The Ozone Hole Above Antarctica Has Grown To Three Times the Size of Brazil (space.com) 85
According to the European Space Agency (ESA), the ozone hole above Antarctica reached approximately 10 million square miles in area on Sept. 16, 2023 -- making it one of the largest seasonal holes ever observed. Space.com reports: One possible reason for the higher-than-normal growth is the Hunga Tonga volcanic eruption in January 2022, which introduced massive quantities of water vapor into the air. "The water vapor could have led to the heightened formation of polar stratospheric clouds, where chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) can react and accelerate ozone depletion," said Inness. Yet despite experiencing large seasonal growth this year, the ozone hole is still decreasing in size overall. "Based on the Montreal Protocol and the decrease of anthropogenic ozone-depleting substances, scientists currently predict that the global ozone layer will reach its normal state again by around 2050," said Claus Zehner, ESA's mission manager for Copernicus Sentinel-5P.
Re:The next cash-grab (Score:5, Insightful)
You know the ozone layer crisis was fixed by humans assuming responsibility and changing their behavior, right?
Re: (Score:1)
That OP was clearly generated by AI.
I reckon if you train LLMs on internet conversations, trolling is exactly what they'll learn.
BTW... Since no one has asked, how many Manhattans is a Brazil?
Re: The next cash-grab (Score:1)
144,828 mhns to a brz or about 7 brz to 1 million mhns
Re: (Score:2)
AI is still stupider than its name suggests, it seems.
Re: The next cash-grab (Score:2)
AI can't outwit AS (actual stupidity)
Re: (Score:2)
All A, no I, you might say.
Re:The next cash-grab (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The next cash-grab (Score:5, Insightful)
Governments responded by getting together to ban the cause of the depletion
Yes, but CFCs were a way way way easier problem to solve than GHGs.
required corporations to change to less harmful alternatives.
Yes, this is what made it easy. Manufacturers changed how they made a few products in a way that was mostly invisible to normal people.
Addressing global warming is nothing like that. Everyone will have to change in very visible ways.
e.g. stop granting new oil & gas drilling licences
Uh, no. Joe Biden kissing up to Maduro and fist-bumping MSB was an admission of the folly of a supply-side solution. Cutting off oil production before we have alternatives leaves us at the mercy of our geopolitical adversaries and creates a political backlash from the denialists.
We need EVs, more lithium production, more copper, more cobalt, more wind turbines, more solar, all in place and working. Then we can shut down fuel production.
Re:The next cash-grab (Score:5, Insightful)
We need EVs...
A demand-side solution isn't terribly feasible when we (as a society) are still fully committed to squeezing the working populace for every last cent while keeping wages stagnant and raising prices across the board. If the solution depends on the population replacing their cars and they can't afford to do so [jalopnik.com], are we just screwed?
Re: (Score:2)
"Supply side" means increasing the cost of fuel.
"Demand side" means decreasing the cost of alternatives.
It's silly to say demand side is worse for working people. That is backward.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
e.g. stop granting new oil & gas drilling licences
Not granting licenses to an in demand product does nothing to stop consumption. All it does it cede political power to other countries who don't give a flying fuck. The correct solution is to eliminate the demand by finding alternatives.
Remember the solution to the ozone layer was not to ban production of CFCs, but rather to ban their use.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
When you stop granting licences, production falls, & prices go up.
Then the profits go to those who don't cut production, such as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia, while the higher prices create a backlash from voters that destroys the political will to address the problem.
When prices go up, the alternatives become a whole lot more attractive.
That doesn't help when the alternatives aren't available. EVs are already produced at the full capacity of the factories. Extra demand just means higher prices for the available EVs, not more sales.
That is if there isn't enough latency for other producers to ramp up production to meet the demand.
The Saudis have huge spare capacity and thousands of inactive wells. They can increase production by fli
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you stop granting licences, production falls, & prices go up.
Oil is fungible and global reserves held by countries who don't give a flying fuck mean they control prices. Literally. That has been a primary global concern for the past 60 years - OPEC controls the price and they don't care about global warming.
If you stop granting licenses all you're doing is making local supply scares. I'm sure the Saudi prince will fly in on his winged horse eager to offer you a "helping" hand from your price increase, right after he grants the licenses the west chose not to.
We won't
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine if all the leftist politicians using global warming as an excuse to push their economic and societal policies actually attempted to stop global warming instead.
I would be fascinated to hear your list of what you think "leftist politicians" (or for that matter, politicians of any direction) could do to stop global warming, that are different (and more effective) than what they are doing now.
And that's not sarcasm: I actually would like to hear effective ideas for a different approach.
Some ideas [Re:The next cash-grab] (Score:3)
I would be fascinated to hear your list of what you think "leftist politicians" (or for that matter, politicians of any direction) could do to stop global warming, that are different (and more effective) than what they are doing now. And that's not sarcasm: I actually would like to hear effective ideas for a different approach.
Interesting. I applaud you for actually answering the question and trying to come up with solutions.
Some comments:
Just repealing Kyoto treaty would be a good start.
You're aware that Kyoto protocol was never ratified by the U.S.? We can't "repeal" it, since we never ratified it in the first place.
That thing not only doesn't help, it is actively harmful. It just makes production relocate to China, after which they go *completely* off-rails, environment-wise, because heck, why not, we're in China?
So far, then, your proposal is a wash. You're not proposing doing anything about reducing CO2 emissions, just kvetching about which country the emissions come from.
If you really must tax CO2 then tax everyone equally.
Wait, did you just propose we should institute a world government that can tax people in China as we
Re: The next cash-grab (Score:3, Interesting)
Except that government regulation had nothing to do with the reduction in ozone. You can find the graphs with timelines, by the time government regulations were rolled out, the problem had already been significantly reduced. The ozone maximum was reached in 1979, the Montreal protocol implemented in 1989, a good decade after the measurements had already started dropping.
Not only did the regulation not make a change, the Montreal protocol replaced CFC with HFC which were later found out to be much more dange
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, wtf? I lost a refrigerant that could easily turn my car into an ice box in summer in exchange for one that kinda cools ok but isn't better for the atmosphere? Jfc, I seriously believed all this time we had made a worthwhile sacrifice on that one.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, wtf? I lost a refrigerant that could easily turn my car into an ice box in summer in exchange for one that kinda cools ok but isn't better for the atmosphere? Jfc, I seriously believed all this time we had made a worthwhile sacrifice on that one.
We did. guruevi 's post is factually inaccurate. (You might notice that he didn't link any sources... except for one link, which showed the opposite of what he thought it did).
Re: (Score:2)
https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
Note that this graph starts around the implementation of the Montreal protocols.
Re: (Score:2)
https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org] Note that this graph starts around the implementation of the Montreal protocols.
And shows that the rate of growth in the ozone hole stops abruptly when it was implemented.
Hurray for humans! We showed that at least one problem can be solved.
Re: (Score:2)
It should've reduced if you use the causation metrics, CFCs are broken down by UV radiation in a few years, you should see a reduction, not an increase after the 70s and no leveling off in the early 2000s, but a reduction.
Lifetimes [Re: The next cash-grab] (Score:2)
It should've reduced if you use the causation metrics, CFCs are broken down by UV radiation in a few years,
Not that fast.
Rigby et al 2013 gives atmospheric lifetimes of 52 years for CFC-11, 112 years for CFC-12 and 109 years for CFC-113.
Re: (Score:2)
The Ozone depletion happens because CFC's breakdown. If they are stable, as you suggest, they wouldn't cause any reactions and we wouldn't have Ozone depletion. That's like textbook chemistry on the theory of Ozone layer depletion.
You can't have it both ways, either CFC are in the atmosphere and are inert for 100+ years, which is the whole reason CFC are used as a cooling gas over eg. methane which was the (rather dangerous) choice for fridges of the 40s, or they are broken down and deplete the ozone layer.
Re: (Score:2)
The Ozone depletion happens because CFC's breakdown.
Ozone depletion happens by a catalytic process. Catalysts are not consumed in a reaction. See my links in the other thread.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, if that is true, you should still see a perhaps slow(er) but continuous reduction in CFC measurements in the atmosphere, as they break down rather quickly (as shown before) in UV radiation. As such, the reactions in the ozone layer should slow down as CFC reduce naturally in number.
Whether or not they are catalysts for another (unspecified) process does not really matter, CFC have supposedly been eliminated from emissions, so we should see a recovery. We're not seeing it, matter of fact, we're seeing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It did absolutely nothing:
https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
Right... and wrong. [Re: The next cash-grab] (Score:2, Informative)
Except that government regulation had nothing to do with the reduction in ozone. You can find the graphs with timelines, by the time government regulations were rolled out, the problem had already been significantly reduced. The ozone maximum was reached in 1979, the Montreal protocol implemented in 1989, a good decade after the measurements had already started dropping.
First paragraph, +1 informative. Yes, the use of CFCs dropped before the Montreal protocol was implemented. I find this to be some of the most encouraging news that people never pay attention to: scientists found a problem, and people implemented a fix. Wow.
Not only did the regulation not make a change, the Montreal protocol replaced CFC with HFC which were later found out to be much more dangerous and damaging to the ozone layer
-1 uninformative:
"HFCs' contribution to ozone depletion is small compared to its predecessors. For example, trichlorofluoromethane, or CFC-11, a once common coolant that is no longer used, causes about 400 times more ozone depletion per unit mass than
Re: Right... and wrong. [Re: The next cash-grab] (Score:1)
I also forgot to mention that since both the Montreal and Kyoto protocols the use of both CFC and HFC has increased significantly because places like China and India donâ(TM)t care one bit what the west has to say about these things. So if we go with the correlation = causation that caused the whole ozone panic in the 80s and 90s, then you should be aware that since the 70s the data hasnâ(TM)t held. But I guess we are just recycling environmental panic for the new generation.
Wrong again (with links) [Re: Right... and wrong] (Score:2)
I also forgot to mention that since both the Montreal and Kyoto protocols the use of both CFC and HFC has increased significantly
Also wrong. See data here: https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
because places like China and India donâ(TM)t care one bit what the west has to say about these things.
There was a brief period from about 2014-2018 in which there was an unknown source of emission of CFC-11, believed to be from an unreported Chinese source or sources. https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com] But this source dropped to near zero after 2018, apparently from the Chinese cracking down on illegal manufacturing. As can be seen in figure 1 in the Nature paper, the overall trend has been a continuous decrease in CFC-11 concentration in the atmo
Re: (Score:2)
Feel free to explain the next statistic on the website you quoted (which is only the admitted output in economic data, it does not cover ): https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
If the Montreal/Kyoto protocols did anything, we would've seen a significant reduction in that graph.
And the brief period you mentioned, has been proven not to be brief nor ceased (this is from 2023 FYI):
https://acp.copernicus.org/art... [copernicus.org]
Thanks for the links [Re:Wrong again (with links)] (Score:2)
Feel free to explain the next statistic on the website you quoted (which is only the admitted output in economic data, it does not cover ): https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org] If the Montreal/Kyoto protocols did anything, we would've seen a significant reduction in that graph.
Nice data, thanks for the link.
We seem to be seeing different things in that graph. What I see is that after the Montreal protocol became effective on 1 January 1989, the rise in area of the ozone hole abruptly stops. The Montreal protocol seems amazingly effective. CFCs have a lifetime in the atmosphere of 40-150 years (according to Rowland and Malina's classic paper) [acs.org], so it's not unexpected that the drop is very slight over a period of 20 years.
And the brief period you mentioned [during which an unknown source has produced CFC/HFCs], has been proven not to be brief nor ceased (this is from 2023 FYI): https://acp.copernicus.org/art... [copernicus.org]
Thanks for the citation. The Nature paper I'd referenced wa
Re: (Score:2)
CFC's breakdown in 40-150y in-situ, in the atmosphere when under UV radiation from the sun, it's closer to 10.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In real simple terms then:
https://www.chemtube3d.com/a-l... [chemtube3d.com]
CFC cannot be inert for 40+ years and also gobble up Ozone. They either break down and gobble up Ozone, so cease emissions of CFC = immediate Ozone restoration (note: that hasn't happened in over half a century) or they weren't a problem (inert) or the problem would've been in the timelines of 50-100+ years later (once they start breaking down).
Re: (Score:2)
CFC cannot be inert for 40+ years and also gobble up Ozone. They either break down and gobble up Ozone, so cease emissions of CFC = immediate Ozone restoration (note: that hasn't happened in over half a century) or they weren't a problem (inert)
It is an odd thing for non-chemist to understand, but it turns out that catalysts cause reactions to happen but are not themselves consumed in the reaction.
In addition to the link I already gave, which you seem to have ignored, lifetimes of CFC and HFCs in the atmosphere are well documented in many many papers in the scientific literature. A few chosen at random include https://acp.copernicus.org/art... [copernicus.org]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]
https://acp.copernicus.org/art... [copernicus.org]
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/... [acs.org]
Re: (Score:2)
No, I have reviewed the science and those have done all the CFC testing in a lab. Not CFC in the atmosphere. CFC in a container is inert and can survive for decades or longer, yeah, genius, that's why we use them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, those were the days! Remember when we could all pull together to solve a problem? Scientists told us ozone was depleting & that we were causing it. Governments responded by getting together to ban the cause of the depletion...
And yet here we are. Damn near 40 years after the discovery of low ozone levels, with a hole. Even tried to blame that shit on a volcano.
We pulled together to 'solve' that problem about as well as we have 'solved' the problem of rural broadband in America. Give me a fucking break.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that has come into question, with greater understanding of how the atmosphere works.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you give a reference, because I haven't run across that questioning. (OTOH, somewhere in China is still releasing CFCs.)
Re: (Score:2)
You know the ozone layer crisis was fixed by humans assuming responsibility and changing their behavior, right?
The EPA had banned CFCs in 1978, years before we discovered low ozone levels and a "hole" in 1985. The EPA as usual took a long damn time to move the entire mountain range owned by Greed in order to make that happen. A "hole" was the easiest way to sell that problem.
Now I just have to go research what the original hole-closing predictions that were promised by the money-grabbers back in the 80s, because I highly doubt it was 2050, highlighting we have 'fixed' this problem about as well as rural broadband
Hunga-Tonga (Score:2)
According to Wikipedia:
Hunga-Tonga was the largest volcanic eruption since the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, and the most powerful eruption since the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa.
What is the difference between "largest" and "most powerful"?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Hunga-Tonga (Score:4, Informative)
What is the difference between "largest" and "most powerful"?
Poor wording. Hunga-Tonga was the largest volcanic eruption [that has happened since] the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, and the most powerful eruption since the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa.
https://www.llnl.gov/article/4... [llnl.gov]
Re:Hunga-Tonga (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks for the link.
I think what they are saying is that Hunga-Tonga was the largest in terms of volume displaced since Pinatubo and the most powerful in terms of instantaneous pressure since Krakatoa.
So Pinatubo pushed out a lot of magma but over a longer period, while Krakatoa had a bigger single explosive event.
And I care because? (Score:2)
Honest question here: the ozone hole in the northern hemisphere was of concern because of the local populations living under it. But in Antarctica, the only danger is skin cancers in penguins.
Unless the hole is drifting north of course.
Re:And I care because? (Score:5, Informative)
The hole over Antarctica is a symptom of a global reduction in stratospheric ozone. We use it because it is easy to measure. But the problem is global. Less ozone means more UV, more skin cancer, more crop damage, and more harm to many ecosystems.
Re: (Score:3)
Okay thanks. I didn't realize. I thought it was a purely local thing.
Re: And I care because? (Score:2)
The media is bad at science reporting. They've been getting the story consistently wrong for 40 years.
Re: (Score:2)
I had family in NZ and the general rule for us was whatever time it took you to burn in the USA, cut that down to 1/4 the time to burn in the southern hemisphere. So a couple hours on a beach in the North Island without using sunscreen could get you a second degree sunburn. Even worse if we went in January when the summer sun is most intense and we were already more sensitive because
"decrease of anthropogenic ozone-depleting" (Score:2)
But have they really? Do they measured all possible ones? Because illegal operations in china have had a habit of dumping this crap and in some cases some factories still producing CFCs or variations thereof.
Lets hope it - and the recent sudden temperature rise this year globally - are simply down to that volcano and not something a bit more long term and concerning.
Re: (Score:2)
IIUC, yest, its' decreased a lot. But you're also right that somewhere in China is releasing CFCs. IIUC (it's been awhile since I read the analysis) CFCs are easily detectable from orbit, so we do have accurate measures. And they're localisable enough that we know that it's somewhere in SE Asia. That it's China is a bit of a guess, but it's the most likely source.
Re: (Score:2)
IIUC, yest, its' decreased a lot. But you're also right that somewhere in China is releasing CFCs.
If I understand the Nature article correctly, that stopped abruptly in 2018. Check the inset in the top right corner of figure 1 here: https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
Won't change a thing (Score:1)
People who take it serious are already doing what they can and the rest wouldn't even care if cancer rates suddenly exploded hundredfold.
They'd simply start a new conspiracy nuttery how Biden makes them sick.
At this point, I doubt that we will do anything to save ourselves. And frankly, I don't even know anymore whether we should change that. Maybe it's better we remove ourselves from this planet and maybe in a couple million years, the next species developing sentience will be more sensible.
Or some aliens
The next species won't evolve (Score:2)
Maybe it's better we remove ourselves from this planet and maybe in a couple million years, the next species developing sentience will be more sensible.
If we seriously mess up the climate of this planet, it is doubful if there will ever be a next species that can evolve. Especially since the climate isn't the only thing on this planet we have messed up. e.g. We singlehandedly killed off more species than any natural desaster ever did.
Re: (Score:1)
IIUC, we're not yet up to the end of the Permian great extinction, but we're getting close.
Re: (Score:2)
Give it time. There is nothing we could possibly do to this planet that a couple million years without us fucking it up can't fix.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's better we remove ourselves from this planet and maybe in a couple million years, the next species developing sentience will be more sensible.
If we seriously mess up the climate of this planet, it is doubful if there will ever be a next species that can evolve. Especially since the climate isn't the only thing on this planet we have messed up. e.g. We singlehandedly killed off more species than any natural desaster ever did.
We are making changes to the planetary climate that will have negative effects, and, yes, will mess up ecosystems and probably kill species. But no, they are not at a level that humans won't survive. The planet has been far warmer than this before. We won't like it, but it's going too far to suggest that it's extinction for humans.
Especially since the climate isn't the only thing on this planet we have messed up. e.g. We singlehandedly killed off more species than any natural desaster ever did.
We have been, and are continuing to, kill off many species. But there have been extinctions before, some of them truly catastrophic. At most, a few million years for new species a
this is one of the reasons why flying on H2 may (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Are flights at 30,000 feet relevant to the ozone layer at 66,000-130,000 feet? Planes fly close to the level where there's already lots of water in the form of clouds and rain which I'd think would dwarf any water emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
And on top of that: The current plane fuels also have some severe side effects, it's not just that they generate CO2 when burned.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
But how big is that ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
... in football fields?
About 3 gob-smacking bananas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: But how big is that ... (Score:2)
There are 13 Texases to 1 Brazil. And 130,000,466 football fields in a Texas. So roughly 1.69 gigaFfs
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that is exactly what I needed to know, except it needs to be Australian football fields because Antarctica is in the southern hemisphere.
More fear mongering.. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The ozone layer is in a state of flux. Always has been and it always will be. Holes appear and disappear. What has changed is that 30 years ago people realized that they can make money off of this.
The EPA had already banned CFCs many years before we even knew about a 'hole' in the ozone.
And P.T. Barnum was born a lot longer than 30 years ago.
Please use standard units (Score:2)