E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
BIRA / IASB
This graphic shows the ozone hole over Antarctica in blue. The depletion in 2012 was smaller than any time in the past 10 years.
By Stephanie Pappas
LiveScience
Good news from Antarctica: The hole in the ozone layer is shrinking, new measurements reveal.
Ozone is a molecule made of three oxygen atoms. It's relatively highly concentrated in a particular layer of the stratosphere about 12 miles to 19 miles (20 to 30 kilometers) above Earth's surface. This ozone layer prevents ultraviolet light from reaching Earth's surface — a good thing, given that UV light causes sunburn and skin cancer.
Ever since the early 1980s, though, a hole in this layer has developed over Antarctica during September to November, decreasing ozone concentration by as much as 70 percent. The cause is human-produced chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were once heavily used in aerosols and refrigeration.
By international agreement, CFCs have been phased out of use. The policy has real effects, new satellite observations reveal. In 2012, the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica was smaller than it has ever been in the last 10 years.
The new observations, announced by the European Space Agency (ESA) on Friday, come from Europe's Met Op weather satellite, which has an instrument specifically designed to sense ozone concentrations. The findings suggest that the phase-out of CFCs is working, the ESA reports.
Antarctica is particularly vulnerable to ozone-depleting substances, because high winds cause a vortex of cold air to circulate over the continent. In the resulting frigid temperatures, CFCs are especially effective at depleting ozone. The result is that people in the Southern Hemisphere are at increased risk of exposure from UV radiation.
CFCs persist in the atmosphere for a long time, so it may take until the middle of the century for ozone concentrations to rebound to 1960s levels, the ESA reports. However, the hole in the ozone over Antarctica should completely close in the next few decades.
Follow Stephanie Pappas on Twitter @sipappas or LiveScience @livescience. We're also on Facebook and Google+.
- 50 Interesting Facts About The Earth
- Image Gallery: One-of-a-Kind Places on Earth
- Earth in the Balance: 7 Crucial Tipping Points
Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Leave a Comment:
James Lovelock, yes that James Lovelock (Mr. Green himself)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/jun/15/james-lovelock-fracking-greens-climate
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change
I think it is important to note here that many of the same anti-science conservative blowhards, Rush Limbaugh in particular, who currently deny any human influence on global climate change denied a generation ago that CFCs were a global problem. They railed about the economic cost of substituting safer chemicals for the CFCs being used for air conditioning and for aerosols, among other purposes and they invented conspiracy theories about the scientists who were warning the world of the consequences of continued use of CFCs. They were ignored and the developed countries of the world cooperated in the solution and the solution is working.
What? An international environmental agreement that works? That can't be true! [/sarc]
Not sure how anyone can take that windbag Dimbulb seriously but I guess there's still some gullible people left on the planet so he can make a living.
Ok, here are the arguments. The first argument has just been made. It is, "Oh you can't deny human influence on the ozone hole, it is smaller because we substituted safter chemicals for the CFCs for air conditioning nad aerosols". See don97524 The second argument is: "You see it is a natural fluctuation." The answer is simple: It's small now. The reason why it is small we don't know and until it begins to get big on a long term basis one cannot know why it is doing it. So leave it alone. Concentrate on other issues. Unfortunately, those who like the first argument cannot let it go. It is a religion to them.....kind of like the paganism of medieval days that worshipped the creation and not the Creator except it is now cloaked in fictitious science.
*sigh*
so like everything happens to gods plan and if there's a huge cloud of smog choking the citizens of Beijing DONT WORRY, thats the way it meant to be!
Spoken like a true denialist who doesn't think a couple of billion people chewing up all the panet's resources while pumping out mega-tons of pollution is a bad thing.
Um, Terry-2511266, so let me get this straight. People can provide concrete evidence that shows humans have an influence on global warming. But you consider them fanatical - people who "cannot let it go".
OR...
Those people who claim humans influence global warming are just flat out wrong.
So basically it's lose-lose for anyone who believes mankind has affected the climate, in your eyes.
Sounds like sour grapes to me.
Terry
Your argument that you see the hole in the ozone layer "as natural fluctuation" is bogus. You don't know anything about the natural fluctuation of the ozone layer because it was not even possible until the second half of the 20th century to measure the ozone in the upper atmosphere.
In the case of global climate change scientists have been able to determine both global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels for the past several hundred million years. They have also eliminated the "natural fluctuations" as the cause of the current temperature rise because such factors as variations in the Earth's orbit, the tilt of the Earth's axis, and the energy output of the Sun are quantifiable, and such factors as the changes in the positions of continents due to plate tectonics are too slow to cause the present rapid change in global temperatures.
Your argument of "natural fluctuations", just like the bogus arguments against human causation of ozone layer damage a generation ago, is intellectually dishonest because you present no evidence for either refuting the scientific theory or supporting your own rationale.
It's like if the doctor said that a man died by poisoning based on an autopsy and you claim that it it was instead "natural causes" but presented no evidence supporting your lame dissenting opinion.
actually, the chemistry that causes ozone depletion is only stable at very low temperatures,-50 or so. so an unuaually warm episode, like in 2002 will allow ozone to increase.
in other words, we DO know
Ok that's good news but what's up with the graph. It's shows that the ozone hole was nearly gone in 2002. So what happened between then and now? Does this run in cycles? and what happened between 2011 and 2012?
Stick with the picture books, Cycledude. You looked at the pretty pictures, but I guess you didn't read the article.
So, to answer your question as to what happened between 2002 and now, CFCs have been phased out of use.
see comment 3.5
the antarctic air was unusually warm in 2002, slowing ozone depletion that year
Ozone depletion takes place at very high altitude. The warmer air temperature was measured at the surface.
I am curious as to the implications of a greater ozone over the Earth and the "greenhouse" effect. If the thought is that global warming is man-made, and the Earth is self-correcting, why would we not think the today's climate change theories are essentially meaningless? (Though to me, 30 years of "redress" wouldn't appear to be enough to solve the ozone problem absent other things - especially considering the impact of developing countries like China on the environment at large). But if this logic held true then do we have a fire drill over nothing?
There's no one stopping you from treating them as 'meaningless' if you like. Perhaps humanity will change from fossil fuels to renewables right under your nose, as you're busy doing much more important things. You'll never even notice.
Thanks for the snarky reply. The point is, even if you change from fossil fuels to renewables, and Earth changes are caused by shifting magnetic poles, the point would be what?
Rick
The magnetic poles reverse themselves approximately every 500,000 years and have no effect on the composition of the atmosphere. You are talking nonsense.
Might the poles shift due to what is inside the Earth? Might that affect the melting poles? Might that affect water levels, vapor and gases emitted?
The poles almost certainly shift because of the Earth's iron-nickel core, but will have no effect on melting poles, water levels, or gases. Climate scientists know these things because they have studied climate over the past several hundred million years and have found no correlation of climate with magnetic pole reversals during all of that time.
the problem being that an "earth self-correction" would comprise of "correcting" the cause of the problem (too many people).
not a good thing for the people involved
Rick
Your statement that "the Earth is self-correcting" is very strange. It is true that the Earth is in a state of constant change, but self-correcting? I don't think so.
How exactly might you know?
The magnetic poles of the Earth have shifted over time. Action and reaction.
I just don't understand your term "self correcting." The Earth is in a constant state of change, but self-correcting implies that there exists some "correct" state that the Earth returns to ..... and I see no evidence of that.
SO LETS RAISE THE TAX ON OREO COOKIES!! YEA MAN THAT"LL WORK......you know what will make ozone? lightning!! get yo bug lights out early this spring!!....oh wait, ;maybe, just maybe, THE BIGGEST IONIZER AROUND is culping up o3 molecules? what the sun? not the sun man? nooooo way, that'd, that'd, why that'd by like so unscientific man.....besides we need that tax to throw money around the world, see.
ray smith
Apparently we have already solved the man-made ozone problem ...... obviously with no assistance from anti-science, willfully ignorant ray smith.
anti-science, willfully ignorant ray smith???
inflame as you wish but you are so far off the mark that it is considered a personal attack. To wit, you have reduced yourself to name calling in support of a hypothesis. But, if you insist that that the sun does not emit ionizing energy, particularly in the set in of wavelengths above your obvious redacted eyesight, then, by all means, go around calling people names, just remember that one day, you may very well meet someone not as nice as I am about it. May that day be sooner rather than later. Note the ozone hole has been oscillating, both larger and smaller by several factors in comparison to modern mans experience for much longer than the lineage of man.
ray
Since it was not possible to measure the ozone layer until the mid-20th century, you have no idea what was the nature of the ozone layer over the "lineage of man."
and the co2 layer? or do we just pick and choose....real scientific....any rabbits with burnt eyeballs? in your dataset? or did ya go and remove that entry when they proved that to be hoax...like I said pick and choose your facts wisely, pick and choose your insults better.
ray
There is no CO2 "layer" .... CO2 is dispersed throughout the atmosphere and study of ice cores allow scientists to learn the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere over the past several hundred thousand years.
Why only 10 years of data? Does the 11th year destroy the feel good message? This is a cyclic event, like global warming. Get over it. We are even using styrofoam again and it is still shrinking. Big spoof, just like global warming. Things will continue to change and we can get eco-alarmist or claim victory, depending on the point in the cycle. Think people.
Tap
Don't let lack of information keep you from spouting your views on Newsvine. The Styrofoam manufactured now does not use CFC's and therefore does not effect the ozone layer.
There is no evidence that the hole in the ozone layer is cyclical ..... there was no technology available to examine the ozone layer until well into the 20th century.
...so why was it so huge in 2011? Why was it so small in 2002? There is more going on then what the scientists are reporting & IMAO, I don't think they even know what is happening. It's all theory & hypothesis.
Comrade
Look up the definition of "scientific theory" ....... a theory is an explanation of the natural world supported by significant evidence. It means they actually do know what is happening.
Perhaps the scientists knew what they were talking about for once.
For once? Look around you, Wade. Don't you understand that science is the main thing that has separated us from the way people lived in the Middle Ages?