Slashdot Mirror
Upper Ozone Depletion Declining
Silas writes "This SF Chronicle article (and many others) reports that destruction of the upper part of Earth's ozone layer has slowed because of the international effort more than a decade ago to ban ozone-damaging aerosols. More about the study and techniques used is here. We're still a long way away from recovery, but it's a nice example of humans taking an active role in reversing some of the damage we've done."
No. It's an example of us stopping screwing it up quite so quickly.
The rate of depletion has slowed != everything's OK again.
When people's ozone depletion increases, ozone decreases.
When Ozone decreases, people die faster.
Logical assumption: There is an equilibrium between how much ozone there is, and population of people.
Guess: It doesnt matter.
Does less wrong make a right?
Karma: Bad due to google bombing - Robert Watkins woz 'ere.
How does a chlorofluorocarbon molecule, which is heavier than air, affect the Earth's upper atmosphere at the poles?
Responses with detailed analyses are appreciated. Please limit your responses to 500 words.
Nice Troll.
but seriously, you're a genious?
Could it just be that with our very limited (~40 years worth) sample of scientific data that we just do not have a very good understanding of how the cycles of the Ozone Layer work? Perhaps ozone holes occur and disappear naturally, and we are only beginning to learn this. Ozone is created every time lighting strikes the earth (about 100 time every second) so ozone is not something that goes away forever.
nice example of humans taking an active role
People in L.A. have been doing their part, drivign their cars in the sunshine, to help create more ozone!
Now if we could only get it off the ground and up high we'd have it made.
As a side note, the high flying SSTs, such as the Concorde, have stopped in the last few years.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
She's changed Tuesday's menu from Mexican burritos to Tofu burgers.
The elves are breathing a little easier on Wednesday mornings.
but it's a nice example of humans taking an active role in reversing some of the damage we've done.
"How's the anti-elephant cream coming along?"
"Can *you* see any elephants?"
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I don't remember ever seeing conclusive evidence (as in studies) that aerosol use was ever positively linked to the depletion of the ozone layer. In fact I remember several studies highlighted on the discovery channel which cast quite a bit of doubt on that that hypothesis.
I don't recall blaming the Republicans for the Ozone hole depletion. I think everybody worked together to help reduce this problem.
However, I think you have mistaken O3 depletion for global warming; and yes, I do blame the Republicans for failing to take corrective action on that. If it appears that we have minimized our warming threat, I'll give credit where credit is due. That is unlikely to be to the GOP, however, as they fail to recognize that it's a problem, yet.
I would have bothered to find links to support my position if you hadn't of posted as an AC, and weren't already at -1. As it is, I wasted enough of my employer's time. That I blame myself for.
--
$tar -xvf
Ozone created from lightning is different from the ozone in the ozone layer. How? Well, it's not in the ozone layer (nor would it really make its way there). Having ozone at ground level is a problem--particularly for asthma sufferers and the like--so ozone from lightning (or arc welding, for that matter) isn't going to help.
Of course, if one were to arc weld while riding an SR-71...
This side up.
I heartily disagree, and yes IAC (I am a chemist :>). The mechanism is proven, but the problem is that atmospherics and fluid dynamics that keep the radical species concentrated near the poles. Basically what happens is that long-term-stable weather patterns set up, keeping the nasties bottled up. However, these things do change eventually, like recently when the ozone hole split in two.
So we have nowhere near enough data to determine whether the current *global* concentrations of CFC's are responsible for the greater portion of ozone decay, or rather the weather cycles near the poles. Now, I will say this cuts both ways - it could tell us that we aren't all that responsible for the problem, or it could mean we aren't responsible for the recent good trends, either
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Both should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism and analytical thinking and extensive fact checking should follow.
But nah, we're too lazy for THAT...
Honestly. The ozone will take care of itself, just put some tin foil up there instead and stop worrrying about it.
Many Thanks,
Luke
Here's the way it is...
Man makes CFC's. They aren't found in nature. The banned ones are very stable and migrate throughout the atmosphere. Just because they're heavier than air doesn't mean they stay close to the ground. If that were the case, we'd walking in a thick layer of carbon dioxide while the oxygen and nitrogen stayed in a layer above us.
Once the CFC's leave the lower atmosphere, they are exposed to shorter wavelengths of light and for a free chlorine ion. This free ion reacts with O3 and breaks off one O to form ClO and O2. The ClO molecule reacts with a free O molecule to create Cl and O2. This chain of reactions leaves the Cl free to react again and changes an O3 molecule and an O radical to 2 O2 molecules. This reaction will occur anywhere you have CFC's, high energy radiation, and ozone. (Anywhere you find O3 and sunlight, you will find some O2 and O; they're decay products.)
The fact that the Cl is not consumed by the reaction is what makes CFC's even more dangerous. The molecules will be up there for decades and there's not much we can do about bringing them down.
No, we can't prove CFC's are the sole cause of ozone depletion, but we do know there is now chlorine up there when it shouldn't be there naturally. We know it reacts to destroy ozone. We know the hole in the ozone layer is a recent phenomenon. If you'd care to offer a better explanation of either
a) How the free chlorine got into the upper atmosphere without CFC's,
or...
b) What's causing the rather sudden depletion of the ozone layer,
I'd entertain the argument. As it is, I don't know of another solid argument that's been put forth.
It is ludicrous to think that we puny humans have the slightest impact on ozone or global warming. It turns out that a good sized volcanic eruption puts out more pollution than all humans have generated over the past 6k years. And as long as the Sun continues to shine on our upper atmosphere, the ozone layer will expand and contract over the decades (eons?)
.. and take credit for "fixing" the problem when the sun does it thing, or blame those nasty Republicans for not "fixing" it when the Sun doesn't.
So, all you chicken littles can continue you incessant "the sky is falling" mantra
The majority of the ozone is created by the UV rays striking oxygen in the upper atmosphere. This causes it to ionize, hence ozone. Now what people don't mention is the fact that both poles of the earth get very little direct sunlight. I suppose this is why there is ozone hols in those two places as well.
Life is not for the lazy.
What's the population of the globe? 6 billion?
Multiply the polluting effects of 1 person by a factor of 6 billion. 6 billion people would eat all the fish in the oceans, clog the atmosphere with CO2 (worsening a greenhouse effect) from billions of automobiles, etc. Get the picture?