RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3500Goal: $3500

Talk:Ozone layer

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon science.svg

This Climatology related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Repairing itself[edit]

Um... I thought I'd heard that, too, about the ozone hole becoming smaller, but I can't find a reference. And NOAA seems to say the problem's still getting worse. I don't know if we can really call this a victory for environmentalism... JS Leitch 23:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Not getting smaller, just expanding slower. It's gonna take a long time for the CFCs to stop getting up to it, and the tough part is that in the reaction they catalyze, they aren't consumed - I don't know if there is a even a model of how they would or could eventually start disappearing. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh wow. So the CFC level isn't even decreasing? What do we need, a giant vacuum cleaner? JS Leitch 00:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The trouble is, they were ideal for what we used them for because at the surface, they were very very non-reactive - meaning, safe. Then we discovered that they could catalyze the breakdown of ozone. Since the are so unreactive, they are stable, there isn't a simple "metabolic" pathway to break them down. And at least we stopped pumping them out. Eventually we'll hit the point where there is a maximum level in the ozone layer, and that's the worst it will get (keep in mind that ozone is also produced). Hopefully the CFCs do break down somehow, and will slowly start dropping in level. Meanwhile, what we might need is not so much a giant vacuum cleaner but perhaps some giant ozone generators ;) ħumanUser talk:Human 03:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
CFCs do eventually breakdown, but only after they have been the catalyst for several hundred million reactions. Basically so long as we add no more in a few million years the ozone layer should recover. - π 04:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
There ya go, all will be good for our evil reptile overlords when they take over. Piguy, oh irrational one, any good links on how CFCs break down? Just curious... Also just curios why Noah fucking Webster didn't get rid of the three-vowel run in "curious", since it it is obvisly inefishent. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The theory that the CFC ban is based on assumes that CFC rises to the stratosphere, breaks down into HF and Cl, and then reacts with ozone. So of course it breaks down. Here is Merck Index: "Photodecomposition [of CFC] occurs in the stratosphere via absorption of UV radiation and subsequent release of atomic chlorine which can catalyze ozone breakdown." So if doesn't break down, then there is no problem. As of now, the hole over Antarctica is just as bad as it ever was. PeterKa (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
What's the problem with simply releasing tons of Ozone from an aircraft over Antarctica? Since it hasn't been commissioned, I assume it won't work. -- Forerunner (talk) 06:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

O3 might be greenhouse, but it keeps some energy out the atmosphere[edit]

I removed this:

> Ironically, ozone is itself a greenhouse gas. A depleted ozone layer

> would result in (slightly) less total global warming.

I think I'm referencing something I learned at school, but with less ozone in the atmosphere more UV gets to the surface. This is absorbed by the ground and re-emitted as infrared, which is then trapped by other (much more powerful) greenhouse gases. This means less O3 can increase global warming, even though O3 is a greenhouse gas itself. BrowserWarVet (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)