Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth China Medicine Space United States News Science Technology

'Healing' Detected In Antarctic Ozone Hole, Says Study (bbc.com) 95

kheldan quotes a report from BBC: Researchers say they have found the first clear evidence that the thinning in the ozone layer above Antarctica is starting to heal. The scientists said that in September 2015 the hole was around 4 million sq km smaller than it was in the year 2000 -- an area roughly the size of India. The gains have been credited to the long term phasing out of ozone-destroying chemicals. [The study also sheds new light on the role of volcanoes in making the problem worse.] The ozone-destroying chemicals, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), have been shown to be declining in their influence, causing the ozone layer to grow once more. "Even though we phased out the production of CFCs in all countries including India and China around the year 2000, there's still a lot of chlorine left in the atmosphere," Prof Solomon told the BBC World Service Science in Action program. "It has a lifetime of about 50-100 years, so it is starting to slowly decay and the ozone will slowly recover." Scientists also believe that volcanic sulphur can form tiny particles that act as seeds to Polar Stratospheric Clouds, where chlorine chemistry occurs that destroys the ozone.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Healing' Detected In Antarctic Ozone Hole, Says Study

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-11-16/ozone-hole-closing-up-research-shows/727460
    Look at the fucking date.

    • Considering that the largest hole ever was apparently recorded in 2006, of course the 2007 one must have been smaller. But what was the development since then?
    • by jbengt ( 874751 )
      There were a lot of links in TFS, and at least two of them mentioned how the October 2015 ozone hole was unusually large, but that that could be correlated to volcanic activity increasing stratospheric clouds over Antarctica, and that it has been recently worked out how volcanoes could have had that effect.
      So, no, it isn't such old news.
    • You're right. I noticed that, also. For several decades, we've known that eliminating CFCs was working on repairing the ozone hole, especially since there was less UV-ray-induced blindness in Tierra del Fuego, almost immediately (1980s). So, I don't think is entirely about ozone, and suspect it's really a message about global climate change -- we can/should do more, and if we do, it will actually work.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    https://science.slashdot.org/story/13/02/10/1930214/over-the-antarctic-the-smallest-ozone-hole-in-a-decade
    https://science.slashdot.org/story/11/05/20/2038228/signs-of-ozone-layer-recovery-detected
    https://slashdot.org/story/06/10/21/0548245/nasa-announces-record-ozone-hole
    https://slashdot.org/story/06/05/27/0654216/ozone-layer-improving-faster-than-expected
    https://science.slashdot.org/story/04/10/02/1346252/ozone-hole-getting-smaller
    Again, look at the fucking dates.

    How the fuck is it "news" that the antarcti

    • Slashdot is regularly a long way behind in the news, sometimes even more than a decade, but FFS with this having been on Slashdot so many times it is nothing but pure laziness reporting this again.
    • by skids ( 119237 )

      The news, if you read the TFA, is that scientists figured out a way to clean up the data: they were measuring the hole at its peak, but there are often weather conditions that time of year that add noise to the measurements. Instead, they measured the rate of the growth of the hole at a different time of year, when there are usually no such weather conditions. That gave them a much smoother look at the trend and the affect of volcanic activity.

      Of course, the whole ozone thing must be completely a hoax mad

  • by Eloking ( 877834 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @11:54PM (#52424341)

    Am I missing something or NASA already confirmed that ten years ago?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      3 years ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago, and 12 years ago:

      https://science.slashdot.org/story/13/02/10/1930214/over-the-antarctic-the-smallest-ozone-hole-in-a-decade
      https://science.slashdot.org/story/11/05/20/2038228/signs-of-ozone-layer-recovery-detected
      https://slashdot.org/story/06/10/21/0548245/nasa-announces-record-ozone-hole
      https://slashdot.org/story/06/05/27/0654216/ozone-layer-improving-faster-than-expected
      https://science.slashdot.org/story/04/10/02/1346252/ozone-hole-getting-smaller

      • And I vaguely remember seeing a similar article in 1999, saying that the ozone layer would be back to the 1960s levels by the 2030s. Or something.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sjames ( 1099 )

      Yes, and the previous generation of deniers claimed it was just random fluctuation. It had to be because CFCs are harmless and the ozone hole was just a natural variation.

      So NASA points out that the trend is continuing nicely in the way random fluctuations seldom do.

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Yes, and the previous generation of deniers claimed it was just random fluctuation.

        That sounds a lot like a fallacy. Who gets to decide that those denying CFC effects are the previous generation of whatever?
        Claiming that denying CFC effects is equivalent to denying that current temperature changed is withing natural fluctuations is on the same level.

        Arguments should be able to stand on their own. Proving that a statement was made by Hitler isn't the same as proving that the statement is wrong.
        In a similar fashion the "follow the money" reasoning is wrong, it doesn't matter if you can prov

        • by sjames ( 1099 )

          That sounds a lot like a fallacy

          It's a statement of fact. An observation. By definition, it cannot be a fallacy. It could be incorrect but since it is not a conclusion, it cannot be a fallacy.

          But feel free to look at the history of the Montreal protocol [wikipedia.org].

          I can't even imagine what you thought you read from me that inspired the rest of your rant.

      • Anecdote is not data.

        what? Ok then.

        A data point is not a trend.

        what? Oh

        You got lucky, two data points could be random noise compared to history.

        Seriously a third point?

        Correlation does not prove causation. I think aliens did it.

    • They couldn't possible have confirmed this ten years ago, considering that ten years ago, the worst Antarctic ozone depletion ever was recorded.
      • by dfghjk ( 711126 )

        For someone with no understanding of the process, yes that is true. For those same people the "this" being confirmed is beyond their comprehension as well.

If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants. -- Isaac Newton

Working...