Slashdot Mirror


Ozone Hole Getting Smaller

snark42 writes "According to Reuters and some other sources the hole in the ozone layer shrank 20% this year to a mere 9 million square miles. Of course scientists caution this would have to continue for at least a couple more years to be a trend or anything to get excited about."

10 of 352 comments (clear)

  1. Re:drop in pollution levels? by PrionPryon · · Score: 5, Informative

    International accords have acted to reduce the amount of CFCs being released into the atmosphere. These are the pollutants that affect the chemical ozone cycle. So a decreases in them would permit ozone to stick around. People in Antarctica do get sunburnt very easily, as do people in new zealand and chile when the hole is over their region. Chile has many school programs preventing children from going outside during hole episodes.

  2. Re:Pardon my ignorance. by PrionPryon · · Score: 5, Informative

    Ozone is destroyed in a on going chemical process that is balanced by the creation of new ozone through natural mechanisms. The equilibrium level ozone is what we get. With CFCs introduced the equilibrium levels get shifted to lower concentrations. The introduction of man made ozone would be of little consequence as it couldnt be done a scale necessary to offset the CFC destruction. It would also need to be a continuous input which would make it very expensive and time consuming. A better plan, as we have done, is to attempt to reduce the CFCs and shift the equilibrium levels back to more favourable conditions.

  3. According to Reuters by egon_b · · Score: 4, Informative
    In 2002, the ozone hole suddenly shrank, raising hopes it had turned the corner and was starting to close but some scientists later put it down to an abnormality caused by atmospheric conditions.
  4. Re:hrmmm by cameldrv · · Score: 4, Informative

    Volcanoes don't produce CFCs. They produce sulfur, which depletes ozone, but the long-term ODP of the sulfur compounds from volcanoes aren't anything like CFCs, which stick around for a very long time. What we are seeing now is probably primarily the result of the 1976 ban on CFCs in aerosol cans.

  5. Re:What? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Informative
    How can this be possible. In recent years, if anything our environment has gotten worse. How could the ozone possible be healing itself?

    Because ozone is created by the interaction of O2 and UV radiation. It's not some finite mass of rare elements. It's O3. The reason it's "coming back" is that human activity has a negligible effect upon it. The "hole" is a cyclical phenomenon more closely related to solar activity than anything else.

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  6. Re:ahhh by DAldredge · · Score: 5, Informative

    The entire planet didn't. China still uses very large amounts of CFCs.

    An example, google for more.

    THE PROCESS TO phase out the use of CFCs in polyurethanes from the 1,000 or more foam factories in China has started to accelerate.

    The phase-out is being undertaken in accordance with the Montreal Protocol, which established a timetable for developing countries to phase out the use of CFCs by the year 2010. With financial support from the Multilateral Fund supplied by the United Nations, it is estimated that about 10% of Chinese foam processors have now substituted CFCs with other foaming agents, such as pentane, C[O.sub.2] and water. Companies that have completed ...

  7. Re:Hope this isn't used as an excuse... by Keebler71 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, the US has signed the Kyoto protocol, however it was a purely symbolic gesture by the Clinton administration. The Senate had voted 95-0 (and yes, Kerry was one of the 95) for a resolution stating that the US should not sign the protocol. Since the senate is the body with the US government that ratifies treaties, neither the Clinton or Bush administration pushed the issue further.

    --
    "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
  8. Re:Pardon my ignorance. by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Informative
    Why can't we 'reseed' the ozone layer? We can make ozone in a lab, so why don't we get some high flying aircraft and strap some ozone filled bottles to the fuselage and start spraying? It'd be like dusting crops only a lot different.

    Ozone (O3) is basically created when UV light hits O2 molecules. When there's less ozone to block the UV rays, it stands to reason that more ozone would be created because more UV radiation is getting down to the level where the atmospher contains more O2. Even those that believe the hole is caused by human activity don't describe it as a problem caused by lack of ozone production; rather, it's theorized that atmospheric chlorine is breaking the ozone down faster than the UV + O2 interaction can replace it. Suggesting we "spray ozone" completely fails to appreciate the scale at which this is happening. We're talking BILLIONS OF TONS of ozone. It's like suggesting that we fight a 100,000 acre wind-driven wildfire with bucket brigades and garden hoses.

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  9. Re:Kyoto isn't ment to work by Lars+T. · · Score: 4, Informative
    Umm, yeah, right.
    The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he doesn't support the general idea, but because he is not happy with the details of the treaty. For example, he does not support the split between Annex I countries and others. Bush said of the treaty:
    "The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."
    China emits 2,893 million metric tons of CO2 per year (2.3 tons per capita). This compares to 5,410 million from the USA (20.1 tons per capita), and 3,171 million from the EU (8.5 tons per capita). China has since ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and is expected to become an Annex I country within the next decade. The US Natural Resources Defense Council, stated in June 2001 that: "By switching from coal to cleaner energy sources, initiating energy efficiency programs, and restructuring its economy, China has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions 17 percent since 1997".
    IOW not only will China be subject to the requirements in a few years, they already made a larger reduction than the US has to make. And unlike the US, both China and India actually do use modern technologies for their new plants.

    The fact that Bush is scared just shows how much of a plan he has for economic growth.

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  10. Re:hrmmm by jsebrech · · Score: 4, Informative

    That does sound very convincing when you first read it, because the author is an excellent politician. But you should beware of people who use strawman arguments (the young man at the panel discussion) and unfounded ad hominem accusations (accusing the government of being infected by irrational environmentalists who want to destroy industry) in support of their case.

    Anyway, here's a generic rebuttal to the ozone naysayers.

    Any scientific issue, no matter how rooted in facts it is, always has naysayers. Even the round earth theory had considerable opposition. For someone to dispute accepted scientific theory requires extraordinary evidence, and frankly this james p. hogan doesn't provide much in the way of actual evidence.

    Oh, and in general, paying attention to whether a text contains logical fallacies is very helpful too in weeding out truth from falsehood.