Yeah, what did happen to the concerns about the ozone?
LiveScience raises the question and then answers with a contradiction:
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.
So…if the banning of aerosols was supposed to close the ozone hole it created, then how do you explain the thinning of the ozone over the North Pole? One would reason that in order for a hole to form, thinning must first occur. However, the AP doesn’t make that connection. Perhaps if it did, it would come to the obvious conclusion: the banning of aerosols didn’t have a darned thing to do with the ozone or the ozone hole that it purportedly created.
If there is a thinning of the ozone, perhaps the scientists who observed the “ozone hole” saw it when it was at its lowest point in the 80s? Nah, the do-gooders and power mad folks who like regulating everything saw an easy culprit and pinned it on aerosols instead of asking tough, rigorous scientific questions. Now, where do we see such a phenomenon playing out now?