Study: Ozone layer has stopped shrinking

[imported_tss4]

Thought everyone could use some good news! Its only one study, so its far from conclusive, but its nice to see evidence that global cooperation can over come some of our environmental problems.

Study: Ozone layer has stopped shrinking

An analysis of satellite records and surface monitoring instruments shows the ozone layer has grown a bit thicker in some parts of the world, but is still well below normal levels, the scientists report in Wednesday's issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research.

Elsewhere, the decline in ozone levels has stabilized, said Betsy Weatherhead, a researcher at the University of Colorado at Boulder and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "The observed changes may be evidence of ozone improvement in the atmosphere," she said in a statement.

The experts credited, at least in part, the 1987 Montreal Protocol which was ratified by more than 180 nations and set legally binding controls for on the production and consumption of ozone-depleting gases containing chlorine and bromine.

 

[Martin]

old news. Let me summarize the thread though

Liberals: "See, its because we banned CFGs, environmentalism works!"
Conservatives: "This doesn't mean anything, it would have shrunk regardless/humans have no impact/time frame is too small"

 

[chcarnage]

Good news indeed My environment professor said there is a small black market for CFCs in Russia and the world should keep an eye on certain African nations (probably he meant non-signatory states?), but otherwise the problem is solved. The Montreal Protocol is one of the biggest successes of international environmental politics, and the US can be proud of its big contribution to this.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Wow, despite the increased damage to the environment by man, it looks like the ozone layer is improving. How did we pull that one off? Or is it possible Mother Nature just does what it damn well pleases?

read the article. Its believed to be the result of a ban on CFC's by most of the world including ourselves. You've been trolling this forum all day. Stop being a political pundit and start engaging in some constructive debate.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Martin
old news. Let me summarize the thread though

Liberals: "See, its because we banned CFGs, environmentalism works!"
Conservatives: "This doesn't mean anything, it would have shrunk regardless/humans have no impact/time frame is too small"

Welcome to America.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

This is a serious question... I'm not trying to be a smart ass.

How long have we observed and noted the thickness of the ozone layer?

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
This is a serious question... I'm not trying to be a smart ass.

How long have we observed and noted the thickness of the ozone layer?

I believe they have had continuous monitoring from space sattelites since the 80's. They were put up shortly after a chemist showed that CFC's (the ones used at the time) that made it to the upper atmosphere could last over 100 years catalizing a reaction that destroyed ozone. Each CFC molecue could destroy many billions of molecues of ozone before being destroyed.

After placing the satellites in orbite they noted a hole in the ozone that was growing year after year and soon was large enough that large portions of australlia had limited ozone protection during the year. Being that CFC's were used in a lot of industries, in particular the semi-conductor industry (for cleaning PCB's) and were being dumped all over the place to evaporate there was a legitimate fear that with the number of CFC's we were dumping out, even if only a small percentage made it to the ozone layer that we could wipe the entire layer out in a century. Without the ozone layer life on the surface of the earth would cease to exist.

The difference between ozone and global warming is that there was a defined, undisputable chemical reaction. With global warming we are actually unsure of the effects because the science isn't as hard and fast as it was with CFC's released into the ozone layer. Because of this there is still some debate about whether global warming is actually an effect from people among some in the scientific community (neglecting all the wacko's on both sides).

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: rahvin
The difference between ozone and global warming is that there was a defined, undisputable chemical reaction.

The problem though, is that we still have no clue how much of the ozone changes are natural and how much we contribute. We won't know that data for another decade or two.

As for the chemical reaction, have they been able to find a surface yet that it actually occurs on? When I had chemistry 10 years ago, the best scientists could do was to guess that it occured on ice crystals in the atmosphere.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: rahvin
The difference between ozone and global warming is that there was a defined, undisputable chemical reaction.

The problem though, is that we still have no clue how much of the ozone changes are natural and how much we contribute. We won't know that data for another decade or two.

As for the chemical reaction, have they been able to find a surface yet that it actually occurs on? When I had chemistry 10 years ago, the best scientists could do was to guess that it occured on ice crystals in the atmosphere.

I'm not saying we fully understand the process or know how much impact humans had on the process but the defined facts are that the reaction can occur, there were measurable quantities of CFC in the ozone layer at the time (verified by aircraft and ballons) and the layer was decreasing in thickness. The threat was that if the layer was eliminated the surface of the planet would be uninhabitable for most life and the resulting famine would wipe out most of humanity. In a high stakes game like that it was a safe bet to find other chemicals.

Global warming on the other hand has as yet unknown effects. In fact the worst dissaster that hollywood could come up with was the planet turning into a snowball, which I still shake my head at. With unknown benefits and massive costs (in comparison to the ozone problem which had known possible massive benefits with somewhat negligible costs for most industry) global warming doesn't present the same scenario that the ozone problem did/does.

 

[dullard]

I'm not disagreeing with anything you posted, rahvin. But your first post made it seem like we had all the answers. I just wanted to clear it up that there are/were some unanswered questions.

As for global warming, I'm still going with my gut feeling. If I light a big fire in a greenhouse, I'm not going to blame the CO2 for the increase in the temperature.