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.

17 of 141 comments (clear)

  1. Montreal Protocol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Scientists say the ozone layer is in good shape thanks to the Montreal Protocol

    Scientists schmientists. What does Congress have to say?

    1. Re:Montreal Protocol? by jc42 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Scientists say the ozone layer is in good shape thanks to the Montreal Protocol

      Scientists schmientists. What does Congress have to say?

      "Vote for me."

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  2. Re:Ozone layer is recovering by haruchai · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  3. Re:Ozone layer is recovering by skids · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. suckers by caviare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:suckers by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was a big fight. DuPont spent a lot of money trying to block regulation; until they found a replacement chemical.

      Then they conceded the fight (because they could concede and still make just as much money).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:suckers by MrKaos · · Score: 5, Informative

      CFC's were nasty chemicals, but they weren't generally crucial to modern life.... Go nuclear or give up.

      It's a common myth that Nuclear doesn't contribute to greenhouse gasses however, in reality, CFC114 is the primary chemical input to enriching Nuclear fuel prior to its use in Nuclear Reactors. Several years ago I was curious about this and I used data available from the US EPA web site on licenced CFC emitters and discovered that the largest emitter there was from the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant.

      At roughly 1,500,000Kg per year it was over 5 times more than the second on the list.

      The reason this is important is not because CFC's are a more potent (20,000*C) greenhouse gas, it's because CFC's affect Phytoplankton which are the creatures that produce oxygen and absorb carbon dioxide. Coupled with the secondary effect of ocean acidification from carbon absorbed from the atmosphere it interferes with the calcium content of these creatures shells forcing them deeper where photo synthesis is less effective. The same creatures are also affected by ozone depletion (which also forces them deeper) as it that careful balance of the suns radiation that allows them to produce oxygen in the first 1-10 metres of the oceans surface.

      They produce more oxygen than all of the tress on earth so understanding and making sure they are ok is one of those less understood tipping points that humans are messing with.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    3. Re:suckers by Rujiel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I'm not in love with the fossil fuel industry, but.."

      One of many things to say before/after defending the fossil fuel industry.

  5. Re:Ozone layer is recovering by BoogieChile · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  6. Re:Ozone layer is recovering by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  7. Susan Solomon—read about her by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Nothing to do with Climate Change by Harlequin80 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  9. Re:nonsense by DamnOregonian · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  10. Re:chumps taken for a ride by DamnOregonian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  11. Re:nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:nonsense by Capsaicin · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
  13. Re:nonsense by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.