Who is right? NASA with its high-tech machinery, or the EPA which is supposed to know more about the environment?
To say nothing of the fact that 93>88, and 2006>1994, which means the ozone hole is less severe than it was twelve years ago.
This is the problem with climate science. No one can agree on anything except:
1) Global warming is happening, and it's all our fault.
2) The ozone "hole" is getting bigger every year, and it's all our fault.
These two items are part of the "consensus" that supposedly unites the climate science community; and the general public should therefore accept these two points as proven natural law because of this.
Einstein's Theory of Relativity has met every test thrown at it and physicists persist in calling it a "theory". There is more "consensus" in the Physics community about the validity of Einstein's Theory of Relativity than there is in Climatology for anthropogenic global warming, yet physicists still refer to it as a theory. Not a "law", not even "proven"--just a theory.
If you compare Climatology to physics, you see a vast difference in how science is handled. Everyone agrees that Einstein was right; but no one says, "Because we all agree, it's proven." The goddamned theory is almost a hundred years old and physicists are still trying to find holes in it.
Not so with Climatology. There is "consensus" in that community that global warming is taking place due to human greenhouse emissions. Consensus equals proof! We're all doomed!
A lot of people in Germany in 1939 agreed that Jews were the focus of evil in the world. Were they right?
If you think that "consensus" proves anything, why not try jumping off a cliff with ten other people who agree that gravity isn't real?
Science is not a popularity contest. The laws of nature don't give a rat's ass what the scientists agree on; it doesn't care what we think or say or pass laws against. If global warming is happening, just agreeing that it's man's fault won't mean that making everyone ride a bicycle to work will stop it; and if the cause of global warming is something we have no control over--what will you do then?
Should we assume the climatologists are right (because they do, after all, agree with each other) and stop doing anything which makes greenhouse gases? Stop eating beef and driving cars? Ruin the world economy so we don't cause runaway global warming?
And what happens if we do all this, and the planet warms anyway? With the world economy in ruins, we wouldn't have the money to relocate people to higher ground, so when the polar ice caps melted a lot of people would drown!
Voluntary Human Extinction
Of course that would suit these asshats just fine. Many in the eco-nazi community would like to see a lot of humans die. But don't expect them to volunteer; they want fetuses and the "ethnic people" in Third World countries to do most of the dying while they continue to ride around in private jets and limosines.
Besides, by the time the world gets warm enough to melt the Antarctic ice sheet (which is thickening in the center even as its edges melt) all the climatologists of today will either be dead or senile.
I'll say it again: if a "typical ozone hole" is around 100 DU, then according to climatologists of the 1950s, the "normal" level of ozone in the atmosphere should be roughly 250-300 DU...and that is exactly the "non-hole" levels which are observed today. Remember that in 1958 the low was 110 DU, not 300 DU; 93 DU is 17 DU less than that nadir, and 88 DU is 23 DU less.
Are these significant figures? How can we know? No one in the climatological community seems interested in discovering that. The seasonal variation in ozone concentration, first discovered in the 1950s, became a crisis 30 years later even though the variation was not significantly different in magnitude. Why is it a crisis now?
The fact that the ozone layer recovers nicely each year is also glossed over. The ozone "hole" exists for two months out of the year, at a time when spring is first coming to the southern hemisphere. After October, the ozone layer returns to its former strength.
We don't know what the ozone layer over Antarctica did before the 1950s. The thinning of the ozone does not seem to affect any other part of the planet; and even if we had no ozone layer, skin cancer would not suddenly become more common, as the frequencies of UV light which cause melanoma are not significantly absorbed by any layer of the atmosphere, unless it is thick with clouds.
The annual variation was understood and considered unremarkable until the 1980s, when NASA had the ability to take pictures of it.
The magnitude of the annual variation has not significantly changed since the 1950s.
Skin cancer is caused by the longest wavelengths of ultraviolet light, which cruise right past the ozone layer like grease through a goose. (It also does not pass "GO" or collect $200.) These wavelengths--the 320-400 nm band, also called UV-A--penetrate the epidermis and can cause genetic damage to the skin cells underneath. If the ozone layer disappeared in its entirety, right now, the concentrations of UV-A would remain
at the Earth's surface.
But the climatologists all agree that the ozone hole is a disaster...so I guess we have to fix it.