Most folks would think that a “hole” is a lack of something, but in this case it is a thinning of the ozone. A true graphic with a scale -
A good detailed description here -
Posted on 07/05/2016 7:56:12 AM PDT by Rio
A nearly three-decade-old ban on chlorofluorocarbons is gradually healing the hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica, according to a newly published study.
The analysis, published in the journal Science, found that the Antarctic ozone hole shrunk by more than 4 million square kilometers -- roughly half the area of the contiguous United States -- between its peak level in 2000 and readings last year.
Researchers attributed the findings to a drop in atmospheric chlorine that originated from chlorofluorocarbons, which were virtually banned worldwide in 1987 under the Montreal Protocol.
CFCs were formerly used in dry cleaning, refrigeration and aerosols, but they were also blamed for the ozone hole, which opens in the Antarctic spring and summer as chlorine reacts with sunlight and clouds formed at cold atmospheric temperatures.
"Aren’t we amazing humans, that we did something that created a situation that we decided collectively, as a world, ‘Let’s get rid of these molecules?’” asked MIT atmospheric chemist and lead author Susan Soloman. "We got rid of them, and now we’re seeing the planet respond.”
The readings also, for the first time, found fluctuations in the decline due to varying volcanic activity. In 2015, the ozone hole reached a record size despite the drop in chlorine, researchers said, due to increased clouds caused by small particles from the Chilean volcano Calbuco.
Scientists, however, said that the broader pattern remained promising and lauded the "first fingerprints of healing." Solomon said that absent significant volcanic eruptions, the hole should continue to shrink and close entirely by the middle of the century.
Or, you can believe that the “ozone hole” shrunk naturally as it always does.
“except when it didn’t” should be in the title too
I suspect this is such total B.S., it should get the Golden Fickle Finger of Fate Award.
... and how it appears that a single volcanic eruption puts more damaging particulate in the air than human beings ever can.
And if it took 40 years (Not 3 decades... the CFC bans started in 76, yes?) then are we to assume that the damage started in 1895 ?
All those Victorian aerosol cans and the millions of Duesenbergs must have done this.
The size of the hole is shrinking but what is the effect.
Here:
"The readings also, for the first time, found fluctuations in the decline due to varying volcanic activity. In 2015, the ozone hole reached a record size despite the drop in chlorine, researchers said, due to increased clouds caused by small particles from the Chilean volcano Calbuco. "
Wait a minute! What was that last part? ...except in 2015... it was largest... because volcano?
And by the way, if less ozone created more clouds at lower temperatures over the polar region, did it cause global warming or global cooling? Have we found a way to combat global warming here?
I find no credibility in this piece.
Who paid for it?
What answer do they want to hear?
Her employers and associations are quite a rogue's gallery. Read more here:
and how it appears that a single volcanic eruption puts more damaging particulate in the air than human beings ever can.
#######################################################
At the time of Mt. St. Helens eruption, I read that that eruption had spewed more pollution into the air than mankind had in recorded history.
There’s only one solution ban volcanic eruptions!
Most folks would think that a “hole” is a lack of something, but in this case it is a thinning of the ozone. A true graphic with a scale -
A good detailed description here -
I also find it interesting that Gore predicted calamitous deadlines again and again, but when those dates came..., well, we’re still here.
None the less, they make more bold predictions.
It’s what they do.
What arrogance.
“There’s only one solution ban volcanic eruptions!”
Haven’t you been paying attention ?! You don’t want to BAN them, you to want to get them to buy carbon offsets !
If everyone buys the carbon offsets then the bar that Al Gore drew won’t go up to the ceiling and kill us all !
The southern hemisphere is mostly ocean, and uninhabited.
Yet we are to believe that northern hemisphere pollution, spiraling northward, made the the difference? And that other factors of which volcanic eruptions is one, are not dominant?
Yes, “What arrogance!” from these government grant funded, pseudo science, weasels.
Uh huh. I’m thinking that if they banned the real cause of the ozone hole it would have closed completely by now.
Side-stepping whether the ban has actually been the cause of the restoration of the ozone layer, the ban worked because it was a universal ban (except on those compounds for which there weren’t practical substitutes). The Montreal Protocol wasn’t a partial ban, capping emissions in some countries and leaving emissions uncapped in other countries, like Kyoto. Nor did the Montreal Protocol involve BIG subsidies from the highly advanced countries (who had to do the cutting) to the developing countries (which didn’t have to cut anything).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol
Even if the science behind the Kyoto Agreement were correct, the economics of it would have meant that there would be no NET reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide. The reductions in the countries with the caps would be off-set by the increases in the countries without the caps. Except, I don’t have to say “would be.” This is what has happened. The economics has proven correct. So, the Kyoto Agreement is just another case of whack-a-Mole. The Kyoto Agreement merely shifted industrial production from the highly advanced economies to the developing countries, contributing to the economic plight of the working class in the highly advanced economies.
The Paris Agreement is hardly any different. Again, the highly advanced economies are called up to do all the heavy lifting in terms of cutting back on their use of carbon-based fuel, and also in terms of making payments to the developing countries. The only twist is that developing countries are asked to develop non-binding targets for their increases in their emissions going out to the exhaustion of the world’s entire supply of proven reserves.
So, the success of the Montreal Protocol doesn’t say that the Kyoto Agreement has any chance of reducing the emission of new carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, no less stabilizing or reducing the amount of carbon dioxide already there.
Stupid science tricks. The ozone hole is smaller during a solar maximum. Which was last year. The hole will open up to record levels in 4 years.
I’m wearing a red necktie and see no elephants therefore red neckties repel elephants. We have no evidence the ozone hole might not have shrunk despite the ban
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.