The Downside to the Recovery of the Ozone Hole (Debunking climate change fraud)

I'd still rather have the ozone hole in the Antarctic mend itself, thank you. I'll take my chances of increased "smog".

Originally posted by filosophia

While the hole in the Earth's protective ozone layer is slowly healing, its recovery might have a downside, scientists say

Which Scientists?

Didn't you read the article?

Guang Zeng and her colleagues from New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research

Another side effect of the closing of the Ozone hole is that it could mean more warming over Antarctica - or, rather, the ozone hole has so far cancelled out some of the warming from other sources over Antarctica, ozone recovery meaning we'll now start to see the effects of this warming

www.sciencedaily.com...

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by filosophia

While the hole in the Earth's protective ozone layer is slowly healing, its recovery might have a downside, scientists say

Which Scientists?

Didn't you read the article?

Guang Zeng and her colleagues from New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research

Another side effect of the closing of the Ozone hole is that it could mean more warming over Antarctica - or, rather, the ozone hole has so far cancelled out some of the warming from other sources over Antarctica, ozone recovery meaning we'll now start to see the effects of this warming

www.sciencedaily.com...

Yes, I did read the article, if you had read my post, I debunk the entire article. But I'm just pointing out how they say 'scientists' at the beginning and don't mention 'Zeng' until the end. Plus, Zeng is one scientist (barely), not scientists plural.

Another side effect of the closing of the Ozone hole is that it could mean more warming over Antarctica - or, rather, the ozone hole has so far cancelled out some of the warming from other sources over Antarctica, ozone recovery meaning we'll now start to see the effects of this warming

What?? How does the ozone hole closing mean more warming over antartica? If the ozone hole closes, less solar energy gets through, meaning less warming. And now the ozone hole is canceling out some of the warming? How? This doesn't make the least bit of sense.

Your 'science' daily website is claiming that now aerosol is good for the environment LOL

"Greenhouses gases absorb infrared radiation from the Earth and release it back into the atmosphere as heat, causing the planet to warm up over time. Aerosol works against this by reflecting heat from the sun back into space, cooling the planet as it does so."

I guess we have to bring back CFC's, darn, why'd we ever ban those in the first place.

[edit on 6-7-2010 by filosophia]

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by filosophia

While the hole in the Earth's protective ozone layer is slowly healing, its recovery might have a downside, scientists say

Which Scientists?

Didn't you read the article?

Guang Zeng and her colleagues from New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research

I think the article and Essan cover the plurality issue. If you really want all the authors of the study, here:

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 37, L09805, 5 PP., 2010
doi:10.1029/2010GL042812

Impact of stratospheric ozone recovery on tropospheric ozone and its budget

G. Zeng
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Lauder, New Zealand

O. Morgenstern
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Lauder, New Zealand

P. Braesicke
National Centre for Atmospheric Science-Climate, Department of Chemistry, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK

J. A. Pyle
National Centre for Atmospheric Science-Climate, Department of Chemistry, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK

We consider the impact of stratospheric ozone recovery between 2000 and 2100 on modeled tropospheric ozone and the tropospheric ozone budget, using a tropospheric chemistry-climate model. Ozone calculated from a stratospheric chemistry-climate model is used to prescribe lower stratospheric ozone in the tropospheric model. The results show that stratospheric ozone recovery leads to significant increases of tropospheric ozone throughout the extra-tropical troposphere, in particular, a large surface ozone increase in the Southern Hemisphere during austral winter months. Stratospheric ozone recovery and climate change contribute about equally to the increase in surface ozone during this season.

Received 7 February 2010; accepted 31 March 2010; published 6 May 2010.

Citation: Zeng, G., O. Morgenstern, P. Braesicke, and J. A. Pyle (2010), Impact of stratospheric ozone recovery on tropospheric ozone and its budget, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L09805, doi:10.1029/2010GL042812.

I wouldn't call them scientists, more like paid shills, and I don't doubt there are lots of them, but how does that prove that the recovering ozone hole is now a good thing and that aerosol is our only hope?

Hey filosophia, shoot the messenger much?

So because scientists have simply made us aware of some potential negative impacts of a recovering ozone layer - this somehow makes all of our complex pollution problems their fault huh?

Nobody's saying we shouldn't be mending the ozone layer - only that this has some important side-effects we need to be aware of. Overall it's just more reason to reduce GHG emissions, not deplete the ozone and hope that two wrongs somehow make a right.

But let me guess: you got all worked up over this article because you're another one of these Climate McExperts running around telling everybody how the scientists are all "lying and hiding data", and now that they've uncovered something that contradicts their own supposed evil agenda - you're suggesting they should what...lie and hide their data?

Also your "debunking" is full of misunderstandings and errors.

You clearly don't seem to realize that sunlight comes in different frequencies and what the difference is between UV and Infrared radiation. Tell me something: when you stand inside a greenhouse - do you get a sunburn? No? Well I guess by your logic then it shouldn't be warmer in there either because the greenhouse is "blocking solar energy".

Originally posted by mc_squared
Hey filosophia, shoot the messenger much?

So because scientists have simply made us aware of some potential negative impacts of a recovering ozone layer - this somehow makes all of our complex pollution problems their fault huh?

Nobody's saying we shouldn't be mending the ozone layer - only that this has some important side-effects we need to be aware of. Overall it's just more reason to reduce GHG emissions, not deplete the ozone and hope that two wrongs somehow make a right.

But let me guess: you got all worked up over this article because you're another one of these Climate McExperts running around telling everybody how the scientists are all "lying and hiding data", and now that they've uncovered something that contradicts their own supposed evil agenda - you're suggesting they should what...lie and hide their data?

Also your "debunking" is full of misunderstandings and errors.

You clearly don't seem to realize that sunlight comes in different frequencies and what the difference is between UV and Infrared radiation. Tell me something: when you stand inside a greenhouse - do you get a sunburn? No? Well I guess by your logic then it shouldn't be warmer in there either because the greenhouse is "blocking solar energy".

no facts presented, only a question about a green house, which you could still get a sun burn in a green house. Otherwise how do the plants get sunlight! Thanks McCarbon legislation expert.

A greenhouse would be like having the ozone layer, and since the title of the article is 'the downside to the recovery of the ozone layer,' it seems like there are some who think there is a downside to mending the ozone layer.

So please tell me, in your own McExpert opinion, what is the difference between UV and infrared radiation and how it is pertinent to this topic. And, can you be a little bit more specific as to how my "debunking" is full of misunderstanding and errors, rather than just spewing unfounded ad hominem attacks?

[edit on 7-7-2010 by filosophia]

Originally posted by filosophia
....can you be a little bit more specific as to how my "debunking" is full of misunderstanding and errors, rather than just spewing unfounded ad hominem attacks?

Well, so far your 'debunking' consists mainly of ad hom attacks - calling the scientists 'shills' and refusing to believe them simply because they dare state something which apparently doesn't fit with your world view.

Even the thread title is misleading - the issue is simply that there have been shown to be consequences of mending the ozone hole (and I've posted a link above to another consequence). The thread title seems to imply that you think this debunks the (false) allegations of climate change fraud levied by persons of certain political and religious persuasion? But I'm not quite sure how or why?

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by filosophia
....can you be a little bit more specific as to how my "debunking" is full of misunderstanding and errors, rather than just spewing unfounded ad hominem attacks?

Well, so far your 'debunking' consists mainly of ad hom attacks - calling the scientists 'shills' and refusing to believe them simply because they dare state something which apparently doesn't fit with your world view.

Even the thread title is misleading - the issue is simply that there have been shown to be consequences of mending the ozone hole (and I've posted a link above to another consequence). The thread title seems to imply that you think this debunks the (false) allegations of climate change fraud levied by persons of certain political and religious persuasion? But I'm not quite sure how or why?

the thread title is a reposting of the article exactly as it appeared, because I am following the ATS rules for breaking news. I only added the part in parenthesis so people will know which side I am on, plus I do go line by line and add my comments to the article. So, ad hominem attacks aside, I'm still waiting for you to tell me why my debunking is full of errors.

reply to post by filosophia


Well basically your attempt at debunking the scientific study is fundamentally flawed because you ignore what the study says.

Simply put: Guang Zeng and the other scientists involved have shown that due to climate change, changes in wind patterns may mean that more ozone from the upper atmosphere will be brought down to lower levels, where it combines with various pollutants to make smog.

To debunk the study you have to falsify this claim: ie demonstrate that ozone will not be brought down from the upper atmosphere and/or that ozone is not a component of smog.

But the fact is, it's really not a big deal either way. Total recovery of the ozone hole may mean a little more smog in places - but cleaning up our cities and reducing car and industrial pollution would mean little or no smog at all, regardless of ozone. And in any case, I think most people would rather a little more smog than the risk of harmful UV getting through?

Originally posted by filosophia
So please tell me, in your own McExpert opinion, what is the difference between UV and infrared radiation and how it is pertinent to this topic.

Holy smokes I literally did a face palm when I read this.

First off you might want to read up a little bit on the Electromagnetic Spectrum for starters.

Then you should have a look here at how different chemical elements and compounds absorb different frequencies of that spectrum:

Ozone doesn't simply block "sunlight". If it did this planet would be a very dark, cold place. It blocks the UV portion of that sunlight. Sunlight is not a distinct thing, it is a spectrum. I would think this is old news to anyone who's passed 5th grade science or seen a rainbow.

Now I guess the infrared part actually isn't relevant to this topic - since apparently we're only talking about how tropospheric ozone relates to smog (not how it also functions as a GHG). But regardless, if you want to be the expert climate change debunker you're selling yourself as - yeah, I'd say you might wanna learn why it's so important...

Either way you still need to at least recognize the difference here between UV and visible light. Well...actually even this is kind of moot since you also misunderstood how the tropospheric ozone is becoming a problem in this case. It has nothing to do with how much sunlight penetrates the ozone layer and interacts with the pollutants below to create O3. There's more than one way to skin a cat and in this case the ozone is simply being physically taken from the stratosphere and transplanted into the troposphere thanks to changing atmospheric pressures due to climate change.

So more upper layer ozone simply means more for the lower layer to hijack.

And if you want to understand why tropospheric ozone is bad you can read more about it here for example:

Tropospheric Ozone: Background Material

But again - this doesn't mean the scientists are saying the ozone layer itself is bad, just reaffirming how much climate change sucks and evidently complicates other environmental issues.

And just because something has a "downside" doesn't mean you automatically stop supporting it anyway. There are pros and cons to everything.

Winning the lottery has it's downside too but how many people are going to say no to that? But they should at least be made aware that the moment they accept that oversized novelty cheque on television, they're going to start getting phonecalls from relatives they've never heard of.