Ozone hole shrinks to the smallest size

This is great news as I live in New Zealand and it effects me directly.

Is this connected to the climate change steps being taken by different countries?

In the year 2000 the ozone hole stretched over a vast area of 29 million kilometers which has reduced significantly by 7 million kilometers to 22 million kilometers in 2010. Analysts believe that the hole would take around 40 more years to completely disappear.

The reduction in size has been largely due to the reduction in use of the CFC gases which were regarded as the major causes for the depletion of the Ozone layer.

topnews.net.nz...

Great stuff.

What next?

Stop Global Warming?

Many are starting to believe Global Warming is a hoax

The money waste is not worth it blablabla..

Thoughts

oz

it was a hoax and a confirmed one at that lol... use the search to find the thread about it ..

reply to post by Reaper2137

Rather than take your word for it and spent time trying to prove your point, why not enlighten us? Add some links to your post perhaps.

Originally posted by oozyism
This is great news as I live in New Zealand and it effects me directly.

Is this connected to the climate change steps being taken by different countries?

The reduction in size has been largely due to the reduction in use of the CFC gases which were regarded as the major causes for the depletion of the Ozone layer.

The answer is right there is the part of the article you quoted. The CFC issue (from air conditioners) is a different issue than the carbon issue (supposedly a major cause of global warming).

So, we did something right by switching away from CFCs! At least it looks like it so far.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


What about the positioning of the hole?

What caused the hole to be in the position where it is? Was more gases released in the souther hemisphere, or is there some other force playing part?

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

What about the positioning of the hole?

What caused the hole to be in the position where it is? Was more gases released in the souther hemisphere, or is there some other force playing part?

www.theozonehole.com...

Why does the ozone hole form over Antarctica ? The answer is essentially 'because of the weather in the ozone layer'. In order for rapid ozone destruction to happen, clouds (known as PSCs, Stratospheric Clouds Mother of Pearl or Nacreous Clouds) have to form in the ozone layer. In these clouds surface chemistry takes place. This converts chlorine or bromine (from CFCs and other ozone depleting chemicals) into an active form, so that when there is sunlight, ozone is rapidly destroyed. Without the clouds, there is little or no ozone destruction. Only during the Antarctic winter does the atmosphere get cold enough for these clouds to form widely through the centre of the ozone layer. Elsewhere the atmosphere is just too warm and no clouds form.

They also talk about the recovery:

Is the ozone hole recovering ? Some reports in the media suggest that the ozone layer over Antarctica is now recovering. This message is a little confused. Recent measurements at surface monitoring stations show that the loading of ozone destroying chemicals at the surface has been dropping since about 1994 and is now about 6% down on that peak. The stratosphere lags behind the surface by several years and the loading of ozone depleting chemicals in the ozone layer is at or near the peak. Satellite measurements show that the rate of decline in ozone amount in the upper stratosphere is slowing, however the total ozone amount is still declining.

And back to your original question about global warming:

Global warming and the ozone hole. The ozone hole is a completely different phenomenon to global warming, however there are links between them. The ozone hole is caused by ozone depleting chemicals in the atmosphere, which have been produced by industry, for example CFCs. One link is that CFCs are also 'greenhouse gasses'. Enhanced global warming is a probable consequence of increasing amounts of 'greenhouse gasses', such as carbon dioxide and methane, in the atmosphere. Although the surface of the earth warms, higher up the atmosphere cools, thus increasing the area where stratospheric clouds can form. This makes a larger area susceptible to ozone depletion and provides another link between the two issues.

So I was right about ozone and global warming being different issues, but there is a link I wasn't aware of explained in that citation.

I learned something!

reply to post by oozyism


I think the most important relation it has to Global Climate Change is the fact that humanity identified a measurable negative impact we were having on the planet. That we then took steps to mitigate this impact. Leading to a positive change, or the healing of the Ozone Layer.

It also points out how contrary to the belief of many that humans CAN have a measurable impact on planetary systems. Impacts that are detrimental to both humans and the planet as a whole.

reply to post by oozyism


that is a great news

now let us tell those companies that are destroying rainforests to stop and we will see what happens to climate change which used to be called global warming

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

What about the positioning of the hole?

What caused the hole to be in the position where it is? Was more gases released in the souther hemisphere, or is there some other force playing part?

from
www.abovetopsecret.com...


================================================

if you presumed that AGW was about climate and environment, your approach would be worthwhile,. but then we're living in a world motivated by other factors.....


i suggest you took into account that Mt. Erebus seems to emit halogens, which can only destroy ozone. volcanic plumes tend to rise, too and while i haven't yet found anything tangible on halogen emissions on the Northern hemisphere, it'd be worthwhile to investigate, imho.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

The discharge rates of halogens in aerosols and gases emitted from Mount Erebus between December 1986 and January 1991 were estimated by combining element-to-sulfur ratios on filter samples with SO2 output measured by COSPEC. The halogen and sulfur content of the gas vary in a quasi-cyclical pattern possibly because of a heterogeneous distribution of volatiles in the Erebus magmatic system. The emission rates of HF and HCl have increased twofold since 1986 reaching 6 and 13.3 Gg/yr, respectively, in 1991, making Erebus an important contributor of halogens to the Antarctic atmosphere.

two random observations:

these halogens won't last long, they aren't nearly as inert as CFCs are, therefore a drop in emissions would yield a more immediate improvement.

Eyjafjallajokull (Iceland) emitted fluorine this year or so i've heard, so i'd expect ozone depletion in the North, for a while at least.
==========================================================



it all boils down to two options: either the model was bunk (likely, btw) and the half life of CFCs is significantly shorter or there are other factors at play. Nothing will keep them from claiming 'success' while ignoring any unexpected increase in size at a later point in time, though.