Earth's protective ozone layer, which was notably thinning in 1980, may be fully recovered by mid-century, climate scientists said on Wednesday.

 

Ozone in the stratosphere, outside the polar regions, stopped thinning in 1997, the scientists found after analyzing 25 years worth of observations.

 

The ozone layer shields the planet from the sun's harmful ultraviolet radiation, but human-made chemicals -- notably the chlorofluorocarbons found in some refrigerants and aerosol propellants -- depleted this stratospheric ozone, causing the protective layer to get thinner.

 

The scientists said the ozone layer's comeback is due in large part to compliance with an 1987 international agreement called the Montreal Protocol, which aimed to limit emissions of ozone-depleting chemicals.

 

"These results confirm the Montreal Protocol and its amendments have succeeded in stopping the loss of ozone in the stratosphere," said Eun-Su Yang of the Georgia Institute of Technology, who led a team that analyzed the data.

 

"At the current recovery rate ... the global ozone layer could be restored to 1980 levels -- the time that scientists first noticed the harmful effects human activities were having on atmospheric ozone -- sometime in the middle of this century," Yang said in a statement.

 

While ozone is a beneficial shield in the stratosphere, some six to 31 miles above Earth's surface, the ozone encountered at ground level can be damaging to lung tissue and plants and is a major component of smog.

 

The analysis was published in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres.

 

Researchers from NASA and other agencies reported in June that the so-called ozone hole over Antarctica would recover by around 2068, which is some 20 years later than previously expected.

 

The Antarctic ozone hole is a massive loss of ozone that occurs each spring in the Southern Hemisphere.

 

A similar, though smaller and less severe, ozone hole has been reported in the Arctic.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060830/sc_nm/...onment_ozone_dc

Good to read, International agreements do work.

 

BTW, Credit to California who has decided to cap emissions with or without the federal government.

Sorry, I didn't know articles posted from August 30th shouldn't be posted.

Yeah this was news about a year ago, but the mainstream media didn't give it any play until now.

 

Suck a dick Al Gore!

sure it isnt political rhetoric?

Yeah this was news about a year ago, but the mainstream media didn't give it any play until now.

 

Because the story doesn't instill fear into the hearts of the American people.

So the government regulations that some of you decry.... are working to reverse the damage that some of you deny exist.... because it limited industrial pollution that some of you claim isn't the cause.

 

And this somehow looks bad for environmentalists and Al Gore.

 

Oh btw, it's amazing how we can ignore the amazing number of scientists that backup Gore, and the consensus that exists on man causing global warming-basically dismiss them as having an agenda. But when any scientist shows the opposite conclusion..the scientific community is objective again.

Just imagine when the third world starts to have emissions controls like the developed countries. Good to see the Earth is healing itself, there is really no need to politicize this. It's a universally positive thing. I can't believe people are getting on a soapbox about the environment being better for future generations. Some of you guys are warped.

Just imagine when the third world starts to have emissions controls like the developed countries. Good to see the Earth is healing itself, there is really no need to politicize this. It's a universally positive thing. I can't believe people are getting on a soapbox about the environment being better for future generations. Some of you guys are warped.

 

I think you hit on the point that many environmentalists have to also address. How do we get third world countries to have emission controls? Im not sure we can. Cheaper cleaner fuel has to be found.

Yeah this was news about a year ago, but the mainstream media didn't give it any play until now.

 

Because the story doesn't instill fear into the hearts of the American people.

So the government regulations that some of you decry.... are working to reverse the damage that some of you deny exist.... because it limited industrial pollution that some of you claim isn't the cause.

 

I read this five or six times and I still don't understand what you are trying to say.

 

The BASIC science behind my posts is that CFC emissions are completely different than CO2 emissions. You regulate both of them individually.

 

Have you ever taken Orgo before?

 

Well, it's simpler than orgo but the basic idea is that O3 (ozone) can be oxidized easily. A common oxidizing agent is Cl which can be found in the CFCs. After the chemical reaction you are left with ClO and regular diatomic oxygen.

 

 

Not all environmental regulations are bad. This one is particular prevented us all from dying of skin cancer. What Gore is calling for is more in the realm of the ridiculous.

Only the latter part of my post should probably be in response to some the past points youve made. Im not sure who has what positions on this anymore. I know some people think all global warming is natural, some people deny, or at least used to deny, that global warming is actually happening, and some people argue that government regulations don't fix anything. My point was to say this article runs counter to all three of those propositions. It doesnt necessarily undermine any other arguments, like those of Gore.

 

But I've always said that I prefer to place my trust by and large in the consensus of the scientific community. Ive never seen Al Gore's movie. But I do know he got quite a bit of scientific support. I believe you said, or I think you said, that I shouldnt put my trust in scientific conclusions because scientists have agendas(which I still consider not as influencing as corporations paying for scientific conclusions). So why should I ever trust what the consensus says?

If you haven't seen Gore's film, then I wouldn't say that he does not have enough evidence. He does a good job of making his case. His proposed methods for solving the heating of the globe aren't extreme, either. He tells the audience that current technology right now can begin to stop the steep increase in global temperatures and climates.

 

I recommend renting it once it goes on DVD, it's worth a watch. You really need to see it before bashing it.

Basically, what I'm saying is that in the issue of ozone depletion the science is SO SIMPLE that you really can't argue either way...there isn't much room for a grey zone. As I mentioned above, ozone is easily oxidized. We noticed a blatant hole in the ozone layer, pinpointed its oxidation to a few manmade chemicals and eliminated them.

 

The BASIC science behind my posts is that CFC emissions are completely different than CO2 emissions. You regulate both of them individually.

 

Have you ever taken Orgo before?

 

Well, it's simpler than orgo but the basic idea is that O3 (ozone) can be oxidized easily. A common oxidizing agent is Cl which can be found in the CFCs. After the chemical reaction you are left with ClO and regular diatomic oxygen.

Actually, Cl (the chlorine radical) is the reducing agent in that reaction.

 

Ozone is a good oxidizing agent, and the Cl atom is a good reducing agent; hence, ozone is easily reduced--not oxidized.

 

/just being a science tool

This has been news for way more than a year, but anywho, this is a great thing. This shows that we can overcome environmental that we cause and that environmental damage due to our development can be corrected.

(this user is wary of taking anything at face value..) show me the proof that it is getting better.

I think it was George Carlin who said something to the effect of,

 

"the earth is going to be fine, its humans that have a lot to worry about"

My concern on the numbers is accuracy. The CFC levels cited are without HCFCs, and older figures do not make the distinction between types. So I don't know from the data if CFC levels are actually lower. Or if a % of CFCs are just not being counted any longer.

It's a good thing we are starting to treat the environment better, but the yellow journalistic mainstream media needs to learn that a period of warmth could be a natural pattern of the atmosphere, not a period of human ignorance rapidly destroying the climate of our planet.

All I'm going to say is that the problem with the global warming debate is a causation debate. I believe it exists, but scientists disagree on the actual cause.