Slashdot Mirror
Thanks To the Montreal Protocol, We Avoided Severe Ozone Depletion
hypnosec writes: Scientists say the ozone layer is in good shape thanks to the Montreal Protocol, which has helped us avoid severe ozone depletion. Research suggests that the Antarctic ozone hole would have been 40% bigger by now if not for the international treaty. "Our research confirms the importance of the Montreal Protocol and shows that we have already had real benefits. We knew that it would save us from large ozone loss 'in the future', but in fact we are already past the point when things would have become noticeably worse," lead author Professor Martyn Chipperfield, from the School of Earth & Environment at the University of Leeds, said in a press release.
Scientists say the ozone layer is in good shape thanks to the Montreal Protocol
Scientists schmientists. What does Congress have to say?
Saving you the click:
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (a protocol to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer) is an international treaty designed to protect the ozone layer by phasing out the production of numerous substances that are responsible for ozone depletion. It was agreed on September 16, 1987, and entered into force on January 1, 1989, followed by a first meeting in Helsinki, May 1989. Since then, it has undergone eight revisions
Finally they found a use for poutine! :)
I found a use for poutine long ago. I eat it. Because it's delicious. Don't hate before you ever even try real canadian poutine.
The solar "extremes" are a variance of 0.1% total output over a 11 year cycle so you are quite correct - solar output lows had nothing to do with it.
The hottest decade on record is the last one and significantly warmer than the '80s & 90s.
Try reading article next time - depletion happens more quickly in COLDER winters.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Poutine is indeed delicious, though I would not call it health food :)
No one seems to address that possibility.
Is your google broken? This has indeed been addressed (by actual scientists) and the estimate of those impacts are of course refined as models improve.
Like here.
Someone had to do it.
Obviously the CFC industry wasn't as big and powerful as the fossil fuels industries, didn't spend enough money obfuscating the issues, perverting public opinion by telling them want they wanted to hear and getting Rupert to agree with their point of view.
Because those much maligned atmospheric scientists who are apparently not as good at their field as sudoko puzzle writers, PR folks and economists are involved with both.
Otherwise it has nothing at all to do with climate change.
I must note that ultraviolet is not infrared, and also that your hottest decade is a bit out of date.
It indicates that when all the science tells you there is a problem, it would be a good idea to do something about it before it's too late?
I can't tell if you are joking or serious, but I'll try to explain. The ozone layer is a completely distinct problem from global warming. The presence of ozone is necessary because ozone blocks UV radiation. Ozone does act as a weak greenhouse gas, as you can see on the list of greenhouse gases here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas but it is one of the weakest. Note that if anything, this would mean you'd naively expect a lower temperature when there's more ozone (in fact the actual relation is more complicated). So the idea that the ozone hole would have caused warming is just deeply wrong.
Susan Solomon at MIT was a particularly important person in the development of the Montreal protocol. I recommend reading about her and her work. Surface catalysis in clouds is interesting. Why didn't the ozone hole form over the arctic, not just the antarctic? Read her work to find out. It has to do with formation of certain clouds at particular altitude only found in the antarctic, and re-formation of the catalytic chain carrier due to a particular reaction that is promoted on those crystals.
Thank god we had the intelligence to fix our own mistake. On second thought, don't thank god—thank science.
Scientists call others to action, then nothing actually happens, so someone will claim it was all a fraud just like Y2K.
And, how does this all relate to the much-feared, much-publicized "global warming".
Not much at all.
The Ozone layer was an issue for UV radiation reaching the Earth's surface and causing problems, the thermal effect would remain unchanged for the most part.
Is it REALLY carbon dioxide that caused all that warming? Or - was it the ozone layer?
No one seems to address that possibility.
Also nobody talks about how the snowman might have started a wildfire, or how an oven might have caused frostbite, or how a tree could have committed murder.
Ok, probably not that much unrelated, but still, the greenhouse effects of the gases banned under the Montreal protocol was very much a secondary concern to the effects of removing the UV shield that ozone provided.
But if you want to read the IPCC list, try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases
And, how does this all relate to the much-feared, much-publicized "global warming".
Short answer: it isn't. They are unrelated phenomena.
I must note that the hottest decade on record was the same decade in which the ozone layer was most depleted.
Factually incorrect.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Not through lack of tasting, I've eaten it in Quebec City and Ottawa.
Just that ruining chips by pouring on hot gravy and cheese curds ain't my thing.
Seriously guys. Learn to read!!! The Montreal Protocol was all about reducing ozone depleting chemicals from being released into the atmosphere with a particular focus on CFCs. There is NO LINK to climate change in this treaty and climate change had nothing to do with the decision to take it. There was a growing hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica, to the point it was stretching over Australia. CFCs were directly linked to the growth of the hole and cutting their use has dramatically improved the situation re the size of the hole.
There continue to be releases of other chemicals that have been restricted, especially from fire fighting equipment. But CFCs made up such a huge component and their use dropped so much that that alone has made a measurable impact.
Really this is exactly the same as restricting the emission of sulphur because it lead to acid rain.
Your number is for all wavelengths.
The output of interest for ozone is only a subset of the wavelengths, where the variance is much higher than 0.1%.
Don't post false information on the Internet. A scientist might get upset.
I must be the only Canadian that can't stand it.
It's revolting!
DuPont made a pile off the new alternatives.
Irrelevant. Kinda implies that an alternative energy economy would be really fruitful and prosperous.
The "recovery" started happening even before change of CFCs implemented,
Citation? Hrumpf. The data I 've reviewed had much larger error bars early on, that got smaller, and the recovery was signficantly above the noise.
clearly the size of the "hole" just solar cycle driven..
Uh, no. The solar cycle doesn't line up. Another non-scientist with wacky jargon infused quackery.
Please have respect for people with different abilities, especially children.
Variance of UV band is still only 1.5%, and during the minimum, that UV would decrease, leading to lower ozone production.
If you think you're the only Canadian that can't stand it, I don't think you live in Canada. Or are you just trying to express to us how unique you are?
"Old man yells at systemd"
"I'll tell you another thing. Their beer sucks."
Exactly. This was about the Republicans making more money for other Republicans. DuPont made billions off of this scam.
Not only are you completely correct about what the ozone layer does, but if you look at where the hole is, and the changes to the places most near the hole you will find that Australia has 2-3 times the rate of skin cancer as the USA, Canada, and UK caused by the increase in UV radiation. The hole is nearer here and causes a lot more UV to get through. If you ever travel here you can even visually notice the difference and the pain it'll induce into your eyes on insanely bright sunny day on the beach. -American in Oz.
They will also claim credit.
look up the molecular weight of freon. It doesn't rise in the atmosphere, it sinks like a lead balloon.
N2 is less dense than air. Does it all rise to the top of the atmosphere?
CO2 is denser than air. Does it all sink to the bottom?
Stupid rubes.
Indeed.
You should apply some kinetic energy to a mixture of oil and water sometime, and see how it looks.
DuPont made a pile off the new alternatives.
Yes, there's lots of money to be made in fixing our fuckups, even by the people who supplies the tools to create said fuckups. Why is this relevant?
The "recovery" started happening even before change of CFCs implemented
Utterly not true... Unless of course you limit the data set to between about 86 and 88, and exclude before and after. Smells like denialist arguing ;)
clearly the size of the "hole" just solar cycle driven
Now this is just stupid. The high part of the solar cycle creates *more* Ozone, and we've undergone 4 full cycles since the CFC problem was hypothesized and identified, and the stratospheric ozone measurements aren't even nudged by the cycle... Maybe due to how utterly small the variation in the cycle is (.07% of mean peak to trough)
What a bunch of sheeple....
What do you even say to a fucking idiot who talks out of his ass like that?
How would you tell your child they're wrong if they told you today that it's safe to be shot by a gun, and that most people die of a heart attack out of fright from the sound of the gun firing?
but we did inflate duPort's bank account as their patents on Freon had run out and Congress made the old Freon illegal just in time for the new and improved patented Freon to enter the marketplace.
Yes, Dupont sat on the patent for a chemical compound they knew was safer until it became clear that the courts and governments were going to act, and then and only then did they finally file the patent on an HCFC compound to replace Freon. It was an act of stunning cynicism, but you're aiming your contempt in precisely the wrong direction.
stupid rubes
Physician, heal thyself.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
The company's name is "duPont". I'm assuming you're stupid since "duPort" doesn't form any form of sarcastic parody.
"Freon" is not the subject of a patent, it is a trademark, which will remain in force as long as duPont defends it.
"Freon" is not a single chemical, it is a label duPont applies to numerous halocarbon compounds.
Most of these compounds were discovered well before 1950, meaning any possible patents on the molecules or their synthesis expired well before 1980, let alone the passage of the Montreal Protocol.
Denser bulk gasses will remain in the bottom of a container, however once mixed the entropy of mixing means that the process is not spontaneously reversible: there are unimaginably more states where freon molecules and air molecules are fully mixed than states where they are fully or even partly separated. Even by waiting, it is simple to see the tendency of the boundary to smear due to molecular diffusion processes, which are also irreversible.
You managed to get every single "factual" statement wrong. Stop posting, stop reading right wing propaganda, take a class on critical thinking, and start reading science books. But really, the most important thing is to stop posting, some innocent passerby might not know to instantly dismiss your shitpost.
Wait, just to be clear, are you parodying global warming denialists here, or are you actually serious?
You should apply some kinetic energy to a mixture of oil and water sometime, and see how it looks.
Better still use a mixture of vinegar and oil, (with a little added pepper, salt and dried herb), and then apply some kinetic energy. That way you can have your demonstration and eat it too.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Temperature last June got down to -135.4 F. That is .3 of a degree within the coldest ever recorded on the planet. It is not "hotter than its ever been before". Try another scam cause that one isn't working.
Next you'll say a temperature of - 135. 4 degrees below zero makes the earth hotter than its ever been before!
Sound's like Italian dressing... I'm game.
When actual observationes contradict all predictions made based on computer models you have to say that scientifically the models are flawed. If you believe a computer model over actual observed reality then you are a member of a cult, not a scientist.
We need to ban cars from urban centers, to further reduce greenhouse emissions
Yup ... or "French Dressing" for that matter. It's a vinaigrette.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
... and I'd like to add ...
Wake up SHEEPLE!!! Italian dressing ISN'T REAL! .... stupid rubes.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
As more heat gets trapped at the ground so the stratosphere where ozone destruction occurs gets colder (because less heat is coming up from below) and so ironicaly in warmer winters it can be colder in the stratosphere and hence more O3 destruction can occur.
Poutine is what Quebecois eat to put on a layer of fat before winter... one is really all you need, but more than a few Quebec City residents seem to go back for seconds and thirds just to be sure, 'cause it is so damned cold.
Note that if anything, this would mean you'd naively expect a lower temperature when there's more ozone (in fact the actual relation is more complicated).
Wait, even if it's almost completly unrelated,shouldn't more ozone result on "highter" temperature?
Elok
"The hole in the ozone layer is just as bad as when we made all these stupid changes to 'save' it! What do we do when they find out we were full of shit?"
"Pretend it would have been even worse."
control group or it didn't happen
Be glad the Koch brothers didn't own any companies making CFCs.
I love the oil industry. My investments in it are making me rich.
# - 135. 4 degrees below zero #
yes - that makes you are a complete idiot than ever before
Fuck, you're so stupid, I'm embarrassed to be an AC.
What the Anonymous Coward said that all the cultists are trying to mod down.
it got modded down because its wrong. but props for posting your stupidity under your own profile. that puts you are least a step about the nutjob AC.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
defensive much? you must be really threatened by women, since the only person who brought the fact of her gender, was you.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I thought the coldest temp was recorded in Siberia, so you must be referring to the coldest in Antarctica?
Anything that happens inflates someone's bank account. If governments ban CFCs then people with CFC substitutes get a windfall. If governments don't ban CFCs then makers of sunscreen and skin cancer treatments get a windfall.
This is how capitalism works -- how it's supposed to work. Problems attract capital, which generates profits. But it's also how market solutions fall short. It's better for the public if someone makes a killing replacing CFC than if someone else makes a killing treating skin cancer.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
No, quite the opposite. The ozone traps and reflects radiation. Above, you can find an example of a smart ass trying to teach the difference between ultraviolet and infrared. Fact is, it's all energy. So, if more energy is passing through where the ozone is supposed to stop it, that means more energy is reaching the earth. The healthier the ozone, the more energy is stopped and/or reflected. The more unhealthy the ozone, the more energy reaches the ground.
Multiple posters have already made themselves look silly because they fail to understand that.
Take a house with several glass windows. UV light passes through the windows easily, while IR does not. For that reason, houses with lots of windows are harder to cool in the summer. Can't blame that on infrared radiation!! It's all energy.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
nothing good comes out of Quebec
"No one seems to address that possibility."
I read that as I am too lazy to look even the easiest shit up. Yes they looked at it, No you have not come up with some novel theory. Next time you say no one, when actually many experts in the field are you should have your internet taken away for a week.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
If you're referring to Molson Canadian or Labatt's Blue, you won't get much of an argument. Those are the equivalent of an American Budweiser. There are however some fantastic smaller high-production breweries and plenty of great micro-breweries.
I was quoting a movie.
It's getting worse much slower. Not repairing.
And no, temps are not going down.
Also referring to the Canadian contract brewed 'foreign beers'. Fosters is piss everywhere. But the Canadians make a terrible version of Kingfisher, the original of which is a nice beer.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
There is a link to climate change. The solution to the ozone problem is a proof that we can do it.
Now I am not saying that waning off from CO2 dumping is going to be as relatively easy as CFCs, but it is at least as important.
Sulphur is a similar proof that global cooperation can fix damage done to our atmosphere.
As important by what metric? Yes, we have a very good instrumental record of warming global temperature for nearly a century. Yes, we have a record about half as long showing CO2 concentrations rising. Yes, we have trivial physics to show that CO2 absolutely traps radiation and contributes to warming. Yes, we know that our actions have been contributing CO2 to the atmosphere over those time frames. Please point me to more sources, but this is about the extent of the very strongly agreed items on climate change. Further facts all start deriving from climate models, or statistically reconstructed models of proxy data. How do we quantitatively define the importance of reducing our CO2 emissions from this?
We need to know the cost we will bear from continuing temperature changes if we carry on our merry way. We need to know the reduction of those costs if we take a certain set of actions today or in the near future. We then can compare the costs of those actions today against the saved costs in the future and make an informed decision.
I hate to be that guy, but our climate models today are NOT sufficient for assessing this. Plenty of the guys working on the models will call me out, and maybe you should listen to them instead of me because they are after all the experts and know their work and field better than I. Scientifically speaking though, please also look at the facts I base my statement upon. The IPCC states the following information on climate models in general:
-Model tuning aims to match observed climate system behaviour and so is connected to judgements as to what constitutes a skilful representation of the Earth’s climate. For instance, maintaining the global mean top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy balance in a simulation of pre-industrial climate is essential to prevent the climate system from drifting to an unrealistic state.
-The models used in this report almost universally contain adjustments to parameters in their treatment of clouds to fulfil this important constraint of the climate system (Watanabe et al., 2010; Donner et al., 2011; Gent et al., 2011; Golaz et al., 2011; Martin et al., 2011; Hazeleger et al., 2012; Mauritsen et al., 2012; Hourdin et al., 2013).
-Model tuning directly influences the evaluation of climate models, as the quantities that are tuned cannot be used in model evaluation.
Now, if you read those points something comes out and screams problem doesn't it? The heart and soul of all climate change is the increase or decrease of energy at the Top Of Atmosphere. The climate models nearly universally modify cloud effects to get their hindcasting of the energy at TOA correct. If they don't do this tuning, the models drift to an unrealistic state. The quantities that are tuned also should NOT be used in evaluation of the models. So TOA energy imbalance is one of the things that practically by DEFINITION the models are not meant to be able to be evaluated upon, let alone predictive for.
Let me humbly suggest that models that still aren't up to projecting TOA energy aren't exactly cut out for long term predictions of CO2 or any other impacts on TOA energy, which is THE centrally component of the greenhouse effect. The models are tackling problems like what happens to temperature and precipitation patterns under certain changes to TOA energy, but that's not the problem we are most interested in when assessing what level of energy changes CO2 is causing for us.
If I'm wrong or insane anywhere please, please correct me and point me in a good direction for some reasons I'm off base here. I'm a Comp Sci grad so I get computer modelling and the above concerns I've outlined seem terribly fundamental and after searching for a long time I can't find anywhere that the central concern I've outlined is meaningfully addressed.
well I laughed at him/her. It was a joke wasn't it?
You all say he is wrong but you don't counter as to why he is wrong.
"THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED YOU DON"T NEED TO SEE THE RAW DATA!!" is the mental equivalent of "Well yay, YOU ARE A POOP FACE!!".
That is the domain of idiots and children, neither of which can be taken seriously.
See subject "Forrest" & this -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...