I am little bit confused whether the hole in the ozone layer is significantly decreasing or increasing after Montreal Agreement? Some authors [Steinbrecht et al., 2017: An update on ozone profile trends for the period 2000 to 2016.Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., doi:10.5194/acp-2017-391, 2017; Kuttippurath & Nair, 2017: The signs of Antarctic ozone hole recovery: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-00722-7] mentioned that it is decreasing but the values (1979 to 2016) in the tables provided by NASA (https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/statistics/annual_data.html) do not indicate a significant change. I shall be happy if I can remove my confusion.
In a simple plot of the NASA data you refer to I a see the trend reverse to slow recovery since 1994 and 2000 for the ozone hole area and concentration, respectively. If the change is significant is properly only depending on which statistic test one select.
Prof. Das. In case you have not come acress Kenneth before: His statements are not only contradicted by the media but also by scientists in general.
Contrary to Kenneth's fact denying belief, Arctic ozone depletion occur every winter but it much less than at Antarctic because there is not a strong vortex at the north pole.
Science also believe that CFC cause ozone depletion and this proven fact is the reason for banning these substances in the Montreal Agreement. To my knowledge so far there are not any scientists who have been able to understand the evidence Kenneth claim to have for this being incorrect.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/record-ozone-hole-may-open-over-arctic-spring
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#CFCs_and_related_compounds_in_the_atmosphere
A blatant lie.
Prove that is wrong about my statement. The error in the references?
How many time has the Kenneth key publication (published as a "note") about the ozone hole been cited by scientific literature?
Article CFCs and the Size of the Ozone Hole
The healing of the ozone hole is one of the extraordinary evidenced results of an international effort to save the Earth. China and the developing countries did a fantastic job since their poor citizens could not enjoy the very cheap freon based ACs and refrigerators, they needed to skip this step of the development. This agreement gave the hope that people - even they have a different interest - can address global problems.
Dear Kenneth, your assumption about what is in my mind is not justified and rejected - your mind reading capability is somewhat hilarious though. I am talking about the entire phenomenon, except the low altitude ozone from exhaust gases, laser printers, copy machines, and water purifiers :). It is not the best practice to underestimate our interlocutor. I am following all the development in this area since my age 14 (1983). My father and I worked in the petrochemical business, and he had a patent, a replacer of freon (production of water free iso butane) what I inherited. I was the HSE manager of a multinational oil company for 6 years and led plenty of projects were affected by the agreement. I am open to learning, but the naturally occurring ozone hole at the Arctics does not traverse my statement, it is just not relevant.
Maybe I was not clear in the following declaration before. China and developing countries had given up using freon for the common good before the cheap and efficient freon refrigerators spread and became available for the significant part of the population. A large proportion of their citizens bought their first AC or fridge after the agreement, a more expensive equipment, although they were poorer. It is called a responsible and reputable sacrifice for the common interest.
The US, Russia, and developed countries exploited the 'emission opportunities, ' and others helped to solve the issue. This is a historical fact of the global air pollution problems.
The wealth inequality is a global environmental issue (this is not a leftist approach, this is the reality), a barrier to making international environmental agreements. We thought that the air is equally available for everybody, not like oil or other valuable things.
It is incredibly arrogant and ignorant approach what some developed countries have, after using most of the pollution opportunities, requiring more freedom in emitting than others. Making political issue and religious dispute from climate problems is just shameful. For instance, Kyoto should limit CO2 emission in mass/person instead of using earlier levels of pollution. This solution would be still overwhelmingly generous for the developed countries since they caused the issue (if there is any - politely give you space Kenneth). I stated that from the first moment when the agreement became public.
Luckily, China and developing countries were way more generous in the cooperation to save the ozone layer. In case of the ozone issue, they did way more than the 'developed' countries.
Please try to keep the discussions enough open and polite to keep going instead of closing them. I like to read your pieces even I sometimes disagree.
Any time Kenneth. I was just saying that the naturally existing ozone hole existence itself is not significant in the human caused ozone deficit problem. What is important of course, its size, the placement, the level of the ozone deficit, the time length, and the time of the occurrence. Thank you for your openness.
Kenneth, I think you are right, thank for the Montreal agreement, CFC pollution was reduced significantly, so we can use the past tense, there was a human-caused ozone deficit.
I found an easy to digest summary: http://www.theozonehole.com/cfc.htm
Hi Kenneth, Andersen and Robert,
Thanks a lot for your sharing. Honestly, I have learned a lot through your postings. These will be useful to make any comment on this issue in the future. Thanks once again to everybody.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Emotional Psychology
- Happiness