Slashdot Mirror
United Nations Says Earth's Ozone Layer Is Repairing (bbc.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: The ozone layer, which protects us from ultraviolet light, looks to be successfully healing after gaping holes were discovered in the 1980s. The Northern Hemisphere could be fully fixed by the 2030s and Antarctica by the 2060s. A new United Nations report says it's an example of what global agreements can achieve. The ozone layer had been damaged by man-made chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) effectively began eating away at the ozone. CFCs were found in things like spray cans, fridges, foam insulation and air conditioners. As a result, in 1985 a gaping hole in the ozone over the South Pole was discovered. An international agreement called the Montreal Protocol made sure that businesses came up with replacements for these damaging products. 180 countries signed up to it. In signing the protocol, those countries agreed to phase out chemicals like CFCs.
But we are still making SUVs??? How can this be???? Al said so.
Or do we go back to CFCs, knowing that those actually cool the earth (which is what we want)
...are you insane? CFCs are among some of the most potent greenhouse gases. If anything, the Montreal Protocol is credited with contributing to slowing the warming trend in the 1990s and throwing off some of the predictions of late 1980s.
Ezekiel 23:20
I guess love is like the ozone layer.
You never miss it until it's gone.
#DeleteFacebook
FAG
As K. S. Kyosuke says CFCs are among the most potent greenhouse gases. Meanwhile the ozone layer is one of the most vital protective layers of the Earth. Without it land life would be practically impossible as UVA & UVB rained down on the surface. Life would be largely limited to the oceans.
If Trump did his thing and pulled out of the UN agreement on CFCs...... it would make zero difference.
Because no manufacturer would use CFC, the consumer backlash in the US would stop the product selling and they wouldn't be able to sell that product in the rest of the world. So they wouldn't make it and even try. Trump's word would not have any effect.
When he pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord, it had no effect on the US's efforts to cut its greenhouse gas emission. The efforts on solar and electric continued anyway. He failed to get his coal subsidy, and even if he attempts to drop mercury emission standards. Any coal fired power station would simply be sued for emitting mercury into the atmosphere.
These agreements, they are aspirational. They set a goal which is followed because it has mass agreement to be followed.
This confuses me. I get told that CFCs hurt the ozone layer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#CFCs_and_related_compounds_in_the_atmosphere
I also get told that we have to restore the ozone layer by stopping CFCs. But then I get told, by the same UN scientists, that restoring the ozone layer will lead to accelerated ice cap loss.
And now you tell me that CFCs lead to global warming, and also call me insane for asking a question.
So what should I believe? CFCs hold off global warming and restore the ozone layer (according to the UN scientist who tracks both things) or CFCs cause global warming (according to you).
If the holes were discovered today, you all know exactly what would happen, corporate propaganda bullshit, it would impact corporate profits and action would be banned. Corporate for profit hospitals, sun screen manufacturers and the pharmaceuticals would cheer rises in skin cancer and demand no action be taken to protect profits. Making the US blowing up Yemen (blow up more, kill more, there are profits to be had, kill, kill, kill) for profit, sick fuckers, look like nothing compared to the millions that would die from cancer especially in the third world, oh yes indeedy.
Nothing much will be done about climate change until the properties of the psychopathically rich and greedy, those underwaterfront properties start going underwater and then they will demand socialised property insurance where the poor have to pay into an underwater front property fund to pay for the lost underwater front mansions, psychopath is as psychopath does. When the scam gets howled down, then rapid change will occur to protect those properties and fuck everyone else, the poor have to pay for that protection and be thankful their employers do not kick them in the genitals each time they pick up a paypacket to remind them who physically dominates whom. If you are stupid enough to allow yourself to be kicked all of the time, then you fucking deserve it.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqZGgaZaXig
But that same UN scientist said that the ozone layer makes the Earth warmer. So, has anyone done a study on whether or not increasing global temperatures have a statistically significant correlation with the restoration of the ozone layer?
Wow, you sound angry!
... which is the only reason that I know about it.
Let me break it down for you:
1. The ozone layer is vital - without it, everyone gets skin cancer.
2. CFCs destroy ozone, and also trap heat strongly. We really don't want them.
3. The ozone hole has *not* held off global warming - it has merely helped reduce its impact on Antarctica specifically, by causing localised wind patterns that slowed the encroachment of warmer air & water surrounding the pole. While this was temporarily good for Antarctica, it wouldn't solve anything in the long term, and is certainly not worth the other costs of CFCs.
Reality is rarely black & white, but is never contradictory. If it looks that way, you've probably misunderstood something.
Huh, I got modded down for asking if there is a statistically significant study on the correlation between ozone layer restoration and rising temperatures.
The ozone layer does warm the stratosphere some since it it capturing UV energy up there and that has repercussions all the way down to the surface. But the effect is minor compared to the effects of CO2 and even CFCs which are hundreds or even thousands of times more powerful.
He's right, you know.gif
More like deranged. The kind of person who knows how to do nothing but complain. The kind of person who alienates the rational and gives the deranged living on the edge a louder voice.
I suppose a Lab Coat ha replaced the goofy beard and head dress these days.
Wasn't there already news about China still using CFC?
https://eia-international.org/...
Unless CFC doesn't really have an impact on the ozone layer
cap: neighbor
Perhaps because it's an obvious troll? Global temperatures have been rising for 150 years, and the size of the ozone hole has only started leveling off in the last 20 years. A single glance tells anyone they're not remotely correlated.
Thanks Obama!
We can stop human-caused global warming (maybe, if we, as a species, get our heads out of our asses and DO something about it -- small chance but better than none!) but would you rather die of solar radiation poisoning? Excessive UV causes skin cancer and ruins your eyes.
You sound like a gigantic faggot who has no fucking idea what he's talking about, or worse, a Republican shill cheerleading runaway capitalism. Go fuck yourself, asshole, sideways with a rusty chainsaw.
You say fag like it's a bad thing.
Indeed, and CFCs were also a lot easier to eliminate. They were far less fundamental than Carbon.
Indeed, before the fairly recent availability of cost effective solar, it looked impossible. All the rivers have been dammed. Nuclear has been damned. The only one available was wind.
But it looks like we will do it. Eliminate Carbon. If only because much of the world's population will be eliminated by the warming...
In May this year, reports emerged to warn of new, un-traced pollutants that were extending the damage to the ozone layer, particularly in the southern hemisphere.
See here.
Now, barely 5 months later, we have this very different perspective. Not being a climate scientist, I'm not sure how we can discern which of these two articles carries the most accurate reporting. (In that it seems unlikely that new damage observed in May could be healed this quickly).
I am a little concerned that the more recent of these two articles (carried in the BBC and linked in this slashdot piece) seems to make no reference of the concerns raised earlier this year. Very interested to know if anyone can shed light on this apparent disparity.
OK, I get it - Global Warming!
If the holes were discovered today, you all know exactly what would happen, corporate propaganda bullshit, it would impact corporate profits and action would be banned.
What? The holes were only really noticed in the 70s and the ban happened in late 80s. That wasn't long ago, and certainly was not a time free from corporate and profit motives.
Lol. Your life is a stereotype.
they just found out the hole is getting way bigger than was previously estimated and now they're just hiding the truth from everyone, out of fear it would cause a global panic, riots and massive civil disobedience.
this
post,
lost
in
the
mediocre
pile
of
dung
that
has
become,
every comment section on the internet.
""We are only at a point where recovery may have started," he said, pointing to some areas of the ozone that haven't repaired."
So, no ... the ozone hole isn't fixing itself. In fact, if the report from April is correct, the ozone is getting thinner.
This is why I mistrust almost all science news articles except in actual science magazines.
The narrative here is that they want it to be fixing itself so humans can hug themselves over cooperation, therefore they are wish-casting it as a success.
There is no evidence the ozone hole is repairing and plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Or do we go back to CFCs, knowing that those actually cool the earth (which is what we want)
...are you insane? CFCs are among some of the most potent greenhouse gases. If anything, the Montreal Protocol is credited with contributing to slowing the warming trend in the 1990s and throwing off some of the predictions of late 1980s.
Banning all CFCs was fucking stupid. The vast majority of CFC released into the atmosphere was from use as aerosol propellant. Almost none of it came from escaped refrigerants like Freon. And Freon is a helluva more efficient refrigerant than the non-CFC crap we're now forced to use.
Which means more energy is used for air conditioning, making greenhouse gas emissions worse than they would be if we still used Freon as a refrigerant.
I remember this from back in the early 80's. By the mid 90's, they said that the hole had repaired itself. Within a few years, the hole opened back up and people realized that we were reacting to a natural and cyclical event.
Is this UN report an old report?
Because:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/1...
What is unclear from the article is how much new CFCs are being released relative to pre-ban amounts.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
When it comes to replacing CFC's there's something to remember: there were alternatives that worked well and were readily available in an ostensibly cost effective manner.
A global agreement to curb CO2 production will be far harder to implement given the value & size of the markets that are the leading contributors to CO2 production. The CFC industry wasn't a trillion dollar international industry, globally employing many millions of people, or with pockets deep enough to lobby every government in the world simultaneously. Fossil fuel is.
The reduction of CFC use and the replenishment of our ozone layer is a great success story, but it doesn't mean that the same methods applied to other environmental problems will have the same scope of possible success.
The ozone and cfc relationship was as easy to prove as a kids science experiment demonstrating condensation. The replacement gasses were quite good and no additional funding was required.
Even the states that tried to put global warming measures on their ballots failed to get the votes. These are some very blue states, in districts that just took ownership of congressional House seats. So its not a partisan thing. Even among democrats the numbers do not support complete consensus. More work needs to be done to show the science of it and people need to stop making -adjustments- to temperature data to support their hypothesis. That always throws a wrench in any comittee.
Lol, runaway Capitalism....You and OP are the only two psychopaths here.
The ozone layer does warm the stratosphere some since it it capturing UV energy up there and that has repercussions all the way down to the surface
If the ozone layer didn't capture the UV, the surface would have, and less of it would be radiated back into space.
Sergei, you seem to be not only uninformed but bitter. What's the matter? The oligarch denies he's your real daddy? Your mom tired of working on her back?
I can wear UV-protective clothing, even in Arizona. Sometimes I do, like when I'm outside in the sun for prolonged periods.
I already wear UV-protective glasses.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Almost none of it came from escaped refrigerants like Freon. And Freon is a helluva more efficient refrigerant than the non-CFC crap we're now forced to use.
Which Freon would that be, since it's a brand name for several different refrigerants many of which are still in use.
The replacements aren't less efficient than their predecessors. R134a is more efficient than R12 for example.
The CFC refrigerants were more inert so less flammable and less toxic. And could often be used at lower pressures. That was their advantage, not efficiency.
and no one is worried about the fact that the hole is currently cooling the planet...holding back a little warming.
Oh well, still laughing at those reports last year decrying acid rain as if it was a new thing never discovered.
and what about the gellification of the great lakes?
Humanity is so screwed.
Are you for some reason mixing up UV with IR?
Because your post makes no sense at all
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Ever notice how as soon as we started getting the "ozone hole" under control, all of a sudden, "global warming" was the problem? The globalists always need something to scare people into submission.
Not only CFCs, particulate and aerosol emissions cool the Earth, in fact they drove global cooling from 1940 to 1970 or so. We could reduce global warming by tuning our engines to emit more pollution.
What's going on here isn't scientists being perverse; it's nature being complex, and not obligated to make our jobs easy.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Good. When can we start cleaning our circuit boards with Freon again, and fuck lead-free solder
How do we know that the ozone hasn't always had a hole in it? when did the hole first appear?
Kyoto, and paris, are jokes. The fact that we allow nations to add more fossil fuel power plants is a disaster. Instead, ALL 'additions' should be killed. Replacement would be fine, but that is what is happening.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The ones to blame is not the corporations, but the governments. For example, china claimed that they cut back on building coal plants, but now, sat photos are confirming what oco2 sat shows, which is lots more coal plants added with loads of CO2 coming.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
And the CFCs were cheap to make and had other uses. That is why Chinese gov allowed millions of tons of CFC to be made, and used for cheap styrofoam for housing and to dump on foreign market.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
That's false. There would be plenty of life on our land. It just would not look anything like it does today. In fact, it would be more likely dinosaurs ( birds ) and reptiles would be dominate.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Funny thing is, that since gov/corps refuse to take real action, and individuals really cannot, real action will occur in about 20 years. At that time, it will likely be obvious that the ONLY way to stop CO2 production is cut the human population in 1/2 or more. I suspect that a nation with a trump or more likely china, will release a bacteria/virus that will do a lot of killing. A slightly different form of Kingsman.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Why should you be forced to? Or do you want to live in a world like some post-apocalyptic 80's movie? Also if and when it comes to it it'll be much worse than you imagine, and oh by the way enjoy having to wear at least a filter mask all the time, if not a full-on rebreather, because UV is what causes ground-level ozone, which literally destroys respiratory tissue (you know, like your lung tissue?). It gets bad enough and all animal life on the planet dies.
...just this year it was reported that, while the ozone holes above the poles are shrinking, the ozone layer is *thinning* above urban areas: https://www.atmos-chem-phys.ne...
I am not a number - I am a free man!
ascii legacy is better than a chink family, imho
less shameful
What we really should be worrying about is the super volcano at Yellowstone. When it goes, any other attempts at protecting the atmosphere become moot, plus the innate devastation it would cause.
Yah, it's possible there could be land life but it wouldn't look anything like what we have now. It would have to be seriously hardened against the effects of UV radiation.
That's true but so what? More UV at the surface would be extremely bad news for life on the surface.
Obama lowered the ocean levels just like he promised in his campaign speeches, so can we allow people to work at jobs again?
Thanks to China and India
Fortunately, it all turned out to be bunk science anyways.
Life wouldn't be doing so hot in the oceans either. Most life in the ocean is dependent, directly or indirectly, on life that must live near the surface to absorb energy from sunlight, and being that close means they'd be heavily damaged by UVB radiation. Per the EPA:
Summarizing:
Point is, you're not going to see dolphins taking over the world if the ozone layer disappeared; life would continue, but in dramatically reduced amounts, and most large marine animals would likely die off for lack of sufficiently concentrated food sources.
CFCs were found in things like spray cans, fridges, foam insulation and air conditioners.
Factories and Spray cans, yes... the rest: pretty much no.
The hole in the Ozone layer wasn't caused by us having CFCs in refrigerators.... it was caused by CFC and Halon Emissions, or the Release of CFCs and Halons. Primarily from the emissions of industrial factories and facilities making the things, Halon gas Fire Suppression systems like those that used to be used in computing centers, and from Spray cans, yes.
Refrigeration equipment, on the other hand.... is designed to contain CFCs, not release them. It's counterproductive to emit the CFCs, because the equipment doesn't work after they leak out, so leaks get patched quickly, and refrigeration is not a significant source of CFC emission. R-12 Freon
is the most suitable refrigerant found, and any of the replacements resulted in equipment that won't work as reliably or efficiently ----
some of the latest replacements being used now to avoid CFC-like chemicals (While lining the pocketbooks of new chemical inventors)
are downright scary.... R1234yf ---- just what we need in the engine compartment of all our cars, a pressurized system with highly-Flammable refrigerant
that costs 100X as much by weight as the R134a HFC that some beancounters or lobbyists in the chemical industry who need more profits by forcing replacement with a newly patented magic formula deemed too CFC-like.
The ozone layer hole could be even smaller if we can get China to stop releasing them.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
UV-protective sunglasses have been a thing since global cooling was a thing, the 70s. Wearing clothes out in the sun since before that. It's not new, and that was half my point. The UV scare is about 30 years late.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Oh and I'm only forced to guard against excess UV exposure if i really want to be outside in the sun. And sometimes I do...
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Is this suggesting to me that 'international collaboration' does work when government across the globe recognize a global problem? I'd certainly hope everyone comes to the same page for pollution and GHG...etc. Something to be hopeful on???
Did you completely miss the point about how more UV getting through the atmosphere creates more ozone (O3) at ground level, which is deadly to respiratory tissue? Do you have asthma? If so you'd have more asthma problems and a higher risk of lung disease, heart attack, and other pulmonary-related problems. If you don't have asthma you'd likely develop it, or just skip that step and go straight to getting a serious respiratory disease. Ground-level ozone is not amateur night shit. Go research the subject yourself if you don't believe me. That's why worrying about the ozone layer is important: ozone up there is good, at ground level is very, very bad.
Yes, yes, yes. In fact I do have asthma. In fact I do understand. You can think in 6 numb as a hake, sure, but no, I do understand. But I've had asthma pretty much since I was born, some time ago, and living downwind of Midwest coal fired power plants didn't help it at all either.
I get it all. What's the bee under your bonnet about, that I haven't fallen down and worshipped you?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
What's the bee under your bonnet about, that I haven't fallen down and worshipped you?
Fuck off.
America got there first but now no one else is allowed to be like them. All you up and coming countries must not be allowed to develop as we did. Even if you only produce a fraction of our CO2, you just aren't allowed to be like us.
Yet per person they are still half as bad as Americans.
America is only cleaner because it's smaller. Everyone knows this.
If you want to kill your way to a cleaner world million for million it's much more efficient to kill Americans.
Wipe out 300 million Americans to save 5 Million Kt of CO2.
300 million Chinese would only be 2.4
300 million Europeans 2.1
300 million Indians only 0.6
If the whole Earth had a vote, America would clearly draw the short straw...
Global nuclear electricity output grew 1 percent in 2017, as the world’s nuclear fleet generated 2,503 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity, according to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2018.
Take China out of the picture, however, and the reality looks starkly different: Global nuclear power generation would have declined for a third consecutive year, the report showed.
A lot of good points there. Thanks for filling in the details.
Don't feed the troll.