Earth's formerly thin ozone layer is recovering

[JoeFromDetroit]

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

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - 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.

[Death Metal Moe]

Wow. Whoever is right in the evironmental fight, I'm glad to hear that.

[novalia]

so rogaine does work?

[GLENN_THE_TOOL]

on a similar note, did anyone watch that "How the World is Probably Gonna End" thing that Primetime did tonight? i totally forgot it was on and just remembered upon clicking on this thread. i don't know if i would watch it if i remembered it was on anyway, since it sounds like more media scare tactics. yeah, listing to top ten ways the world will likely end won't scare the shit out of anyone. :icon_roll

[Smokezilla]

It doesn't matter 'cause the Bird Flu is gonna get us ALL anyway!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!! :idiot: **Sounds of rioting/police sirens/screams**

[abudabit]

Hoof And Mouth baby!

[LiddyRules]

Poor Professor Chaos.

In other news, for the next couple of weeks, my hair will have a sweet ass bounce to it.

[ruckstande]

Environmentalists will completely ignore this research done by scientists and just keep spewing whatever Android Al Gore says.

[RobeSoup&Tears]

Environmentalists will completely ignore this research done by scientists and just keep spewing whatever Android Al Gore says.
Quoted for truth.:clap:

[Harvey_Birdman]

It doesn't matter 'cause the Bird Flu is gonna get us ALL anyway!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!! :idiot: **Sounds of rioting/police sirens/screams**

Don't be silly, everybody knows that the current fighting in the middle east is the sign of the Apocalypse. All us nonbelievers will be cut down in a river of blood by the holy sword.

[ruckstande]

Don't be silly, everybody knows that the current fighting in the middle east is the sign of the Apocalypse. All us nonbelievers will be cut down in a river of blood by the holy sword.

I kind of expected the Apocalypse to go a little quicker than this. I mean c'mon, couldn't the world just end already since I can't find anything on tv anyway?

[Cpt_willard]

Environmentalists will completely ignore this research done by scientists and just keep spewing whatever Android Al Gore says.

Some people confuse the issue of ozone depletion with climate change. In reality, they are separate but related. The man made chemicals that destroy the ozone layer are greenhouse gases, as are some of the chemicals that are replacing them.
Again in the quest for ever shocking headlines the media whores neglect to explain the difference.

[novalia]

so rogaine doesnt work?

[fred123]

Was the hole in the ozone layer found the first year they looked for it?Can I get trichloraethane 1,1,1 back in cutting oils?

[abudabit]

In defense of the enviromentalists, if we hadn't limited our usage of CFCs the hole would be growing not shrinking.

[BeezerBlanks]

so rogaine doesnt work?
I guess not :icon_frow

[BIV]

In defense of the enviromentalists, if we hadn't limited our usage of CFCs the hole would be growing not shrinking.
Ummmmmm....no.

[Hudson]

Well Celebrity Car Crash pic for the asshat tree huggers:
Haley Joe Osmond:http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tmz.com/media/2006/08/osment_wreck_cbs.jpg

[Bill]

Environmentalists will completely ignore this research done by scientists and just keep spewing whatever Android Al Gore says.

Hey, "Doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about guy" is here.

The thinning ozone and and global warming due to greenhouse gases are two completely different things.

The thinning of the ozone allowed too much sunlight and heat into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gasses (which is the current battle), prevents heat from leaving the atmosphere after the sunlight has reflected off of earth.

Environmentalists fought and won the battle over fluorocarbons twenty years ago. Environmentalists will be cheering over this research and will point to it as proof that by changing the things that we do, we can reverse problems.

This research says that the environmentalist were right with respect to the ozone. Not that they were wrong about anything.

[novalia]

wow it took 2 whole days for the argument to begin... always the same cast of characters... time for me to punch out.. the comedic factor has just left the thread..

[TrybalRage]

Rainforests are causing global warming, we need to cut them all down, and quick!

[Cpt_willard]

"Anybody not wearing number two million sunblock is gonna have a real bad day, get it?"

[Sarah Conner]

[BCH]

Hey, "Doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about guy" is here.

The thinning ozone and and global warming due to greenhouse gases are two completely different things.

The thinning of the ozone allowed too much sunlight and heat into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gasses (which is the current battle), prevents heat from leaving the atmosphere after the sunlight has reflected off of earth.

Environmentalists fought and won the battle over fluorocarbons twenty years ago. Environmentalists will be cheering over this research and will point to it as proof that by changing the things that we do, we can reverse problems.

This research says that the environmentalist were right with respect to the ozone. Not that they were wrong about anything.


Problem is, there were replacements that were just as effective and not much more expensive at the time. The conversion from old CFCs to new refrigerants was pretty straight forward.

Not so for fossil fuels however. Hybrids are a laughable joke that cause more trouble than they're worth, electric cars go about 10 feet per charge and take 12 hours to recharge not to mention the electricity comes from burning fossil fuels., Hydrogen fuel cells are not quite ready yet and then there's the business of all the electricity to crack the water into Hydrogen and Oxygen. Sure, steam reformation of natural gas works well but we're back to the fossil fuel thing again.

We could of course, convert all electricity generation currently done with fossil fuels to nuclear. That would be a good start, all the power we need with 0 carbon emmisions. Then perhaps we could electrolycize (sp) enough sea water to make the Hydrogen Economy go.

But then there's the issue of Nuclear waste. I'm all for Yucca Mountain but I'm sure Bill won't go with me on that one.

There's Wind power but of course the blades kill the wittle birdies. Hard to get the Animal rights folks on board...

We could cover all of Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico with Solar cells. That might power Half of California.

You got any Ideas Bill?

[DHO]

I'm just glad the media didn't over react and make us all think that we would be incinerated by deadly space radiation.

[PCLoadLetter]

Hybrids are a laughable joke that cause more trouble than they're worth

They're not a joke if you use them in the manner and conditions in which they're designed to excel. The problem is that most people who own them DON'T use them mostly in the conditions in which the bulk of the benefits are to be found, and would probably do better with a similarly-sized car that is simply frugal with fuel. A diesel Jetta or a basic Corolla, for instance, get very nearly the same mileage under many (or most) conditions and are about the same size as the poster child for the hybrid bandwagon, the Prius.

And what "trouble" are they?

electric cars go about 10 feet per charge and take 12 hours to recharge not to mention the electricity comes from burning fossil fuels.

Yes, they still need fossil fuels to produce the electricity for a charge, but most people would (and do) charge them overnight when power demands on the grid are much lower... There's usually excess capacity in the existing infrastructure and this is a good way to use it. There's also something to be said about monitoring the emissions of one smokestack (the power plant) versus than 10,000 smokestacks (tailpipes).

Not to mention they go much further than 10 feet, much further than 10 miles, for that matter, and don't take 12hrs to charge. The reality is that a huge percentage of people could do 90% of their driving with an electric car. The other reality, of course, is that you're in a world of hurt if you exceed your battery life and you're not at a charging station and don't have a few hours to get the thing "topped off" to make it home, or worse, it's your only car and you want to drive somewhere beyond the 75mi range typical of electrics. I may be able to get by MOST of the time with an electric, but I am not going to buy two cars and only use one for local driving.

Pure electrics are hardly ideal for most of us, even if most of the time we could probably get by with one, that's why they don't sell... You don't need to come up with this BS you posted to explain why the pure electric is essentially dead in the auto market.

Hydrogen fuel cells are not quite ready yet and then there's the business of all the electricity to crack the water into Hydrogen and Oxygen. Sure, steam reformation of natural gas works well but we're back to the fossil fuel thing again.

We could of course, convert all electricity generation currently done with fossil fuels to nuclear. That would be a good start, all the power we need with 0 carbon emmisions. Then perhaps we could electrolycize (sp) enough sea water to make the Hydrogen Economy go.

Not a bad idea. I'd rather we had more nuke plants... But they do get a bad rap. The reality is that we need the power, and which of the many less-than-perfect generation plants do you want to choose from? Which is the least of all evils?

The wittle birdies problem just blows my mind... The same kind of people that protest about dead birds are usually the ones that protest power plants, too. So which is it... Cleaner power sources that can (theoretically) help save the environment & mankind, or heaps of dead birds? The other alternative, that we just stop generating power, isn't gonna happen, Sierra Clubbers.

[BCH]

worse, it's your only car and you want to drive somewhere beyond the 75mi range typical of electrics.

Yeah, this is the case that I was overstating :)

[Opie'sOatmeal]

It doesn't matter 'cause the Bird Flu is gonna get us ALL anyway!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!! :idiot: **Sounds of rioting/police sirens/screams**


And here I was worried about the Chinese :rolleyes:

[BCH]

And here I was worried about the Chinese :rolleyes:

Nice first post. Welcome sir.

[Opie'sOatmeal]

Nice first post. Welcome sir.

Thanks :action-sm

by the way...I'm not a sir :icon_wink

[BCH]

by the way...I'm not a sir :icon_wink

Yeah, I was playing the percentages :icon_mrgr

[Bill]

Not to mention they go much further than 10 feet, much further than 10 miles, for that matter, and don't take 12hrs to charge. The reality is that a huge percentage of people could do 90% of their driving with an electric car. The other reality, of course, is that you're in a world of hurt if you exceed your battery life and you're not at a charging station and don't have a few hours to get the thing "topped off" to make it home, or worse, it's your only car and you want to drive somewhere beyond the 75mi range typical of electrics. I may be able to get by MOST of the time with an electric, but I am not going to buy two cars and only use one for local driving.


That's why the plug in hybrids that people are experimenting with make so much sense. Like you said, 90% of people's driving can be handled with a single charge, and never use the combustion engine at all. However, for that additional 10% of the time, the combustion engine kicks in and the car operates like a standard hybrid.

As solar technology contunues to evolve, it might make sense to use solar energy in these cars as well. I'm not talking about solar panels. I'm talking about solar nano-technology that is currently being experimented with. Scientists are working on solar technology which will still work in overcast or cloudy days because, rather than using the UV rays that require direct sunlight, it uses the other UV rays that make it through clouds (I don't remember which is UV-A, B, C, etc.. ). These are the same UV rays that still cause sunburn on an overcast day. They are also working with nano-technology that may allow for microcopic sized solar panels that could be integtrated into the paint surface.

Are those the final answers? No. But they are something that is certainly worth looking at.

IMO, solar energy has gotten a bad rap because it was introduced to the market before it was really ready back in the 70's. Hopefully solar energy can overcome the bad reputation that it has unfairly been stuck with.


Not a bad idea. I'd rather we had more nuke plants... But they do get a bad rap. The reality is that we need the power, and which of the many less-than-perfect generation plants do you want to choose from? Which is the least of all evils?


I've got no problem with Nuclear power either. Like the problem with solar energy getting a bad rap that it hasn't been able to overcome, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl have done the same thing to nuclear energy...but only in the US. Other countries get a much larger percentage of their electricty from Nuclear power than the US does. The US gets ~20% of our electricty from Nuclear power plantsm, while France uses nuclear power plants for nearly 80% of their electricity


The wittle birdies problem just blows my mind... The same kind of people that protest about dead birds are usually the ones that protest power plants, too. So which is it... Cleaner power sources that can (theoretically) help save the environment & mankind, or heaps of dead birds? The other alternative, that we just stop generating power, isn't gonna happen, Sierra Clubbers.


I'm all for windmills too. As far as I'm concerned, birds that are stupid enough to fly through a windmill are too stupid to live. Windmills will just be another way of "thinning the herd".

[Schmed]

That's why the plug in hybrids that people are experimenting with make so much sense. Like you said, 90% of people's driving can be handled with a single charge, and never use the combustion engine at all. However, for that additional 10% of the time, the combustion engine kicks in and the car operates like a standard hybrid.

As solar technology contunues to evolve, it might make sense to use solar energy in these cars as well. I'm not talking about solar panels. I'm talking about solar nano-technology that is currently being experimented with. Scientists are working on solar technology which will still work in overcast or cloudy days because, rather than using the UV rays that require direct sunlight, it uses the other UV rays that make it through clouds (I don't remember which is UV-A, B, C, etc.. ). These are the same UV rays that still cause sunburn on an overcast day. They are also working with nano-technology that may allow for microcopic sized solar panels that could be integtrated into the paint surface.

Are those the final answers? No. But they are something that is certainly worth looking at.

IMO, solar energy has gotten a bad rap because it was introduced to the market before it was really ready back in the 70's. Hopefully solar energy can overcome the bad reputation that it has unfairly been stuck with.



I've got no problem with Nuclear power either. Like the problem with solar energy getting a bad rap that it hasn't been able to overcome, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl have done the same thing to nuclear energy...but only in the US. Other countries get a much larger percentage of their electricty from Nuclear power than the US does. The US gets ~20% of our electricty from Nuclear power plantsm, while France uses nuclear power plants for nearly 80% of their electricity




I'm all for windmills too. As far as I'm concerned, birds that are stupid enough to fly through a windmill are too stupid to live. Windmills will just be another way of "thinning the herd".

The only problem I have with Hybrids are the disposal of the batteries, I think we are better off with further development of the internal combustion engine and achieving 60-100 MPG. I saw the cover of a Pop Sci magazine from 1982, and they had a 2 Cyl, 150HP 60MPG engine on the cover, in 1982!!!! which would be sufficient to power most compact cars, would it not ? The reason it never took off was the royalties or something like that, but I don't think we have an internal combustion engine now, in this day and age, that produces 150HP and gets 60MPG, what gives ?

[abudabit]

I read yesterday diesels on average nowadays provide better real world mpg increases than the average hybrid and cost half the cost extra (when compared to thier conventional counterparts). Hybrid technology is more of a marketing technique than the best practical innovation out there. But shit, our infrastructure is based around gasoline so maybe that makes them better for the country than diesel in the aggregate.

And schmed, there is no 60mpg engine. An engine itself gets 0 mpg, it needs a car to propel it. The point is, was that engine really that efficient or was the car it was attached to a waif? There is a car that is going to be sold in Europe in the next couple of years that gets 150 mpg. It does it by having a nothing of a shell, a super efficient drive train, super good aerodynamics, etc. Pretty much the entire body was designed around fuel efficiency. The engine itself isn't that special. It'll be illegal in the US because of our safety standards though.

In France some people drive around in what are effectively go karts. I think they are 2 hp. The things people do when gas is $10 / gallon. It's certainly not enviromentalism though because those things pollute like mother fuckers.

[Schmed]

I read yesterday diesels on average nowadays provide better real world mpg increases than the average hybrid and cost half as less extra (when compared to thier conventional counterparts). Hybrid technology is more of a marketing technique than the best practical innovation out there. But shit, our infrastructure is based around gasoline so maybe that makes them better for the country than diesel in the aggregate.

e.g. 2001 VW Jetta

2.0 Liter GLS Gasoline Engine @ 28MPG HWY, 115 HP
1.9 Liter TDI Diesel Engine @ 42MPG HWY, 90HP

I would've taken the "TDI", but they were impossible to find.

[abudabit]

Yeah, you have to special order them and even then you get on the list. At least that's how it was a couple years ago.

[Bill]

The only problem I have with Hybrids are the disposal of the batteries,

The battery pack in the Civic Hybrid consists of 120 D-cell sized batteries, which are have no more environmental impact than the same 120 D-cell batteries. A normal 12 volf car battery has more of an environmental impact than does the battery pack in a hybrid. On top of that, the hybrid battery pack is designed to last the life of the car. A 12 volt car battery isn't. So, not only does each 12 car battery have more environmental impact than a hybrid battery pack, typically, there will be more than one 12 volt battery used during the life of a car.

If you take the total of the batteries in a Civic Hybrid, including the standard one, you might have a case that the overall environmental impact is greater with a hybrid. But I don't think so, because the 12 volt battery in my car is half the size of a normal 12 volt car battery because it really doesn't do much. It provides power to the computer and when it's very very cold, it powers the conventional starter. If it's not very cold out, the hybrid battery pack uses the electric motor to start the car. I think that in the 3.5 years that I've owned my hybrid, it's only started using the conventional starter 3 or 4 times.

[Bill]

I read yesterday diesels on average nowadays provide better real world mpg increases than the average hybrid and cost half the cost extra (when compared to thier conventional counterparts).


That's kinda true and kinda not true. The problem is that hybrid technology can be used to improve gas mileage, it can be used to increase power or it can be a combination of the two. The Honda Insight and Civic and the Toyota Prius are the only 3 hybrid models that have put a smaller engine into the car and supplemented it with the electric motor to equal the horsepower of a non-hybrid version. These are the only models that are using the hybrid purely for gas mileage.

The Honda Accord has been a bomb because they have left the same motor in the car and added an electric motor. So, it gets lots more horsepower than a standard Accord, with a little increase in mileage.

The same goes for the Toyota/Lexus SUV's. The 2006 hybrid models got 38 more horsepower than their non-hybrid counterparts (268 vs 230), with a modest increase in mileage.

The new Lexus hybrid is going to be the fastest car that Lexus has ever sold. It's 340 horsepower and will do 0-60 in 5.2 seconds.

So, when an article compares diesels to hybrids, using the hybrids that currently exist, they're right, diesels can get better mileage. However, if the hybrid technology was used purely for mileage, as in the Insight, Civic and Prius, then the hybrids are in the lead.

What some companies are currently working on is a diesel hybrid. If they can get that to work and put them into big rigs, a 10-15% increase in mileage for them would be a huge savings given the amount that they travel.

[Bill]

e.g. 2001 VW Jetta

2.0 Liter GLS Gasoline Engine @ 28MPG HWY, 115 HP
1.9 Liter TDI Diesel Engine @ 42MPG HWY, 90HP

I would've taken the "TDI", but they were impossible to find.

In the next year or so, as low sulfur diesel becomes the norm, small diesels will be able to pass emissions standards in the states where they currently can't. Once that happens, small diesels will become much easier to find.

[BCH]

Actually, Hydrogen IC motors are quite promising from an emmisions standpoint. Can't wait 'till we see nice clean Nuke plants Bolted directly to electrolysis machines pumping out enough hydrogen to get us all to work. Once the fusion thing happens this whole discussion becomes moot however. I hope I'm alive to see it.

[abudabit]

What are the estimates of commercially available fusion? 2050 - 2075 or something like that. And that will still have cost with it, and it will take time to build up the infrastructure to the point it supports all the vehicles.