The size and thickness of the ozone hole varies from year to year, becoming larger when temperatures are lower.
If that's true, and if (as we are told) temperatures have been higher, then why would the ozone hole be growing as we're now told it is?
Might there be a scientific inconsistency somewhere?
It's not so easy as it once was to blame ozone-depleting CFCs, because they've been banned for so long that in 2003, the hole was reported to be recovering:
After 30 years, ozone is recovering
A report shows the rate of ozone destruction declining for the first time since CFCs were banned.
By Peter N. Spotts | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
For the first time, scientists have uncovered what they see as unambiguous evidence that Earth's sunscreen, a tenuous shield of ozone in the stratosphere, is slowly beginning to recover from nearly 30 years of human-triggered loss.
Unless science's "unambiguous evidence" has become ambiguous with age, something doesn't make sense about the recent growth of the ozone hole.
I'm sure that the unambiguous scientists will offer many explanations.
Somehow, though, I don't think "temperatures are cooling" will be one of them.
posted by Eric on 10.20.06 at 11:24 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/4139
Comments
It's all because of Bush and Global Warming, just everything.
So, greenhouse gases are like a thermos bottle? They keep hot things hot and cold things cold, *and know the difference!"
JorgXMcKie · October 22, 2006 04:58 PM
As I understand it (how's that for qualifying things?), the warming that has been taking place is at the Arctic region and at the Antarctic Peninsula while the Antarctic - outside of the peninsula - has actually been cooling.
It's also theorized that ozone depletion is aiding in this cooling process (Link)
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
It's all because of Bush and Global Warming, just everything.