Slashdot Mirror
Ozone Layer Improving Faster Than Expected
SpaceAdmiral writes "Since the implementation of the Montreal Protocol, which limited ozone-destroying gasses like CFCs, the Earth's ozone layer has been recovering. However, new studies show that the ozone in the lower stratosphere is actually recovering faster than the Montreal Protocol alone can explain." From the article: "It's a complicated question. CFCs are not the only things that can influence the ozone layer; sunspots, volcanoes and weather also play a role. Ultraviolet rays from sunspots boost the ozone layer, while sulfurous gases emitted by some volcanoes can weaken it. Cold air in the stratosphere can either weaken or boost the ozone layer, depending on altitude and latitude. These processes and others are laid out in a review just published in the May 4th issue of Nature: 'The search for signs of recovery of the ozone layer' by Elizabeth Westhead and Signe Andersen."
It's not like CFCs are fine now according to the article,
And later in the same article:
Secondly, the Montreal Protocol was about the ozone depletion in other areas like Northern Europe and Canada, not just the hole over Antactica.
If one wants to argue that ozone depletion was nothing to worry about or some kind of myth, one needs to refer to sources beyond this article since that's not what it says.
The people in the southern reaches of the southern hemisphere do not think it is a hoax: the incidence of skin cancer mushroomed in southern Chile as the hole in the ozone increased. Not the end of the world, but a real and ongoing health hazard.
There is proof that certain human activities are capable of damaging the ozone layers. Enough experiments were done that the possibility certainly exists.
The ozone layer was depleted more severely than known natural processes could account for. This is also pretty much fact.
Beyond that, it's basically an educated guess as to which of the following is more likely-
Are there ozone depleting natural reactions we are completely unaware are even possible?
Are the known natural processes happening with greater frequency than we currently are aware of?
Are human activities the primary cause?
Is the truth a mix of all three, and if so, what proportion is each effect?
And most importantly, regardless of the cause, is the question "What should we do about it?". Obviously we dont' want the ozone layer to go away completely. But whatever measures are taken to protect it must be moderated by an attempt to keep from throwing the rest of the ecosystem out of balance. It would do little good to restore the ozone layer only to throw the world into nuclear winter(extreme example, but it illustrates the point). It would be very bad to restore the ozone layer if an ozone depletion/restoration cycle was part of the Earth's natural housekeeping.
I haven't researched enough to really give many answers, just pointing out that there are important questions that almost never seem to get addressed in public releases. I'm sure a lot of this has been covered in the studies and experiments that led up to the ozone hole controversy, but very little of it seems to get into the public eye.
If the hole has been recovering since then why are scientists blaming mankind for the current increase in temperatures.
Because the ozone hole and global warming are two totally separate phenomena. They are both caused by pollution, but different kinds of pollution-- in simple terms, the ozone hole is caused by CFCs, global warming is caused by greenhouse gases. In the 80s, we stopped using CFCs, and since CFCs take a few decades to fall out of the atmosphere, now that a few decades have passed the ozone hole is starting to get better. In the 80s we did not stop our emission of greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide), so global climate change / global warming is still getting worse.
Of course, carbon dioxide takes longer to fall out of the atmosphere than CFCs, so even if we entirely ceased carbon dioxide emissions tomorrow (which we probably couldn't even if we really wanted to without bringing civilization to its knees) we shouldn't expect to see things returning to normal for maybe a couple hundreds of years. But at least we could stop making things worse.
Repairing the ozone hole is not helping global warming for the same reason that if your computer's power supply is on fire, you cannot fix this by reinstalling Windows. If you thought that repairing the ozone hole would stop global warming, it is because you are confused.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
The best lecture on global warming I've ever read is this:
s _quote04.html
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeche
Here's something that might surprise you. _Everything_ is toxic. The question is how hard it is to hit the LD50. Even plain old water can kill you if you drink too much.
I read the internet for the articles.
Ozone hole comes from CFCs.
Greenhouse effect comes from CO2 and H2O emissions.
The ozone hole thing was kind of crappy science anyway, when the sensors were created to look at the ozone layer, the hole was already there. There's no evidence it wasn't supposed to be there. And my understanding is it shrunk in Winter 2004-2005 versus Winter 2003-2004.
Plus, the angle the light hits the atmosphere there at the pole is so low that the UV is filtered out anyway, without the need for a thick UV layer (think of how at sunset when you view the sun at a low angle through more atmosphere the blue/violet is filtered out and so the sky turns orange).
The greenhouse effect is something different. The total scope of it is perhaps a bit up in the air too, but knocks against the ozone situation do not undermine the greenhouse effect.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Can someone tell me why the above idiotic pablum is rated at a 4? Saying that CFCs "separate from air like oil and water" because they differ in molecular weight is so unbelieveably incorrect as to be lughable. and blaming the current "energy pinch" on the abandonment of CFCs in favor of HCFCs? hilarious. the above post is little more than contrarian cospiracy weaving cluelessness. hint: posts SOUNDING informative are NOT always such!
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
This is the view from the selfish human perspective. Earth creatures slower or dumber than humans are free to do with what the humans please. Who cares what remains of them after a generation or two.
Hint: this has been the case since we started killing other animals for food and started growing our own crops. GM foods change this not one bit.
Neon fish loose in the wild?
Which will die off rapidly because they aren't fit to survive in the wild, being more noticable to predators.
Crafted strains of corn contaminating traditionally (painstakingly) *bred* varieties?
ROFL. "traditionally bred varieties". Do you have any idea the contradiction you've introduced? "Bred" varieties *are* genetically modified, in that we used selective breeding to choose the genes we wanted expressed. The only difference, now, is that we have the technology to specifically manipulate DNA, rather than relying on the crude method of selective breeding.
Reproduction is a crucial part of the genetic information exchange equation.
And we've been messing with it for centuries, your example of the mule being an excellent case in point (thanks for making it for me, BTW).
And then you bring up non-sequitors about nazis and birth defects. Good to see you're up to arguing rationally, as opposed to responding with weak emotional pleas.