models, successful as they are for other applications, were able to predict.
The reason for the continuing decline is not fully understood, but could be a result of our changing climate, increases in unregulated short-lived chlorine species.
In fact, if you quantify the amount that ozone concentrations, overall, have changed, you find that the amount that ozone in the lower stratosphere has decreased virtually cancels out the increases seen in the other layers. This is an unexpected puzzle, since we understand how ozone is naturally produced in the stratosphere: by the same two ingredients — oxygen and ultraviolet light — that have always produced it. When ultraviolet light strikes an oxygen molecule, it breaks it up into two individual oxygen atoms. Each one can then react with another oxygen molecule, producing ozone molecules, which ought to remain in the stratosphere: where production peaks.
But what we haven't understood well, apparently, is how the produced ozone is redistributed or, potentially, destroyed by other processes. While there are certainly puzzles concerning what the ozone in Earth's atmosphere is doing, the past 20 years of data have shown one thing definitively: it hasn't simply remained constant. (At least, over the latitudes which have been carefully monitored.) From 1998 until 2011, the total ozone column density actually rose, only to fall again back to 1998 levels over the past few years.
If we look at the lowest layer of Earth's atmosphere: the troposphere. This layer, consisting of the closest few kilometers of atmosphere to our surface (and over 80% of the Earth's atmosphere, by mass), has shown an increase in ozone density. Admittedly, the data has only been available with global coverage for approximately 12-13 years, but it's quite convincing: it shows that the ozone density in the lowest layers is rising, just like it is in the upper stratosphere. This makes what's occurring in the mid-to-lower stratosphere all the more puzzling.
There are five major conclusions to come out of this work, some (but not all) of which are promising:
The Montreal Protocol continues to demonstrate its effectiveness for increasing ozone density in the upper stratosphere, as predicted.
Mysteriously, the lower stratosphere has shown a larger-magnitude ozone decline over the same time period.
Overall, the global mid-latitude ozone density in the stratosphere has slightly decreased, as the lower stratosphere effect has been slightly more powerful.
If you add the tropospheric increases in, the total ozone density has only remained relatively constant.
One is very short-lived substances (VSLS) that is destroying portions of the ozone layer.
Owing to global warming, the tropopause has risen and will continue to rise, the troposphere has warmed, and these phenomena have an effect on ozone concentrations in the lower stratosphere. Furthermore, greenhouse gas-induced climate change causes an increase in upwelling in the tropics, which decrease stratospheric ozone there. The data is clear: the "100% recovery by 2100" prediction didn't include these results. With this new understanding, that recovery may be stalled or pushed out to extremely long timescales, and global warming may be exacerbating or even causing this trouble.
A rise in the tropopause, due to the warming troposphere, could lead to a decrease in ozone at mid-latitudes, but the tropopause rise is also affected by the ozone loss itself...
where ozone in the lower stratosphere is an important factor in radiative forcing of the climate. Based on straightforward physics, reducing lower-stratospheric ozone will offset some of the forcing increase from rising GHGs.
In other words, redistributing the ozone away from the lower stratosphere has actually reduced the radiative forcing that accelerates global warming. Yes, the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica may be shrinking, but we have to examine the global effects of ozone, not just what's occurring at one pole. And when we do, it doesn't look good. The overall concentrations of ozone in the atmosphere, worldwide, have not increased since 1997, but are the same today as they were back then.
The Montreal Protocol is working, but if the negative trend in lower stratospheric ozone persists, its efficiency might be disputed. Restoration of the ozone layer is essential to reduce the harmful effects of solar UV radiation that impact human and ecosystem health.
If we are to restore the ozone layer and reduce the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation of life on planet Earth (including to humans)
We only have one planet where life has arisen and sustained itself, as far as we know. It's up to all of us to take care of it.
William T. Ball
, Johannes Staehelin
Joanna D. Haigh
, Thomas Peter
, Fiona Tummon
, Rene Stübi
, Sean M. Davis
, Stacey Frith
, Lucien Froidevaux
, Chris Roth
, Jeannette Wild
, Pengfei Yu
Jerald R. Ziemke
, and Eugene V. Rozanov