• DarkMessiah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    “Whatever happened with the ozone layer panic, if scientists are so smart?”

    We listened to the scientists, and the problem went away.

    • then_three_more@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s the same as people using the example of the Y2K bug being a non event. Yeah, because globally trillions of dollars were spent fixing it before it became an event.

      • DarkMessiah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Get that marble brain Reddit-style bs outta here. If you wanna deny, you’re gonna have to come up with a reason that you could be right. Otherwise, we’re just gonna point al laugh at your dumbassery.

          • Asafum@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Did you even bother to read it?

            Among other things it says: “Based on the Montreal Protocol and the decrease of anthropogenic ozone-depleting substances, scientists currently predict that the global ozone layer will reach its normal state again by around 2050.”

            The reason it isn’t discussed as much is because it’s on the mend and the only things newsworthy are the larger than normal cyclical hole that forms. Another thing mentioned was a volcanic eruption in 2022 that is believed to contribute to that “larger than normal” hole.

            Nothing there disputes the fact that we took action. I worked as a refrigeration tech and we even had to learn about this before we could be EPA certified to handle refrigerants.

  • MasterBlaster@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I literally had this exact exchange with someone last year, when they tried to cast doubt on global warming by comparing it to the ozone. Another person did the same , using acid rain, and I pointed out that the northeast sued the shit out of the Midwest until they cut that shit with the coal fire power plants.

    • Yaztromo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      The Conservative Party led Canadian Government and the Regan-era Republican US Government started working on the US-Canada Air Quality Agreement, which was signed by the George H.W. Bush administration into law in the US (and the Brian Mulroney led Government of Canada).

      That’s right — two Conservative governments identified a problem, listened to their scientists, and enacted a solution to acid rain. And now the problem has virtually disappeared.

      Oh how low Conservatives have fallen on both sides of the border since those days.

  • Kalysta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Imagine if we did this with climate change. Imagine if we tried to switch to renewable energy en masse 20 years ago.

  • Pandantic [they/them]@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    There were goddamn Nickelodeon phone-a-thons where you pledged to not use cfc products. This shit was serious.

    Edit: I just remembered ,they talked about how bad the sun was for kids in Australia, or something.

    • RegalPotoo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Australia and New Zealand do not fuck about with sun safety. Even with the improvements in the ozone layer, our skin cancer rates are still way higher than the rest of the world

    • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      The sun is still awful here, the ozone hole is still a thing.

      But thanks world, at least I can go out for a solid 4.5 months of the year without worrying about the sun at all, and 6 of only needing to be somewhat careful. Not too shabby :)

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Looks like it had been expected to heal by 2040, but might also be affected by by climate change - reminder that even when we fix climate change, CO2 stays in the atmosphere over a century. We can only stop making things worse, but it’s your great grand children who stand to really benefit

      • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        I was thinking of this paper from 2018:

        ACP - Evidence for a continuous decline in lower stratospheric ozone offsetting ozone layer recovery

        Abstract. Ozone forms in the Earth’s atmosphere from the photodissociation of molecular oxygen, primarily in the tropical stratosphere. It is then transported to the extratropics by the Brewer–Dobson circulation (BDC), forming a protective ozone layer around the globe. Human emissions of halogen-containing ozone-depleting substances (hODSs) led to a decline in stratospheric ozone until they were banned by the Montreal Protocol, and since 1998 ozone in the upper stratosphere is rising again, likely the recovery from halogen-induced losses. Total column measurements of ozone between the Earth’s surface and the top of the atmosphere indicate that the ozone layer has stopped declining across the globe, but no clear increase has been observed at latitudes between 60° S and 60° N outside the polar regions (60–90°). Here we report evidence from multiple satellite measurements that ozone in the lower stratosphere between 60° S and 60° N has indeed continued to decline since 1998. We find that, even though upper stratospheric ozone is recovering, the continuing downward trend in the lower stratosphere prevails, resulting in a downward trend in stratospheric column ozone between 60° S and 60° N. We find that total column ozone between 60° S and 60° N appears not to have decreased only because of increases in tropospheric column ozone that compensate for the stratospheric decreases. The reasons for the continued reduction of lower stratospheric ozone are not clear; models do not reproduce these trends, and thus the causes now urgently need to be established.

        and this paper from 2023:

        Potential drivers of the recent large Antarctic ozone holes | Nature Communications

        The past three years (2020–2022) have witnessed the re-emergence of large, long-lived ozone holes over Antarctica. Understanding ozone variability remains of high importance due to the major role Antarctic stratospheric ozone plays in climate variability across the Southern Hemisphere. Climate change has already incited new sources of ozone depletion, and the atmospheric abundance of several chlorofluorocarbons has recently been on the rise. In this work, we take a comprehensive look at the monthly and daily ozone changes at different altitudes and latitudes within the Antarctic ozone hole. Following indications of early-spring recovery, the October middle stratosphere is dominated by continued, significant ozone reduction since 2004, amounting to 26% loss in the core of the ozone hole. We link the declines in mid-spring Antarctic ozone to dynamical changes in mesospheric descent within the polar vortex, highlighting the importance of continued monitoring of the state of the ozone layer.

  • ozoned@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Remember when cavemen unga bunga’d about dinosaurs? Whatever happened to those dinosaurs! It’s like the Flintstones wasn’t actually the ground breaking documentary it was or something!

    • Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      You don’t think that listening to subject matter experts is a wise way to determine truth? By all means, enlighten us with a more consistent strategy.

  • Ugurcan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    TBH “The whole world agreed on something” narrative doesn’t really reflect what happened.

    Actually, The Industry dropped using CFC after a cheaper and luckily safer alternative has been discovered right around that time.

    • marcos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      There was a necessary round of nearly all governments on Earth agreeing to fine and extinguish business or even throwing executives on jail if they insisted on using the more expensive alternative.

      Only after that people stopped using CFCs.

      Honestly, some times I wonder if we live in an episode of Captain Planet. Some people look like plain childish cartoon villains.

  • wellee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Wtf was that dumbest posting about? He never learned about CFCs in 8th grade high school? Embarrassing

  • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    I’ve always hated this comparison because the two problems are just not the same, at all. CFCs were nowhere near as ubiquitous as fossil hydrocarbons, and CFCs had an essentially drop-in replacement, which fossil fuels do not. There’s no non-hydrocarbon fuel that we can just replace for coal, natural gas, gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, etc. None that I’m aware of, anyway.