The unelected granola-eating tree huggers at the EPA are going to increase the cost of operating hockey rinks (and thus, the cost of attending, watching, and playing hockey):
By 2020, the refrigerant chemical now used at half the state’s 240 arenas to make ice no longer will be manufactured or imported into the U.S. as part of a global effort aimed at ridding the world of greenhouse gases linked to depletion of the ozone layer.
The phaseout of the odorless gas R-22 is expected to be costly for arenas – most of which are owned by cities – because of an anticipated rise in its cost. After the deadline, arenas still will be able to use the refrigerant gas for existing cooling systems, but the supply will be limited to what is left over and reclaimed and recycled.
And what is the main source of this ozone depletion?
The ozone hole occurs during the Antarctic spring, from September to early December, as strong westerly winds start to circulate around the continent and create an atmospheric container. Within this polar vortex, over 50% of the lower stratospheric ozone is destroyed during the Antarctic spring.
Warming temperatures near the end of spring break up the vortex around mid-December. As warm, ozone-rich air flows in from lower latitudes, the PSCs are destroyed, the ozone depletion process shuts down, and the ozone hole heals.
Why, it’s the weather! To be more precise, it is the “Polar Vortex” that the media has been blathering about all winter.
Well, it’s a good thing that the EPA and other eco-nuts have banned CFCs. The ozone layer is saved! YAY!
Except that it’s not:
It seems the chemicals substituting for CFCs are also stratospheric ozone eaters.
…most people are unaware that the ozone thickness at both poles nearly doubles in the winter months and is thinnest in the late summer and fall. Nor do they know that stratospheric ozone thinning occurs almost exclusively at the south pole. And it only thins during late winter and early spring — just when the ozone layer has past its peak thickness.
Another little known fact is that the ozone layer is as much as 130 percent thicker at the poles as at the equator when polar thinning occurs.
But don’t take my word for it. Robert Pease, Professor Emeritus of Physical Climatology at the University of California-Irvine, sent a disclaimer about what he called the “media-endorsed ozone-depletion theory” to many United States newspapers:
Pronouncements in the past few weeks give the impression that all atmospheric scientists are believers, which is far from true. Many of us are still skeptical because of incompatibilities between the theory and what we know about the ozone layer:
1. The Rowland theory ignores the equilibrium nature of ozone in the layer. The ozone molecules are constantly being created and destroyed— both quite naturally— by the very short wavelengths of ultraviolet light from the sun. The amount of ozone in the layer depends upon an equilibrium between the two processes. This equilibrium varies markedly both over the globe and throughout the year.
At very high altitudes a disrupted equilibrium is restored in a matter of minutes; at lower levels in the stratosphere, in a matter of weeks or months. In any event, repair takes place rather quickly. Depletion of ozone can occur only by reducing the equilibrium density of ozone molecules. This makes for relatively insignificant depletions. No doubt many CFC molecules have reached the ozone layer, but it is unlikely both that they are depleting the ozone to the extent the activists say, and that such damage, even if it existed, would take centuries to repair.
2. Since the same narrow band of ultraviolet light breaks down both CFCs, releasing their ozone-destroying chlorine, as well as oxygen, creating ozone, there is a ‘competition’ between the two processes for this necessary solar energy. The probability that an oxygen molecule will be broken apart, rather than a CFC molecule, depends upon the relative abundance of the two gases in the ozone layer. Calculations based on high-altitude CFC samplings and data supplied by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show 60,000 ozone molecules are created for every chlorine atom released from a CFC molecule.
With this probability, how can the equilibrium density of the ozone layer be materially reduced? In other words, the paucity of measurable proof of depletion may be because depletion is not actually occurring. It is of interest to note that surface measurements by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration indicate that the total amount of ozone above the U.S. is actually increasing.
3. Unable to measure depletion in an unambiguous manner, advocates of the theory have taken the `hole’ in the layer over Antarctica as indirect proof of loss of the layer over mid-latitudes. However, papers at last summer’s international ozone conference at Snowmass, Colo., cast doubt that this phenomenon is a mirror of global ozone decline. Perhaps the erosion of this ozone during the polar night is due to the same interaction of the solar wind with the Earth magnetic field that causes the auroras. It has been observed that this combination can destroy the ozone. Solar wind is the product of solar flares, which are becoming more frequent as sunspot activity waxes.
Even the pro-CFC banning NASA has admitted that they lied:
More than 20 years after the Montreal Protocol agreement limited human emissions of ozone-depleting substances, satellites have monitored the area of the annual ozone hole and watched it essentially stabilize, ceasing to grow substantially larger. However, two new studies show that signs of recovery are not yet present, and that temperature and winds are still driving any annual changes in ozone hole size.
“Ozone holes with smaller areas and a larger total amount of ozone are not necessarily evidence of recovery attributable to the expected chlorine decline,” said Susan Strahan of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “That assumption is like trying to understand what’s wrong with your car’s engine without lifting the hood.”
It’s not about ‘saving the environment‘. It’s not about saving YOU. It’s about scaring you into letting the leftists control your life by taxing and regulating you back to the Stone Age. Or at least into the real-life version of the Hunger Games.
If one examines the history of governmental CFC policy, one finds that it is based mainly on panicky reactions to press releases from EPA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) about skin cancer and possible Arctic ozone holes -¬ stimulated and amplified by environmental pressure groups and the media ¬- rather than on published work that has withstood the scrutiny of scientific peers. Credence has been given to EPA “estimates” of millions of extra skin cancer deaths, to lurid stories about ozone depletion leading to blind sheep, to the travails of whales in the Antarctic, and to the worldwide disappearance of frogs and toads. It is perhaps characteristic of this topic that so many of the scary announcements have led off with some statement like: “The depletion of ozone is worse than expected” -¬ starting with the March 1988 press conference by the Ozone Trends Panel (5). Yet since “expectation” must be based on theory, the discrepancy with observations means, logically, that either the theory is wrong or the data are wrong, or both are wrong!