Earth's formerly thin ozone layer is recovering

That's recovering...not recovered. And how long has it taken to get this far? And how far do we still have to go?

It will take 90 years to get the ozone later to the state it was in 1980. (approximately 2070)

It will take a lot longer to negate our effect on Global Warming.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 30 2006, 09:55 PM) [snapback]312017[/snapback]</div>

Very true. But it was a step in the right direction. Its not all doom and gloom out there

 

Same analogy goes for dieting, and that's why it's such a big business, especially in America. People get fat, lose a little weight on a crash-diet, and then think they can go back to what they were doing before.

The best approach is to find a new, sustainable lifestyle. One in which you recognize and reduce excess and waste, but still allow yourself all the things you enjoy... in moderation.

 

I cannot disagree with you. In my daily life though I try to mix a lil good with my rantings so I can show people that laws can help to make a difference if everyone does their part. I guess there is a fine line you have to walk.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Aug 31 2006, 01:07 AM) [snapback]312022[/snapback]</div>

a little sunshine into their day

i wonder what is what like 500 years ago when the Earth was warmer than it is today?

and, still wondering how those continent shaping glaciers melted a million + years ago?

thanks for the good news. glad to see the Bush administration is succeeding in its environmental policies of leaving the earth a better place than when they took office. a solid economy, a healthy environment, and a safer world... its great to be an American

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 31 2006, 06:45 AM) [snapback]312116[/snapback]</div>

If you want a good arguement then dont be vague with your post. Give me something solid. Obviously the last part was a joke but what exactly are you trying to say in the first to parts?

 

He's trolling. That's wildkow in disguise, just to make it seem like there are more people with the same ridiculously extreme point of view. Equally pointless to argue with this version of radical-right.

Social and religious conservatives have always said "everything's fine how it is", and resisted new ideas, improvements, science, etc., and then benefitted happily and willingly from advances when common sense finally prevailed (or when the hard work of others finally made the advances profitable).

I tend to think that last sentence is not intended as a joke, and that wildkow v2.0 thinks that Bush himself in his 6 wonderful years in office is responsible for any potentially positive change in the environment, or at least anything that they can put enough spin on to make it look positive and encourage more spending... to encourage some growth in our economy other than just service-industry.

[edit]
LOL Tony, you beat me to the reply, and yours is MUCH better

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 31 2006, 09:45 AM) [snapback]312116[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, its a poor troll attempt, but I will bite!

LOL - Quick drinking the Koolaid! Its amazing how you knuckle-draggers carry on. The Montreal treaty was painted as the end of the Industrialized West by the GOP. As for the environmental policies of the Bush administration - do you like arsenic or mercury with that? Economy - yeah, sure, keep quaffing that Koolaid. I remember when that senile old coot (Reagan) took the solar panels off the white house as if it was some kind of triumph. Safer world - its sure nice in that fantasy world.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Aug 31 2006, 09:54 AM) [snapback]312123[/snapback]</div>

I think God was concentrating on the Middle East and forgot about the Poles (no pun intended)

 

Well hell, you guys covered it perfectly

I'm off to the BMI Lab and do some real environmental work instead of just sitting at some bean counting job and reading out environmental issues on wikpedia and spouting about stuff I know very little about.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(triphop @ Aug 31 2006, 10:10 AM) [snapback]312131[/snapback]</div>

i would like to respond to your random thoughts and moments of near clarity, but i have to shave the callouses on my knuckles

i thought that the montreal treaty was intended to allow canada to make cars for the United States duty free?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Aug 31 2006, 07:17 AM) [snapback]312134[/snapback]</div>

Must be quite a burden being such a smug genius! :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Sep 2 2006, 10:02 PM) [snapback]313377[/snapback]</div>

My commen was directed toward a particular member who likes to argue about stuff he knows very little about (he hadn't found his way into this thread yet).

No genius here, just educated on the subjects enough to put up a good argument

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Sep 2 2006, 09:32 PM) [snapback]313387[/snapback]</div>

What kind of education would that be, now that you are in bragging mode? B)

While you are at it could you, since you are so well educated, please explain to me how scientist arrive at a date for fossils discovered in different strata?

Wildkow



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Aug 31 2006, 06:04 AM) [snapback]312128[/snapback]</div>

Extreme beliefs? Would you care to supply some facts for this statement. Last I heard more than half of Americans believe in some form of creation.



The only thing extreme here are your statements as they seem to be extremely uninformed and ill-mannered.



Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 31 2006, 08:45 AM) [snapback]312116[/snapback]</div>

Actually, the ozone issue illustrates exactly what's wrong with Bush's non-policies. For ozone, we (meaning America and in particular our Federal government):
a) Paid attention to the science and recognized the danger.
b) Recognized that international cooperation was needed, and organized that cooperation.
c) Took the lead and the moral high ground in making that work.
d) Entered into an initial international treaty what would have done little to reduce CHF emissions. Dare I say, a Kyoto-like treaty, one that expressed our intent to act.
e) Followed up to replace that with a second international treaty that was binding and did the trick.
f) Implemented the policy rationally, with slow phase-out and increasing monetary penaltiies (read: taxes) for continued use of the most damaging products, but no backtracking. Spray cans went first, and our spray cans went before anyone else's. Used taxes to prod market forces in the right direction, so that regulation seemed less binding. Yes, recyclers were required to recycle the CFCs out of dead appliances, but when the crap was selling for $40 a pound, they were more than happy to do so.
g) Made minor exceptions when required (e.g., halon fire suppression systems of military jets), but no wholesale exemptions for favored campaign contributors, oops, I mean, industries.
h) Did not produce pro-CFC propaganda.
i) Did not spend money investing in absurd alternative schemes that might in some generations from now address the basic issue (read: hydrogen).

The point I'm trying to make is that there are sound reasons for this apparent success story. And that it's a model to be learned from.

And of course, this all took place, starting in the mid-1970s, ending in the late 1990s. For those of you who are innumerate, that's before the second Mr. Bush took office.

At any rate, from the initial science to the initial treaty was roughly 14 years, as I count it. We actually led the world, back then. (I hope I've done no disserve to Europe in my American-centric rant. I only know our side of the story.)

Does it require saying that, with regard to the current analogous issue of global warming, none of points a - i above apply to the current administration. We may have the best govement that money can buy, but it has simply abdicated responsibility to the American people on this issue.

I believe that, absent substantial change in leadership, we won't tackle global warming until far more damage than necessary has been done. Some think our non-policies are immoral. I can see that point. But largely, I believe they are primarily hugely inefficient. Yes, stupid and immoral as well, but even stupid and immoral people ought to have some advisors who can do, as the Brits just did, some reasoned dollar-and-cents calculations of alternatives. Fullly acknowleding the uncertainties involved. That's what anyone does who makes investments. Or pay attention to the fact that some businessmen in the affected industries are coming out to say, in effect, it'll be cheaper if we start fixing this now. It's no surprise to me that it's electic utilities that are doing that -- they are in the business of making judicious investment for long-term returns. But no, failure to act with rational forethought is the hallmark of our current administration. Along with our current ludicrous federal deficit, international trade deficit, failure to fund our old-age programs, not to mention our costly un-paid-for un-necessary interminable war, it's just another example of our willingness to steal from the future to allow us to party on today.

My real fear is that we, as Americans, merely have the government that we deserve. That is, Mr. Bush is the symptom, not the problem. If you're a praying person, pray that I'm wrong about that.

For those of you who don't think the ozone issue was and is serious, you should try to find a discussion of what woud have happened if bromine had been cheaper to use than chlorine, for creation of halocarbons. There are bromine analogs of most of the useful CFCs. Bromine is vastly more effective at ozone destruction. If bromine had been cheaper than chlorine, the ozone layer would have been gone, and most of us would have been dead, before we'd have had the chance to do anything about it.

In other words, we're still here to talk about the recovery of the ozone layer in part due to sheer, damned luck, that the economics of the situation favored chloriine. Or, perhaps due to divine providence, as God gave us time to use our brains. Is that not, after all, why God is supposed to have given Man free will? Maybe that's plan for global warming as well.

 

Settle into your easy chair, grab your bucket of popcorn, and enjoy the show:

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/movies/index.html


Select a suitable movie, which will discuss ozone depletion, how it was discovered and what was done about it.

The international agreement was the Montreal Protocol.

Harry

PS: I did research on the subject as part of a presentation I did on Sun Safety. Too much sun exposure in my career has put me at high risk for skin cancer, something I've had multiple times.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Aug 31 2006, 08:54 AM) [snapback]312123[/snapback]</div>

Thanks - but remember when God built Earth, there was no ozone :lol:

And those glaciers millions of years ago - God was napping