Antarctic Ozone Layer Nearly Gone

90 to 99% of the antarctic ozone layer is gone. It has slowly been depleting over the last 30 years. For more info, here's the URL:

www.news.com.au...

"The US government scientists who conducted the study said that there was an almost complete absence of ozone in certain atmospheric air samples taken after 1980, compared to earlier decades."

This is not good, not good at all.


Edit: All caps title.


[edit on 28-12-2006 by intrepid]

Why couldnt scientists design a massive ozone generator to be installed at the poles to replace the depleted ozone?

Could such a thing be done?

I'm not sure what's going on. It was reported in 2005 that the holes in the ozone had leveled off and began to recover.

A study just published by the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences shows declining ozone levels have leveled off from 1996 to 2002, and in some areas there even are small increases.

www.cnn.com...

Maybe you should look for more corroborating sources.

has anyone stopped to think that this could just be a normal cycle? what they are not telling you in the article is that accurate data has only been taken since the 1970s. i'm sorry, but basing all your knowledge on 30 years worth of data when talking about an environment that has been around for millions of years is ignorance to the extreme.

Hal - The holes come and go with the cold, but it seems the overall thickness of the ozone layer itself is what's at issue here.

Also, suspect the usual cover-ups to explain apparent contradictions.

More coverage:

news.ninemsn.com.au...

news.mongabay.com...

www.noaanews.noaa.gov...

Originally posted by forestlady
90 to 99% of the antarctic ozone layer is gone.
It has slowly been depleting over the last 30 years.

www.news.com.au...

in the link there's this sentence:

"Typically the Arctic loss is dramatically less than the Antarctic loss"

now this observation brings up the questions of,
the Northern Hemisphere experiences the most ozone depleting chemicals and greenhouse gasses..............
...why is the distant but not totally detached SouthernHemispheres' Antarctica suffering more??

perhaps the scientists are reading their Ozone 'tea-leaves' in a radically wrong way.
perhaps Ozone depletes over antarctica because it IS the magnetic South Pole.
... & not solely because of CFCs & other pollutants!

Hal, here are more sources:

ioc.atmos.uiuc.edu...

"The Antarctic
ozone hole is expected to continue for decades. Antarctic ozone abundances are projected to
return to pre-1980 levels around 2060-2075 roughly 10-25
years later than estimated in the 2002 Assessment. The later return in the projection is
primarily due to a better evaluation of the time evolution of ozone-depleting gases in the polar
regions. In the next two decades, the Antarctic ozone hole is not expected to improve
significantly.
Arctic ozone depletion exhibits large year-to-year variability, driven by meteorological
conditions. Over the past four decades, these conditions became more conducive to severe
ozone depletion because of increasingly widespread conditions for the formation of polar
stratospheric clouds during the coldest Arctic winters.

***********
www.antarcticconnection.com...
(bolding is mine)

“There is a huge section this year that is completely depleted to zero,” said Jennifer Mercer, co-principal investigator (PI) from the University of Wyoming, who is leading the group carrying out balloon-borne and laser measurements of the annual ozone depletion event."

*****************
www.noaanews.noaa.gov...

NASA AND NOAA ANNOUNCE ANTARCTIC OZONE HOLE IS A RECORD BREAKER

NOAA satellite image of the analysis of the Southern Hemisphere total ozone as of Oct. 12, 2006, from the an instrument on board the NOAA polar orbiting satellite.Oct. 20, 2006 — NASA and NOAA scientists report this year's ozone hole in the polar region of the Southern Hemisphere has broken records for area and depth. The ozone layer acts to protect life on Earth by blocking harmful ultraviolet rays from the sun. The "ozone hole" is a severe depletion of the ozone layer high above Antarctica.

It is primarily caused by human-produced compounds that release chlorine and bromine gases in the stratosphere.

It is primarily caused by human-produced compounds that release chlorine and bromine gases in the stratosphere. (Click NOAA satellite image for larger view of the analysis of the Southern Hemisphere total ozone as of Oct. 12, 2006, from the an instrument on board the NOAA polar orbiting satellite. Click here for high resolution version. Please credit “NOAA.”)

"From September 21 to 30, the average area of the ozone hole was the largest ever observed, at 10.6 million square miles," said Paul Newman, atmospheric scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. If the stratospheric weather conditions had been normal, the ozone hole would be expected to reach a size of about 8.9 to 9.3 million square miles, about the surface area of North America."

******
The report you cited is from an agency that is heavily supported by NASA and NOAA, who IMO, aren't the most credible sources, as they tend to whitewash alot of their news. Even so, the NOAA reports (above) that as of 2006, the ozone layer is the worst it's ever been. Maybe you were looking at an old report? The ozone layer in 2000 was looking much better, but not now. Even NOAA has had to admit there is a problem with the ozone layer.

Snafu2000: Read my quotes, above. It does says it is attributable to "human-produced compounds". Not only that, but they've been taking recordings now for over 30 years and in that time the ozone layer has continued to become more and more depleted. They are comparing what the ozone layer looks like now to how it was 30 years ago. There is no way that this is completely cyclical. If it was New Zealanders would have been dying from skin cancer in record numbers for the last 200 years or longer. That is what is ahppening now, New Zealanders, Australians and Tasmanians are dying in record numbers from cancer.

Ignorance in the extreme? I don't think so. My husband is a scientist, we research and discuss this kind of thing all the time. Have you done much research on this yourself? It doesn't sound like you have, considering what you wrote.
Most any reputable scientist knows this.

The first article was quoted from the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences", which is one of the most prestigious scientific groups there is.

Originally posted by forestlady
Hal, here are more sources:

Thank you as well as Sofi for the links. I thought we had solved this problem, but I guess maybe not. I will read your material later when I have more time.

Hal, thanks for your open-mindedness. You know, I remember hearing back about 2001 or so about how we had solved this problem, the ozone was back to normal. But it doesn't make sense that it was getting worse, got all better again and now its worse than its ever been. I'm thinking maybe that 2001 report was bogus. We do know that this admin hides the facts from the People about global warming.

Originally posted by forestlady

Snafu2000: Read my quotes, above. It does says it is attributable to "human-produced compounds". Not only that, but they've been taking recordings now for over 30 years and in that time the ozone layer has continued to become more and more depleted. They are comparing what the ozone layer looks like now to how it was 30 years ago. There is no way that this is completely cyclical.

so you are saying that in only 30 years, which is a teardrop in the ocean geologically, we can say for certain that this is not cyclical.

If it was New Zealanders would have been dying from skin cancer in record numbers for the last 200 years or longer. That is what is ahppening now, New Zealanders, Australians and Tasmanians are dying in record numbers from cancer.

again, with our extremely limited knowledge on the subject, who is to say that this isnt a normal cycle....or even, that other factors may be at fault for the rise in cancers (afterall, the above mentioned areas have only been populated by westerners for about 200 years).

Ignorance in the extreme? I don't think so. My husband is a scientist, we research and discuss this kind of thing all the time. Have you done much research on this yourself? It doesn't sound like you have, considering what you wrote.
Most any reputable scientist knows this.

it wasnt directed at you personally, so please dont take it as such. i respect your knowledge, but still disagree that we can make these assumptions based on 30 years of data.



[edit on 28-12-2006 by snafu7700]

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by forestlady

Snafu2000: Read my quotes, above. It does says it is attributable to "human-produced compounds". Not only that, but they've been taking recordings now for over 30 years and in that time the ozone layer has continued to become more and more depleted. They are comparing what the ozone layer looks like now to how it was 30 years ago. There is no way that this is completely cyclical.

so you are saying that in only 30 years, which is a teardrop in the ocean geologically, we can say for certain that this is not cyclical.

If it was New Zealanders would have been dying from skin cancer in record numbers for the last 200 years or longer. That is what is ahppening now, New Zealanders, Australians and Tasmanians are dying in record numbers from cancer.

again, with our extremely limited knowledge on the subject, who is to say that this isnt a normal cycle....or even, that other factors may be at fault for the rise in cancers (afterall, the above mentioned areas have only been populated by westerners for about 200 years).

Ignorance in the extreme? I don't think so. My husband is a scientist, we research and discuss this kind of thing all the time. Have you done much research on this yourself? It doesn't sound like you have, considering what you wrote.
Most any reputable scientist knows this.

it wasnt directed at you personally, so please dont take it as such. i respect your knowledge, but still disagree that we can make these assumptions based on 30 years of data.
[edit on 28-12-2006 by snafu7700]

OK, now I think I understand what you're getting at, sorry I didn't fully understand the first time. Yes, you're right, we don't know exactly, it could go in 200 year, 2 thousand year etc. cycles.

The truth is we don't really know for sure, all we can do is have scientists report their findings and then try to analyze the data and come to a conclusion. It is a theory. But as time goes on, it looks to be alot more than just a theory.

But, there are 2 pieces of evidence for it being caused by CFC's. First of all, we do know that on contact, CFC literally melt the ozone. Secondly, these CFC's began to be made in the 1950's. Ever since the '70's the ozone hole began to get bigger. We created alot of CFC controls for corporations, who followed them for awhile, which accounts for the shrinking hole in 2000. But now, those controls are not being followed and so it's worsened. Companies like Dupont don't really have to comply with these laws and often don't.

As the hole has been growing, so have the cancer rates in that part of the world, which is another thing that points to it being man-made.

Actually the ozone hole is not that large compared to the one 74854 years ago. Can you prove me wrong!!! I think I have a zit thats 30 years old it gets bigger and smaller every now and then too.


mikell

[edit on 28-12-2006 by mikellmikell]

Originally posted by Creedo
Why couldnt scientists design a massive ozone generator to be installed at the poles to replace the depleted ozone?

Could such a thing be done?

Do ya know those air filters you can buy for your house? What they do is electrictly charge the air to pull dust in to the strips, then blow out the air without the dust. The amazing thing about those nifty little towers that can innocently stand in your living room is that scientist later found (last year?) that they produce O-Zone, making the air in your house like smog and very bad to breath.. so if we could do something like that on a massive scale I think we could do it!

Why is it out of all the places for o-zone to deplete ... like above NY it is in the arctics where no one lives?

Originally posted by mikellmikell
Actually the ozone hole is not that large compared to the one 74854 years ago. Can you prove me wrong!!! I think I have a zit thats 30 years old it gets bigger and smaller every now and then too.


mikell

[edit on 28-12-2006 by mikellmikell]

You might want to go get that looked at friend..... not healthy, might be infected.. can't be to pretty in any case.

How come there are no holes over major cities???


Is it a co-incidence that the 2 areas of the globe that experience 24hr Winter darkness/Summer sunshine have varying degrees of ozone according to the amount of light available??

You decide

Originally posted by dj howls

Is it a co-incidence that the 2 areas of the globe that experience 24hr Winter darkness/Summer sunshine have varying degrees of ozone according to the amount of light available??

Multiple factors are implicated in climate change.

Real science is far more complicated than a legal system that focuses on single cause-and-effect relationships.

Forcing the debate into a legalistic adversarial mode just camouflages the issue and deflects peoples' attention away from the real problem.

The fact is: Earth's climate is changing.

We have an opportunity to deal with the situation. We can modify our behavior to mitigate the effects, slow things down long enough to make a plan.

We can act to preserve the best of human culture for the future. Or we can allow ourselves to be polarized, and let the self-proclaimed-elite position for control.

How come there are no holes over major cities???

From what I understand of my old biological science (and I could be wrong), is that ozone is depleted under certain temperatures, only found over those areas. There is something in the chemistry that occurs only when there is a great deal of cold temperature present, and for a certain length of time.

Again, iirc, the combo of air and CFCs wasn't an issue, until the researchers added supercooled air to it. Then the ozone present became something else (don't remember what) and thus the ozone depleted itself.

That would indeed explain why it doesn't happen over large cities, because large cities tend to create warmth bubbles, at times very very high over the city and it's environs. You might also consider that many people - needed for a large city - would not want to live in such a cold environment -nor could they survive it easily. So large cities aren't developed/built in supercold environs.

Hope that helps.

Regards-
Aimless

Hi,

This is one of the great subjects of mankind, and we need to solve that huge problem!

Some not hell known facts contributes to the big ozone hole in Antarctica, and I think that is not only CFCs influence. A few references:
. en.wikipedia.org...
. www.dtra.mil...
. www.cato.org...
. www.nexusmagazine.com...
. www.nasa.gov...
. www.uow.edu.au...

Ozone hole over Antarctica


brotherthebig.