Quote:I never said it was. That it takes longer than they said it would means they left some factors out of the equation or at least nerfed the extent that those factors effect the models used to calculate the holes and their projected features at any given point.
1) It was never stated that banning the CFCs would immediately cause it to repair itself
Quote:Lovely... except I blatantly showed that NASA already retconned the date to 2018, in 2006. Shortly after another paper I found (see first thread post) stated that other natural factors had expanded the hole in the past 11 years at least. I'm leery of the timing. Its probably a response to the other report that took place a few months before hand. The 2018 date is NASAs new guess your link failed for me so I couldnt check it to see if NASA did change by 8 years over 2 years. If what I got from your statement is truth and not a misread on my part. NASA added 8 years to their model after the other report pointed out factors stalling the recovery of the Ozone layer. I'm leery of anytime that a due date for something to show progress suddenly gets pushed back, by a decade or five. It screams this isn't working, we better do something before we get caught BSing through something we half know, yet are the authorities on. Basically to me it screamsMARVEL RETCON!!! FOR SCIENCE!!! Much covering of body parts ensues. Yes reevaluating data and publishing new conclusions is a form retconning. Not all retconning is bad (like the Bohr atom model being tossed aside as realistic and the electron cloud taking its place) Marvel Retconning on the other hand is.
7) Time: People don't take the long view. Nasa (yadda yadda edit) models LEAST 2010. After 2010, if there's no signs of recovery, THEN I'd expect to see the ozone hole returning to public attention.
The reason I say recovery in quotes is that in order for us to know if the Ozone Layer has reconverted, we have to have a predamaged Ozone Layer model to compare with the current on to reach this ideal state of Ozone Layer goodness, that was before man screwed it up. In other words, for the Ozone Layer to recover from the damage man caused to it we have to know to what extent man damaged it. In order to know the extent that man damaged it wed have to know what it was like before man damaged it. Meaning what the ozone layer was like before man damaged it. Which is something we fail to have solid data on.
12 Minutes after they developed the first pictures of the Ozone Layer, they found that in winter it has holes in it. The public reaction that swept some people and formed the movement was that these holes are all man's fault, these terrible holes of terror didn't exist before evil, evil mankind caused them to exist, We are all going to die!!! Unless we do this (insert plan involving CFCs here)'. Yes, 12 minutes is an arbitrary number, however that doesn't change the rush to judgement on the issue or the political movement that followed.
The idea that man caused them entirely is something I don't believe at all. We, mankind, don't actually have proof that they didn't exist at any other point in history. Nor do we have proof that they did exist at any other point in history... minus after the first photos we took that this last century. Declaring them entirely man's fault or even not at all man's fault is bad science. It is realistically impossible to prove one way or the other, as we would have to be comparing the size of the holes without mans interference with the size of the holes in the Ozone Layer after mans interference. Never mind the extent of the damage being calculated we dont have this pre-interference data or data on what it would be like without man influencing the system at all.
We have no control data here. We don't know what the Ozone Layer looked like a hundred/thousand/million years ago. We don't know what it will look like a hundred/thousand/million years from now. There is so much speculation on an issue that you can't honestly prove one way or the other. Barring time traveling orbitals or a FTL ship going far enough away to take pictures of the Earth's Ozone Layer at various points in history, we simply can't prove whether man caused the holes or not. To say we know either way is bad science or at the least speculation.
Note, I'm not commenting on whether man contributed to the size of the holes in the Ozone Layer, in the above. Personally, I believe that CFCs probably did break down some Ozone... however the percentage or the size of the increase in the holes as a result of this is up in the air for me. It takes too much math and crunching of raw data to hazard a real guess on my part... and in the end the guess is speculation. Speculation that is unprovable for decades if not centuries after I'm dead, if ever.
Unless I fubarred the explanation that should explain my evaluation process here. Id like to know If I have a logic hole here, its easier to continue explaining if I have a starting point, that would start a forum bar fight.