[cogitator]

Ozone hole recovery a slow one (dated July 2006)

"The Antarctic ozone hole's recovery is running late. According to a new NASA study, the full return of the protective ozone over the South Pole will take nearly 20 years longer than scientists previously expected. ... Scientists from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., have developed a new tool, a math-based computer model, to better predict when the ozone hole will recover."

Rather than accusing me of dishonesty, if you have a question, JUST ASK. (There's also a thing called Google; I found this with 30 seconds of searching on the three words "ozone", "hole", and "recovery".)

Regarding 2006: NASA and NOAA Announce Ozone Hole is a Double Record Breaker

"The temperature of the Antarctic stratosphere causes the severity of the ozone hole to vary from year to year. Colder than average temperatures result in larger and deeper ozone holes, while warmer temperatures lead to smaller ones. The NOAA National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) provided analyses of satellite and balloon stratospheric temperature observations. The temperature readings from NOAA satellites and balloons during late-September 2006 showed the lower stratosphere at the rim of Antarctica was approximately nine degrees Fahrenheit colder than average, increasing the size of this year's ozone hole by 1.2 to 1.5 million square miles."

(Stratospheric cooling is caused by global warming. Check Google to confirm.)

[vbmoneyspender]

Is that how the record holes in 2003 and 2005 are accounted for? And don't you have just the slightest bit of curiosity about whether the ozone depletion theory is valid given the record size holes that are occurring with regularity after CFCs have dropped from their peak levels? Further, if the 2006 and 2005 and 2003 record ozone holes are all accounted for by cold weather how does that jibe with your beloved theory of global warming?

Finally, as I said I don't pay attention to you because I don't believe you are an honest broker of information. When information comes up that doesn't jibe with your beliefs on global warming and the ozone depletion theory you appear to ignore it and/or explain it away. The record ozone levels in 2003, 2005 and 2006 are examples as is the information that has been reported in the past few weeks which calls into question the basic validity of the temperature measurements upon which the global warming theory is, at least in part, based.