The UN treaty to protect the ozone layer has prevented a likely surge in skin cancer in Australia, New Zealand and northern Europe, a study published on Tuesday said.
If the 1987 Montreal Protocol had never been signed, the ozone hole over Antarctica would have grown in size by 40 percent by 2013, it said.
Ultra-violet levels in Australia and New Zealand, which currently have the highest mortality rates from skin cancer, could have risen by between eight and 12 percent.
In northern Europe, depletion of the ozone layer over the Arctic could have boosted ultra-violet levels in Scandinavia and Britain by more than 14 percent, it said.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/world-already-reaping-benefits-from-ozone-treaty-150526.htm
[Abstract]: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150526/ncomms8233/full/ncomms8233.html
[Editor's Comment: Original Source]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday May 28 2015, @12:08PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Thursday May 28 2015, @05:36PM
A very valid point and one I would have overlooked without you posting it. Thank you. My only problem with this is the conclusion that the hole would have been larger at that specific size. It may have eroded further or less. My guess is that it would have been less as there was a massive awareness of the problem and many people were already seeking CFC alternatives on their own before the laws were enacted. This, in my mind, makes it impossible to draw a conclusive result as there are too many variables and it is not unknown for a company to alter their was due to the publics interest in alternative products. This is why there are fads, things like gluten-free products, and more organics available today. The number (and size of the hole) could have gone down due to other pressures besides a law. While this is doubtful, and corporations are much more evil almost thirty years later, there is that potential and to state that the number 40% is authoritative seems disingenuous and not very good science.
I could be mistaken, and the number may seem trivial to some, but if I am not mistaken then, no matter how trivial, allowing for bad scientific conclusions to be authoritatively stated is certainly in the slippery slope range. Also consider the recent article here that was entirely about bad science and how it has impacted the field. Making people, giving them excuses, disbelieve science (to favor religion perhaps) is not a very good thing in my humble opinion.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @01:13PM
I'm beginning to wonder if Soylent editors have any real science background at all. This article was plastered all over the internet the past two days and yet if you read it you find that it has the most ridiculous premise of ANY 'climate study' that has ever been conducted. The authors purport to claim that they could should how the ozone layer WOULD have continued to deplete if CFCs hadn't been banned. This is like me showing you a graph of the amount of money I personally would have made if I had never joined the Army. The study is so full of shit I can hardly believe anyone can take it seriously, yet here it is on Soylent. Since it hadn't appeared yesterday I foolishly made the assumption that Soylent editors squashed it for its ridiculousness. Soylent is my first news stop of the day; obviously this something I'll need to reconsider - - - I am rendered perfectly speechless and terribly disappointed. The title of this story should have been a lambasting about shitty pseudo-science. Instead, it seems the lemmings are all together too happy to follow one another off the cliff. Science is a formula kids and this study is nothing but a hot mess of unverified and unscientific statistical assumptions - try to remember what Einstein said about statistics................. Good day to you!
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @01:22PM
Maybe the scientists who got published in Nature have it right and you don't. Would you like to deplete the ozone layer to test the hypothesis?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday May 28 2015, @01:27PM
The authors purport to claim that they could [show] how the ozone layer WOULD have continued to deplete if CFCs hadn't been banned.
How do you know how accurate, or otherwise, their claims are?
This is like me showing you a graph of the amount of money I personally would have made if I had never joined the Army.
No, it's more like me showing you a graph of the amount of money I probably would have made if I'd stayed at my last job. I was on a certain wage, I had certain expenses, and I could project from those.
But hey, if you think you know better than Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry Martyn Chipperfield, why don't you call him up and tell him how stupid he is?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @02:17PM
Sadly, I bet he gets his fair share of these kind of calls.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @01:48PM
Oh boy, is it time to play "Spot the bullshit" again? Ohboyohboyohboy *excitedly jumps in place like a little girl*
I'm beginning to wonder if Soylent editors have any real science background at all.
Why would you think that in the first place? This is a site for nerds not academics.
This article was plastered all over the internet the past two days and yet if you read it you find that it has the most ridiculous premise of ANY 'climate study' that has ever been conducted.
That trends can be used to estimate the future? I bet you don't believe in weather reports too.
This is like me showing you a graph of the amount of money I personally would have made if I had never joined the Army.
In what way? Do explain for the mortals of us oh great paragon of rationality and reason!
The study is so full of shit I can hardly believe anyone can take it seriously, yet here it is on Soylent.
By all means, please feel free to describe in detail all the problems with this study. It should be easy if it's sooo obvious right?
I am rendered perfectly speechless and terribly disappointed.
Oh no, some random AC is disappointed in me. What ever shall I do?
Science is a formula kids and this study is nothing but a hot mess of unverified and unscientific statistical assumptions
No it's not. Science accepts all methods of providing reliable results, even if they are not perfect. While having completely accurate methods is preferred, it's not always possible, which is where techniques such as statistics come in.
Good day to you!
Likewise!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by ikanreed on Thursday May 28 2015, @01:57PM
Oh my god. The chemistry of CFCs isn't that complicated. Highly electronegative atomic chlorine that it produces yanks the unstable extra oxygens out of O3 and with a lot of regularity.
This is a bit like saying "These stupid 'engineers' claim they could know a car would accelerate if I pushed the gas pedal, that's just conjecture. The fact that we saw the car go last week last time we pushed the gas pedal doesn't mean anything about the future and all these 'theories' about how the engine works are just theories."
Grow the fuck up. Calling science you don't like "statistics" with a tone of derision just indicates how little you understand the studies of science and statistics, and doesn't invalidate shit.
(Score: 4, Funny) by frojack on Thursday May 28 2015, @05:07PM
The chemistry of CFCs isn't that complicated. Highly electronegative atomic chlorine that it produces yanks the unstable extra oxygens out of O3 and with a lot of regularity.
Why, yes, when you state it so clearly, its obvious to the most casual observer.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Informative) by LionKimbro on Thursday May 28 2015, @07:38PM
You can learn about how it works here: http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Kinetics/Case_Studies%3A_Kinetics/Depletion_of_the_Ozone_Layer [ucdavis.edu]
Here's a nice and detailed pictorial representation: http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonedestruction.htm [theozonehole.com]
Wikipedia also has a very nice write-up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion [wikipedia.org]
There are references, chemical models, measurements, all over the place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @05:17PM
Don't forget "The car has gone fast in the past", "There's no solid proof that putting more gasoline in the engine will speed it up", "Other external factors are responsible for the acceleration", etc, anything to take the blame off the people actually pushing the accelerator.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by frz on Thursday May 28 2015, @09:44PM
I found this and it alludes [scientificamerican.com] to a theoretical link but doesn't give evidence that CFCs have been detected in the stratosphere or close to it. Wikipedia's lone source that CFC's are well distributed in the ozone layer [wikipedia.org] doesn't claim any such thing. Cl0 in the ozone holes may have a relationship to man-made CFCs but if the link has been studied scientifically I can't find it.
Anybody got a reliable source on actual CFC levels in the stratosphere?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @10:59PM
Here [nasa.gov] are a few [ornl.gov] links [mit.edu].
This [nature.com], and the references cited within.
It shouldn't be too surprising. The stratosphere is loaded with aerosols and dust that continually churn between the troposphere and stratosphere, and these particles are much much bigger than the light atomic gas molecules.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @05:12PM
Ozone layer depletion? Pft, what a load of nonsense! Everyone knows that there's no possible way human activity could have any kind of global effect. People who believe in this "ozone-depletion" nonsense are probably the same idiots who also buy into "global warming"! Repeat after me: Human activity is too insignificant to have global effects!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @10:22PM
...my grandmother used to tell us that the best way to start off a summer was to get a really bad sunburn. Every fucking year.
My father would get screaming mad about it, but my grandmother, who knew better, would always do it.
These days, she always uses the defense "But we didn't know!" At the time, everyone knew. It was all over the TV all the time.
Fucking idiots.