Ozone Layer Recovering But Remains Threatened

First time accepted submitter i kan reed writes in with some good news from the ozone report of the United Nations. The Earth’s protective ozone layer is on track to recover by the middle of the century, the United Nations today reported, urging unified action to tackle climate change and curb continued fluctuations to the composition of the atmosphere. That is according to the assessment of 300 scientists in the summary document of the Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion 2014, published by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO). “International action on the ozone layer is a major environmental success story,” WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said in a news release. “This should encourage us to display the same level of urgency and unity to tackle the even greater challenge of climate change.”

Comments

Having read the papers...

[Anonymous Coward]

...it appears that no one has much idea of either the chemistry in the troposphere, or the natural fluctuations which occur.

But the ozone concentration is going up, so we must be doing a great job, mustn't we? Increase the grants...!

Re:Having read the papers...

[drpimp]

/me places tinfoil hat on head
the chemtrails must be working

Re:Having read the papers...

[dywolf]

...it appears that no one has much idea of either the chemistry in the troposphere, or the natural fluctuations which occur.

well, your analysis is flawed.
so you can go on your merry way and not bother anyone with your ignorance again.

Let's look at the data

[hsthompson69]

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.go...

The graphs can be seen here:
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.go...

Whatever effect can be traced to 1987, it looks like a one-time step change, without a definite trend.

Re:Let's look at the data

[hsthompson69]

Also, from the cited report:

http://ozone.unep.org/Assessme...

"Total column ozone declined over most of the globe during the 1980s and early 1990s, by about 2.5% in the global mean, but has remained stable since 2000. There are indications of an increase in global-mean total column ozone over 2000–2012, consistent with model predictions. However, a total column ozone increase that would be attributable to ODS decreases has not yet been observed."

Money quote: "However, a total column ozone increase that would be attributable to ODS decreases has not yet been observed."

Re:Let's look at the data

[SternisheFan]

At least it hasn't gotten worse, though no, not yet a trend.

Re:Let's look at the data

[Curunir_wolf]

How many asthma patients have died as a result of this plan, because they can't use CFC propellants for their medication?

Re:Let's look at the data

[cheater512]

Aren't most propellants for food/human use nitrous oxide? Then the answer would be 0.

Re:Let's look at the data

[Anonymous Coward]

Certainly very small, compared with the number of additional people who have died of skin cancer.

Re:Let's look at the data

[Curunir_wolf]

Aren't most propellants for food/human use nitrous oxide? Then the answer would be 0.

Could be, but not for asthma inhalers.

Re:Let's look at the data

[mysidia]

The new inhalers that don't use CFCs are 10x the cost... $30 to $80 an inhaler, up from $5 to $10. There might not be new hospitalizations from people using the new inhalers, but there may be more deaths from people not buying the inhaler they need.

Re:Let's look at the data

[Trongy]

Nice troll.

I didn't notice any difference when my medication changed to the new propellant (hydrofluoroalkane) .
The clinical studies showed the new propellant was no less effective.

Re:Let's look at the data

[sjames]

Don't you see any potential problems with using laughing gas as a propellant for an inhaler?

Re:Let's look at the data

[TubeSteak]

If you want to understand why the new inhalers are so expensive, read this:

The Soaring Cost of a Simple Breath
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/the-soaring-cost-of-a-simple-breath.html

It's a product of the USA's captured regulatory system.
Europe doesn't have the same problem, for a variety of reasons.

Re:Let's look at the data

[sjames]

The problem there was none other than incredible greed on the part of the pharmaceutical companies. Every other industry that uses propellants managed to make the transition for no more than pennies per container.

Re:Let's look at the data

[cheater512]

Check your whipped cream in a can. The stuff I've seen is nitrous.

Re:Let's look at the data

[sjames]

That would be because one doesn't NECESSARILY inhale from the whipped cream can.

You don't normally see people doing whip-its in the office.

Re:Let's look at the data

[sg_oneill]

How many asthma patients have died as a result of this plan, because they can't use CFC propellants for their medication?

The precise number is --> Zero.

The change in propellants is completely transparent to the puffers efficacy.

Re:Let's look at the data

[bill_mcgonigle]

The clinical studies showed the new propellant was no less effective.

That's not the issue. The issue is that the low-cost asthma medications that poor people bought for their kids used the CFC propellants. The FDA would not let them switch to a new propellant without spending something like $200M on a new approval study, which was not cost effective in their OTC market, so they pulled the product. Poor kids don't suddenly get expensive inhalers because their cheap ones went away.

Re:Let's look at the data

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to cite one country where I can get an inhaler for free?

Re:Let's look at the data

[Anonymous Coward]

Bulgaria. The poorest and most corrupt state in the EU.

Yhea, go America!

Re: Let's look at the data

[otterpop81]

The change in propellants is completely transparent to the puffers efficacy.

As an asthmatic user of albuterol inhalers, I assure you that the old (CFC) ones were much better.

Re:Let's look at the data

[thegarbz]

Hmm about half as many people died last year from asthma in my country than from skin cancer.

I'd say we're doing pretty well.

Re:Let's look at the data

[GLMDesigns]

And you think they get if for free? Really?

Re:Let's look at the data

[Anonymous Coward]

Might have something to do with why they are the poorest in the EU. Maybe?

Re:Let's look at the data

[tlhIngan]

That's not the issue. The issue is that the low-cost asthma medications that poor people bought for their kids used the CFC propellants. The FDA would not let them switch to a new propellant without spending something like $200M on a new approval study, which was not cost effective in their OTC market, so they pulled the product. Poor kids don't suddenly get expensive inhalers because their cheap ones went away.

And the real issue is that people ignored the deadline which was issued by the Montreal protocol to address exactly that.

Inhalers were the last source of CFCs and the people who got together to limit CFC usage knew it would take time to approve new propellants. So they allocated over 20 years to do just that - enough time to find a new propellant, get it approved and phase the old one out well ahead of the deadline.

What did people do? Screw it - profits profits profits. The long deadlines was to deal with all this, not to simply ignore the problem until it was too late.

Re:Let's look at the data

[sound vision]

Half an hour? That's 2 hour's pay at my last job. If you elect for the insurance package (which reduces your paycheck by $100/mo) the Ventolin would probably be discounted to $15.

Re:"i kan reed" was formerly "TripMaster Monkey"?

[Anonymous Coward]

TripMaster Monkey.
Now that I think of it, I don't miss those posts at all.

Re:Enough with bringing up stupid Internet "laws".

[Anonymous Coward]

So you weren't trolling, you're just a moron.

A Lesson Learned

[rtb61]

Unfortunately the whole Ozone event did one thing for sure and certain, it taught the carbon polluting psychopathic corporate executives to get in early with their PR=B$ teams (public relations and marketing) and lobbyists to kill anything that might affect short term profits. The future, fuck the future, they want it all now, more and more and more. If they attempted to tackle ozone depletion now, you just know they would fail.

Re:A Lesson Learned

[BringsApples]

The future, fuck the future, they want it all now, more and more and more.

See this is where you're wrong. They do care about the future, and this is why politicians are all about receiving money (more and more and more) any way they can. Eventually they plan to replace the ozone layer with dollar bills. Take it easy already.

yes, bush is still destroying the ozone.

[Anonymous Coward]

Global warming and Bush are still destroying the Ozone.

But if you elect obama for a 3rd , 4th or even 5th term, he will solve it by 2024-2028.

First News In Nearly 20 Years

[Anonymous Coward]

As a child of the 90s, I was always hearing about how we were destroying the ozone layer, and about all the things we were doing to stop that. Then, somewhat abruptly, I stopped hearing anything. Maybe I just wasn't in the right circles anymore to have such news casually flow my way.

Good to actually hear something regarding the ozone layer again, even if it's been nearly 20 years.

Re:First News In Nearly 20 Years

[Anonymous Coward]

You stopped hearing about it because at the time the people and politicians actually believed the scientists who were saying that ozone depletion is a problem and that reducing CFC usage would help combat the issue. So legislation was created to reduce CFCs and ... what-do-ya-know the ozone began to recover!

You stopped hearing about it because we actually executed a solution which is found to be effective. It's amazing what we can do when half the country doesn't deny the existence of a problem despite having no expertise in the subject (I'm looking at you AGW deniers...)

Hurry up Ozone layer.

[viperidaenz]

I'm sick of getting skin cancer.

Sucks to live under the "ozone hole"

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the submitter...

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, just read the wikipedia page...maybe I was a little brash.

Re:The natural cycle has started going the other w

[Anonymous Coward]

Won't happen. The deniers will claim that this is not a valid study because science!

Wrong Spray

[Anonymous Coward]

As an asthmatic myself, my lungs are just the same as they've always been.

Terrible.

Re:Bullshit

[jo_ham]

No, you were just flat out incorrect.

The science behind how the ozone layer works, how it is formed, why it thins at the poles, and why CFCs are damaging to it is very well understood.

You "common sensing" it out on the back of an envelope doesn't trump the actual science.

Sounds dubious

[Anonymous Coward]

If there was bad weather (drought, plague of locusts, etc) Moses would speak to God and find that it was because of the people's irreverence. If times were good and there was a bumper crop it was because the people had been devout.

Sounds like the same scam here. The Ozone layer is repairing because we've been good. Global warming because we've been bad.

Now I'm not saying that CFCs aren't damaging to the ozone layer. But to say that the repair of the ozone layer is a great success and should encourage us to display urgency regarding global warming is not instilling me with faith. Scientists should stick to the facts and keep out of the prophetics.

Re:Sounds dubious

[Anonymous Coward]

I seriously don't understand your point. Here's what I see...

Scientists note Ozone depletion. Scientists say CFC usage is a large contributor to said depletion. People BELEIVE them and reduce CFC usage. Ozone depletion appears to reverse.

and then:

Scientists note an increase in mean global temperature. Scientists say CO2 usage is a large contributor to said increase in temperature. People DONT BELEIVE them, and keep doing what they are doing. Temperature appears to continue to increase on average.

So it seems that when we believe the experts in a field and take action, we get a positive result. That's not "being good" or "being bad", that's just being smart. I'm not suggesting blindly believing them either, skepticism is fine and healthy. But the average AGW denier isn't skeptical, they are denial robots who just parrot talking points which have long been debunked as nonsense.

As for you final sentence:

Scientists should stick to the facts and keep out of the prophetics.

Sadly, when I hear you say that (or read to be more precise), it makes me sad because you seem to misunderstand how science works. One of the PRIMARY measures of the correctness of a theory is its PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY. The goal of a theory, in general is to create an accurate model of reality which if correct will allow us to anticipate future outcomes and be better prepared for them. In summary, a theory which accurately models reality should be able to say things like:

"If X, then Y is expected to happen." (within the expected levels of confidence of course, no one is perfect)

For example:

"If an object is in the presence of a second massive object, then an attraction defined by the inverse squares law is expected to happen." is what is essentially said by Newton's theory of gravitation.

Science is not just collecting observations, it is creating theories which have a high level of predictive quality BASED on the observations.

Re:Sounds dubious

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, the UN does not do science, they advocate moving money from rich western countries to anywhere else.
Whatever comes out of that body is politics and should be treated as such.
The newer MIT study says ozone is fine over arctic, so all those CFC's move to the antarctic I guess.
Do you by chance have a data for ozone over time, say the last 500 years? What is the best ozone level?
For that matter, who decided what temp and what CO2 concentration is optimum?
I guess I missed the vote, which is exactly what UN "science" is, a vote.

Re:Sounds dubious

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, the UN does not do science, they advocate moving money from rich western countries to anywhere else.
Whatever comes out of that body is politics and should be treated as such.

Nice straw man. Who mentioned the UN? I know I didn't. What I did say is that Scientists did the science, and then people took action (if the UN participated in said action, that is not really relevant to anything I said).

The newer MIT study says ozone is fine over arctic, so all those CFC's move to the antarctic I guess.

Considering that the level of CFCs has been drastically reduced over the past 20 years, I would expect an improvement. Where's the controversy?

Do you by chance have a data for ozone over time, say the last 500 years? What is the best ozone level?

No I don't currently have that, but it's probably available. What are you trying to imply though? That having a hole in the ozone layer is an improvement over the way it was? If so, can you demonstrate that it has any beneficial effects? There is general confidence that the holes contribute to increased accounts of skin cancer... what's the upside?

For that matter, who decided what temp and what CO2 concentration is optimum?

Once again you seem to not be arguing that the change is real, but you seem to be arguing that the change is an improvement. If so, please back it up.

As for what is "optimum". My opinion would be the temperature which allows for the maximum stability of the ecosystem and survivability for the inhabitants. I can say that if it were 20 degrees Fahrenheit warmer on average we would likely have some major problems. 10 degrees, I couldn't personally say, but the scientific consensus is not encouraging for even 10.

I guess I missed the vote, which is exactly what UN "science" is, a vote.

Keep your very transparent strawman, you have an issue with the UN, take it up someone who actually mentioned them.

ozone layer recovery? Nah...

[ctrl-alt-canc]

...the bozone layer grows faster.

Re:lol

[Barsteward]

the hole was caused by CFCs etc hence the huge change of not using CFCs in any appliances etc anymore

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no doubt that CFCs are damaging to Ozone. You can easily test this out in a lab.

What I have not seen an explanation for is how CFCs, which are much heavier than air molecules travel from the developed areas and end up in the upper atmosphere above the south pole.

Re:lol

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize hat ozone depletion and global warming have literally NOTHING to do with each other right?

One is a build up of CFCs due to things like aerosols. The other is build up of CO2 due to things like burning coal.

I hope you're just trolling...

Re:Bullshit

[riverat1]

Because wind. CFC molecules are not so heavy that they aren't well mixed in the atmosphere. After all water vapor molecules are quite light compared to N2 and O2. How come they don't immediately head for the stratosphere. The atmosphere isn't quiescent enough for significant stratification of the gases in it. As far as traveling to the South Pole, it's not necessary. The ozone layer has thinned out over the whole globe because of ozone depleting substances like CFC's which makes it easier for the hole over the South Pole to develop.

Re:Bullshit

[jo_ham]

I have no doubt that CFCs are damaging to Ozone. You can easily test this out in a lab.

What I have not seen an explanation for is how CFCs, which are much heavier than air molecules travel from the developed areas and end up in the upper atmosphere above the south pole.

You've never seen an explanation for that? Really? How hard did you look?

Diffusion, convection, mixing. All basic processes that are well understood for fluids.

If you put a sugar cube in water and stir it, why do the heavy sugar molecules end up at the top of the mug, far from the bottom where the cube started?

Also, you seem to be doubting the fact that CFCs are in the stratosphere. You think it's a guess? They can be detected so we know they are there, and unfortunately for those who want to be science deniers, there are no natural sources of CFCs, so whatever is up there was as a result of human factors.

Re:lol

[Plumpaquatsch]

You do realize hat ozone depletion and global warming have literally NOTHING to do with each other right?

One is a build up of CFCs due to things like aerosols. The other is build up of CO2 due to things like burning coal.

I hope you're just trolling...

Actually, CFCs are also highly potent greenhouse gases.