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! :)
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
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.
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
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.
Variance of UV band is still only 1.5%, and during the minimum, that UV would decrease, leading to lower ozone production.
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.
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
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.
Be glad the Koch brothers didn't own any companies making CFCs.
It's a little late to be talking about averting global warming.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
Well, driving cars in urban centers generally sucks between the traffic and finding parking. The problem is people are too stubborn to get their act together and provide abundant satellite parking and transit links. Sure, driving your car right up to a store is ideal when you're the only one doing it, but there's a reason malls are built with parking on the periphery and pedestrian access at the core. If parking was the most pleasant and convenient way to get a lot of people into a confined area you'd be able to drive right into Disney World and park your car at Space Mountain.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.