Ozone hole starts to grow again

Reference

The hole in the ozone layer that forms over Antarctica each September and October was slightly above average size in 2018, but smaller than expected for the weather conditions. Colder-than-average temperatures in the Antarctic stratosphere created ideal conditions for destroying ozone, NASA and NOAA scientists said, but declining levels of ozone-depleting chemicals prevented the hole from growing as large as it might have been 20 years ago.

Nasa is defending itself.  The ozone hole is growing but 'not as big as it could have been'.  When 'we da north' get a lot colder, they will say 'not as cold as it could have been without carbon'.

The satellite temps show nothing is happening in Antarctica, yet they are saying 'colder than usual' while all the press says that the place is melting.

This is the fun of going without physics, you just have to make up more and more stories.

I was inspired to look by this article.

I made a comment, but haven't looked at all the hate yet.  :)

ps.  extreme cold over Antarctica is melting it.  We now move to the North Pole and find that on the coldest day, that the ozone hole is larger than ever.  Formed in extreme cold.  But the Arctic is melting.

pps.  comments in the guard about how the ozone thing went so well.

hasmis 8h ago

1

2

I will agree that this was the blueprint for subsequent climate action. Scientists noticed that something was happening with satellites, they came up with a mechanism on the blackboard and then pushed it. No testing of the mechanism under realistic conditions was required. It was all settled and air conditioning became a lot more expensive.

 Share Facebook Twitter Report

thebowsie  hasmis 7h ago 

34

35

Scientists noticed that something was happening with satellites, they came up with a mechanism on the blackboard and then pushed it.

Incorrect. Unlike the link between CFCs and the ozone layer, the mechanisms for today's global warming were discovered in the mid-19th century. By the dawn of the 20th century we already had papers outlining exactly what would happen based on these mechanisms. These projections were proved correct.

No testing of the mechanism under realistic conditions was required.

It is difficult to understand what kind of testing you have in mind in order to justify action, both for a mid-80s planet facing an expanding hole in the ozone layer, or today's contemporary planetary warming crisis. Typically so-called skeptics fall into a domain error of demanding one particular type of hypothesis testing as being the only kind of hypothesis testing, e.g. some kind of lab-controlled experiment. These are identical to attacks made on the testability of evolution by creationists and fundamentally misunderstand how scientific endeavours in the natural sciences take place.

Meanwhile, we have tested the theory of global warming in all kinds of ways: the Earth has warmed over 1C in a century or so since we started increasing levels of a well-known greenhouse gas, with the current rate at nearly 2C per century. To give this context, it took 5,000 years for the Earth to gently cool 1C. There are thousands of lines of evidence linking this extraordinary warming to increases in CO2, from direct observations of more longwave radiation staying in the planetary system at CO2-specific wavelengths (something of a smoking gun), to CO2-specific warming fingerprints such as nights warming faster than days, and Polar Amplification.

Indeed, 30 years ago, climate scientists projected almost exactly how much warming would occur up until present day, and they were correct.

It was all settled and air conditioning became a lot more expensive.

We listened to the state-of-the-art science at the time, stopped the growth of the ozone layer hole, and subsequent evidence showed the state-of-the-art science to be correct and the decision to act on it prudent.

You appear to be insinuating that we should demand more evidence from a far better supported and mature theory before taking action, because healing the ozone layer increased your air conditioning bill?

Is your argument that we should only take action with total information when waiting to have total information would render action useless, or that we should only take action when there is no cost whatsoever in the cost-benefit analysis?

Seems puerile to me.