Talk:Ozone depletion

Earth's magnetic fields cause ozone 'thinning' at the poles

Where is the discussion of this? This is why this 'THINNING' not holes take place.

Unprecedented Arctic Ozone-Thinning Drifts South in Wired Magazine Online discusses the thinning of the ozone layer at the poles, why it happens, and the projected effects. Thinning ozone at the poles has started, and will continue to create increasing problems for the rest of the planet. The ozone layer thins when chemical reactions in the air, caused by frigid temperatures in the stratosphere, erode away at the layers of ozone. These chemical reactions float on the backs of clouds, and so it is possible for these frigid air conditions to be carried by wind. This is the case over Russia, along the Chinese border, and could continue to spread south as far as the Mediterranean. 67.176.42.36 (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Cosmic rays

I took out a load of new stuff on how it is all the cosmic rays [1]. It looks to be based on this [2] which is (a) far too new and (b) far too wacky. "My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century," Lu said. "Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming." is jolly exciting but wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This was pushed back but I've reverted for now. We definitely shouldn't be writing large parts of science articles solely from newly published papers whose impact on the science is yet to be seen. --TS 03:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me the original passage William deleted may have focused too much on quotes from the researcher, rather than on the science presented by the paper [3].

On the other hand, neutrality requires that the article fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source. This is a peer-reviewed paper originating with a significant Canadian university that purports to present evidence of a new mechanism for the formation of the polar ozone hole. While it is clear that the paper should not be given undue WP:WEIGHT, this is a fairly large (66KB) entry that should be able to accommodate mention, which seems appropriate.

William, it was you that deleted the original passage. Do you want to take a stab at presenting the information in a way with which you would be more comfortable? DGaw (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

== No mention of Monkeys are Homo. e criticism/skepticism of the ozone hole isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Opponents may be few these days, but there was certainly a long history of controversy that should be at least mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.182.143 (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

does anyone have ANY website that can give me at least somewhat reliable proof that the ozone layer depletion isn't our fault? ☆dream on☆dance on☆ 17:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I was also hoping to read about parallels between Climate change scepticism and ozone hole scepticism --Hypo Mix (talk) 03:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there really is no credible scientific "opposition" to the theory at all any more. OTOH there was a history of it, so perhaps that shuold be included. Note that there is an "Misconceptions about ozone depletion" - that is, implicitly, about the skepticism William M. Connolley (talk) 08:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess this is the most appropriate place to ask if this is the time to remove the section on Cl2O2 absorption cross-sections. It appears that the original Sanders experiment was wrong and thing have pretty well returned to the status quo ante. The outcome, if nothing else, is that the measurements have been improved and there were some good new techniques invented. If there are no objections I will kill it off in the next few days. If there are we can discuss it.Eli Rabett —Preceding undated comment added 05:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC).

Misconceptions

CFCs are "too heavy" to reach the stratosphere - It appears that another reason CFCs are able to reach the stratosphere is due to photodissociation, according to information in the lead. Can someone confirm this and add a sentence or two in this section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.182.143 (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is incorrect, although CFCs are heavy relative to nitrogen molecules, they are what is called well mixed. That means that they blow where the wind takes them and their mixing ratio as a function of altitude is constant up to at least the lower stratosphere. They have been found throughout the stratosphere at the concentrations one expects given their source (the troposphere) and the rate of destruction by photodissociation in the stratosphere. 69.136.230.210 (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to read this page in French - but the link is corrupt (I received another issue). When I came back there was no access to French any more! What happens? Can anybody fix the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.167.138.95 (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Positive effects

I'm dubious about the stuff the anon removed [4] so I've re-removed it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If by dubious you mean potentially undue or POV pushing, etc. I agree. I'm not sure this suspicion justifies removal. What makes you think the journals are unreliable? As an aside, Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. is published by RSC and this 2003 article states "It is possible that UV exposure could influence the blood level of the vitamin D hormone, but there is no simple direct relationship between vitamin D hormone and UV exposure because of the many regulatory feedback mechanisms." -Shootbamboo (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There was a 2007 Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. pub removed from the article. What is wrong with the source?diff diff -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

the sources "suck" because they're junk science -- but anyone who expresses their disapproval by saying something "sucks" probably couldn't tell the difference between real and fake "science" anyways. Oh and, if you could read, you would know why the 2003 article was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.202.2 (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

junk science is a political term, in my opinion. would you take a moment be specific about your concerns? -Shootbamboo (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Kary Banks Mullis' doubts on man-made ozone depletion

Extract from Mullis' book "Dancing Naked in the Mind Field", chapter 11:
[...] Beyond the lack of scientific evidence, it makes no sense anyhow that we could destroy ozone in the upper atmosphere. If a hole in the ozone layer appeared somehow, here's what would happen: The UV rays from the sun would come through that hole and strike the Earth's atmosphere, where they would be absorbed by the miles-thick layer of oxygen surrounding the Earth. Then it would make more ozone. When the UV rays from the sun combine with oxygen, they form ozone. The ozone thus formed absorbs UV light, which continues to come from the sun, and prevents it from penetrating any farther into the oxygen below that has not been converted to ozone. That is why we have oxygen to breathe down here and ozone in the upper atmosphere. If all the nations in the world agreed to spend all of their money to eliminate the ozone layer - they couldn't do it. It can't go away unless all the oxygen in the atmosphere were to go away, and then, guess what - we couldn't breathe, until the green plants made some more. The ozone in the upper atmosphere regulates itself. [...]
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/mullis/method.html
-- 79.206.99.163 (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is KM's opinion of any interest? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This is old, but I will respond. His opinion should be of interest because he is not merely a talk show host or political hack. He is a Nobel Prize-winning scientist. He is therefore a credible source by Wikipedia's standards and the information can be easily referenced. Remember, Wikipedia is not interested in determining what information is true or false, but rather covering ALL information that can be reliably sourced in a complete encyclopedia fashion. Ithizar (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to disenfranchise any opinion, but I'm pretty sure this would fall under WP:FRINGE. KM won a nobel...in a field other than the ones he tends to comment on in quite, well, preposterous terms (AIDs, astrology, climate change, etc). Regardless, the link you posted is not to his book, it's an unnamed website reposting a chapter of it. Even though I think he doesn't belong in the article in terms of fringe and RS, you would at least need to cite the actual book. The webpage is not even remotely a reputable source.204.65.34.86 (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

HIPERION

Is this HIPERION report for real? It seems confusing because elsewhere in the article it is stated that ozone depletion is insignificant in the tropics. Can anyone clarify? Kyle Cronan (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Source concern left in 'CFCs and related compounds in the atmosphere' section

The preceding reference does not support the preceding sentence, perhaps the original source was edited. In any case CFC molecules cannot stay in the stratosphere for a century, or any period of time, destroying ozone molecules. As other parts of this writeup state, CFC molecules decompose releasing chlorine which then destroys ozone for about two years. The original CFC is gone at that point. 192.5.38.114 (talk) 10:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The above comment was left in the main article page under the CFCs and related compounds in the atmosphere section by an anonymous user. I have replaced this comment with a verification needed tag and have copied it here to allow for discussion. –TheIguana (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Add "Atmospheric ozone is one of the Planetary boundaries."

Add "Atmospheric ozone is one of the Planetary boundaries." 99.190.81.244 (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Still oppose, for reasons given in Talk:Planetary boundaries. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Revised Planetary boundaries has "Stratospheric ozone concentration (Dobson units)" as a Control variable. 99.56.123.49 (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Still no reason for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

See continuing updating of Planetary boundaries ... 99.112.214.230 (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It's being updated. Perhaps in a few years, it will be relevant enough for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(od) What is being updated? Why "in a few years"? 99.181.143.108 (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not the 1980s anymore

This theory has been so dead for ten years. It's way past the "ex-parrot" stage. Isn't it time to cut the alarmist tone? Kauffner (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Clarity issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Ozone_depletion_and_global_warming

"The same CO2 radiative forcing that produces global warming is expected to cool the stratosphere. This cooling, in turn, is expected to produce a relative increase in ozone (O3) depletion in polar area and the frequency of ozone holes." Just a thought: I had to read this twice; I recommend that you change the phrase "relative increase in ozone (O3) depletion" to "relative decrease in ozone" (and delete the word "depletion"). Also, I presume it should finish "...in polar areaS and the frequency..." Mycologyauthor (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Arctic ozone loss in 2011 unprecedented Science News resource

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/334855/title/Arctic_ozone_loss_in_2011_unprecedented "Arctic ozone loss in 2011 unprecedented; Report describes ‘hole’ comparable to early losses above Antarctica" by Janet Raloff November 19th, 2011; Vol.180 #11 (p. 11) 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Does wikipedia have an image of the Arctic ozone depletion?

Does wikipedia have an image of the Arctic ozone depletion? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"The ozone hole is a HOAX!" -- Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh shouted that countless times, and he and many of his self-called "dittoheads," still believe it. "Without history, we are doomed to relive the past." I find a conspicuous lack of, or devaluation of the ozone hole's one-time (say, 1996) extreme controversial nature in the public eye to be a disservice and a distortion of reality. For those who missed it, that debate was EXACTLY like the Climate Change debate of today. (Example: ALL of the Republican presidential candidates denied anthropogenic global warming in a debate a few months ago.) This parallel alone suggests a powerful need for a policy debate history section. I presume "This theory has been so dead for ten years," refers to that popular controversy, but it is NOT dead, at best hopefully it will be sleeping until perpetuity, but the same forces (such as say, Dr. Fred Singer and Rush Limbaugh) are very much as alive and as unpredictable as ever. I do notice the section "Misconceptions about ozone depletion," in large part from Robert Parson's FAQ "posted to the newsgroups sci.environment,..." was designed specifically to address that debate. In fact that section seems biased towards Parson's debunking of "Environmental Overkill", by Dixy Lee Ray with Lou Guzzo. Regnery Gateway Press, 1993. Parson wrote: "These chapters display serious misunderstandings of atmospheric chemistry and dynamics, they either ignore or misrepresent scientific evidence, and they are based upon poor scholarship, in particular the uncritical use of exceedingly unreliable sources." Dr. Lee's depletion denial arguments were popularized by both the Pres. Reagan admin and more so by Rush Limbaugh.

Please expand or create the policy history and controversy section. True, that is not natural science. But also true, it's absence is an unforgivable distortion of the issue, and an issue it is. And I believe Wikipedia policy specifically desires any controversy to be posted, I presume this includes such powerful past controversy. (I know finding this fading history may be difficult, one source said these embarrassing errors are being "scrubbed" from existence. I even had to use the The Way Back Machine http://archive.org/web/web.php - which archives thousands of old sites - to find one of the Parson links above.) Thanks!
--69.232.174.83 (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Add effects of global warming for ozone connection with stratospheric water vapor increase

• Storms Threaten Ozone Layer Over U.S., Study Says July 26, 2012 New York Times; see effects of global warming

99.181.132.254 (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

As elsewhere, add what content? Just throwing out links doesn't do much, what specific content do you propose be added based on that? Vsmith (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is some excerpts ...

The risk of ozone damage, scientists said, could increase if global warming leads to more such storms.

While there is conclusive evidence that strong warm-weather storms have sent water vapor as high as 12 miles — through a process called convective injection — and while climate scientists say one effect of global warming is an increase in the intensity and frequency of storms, it is not yet clear whether the number of such injection events will rise.

99.181.134.146 (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Use this  ? 03:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Coverage in Science News ... Stronger storms may destroy ozone; Extra water vapor up high coul trigger destructive chemical reactions by Devin Powell Web edition July 26th, 2012 99.181.142.117 (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)