Ozone layer 'is no longer disappearing and will return to full strength by 2048', says UN report

[Dark]

Source: Daily Mail

The ozone layer is no longer disappearing and could be back to full strength by the middle of this century, UN scientists have confirmed.

The phasing out of nearly 100 substances once used in products like refrigerators and aerosols has stopped the ozone layer being depleted further, although it is not yet increasing, according to a new United Nations report released last week.

And it claimed that international efforts to protect the ozone layer has averted millions of cases of skin cancer worldwide.

The ozone layer outside the polar regions is projected to recover to pre-1980 levels by 2048, although the annual springtime ozone hole over the Antarctic is not expected to recover until 2073.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1313599/Ozone-layer-longer-disappearing-return-strength-2048.html

---

Finally, the environment gets some much needed good news.

[Fearless]

1. Let's hope this is in fact true and not statistical aberration

[caraher]

6. Completely believable

It's all a question of washout rates for atmospheric chlorine. Ozone gets created all the time - the trouble is that the breakdown products of one CFC molecules can break up hundreds of ozone molecules.

This isn't just one observation, it's a recovery trend that's been observed for years and that matches what one would expect theoretically. No need to be unduly skeptical about this!

[Fearless]

7. Skepticism is never undue.

I am actually cautiously optimistic.

[caraher]

9. Skepticism should be in the right measure

There is such a thing as appropriate levels of skepticism ("I'm skeptical that the stimulus package is large enough for the crisis we face") vs. inappropriate levels of skepticism ("I think Obama's Honolulu birth certificate is a fake!"). By "undue skepticism" I mean skepticism at inappropriate levels, which can exist. Fretting about this forecast not holding is of course closer to the former than the latter example, but my point is that there's a continuum of skepticism, and not all skepticism is created equal!

While every scientific result should be vetted, there's no reason I can think of to be especially skeptical of this particular forecast.

[Fearless]

10. And I hope you're right. Because this would be very good news.

Which is rare.

[truthisfreedom]

2. Proof that an effort can cause change. The oil industry will not let us make the next needed

change, however.

[jannyk]

3. Good news - yes, but a double-edged sword I think.

It'll be used as an excuse as to why carbon emission rates, and fossil fuels in general, are no longer a problem. I can hear the campaigning freepers already :eyes:

[ingac70]

4. Um, the things that were destroying the ozone....

where banned or are being phased and there are heavy fines for releasing refrigerants. You must be licensed to handle them.... sounds like a good excuse to start on what you mentioned to me.

[RantinRavin]

12. I hope you don't believe they are actually disposing of it properly

Oh sure the technician hooks up his machine and tank and recovers it right in front of you. But as he is driving to the next job the tank is being emptied right into the atmosphere.

[ingac70]

15. I'm EPA certified to handle refrigerants....

All the HVAC guys I know are very careful about that sort of thing. That and that stuff gets recycled and reclaimed , so the companies want that stuff to save $$$$$.

[RantinRavin]

18. So am I, and have been since 1993

Recovering refrigerants is a net money loser for an HVAC company. If the refrigerant is contaminated in any way, such as from a compressor burn-out, or any air what so ever the recyclying plant can not use it, and it must be destroyed instead, which the company is charged for.

[Nihil]

19. Uh-oh ...

Given your recent post ...

> So am I, and have been since 1993
> Recovering refrigerants is a net money loser for an HVAC company.
> ... and it must be destroyed instead, which the company is charged for.

... and your preceding one ...

>> I hope you don't believe they are actually disposing of it properly
>> Oh sure the technician hooks up his machine and tank and recovers it right in
>> front of you. But as he is driving to the next job the tank is being emptied
>> right into the atmosphere.

... I can't help thinking that it sounds like a bit of (illegal, immoral
but profitable) personal experience coming out here ... good job you're
anonymous ...

:hide:

[cartach]

16. Enough of the BS !

If you have any proof please advise. You're sounding like a tea bagging Glen Beck and his tactics don't work except for a few who are intellectually challenged.

[caraher]

5. Shouldn't be

The atmospheric physics and chemistry are totally different.

Of course, facts have a well-known liberal bias ;)

[DGG]

8. Except, of course, it has nothing to do with CO2

People often get confused about this, but the stratospheric ozone layer is damaged mainly by chlorine-containing compounds such as certain refrigerants. CO2 doesn't affect it at all. It's true that many ozone-damaging compounds are also greenhouse gases (of relatively minor importance compared with CO2), but the problems are really separate. What this really shows is that international efforts to protect the atmosphere can work, provided you start implementing them as soon as possible.

[caraher]

11. Yup

I try to point out to my conservative students that it was under Reagan's administration that the treaties banning CFCs were forged, in hopes of getting them to realize that environmental action by the government is not a sign of creeping communism.

Greenhouse gases are a much tougher nut - they're a much bigger part of the economy and the replacements are less available than the CFC replacements. But it's still an inspiring model.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Hissyspit]

17. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[zogofzorkon]

13. So soon it should be easier to get lost in the ozone again, although

trapped in the twilight zone can have its moments.

[defendandprotect]

14. "although annual springtime ozone hole over Antarctic not expected to recover until 2073"

Good news if true -- but didn't have time to look at full report and what

they consider "recovery."

. . . and that's 63 years from now, btw!!

[caraher]

20. Recovery = return to pre-1980 levels

"The ozone layer outside the polar regions is projected to recover to pre-1980 levels by 2048"

[defendandprotect]

21. Don't have info handy, but as I recall, there is a "hole" when MORE than 50% of ...

the ozone is depleted --

You can have 49% of it depleted and there is NO HOLE!

[caraher]

22. Oh, I thought you meant what they meant by recovery apart from the hole

But apparently they're using the same standard for the Antarctic. From the executive summary: "Antarctic ozone is expected to return to pre-1980 benchmark values in the late 21st century."

Reading further reveals that they're using mid-October (i.e. spring) values. But they also caution that, "Small Antarctic ozone holes (areas of ozone <220 Dobson units, DU) could persist to the end of the 21st century." (p. 25)

[TrogL]

23. I'll be dead by then

I wanna be able to go out in the sun without wearing a chemical factory now.