What happened to the hole in the ozone layer?

Whatever happened to Acid Rain, remember that one. For years the Eco Freaks were screaming about Acid Rain as if you stepped outside, your skin was going to melt off your Body, because of the Acid raining down upon us. Then came the Hole in the Ozone layer as if all the oxygen on Earth was going to flow out into Outer Space through it. Now it's Global Warming AKA Climate Change It's as if Democrats keep coming up with different Earth Disasters to get stupid people to donate money to them. I wonder what the next Earth Nightmare they're going to cook up to scare the Hell out of Dumb people into handing over their Money to guys like Al Gore, so he can Heat his Olympic Size swimming pool and use 34 times the average American Homes Energy, while his Donors eat Top Raman trying to pay for all his BS.
https://nationalcenter.org/ncppr/20...pite-costly-green-renovations-by-drew-johnso/

 

So now the ozone hole is also climate science? Obviously you are emotionally invested in this whereas I am merely looking for the truth. As I said it's my memory that scientists promoting the chlor hypothesis were touting it as working immediately. Can't really google that because it was before the internet as we know it today and google has a way of making things hard to find if they want to.
As far as the initial ban goes I was fully onboard at the time but have learned over the years to be skeptical of authorities telling us we need to do something and then those same people telling us how well it worked.
Your using the term "denier sites" about this issue tells me your mind is closed to any alternative information. I on the other hand do not claim to know for sure one way or the other on the ozone thing but I do look at all evidence with an open mind both pro and con.
It's unfortunate that so many people such as yourself are so quick to jump on board with whatever they are being told by the powers that be and so quick to berate anyone who is harder to convince but those two mindsets seem to run in parallel.

 

Those are brushless motors. No ozone.

 

And then there is this:

The Holes in the Ozone Hole -- The Scientific Evidence That The Sky Isn't Falling



http://american_almanac.tripod.com/cfc.htm

 

Attacking people with opposing views is not science and those that do so are immediately dismissed by me as not worth my time.

 

To prevent all this, the Clean Air Act amendments required that power plants make significant cuts on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions, which they did by installing “scrubbers” in their smokestacks and switching to low-sulfur coal. Cap-and-trade programs—like the ones that we may soon institute for carbon—came online in 1995 for sulfur dioxide and 2003 for nitrogen oxides. Vehicles, which emit large amounts of nitrogen oxides, were also becoming cleaner thanks to the introduction of catalytic convertors in the mid-1970s.

The results of these effortswere dramatic: According to the National Emissions Inventory, sulfur dioxide emissions from all sources fell from nearly 26 million tons in 1980 to 11.4 million tons in 2008. Nitrogen oxides decreased from 27 million tons to 16.3 million tons in the same time frame.

https://slate.com/technology/2009/08/whatever-happened-to-acid-rain.html

 

There is a psychological disease called “Hatred of the Manmade.” It is based on this simple premise: Whatever man makes is unnatural, and therefore evil, whatever nature makes is pure and beautiful.

The problem with this theory is also simple, Man can’t make anything without using what nature provides.

And that is all ecology and environmentalism is, hated of the Manmade.

Jets, spaceships, air-conditioning, deodorant, sipping coke through a straw, and visting Disney World with the grandchildren will not destroy the planet and end civilization. But the Man-haters will, if we surrender our happiness to their “doom and gloom”

 

Starjet, the misunderstandings and gross inaccuracies you are labouring under are astounding. I made it about 2 minutes into the video you linked until the guy said, I'm paraphrasing but along the lines of Freon can't rise to the stratosphere because it is heavier than air. Apparently he didn't know that the Earth spins and movement of air admixes chemicals in the atmosphere.

"Ozone-depleting substances are present throughout the stratospheric ozone layer because they are transported great distances by atmospheric air motions. The severe depletion of the Antarctic ozone layer known as the “ozone hole” occurs because of the special atmospheric and chemical conditions that exist there and nowhere else on the globe. The very low winter temperatures in the Antarctic stratosphere cause polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) to form. Special reactions that occur on PSCs, combined with the relative isolation of polar stratospheric air, allow chlorine and bromine reactions to produce the ozone hole in Antarctic springtime."

Distributing halogen gases. Halogen source gases emitted at Earth’s surface are present in comparable abundances throughout the stratosphere in both hemispheres even though most of the emissions occur in the Northern Hemisphere. The abundances are comparable because most source gases have no significant natural removal processes in the lower atmosphere and because winds and convection redistribute and mix air efficiently throughout the troposphere on the timescale of weeks to months. Halogen gases (in the form of source gases and some reactive products) enter the stratosphere primarily from the tropical upper troposphere. Stratospheric air motions then transport these gases upward and toward the pole in both hemispheres.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/twentyquestions/Q10.pdf

Where is the doom and gloom in the FACT that we as an informed society acted with unity of purpose and globally managed to solve a threat to the planet that sustains us all?

the fact is that for whatever reason you want to stifle science and outlaw any regulation on any dangerous substance or threat purely for the enrichment of corporations that want to squeeze every last dime out of the destruction of the planet's ecosystems before the public can react to stop it.

What's stupid is denying there is anything people can do can harm the planet. That is really stupid.

 

Fact: CFC’s don’t make it to the stratosphere, radiation burns them apart. It’s the resulting chlorine dislocation that rises to the atmosphere and affects ozone molecules.
Fact: There is more natural occurring chlorine than CFC chlorine.
Fact: The ozone grows and shrinks with the rising and lowering of the sun during the seasons.
Fact: Man is a rational being who shapes the environment to benefit his existence—The creative mind quenches the desert by removing salt from the oceans’ water—the genius of man makes snow where there is done—and the brilliance of human intelligence makes plants grow where once only rocks existed.

Superstitious nonsense: Sacrificing virgins to Pele will stop volcanoes from erupting. Human ingenuity will piss off Godzilla and his fellow Titans, and they will rise up and reset the the planet’s ecological balance to human-less and make Mother Nature smile. Driving to Meatheads and eating a hamburger will melt the poles and flood the planet. Using deodorant will turn the earth into Uranus.

And the most important fact of all—Any solution that starts with a gun pointed at a human being isn’t a solution, it’s a prescription for tyranny.

 

CFC's are a greenhouse gas.

If you were really looking for the truth you would not make grand statements like the ozone hole was a fraud or hoax. You would look at a wide range of data from reputable sources and compare. I can find material on the Kennedy assassination and old links to idiotic movies like the Great Climate Swindle on-line. You can't find a single link to a reputable scientist saying it was working immediately?

It's not so much that my mind is closed as it is I have seen these same types of arguments backed by the same sources over and over again. I know who the players in the deniarati are and where their finding comes from and the vicious attacks made on the credibility and reputation of good scientists so when I see another argument from one of these sites that are put forward with the implicit attempt to mislead the public about science it gets a reaction.

Actually, I am one of the few people who upon hearing an argument that on the surface sounds reasonable to people who have no scientific training, really search out and read the material to see what the deniers are actually saying and see if there is any merit. Once in a while there is some merit to a small dataset about natural variability or some such thing. This will invariably lead a website like WUWT to declare that this means the whole global warming thing was a hoax and none of it needs to be taken seriously and those stupid scientists don't know what they are talking about.

Which is kind of what you are doing. If you were really seeking truth you would be asking questions and reading to find out more not linking to one site like Ezra Levant's ( who is quite famous here in Canada for trying to stir up anti-Muslim hysteria after shootings like Avenue Road which wasn't even a Muslim)

Instead, you post one link to a very dodgy source and declare the whole ozone thing a fraud and a hoax.

Scientists don't talk like that and people seeking truth don't talk like that.

 

I'm not attacking you. I'm asking you your motivation.

But you don't have to talk to me if you don't think I am worthy of your time.

 

One kerosene lamp burnt down Chicago, nobody advocated for the banning of Manmade fire. They put out the fur and rebuilt.

 

Wrong. UV radiation breaks up CFC when it is already in the stratosphere:

Natural processes appear to have regulated the balance of ozone in the stratosphere over the Earth’s lifetime. Ozone production = ozone destruction. But in the early 1970s, scientists found some startling evidence that humans were contributing to the destruction of ozone. Many technological advances of the time included chemicals containing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs for short). CFCs contain a chlorine, fluorine, and carbon atoms that are bound together. CFCs are stable. This may be great in an appliance like a refrigerator, but this is disastrous for CFCs that find their way up into the atmosphere. Natural processes appear to have regulated the balance of ozone in the stratosphere over the Earth’s lifetime. Ozone production = ozone destruction. But in the early 1970s, scientists found some startling evidence that humans were contributing to the destruction of ozone. Many technological advances of the time included chemicals containing chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs for short). CFCs contain a chlorine, fluorine, and carbon atoms that are bound together. CFCs are stable. This may be great in an appliance like a refrigerator, but this is disastrous for CFCs that find their way up into the atmosphere. CFCs do not react easily with other chemicals in the lower atmosphere (troposphere). But UV light can break up a CFC, making it highly reactive. In the lower atmosphere, CFCs are protected from UV light from the ozone layer in the stratosphere. But as CFCs rise, they move into the stratosphere. The UVlight in the stratosphere breaks up the CFCs. They release chlorine, and these free chlorine atoms rip oxygen atoms off of ozone, leaving ordinary oxygen gas.The UV light in the stratosphere breaks up the CFCs. They release chlorine, and these free chlorine atoms rip oxygen atoms off of ozone, leaving ordinary oxygen gas.

http://sunshine.chpc.utah.edu/Labs/OurAtmosphere/ozone_main2.html

Even if true, which it is not in the stratosphere, irrelevant because, as with CO2, adding more of a substance to an existing pool still adds more of that substance and creates magnified effects.

So what! Everyone knows that and it is Irrelevant If the reduction is getting larger and larger each fall or spring season and not being replenished as fully during the growing season then it is still a reductionl.

Nonesense! The kind of irrelevant, self-congratulatory poppycock you'd read in Ayn Rand. There is not an ecosystem on the planet that has not been effected by man's presence on the Earth. Burying one's head in the sand and pretending that a species of 7 billion and counting can do no harm to the ability of the Earth to support life is simply living in an irrational fantasy world completely divorced from reality.

It is like pretending that nuclear accidents can't occur or not building dykes because you don't believe in tsunamis.

None of this even makes sense and is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Calling it strawman deflection would be to give it too much credence.

 

I have not said it's a fraud or a hoax so your entire argument from your very first sentence is nullified.
Why is it so important to you what my views are on this subject and why do you take it so personally. I don't care what your views are and wouldn't attempt to change your mind though I do enjoy the debate. Think about that for a bit.
As for why I'm so skeptical I got that way during the logging wars of the Clinton era. Having been in forestry all my life I was extremely knowledgeable about the subject and was shocked by the distortions and outrageous lies being foisted on the public at large by the anti logging crowd. That experience made me rethink everything I had been told about subjects like the ozone hole that up until that time I bought hook line and sinker. Now I'm skeptical of all this stuff being pushed on us and look at opposing opinions on the subjects with an open mind.

 

Maybe not but they probably found a way to secure their kerosene lamps a little better - or maybe you are saying they didn't need to because man in a wonderful, intelligent creature who created kerosene and fire and dreamed of unicorns and rockets ships so it couldn't happen again.

Vancouver burned down and they created a building code for regulating building with lumber. It's called mitigation of dangerous situations.

Anyway, completely irrelevant to the discussion.

 

Oh’ mistake on my “spheres”, but it’s still not the CFCs, it’s the chlorine. So why pick on Man?


And where was Man when the dinosaurs failed?
And who killed off the trilobite?. And what ended the last Ice Age? And why is human health and prosperity increasing? And why are more people living, loving, kissing and hugging then ever before despite all the CO2s and CFCs? And what destroyed Pangaea?

Obviously, nature has no ability to maintain any type of balance. Never has, and never will—It’s not a sentient entity, it’s not even a creative force. It’s nothing more than an “is”, like a rock, or a mountain, or a raindrop, and or a morning dew.


Nature is not a God to be subservient to; it’s a process that is best when commanded to serve the wants, needs, interests, and desires of the greatest living creature on Earth, Man.


The ozone was never in danger of disappearing, DDT didn’t threaten any life but mosquitoes and the malaria parasite, and eating Filet Mignons will not kill off the Polar Bears.

 

Well, I've certainly seen lots of links on this thread saying it is all a hoax. It is actually not that important to me what your views are. What is important to me is that people become aware the seriousness of the environmental situation we are facing,not just with climate change either. I don't want to be the arbiter of what people think. I do want to counter some of the disinformation I see because I know where it comes from and how it is funded and how dangerous it is when people and their governments act on faulty information and propaganda.

I would like to see the world come together and embrace strategies for cleaning up the mess (and it is a mess) we have made throughout the industrialization of the world and habitat destruction in order to make a more livable planet for other species. People outside science possibly cannot see the interconectedness of life here on Earth but as a species, we rely on the same stable, habitats that other species do and without biodiversity in the world, human existence becomes diminished and perhaps untenable. We need to put serious money into cleaning this world up and the sole goal of corporate propaganda is to delay that effort as long as possible in order to wring every last dollar out the death throws of Earth.

Think I'm being alarmist? I could throw a lot of scientific data up on the state of the planet but I know I'd be fought every step of the way. It is good to have debate and I welcome any serious discussion but when I see fossil fuel or chemical industry propaganda, I call BS.

I spend a lot of time in the outdoors and working in and with plant science and regulators. I've seen the destruction caused by forestry practices here in BC. Even the forest industry is calling for better practices and regulation.

Ooopps, now I've gone and pissed you off even more haven't I?

I won't go down that road. You probably would have hated me when I was advocating for preservation of the Willmore Wilderness or Carmanah Valley, lol.

All I really tried to do is look at your sources and analyze critically. I like debate too. If it sounding like I was getting personal, I wasn't so sorry.

 

All good points. The only thing we may disagree on is your very last statement. I think we need to be considerate of other species and of nature itself precisely because they and it have been put in our stewardship so we should temper our actions based on how they effect the planet as a whole.

 

We disagree on stewardship—though I may pick up my dog’s do-do because it’s respectful of other people’s property, my fundamental motivation is that the dog provides me with a selfish benefit, companionship. My purpose in life is not to steward the planet or it’s life; my purpose in life is to enjoy it, reasonably, happily, productively, and selfishly.

 

It is quite a leap of logic to claim that because chlorine interferes with Ozone, we must ban CFCs or we will all freeze to death as the Earth becomes a new Neptune.

 

I'm all for wilderness areas and enjoy visiting them to enjoy nature in its natural untouched by man state so no disagreement there.
The lies told by the anti logging crowd and their so called experts made me question what all the other so called experts were telling me about subjects I'm less knowledgeable in and turned me into the skeptic I am today. I no longer trust the word of these people and demand evidence before I buy into whatever agenda they are pushing.
Actual science would demand a sudden influx of CFC into the atmosphere to observe the effect on the ozone hole both at the time of the release and afterwards as it diminishes. Saying we banned CFCs forty years ago and today the ozone hole is smaller so that must be the reason why doesn't impress me. That's not science.

 

We do have an honest disagreement on that but I respect your opinion.

 

As I yours.

 

All this is irrelevant and much of it is factually inaccurate. I'm thinking of all the people living loving and kissing and hugging in Syria, the Middle East or even the US,lol. It doesn't matter who killed off the trilobite it matters what is happening now.

Though, ironically, you should look at what conditions were like back when there was a Pangaea. Catastrophic global warming from volcanoes that spews tonnes and tonnes of CO2 and other poisonous gasses into the air. Here's the thing, that mass extinction happened way more slowly than this one - took 10's of thousands of years. This one is happening in a geographic blink.

Most of human civilization has occurred during 5,000 years of relative climate and geologic stability in the period after the last ice age. It is one of the things that has allowed civilization to flourish. Now that is about to change and we are the cause. Nature is an incredibly dynamic creative force, it creates volcanoes and islands and is fecund beyond imagination. It creates and nourishes life on this tiny, beautiful little outpost in vastness of space. Our species has been given a gift that is magnificent beyond compare by the random forces of chaos all around in in the vast abyss of space.

How arrogant to belittle and condemn the very forces which give us life in the vain hubris of glorifying the self.


[qoute] t a God to be subservient to; it’s a process that is best when commanded to serve the wants, needs, interests, and desires of the greatest living creature on Earth, Man.[/quote]

Man is just another creature among the riot of life that has paraded through the ages. Not even around a 1000 of the years the dinosaurs were around and yet besotten with the illusion that it is all about him and that he is the greatest thing ever!!!!! Was there ever anything so devoid of wonder and gratefulness than the conceit of pride?

Do you ever feel like a kid lost in the woods whistling in the dark. If you tell yourself these things do you think that will make them true?

 

If the choice is between capitalism or surrendering the planet to wolves, sharks, polar bears, and mosquitoes, Capitalism wins. Kill the mosquitoes, and put the wild beasts in a zoo. Man owns this planet, not the beasts and vermin.