Is the Ozone Starting to Thicken?

[Plutonic Panda]

First off, here is my number one beef with everyone who is certain that the earth is heating up and man is 100% responsible for it is that no matter what happens, there is always a way they'll rationalize it.

Just like the incredibly low number of hurricanes we've had after it was warned they would start tearing up coastal cities, a dust plume off of Africa prevented it or there were a lot of hurricanes they just didn't make landfall. Like anyone, and especially the ones who deny science outright, it just seems there is always an answer for everything, but only the answers that support their beliefs.

I believe man can and is affecting our environment, but to what extend is where I disagree with most. If the earth's atmosphere thickens and we go into global cooling, it will be interesting to see what is come up to explain why the global warming doomsday scenario didn't happen.

The Earth's Ozone Hole Is Finally Starting To Recover

The ozone layer that shields life from the sun's cancer-causing ultraviolet rays is showing its first sign of thickening after years of dangerous depletion, a U.N. study said on Wednesday.

Experts said it showed the success of a 1987 ban on man-made gases that damage the fragile high-altitude screen, an achievement that would help prevent millions of cases of skin cancer and other conditions.

The ozone hole that appears annually over Antarctica has also stopped growing bigger every year, though it will be about a decade before it starts shrinking, said the report co-produced by the World Meteorological Organization and the U.N. Environment Program.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/r-thr...#ixzz3DQA0LTR6

[Plutonic Panda]

Oh, and for the record, I do NOT think the Ozone is 'recovering' more as I believe is just going through what it has been since it was formed, a cycle.

To what extent man has played in the cycle is to be determined I suppose and we may have altered it a bit. I do believe we could wipe out the earth if we truly wanted to and that statement will only become more true as our technology gets better and our weapons become more destructive, but as what we currently do I believe has more of an impact on our lands rather than the atmosphere.

[Plutonic Panda]

One more thing so I don't seem completely biased, I always strive to stay open to facts and I don't want to be the ingnorant person who sees a snowflake in September just a bit earlier than usual and says "ha, explain that global warming!!!", because I'm not like that.

[dwellsokc]

Remember Al Gore's famous 'hockey stick' graph? The one that showed an undeniable correlation between CO2 and global temperature? Zoom in on the data and you'll find that the increases in CO2 happened after the increases in temperature by 400-800 years. It's true, research it. Now please explain to me how carbon causes global warming...

[PennyQuilts]

I used to be a respectful skeptic. My position was questioning but not denying because I knew I needed to educate myself to be able to have even a remotely informed opinion. Moreover, I was skeptical that we could do anything about it, anyway so wasn't all that driven to freak out.

That was two years ago. Since then - sorry guys - just don't see it. They aren't hitting their markers, the scientific data is sketchy and short term, and the rhetoric has become more and more fanatical, including the use of the religiously laden term, "denier." I think they put all their eggs in the CO2 basket when other variables are more driving. When they started pushing the 97% consensus language to shout down dissent, that was it, for me. That kind of reasoning would result in still believing the sun circles the earth and is the opposite of science - not to mention it was a stark reminder of grant money and politics which so often hijack legitimate research. When the science in "Inconvenient Truth" that launched this money shuffle was debunked, repeatedly (but still relied on), I raised eyebrows. When every weather event (and asteroids!!) started being attributed to climate change, I knew we were dealing with mass hysteria. When they started changing the phraseology to make it more palatable to skeptics (climate change rather than global warming), you could see them losing momentum. When they started admitting to, "The pause" and coming up with theory upon theory to explain it, they revealed the holes in their models. When we've seen climate change, repeatedly, throughout the eons, it makes far more sense to look at naturally occurring events that don't involve relying on human made models prophesying some apocalyptic result that is the result of human sin. Nope, look to sun activity and natural cycles in the oceans, for me.

All they can offer are models. The models aren't reflecting reality and haven't for many years. And the models don't explain previous warming and cooling that look quite a bit like what we've seen since they started keeping better records.

[LocoAko]

Oh, and for the record, I do NOT think the Ozone is 'recovering' more as I believe is just going through what it has been since it was formed, a cycle.

To what extent man has played in the cycle is to be determined I suppose and we may have altered it a bit. I do believe we could wipe out the earth if we truly wanted to and that statement will only become more true as our technology gets better and our weapons become more destructive, but as what we currently do I believe has more of an impact on our lands rather than the atmosphere.

Ozone and climate change are two separate things. The only effect ozone has on climate change (as you and I discuss it -- that is, the warming of the Earth) is that is cools the stratosphere slightly (it is technically a greenhouse gas, but its contribution to global warming is miniscule). There is no controversy about ozone. At all. It is healing due to the Montreal Protocol and the banning of CFCs. I'm not sure why you'd connect the two or why you'd insist that the ozone hole isn't actually healing. Do you actively seek out conspiracies to believe?

It is clearly not worth responding to the subsequent talking-point BS in this thread when the premise of the thread is so entirely ignorant and wrong.

[LocoAko]

I used to be a respectful skeptic. My position was questioning but not denying because I knew I needed to educate myself to be able to have even a remotely informed opinion. Moreover, I was skeptical that we could do anything about it, anyway so wasn't all that driven to freak out.

That was two years ago. Since then - sorry guys - just don't see it. They aren't hitting their markers, the scientific data is sketchy and short term, and the rhetoric has become more and more fanatical, including the use of the religiously laden term, "denier." I think they put all their eggs in the CO2 basket when other variables are more driving. When they started pushing the 97% consensus language to shout down dissent, that was it, for me. That kind of reasoning would result in still believing the sun circles the earth and is the opposite of science - not to mention it was a stark reminder of grant money and politics which so often hijack legitimate research. When the science in "Inconvenient Truth" that launched this money shuffle was debunked, repeatedly (but still relied on), I raised eyebrows. When every weather event (and asteroids!!) started being attributed to climate change, I knew we were dealing with mass hysteria. When they started changing the phraseology to make it more palatable to skeptics (climate change rather than global warming), you could see them losing momentum. When they started admitting to, "The pause" and coming up with theory upon theory to explain it, they revealed the holes in their models. When we've seen climate change, repeatedly, throughout the eons, it makes far more sense to look at naturally occurring events that don't involve relying on human made models prophesying some apocalyptic result that is the result of human sin. Nope, look to sun activity and natural cycles in the oceans, for me.

All they can offer are models. The models aren't reflecting reality and haven't for many years. And the models don't explain previous warming and cooling that look quite a bit like what we've seen since they started keeping better records.

Not enough time in my day to respond to a post like this other than to let you know that I hope you know how offensive (and mind-numbingly frustrating) this is not only to atmospheric scientists but scientists overall. You write this stuff and immediately wonder where all this frustration is coming from on the other end. Try to think about the accusations you're making for a second.

- A scientist

[PennyQuilts]

Because higher CO2 levels drive up global temperatures and no matter how minuscule or what other factors are in play, it turns the earth into a desert. It is known. Of course, this doesn't explain earlier periods where global temperatures have not correlated with CO2 levels. I am sure there was a volcano or something to explain that. Man, if only we had some decent horrific volcanos around to explode and save the planet.

[venture]

Because higher CO2 levels drive up global temperatures and no matter how minuscule or what other factors are in play, it turns the earth into a desert. It is known. Of course, this doesn't explain earlier periods where global temperatures have not correlated with CO2 levels. I am sure there was a volcano or something to explain that. Man, if only we had some decent horrific volcanos around to explode and save the planet.

Why is this even being discussed in this thread? That is what Loko is getting at. It is like discussing the role of the armadillo in my back yard having an impact on the algae issues of Lake Erie.

[Jesseda]

I knew it was those dang armadillos messing with the algae in the lakes.

[PennyQuilts]

Oh, I think he was getting at more than that... But I see the point on the thread - I was responding to a particular post.

[Plutonic Panda]

Ozone and climate change are two separate things. The only effect ozone has on climate change (as you and I discuss it -- that is, the warming of the Earth) is that is cools the stratosphere slightly (it is technically a greenhouse gas, but its contribution to global warming is miniscule). There is no controversy about ozone. At all. It is healing due to the Montreal Protocol and the banning of CFCs. I'm not sure why you'd connect the two or why you'd insist that the ozone hole isn't actually healing. Do you actively seek out conspiracies to believe?

It is clearly not worth responding to the subsequent talking-point BS in this thread when the premise of the thread is so entirely ignorant and wrong.

I'm not insisting anything. I'm merely stating that this is part of a cycle and no matter what happens anybody who either believes or doesn't believe in mad induced global warming will always find a way to make a point to explain what happened but only as long as it supports their beliefs.

For someone who doesn't think it is worth it to respond to these points(which you've said twice to two different people), you sure did think it was or you wouldn't have posted.

The point of this thread is to point out the Ozone layer is starting to thicken again, like it has before, and I added another opinion and if you don't agree and think it is not worthy of your time then address the main point or don't respond at all. I'm allowed to add an opinion related to a topic that I posted.

The effect of the Ozone that some said was being depleted and that more UV rays would enter and would lead to a larger tropospheric ozone is what I have read and why I compared the two, which are related to each other in that aspect.

As far as any conspiracies, I'm not sure why you'd even call this a conspiracy seeing as you obviously believe it and if one side of the argument is a conspiracy then the same is said for the other side because that would mean the main point would be a conspiracy, which would be global warming. You can't sit there and say just one side of that is a conspiracy.

[Plutonic Panda]

ok

[Plutonic Panda]

Hey, just my opinion.

I did have a friend from a London suburb tell me that I'm right though. So...

It's all good man.

BTW, when I said I have family in London who have shown me pictures of where they live and when we get into urban debates and they show me proof that they are building strip malls like ones being built in NW OKC, I'm going to go with I see. Oh, and I'm going to London next summer so it will be interesting what my camera captures. Of course I won't be spending much time in the suburbs, but I'll make a special trip just for you.

As for a friend you have in London telling you I'm lying about claiming the earth is going through a cycle along with its Ozone layer..... ok. and yes, I know you weren't being serious, just stupid. Again, it's all good.

[Plutonic Panda]

Totally dude.

I updated my post #15

[venture]

I'm not insisting anything. I'm merely stating that this is part of a cycle and no matter what happens anybody who either believes or doesn't believe in mad induced global warming will always find a way to make a point to explain what happened but only as long as it supports their beliefs.

For someone who doesn't think it is worth it to respond to these points(which you've said twice to two different people), you sure did think it was or you wouldn't have posted.

The point of this thread is to point out the Ozone layer is starting to thicken again, like it has before, and I added another opinion and if you don't agree and think it is not worthy of your time then address the main point or don't respond at all. I'm allowed to add an opinion related to a topic that I posted.

The effect of the Ozone that some said was being depleted and that more UV rays would enter and would lead to a larger tropospheric ozone is what I have read and why I compared the two, which are related to each other in that aspect.

As far as any conspiracies, I'm not sure why you'd even call this a conspiracy seeing as you obviously believe it and if one side of the argument is a conspiracy then the same is said for the other side because that would mean the main point would be a conspiracy, which would be global warming. You can't sit there and say just one side of that is a conspiracy.

Believe... Beliefs...

Are we talking about science or a religion? This is the main probably with most of this, and those that don't understand thing. They try too hard to equate the two. Science isn't about belief in something. It's what is and has data to support it that can debated, analyzed, reaffirmed, etc. Beliefs are what they are and can be formed on things other than measurable evidence.

I don't have a probably debating things, but when you base it around a belief you aren't wanting to discuss it on a scientific level. At that point there isn't any point to discussing it because you are too focused on the "belief" of what you've been led to trust in versus just looking at the statistical data from an independent source and extrapolate a conclusion...summary...or just a basis of thought about it.

[Plutonic Panda]

Believe... Beliefs...

Are we talking about science or a religion? This is the main probably with most of this, and those that don't understand thing. They try too hard to equate the two. Science isn't about belief in something. It's what is and has data to support it that can debated, analyzed, reaffirmed, etc. Beliefs are what they are and can be formed on things other than measurable evidence.

I don't have a probably debating things, but when you base it around a belief you aren't wanting to discuss it on a scientific level. At that point there isn't any point to discussing it because you are too focused on the "belief" of what you've been led to trust in versus just looking at the statistical data from an independent source and extrapolate a conclusion...summary...or just a basis of thought about it.

OK and I completely understand.... No problem with that.

My only beef is how far this data goes back in a world that has been around for over 4 billion years

[LocoAko]

The point is that it seems like your not trying. You obviously spend a lot of time on the internet and there's lots of subjects you like. Focus on reading peer-reviewed stuff and you'll be on your way to grasping why scientists conclude what they conclude -- or predict what they predict. Only some of it will require a more thorough understanding of the subject to comprehend. Most of it you can read through (sometimes it takes me a couple times) and walk away with a MUCH deeper understanding.

You're beef/beliefs is meaningless to the scientists who spend their life pulling ice core samples, analyzing tree rings, studying species migration and evolution, and conducting DNA/genetic research. Which isn't, I'm quite sure, what you want your beliefs to be.

Happy learning.

[Plutonic Panda]

The point is that it seems like your not trying. You obviously spend a lot of time on the internet and there's lots of subjects you like. Focus on reading peer-reviewed stuff and you'll be on your way to grasping why scientists conclude what they conclude -- or predict what they predict. Only some of it will require a more thorough understanding of the subject to comprehend. Most of it you can read through (sometimes it takes me a couple times) and walk away with a MUCH deeper understanding.

You're beef/beliefs is meaningless to the scientists who spend their life pulling ice core samples, analyzing tree rings, studying species migration and evolution, and conducting DNA/genetic research. Which isn't, I'm quite sure, what you want your beliefs to be.

Happy learning.

Well, I'm sure you're right. I'll just rethink it and compile more research when I can.

I am not good at explaining things well for others to fully understand me.

I know all the scientist who have invested their life into this and I'm sure they are way more knowledgeable about than I am. Tons of people on this board are including Venture, Loko, and you who obviously know way more about this issue than I do. I was trying to point that out as well that I just don't get some of the data only goes back so far but this planet has been around for a long time.

I will still keep an open mind and be sure to try & read more credible sources though.