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."
Well, the ozone layer is not "recovering" because it was never damaged in the first place. Like they say in TFA, the stratospheric ozone status is influenced by large scale factors such as sun light, atmosphere temperature and chemicals introduced by volcanoes.
Ozone is chiefly created in the hot and well lit tropical atmosphere, from where it conveyed natural up to the poles. Ozone is a very unstable chemical which is rapidly eliminated.
The place where the famous "ozone hole" is observed is on top of Antartica, during the winter, when the atmosphere, cold (it's basically night during 6 months), is isolated from the rest of the world by the Antartica vortex. The ozone is then naturally depleted until spring breaks, which will open atmospheric circulation again and fill the "hole" in a few weeks at most.
The "ozone hole" is therefore a perfectly natural phenomenon, and no amount of Montreal-like measures will change that. No wonder those predictions show completely wrong, which is in essence the really important message of the article.
Maybe we can go back to using CFCs now than the hysteria is over, for CFCs are really a chemical wonder, stable and with unmatched thermodynamic properties.
-- javaDragon is an instance of JavaDragon.
Still, I wonder what part that effort played into the alleged healing of the ozone layer. I'm still personally debating wether I believe all the enviro-nuts out there. At face value, doing whatever we can to preserve the ozone sounds like something we should all be focused on.
Has there been any *real* proof that the ozone layer is being harmed by humans?
E.
I think it's time to put aside all the tinfoil hats.
This protocol is going to kill us all, with an oZone layer global cooling will occur We Must stop this atrocity against the world as soon as possible
Both Ozone hole and global warming have similar causes though (emissions, in general). Don't forget that Ozone forming low on the ground (in smog) is another another problem.
The fact that phenomena are related and causality is not as easy as you think or thought it was isn't the scientist's fault. What matters is what we know now, based on current evidence. And that is that global warming is much greater than a normal, cyclical effect. It is clear that it is man-made, and there are absolutely plausible known mechanisms for this.
Sure, an administration can repress scientists and support the mineral oil business (owned by the President's family) and a globally harmful lifestyle. But that is not going to change the realities, and it's not going to save our habitat.
No, you are confused.
However what you've said is fascinating. You heard about the ozone hole and global warming at the same time so you've incorrectly held this belief that they are strongly related. The Bush government used a similar trick to sway the public into thinking 9/11 justified a war in Iraq; a poll found approximately 70% of US citizens believe that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attack. I wonder how many other misconceptions come into being because people heard two unrelated things at roughly the same time.
PS. I wonder why you have to post as Anonymous Coward for this? /. moderators are usually quite kind to pro-Green posters.
He's posting anonymously because even he knows that claiming your comment shows you to be a right-wing nut is exactly the sort of wild exaggeration and baseless extrapolation that typifies the greeny-left political camp when it comes to this issue. It's ironic that in trying to poke at you for talking about how his camp can make poor, political-agenda-driven use of small bits of information, that he (deliberately - how else?) takes a few small bits of information and jumps to a shrill, whiny, ad hominem conclusion about you. You should just thank the coward for so nicely illustrating your point.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
"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)" ... surely you mean, which we DEFINATELY couldn't do even if we really wanted to without KILLING EVERY LIVING THING ON EARTH, right.
Cause.. I exhale CO2. All the time. I'm addicted to emitting CO2. So does my dog. My dinner used to -- and copious amounts of methane -- but then it was killed and thrown on my grill.
There's nothing wrong with CO2, there's just a problem with CO2 if there's not enough plants around. Plants eat that shit up like candy.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.