Slashdot Mirror
CFCs Decreasing; Ozone Hole May Decrease As Well
hype7 writes "According to this article at the Sydney Morning Herald, scientists from Australia's CSIRO have discovered that the ozone hole over the antarctic is shrinking - and should be completely gone by the year 2050." Note that the article does not say the ozone hole is decreasing, only that the level of atmospheric CFC's is and that the hole is expected to follow suit. Eventually.
But this still doesn't mean that Escursion you're looking at is a good thing to buy! I should tell us that even if we can't seem to get our shit together as a united species on a dinky little planet, we can still do positive things like reduce CFC's. So think about that before you buy that new truck.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
This sounds like something Carl Sagan could write a book about. Oh wait he did!!
Billions & Billions: Thoughts on Life... Great Book!!!
With the recent news of the Antarctic melting at an extreme rate, I must agree with my esteemed colleagues in the fields of meteorology and ecological sciences that something must be done to prevent the nation of Tuvalu from being completely submerged by melted polar ice cap. My ecological chemist counterparts have been predicting these events with exact science for close to a decade. From the looks of this article, it would appear that they've been taken seriously. Look at the facts: CFC concentration is down. With the lack of CFC molecules present to bond with errant ozone molecules, the hole will have to repair itself with said ozone. We're entering a new era of global intellectual foresight with the assistance of my fellow academics.
Well done, Michael for editing (in this case, appending) the correct statement to the story. Other editors would have posted verbatim, but you READ THE STORY.
Thank you, & keep it up.
I'm just a bit skeptical, given the timing
of this report - so close to the recent
Johannesburg Summit, at which Aussie's
once again missed the chance to commit
to Kyoto Protocol.
Their representative was placed LAST
on the speakers' agenda... perhaps
as an indication of how the world
views this big polluter.
I wonder if this research [or its
result] isn't politically motivated.
All my bicycling to work and back everyday has finally paid off.
The "hole in the ozone layer" was first discovered in 1956, long before there was a big buzz about it.
Remember, it's called the ozone "layer" not the ozone "shield". That's because it is not a whole piece. Ozone is formed when sunlight hits oxygen. So wherever there's sunlight and oxygen, ozone is formed. Sunlight also breaks down ozone (i'll go into more detail later). So the ozone layer is constantly being broken down and regenerated. So the ozone we measure now is not the same as we measured before.
This "hole" in the ozone layer occurs every late winter in the Antarctic. Sometimes it happens to a greater extent than others. This all has to do with chlorine in the air, the temperature, and the fact that no sunlight reaches the south pole in winter to form ozone in the first place.
On September 16, 1987, a NASA ER-2 research aircraft measured a drop in ozone concentration and a rise in the levels of chlorine monoxide while in the stratospheric altitude above the Antarctic. Many groups like the EPA and NASA distorted this reading as proof that CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) were destroying the ozone layer. They predicted mass cases of skin cancer causing millions of deaths and crop damage if CFC produciton was not halted. There was no evidence at all, though, that CFCs were doing any damage. The chief U.S. negotiator, Richard Benedick, in his book Ozone Diplomacy is quoted as saying "...the most extraordinary aspect of the treaty was the imposition os significant costs against unproven future dangers...dangers that rested on scientific theories rather than on firm data. At the time od the negotiations and signing no measurable evidence of damage existed." 13 years later, there is still no measurable evidence of damage.
The public was left with a distorted view of chlorofluorocarbons and the ozone layer.
Their theory was based on a fact, however. CFCs will break down in ultraviolet radiation and release reactive chlorine. The theory was that if the CFCs oculd be lifted into the air 10,000 meters where the level of UV would increase dramatically. CFCs would probably remain stable until they reached the onzone layer where it would be too vulnerable then break down and destroy the all-important ozone layer. It's a very unstable theory but that did not stop environmentalists. The case was most difficult for the defense which needed to prove that this does not happen. All the prosecution needed was a theory backed with highly emotional and exaggerated disaster scenarios.
When the ozone hole didn't show up during the winters of 1989 and 1992, the debate began to disentegrate but NASA came back in 1992 with new reports of high levels of chlorine in the north pole. Something that had never been seen before, an ozone hole in the arctic! But still, 8 years later there has never been an ozone hole in the north pole.
The ban on CFCs had planned to phase them out completely by 1992. Some say there was no hole because of that ban. That simply just doesn't work. The ozone doesn't change from year to year based on things that humans do. CFCs have a halflife of about a century!
The big problem the environmentalists and the public had was the "infamous, deadly UV rays". Well there are different kinds of UV rays. The shorter wavelength type, UVC, is responsible for splitting oxygen molecules, and creating billions of tons of ozone per second. The longer wavelength type, UVB, breaks it down. Both UVC and UVB are effectively blocked by the ozone layer. The longest wavelength, UVA, is not affected by oxygen or the ozone layer and passes through freely. Ironically, this is the wavelength proven to be the cause of melanoma, the deadly skin cancer.
Skin cancer was the main drive of environmentalists. And now, it is proven that the ozone layer has nothing to do with protecting us from cancer! Well, imagine if suddenly (magically), what we call the ozone layer, was completely eliminated. What would happen? More ozone would form immediately below it in the troposphere. Protective oxygen is always there, and it is the source of our ozone.
Our manmade materials have not have a true effect on the atmosphere. We would have to try really hard if we wanted to make a dent. So much more of this chlorine (which is the bad part in CFCs) occurs naturally than we make. A large volcanic blast can contribute 100 to 1000 million tons of active chlorine to the atmosphere, and a large portion of it may very well reach the stratosphere. Slower eruptions make a slow stream of chlorine, like Mount Erebus which has released 300,000 tons per year for the past 30 years Salt spray from oceans, forest and brush fires contribute an average of 700 million tons annually! All of these natural contributions add up to make a total four to five orders of magnitude greater than the man-made contribution. Also, take into fact that only a very minor portion of CFCs actually make into the stratosphere. The molecules are 4 to 8 times heavier than air and adhere easily to the ground and other things attached to the ground.
On a final note, remember that the first major hole in the ozone above the Antarctic (that we noticed) was in 1956, long before chlorofluorocarbons were in widespread use. This "hole" is a naturally occurring event that happens periodically.
Ok, this ac's viewpoint may not be a popular one, but it seems legit and he has facts to go with it. What's with the "troll" moderation. Censorship?
Although the article does only mention the levels dcreasing, is does also make mention the the holes themselves going away, or at least 'closing up'. It was my understanding that ozone replenished itself at a very slow rate, but completely closing holes that were for a long time natural (such as those over the antarctic) seems like a very optimistic statement to make.
Damn. And I thought that the headline was "CFO's decreasing," with and attendant shrinkage of the middle-management black hole.
- a.c.
Now I can go pick up a couple SUV's and not worry about it!
Seriously, though, I can only imagine the kinds of "environmental" programs that will be justified by good 'ol George W. with this in hand.
"Hey brother Christian with your high and mighty errand / your actions speak so loud I can't hear a word you're saying"
Look at all the diseases that rampantly spread out of the rain forests.
;)
:P)
The Earth takes care of itself.
(That's not to say we should get revenge on this bastard planet and go cut down all the rainforests or something.
It is a common known fact that the US won't do anything for the environment if it will impact production negatively. Just read up on the World Environmental Summit recently past...
Top signs this post is a troll:
lots of things in "quotes" to make things seem "questionable"
massive government conspiracy: "EPA and NASA distorted this reading"
post deliberately confuses chlorofluorocarbons and plain chlorine in an attempt to discredit
CFCs were discovered early in the 1900's, and in heavy use by WWII, a decade before the ozone hole was first noticed
poster knew it was a troll and posted anonymously
"That was simply due to old refrigerators and old air-conditioners in cars. We knew they were out there and we knew they were leaking. Those CFCs may have been purchased 10 years ago."
When you think about this though, I'm not so concerned at the moment about the ozone layer deplation possibly allowing me to be UV'ed. I would be a tad bit more worried about inhaling all the various gasses leaking from my AC and old fridges, because I'm fairly sure they're not good for the respiratory system either.
Not that ozone depletion isn't a problem, but so's having lungs filled with noxious chemicals.
Maybe I'll just buy a gas-mask and a few hundred oxygen cylinders - phorm
Volcanoes: 110 million tonnes CO2/year
Man: 10 Billion tonnes CO2/year...