What are the effects of global warming on ozone layer?

Question

What are the effects of global warming on ozone layer?

Answer 1

minimal. ozone is a greenhouse gas so the lack of ozone is slightly cooling the earth (by a very small nearly insignificant amount). there may be more ozone pollution in the troposphere because of higher temps and this would offset the cooling effect i mentioned before. this ozone pollution would also cause many problems such as lower crop yields.

troposphere = the lower atmosphere where we live.

Answer 2

global warming? haha theres a joke, global warming is nothing the scientists to preach it are out to get money and they don't tell you that when all the temperatures were averaged 10,000 of them were in the soviet union but when that got demolished those disappeared and as we all know russia is pretty cold. Also the thermometers are found in parking lots next to the cement. So this question doesn't make any since its false.

Answer 3

Let's see:  According to AGW proponents, higher concentration levels of CO2 cause global warming.  Higher CO2 levels mean higher vegetation levels, which means higher oxygen production, which leads to a greater production rate of ozone in the stratosphere....global warming helps the ozone layer.

Answer 4

Science Has Spoken:

Global Warming Is a Myth

by Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson

Copyright 1997 Dow Jones & Co., Inc.

Reprinted with permission of Dow Jones & Co., Inc.

The Wall Street Journal (December 4, 1997)

--------------------------------------...

Political leaders are gathered in Kyoto, Japan, working away on an international treaty to stop "global warming" by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The debate over how much to cut emissions has at times been heated--but the entire enterprise is futile or worse. For there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures. What's more, carbon dioxide emissions have actually been a boon for the environment.

The myth of "global warming" starts with an accurate observation: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain. Earth's oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere, and movement between these reservoirs of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.

Carbon dioxide, water, and a few other substances are "greenhouse gases." For reasons predictable from their physics and chemistry, they tend to admit more solar energy into the atmosphere than they allow to escape. Actually, things are not so simple as this, since these substances interact among themselves and with other aspects of the atmosphere in complex ways that are not well understood. Still, it was reasonable to hypothesize that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might cause atmospheric temperatures to rise. Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme greenhouse warming of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences.

Careful Tests

The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.

The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.

Why are temperatures rising? The first chart nearby shows temperatures during the past 250 years, relative to the mean temperature for 1951-70. The same chart shows the length of the solar magnetic cycle during the same period. Close correlation between these two parameters--the shorter the solar cycle (and hence the more active the sun), the higher the temperature--demonstrates, as do other studies, that the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age and the large fluctuations during that warming have been caused by changes in solar activity.

The highest temperatures during this period occurred in about 1940. During the past 20 years, atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to go down, as shown in the second chart, based on very reliable satellite data, which have been confirmed by measurements from weather balloons.

Consider what this means for the global-warming hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts that global temperatures will rise significantly, indeed catastrophically, if atmospheric carbon dioxide rises. Most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has occurred during the past 50 years, and the increase has continued during the past 20 years. Yet there has been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years, and during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased.

In science, the ultimate test is the process of experiment. If a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected.

Why, then, is there continuing scientific interest in "global warming"? There is a field of inquiry in which scientists are using computers to try to predict the weather--even global weather over very long periods. But global weather is so complicated that current data and computer methods are insufficient to make such predictions. Although it is reasonable to hope that these methods will eventually become useful, for now computer climate models are very unreliable. The second chart shows predicted temperatures for the past 20 years, based on the computer models. It's not surprising that they should have turned out wrong--after all the weatherman still has difficulty predicting local weather even for a few days. Long-term global predictions are beyond current capabilities.

So we needn't worry about human use of hydrocarbons warming the Earth. We also needn't worry about environmental calamities, even if the current, natural warming trend continues: After all the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without ill effects.

But we should worry about the effects of the hydrocarbon rationing being proposed at Kyoto. Hydrocarbon use has major environmental benefits. A great deal of research has shown that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permit plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also increases.

Standing timber in the United States has already increased by 30% since 1950. There are now 60 tons of timber for every American. Tree-ring studies further confirm this spectacular increase in tree growth rates. It has also been found that mature Amazonian rain forests are increasing in biomass at about two tons per acre per year. A composite of 279 research studies predicts that overall plant growth rates will ultimately double as carbon dioxide increases.

Lush Environment

What mankind is doing is moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.

Hydrocarbons are needed to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe. This can eventually allow all human beings to live long, prosperous, healthy, productive lives. No other single technological factor is more important to the increase in the quality, length and quantity of human life than the continued, expanded and unrationed use of the Earth's hydrocarbons, of which we have proven reserves to last more than 1,000 years. Global warming is a myth. The reality is that global poverty and death would be the result of Kyoto's rationing of hydrocarbons.

Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson are chemists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

Answer 5

There would be no effect whatsoever on the ozone layer if 'Global Warming' were to continue.

Ozone creation and depletion is caused by several factors.

It's creation is caused by solar activity.

Lack of ozone concentration is a yearly cyclical event. There never has been a 'HOLE' in the ozone layer.

There are simply periods of time when concentrations are lower than normal.

The term 'Hole' is completely misleading.

It is a term which was created probably for publicity purposes.

The fact that the lower concentrations occur in October over the Antarctic and April in the Arctic is because these are the the times that spring is starting after a winter period when very little solar radiation is present.

This is also why the ozone levels remain fairly constant in the tropic and subtropic zones.

We still hear people talking about how the biggest 'hole' was recorded in 1998 and that man had to be somehow responsible for this condition.

What they "Conveniently" never talk about is that 30 days after this was also the highest concentrations ever recorded!

We are also supposed to believe that the use of 'CFCs' were to blame for these lower concentrations although (other than in a laboratory environment) was there ever any evidence that CFCs could destroy ozone.

The fact that CFCs are heavier than air and should have remained lower in the atmosphere where they could not cause the type of damage has also been largely ignored.

There have been some theoretical proposals but that is it, simple theory.

It has never been explained by these so-called scientists why these events occur over the poles, with the largest effects being over the south pole when most industry is in the northern hemisphere if man were to be the cause.

These are issues which are conveniently overlooked.

Another point I would like to make, if your still with me is that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas!

Every bit of scientific evidence indicates that higher levels of CO2 never preceded periods of global warming but occurred after those periods of time.

This makes complete sense in my humble opinion because of the properties of CO2.

CO2 is one of the gases which is more soluble in cold water than in warm water.

As sea temeratures rise, less CO2 will be in solution.

The gas will be welcomed by the land vegetation as a major nutrient and be absorbed and the plants flourish.

If the sea temperatures were to rise beyond a certain level however, then the sea vegetation begins to struggle and possibly cause mass reduction in sea populations, as CO2 is required for all life on this planet to exist!

As the phytoplankton and other sea vegetation lose their source of food (CO2) they start to die out causing the entire marine food chain to suffer and collapse.

Not only are the higher animals in the sea food chain going to suffer from a needed food source, but there would also be a lower concentration of oxygen in the water which they would need to survive.

There have been mass extinctions in the past possibly caused due to this type of event.

Another point to take into account here is that the reason that the oceans are not only a vast sink (the ability to absorb) CO2 gases due to it's solubility at various temperatures but that the phytoplankton is able to metabolize it.

Without the phytoplankton available to absorb CO2, no matter what the temperature of the oceans, there would be no more sink once the levels of CO2 stabilized, until the phytoplankton were able to reach higher population levels again, which could take hundreds if not thousands of years.

Like I said, this has happened in the past, long before man could have had any influence, and before human beings even came into existence.

We also are being told things like 'Sea levels will rise by 6 meters in the next 50 years if we don't act now!'.

There is absolutely no scientific basis for this type of claim.

The fact is that even if the Arctic completely melted, it would not affect sea levels at all!

Because there is no land mass, the ice has already displaced the volume of water that would be created.

There is the possibility of a minor rise in sea levels if all of the Antarctic were to melt.

My suspicion,although I have not been able to verify it is that there may have been a study which said that if Antarctica were to melt completely, that there could be a 6 millimeter rise in sea levels. This became translated as 6 meters. This is only a suspicion, but with all of the other lies and mis-truths, and what is actual science, I suspect that I'm not far 'off the mark'.

Supposedly, there is already evidence of rising sea levels.

On the television recently, we were told that part of Alaska has already seen vast rises in sea level and that the maps are going to have to be changed.

We also hear that sea levels are rising in the south of England and elsewhere.

What you won't hear is the areas where the sea levels seem to be receding.

The simple fact of the matter is that there is no way of measuring rises in sea level unless you had a fixed reference.

What is happening is the same now as it always has been. The earth below us is a molten mass.

The land masses are effectively floating on this. The continents are in constant motion. If you could look at the world by time lapse photography which covered 1 million years in 30 seconds, the floating land masses would look very much like 'bobbing corks' in a pond or lake.

Depending on the current tectonic conditions below at the time they will rise and fall, sway, and tilt.

This occurs normally so gradually that we can not perceive it in our lifetimes.

A couple of examples.

Harlech Castle originally was on the sea 700 years ago, it is now over a mile away from the sea.

Did the sea levels actually go down that far?

No!

My house is 1000 feet above sea level and yet my hillside is shale which is extremely rich in sea fossils.

Does that mean that the sea levels were actually 1000 feet or more higher than they are today?

No!

Let us drop this insanity, talking about 'Global Warming', let us listen to proper scientists for a change.

If you wish to discuss global climate change, then I will be much happier.

One of the problems with today's mentality is that we look at things as we can relate to them in our lifetime, and not the earth's time frame.

In the 1970's and early 80's we were told that we were going into another 'Ice Age'.

Now we are being told that it is 'Global Warming'.

The fact is that we are in a period of global warming which began about 15,00 years ago with a major rapid increase around 8,000 years ago which is believed to have lead to the extinction of the Great Mammoth.

The levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are so minute, as to be nearly ignorable in fact.

Human contribution to CO2 levels, and other gases is such a minute fraction of what nature produces that mankind could, only through arrogance, even consider that we could have any effect on a global scale.

Don't get me wrong however. I know that there are many social and environmental issues that should be addressed, but let us stop wasting our money and time on things which we can have no control over.

I could go on in greater detail, vent my spleen a bit, and bore you to death. Maybe I'll do that another time.

What I would also like to point out in closing is that CO2 is not only 'NOT' a greenhouse gas and an enemy, but is necessary for our very survival.

What actually amazes me is how the vegetation on our planet is able to survive with such low concentrations!

Humans, and in fact all mammals would have suffocated with much higher concentrations of oxygen.



I know that if your mind is already made up that you will either agree with this or you will ignore it.

If I can even reach one person who hasn't made up their mind or better yet change your opinion, at least enough to search for the facts and not just believe what you see and hear in the media then I will have felt this may have been worthwhile.

Please don't be one of those who is following someone who is following someone who is lost!

Answer 6

1998 was the hottest year since accurate records began in the 1840s, and 10 of the hottest years have occurred during the last 15 years. By examining growth rings from trees and ice cores drilled in Antarctica, scientists have determined that the past decade was the warmest in more than four centuries, and that the current rate of warming is probably unprecedented in at least 10,000 years.



The damage to our environment has already started. For example, sea level has risen from 10-25 centimeters and will continue to rise for centuries even if we stop all global warming emissions immediately. As the world warms, the outlook for all life forms looks bleak, unless we can turn down the heat by reducing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Kyoto Protocol

The United Nations has developed a framework the "Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change", signed in 1997 convention on global warming and climate change. The adoption of the Kyoto protocol strengthens the framework with new policies and measures including quantified limitation and reduction objectives to greenhouse gas emissions not covered by the Montreal Protocol.

Global Warming Can Increase Ozone Depletion

Scientist's are concerned that continued global warming will accelerate ozone destruction and increase stratospheric ozone depletion. Ozone depletion gets worse when the stratosphere (where the ozone layer is), becomes colder. Because global warming traps heat in the troposphere, less heat reaches the stratosphere which will make it colder. Greenhouse gases act like a blanket for the troposphere and make the stratosphere colder. In other words, global warming can make ozone depletion much worse right when it is supposed to begin its recovery during the next century.

Answer 7

i don't think there are any caused by global warming, but the effects of harmful chemicals like CFC release into the atmosphere can damage the ozone layer

Answer 8

The ozone layer thing was so 90s.  It's over now, time to move on.  The liberal politicians have all done so, so should you.

Answer 9

The ozone layer WAS depleting because of the use of CFC's but now is recovering. See, a real problem that we can fix we did fix. And oh yeah.. It's snowing outside and it's almost April.... Funny.