Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'Healing' Detected In Antarctic Ozone Hole, Says Study (bbc.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the natural-remedies dept.

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.

95 comments

  1. 8 year old fucking news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-11-16/ozone-hole-closing-up-research-shows/727460
    Look at the fucking date.

    1. Re:8 year old fucking news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Let me be the first to say, *Thanks, President Bush*!

      He saved the ozone layer, but how many Iraqis did he have to kill to do it?

    2. Re:8 year old fucking news. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Considering that the largest hole ever was apparently recorded in 2006, of course the 2007 one must have been smaller. But what was the development since then?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:8 year old fucking news. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      OK, I'll answer to myself: the bad cases seem to be relatively stable. 2015 was not a good year, so the 2007 news was premature (as you'd expect for a single data point).

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:8 year old fucking news. by jbengt · · Score: 2

      There were a lot of links in TFS, and at least two of them mentioned how the October 2015 ozone hole was unusually large, but that that could be correlated to volcanic activity increasing stratospheric clouds over Antarctica, and that it has been recently worked out how volcanoes could have had that effect.
      So, no, it isn't such old news.

    5. Re:8 year old fucking news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you know that the shit can change in the period of 9 years? You know, it's called UPDATED FUCKING DATA.

      You stupid twat.

      Now go and rally around Donald Trump and suck the Fuehrer's cock.

    6. Re:8 year old fucking news. by JoelEmmett · · Score: 1

      You're right. I noticed that, also. For several decades, we've known that eliminating CFCs was working on repairing the ozone hole, especially since there was less UV-ray-induced blindness in Tierra del Fuego, almost immediately (1980s). So, I don't think is entirely about ozone, and suspect it's really a message about global climate change -- we can/should do more, and if we do, it will actually work.

  2. If Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Said chlorofluorocarbons man made could not damage the Ozone we would no Ozone now and no future on the planet.

    1. Re:If Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re: If Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ozone layer is racist!

      It keeps white people white!

    3. Re:If Republicans by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Ah, but ozone in the stratosphere does make the surface of the Earth cooler because it intercepts ultraviolet radiation before it reaches the troposphere.

  3. Slashdot has even posted about this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    https://science.slashdot.org/story/13/02/10/1930214/over-the-antarctic-the-smallest-ozone-hole-in-a-decade
    https://science.slashdot.org/story/11/05/20/2038228/signs-of-ozone-layer-recovery-detected
    https://slashdot.org/story/06/10/21/0548245/nasa-announces-record-ozone-hole
    https://slashdot.org/story/06/05/27/0654216/ozone-layer-improving-faster-than-expected
    https://science.slashdot.org/story/04/10/02/1346252/ozone-hole-getting-smaller
    Again, look at the fucking dates.

    How the fuck is it "news" that the antarctic ozone hole is healing, if it's previously been reported that it had been getting smaller?

    1. Re:Slashdot has even posted about this before by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is regularly a long way behind in the news, sometimes even more than a decade, but FFS with this having been on Slashdot so many times it is nothing but pure laziness reporting this again.

    2. Re:Slashdot has even posted about this before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re-iterated news sucks but at least it is connected to science somehow.
      Perhaps it is not strictly news for nerds but it is still better than the political and celebrity death tabloid content.

      And hey, the post about Googles new trans-pacific cable yesterday was nice.

    3. Re:Slashdot has even posted about this before by skids · · Score: 1

      The news, if you read the TFA, is that scientists figured out a way to clean up the data: they were measuring the hole at its peak, but there are often weather conditions that time of year that add noise to the measurements. Instead, they measured the rate of the growth of the hole at a different time of year, when there are usually no such weather conditions. That gave them a much smoother look at the trend and the affect of volcanic activity.

      Of course, the whole ozone thing must be completely a hoax made up by China because humans are too tiny to cause effects on as massive a creation of God as the earth derpy derpy derp. Derp!

      --
      Someone had to do it.
  4. This sort of story should be censored... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    since it takes control from those of us that want to promote AGW.

    1. Re: This sort of story should be censored... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. The scientists already voted this is a problem so disagreeing with it is the typical antiintellectualism of Republicans.

    2. Re: This sort of story should be censored... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans are the party of death so this is why they are killing us this way.

    3. Re: This sort of story should be censored... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The vote is over. This shouldn't be legal to talk about.

    4. Re: This sort of story should be censored... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, bit since republicans hate science they don't recognize that vote.

    5. Re: This sort of story should be censored... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. The scientists already voted this is a problem so disagreeing with it is the typical antiintellectualism of Republicans.

      The vote was over 99% to less than 1%, so yes it should be illegal.

    6. Re:This sort of story should be censored... by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      The healing is taking place because of the cooperation of those such as yourself! Thank you!!

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    7. Re: This sort of story should be censored... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 2
      Unlike the Democrats? Please list all the anti-science ideas out there and show which is more prevalent among Republicans and which among democrats,

      I'll start

      Evolution v Intelligent Design - a small subset of Republicans, perhaps 20%. And many Evangelicals don't vote (and some still vote Dem)
      Fraking is evil - Dems
      Vaccination - leans Dem
      Stem cell research - Republican have problem only with embryonic research
      GMO - Democrat. GMO and Embryonic stem cell are opposed for much the same reason. It's morally wrong

      Interesting about the stem cell research - embryonic cells have not been very fruitful. (And don't say it's because it's illegal to research. US government funds are not going there. Private R&D is legal. And let's not forget the research being done in England, France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, Korea and other places.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    8. Re: This sort of story should be censored... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed a few issues there.

      And what is anti scientific about being against fracking? Science shows that it causes problems.

    9. Re: This sort of story should be censored... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Theres good evidence that frakking creates geological instability and pollutes the water table, not through the fractured shale but through the bore hole/surface spills, in addition to air pollution and frakking being a regression and encouragement to remain in a hydrocarbon based economy at a time when we as a species really need to be moving to renewables.

      Theres also good reasons to oppose GMOs or heavily regulate, mostly due to the nature of seed markets these days: its very easy for Monsanto or other seed providers to fuck up everything and create a situation where any other alternative to a potentially harmful genetically modified crop is extinct via being pushed out of the seed market before we realize the crop is a shit choice.

      You're right about the vaxxers though, dumb fuckers need to get their heads out of their asses before we are all screwed by polio again.

    10. Re: This sort of story should be censored... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Science has time and again proven that fracking is perfectly safe, and the places with flammable water had the issue before the fracking due to the nat gas being in the rocks already.

      Being against fracking is anti intellectual.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    11. Re:This sort of story should be censored... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      since it takes control from those of us that want to promote AGW.

      Not in the least. It is a good example of the world coming together and doing something effective about a problem, exactly what we should be doing more of in regard to AGW as well.

    12. Re: This sort of story should be censored... by AdamHaun · · Score: 1

      Evolution v Intelligent Design - a small subset of Republicans, perhaps 20%. And many Evangelicals don't vote (and some still vote Dem)

      Unfortunately, this is quite wrong. The numbers you get depend heavily on how you ask the question, but recent polling suggests that a plurality of Republicans (48%) believe that humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time vs. only 27% of Democrats. About a third of *all* adults in the U.S. hold this position. If you ask whether God created humans in their present form, it's closer to 40%, and has been for decades. You can find other polls here showing similar results.

      Regardless, overall popular support turns out to be less important than one would hope. What matters more is who's politically involved -- who votes in primaries, who runs in school board elections, who causes trouble when politicians vote the "wrong" way. The Republican party is also much more disciplined than the Democratic party, so you'll regularly see the Republican-controlled House and Senate voting in lockstep against even against ideas that have majority support among their base. (Gun control laws are the most recent example.)

      --
      Visit the
    13. Re: This sort of story should be censored... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Gun control is supported by the GOP base? WTF?

      I don't consider theists to be anti-science. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. Even such as Ann Colter (sp) bring up this point. The irrational, anti-science types are a much smaller percentage than you make out. The majority of the polls are trying to bring forth a narrative as opposed to understanding a complicated set of beliefs.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    14. Re: This sort of story should be censored... by AdamHaun · · Score: 1

      Gun control is supported by the GOP base? WTF?

      You'd be surprised. It depends heavily on which question you ask. Often questions about specific policies get way more support than more abstract questions. Here's an example from a Quinnipiac national poll from a few days ago (N=1610, MoE = +/-2.4%). For the question:

      Do you support or oppose stricter gun laws in the United States?

      26% of Republicans answered "support", while 69% answered "oppose". But that same poll also asked:

      Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?

      For this question, "support" won 90%-9% among Republicans. The poll also asked:

      As you may know, individuals on the U.S. government's terrorist watch list are not allowed to fly on planes. Would you support or oppose banning those on the U.S. government's terrorist watch list from purchasing guns?

      which was supported 85%-12% by Republicans. Other polls show similar results. These are both measures that have been debated since the Orlando shootings. PollingReport is a good site for finding polls if you want to see more results for yourself.

      You can see this sort of behavior in other issues as well. Health care reform was a big one -- the individual provisions were popular, but when asked about "Obamacare" people gave very negative opinions.

      I don't consider theists to be anti-science. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive.

      Of course not. Polls on evolution are careful to distinguish between evolution being "guided by God" and evolution as a purely natural process for that reason. But there does seem to be a floor of about 30% for support for Creationism no matter how the questions are asked. More specific polls are rare, but there's a 2005 Harris poll with some dismaying results (N=1000, MoE=+/-3%).

      Do you think human beings developed from earlier species or not?

      Did 38%
      Did not 54%

      Do you believe all plants and animals have evolved from other species or not?

      Have 49%
      Have not 45%

      Do you believe apes and man have a common ancestry or not?

      Do 46%
      Do not 47%

      This seems to have had a priming effect on the standard question:

      Which of the following do you believe about how human beings came to be? Human beings evolved from earlier species. Human beings were created directly by God. Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them.

      Evolved from earlier species 22%
      Created directly by God 64%
      Powerful force/intelligent being 10%

      And finally, the most relevant question for this discussion:

      Regardless of what you may personally believe, which of these do you believe should be taught in public schools?
      Evolution only. [READ IF NECESSARY: Evolution says that human beings evolved from earlier stages of animals.]
      Creationism only. [READ IF NECESSARY: Creationism says that human beings were created directly by God.]
      Intelligent design only. [READ IF NECESSARY: Intelligent design says that human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them.]
      All three.

      Evolution only 12%
      Creationism only 23%
      Intelligent design only 4%
      All three 55%
      None+Unsure 6%

      I don't think there are necessarily a ton of people who are hard-core anti-science ideologues, but the people who are functionally anti-science (in cases that make them uncomfortable) are not a tiny minority by any stretch.

      --
      Visit the
    15. Re: This sort of story should be censored... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For Your Interest, I used to work for a (uranium) mining company as an environmental scientist and write reports sprinkled with special phrases just so people like you would make a post like this.

      I think the benefits of uranium outweigh the risks so I'm OK with that, personally I wouldn't work for frackers on ethical grounds.

      Nice work pawn, dig deeper if you want to be informed..

    16. Re: This sort of story should be censored... by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      I'm a big 2nd A supporter and will answer yes to a generic question of background check. But the devil is in the details isn't it?

      The problem with the no-fly list is the lack of due process. It's a list which can be abused too easily. Put in the basic checks:

      1. Make the list public.
      2. Be able to see the reason you're on the list
      3. Due Process regarding evidence

      Interesting isn't it as it is the Democrats who are opposed to due process. I wonder why?

      Re evolution - that is a hard one to use to label someone as anti-science. I know several engineers (electrical) who are very religious and who would probably "flunk" the evolution / creationist sniff test. And yet - they are competent electrical engineers working for some well-known companies. I'm working with programmers many of whom have undergrad degrees in math and physics (not to mention CS) who believe in the Word as put forth in the Bible.

      I have a hard time calling them anti-science as well.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    17. Re: This sort of story should be censored... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sure, keep up the fud.

      If you understand the technology behind fracking, you might understand how it is not possible for it to pollute the water table, but keep acting like you know everything about the subject.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  5. Wasn't this already confirmed? by Eloking · · Score: 2

    Am I missing something or NASA already confirmed that ten years ago?

    --
    Elok
    1. Re:Wasn't this already confirmed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      3 years ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago, and 12 years ago:

      https://science.slashdot.org/story/13/02/10/1930214/over-the-antarctic-the-smallest-ozone-hole-in-a-decade
      https://science.slashdot.org/story/11/05/20/2038228/signs-of-ozone-layer-recovery-detected
      https://slashdot.org/story/06/10/21/0548245/nasa-announces-record-ozone-hole
      https://slashdot.org/story/06/05/27/0654216/ozone-layer-improving-faster-than-expected
      https://science.slashdot.org/story/04/10/02/1346252/ozone-hole-getting-smaller

    2. Re:Wasn't this already confirmed? by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re: Wasn't this already confirmed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Who fought hard against the CFC ban?

      I was there and recall no such debate as we have today with AGW where the side with faked data is threatening to use the RICO Act on scientists who interpret the data differently or dare question AGW religion.

    4. Re: Wasn't this already confirmed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There absolutely were companies denying their research. If you're interested read up on the Montreal Protocol and DuPoint. It's kind of funny considering their stance now: http://www.dupont.com/corporate-functions/our-company/insights/articles/position-statements/articles/montreal-protocol.html

      Not to the same level but it's a different world now and the costs associated with remedying AGW (if it is even possible) are significant to far more than a few big companies ;)

    5. Re:Wasn't this already confirmed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re: Wasn't this already confirmed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, we should be honored - Glenn Beck posted!

    7. Re:Wasn't this already confirmed? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      They couldn't possible have confirmed this ten years ago, considering that ten years ago, the worst Antarctic ozone depletion ever was recorded.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:Wasn't this already confirmed? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Anecdote is not data.

      what? Ok then.

      A data point is not a trend.

      what? Oh

      You got lucky, two data points could be random noise compared to history.

      Seriously a third point?

      Correlation does not prove causation. I think aliens did it.

    9. Re:Wasn't this already confirmed? by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      For someone with no understanding of the process, yes that is true. For those same people the "this" being confirmed is beyond their comprehension as well.

    10. Re:Wasn't this already confirmed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So?

      Here is the thing: If you just want to be left alone, just say so.
      If you want someone else to do something on the other hand you will have to play by their rules.
      If you want someone who doesn't believe in global warming or the moon landing to change their view you will have to convince them on their terms. Stating that you are convinced of a particular thing isn't enough.

      For example I don't give a shit about data. I am one of those blue-eyed people that tend to believe in others.
      If someone tells me that we have to reduce carbon emissions or the sky will fall I just look at them to see if they put their money where their mouth is. If they do then I have no reason to believe that they are lying.
      They might be wrong but at least they are convinced enough to change their lives accordingly, I can respect that.

      Of course this haven't had any impact on my life. I don't own a car, walk back and forth to my job and my computer consumes less than 50W so I seldom encounter any environmentalists that are willing to meet my energy consumption/carbon emissions.
      I interpret that as them not really thinking that the problem is large enough to sacrifice anything for.

    11. Re:Wasn't this already confirmed? by sjames · · Score: 2

      That sounds a lot like a fallacy

      It's a statement of fact. An observation. By definition, it cannot be a fallacy. It could be incorrect but since it is not a conclusion, it cannot be a fallacy.

      But feel free to look at the history of the Montreal protocol.

      I can't even imagine what you thought you read from me that inspired the rest of your rant.

    12. Re:Wasn't this already confirmed? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Changing the composition of the atmosphere is definitely NOT a form of leaving me alone.

    13. Re:Wasn't this already confirmed? by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      And I vaguely remember seeing a similar article in 1999, saying that the ozone layer would be back to the 1960s levels by the 2030s. Or something.

  6. In b4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A bunch of climate change conspiracy theorists pipe in

  7. Unfortunately one disaster is eclipsed by another by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The levels of microplastic masses in the ocean will surpass that of all fish by 2050. So it would be nice to start to 'heal' that issue now also, were we doing so whatsoever, instead of continuing to accelerate the rate at which plastic bits are dumped into our global food supply.

  8. Did it once... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Maybe we can do it again for greenhouse gases.

  9. Ozone depletion was caused by atmospheric NUKE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    testing, we just happen to not do those anymore.

    1. Re:Ozone depletion was caused by atmospheric NUKE by synaptic · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

    2. Re:Ozone depletion was caused by atmospheric NUKE by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      I understand that you are referring to Cl55 from atmospheric nuclear tests, however there was another source related to the nuclear industry.

      The Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant was the largest emitter of CFC114 into the atmosphere for many years due to the miles of pipes that it used to pump the gas to enrich uranium in the form of Uranium hexafluoride or "Hex". CFC-114 was one of the gasses known to deplete the ozone layer and was regulated by the Montreal Protocol. The plant was closed down in 2013 so it isn't very surprising that the hole in the ozone layer is starting to recover.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    3. Re:Ozone depletion was caused by atmospheric NUKE by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Until 25 years ago every can of spray and every fridge was "powered" by CFCs ... since we abolished them the Ozone layer is recovering slowly. Everywhere, not only in the Antarctic. But there was a real hole, and over the rest of the world "only" the layer thinned out.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:Ozone depletion was caused by atmospheric NUKE by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Sure, which was in line with the Montreal Protocol coming into force in 1989. However the hole peaked in size in 2006. The Nuclear Industry gets an exemption to the M.P so it can use CFC114 in the enrichment process and while it was still operating it leaked over a ton of CFC114 into the atmosphere each day of those 25 years.

      I don't think it is unreasonable to point that out, after all, it was the leading emitter of CFC114 according to EPA data.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    5. Re:Ozone depletion was caused by atmospheric NUKE by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I wonder why it is so difficult to "not leak" such "waste products".

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  10. Christian God stronger than atheists' god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Christian God (GOD) beats atheists' god (climate change and other things proven false).

    1. Re:Christian God stronger than atheists' god by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

      So the ozone is Holeir-than-Thou

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:Christian God stronger than atheists' god by aepervius · · Score: 2

      off topic: You know what's funny, there is nothing more stupider than a theist or a troll, using the sentence Atheist's god. This demonstrate a complete lack of understanding on how atheist think. Or the utter inability to think out of the box and understand that others (be it atheist or ...) can think vastly differently in scope and conclusion. It is really similar to that "you atheist in reality believe in gods/God and you are just angry of them/him" meme which demonstrate an utter inability to really think outside of their religion. /off topic

      http://science.nasa.gov/scienc... we already knew the ozone hole was reducing in size. It seems to me the reduction is faster though... ?

      --
      C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
      http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
      visit randi.org
    3. Re:Christian God stronger than atheists' god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      That's nice. When I was growing up, the propaganda du jour was that the ozone damage was 100% permanent and there was no possible way to do anything about it. We'll just add that corker to the list of classics, including "The polar ice caps will be completely melted in 15 years" and "Global cooling will turn the planet into an icicle."

    4. Re:Christian God stronger than atheists' god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When I was growing up, the propaganda du jour was that the ozone damage was 100% permanent and there was no possible way to do anything about it.

      Not it wasn't, you retard. There was international cooperation to limit the release of CFCs. This was largely successful and it was expected that the ozone hole would gradually improve. That is exactly what has happened.

      Are you sure you have finished growing up BTW? Your brain seems to have been left behind.

    5. Re: Christian God stronger than atheists' god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Conservatives like simple solutions to problems because complex reasoning eludes them. It's why they can't understand things like weather is not climate and always spout off nonsense denying climate change the first time it snows anywhere.

      A variation on that is the 'your initial prediction wasn't 100 percent accurate therefore the whole thing was wrong' line of reasoning, followed in short order by 'you changed your prediction after doing more research. You're falsifying data to get rich off of grant money' or some other utter nonsense. The capitalists who get super rich by polluting and generally wanting us to pay for the external costs of their business--they just ignore their vested interests or parrot their bought and paid for soundbytes. They have to think less that way.

    6. Re:Christian God stronger than atheists' god by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That's nice. When I was growing up, the propaganda du jour was that the ozone damage was 100% permanent and there was no possible way to do anything about it.

      No, no it was not. That is a lie, and you are a liar. I bet you think there was a scientific consensus on global cooling, too.

      including "The polar ice caps will be completely melted in 15 years" and "Global cooling will turn the planet into an icicle."

      Yep. Idiot or troll. Please log in so you are easier to ignore.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Christian God stronger than atheists' god by jbengt · · Score: 1

      bullshit

    8. Re: Christian God stronger than atheists' god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A variation on that is the 'your initial belief wasn't 100 percent accurate therefore the whole thing was wrong' line of reasoning, followed in short order by 'you changed your doctrine after doing more research. You're falsifying history to get rich off of believers' money' or some other utter nonsense.

      Ironically, I've often heard these same kinds of arguments from argumentative atheists.

    9. Re:Christian God stronger than atheists' god by kheldan · · Score: 1

      That's nice, I guess, but if I'm going to believe in mythical figures, then I'd much rather 'believe' in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy, because they all bring you nice stuff, and your so-called 'god' only ever seems to bring hate, destruction, and death to everyone. Then to make matters worse, he/she/they/it (whatever the fuck your so-called 'god' is supposed to be) runs around using aliases, like any criminal would do, and commits even more crimes against humanity, like for instance convincing those assholes in the Middle East that they've got license to run around and cut off people's heads and turn little girls in to sex slaves! I mean seriously, if your so-called 'god' was just some guy, he'd be serving out multiple life sentences in a super-max prison right now, if not hauled into The Hague and tried/convicted for mass crimes against humanity and summarily executed. LOL, if this so-called 'god' of yours is what you willingly believe in and 'worship', then all I have to say is, you need to go see your psychologist and have your meds adjusted, or perhaps you should just check yourselves into an institution since you might be a danger to yourself or others. Meanwhile I think I'll just continue being rational and relatively sane, and not waste my time on imaginary nightmare figures like your so-called 'god', and have a much more enjoyable life.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    10. Re:Christian God stronger than atheists' god by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The comic book science I was fed in middle school was about that simplistic.

      But that wasn't adult level propaganda. It was perpetrated by ex-hippy teachers operating on their own limited understanding of science.

      Just like now, kids were being indoctrinated.

      Watch this: The number one source of stratospheric ozone is UV light hitting oxygen. Which explains why 'holes' only form in polar winters. Everywhere else there is an equilibrium process going on as ozone is steadily created and destroyed.

      Someone will be along to call me a liar and shill any second.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    11. Re:Christian God stronger than atheists' god by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Watch this: The number one source of stratospheric ozone is UV light hitting oxygen. Which explains why 'holes' only form in polar winters. Everywhere else there is an equilibrium process going on as ozone is steadily created and destroyed.

      What you say is true. But it's also true that CFCs increase the rate at which ozone is destroyed causing a lower equilibrium point unless the rate of creation goes up somehow.

  11. Re: Unfortunately one disaster is eclipsed by anot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    You mean all the biodegradable plastic we're already using? The kind that breaks down into non-plastic bits so in 2050 there won't be ANY plastic in the ocean that's less than 40+ years old? Is that the plastic you wanted to start dealing with now? The same plastic others already have been dealing with for years?

    Where do you people get this junk science from? Why so you insist on mixing politics with environmental safety?

    Why can't we have a clean planet without any of the leftist control freak fascist garbage that comes with it these days?

  12. Re: Unfortunately one disaster is eclipsed by anot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't know what you're talking about. The entire world is not using "biodegradable plastic" in everything they do, you moronic lying cunt lol.

  13. Re: Unfortunately one disaster is eclipsed by anot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    In case you've already forgot, you're the one who started spouting drama with nothing whatsoever to back it up. Put up or shut up.

  14. Actually this is new by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  15. Re: Unfortunately one disaster is eclipsed by anot by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

    It's not a matter of whether it breaks down or not - even the "non-biodegradable" stuff will be destroyed by UV rays. It's a question of how fast this happens and how quickly we dump that crap into oceans.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  16. Thanks, Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only a democratic president could bring about such great change. Trump will just put his business profits first again and try to revert all these emission restrictions to make a few extra bucks next quarter.

  17. And I don't even get a thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is all thanks to me of course. I stopped using all those ozone hole producing products like soap, shampoo, deodorants. I completely stopped taking showers and baths, I stopped shaving and washing my cloths. I did everything to close the hole in the ozone layer and with success! But do you think someone thanked me for all my efforts? Of course not. People just avoid me, they say that I stink, I can't even get a proper job.

  18. All hot air? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's my understanding that most of the cfc compounds that were banned were actually heavier than air. Just how the heck did they get up in the upper atmosphere?
    Also, doesn't sea water contain a great deal of chlorine(sodium chloride)? Doesn't that get in the atmosphere as well? Also the patents on these cfc compounds coincidentally expired about the same time they were being banned. Replaced by other compounds, patented by the same companies.
    Follow the money....

    -AC

    1. Re:All hot air? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Obviously it's a big conspiracy, like all other so-called "environmental" issues. Anyone with a shred of sense will realise that humans are powerless to affect the planet in any way. This is a ploy by the Hippy Illuminati to get all your dollars and give them to communism. Keep fighting the Big Lie.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    2. Re:All hot air? by Talderas · · Score: 3, Informative

      Evidence about this is best found by looking at the fiasco that was inhaler medication for asthma patients. Albuterol inhalers had long been off patent and were produced by generics companies. With the ban the big pharma companies created a new medication with a different propellant which was granted a patent. That triggered the FDA to revoke the exception for CFC inhalers which forced every asthmatic and COPD sufferer to utilize the more expensive brand name medication rather than cheaper generics which we no longer able to be produced and sold due to the revocation of the exception.

      For those that are not aware of what it's like to be asthmatic or suffer from COPD. These medications primary purpose is to reduce the inflammation that occurs in the lungs. This inflammation reduces the airflow into and out of the lungs making it more difficult to breath. The inflammation can occur in degrees from minor discomfort where you're aware of the reduced airflow to severe states where you're barely getting enough airflow to remain conscious. Asthma can and will negatively impact an individual's ability to be active in environments where the irritants that cause inflammation are located. These inhalers are a tremendous boon for patients that allows them to have a more normal lifestyle.

      What elimination of the exception did was raise the cost, anywhere from a 25-100% increase, of patients in order to have a normal lifestyle or causes them to reduce their usage of inhalers limiting their ability to have a normal lifestyle. Were these costs worth it for a product that contributed no more than 0.1% of CFC usage?

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    3. Re:All hot air? by jbengt · · Score: 2

      It's my understanding that most of the cfc compounds that were banned were actually heavier than air. Just how the heck did they get up in the upper atmosphere?

      You ever hear of diffusion? Or wind? Gravity is not the only force involved.
      Anyway, those chemicals have been unequivocally detected in the upper atmosphere, so they definitely got there.
      See here
      And here

    4. Re:All hot air? by HBI · · Score: 2

      Low flow toilet bowls, anyone? Now you can flush 2 or 3 times to get the effect of one pre-Al Gore flush. That's how you save water.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    5. Re:All hot air? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the Chlorine and Bromine from sea water doesn't?

    6. Re:All hot air? by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Be fair, the new style pressurized tank low flow toilets flush OK.

      When they don't blow up that is.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    7. Re:All hot air? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can build a machine to detect gnat farts from a kilometer away, But that's not what you're smelling.

    8. Re:All hot air? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      It's my understanding that most of the cfc compounds that were banned were actually heavier than air. Just how the heck did they get up in the upper atmosphere?

      If the atmosphere were totally still CFCs would settle into the lower atmosphere. But the atmosphere is a rather turbulent place and it has no problem keeping keeping CFCs and other heavier than average molecules well mixed.

    9. Re:All hot air? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      I bought a low flow toilet that was recommended by Consumer Reports and I'm completely satisfied with it. It hasn't plugged once in 3 years of use compared to the old full flow toilet it replaced which plugged at least once a month. Yes, it wasn't the least expensive toilet I could have got (around $250) but it was worth it. The lesson is get a good quality toilet and it will serve you well.

    10. Re:All hot air? by careysub · · Score: 1

      And the Chlorine and Bromine from sea water doesn't?

      That's right it doesn't. It requires a special transport mechanism - like a completely chemically inert gas - to transport any chlorine or bromine up the ozonosphere, and then break up under ultraviolet exposure. The halogenated hydrocarbons that do this do not exist in nature. We created a transport mechanism where none existed naturally.

      Keep asking questions, you will keep learning (as long as you heed the answers).

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  19. What a load of codswallop by Maritz · · Score: -1, Troll

    This is Slashdot. There is no ozone hole. Never was. Hippy conspiracy. Also, CO2 makes the climate better. Just want to clear that up.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    1. Re:What a load of codswallop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, honey, this is Slashdot. I'm not sure why every liberal needs to preface their comments with this phrase, but the rest of us know what website we're on.

      Oh, and the hole in the ozone layer was undisputably, undeniably caused by chlorofluorocarbons. The effects of man-made CO2 on the climate cannot be accurately determined yet due to a number of factors, not the least of which being falsified data. Full stop.

    2. Re:What a load of codswallop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Madness?

      No.

      This.

      Is.

      Slashdot!!!!!!!!

  20. oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fearmongers unite and find a new alarmist message! like the ozon hole is growing unexpectedly, quite cleary this is man-made, and we are all going to die!

    1. Re:oh no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      like the ozon hole is **shrinking** unexpectedly, quite cleary this is man-made, and we are all going to die!

      oh well, it's confusing isn't it

  21. Holy crap STOP THE PRESSES!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something is producing excess ozone!!!!!

    Contrary to the 97% of scientists who agree, ozone just doesn't come out of thin air. It's not a living organism.

    Hope whatever is producing it stops before we're all mandated to use aerosol sprays again!

  22. Re: Unfortunately one disaster is eclipsed by anot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Learn to read faggot.

  23. Re: Unfortunately one disaster is eclipsed by anot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your debating skills are without equal.

  24. Re:Holy crap STOP THE PRESSES!!! by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    I'm thinking your post is tongue-in-cheek but I'll respond anyway. Ozone is produced naturally in the stratosphere when an ultraviolet photon hits an O2 molecule splitting it to 2 oxygen atoms that then combine with another O2 molecule to produce O3. This is a process that has gone on for billions of years ever since there was significant oxygen in the atmosphere.