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."

14 of 325 comments (clear)

  1. Unexplained phenomenons by suv4x4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We're playing with chemicals, eating toxic foods, messing with nature's balance, wasting or restoring ozone layer beyond our comprehension, using electronics that cause tumors and other illnesses... and in this mess somewhere, the bare truth shines:

    we know shit

    1. Re:Unexplained phenomenons by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, it has been mainly thoguh the No Atmospheric Layer Left Behind program that the Ozone Layer has improved as rapidly as it has.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    2. Re:Unexplained phenomenons by BakaHoushi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I believe what the OP was stating is that there are certain things we consume that actually are poisonous... in large doses. Alcohol is one such example. Ever heard of alcohol POISONING? No, if you have a beer, you won't die, because your body can deal with such a small level of poison. But keep drinking vodka, whisky, and whatever else you can get your hands on all night long and you could very well die.

      Similarly, cyanide is obviously poisonous. But one molecule? Not so much, because your body can surely handle that. Poisons are only dangerous at various levels.

  2. The Green Brigade will be foaming at the mouth by bheer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    but this is how science progresses. Wherever you see a scientist take a stand saying, "hmm, that's odd, I wonder why that happened" there's a chance that real discovery and a real increase in our understanding can happen.

    People who trot out wildly extrapolated results from global warming simulations ("OMG NY will under water by 2100!") sound to me like the same people who predicted city-sized computers back in the 50s because there was no way their simulations could have predicted microelectronics.

    Climate is a complex system with many variables, human output being only one of them. Frankly, I've always held the greens would have a much better case if they focused on quality-of-life improvements brought about by cleaner air than by trying to create artificial energy regulations in the name of global warming (which *is* happening, but it doesn't necessarily follow that humans are the sole factor).

    But hey, there's a reason green and left politics go together-- sticking it to big industry is a good way of sticking it to the Man.

  3. Re:They got it wrong from the beginning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thanks, but I'll take scientific research over seemingly unfounded Slashdot postings any day.

  4. Re:They got it wrong from the beginning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The world isn't black and white, the fact that CFC's break down the ozone layer doesn't mean that other factor don't also play a part and the fact that other factors influence ozone doesn't mean that CFC's don't break down the ozone layer.

  5. Re:They got it wrong from the beginning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Sure, it's all natural - the same way that CO2 emissions are increasing naturally. It's all caused by squids rearranging silt deep in the ocean. They'll eventually move it back were it belongs and the CO2 levels will go down again. So don't worry, just drive your SUVs, every problem which is related to "nature" will fix itself automatically. Because if it won't it would just be very inconvenient. And we don't like to worry about inconvenient things now, do we?

    Of course this brain-dead theory has about as much basis in actual science as yours. If you don't believe the measurements indicating that the ozone hole was increasing (back when it was) why do you believe the measurements now that it is decreasing?

  6. Re:They got it wrong from the beginning by JasonAWallwork · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not like CFCs are fine now according to the article,

    In the upper stratosphere (above roughly 18 km), ozone recovery can be explained almost entirely by CFC reductions. "Up there, the Montreal Protocol seems to be working," says co-author Mike Newchurch of the Global Hydrology and Climate Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

    And later in the same article:

    Sorting out cause and effect is difficult, but a group of NASA and university researchers may have made some headway. Their new study, entitled "Attribution of recovery in lower-stratospheric ozone," was just accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. It concludes that about half of the recent trend is due to CFC reductions.

    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.

  7. Re:science wrong so science wins by xiphoris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ok - so if I read this right it's saying that things aren't going as predicted. the implied message seems to be something like "science got it wrong" - but the whole point of science is to improve knowledge

    Part of the problem with this system is that things like the Montreal Protocol are not science. It aims to solve a problem that might exist with remedies that might fix it. Note the usage of the world "explains" instead of "predicts". Most scientific theories are like economics: they can 'explain' plenty, but they can't really predict anything. Ultimately, all this talk about the weather is not science because we can't do experiments. There is simply no way to do scientific experiments with the global climate, and so theories about it don't quite make it all the way.

    Using such theories to make worldwide policy is not exactly scientific when there is no actual evidence they have the verified power of prediction.

  8. Re:Doesn't ANYBODY remember the 80s? by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  9. You were wrong. by mcc · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  10. Photocopier Fumes by celardore · · Score: 4, Funny

    Apparently the fumes given off by photocopiers are Ozone. I'm doing my bit for the enviroment by copying documents at work unnessecarily.

    My boss says it's a waste of time and money though. He doesn't give a shit about the enviroment I guess.

  11. Re:This brought to you by... by ccarson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 10 years. I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in sub-atomic physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be effected by magnetic fields. I keep hearing about the increased activity of our Sun (it's been getting hotter) and I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth and the Sun is spewing out more heat, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this? Besides, how can you explain the recent same climate changes on Jupitor and Mars. I've been bouncing this idea in my head for a while now and I can't see why this MAY not be true.

  12. Re:science wrong so science wins by kirk__243 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If it's not science, what is it? Superstition?

    This is something that is studied by scientists in a scientific (ie critical and fact based) manner, and then considered and debated by other scientists in the field of study. And you think it's not science?

    You can't experiment on the planet as a whole, but

    - measure the levels of ozone and see a reduction
    - measure the levels of CFC output and see an increase
    - determine through experiments (or simple chemical knowledge) that CFCs reaction with ozone

    and deduce that the increased levels of CFC are decreasing levels of ozone. That's science, through and through.