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

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

[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

[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

[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.

Hurry up Ozone layer.

[viperidaenz]

I'm sick of getting skin cancer.

Sucks to live under the "ozone hole"

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.

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.

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: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.