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?
Sending all that maple syrup up on that rocket to patch the hole really worked. Good job!
Solar output lows had nothing to do with it...
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
And, how does this all relate to the much-feared, much-publicized "global warming". I must note that the hottest decade on record was the same decade in which the ozone layer was most depleted. As the ozone layer repairs itself, those temps seem to be going down.
Is it REALLY carbon dioxide that caused all that warming? Or - was it the ozone layer?
No one seems to address that possibility.
"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
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.
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.
DuPont made a pile off the new alternatives. The "recovery" started happening even before change of CFCs implemented, clearly the size of the "hole" just solar cycle driven. What a bunch of sheeple....
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.
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.
stupid rubes.
look up the molecular weight of freon. It doesn't rise in the atmosphere, it sinks like a lead balloon.
They will also claim credit.
We need to ban cars from urban centers, to further reduce greenhouse emissions
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.
"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."
This is an obligatory public service message from your ever vigilant SJW committee. There cannot be a science related article on /. without them pointing out "It wouldn't have happened without a woman in STEM".
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.
nothing good comes out of Quebec
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.
See subject "Forrest" & this -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...