Slashdot Mirror
'Healing' Detected In Antarctic Ozone Hole, Says Study (bbc.com)
kheldan quotes a report from BBC: Researchers say they have found the first clear evidence that the thinning in the ozone layer above Antarctica is starting to heal. The scientists said that in September 2015 the hole was around 4 million sq km smaller than it was in the year 2000 -- an area roughly the size of India. The gains have been credited to the long term phasing out of ozone-destroying chemicals. [The study also sheds new light on the role of volcanoes in making the problem worse.] The ozone-destroying chemicals, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), have been shown to be declining in their influence, causing the ozone layer to grow once more. "Even though we phased out the production of CFCs in all countries including India and China around the year 2000, there's still a lot of chlorine left in the atmosphere," Prof Solomon told the BBC World Service Science in Action program. "It has a lifetime of about 50-100 years, so it is starting to slowly decay and the ozone will slowly recover." Scientists also believe that volcanic sulphur can form tiny particles that act as seeds to Polar Stratospheric Clouds, where chlorine chemistry occurs that destroys the ozone.
If dems said that the Ozone is misogynistic because it made the climate colder, we would no Ozone now and no future on the planet.
Yes, and the previous generation of deniers claimed it was just random fluctuation. It had to be because CFCs are harmless and the ozone hole was just a natural variation.
So NASA points out that the trend is continuing nicely in the way random fluctuations seldom do.
Actually this is new and is about clearing up all of the doubts around the other times and explains the expansion last year.
The other stuff was dumbed down headline.
Yes, and the previous generation of deniers claimed it was just random fluctuation.
That sounds a lot like a fallacy. Who gets to decide that those denying CFC effects are the previous generation of whatever?
Claiming that denying CFC effects is equivalent to denying that current temperature changed is withing natural fluctuations is on the same level.
Arguments should be able to stand on their own. Proving that a statement was made by Hitler isn't the same as proving that the statement is wrong.
In a similar fashion the "follow the money" reasoning is wrong, it doesn't matter if you can prove that someone was paid to make a particular statement.
The payment has no impact on wether the statement is true or not, it only hints at what the motive behind speaking out was. But an ideologically made statement can be just as wrong as a paid one.