If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(UPI)   Antarctic ozone hole getting smaller, Leon getting larger   (upi.com) divider line 9
    More: Cool, ozone holes, time series, chlorofluorocarbons, weather satellites, ozone layer, international agreement, release form, climate variability  
•       •       •

1651 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Feb 2013 at 6:28 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-02-09 07:50:51 PM
3 votes:
It's almost like the ozone layer hole happens naturally and grows larger or smaller depending on various conditions.

Terribly sorry that issue didn't work out for the fake environmental movement the way you wanted, but you learned your lesson and are trying extra special hard with "climate change".
2013-02-09 10:49:12 PM
2 votes:
i759.photobucket.com
2013-02-10 01:33:12 AM
1 votes:

J. Frank Parnell: HindiDiscoMonster: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x567]
/oblig?

I don't think the UN putting a new tax on every person, service and product would truly create a better world. It's ridiculous, really. All the UN discussions amounted to pretty much this:

Speaker: "Hey guys, let's save the environment!"

Audience: "Sure!"

Speaker "Simply give me your money. Especially you poor countries which can't afford cleaner power"

Audience "No"


1.) UN can't tax anybody, and 2.) That is clearly the only solution that we have, right?
2013-02-09 11:30:21 PM
1 votes:
Seems like some people in here confuse "It will take X decades for the ozone hole to repair" with "nothing should happen at all with the ozone hole for X decades and them BAM! it'll be fixed all at once".  I'm having a hard time believing that this kind of confusion is sincere.
2013-02-09 09:12:57 PM
1 votes:
Why it got smaller... ?


cdn02.cdn.thesuperficial.com
2013-02-09 08:30:44 PM
1 votes:

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Dufus: Interesting, I remember a few years back when the argument was that the CFCs would continue damaging the ozone for 50-100 years because they didn't break down easily. I think the prediction was that the hole would triple in size (around 2025) before we would see any reduction. I guess someone misplaced a decimal point in those calculations.

Or you're wrong about what you claim to remember.


Well National Geographic has this as part of a report on ozone depletion, "About 90 percent of CFCs currently in the atmosphere were emitted by industrialized countries in the Northern Hemisphere, including the United States and Europe. These countries banned CFCs by 1996, and the amount of chlorine in the atmosphere is falling now. But scientists estimate it will take another 50 years for chlorine levels to return to their natural levels. "

Then again, you can go back to the original theory, The Rowland and Molina theory says that CFCs are so inert that there are no sinks (nothing to capture or destroy them) in the troposphere (the portion of the atmosphere below the stratosphere. Therefore, CFCs have very long lifetimes in the atmosphere.According to the theory, the most common CFCs, CFC-11 and CFC-12, both very long lived, remain in the atmosphere about 50 and 120 years, respectively. After 5 years of cruising in the troposphere, the CFCs are transported into the troposphere. There, the ultraviolet rays break them up into "free" chlorine atoms (those that can combine with other elements) and other molecules. This chlorine atom then supposedly breaks down ozone molecules. The theory claims that this is a catalytic reaction, thus one single hyperactive chlorine atom may destroy hundred of thousands of ozone molecules. This reaction only stops when the chlorine atoms bind with other atoms or molecules known as "reservoir compounds".

And the US EPA report U.S. production of ozone-depleting gases has declined significantly since 1988, and has now reached levels (measured by their ozone depletion potential) comparable to those of 30 years ago. Because of the international agreements to decrease production and ultimately to phase out production of CFCs and halons, total equivalent chlorine (total chlorine and bromine, with adjustments to account for bromine's higher ozone depletion potential) in the troposphere peaked between 1992 and 1994 and has since decreased. Total chlorine abundance in the stratosphere is at or near peak; stratospheric bromine is likely still increasing. Increasing ozone losses are predicted for the remainder of the decade, with gradual recovery by the mid-21st century.

You are correct that my memory is a bit unreliable after 53 years, but I was a chemistry major in college when the ozone theories were being developed. We had a great guest lecturer program and got to hear first hand several cutting edge lectures, Some turned out to have faults and had to be refined over the years. Some were abandoned altogether.such as the idea to place large Mylar sheets into polar obit to focus large amounts of sunlight on the ice caps to melt them and prevent the coming ice age. (No, it wasn't just an article in Time magazine).

The "Gama Knife" used in cancer treatments was developed during those years and two of the inventors visited us and gave a riveting presentation on how they thought of the idea and how they had to use substitutes for human tissue during development such as using cork instead lung tissue. Just because the numbers on the length of time for ozone depleting compounds need refining to fit current observations doesn't mean I didn't believe them. The original predictions were just a bit too pessimistic.
2013-02-09 07:04:29 PM
1 votes:

Dufus: Interesting, I remember a few years back when the argument was that the CFCs would continue damaging the ozone for 50-100 years because they didn't break down easily. I think the prediction was that the hole would triple in size (around 2025) before we would see any reduction. I guess someone misplaced a decimal point in those calculations.


Or you're wrong about what you claim to remember.
2013-02-09 04:01:20 PM
1 votes:

Dufus: Interesting, I remember a few years back when the argument was that the CFCs would continue damaging the ozone for 50-100 years because they didn't break down easily. I think the prediction was that the hole would triple in size (around 2025) before we would see any reduction. I guess someone misplaced a decimal point in those calculations.


I also read some interesting conspiracy theories that the ozone whole was caused by the shuttle dumping fuel soon after launch.
Strange that the whole shrinks when the shuttle stopped launching.

LOL
http://www.theozonehole.com/rocket.htm

no, I dont believe any of this.
BUT
why are the predictions wrong? why is the hole shrinking 50 years sooner?
2013-02-09 12:04:28 PM
1 votes:
Interesting, I remember a few years back when the argument was that the CFCs would continue damaging the ozone for 50-100 years because they didn't break down easily. I think the prediction was that the hole would triple in size (around 2025) before we would see any reduction. I guess someone misplaced a decimal point in those calculations.
 
Displayed 9 of 9 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report