Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 15
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Near Atlanta, GA.
    Posts
    14,836
    Post Likes

    Wait, I thought we were killing the ozone?

    2019 Ozone Hole is the Smallest on Record Since Its Discovery

    Also of interest is the language indicating that the increased ozone is tied to warming. Hmmmm...

    I know it's not that simple, but still interesting.
    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...-its-discovery

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,742
    Post Likes
    Our reduced negative affect on the ozone layer is a good example of science identifying a problem, government regulating a solution and the public adhering to the regulations.

    It was an easy nut to crack, in part due to industry buying into the solution. The same people that made CFCs are the same people that sell HFCs. The ozone problem was a great business opportunity for the industry!

    This has not been the same for our addiction to FFs. The people selling the problem didn't have a solution or a way of implementing it. For example, the FF industry fights with the nuclear power industry over market share. They don't want to give up even more business to NESs.

    What to do? Delay regulations and policy until 'they' are the solution to their problem. How? Mislead the public and pressure/pay politicians to do their bidding.

    They have been very successful.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Near Atlanta, GA.
    Posts
    14,836
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    Quote Originally Posted by Lahrs View Post
    Our reduced negative affect on the ozone layer is a good example of science identifying a problem, government regulating a solution and the public adhering to the regulations.
    I know that's what we want to think, but from what I've read, the pattern did not follow the CFC phaseout. It's looking more and more like a natural phenomenon.

  4. Likes lions_lair, Missouri Guy liked this post
  5. #4
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    1,742
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Special-K View Post
    I know that's what we want to think, but from what I've read, the pattern did not follow the CFC phaseout. It's looking more and more like a natural phenomenon.
    What 'I' want to think, it's all BS. I hate recovering refrigerant, hauling cylinders and recovery machines around is tiresome. I would love to go back to 'blue sky recovery'! Dealing with blends and retrofits is no fun either.

    But, science. From your linked article:

    "Ozone is a highly reactive molecule comprised of three oxygen atoms that occurs naturally in small amounts. Roughly seven to 25 miles above Earth’s surface, in a layer of the atmosphere called the stratosphere, the ozone layer is a sunscreen, shielding the planet from potentially harmful ultraviolet radiation that can cause skin cancer and cataracts, suppress immune systems and also damage plants.

    The Antarctic ozone hole forms during the Southern Hemisphere’s late winter as the returning Sun’s rays start ozone-depleting reactions. These reactions involve chemically active forms of chlorine and bromine derived from man-made compounds."

    ...

    "Thirty-two years ago, the international community signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. This agreement regulated the consumption and production of ozone-depleting compounds. Atmospheric levels of man-made ozone depleting substances increased up to the year 2000. Since then, they have slowly declined but remain high enough to produce significant ozone loss. The ozone hole over Antarctica is expected to gradually become less severe as chlorofluorocarbons— banned chlorine-containing synthetic compounds that were once frequently used as coolants—continue to decline. Scientists expect the Antarctic ozone to recover back to the 1980 level around 2070."

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    14,425
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Special-K View Post
    I know that's what we want to think, but from what I've read, the pattern did not follow the CFC phaseout. It's looking more and more like a natural phenomenon.
    I believe many nations are CFC happy ... so although some nation may have greatly reduced CFC .. other nations didn't...so the ozone should be worse and not better... Given the lengthy time of healing
    It appears as it we have been lied to again.



    Sent from LG Stylo 4 using Tapatalk
    ...

  7. Likes lions_lair liked this post
  8. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    754
    Post Likes
    it is worse than before cfcs. You get skin cancer very quickly nowadays.

  9. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Near Atlanta, GA.
    Posts
    14,836
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    Quote Originally Posted by gustavhorna View Post
    it is worse than before cfcs. You get skin cancer very quickly nowadays.
    How do you explain that when the ozone holes is at record small levels?

  10. Likes lions_lair liked this post
  11. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    754
    Post Likes
    explain what?

    CFCs have been banned, it is slowly showing some effect. But in any case the UV radiation is nowadays much more dangerous than lets say in the 70s. Look at statistics about skin cancer etc

  12. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Near Atlanta, GA.
    Posts
    14,836
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    Quote Originally Posted by gustavhorna View Post
    explain what?

    CFCs have been banned, it is slowly showing some effect. But in any case the UV radiation is nowadays much more dangerous than lets say in the 70s. Look at statistics about skin cancer etc
    You're contradicting yourself.

    And BTW...the reason cancer is worse is likely not due to increased UV. It's partly due to all the chemicals we slather ourselves with and the fact that most of us don't get a normal and healthy amount of sun and therefore burn by walking to the mailbox because we have no natural resistance.

  13. Likes lions_lair liked this post
  14. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,161
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by gustavhorna View Post
    explain what?

    CFCs have been banned, it is slowly showing some effect. But in any case the UV radiation is nowadays much more dangerous than lets say in the 70s. Look at statistics about skin cancer etc
    Ozone is what filters out the harmful UV radiation. So, if the ozone hole is reduced we have better UV filtration and the rate of skin cancers should be down not up.
    "No matter how thirsty your imagination, mirages contain no water"

  15. Likes lions_lair, Lahrs liked this post
  16. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Chicagoland Area
    Posts
    7,928
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by gustavhorna View Post
    explain what?

    CFCs have been banned, it is slowly showing some effect. But in any case the UV radiation is nowadays much more dangerous than lets say in the 70s. Look at statistics about skin cancer etc
    because we knew so much about skin cancer in the 70's...Just like we knew about lung cancer...
    https://youtu.be/NAExoSozc2c
    https://youtu.be/j1eWalksCgM
    https://youtu.be/1xpPAaKHcno
    Officially, Down for the count

    YOU HAVE TO GET OFF YOUR ASS TO GET ON YOUR FEET

    I know enough to know, I don't know enough
    Liberalism-Ideas so good they mandate them

  17. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Louisburg Kansas
    Posts
    3,433
    Post Likes
    A lot of the incidence of cancer of all kinds is mathematical. If in 1970 3% of the population had cancer and the population of the world was say 5 billion people there would be less cases if the same percent had cancer if the population now were 10 billion people. Don't kid yourself those kind of calculations are used when the power grabbers want something.
    No man can be both ignorant and free.
    Thomas Jefferson

  18. Likes lions_lair liked this post
  19. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,431
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by WAYNE3298 View Post
    A lot of the incidence of cancer of all kinds is mathematical. If in 1970 3% of the population had cancer and the population of the world was say 5 billion people there would be less cases if the same percent had cancer if the population now were 10 billion people. Don't kid yourself those kind of calculations are used when the power grabbers want something.
    what I dont get is why there are so many children with it

    I often wonder if the dam ultrasound causes it

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •