Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Upper Ozone Depletion Declining

Posted by timothy on from the better-than-increasing dept.

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."

27 of 58 comments (clear)

  1. Misunderstanding by Dibblah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No. It's an example of us stopping screwing it up quite so quickly.
    The rate of depletion has slowed != everything's OK again.

    1. Re:Misunderstanding by TripleA · · Score: 2, Informative

      Exactly, the ozone layer is still getting thinner.

    2. Re:Misunderstanding by mlush · · Score: 4, Insightful
      No. It's an example of us stopping screwing it up quite so quickly.

      It is however a good sign, we may have to wait for decades to see ozone levels rising. This news keeps the pressure on to eleminate production of ozone destroying CFC... there still being used in the second and third world.

    3. Re:Misunderstanding by den_erpel · · Score: 2, Insightful
      From the article:

      "We're not gaining ozone, we're just losing it less quickly," he said. Between 1997 and 2000, the average growth rate of the ozone hole has slowed by approximately 7 percent per decade, according to their calculations. It will take at least 40 or 50 years before all the ozone depletion stops and recovery begins, Newchurch said.

      Let's not get our hopes up, 40 years until recovery begins, we are still going down... It makes you wonder how long it will take before the effects of global warming will be slowed down and reversed, not considering the enourmous lobbying of the entire industry, some governments ignoring the problem and nobody wants to trade in some of the luxury to help with the Kyoto accords. But that's an entirely different discussion.
      --
      Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis. You can't simply say, "Today I will be brilliant."
  2. Simple, really.... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    1. Re:Simple, really.... by HaloZero · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's cyclic.

      Earth. Ozone layer allows birth and flourishment of homo sapiens.
      Homo sapiens irradicate ozone layer through flourishment.
      Loss of ozone layer results in irradication of homo sapien population.
      Ozone layer returns gradually after eons of non-interference by now-extinct homo sapiens.

      However, I do suppose this is excluding whatever damage the gradual decay of our structures and chemical shit (sun no longer stopped by now non-existant ozone - what will react?) will do to retard the reintroduction of the ozone layer after we're all long toasty.

      --
      Informatus Technologicus
  3. less damage by patch-rustem · · Score: 3, Insightful
    ... a nice example of humans taking an active role in reversing some of the damage we've done.
    It's not reversing damage. It's increasing the damage at a reduced rate.
    Does less wrong make a right?
    --
    Karma: Bad due to google bombing - Robert Watkins woz 'ere.
    1. Re:less damage by Atzanteol · · Score: 2, Funny
      Does less wrong make a right?
      You ever hear the saying "you need to crawl before you can walk?"

      Yes, less bad is good. But then, I guess I'm a highly paid genious so this sort of logic comes easily to me.
      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
  4. OR.... by Picass0 · · Score: 5, Interesting


    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.

    1. Re:OR.... by drlock · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have the same question.
      According to this article, "Since ozone is created and destroyed by solar UV radiation, there is some correlation of ozone concentration with 11-year sunspot cycles." (article also give a number of other natural causes of ozone layer change). The SF Chronicle said, "Between 1997 and 2000, the average growth rate of the ozone hole has slowed by approximately 7 percent per decade" That was the exact period of a spike in sunspot activity.
      So how can we prove that it was the meager efforts of us humans that made the change, and not just a natural cycle?

    2. Re:OR.... by syrinx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So how can we prove that it was the meager efforts of us humans that made the change, and not just a natural cycle?

      We can't, of course. But saying it's a "natural cycle" doesn't allow the environmentalists to go all crazy and predict the imminent death of humanity, which they love to do.

      Environmentalists don't need any so-called "facts" or "proof". The fact that they've managed to convince so many people that the ozone hole is humanity's fault, with so little proof, is quite amazing, actually.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    3. Re:OR.... by KnightNavro · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can break out the "no proof" card for global warming, but ozone depletion is pretty well proven. The chemical mechanism is well documented and demonstrated.

    4. Re:OR.... by DjReagan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > So how can we prove that it was the meager efforts of us humans that made the change, and not just a natural cycle?

      Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. But surely thats no reason for us to avoid doing things that we know will fuck it up to some extent?

      --
      "When I grow up, I want to be a weirdo"
    5. Re:OR.... by ndinsil · · Score: 2, Informative
      So how can we prove that it was the meager efforts of us humans that made the change, and not just a natural cycle?


      The same way we can prove the "meager" efforts of humans started the problem in the first place. See, for example, this FAQ that lays out the argument. In addition, you should probably have continued your quote of that article, where it says "Sunspot variations only account for 2 to 4 % of the total variation in ozone concentrations."
    6. Re:OR.... by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Have you even ever looked at how CFCs are claimed to work? Check it out, it's completely nonsensical.

      All the crappy science out there will talk about how ozone is 'destroyed', when, of course, CFCs are just turning it into O2, which is all that's up there to start with, sans radiation.

      And there's plenty of proof the ozone layer doesn't fucking care...strip away some ozone, more radiation will get through, it will hit O2, and you'll get more O3 to stop the radiation. Duh!

      Meanwhile, there's plenty of evidence that ozone operates completely independently of anything we've ever done as humans. The thinning in the ozone layer is a rather obvious example, it's interesting how one of the largest gaps in the ozone layer is over a completely uninhabited section of the world. It's due to frickin ice particles.

      And, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the ozone layer seems to follow directly behind the sunspot cycle.

      Basically, things don't magically stay in balance until we humans release a few chemicals and destroy it. Yes, that can happen, but there's absolutely no evidence of that here. Yes, we might have temporarily altered some of the O2/O3 balance in the upper atmosphere...but, then again, we might not. Meanwhile, the tiny dent we may or may not have made is completely overbalanced by the fact the level of radiation from the sun alters all the time, and that is the main producer of ozone.

      If our planet can withstand massive amounts of nitrogen, chloride, flouride, and bromide being belched from volcanos, then it can withstand a bottle of fucking hairspray.

      But, hey, you're got 'solid evidence', so let's hear it.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    7. Re:OR.... by Jazu · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here's how this works.
      Without chlorine:
      1. UV ray hits O2. O2 -> O + O
      2. 2O + 2O2 -> 2O3
      3. 2 UV rays hit 2O3. 2O3 -> 3O2
      Steps 1-3 repeat ad infinitum, 3 UV rays are absorbed in each cycle.

      With chlorine:
      1. 2 UV rays hit 2 CFCs. CFCs lose 2Cl, rest of CFC molecules are inert.
      2. UV ray hits O2. O2 -> O + O
      3. 2O + 2O2 -> 2O3
      4. 2Cl + 2O3 -> 2ClO + 2O
      5. 2ClO + 2O -> Cl + O2

      Repeat steps 2-5 ad infinitum. 2 extra rays are absorbed in the beginning, but in the repeating reaction, 1/3 fewer UV rays are absorbed if chlorine interferes. Sorry, I don't see the nonsense.

      --
      My joke got modded as Insightful and my insight got modded as Funny.
    8. Re:OR.... by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Except that there's already plenty of stuff up there turning O3 into O2 + O, it's not just sunlight. So in reality what you're talking about in the first cycle happens maybe half the time, and the maybe we dumped enough CFCs into the air to make that cycle happen, instead, 10% of the half of the time. (Which is an amazing amount of CFCs to get up there, but whatever.)

      And the second cycle doesn't show fewer rays hitting anything...it shows fewer rays hitting per cycle. As there are the same amount of rays coming it, that just means the cycles will run faster...like I said, the sunlight's just going to hit more O2 and turn it into ozone. That's how the damn thing stays stable anyway!

      In other words, the ozone layer is a buffer against UV radiation that is formed by UV radiation, which is, of course, the best and most stable kind of buffer. To alter it, you'd need to vastly alter the chemical composition of the atmopshere. Meanwhile, you can't point at changes in it as some sort of horrible thing we humans have done, because it's equally likely that's the buffer acting exactly how it's always acted...reacting to the sun with slight lag.

      Not, BTW, that I'm not a little glad that we stopped using CFCs. The moment we started detecting they got up into the ozone layer, we needed to stop and say 'Hey, where else are these things getting?'.

      I just think the decision to stop using them was made because of junk science, professional panicers, and profits. We don't know anywhere near enough about the ozone layer to pretend we 'hurt' it or that it's 'healing'.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  5. Doing My Part by 4of12 · · Score: 2, Funny

    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."
  6. Thank Mrs. Claus for that one by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 3, Funny

    She's changed Tuesday's menu from Mexican burritos to Tofu burgers.

    The elves are breathing a little easier on Wednesday mornings.

    1. Re:Thank Mrs. Claus for that one by Troll+the+Bones · · Score: 2, Insightful

      She's changed Tuesday's menu from Mexican burritos to Tofu burgers.

      The fuck they are. Ever smell a tofu fart?

      --

      So this is where the chess club wound up.
  7. can you prove this hypothesis? by DrSkwid · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
  8. Re:Chemistry Question by Guy+Harris · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

    OK, how about one URL (to a page whose word count I'm not going to bother computing) for a page entitled How Can Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) Get to the Stratosphere If They're Heavier than Air?.

  9. Re:Blame the Republicans ! by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 2, Insightful


    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 .sig.tar
  10. Different ozone by hcetSJ · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  11. Chemical mechanism is half the story by siskbc · · Score: 2, Insightful
    You can break out the "no proof" card for global warming, but ozone depletion is pretty well proven. The chemical mechanism is well documented and demonstrated.

    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

  12. Answer: by ckaminski · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Answer: by nomadic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually on the science side they're constantly re-examining the answers they come up with. It's the anti-environmental side who cling to whatever "facts" they think fits in with their ideology.