The hole in the ozone layer over Antartica was recently the biggest it has ever been, I learned from this Reuters article:
“From September 21 to 30, the average area of the ozone hole was the largest ever observed, at 10.6 million square miles ,” said Paul Newman of
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center outside Washington.If the stratospheric weather conditions had been normal, the ozone hole would be expected to reach a size of about 8.9 million to 9.3 million square miles, about the surface area of North America, NASA said in a statement.
(NASA image top right. More about it here.)
This immediately reminds one of the other story on the hole I mentioned not so long ago. There was good news there, since it was supposed to be stabilizing, as a result of the impressive international coorperation over CFCs, etc. Well, it is not really a contradiction. Later in the current article, they do mention:
Concentrations of ozone-depleting chemicals in the lower atmosphere have been declining since 1995, and scientists estimate the ozone hole will be completely recovered by about 2065
That’s still in line with the “about 60 years” that they mentioned in the previous article. But the numbers above are still rather unsettling….
-cvj
While the issue has been quite contentious, while some Countires are not willing to sign on board to the Kyoto Accord, this current scientific information has me wondering how much effect this topic below has on our views about climate change?
From a scientific standpoint any opinions?
Variation of Cosmic ray flux and Global cloud coverage-a missing link in Solar-climate relationships by Henri Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, 26 NOvember 1996
Yes, I agree that it is frustrating.
-cvj
OOh absolutely. Closing that 150 year window when we did was a giant step towards helping the planet heal some of its protective systems. I am hoping that that scientist from CalTech you had a presentation a year ago or so, on global warming, is also feeling that some effort to stem the global greenhouse gas emissions will begin to bear some positive results. I am just frustrated that things that have been known for 20 or 40 years about human behavior weren’t corrected until it was (or might be) too late.
All true…. but how much longer woudl we have had to wait had we not all pulled together as an international community? See the previous post. Modulo the report the first commenter there pointed to.
Cheers!
-cvj
So we have to wait sixty years for the earth to begin receiving less UV. I am sure all those amphibians, coral reefs, cancer patients (Australia has young teens with skin cancer) and other species that shall suffer from the onslaught will thank us then.