Talk:Ozone depletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeOzone depletion was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 2, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on October 4, 2011.

Rehabilitation?[edit]

The article is backward gleaning: "There is ozone depletion. This is what causes it. The end."

It makes no mention of the way in which the ozone depletion is or CAN be reversed:

Is ozone depletion permanent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.69.86 (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Dr Drew Schindell, says that by the depletion of fossil fuels, and the halting of flying in the stratosphere, ( and the halting of the deposition of water vapors ), will halt the destruction, but it will be completely destroyed anyway. After 108 years, it will begin to recover, and in 150 years it will be completely recovered.

\_/ <- Look at this very carefully. It looks like a salad bowl. Its the global climactic model for the recovery of the ozone hole.

When it was first announced as a model, it was only 75 years wide. The letter to GEOS on the same day as the O.J. Simpson verdict, revised the model to 150 years.

Is ozone depletion permanent? No, it will recover, but according to our best models, it will not happen for our grandchildren's grandchildren. Best thing is to stop flying on commercial flights.

Look for this name: Jim Scanlon, who wrote for the Coastal Post. He discussed this with Dr Schindell over a peroid of 13 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.200.41.67 (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Scientists in 2016 reported a gradual trend toward "healing" of the Antarctic ozone hole. I've added this to the article. —Patrug (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Links to global warming[edit]

I'm not an atmospheric scientist, so I'd rather not change the article. But I am a little confused. The text in this section implies that overall ozone depleting substances have a cooling effect, but the image implies that in the troposphere, they have the same sign radiative forcing effect as CO2 (i.e. warming). Anyway, does someone with the relevant expertise want to check this out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.164.173 (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Depends where the ozone is. Loss of ozone in the stratosphere cools the stratosphere because there is less to absorb UV light. To the extent that this light (the red end @ ~306 nm) reaches down into the troposphere that would have a warming effect there. Ozone in the troposphere esp the level next to the surface functions as a classical greenhouse gas.Eli Rabett (talk) 16:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I talked to an atmospheric scientist at the GEOS conference. He refused to edit the article saying these words: "Wikipedia is not a primary scientific source, they are not a secondary scientific source, they are a tertiary yelling fest for which the loudest voice wins, not fact or reality."

The odds of a real scientist editing this article are {0}.

The current climactic model says the mechanism is that the polar stratospheric clouds stabilize ( counter-intuitive ) and that causes the water vapor in the stratosphere to cool ( counter-intuitive ), which causes the destruction of ozone in the springs light. ( around April in the north, and October in the south ). Look at the pictures of the north pole on April 15th, and the south pole on October 15th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.200.41.67 (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Earth's magnetic fields cause ozone 'thinning' at the poles[edit]

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[edit]

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 ondance 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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."[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

"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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 Anderson, J. G.; Wilmouth, D. M.; Smith, J. B.; Sayres, D. S. (2012). "UV Dosage Levels in Summer: Increased Risk of Ozone Loss from Convectively Injected Water Vapor". Science. 337 (6096): 835. doi:10.1126/science.1222978.  ? 03:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

New Scientific Evidence proves Ozone depletion theory false[edit]

I've come across the following articles: 1)http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Ingles/Crista.html
2)http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1313599/Ozone-layer-longer-disappearing-return-strength-2048.html
and I wanted to post it here to know about the users opinion, the validity of the content posted in these articles and any further scientific evidences with proper citations. 122.175.23.68 (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The stuff you point to in the Mail is substantially correct: due to action to limit CFC emissions, concentrations of CFCs have stabilised, and so has the ozone depletion. That's covered in Ozone_depletion#Prospects_of_ozone_depletion, thought arguably not terribly well. But that doesn't come close to justifying your headline, which is totally wrong. The mitosyfraudes is drivel and should be ignored William M. Connolley (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

"populace" vs. "population"[edit]

This article is seriously close to hosting an edit war between the use of the word "populace" or "population" in the "Consequences of ozone layer depletion" section. I have no opinion on this, but I'd like people, especially the editors involved, to comment on their rationale for which word they believe should be used, with hopes of a consensus. Greengreengreenred 01:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The change was made, and repeated, by Call Me Ream (talk · contribs) who apparently may be a sock puppet of Scibaby. See their user page. If you have no opinion on it, then there's no need to change it. . . dave souza, talk 08:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Future ozone layer concentrations.gif to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Future ozone layer concentrations.gif will be appearing as picture of the day on December 21, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-12-21. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 18:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Projected ozone depletion
An animated image showing projections of stratospheric ozone concentrations if chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) had not been banned. CFCs and other halogenated ozone-depleting substances are mainly responsible for man-made chemical ozone depletion. Since the ozone layer absorbs UVB ultraviolet light, its depletion is expected to increase surface UVB levels, which could lead to damage, including increase in skin cancer.Image: NASA/GSFC/Fallschirmjäger


Creationist argument[edit]

http://www.creationconcepts.org/resources/OZONE.pdf Please change the page to match a valid resource, the Ozone depletion theory is a fraud the ozone depletion is not a hole, but a thinning it only appears in ant-artica on a seasonal bases. We will Always have this thinning it's natural

The oceans and volcanoes dump out 99X more chlorine then the CFC's that we can produce! Some research of the depletion theory was completed with unaccurate information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.58.147 (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Percentage of Man Made Chlorine[edit]

Under the above heading, the text says this:" Only methyl chloride, which is one of these halocarbons, has a mainly natural source,[92] and it is responsible for about 20 percent of the chlorine in the stratosphere.."

The pie chart opposite the text puts methyl chlorine at 15%. Could someone knowledgeable resolve this difference? MarkinBoston (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

POV Issue[edit]

After reading this article, I find it difficult to see how anyone could possibly consider it to have a neutral point of view. It is a shame to see so much work on a subject and yet no prospect of it ever achieving GA or FA status because a handful of editors have fought tooth and nail to ensure that any opinion they disagree with is labeled as WP:Fringe and removed. Likewise, it appears from previous discussions that the FAQ is regarded as the holy text of the article despite the fact that it looks like a AOL chat room from 1996.

Labeling alternative viewpoints "misconceptions," while seeming innocent to regular editors of this topic, is a obvious tactic used to frame any discussion from a given perspective. Under Percentage of Manmade Chorine, you have a classic example of an editorial voice squashing dissent. A hypothesis is proposed then quickly squashed with far more information than was given about the original theory. Listing out theories with the express intent of disproving them is not encyclopedic, and no matter how widely-accepted theories are, they remain theories, and thus alternative viewpoints are never "misconceptions". The POV in this article is so pervasive that I would not know where to begin working on it. I am content leaving it the way it is as an example of how bad an an article can be when scientists abandon objectivity. Mrathel (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

dogs are very nasty animals unlike cats they are very greedy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.50.71.132 (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion, last changes[edit]

I have done some expansion work on the article. Reiner Grundmanns studies have been already been quoted but there was more to it. His points about the role of the Nobel trio and as well Bob Watson are important, as well the comparision with the Global warming issues. If you have comments, provide them. I dont accept however a revert by an alleged lack of consensus -without giving any hint why consensus is need or in doubt at all. Grundmann has written Transnational Environmental Policy: Reconstructing Ozone, [5], the german version was published with Max-Planck-Instituts für Gesellschaftsforschung, the book is one of "the sources" about the ozone issue en detail and transnatinal environmental policy in general. Serten (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

We seem to be exchanging policy quotes by edit comment, so I offer you WP:BRD. Anyway, that RG is quoted in support of something uncontentious doesn't mean that anything he says, no matter how contentious, can go into the article. Your edit comment - Grundmann is already an important source here is clearly wrong. G is a minor source for peripheral matters.
We already have a section called "Rowland–Molina hypothesis". Your material duplicates some of that, but is worse.
William M. Connolley (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Goodness. Take Grundmann, Reiner (2001). Transnational Environmental Policy: Reconstructing Ozone. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-415-22423-9, which was already in the lit list. Take Ozone and Climate, Scientific Consensus and Leadership, Reiner Grundmann doi: 10.1177/0162243905280024 Science Technology Human Values January 2006 vol. 31 no. 1 73-101. Thats real research, about central aspects of the article. The point is, if you dont like his findings, go and find a reception thats rules him out. Grundmann professor in nottingham focuses in transnational environmental policy, he is doing research on the Ozone topic and climate, has written a major book, trtanslated from German in English, on the Ozone issue and is an acknowleddged scholar in the field. You seem to believe that social sciences dont matter. The contrary is the case. Better revert yourselve and correct the doble entrry. Serten (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC) I have included Grundmann not just since he is an outstanding scientist but since I found the comparision with the Ozone layer problem is an eye opener putting things into perspective. Connolley claims he's of no importance and erased my contributions, the other account dosnt bother to discuss at all. If one however tries, on scholar, the words global ozone climate one gets a science study by Michael Oppenheimer on position two, top is a 1989 paper and Grundmann is on place three. That said, Connolleys claims are completely unsubstantiated. I will restore my edits with some changes, including the Oppenheimer paper and taking care of the Rowland–Molina duplication. Serten (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: declined Notifying that I removed this post because of lack of thorough discussion from both sides. 3O is only possible when both parties discuss and present their views comprehensively. For more information refer to the main 3O page. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I take the point with regarding discussion seriously. I will shorten the entry and move some of the parts to Ozone hole]] and the Montreal article as they are already the more political articles. Serten (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Ozone depletion and global warming[edit]

Serten has now made Ozone depletion and global warming. I've restored this one William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You actually restored parts that had been splitted and moved with good reason. I call that hounding. Stop it. Serten (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The section on Ozone depletion and global warming was about the connection between global warming and ozone depletion. The split off article whilst it has the same name seems to be about a comparison of how people have responded and what social studies says about that. The replacement section put here was about public policy only and should have been in the public policy section.
The split off article is therefore a WP:COATRACK rather than a proper split. I therefore support William M. Connolley in the revert and the reinsertion of the section covering the science connecting the two phenomena. There is a Public policy section where public policy aspects of the similarities and differences between the handling them is more appropriate. Dmcq (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
For once, Ozone depletion and global warming is about the connection between global warming and ozone depletion, as the title says. It is not at all restricted to public policy. As well this article, ozone depletion is not restricted to climate science or athmospheric chemistry. Links between the science assessments, the policy making and the science respectively knowledge policy are very close. Take Robert Watson (scientist) which played an important role in all aspects. The distinction you make is not to be found in the relevant scientific literature, to the contrary. Serten (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Produce a title for that article which describes the notable topic then. There is a notable topic described in your references about public policy but they are not concerned about the actual science at all. If it is a notable topic someone will have described it with a name somewhere. Dmcq (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry its the other way around. WP guideline do not intend to use primary (technical) sources, as the "human relationship with the biosphere is deemed of major historiographical and political significance" (David Christian (historian)). Its about Big History and not to be left to the tekkies, social sciences provide the secondary sources for the articles about the general topics and their historical significance. Goodness they have dealt a lot with the conclusion aof the science assessments for society and in historical perspectives, as such they dont need your OR in the primary source base. Serten (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I have to say that I find your text hard to parse. I also think you misunderstand WP:PST and in particular what a primary source is (hint: the IPCC reports are not primary). I don't know what "Its" refers to, but Wikipedia operates on many levels, not just "Big History". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I suggested Ozone depletion and global warming policy for the title as both Google scholar and straight Google showed that the science rather than the policy was the main topic if you leave out the policy bit. Or else they could make it clear in the lead that the article is about the policy aspects rather than the science. However they reject that, seemingly science techies doesn't signify on their radar as having any importance whatever about any actual interest shown. Dmcq (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


I take an example from the deWP Belege entry. If a topic is being discussed in a broad scientific discourse, as e.g. history of quantum physics, youre not to use primary sources, e.g. as Plancks original papers, but the studies using them as a base for assessments - or even studies that assess those on a meta level, as in Kuhns history of science paradigms. That said, with regard of the notable topic wether the IPCC approach is as effectiv as the dealings with Ozone or acid rain, Grundmann, Radkau and Cass are secondary sources, the IPCC ARs are primary stuff while "the Science" used (the tekkie base for the ARs) do not matter at all. Serten (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Policies and guidelines from other Wikipedia languages do not apply to the English Wikipedia. I believe WP:N is the right equivalent and is not the relevant policy for this question. Whether a name refers to one topic or another is the subject of WP:TITLE and is determined by general popularity not secondary sources as it used for searching for and referencing the topic. Your argument would be false anyway as you seem to think even books and reviews in science are primary. Dmcq (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I do not refer to the alien guideline per se, I used one of their examples. Augustinus writings about the bible or assessments of Plancks writings are primary sources for various fields of science, either being books. That said, scholarly fields like Science, technology and society (STS) or journals as Science, Technology, & Human Values provide secondary sources about Ozone depletion and global warming, using e.g. the whole heap of science reviews and the acticities of the networks behind as primary sources. Serten (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Effects of global warming, in inducing stratospheric ozone depletion:

The atmosphere of the earth is characterised by an inverse in temperature levels as we rise from the surface of the earth upwards. First, temperature decreases with altitude. Next, in the stratosphere the temperature rises with altitude and then again, once the ozone layer has been passed, temperature decreases once more with altitude. This temperature inverse has the effect of a lid on the atmosphere of the earth, shielding the troposphere from interaction with outer space. For instance making the high levels of oxygen possible as are caracteristic of the earth. As ozone depletion will cause stratospheric temperature to decline, the temperature inverse will decrease and therewith the shielding effect on the atmosphere.

Any suggestions for editing this part? Marloneleonora (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No. See User_talk:Serten#Ozone_depletion_and_climate_change, it is inspired by science and therefore not for me to touch. Serten (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is this part deleted? I've tried to discuss it here, but I got no response. Thus I posted it. Now it has been removed without any comment. This does not seem constructive. Could you please try to communicate? Marloneleonora (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR and provide WP:reliable sources to support your content addition. Vsmith (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Atmospheric distribution[edit]

The part on Misconceptions contained some references on distribution of ODS that is either incomplete or out of date. The linked source discusses the evenness of CF4 distribution, which is correct:

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/myths/heavier.html

...however, heavier ODS substances are not well mixed in the atmosphere, CFC-114, for example:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JD090iD07p13091/abstract

I removed it because I couldn't think of a qualifying statement that made it true, but also useful. 173.74.241.141 (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The existing information is useful. Rather than deleting it, we should work new stuff in William M. Connolley (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
A couple months later, but I've changed it up a bit without removing it. 173.74.241.141 (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ozone depletion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ozone depletion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Ozone depletion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Untitled[edit]

I believe the South Pole "hole" was first found in the 1950s - before CFCs were used. NASA has reported that CFCs don't have any/much affect anyway. 2601:181:8301:4510:355E:2BBD:95F2:7017 (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, the article and its scientific references contradict your claims. —Patrug (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hoax[edit]

Lewis Dupont Smith wrote an open letter to shareholders stating that DuPont directors used the Montreal Protocols to have their own product banned. to prevent other companies producing Freon after the patent expired.

The maximum chlorofluorocarbon level into 'ozone layer' has been 5 parts per trillion, equivalent to nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.96.45 (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

UV and tropospheric ozone[edit]

The article states that stratospheric ozone depletion will result in increased tropospheric ozone because UV promotes ozone formation. This statement (specifically that increased UV means a net increase in tropospheric ozone) appears to be unsupported by fact, and no citation is given. The explanation also seems oversimplified, given that tropospheric ozone is both produced and destroyed by UV light. As a counter-reference, Zhang et al[1] ran a study using a modern atmospheric chemistry-transport model in 2014 which found that stratospheric ozone depletion has actually slightly reduced tropospheric ozone levels. Whether or not Zhang et al are correct, the claim that increased tropospheric ozone is a side-effect of stratospheric ozone depletion is either disputed (in which case we need citations) or simply wrong (in which case the claim should be removed).

SDE (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

O + O
3
→ 2 O
2
chemical equation
[edit]

For quite a long time this article featured "O + O
3
→ 2 O
2
chemical equation" (why did it add "chemical equation"? That's weird). In 2013 that got changed to "2 O
3
→ 3 O
2
chemical equation". And it has now been recently changed again (thought that is probably just vandalism. But really, having an equation there seems to make no sense at all, since that's in the "ozone cycle overview" section, and if we were going to feature something in there it should probably look like "2 O
2
→ O + O
3
→ 2 O
2
".

William M. Connolley (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ozone depletion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

any reason why...[edit]

...scientists (not crackpots) pointing out that the ozone hole has been around as soon as ozone measurement were made, in 1958...

https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-0025586819&origin=inward&txGid=8ab7ca9d9d1d5d28706864f98d7c1420

...or that it has natural (not human) origin...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289966538_Confirmation_of_the_hypothesis_of_the_natural_origin_of_the_Antarctic_ozone_hole

Are not even mentioned?

I mean, scientist DO mistakes, so these guys may be wrong. But if they are, it must show in the article, doesn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.168.175.234 (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ Zhang, H., Wu, S., Huang, Y. and Wang, Y.: Effects of stratospheric ozone recovery on photochemistry and ozone air quality in the troposphere, Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics, 14, 4079–4086, 2014.