The Ozone Layer Is On Track To Completely Repair Itself by the 2060s (sbs.com.au) 72
pgmrdlm quotes a report from SBS: The world's ozone layer is on track to be completely healed by the 2060s, according to modelling by the UN's environmental agency (UNEP).
In the past 19-years, parts of the ozone layer have recovered at a rate of one to three per cent every ten years, UNEP has found. If this continues, the Northern Hemisphere's ozone layer is set to heal completely by the 2030s, the Southern Hemisphere by the 2050s, and the polar regions in the following decade.
As we rightly focus our energies on tackling climate change, we must be careful not to neglect the ozone layer and stay alert to the threat posed by the illegal use of ozone-depleting gases," UN Secretary-General António Guterres said in a statement on Monday.
"The recent detection of emissions of one such gas, CFC-11, reminds us that we need continued monitoring and reporting systems, and improved regulations and enforcement."
In the past 19-years, parts of the ozone layer have recovered at a rate of one to three per cent every ten years, UNEP has found. If this continues, the Northern Hemisphere's ozone layer is set to heal completely by the 2030s, the Southern Hemisphere by the 2050s, and the polar regions in the following decade.
As we rightly focus our energies on tackling climate change, we must be careful not to neglect the ozone layer and stay alert to the threat posed by the illegal use of ozone-depleting gases," UN Secretary-General António Guterres said in a statement on Monday.
"The recent detection of emissions of one such gas, CFC-11, reminds us that we need continued monitoring and reporting systems, and improved regulations and enforcement."
Repair itself? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Repair itself? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, that's what... repair itself.. means.
Re: (Score:2)
He means that the ozone layer has no agency. It's not actively doing anything.
It's us, humans, who have taken some serious active measures for several decades now, to stop actively destroying the ozone layer.
Fortunately for us, the process of creation of ozone in the atmosphere is continuous, though slow.
Sorta like how should a large chunk of deforested land be turned into a woodland preserve and allowed to eventually turn into a forest again.
The forest wouldn't "repair itself".
Laws and fences and fines wou
Re: (Score:2)
He means that the ozone layer has no agency. It's not actively doing anything.
Neither do I when a cut on my finger closes and new layers of skins form. I'm not actively doing anything, without agency. My body is simply regenerating. IE, repairing itself.
Also, WOOOOSH on the "That's what .... means" Meme.
Re: (Score:2)
People can't handle metaphors any more.
Re: (Score:2)
...Neither do I when a cut on my finger closes and new layers of skins form....
Only because you have stopped cutting your finger. Your finger heals because you stopped cutting it. That was my point. Humans stopped doing what they were doing that caused the damage to the ozone layer, and the ozone layer is helaing.
it's working (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, but it was an easy fix: there was one particular type of freon gas used in one particular application (cooling) that was damaging the ozone layer, we had functional replacement gasses at hand, and laws were put in place to use the harmless alternatives. And even then, it took decades to fix.
With greehouse gasses, we're talking about collapsing the entire world economy if they were to be banned the same way freon has been banned, and we have no alternative solutions.
Re:it's working (Score:5, Informative)
More precisely an entire class of chemicals - bromo/chlorocarbons - that were used for may things, aerosol can propellants, solvents, fire suppression/extinguishing, plastic foam blowing, had to be banned and replacements found across the whole spectrum of products. One particular application, Halon (bromochloromethane) had no suitable replacement as a safe suppressant for use in data centers and the like. So it had wide ranging effects on industry and commercial products.
Re: (Score:2)
Halon had a replacement at the time. They were nitrogen and argon, Halon was simply easier to store then either one of those. Storage is trivial today though, but keep your eyes open as foam systems similar to what's used in heavy industry and aircraft manufacturing/hangers is becoming a viable alternative. Especially since they're far cheaper, and just as inert.
Re:it's working (Score:4, Informative)
There's also a huge difference in safety. Halon in its effective fire-fighting concentration will make you dizzy, but otherwise it's safe. Nitrogen atmosphere will rapidly kill you before you even realize it.
Re: (Score:1)
I can assure you that breathing halon decomposition products cause FAR MORE than just dizziness. hydrochloric acid, hydrobromic acid, phosgene and other fun stuff.
discliamer: actually breathed in fumes when using halon fire extinguishers in OUTDOOR before, and it is nasty even in open air.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: it's working (Score:2)
The global economy is stupid if it canâ(TM)t handle this. The problem is the way we are managing an asset, the atmosphere, which no one can hold. If the world were divided into bubbles and pipes, so each small area had to balance its own air in terms of CO2 oxygen balance (including ability to send CO2 to farms and forests for O2, this would be solved yesterday, with O2 price spikes having lead to huge planting operations and investments in renewables. But everyone wants something free, so this isn
Re: (Score:2)
The reason why it was easy to stop ozone harming gases, is because nearly all of it had been produced in the west. As such, it was relatively easy to get the west, and china, together and all promise to stop it. The only nation that has broken that agreement has been China, who continues to break it to this day. While they do not use CFCs to fill AC/fridges, they continue to use much of it for CHEAP insulation, and it appears that something else is going on. Several of the places
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's another way besides taxation.
Just take the Kyoto or Paris standards... or preferably something new and far more stringent, with mandatory CO2 reductions for ALL nations and no exceptions for the BRICs or anyone else... and tie them into the UN, IMF, WTO, and so on. Then, any nation that exceeds its CO2 emissions allocation (Or hell, you could do "cap and trade" and let nations sell their CO2 credits, just so long as the sum total is fixed at first and then reduces over time.) gets crushing tr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First off, CHina had nothing to do with kyoto and in paris, very little. Yet, they still do not make it happen even for the little bit that they had.
China is on track to meet its 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) [climateactiontracker.org] Why you always lie WindBourne?
Our analysis shows that China will achieve both its 2020 and 2030 pledges.
You say
The fact is, going with agreements is a joke.
The only joke is abandoning the agreements and getting worse. (Looking at you WindBourne/USA). And then complaining the agreements don't work. Facts are America's CO2 would be less if they stayed in the Paris accord and did what it promised to do. Of course agreements don't work if you abandon them...
You don't think China's CO2 would be even worse if they didn't support the Paris agreement? Jus
Re: (Score:2)
I still maintain that best would be emissions / real $ GDP (with inflationary adjustments).
So on your preferred measure China is already doing very well at decreasingn it's CO2/GDP. [tradingeconomics.com] So why all the China hate?
Maybe it's the GDP going up bit that you don't like. Can't have the Chinese being just like you now can we.
Finally, note, that as a region's GDP goes up, normally, so does emissions.
People have been pounding that into your head for years. Glad you finally realise now. Rich western countries are mostly to blame, and things will only get worse if more poor countries become just like them.
But you just can't accept it's bad when both do it. You keep saying it's just
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, but it was an easy fix: there was one particular type of freon gas used in one particular application (cooling) that was damaging the ozone layer, we had functional replacement gasses at hand, and laws were put in place to use the harmless alternatives. And even then, it took decades to fix.
As I recall not all replacements were harmless. There is evidence that the Space Shuttle Columbia was lost because the foam that damaged the orbiter was weakened to comply with EPA guidelines to use alternatives when possible. I couldn't find a more specific reference in a quick search other than this Wikipedia note.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
NASA could have certainly applied for a waiver, and received it, given the risk this posed to the orbiter and the crew. NASA wanted to be a good example by mo
CFC-free Foam Did Not Doom Columbia (Score:5, Informative)
The story that "environmentally friendly" CFC-free foam caused the Columbia loss is a lie promulgated by Rush Limbaugh, among others (https://www.mediamatters.org/rush-limbaugh/limbaugh-promoted-false-theory-epa-regulations-banning-freon-caused-space-shuttle).
The piece of foam (left bipod foam ramp) which came off and fatally damaged Columbia was type BX250 made via the old fashioned process with CFC-11, not one of the newer foams made with an HCFC. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. And: NASA Columbia Accident Investigation Board report (pages 50 and 51): https://s3.amazonaws.com/akama... [amazonaws.com]. The Wikipedia article you referenced needs to be fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it was an easy fix: there was one particular type of freon gas used in one particular application (cooling) that was damaging the ozone layer, we had functional replacement gasses at hand, and laws were put in place to use the harmless alternatives.
But the refrigerant was banned while products were still being sold that used it. So there was about a 10 year window when most people who drove older cars had no air conditioning. R12 was going for $200+ for a 12oz can (more than I could afford at the time) and a retrofit to the new stuff didn't work well, if at all. If I'd known back then that propane was a drop-in replacement for R12, I probably would have blown myself up.
A transition period where a R12/R134a mix would still be available (just enoug
Re: (Score:2)
If anything this should be spun as a positive something: Look how we detected a problem, took some action and improved the situation. Too much of the Climate Change is doom and gloom. It is a very similar situation. A much bigger problem to be sure given widespread CO2 emissions, however even then you can target the biggest emitters in terms of activities. Also there are plenty of alternatives out there now.
Anyway I see this a potentially something to use a positive spin to countries to try to work together
Re: (Score:1)
Let us all hope that the current POTUS won't reverse this ban like he likes to do with the EPA.
Wow, just in time (Score:4, Insightful)
to protect the humongous carbon dioxide layer we're building right underneath it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, I've been following the handoff from Antergos to EndeavourOS, because as far as Arch-based Linux distros go, I could care less relative to the fact that Snæfellsjökull visibly shrinks on my horizon every year and the increasingly warm winters keep allowing new species of insect pests to survive here, including both ones that eat crops and annoying biting pests, and that feels a little more important than some random Linux news, but maybe I'm just weird that way.
Re: (Score:1)
Can there be a place where this is not shoved in our face everyday?
Yes.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Media narrative pushing : https://www.coveringclimatenow.org/ [coveringclimatenow.org]
It's basically activism and opinion manipulation, it's not organic, they actually organize and coordinate to do these pushes to affect public opinions.
This isn't "something happened and people report it" news. This is "we pick something and everyone reports it so the public thinks what we want them to think".
Send in the clowns (Score:1)
Iâ(TM)m sure this thread wonâ(TM)t devolve into stupidity... nope, no chance of that happening.
Not likely. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not likely. (Score:4, Insightful)
Did America and China agree to stop all CFCs? Yup. Did both stop it? America did. Obviously China did not.
Liars and cowards like you Crimson Tide/Caffeinated Bacon, will continue to lie and post such trash, even double posting as AC.
As the limey keeps telling you, go back to your bog. You are a real git (or whanker or whatever it is that he calls you).
WindBourne, why do you always lie? (Score:2)
Did America and CHina agree to stop all CO2 production? Nope. We agreed to lower it, which America continues to do, while CHina's continues to rise.
From the National Geographi climate change report.Published September 19, 2019 [nationalgeographic.com]
United States: Where to begin? CAT already ranked U.S. Paris targets as “insufficient.” With the Trump Administration’s ongoing hostility toward climate action, it now categorizes the country’s efforts as “critically insufficient,” their lowest ranking. Among the swings that the present administration has taken at its predecessor’s climate policy: It has attempted to roll back the Clean Power Plan; sought to relax vehicle efficiency standards to such an extent that even vehicle manufacturers have objected; and announced plans to weaken regulations to limit HFC emissions and regulation of methane leaks from oil and gas production.
The administration has been working to actively censor climate science within its own agencies, and has established a climate change review panel tasked with questioning the findings of the country’s National Climate Assessment. The leader of that panel is a climate change denier who has stated that “the demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler.”
CAT estimates that, if implemented fully, the administration’s policies could by 2030 cause an increase in the U.S.’s annual greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to the total annual emissions of the state of California.
The administration has signaled its intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement in 2020.
America agreed to a specific target. That was already considered "insufficient". And it's not even close to meeting that low bar.
America was ranked in the lowest category of "barely trying" along with Saudi Arabia and Russia.
The only liar here is you WindBourne. Which I have shown repeatedly before. And will happily do again whenever you need reminding.
You keep calling me a liar, but are still yet to show even a single lie
Caffeinated Bacon, always lying and manipulating (Score:2)
However, if the CAT were to rate the US NDC of 26–28% below 2005 levels by 2025 (incl. LULUCF), it would be rated “Insufficient.” The “Insufficient” rating indicates that the US’s NDC in 2025 is not consistent with holding warming to below 2C, let alone limiting it to 1.5C as required under the [climateactiontracker.org]
WindBourne always lying and manipulating (Score:2)
As always, you didn't finish reading or understand your own link.
The bit you quoted was only considering the target idiot. The target is 'insufficient'.
If the CAT were to rate the US’s projected emissions levels in 2025 under current policies, we would rate the US “Highly insufficient,” indicating that the US’s current policies in 2025 are not consistent with holding warming to below 2C, let alone limiting it to 1.5C as required under the Paris Agreement, and are instead consistent with warming between 3C and 4C: if all countries were to follow the US’s approach, warming could reach over 3C and up to 4C. This means the US’s current policies are not in line with any interpretation of a “fair” approach to the former 2C goal, let alone the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C limit.
The policies to achieve that insufficient target...Highly insufficient.
America is doing a horrible job of meeting it's crappy target. But moron after moron always likes to claim America is 'meeting it's Paris Agreement'.
CAT estimates that, if implemented fully, the administration’s policies could by 2030 cause an increase in the U.S.’s annual greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to the total annual emissions of the state of California.
That's not decreasing...
How many WindBourne lies? (Score:2)
We agreed to lower it, which America continues to do,
The funny thing is, that America's emissions went up slightly last year, due to the massive economic boost that we had, no other reason.
So you're admitting you lied now?
1
America didn't just agree 'to lower it'. There was a specific target.
And America isn't on track to meet the target. So you lied about that too.
China is on track to meet it's 2020 and 2030 targets according to your own links.
4...
So, America is rated higher than China, based on REAL numbers, but, as Caffeinated Bacon was aware, they were bumped to the bottoms because America withdrew from Paris accord (which is now being rightly regarded as being WORTHLESS; kind of like Caffeinated Bacon).
No you didn't understand your own links (again, as always). So a lie (as always). Even if they weren't abandoning the targets. They would still be highly insufficient.
CAT estimates that, if implemented fully, the administration’s policies could by 2030 cause an increase in the U.S.’s annual greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to the total annual emissions of the state of California.
The policies are causing that. If America kept the policies it has now, they w
Who forgot to read his own link? (Score:1)
Chinese officials have reported during meetings organized under the Montreal Protocol that they have already identified some illegal CFC-11 production and prosecuted those involved.
Before 2012, the concentration of CFC-11 was dropping by around 0.8% per year, but the rate of decline slowed by half in 2013.
It's still dropping anyway. So heading in the right direction. Or is that only valid for America dropping and heading in the right direction?
Try to be a little bit consistent WindBourne. And no I don't mean your consistent lies. Try to have consistent logic and arguments.
A couple of small problems, though (Score:2, Insightful)
It's nice that the ozone layer is repairing itself.
The problem is that, by being so soon, it means that the science they were touting in the 80s and 90s was overstated in some fundamental aspects.
We were told, back then, that we absolutely needed to completely ban ozone-depleting CFCs before the ozone layer would start to rebuild. That "absolutely" did not happen. Sure, most of the industrialized countries switched to other CFCs and related compounds that were supposedly ozone-safe, but several other countr
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is that the "science" hasn't addressed the actual science involved.
When you keep making predictions that are off by a factor of two or three, and always in the same direction, you're not really doing science any more.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:A couple of small problems, though (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you have a citation? This sounds unlikely from the scientific papers I have seen about this topic (but I also haven't looked much).
Re: (Score:2)
it means that the science had some fundamental flaws
No the problem was that scientist felt that politicians wouldn't move as fast as they did on the topic. It was from lessons learned in the whole leaded gasoline and acid rain that a lot of people were trying to set when CFC levels would actually come down. The whole CFC thing has been one of those rare moments where the governments of the world were all like, "okay".
Climate deniers: take note ... (Score:5, Informative)
Climate deniers: take note ....
Humans discovered that a certain types of gas caused ozone depletion, and ozone is vital for protecting our planet. These gases was used in refrigeration. Action was taken globally, and the ozone layer recovered.
It is called the Montreal Protocol [wikipedia.org], and it was spearheaded by Ronald Reagan, and Brian Mulrooney, and both are conservatives.
So, next time your right leaning conservative climate denying friends start parroting about climate change is not real, or it is not man made, or it is too late to do anything about it, point them to this success story where a global problem was identified, its cause pin pointed, and global action taken to remedy the problem for all of us.
Green house gas is wider problem given the wide array of sources, but a) the sources are known, b) the warming is real, and c) actions are needed.
Re: (Score:1)
Guess I should be the one to point out that in this case, the reason why people dealt with the issue it's because it could be verifiable without a doubt. You could show with next-to-zero problems how these gases were causing problems. And despite this, we still deal with the same issues of countries in Africa, SEA and China continuing to use those gases in every method of manufacturing. The "problem with the climate change" rote, is it's 100+ years of ever-moving goal posts which is supposed to be based
Re: (Score:3)
Except, of course, that the Montreal Protocol didn't do this. At least, according to the science.
Because, as people who are actually familiar with the issue know, the ozone layer wasn't even supposed to START getting better for another few decades - and that was only if everyone held to the Protocol.
CFCs have a looooong half-life in the atmosphere (CFC-13? 640 years!), and the "ozone depletion level" wasn't supposed to drop below the critical amount until at least 2050. That was only if everyone stopped mak
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The cost/difficulty associated with replacing most of CO2 sources is astronomically high, practically speaking, impossible for our society.
I guess we'll just have to wait for fossil fuels to run out, then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I guess we'll just have to wait for fossil fuels to run out, then.
Burning fossil fuels is a very common way to start a combustion process, but not the only one. If you need combustion to perform whatever action (e.g., treat certain raw material to generate the final product which you want), CO2 would appear no matter how you start the process, either via burning some fuel or by increasing the temperature in whatever other way until a combustion occurs. Even today, we don't know many energy sources, understood as ways to notably intensify a starting less relevant action. We know how to burn stuff. We know how to take advantage from what already burns/moves (e.g., sun, wind, with many limitations and with a few applications).
Of course we have an alternative: carbon-less fuel. If a chemical compound does not consist of carbon, burning it does not emit carbon dioxide. Hydrogen (H2) can be burnt, and we get pure water (H2O) as a result. Surely, it would be best to burn as few combustible as possible and do not waste energy. For short distances (2-10 km), the bicycle without a motor is the vehicle best suited. For even shorter distances a walk by feet is possible. We shall organize ourselves quickly, so that we do not need to trave
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You had some good points.
But this is clearly inaccurate.
Cars, for example, are a very small part of the problem, even transportation as a whole is a small part of the problem.
Transport is America's biggest polluter [epa.gov]. Bigger than electricity production. Bigger than industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Every other part is still smaller though. It's still the biggest part.
And cars & SUV's [epa.gov] (light duty vehicles on the chart) are 59% of transport. Not exactlly a small part either. It's a majority...
Thats ok, I'm just doing the same. Most people don't realise and ignore how much transport and cars do impact the levels of CO2. Just 'light duty vehicles' passenger cars basically, by themselves are about 17% of all CO2. Similar to industry's 22%.
Transportation has also been rising every year recently [epa.gov] and pr
Re: (Score:2)
Highlander 2 (Score:2)
Thank God the world saw the danger, and came together to ensure that a movie like Highlander 2 never became relevant or prescient, avoiding a potential catastrophe where someone might watch it again.
Just in time for humanity's end (Score:2)
Woe to him that is around to witness the completed regeneration of the ozone layer. The earth will be a hot, unstable mess by then.