Whatever Happened to the Hole in the Ozone Layer?

COMMENT: Interesting read and raises a question in my mind --- did banning aerosols truly help repair the hole in the ozone layer? Read the article, then I've got some questions/assertions/opinions/comments.

Stuart Fox
Life's Little Mysteries Staff Writer
LiveScience.com Stuart Fox
life's Little Mysteries Staff Writer
livescience.com – Thu May 6, 8:50 am ET

Three British scientists shocked the world when they revealed on May 16th, 1985 - 25 years ago - that aerosol chemicals, among other factors, had torn a hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole. The ozone layer, which protects life on Earth from damaging solar radiation, became an overnight sensation. And the hole in the ozone layer became the poster-child for mankind's impact on the planet.

Today, the ozone hole - actually a region of thinned ozone, not actually a pure hole - doesn't make headlines like it used to. The size of the hole has stabilized, thanks to decades of aerosol-banning legislation. But, scientists warn, some danger still remains.

First, the good news: Since the 1989 Montreal Protocol banned the use of ozone-depleting chemicals worldwide, the ozone hole has stopped growing. Additionally, the ozone layer is blocking more cancer-causing radiation than any time in a decade because its average thickness has increased, according to a 2006 United Nations report. Atmospheric levels of ozone-depleting chemicals have reached their lowest levels since peaking in the 1990s, and the hole has begun to shrink.

Now the bad news: The ozone layer has also thinned over the North Pole. This thinning is predicted to continue for the next 15 years due to weather-related phenomena that scientists still cannot fully explain, according to the same UN report . And, repairing the ozone hole over the South Pole will take longer than previously expected, and won't finish until between 2060 and 2075. Scientists now understand that the size of the ozone hole varies dramatically from year to year, which complicates attempts to accurately predict the hole's future size.

Interestingly, recent studies have shown that the size of the ozone hole affects the global temperature. Closing the ozone hole actually speeds up the melting of the polar ice caps, according to a 2009 study from Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research.

So even though environmentally friendly laws have successfully reversed the trend of ozone depletion, the lingering effects of aerosol use, and the link between the ozone hole and global warming, virtually ensure that this problem will persist until the end of the century.

COMMENT: Okay, so the article seems to dispute itself several times which, to me, pretty much calls the "experts" assertions into question. First, the aerosol ban helped stabilize and close the ozone layer; secondly, another hole over the North Pole cannot be explained, but is possibly weather-related; thirdly, the layer at the South Pole changes dramatically from year to year; fourthly, closing the ozone layer may actually speed up global warming; BUT lastly, an assertion that "environmentally friendly laws have successfully reversed the trend..."

Could it be faulty logic tying the aerosol ban to the repair of the hole? Is there truly proof that banning aerosols fixed the hole? It seems more logical to me that holes in the ozone are cyclic and are the planet's own air conditioning system to regulate global temperatures. It also seems very clear to me that the experts really don't know, and are passing off intelligent guesses as matters of fact.

Here's another question --- How much of our current "global warming" problem is the result of banning aerosols? Sounds ludicrous on the surface, BUT what is the #1 indicator the global warming drum beaters use as proof --- melting polar ice, right? The only "expert" reason we've heard recently for the polar ice melt is CO2, am I right? So riddle me this...IF the ozone layer affects polar ice, AND if the ozone layer is a global A/C system, AND if we successfully changed the setting on that system with banning aerosols, THEN why is it now all about CO2? Granted, the "A/C" theory was my assertion, but supported by the "experts'" statement. What seems to happen every time man screws with Mother Nature?

I'm no expert, so anything I state here is pure conjecture and opinion based on what I read from the "experts." I do think there are questions that should be answered before the "experts" pass additional intelligent guesses off as fact to the public.

I think there are strong indications here that a political agenda is driving these assertions and professional opinions. I hate it when science and politics jump into the same bed. Hell, I hate when politics jumps into any bed.