Scientists repair damage to ozone layer

[Oddball]

Incidentally, of the 25 worst floods to hit Australia in the past century, fully 11 have occured within the last 10 years.

Pssssst...The topic is the ozone, Gomer.

 

[The Infidel]

Dave, Frank -

I see you have conceded the debate.

No... you're just an idiot, and not worth the time.

PROOF:

Incidentally, of the 25 worst floods to hit Australia in the past century, fully 11 have occured within the last 10 years.

Pssssst...The topic is the ozone, Gomer.

 

[mamooth]

CFCs were banned in 1987.

Minor nitpick. The Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987, but it didn't immediately ban CFCs. It allowed increasing use of CFCs up to 1992, and didn't ban them completely until 1996. It didn't ban things like halons until 2010, and the less destructive HCFCs aren't getting banned until 2030.

That's why CFCs and the other ozone destroyers were still increasing in the atmosphere up until recently, and why the ozone hole has taken so long to start closing up.

 

[flacaltenn]

Back to the Ozone hole...

Seems like Saigon likes scientists who declare victory 15 minutes after taking a whooping..

I wouldn't be handing out any medals or trophies just yet..

 

[mamooth]

Bad timing by flac, who appears to have posted seconds after I explained the problem with his logic.

The smoking gun here was found decades ago, that gun being high concentrations of CFC breakdown products being found only in the same areas where the ozone was being depleted. There are no natural sources for CFC breakdown products, therefore we know, 100%, that human produced CFCs are the cause of ozone depletion. At this stage, denying that is akin to denying that smoking causes cancer. After all, you can't "prove" either theory.

 

[flacaltenn]

Bad timing by flac, who appears to have posted seconds after I explained the problem with his logic.

The smoking gun here was found decades ago, that gun being high concentrations of CFC breakdown products being found only in the same areas where the ozone was being depleted. There are no natural sources for CFC breakdown products, therefore we know, 100%, that human produced CFCs are the cause of ozone depletion. At this stage, denying that is akin to denying that smoking causes cancer. After all, you can't "prove" either theory.

What is this "products being found in the same area where ozone is being depleted" garbage? The largest losses are at the poles where the effect is magnified by colder air masses thru the entire column. You telling me that CFCs released in Iowa stay over Iowa? And that the southern tip of South America doesn't have a BIGGER ozone depletion than Boston?

Must be a SHITLOAD of leaking air conditioners in Antarctica eh?

BTW --- the only "bad timing here" is for Saigon to be declaring victory on this when all the science says it'll be DECADES before we expect to see significant change.. ((AND for the reasons you listed))

 

[mamooth]

What is this "products being found in the same area where ozone is being depleted" garbage? The largest losses are at the poles where the effect is magnified by colder air masses thru the entire column.

Er, no. "Colder air masses thru the entire column" is totally wrong. It's the polar stratospheric clouds that make things happen. Note the word "stratospheric". It's not the cold, it's the ice crystal clouds absorbing all the nitrates that would normally gobble up chlorine radicals before they started ozone munching.

You telling me that CFCs released in Iowa stay over Iowa? And that the southern tip of South America doesn't have a BIGGER ozone depletion than Boston?

Your logic chain there elicits a hearty "huh?" from me.

 

[Old Rocks]

What is this "products being found in the same area where ozone is being depleted" garbage? The largest losses are at the poles where the effect is magnified by colder air masses thru the entire column.

Er, no. "Colder air masses thru the entire column" is totally wrong. It's the polar stratospheric clouds that make things happen. Note the word "stratospheric". It's not the cold, it's the ice crystal clouds absorbing all the nitrates that would normally gobble up chlorine radicals before they started ozone munching.

You telling me that CFCs released in Iowa stay over Iowa? And that the southern tip of South America doesn't have a BIGGER ozone depletion than Boston?

Your logic chain there elicits a hearty "huh?" from me.

Flatulance's logic is strange, indeed.

 

[Saigon]

BTW --- the only "bad timing here" is for Saigon to be declaring victory on this when all the science says it'll be DECADES before we expect to see significant change.. ((AND for the reasons you listed))

According to the story in the OP, the ozone hole should be gone by 2050.

I call that good news - although I can see it bothers you.

 

[Saigon]

CFCs were banned in 1987.

Minor nitpick. The Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987, but it didn't immediately ban CFCs. It allowed increasing use of CFCs up to 1992, and didn't ban them completely until 1996. It didn't ban things like halons until 2010, and the less destructive HCFCs aren't getting banned until 2030.

That's why CFCs and the other ozone destroyers were still increasing in the atmosphere up until recently, and why the ozone hole has taken so long to start closing up.

Fair enough - I hadn't realise that. Good posting.

 

[Saigon]

Hey Saigon --- Please PM me when you plan on conceeding defeat in the Australian weather debate.. I want to be here... Can you READ the graphs that Ian posted? Do you understand the implications of the assertions you're making?

You should stick with the ozone hole -- you might win a prize for that one...

Of the 25 worst floods to hit Australia in the past century, fully 11 have occured within the last 10 years.

There have been 14 major drought years in the past 20 years.

If you understand that, you understand why Ian's posts do not tell the full picture. Total rainfall is one thing - how much of it occurs in floods and droughts another entirely.

 

[IanC]

here is one for Brisbane. it doesnt appear that floods are getting worse either

And yet the 2010 floods were the worst in 25 years, possibly the worst ever.

A series of floods hit Australia, beginning in December 2010, primarily in the state of Queensland including its capital city, Brisbane. The floods forced the evacuation of thousands of people from towns and cities.[2] At least 70 towns and over 200,000 people were affected.[2] Damage initially was estimated at around A$1 billion.[3] The estimated reduction in Australia's GDP is about A$30 billion.[1]

The 2010–2011 floods killed 35 people in Queensland.[5] As of 26 January, an additional nine people were missing.[6] The state's coal industry was particularly hard hit. The Queensland floods were followed by the 2011 Victorian floods which saw more than fifty communities in western and central Victoria also grapple with significant flooding.

2010

btw, Rainfall for Australia as a while may well be rising because of the increasing frequency and intensity of tropical storms and cyclones. This does not mean the frequency of droughts is not also increasing - it is. Just in different states. QLD gets the cyclones; WA, NT and NSW get the droughts.

when I was looking for flood and drought info I also noticed these-

like I said before, just because someone told you that cyclones and TSs were increasing in Australia that doesnt necessarily mean it is factual. Gore told us a lot of things in AIT misrepresented the truth and now a large segment of todays youth mistakenly believes it.

 

[Saigon]

Ian C -

Those are interesting charts (though links might have made them even more interesting), but I think like Flac you also fall into the trap at times of seeing Australia as a single location.

Drought in one state can occur at the same time as floods in another, because the distances are eimply enormous.

I agree that based on what you have posted here the number of cyclones does not seem to be rising, although I notice that nowhere on that chart does it say where!

The Australian Met Sevice tells us:

Australia and the globe are experiencing rapid climate change. Since the middle of the 20th century, Australian temperatures have, on average, risen by about 1°C with an increase in the frequency of heatwaves and a decrease in the numbers of frosts and cold days. Rainfall patterns have also changed - the northwest has seen an increase in rainfall over the last 50 years while much of eastern Australia and the far southwest have experienced a decline.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/?ref=ftr

 

[Unkotare]

BTW --- the only "bad timing here" is for Saigon to be declaring victory on this when all the science says it'll be DECADES before we expect to see significant change.. ((AND for the reasons you listed))

According to the story in the OP, the ozone hole should be gone by 2050.

I call that good news - although I can see it bothers you.

That will be good news...as long as you are on the other side of it.

 

[Oddball]

Back to the Ozone hole...

Seems like Saigon likes scientists who declare victory 15 minutes after taking a whooping..

I wouldn't be handing out any medals or trophies just yet..

The hell you say?

You mean that the size of infamous ozone hole naturally oscillates throughout the year!?!?!?

Well, I'll be dipped!

 

[Saigon]

You mean that the size of infamous ozone hole naturally oscillates throughout the year!?!?!?

Well, I'll be dipped!

You also seem to watching this topic sail some distance over your head!

Once again, I am absolutely amazed at how poor the level of debate is on some of these threads.

 

[Unkotare]

You also seem to watching this topic sail some distance over your head!

Once again, I am absolutely amazed at how poor the level of debate is on some of these threads.

It must be tiresome for you to be stuck in a world with so many people who aren't "elite" like you, huh Intermediate?

 

[Old Rocks]

You also seem to watching this topic sail some distance over your head!

Once again, I am absolutely amazed at how poor the level of debate is on some of these threads.

It must be tiresome for you to be stuck in a world with so many people who aren't "elite" like you, huh Intermediate?

When we have so many here speaking from the viewpoint of willfull ignorance, anyone that actually researchs the subject does look like the intellectual elite compared to the willfully ignorant.

 

[Saigon]

I think it is wilful ignorance in some cases.

I don't have a science background and don't consider myself a science background, but trying to read with an open mind and being willing to read a variety of things should be enough that most of us can get a handle of the basic issues, anyway.

Posts like Oddballs' here, and so many of the ones which say 'but weather has always changed' or 'wow, arctic ice is melting in spring' suggest either an almost immeasureable stupity, or a desire to avoid the real issue that seems almost pathological.

 

[flacaltenn]

I think it is wilful ignorance in some cases.

I don't have a science background and don't consider myself a science background, but trying to read with an open mind and being willing to read a variety of things should be enough that most of us can get a handle of the basic issues, anyway.

Posts like Oddballs' here, and so many of the ones which say 'but weather has always changed' or 'wow, arctic ice is melting in spring' suggest either an almost immeasureable stupity, or a desire to avoid the real issue that seems almost pathological.

Wait a cotton pickin minute here.. What about Oddball's statement that "the Ozone hole oscillates throughout the year"?

Who's displaying ignorance here??? I need you to tell us exactly WHAT about that statement you find "willful ignorance". Because you've already demonstrated your ability to post stuff you don't understand..

Did yA READ THE GRAPH I POSTED? DidYA get it?? Obviously not.. In your words -- "must have sailed right over your head"......