The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
O Ozone, Where Art Thou?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Ilkka Kokkarinen recalls the ozone hole scare that was part of popular parlance a decade ago, noting that it has essentially disappeared since then:

Another funny (both strange and ha-ha) thing that I recently realized was how the 90’s big scare of “ozone hole” seems to have vanished into, well, a memory hole. … You’d think that environmentalists would be screaming their lungs out for that one at every opportunity, but for some mysterious reason, they are as silent about the ozone hole as liberals and progressives these days are about Free Tibet, or for that matter, one of their most decisive victories of recent times, the democratization of South Africa. … Another, more cynical hypothesis might be that the ozone hole scare was just like every other green scare so far, a completely meaningless dud that was just a naked and cynical attempt to grab the power away from the masses and place it securely in the hands of an unelected, self-anointed eco-elite.

I vaguely remember hearing about ozone depletion and how I’d better where SPF 30 or higher sunscreen when I went to Oceans of Fun unless I wanted skin cancer before I finished high school, but haven’t heard about it at all since I’ve become moderately cognizant of the world around me (the last five years or so).

Quantifying the astute statements of others is a stock-in-trade, so I visited the New York Times‘ archives to do just that. There is scarcely any other major media publication that gives more attention to putatively anthropogenic environmental damage than the NYT does. “Ozone hole” provided too scant a return to be helpful, so I used the phrase “ozone depletion” instead.

The nearby graph (click to enhance it) shows the number of articles, adjusted for the total number of stories produced over the entire year, containing the phrase from 1981 to the present.

Ilkka’s recollection is pretty accurate. Attention peaked in the early nineties and had subsided by the end of the decade. I suspect the focus on ozone depletion was replaced by “global warming” in the early part of this decade, a phrase which has since been (in the face of ten years of moderate cooling) replaced by the more nebulous “climate change”.

(Republished from The Audacious Epigone by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: Environment, Media, Nature, Science 
Hide 12 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Dude, this gets addictive, I warn you. I already have like 5 to 10 graphs in the queue.

    You should wear sunscreen every time you can (they put it in face moisteurizers now). The sun is the primary culprit in aging the face. It's a pretty simple thing to do to stay near the giggly ones!

  2. I saw the formula work in action both at GNXP and at Dusk in Autumn, so I shamelessly stole the method from you without even giving you credit. So, uh, here it is–thanks for introducing me to the NYT archival method of gauging the cultural presence of various ideas over time!

  3. Global warming is real. Most people who don't believe in global warming explain the Earth's temperature variations as being primarily a function of the variations in solar radiation due to the fluctuations of sunspots:

    http://i19.tinypic.com/4lpxgz6.png

    However, global warming is not an "either/or". Most scientists on both sides of the debate believe that sunspot cycles have an effect on global temperatures, because looking at the data for the past 150 years or so makes it seem very likely.

    As it happens, we are in a solar minimum right now, so although global warming is continuing to progress, it is fighting against the temporary solar-induced cooling. Note that the current "cool" period is still much, much warmer than the cool periods we experienced frequently before 1950. If you look at a dataset that continues beyond the 1980s, you can see that the closer you get to today, the more effect the increased greenhouse gases have, to the point where they are now beginning to overwhelm the sunspot cycle.

    http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html

    The scientist who authored the graph that most people refer to when they say that sunspots are the main (or only) cause of global warming is telling them to stop. He never made that claim himself. Almost all papers supporting the sunspots-only theory use data that stops at about 1985 or so, because that is the point at which anthropogenic climate change becomes the dominant term in the equation and to include it in their data would greatly weaken their hypothesis. Compare a graph that is more complete:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg

  4. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    So, tell us, Stopped Clock, why there were periods in the past when temps were higher than now, and periods when they were lower than now?

    Of course climate change happens. It happens all the time.

    What seems more and more clear now is that humanity increasing CO2 by one part in 10,000 over the last fifty years can not have had the affect that the global warming scaremongers claim.

    280ppm to 380ppm translates to 1 part in 10,000 increase.

  5. Long term climate change can have many causes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

    You can find an explanation for each and every warm period in the Earth's history. All of them have multiple causes. In many of them, the warming was enhanced by higher CO2 levels than at present … this is certainly not the only time in Earth's history that there has been an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.

    Anyway, I find the argument that humans can't be responsible for global warming because greater warming has occurred in the past to be unconvincing. Unless someone can come up with an alternate explanation for the warming we're experiencing now, I will go with the answer that seems to fit the data best.

  6. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    There can be no doubt that the Ozone-scare was a big fad for greens in the 90s. However, it was great problem, mainly caused by CFK's.

    Same holds for "acid rain". They're pretty much silent about that one now too.

    Still, global warming is a real problem and the evidence I've seen is pretty conclusive, valid and convincing.

    Global warming is real and those who deny it are pretty much morons or politically motivated (libertarian idiots mainly) — it's not much different from race-denying liberals, if you ask me..

  7. Very interesting. Barak Obama promises to regulate CO2 as a dangerous pollutant. The economic and legal consequences of such regulation cannot be overstated.

    The US relies on its energy supply for its economic strength. Take away the energy and the US economy crashes and burns. Obama will make the current credit crash look like boom times.

    If you think trial lawyers are powerful now, just wait until they are given the new Obama regulations–the goose that lays the golden eggs for trial lawyers.

    BTW, ozone regulations from the EPA are a sleeping time bomb just about to go off. New rules on refrigerants are going to start hitting the economy like suicide bombs within the next couple of years.

    The effect of an Obama Environmental Regime will have incalculable consequences for the world economy. But if you like watching things burn, it will be entertaining.

  8. So was there ever an ozone hole?

  9. Anonymous [AKA "Outland stop clocker"] says:

    The cyclically fluctuating ozone hole is caused by variable extraterrestrial factors. Anthropogenic CFCs were a red herring. Nobel prizes come cheap these days if the environment is involved.

    Global warming is likewise due to non anthropogenic factors and alternates normally with global cooling.

  10. There is a good reason you don't hear about the Ozone anymore. The problems that were linked to ozone depletion have been effectively resolved.

    The link to chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) was established in the mid 80's. The science was supported by NASA, NOAA and others. Soon after, large awareness campaigns went underway, as the potential seriousness of losing the Ozone was real and observable. 160 countries signed the Montreal Protocol and began to phase out use and production of CFC's.

    This was a major victory for environmentalists and scientists. Consequentially, the ozone depletion was reversed. The last I heard, they are predicting the Ozone to close back up sometime this century.

  11. Recent science research seems to indicate that the ozone hole had noting to do with CFCs and everything to do with cosmic ray modulation by the solar wind.

  12. Anon,

    The link to CFCs and ozone depletion is well known, and well studied.

    What you are referring to is a study that suggests cosmic rays have a serious adverse influence on the CFCs that are already in the ozone column. The cosmic rays are not the direct cause of depletion, but instead break down the CFCs to release the chlorine which are the cause.

    Without the CFCs already there, this wouldn't happen.

    http://focus.aps.org/story/v8/st8

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS