'Ozone Depletion Dependent on Global Warming?'
By Kevin Roeten (10/09/07)
The Montreal Protocol that protects the ozone turns twenty this year. Many claim that it was successful. But why would we celebrate a piece of legislation that robbed thousands of jobs? And worst of all, there may be reason to believe that ozone depleting substances(ODS) are not a cause for worry. Add to that, ozone depletion seems interconnected with Global Warming, from which anything 'manmade' has been debunked a while ago.
The National Center for Policy Analysis(NCPA) has recently issued a booklet with facts on Global Warming. It reiterates that there is little or no relationship between CO2 emissions and climate change. Humans contribute 3.4% of CO2—nature contributes 96.6%. There was an explosion of life forms during the Cambrian Period when CO2 was 18x that of today; and during the Jurassic Period(dinosaurs), CO2 levels were 9x higher. Even polar bears increased from ~5000(1950) to 25,000 today. The NCPA primer gives detailed resources for all this information. Because manmade GW is non-existent, are we sure of the dangers of ozone depletion?
Ben Lieberman(Heritage Foundation) states that the parallels with climate change are striking. The EPA also admits that predictions of ozone levels remain difficult. Some stratospheric cooling is also predicted from increases in greenhouse gases like CO2. But the earth is supposedly not cooling since 1975.
Interestingly, the World Meteorological Organization Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project(#44), notes that a UNEP 1994 Assessment overestimated ozone loss for the 1994-1997 period. National Academy assessments(1st two years of Reagan administration) had also indicated that the first estimates of the magnitude of ozone depletion had been overly large.
Catalytic destruction of ozone by chlorine and bromine has always been assumed to be the major culprits. As a result, concern prompted the ban of chlorofluorocarbons(freons) as well as related halogens such as carbon tetrachloride[dry cleaning] and trichoroethane[degreaser]. Without getting overly technical, the ‘photo dissociation’ of these chemicals has produced halogen atoms, which in turn react and deplete ozone to produce oxygen.
But “Science Daily”(University of Leeds, University of East Anglia, & British Antarctic Survey) reports that large quantities of iodine oxide(halogen) have been found in Antarctica during those periods of light(August-May). This corresponds to the Antarctic’s yearly ozone thinning. But this chemical has not been found in the Arctic, which does not usually generate significant ozone thinning. The source of these halogens is natural. Sea-salt provides the bromine, and almost certainly iodine is obtained from the bright orange algae that coat the underside of the sea ice around Antarctica. Very recent satellite observations by one of the above team(Dr. Alfonso Saiz-Lopez), have confirmed that iodine oxides are widespread throughout coastal Antarctica.
Bottom line: scientists have found out that the ozone ‘hole’ over Antarctica has shrunk 30% versus last year’s record size. Ozone depths have indeed been shrinking at a slower pace since the 1980’s. A 1988 World Meteorological Report has said that the linear depletion trend observed during the 1980’s has not continued, but rather total ozone has been almost constant. But it seems that the timeline of elimination of ‘ODS’ and ozone depletion don’t line up.
Even the WHO admits UVB radiation has never gone up. The US National Cancer Institute statistics show that the much hyped acceleration of skin cancer rates has not materialized. That the incidence of malignant melanoma has actually been leveling off during the time of the ‘alleged’ ozone crisis. That even in Antarctica, no eco-system or species was shown to be seriously harmed by ozone depletion. Even in Al Gore’s book, The Earth in the Balance, the claim that because of the ozone ‘hole’, hunters would report blind rabbits, and fisherman would catch blind salmon, never came to be.
But Anne Douglass(NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center) says that “The goal now is to ensure that CFC’s and other emissions continue to fall below the levels that produce an ozone hole. This won’t happen until about 2070.” But even NASA admits that the differences between loss and recovery of ozone at the poles are complex. Lately, the modern focus in ozone research has shifted to include the effects of climate change. But now, they realize that they are linked in subtle, but profoundly important ways.
Actually, CFC’s likely caused a drop in total ozone. But the earth seemed to compensate readily. It sounds like the hype over the ozone ‘hole’ was very similar to manmade global warming. Because ozone wasn’t even measured before 1980, and CO2 and temperature spikes don’t correlate whatsoever, can we say we’re sure about anything? Do we even want to know how much we’ve spent on problems that very likely never existed?
Kevin Roeten
http://kevinroeten.us/
(Printer friendly version) Email: Kevin Roeten
