Ozone Layer Recovering But Remains Threatened
First time accepted submitter i kan reed writes in with some good news from the ozone report of the United Nations. The Earth’s protective ozone layer is on track to recover by the middle of the century, the United Nations today reported, urging unified action to tackle climate change and curb continued fluctuations to the composition of the atmosphere. That is according to the assessment of 300 scientists in the summary document of the Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2014, published by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO). “International action on the ozone layer is a major environmental success story,” WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said in a news release. “This should encourage us to display the same level of urgency and unity to tackle the even greater challenge of climate change.”
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.go...
The graphs can be seen here:
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.go...
Whatever effect can be traced to 1987, it looks like a one-time step change, without a definite trend.
I seriously don't understand your point. Here's what I see...
Scientists note Ozone depletion. Scientists say CFC usage is a large contributor to said depletion. People BELEIVE them and reduce CFC usage. Ozone depletion appears to reverse.
and then:
Scientists note an increase in mean global temperature. Scientists say CO2 usage is a large contributor to said increase in temperature. People DONT BELEIVE them, and keep doing what they are doing. Temperature appears to continue to increase on average.
So it seems that when we believe the experts in a field and take action, we get a positive result. That's not "being good" or "being bad", that's just being smart. I'm not suggesting blindly believing them either, skepticism is fine and healthy. But the average AGW denier isn't skeptical, they are denial robots who just parrot talking points which have long been debunked as nonsense.
As for you final sentence:
Scientists should stick to the facts and keep out of the prophetics.
Sadly, when I hear you say that (or read to be more precise), it makes me sad because you seem to misunderstand how science works. One of the PRIMARY measures of the correctness of a theory is its PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY. The goal of a theory, in general is to create an accurate model of reality which if correct will allow us to anticipate future outcomes and be better prepared for them. In summary, a theory which accurately models reality should be able to say things like:
"If X, then Y is expected to happen." (within the expected levels of confidence of course, no one is perfect)
For example:
"If an object is in the presence of a second massive object, then an attraction defined by the inverse squares law is expected to happen." is what is essentially said by Newton's theory of gravitation.
Science is not just collecting observations, it is creating theories which have a high level of predictive quality BASED on the observations.