We know that the early versions of refrigerators and other machines contained CFC that ruined the ozone layer...now CFC rarely exists anymore.\nCan the ozone layer recover??t maks me wonder due to the extreme heat and global warning.and the point of internatioal earth day(correct me if i'm wrong).
206192
CFCs aren't manufactured anymore, but tonnes of it still floats around in the atmosphere.  Since the CFCs causes chain reactions between ozone molecules.. even a lingering amount of CFCs will keep breaking down Ozone in the stratosphere.  Also, CFCs are still present in older models of refrigerators...and most likely people will not go through the hassle of extracting the CFCs before taking it to the dump.
330079
Very noble thoughts but hypocritical! Who would leave his car at home and ride a bicycle to work? Would u? The world is too entangled in the interests of different groups to let go of the facilities it has even if those facilities pollute our air. Big business clearly doesn't bother--Has there been a decrease in number of cars manufactured in the world? OK they're more energy efficient, but that doesn't solve the problem--Energy efficiency doesn't change the gases released into the atmoephere. Until now we should have developed and started mass producing a car using some other source of energy.Generatios to come will look back and definitely blame us for our inability to react fast enough to a looming danger.
26697
Ozone is produced by sunlight. There is less light at the poles (due to the earth's tilt), therefore there are holes there. Very little to do with man made gasses at all. Just one more "theory" with little or no basis in truth.
586384
Isn't global warming enough?! Because of this ice bergs are melting which mean animals will die. Air is becoming thinner which means we can die.  Global warming IS something to worry about!\n\nwww.stopglobalwarming.org
569942
First, you can't change the bonds unless you replace one or both of the atoms involved in the bond.  Second, it's the halogen radicals (Cl and F) that are (supposedly) the problem.  If you start replacing the halogens with other kinds of elements, you will lose the molecular properties that made CFCs so useful to begin with.  \n\nI wonder what, if any, effect a higher UV flux would have on the mutation rate here on the surface of the Earth.  What kinds of changes do you think might occur?  This might be a good topic for your project.  And the best part is that no one can prove you wrong...
424933
This is caused by global warming which means that the increased levels of CO2 in our atmosphere is like a thick blanket it is trapping in the heat. The hole in the ozone layer has nothing to do with it. The hole in the ozone layer is over the ice caps and is melting them causing rising water levels, but not a climate change.
97327
The degree to which humans are effecting the climate is unclear.  There are so many variables that even the most powerful computers or networks of computers can't effectively model them all.  Even if there were computers powerful enough, the honest answer is we don't understand enough about the world around us to know how each system effects the other.\n\nLooking back further than the VERY short timespan that humans have kept climate records, we see that in the past the world has been much much colder during certain periods, but also much, much much warmer during others.  We are now in what you would call "Ice House" conditions, where we cycle between long (100,000 year) glacial periods, and relatively short interglacial (~15,000 year) periods.  Right now we're sitting 2/3rds of the way into one the interglacial periods.  The slight fluctuation that is occuring now may be related to humans, or may be part of the natural cycle.  In any event, it has occured before, when there was no more human CO2 contribution than from campfires.\n\nAll this getting colder stuff happened when the space betwen North and South America closed off, which was once what was called the "Isthmus of Panama".  Before then, times were much much hotter, and correspondingly sea levels were higher too.  This was because the water could go around the equator and exchange hot water from Pacific to Atlantic.  Now, the only seawater exchange is North-South, and around the poles, so you can imagine that this would tend to act to depress temperatures.\n\nAnyways, long story short: We don't really know.  Personally, I think we should worry less about this global warming stuff, and more about reducing air and water pollution and dealing with the increasing water shortages around the world.
30132
You are absolutely right. It is a cycle.  We last had global cooling around 1650AD.  Did you know that water vapor has more of an effect on global warming than CO2?  In fact 2/3 of the increase in CO2 levels occurred way before we even started burning the fossil fuels!!\n   The good man above me is right that ice ages occur more often than 2 million years. In fact the last "little ice age" occurred around the Maunder minimum which forced the Vikings off of Greenland.  He is right about the sun spot activity too.\n   Wow this is very encouraging that other people have the true facts and aren't being fooled.\n   Did you know that about 99% of the weathermen think like we do?  Only problem is you have to go with the flow to get any funding these days.
344379
Certainly, life as we know it functions in a farily narrow temperature range when compared to the total range of absolute zero to the millions of degrees in a star.  This range is much closer to absolute zero than it is to the temperature of a star.  \n \nHowever, the colder temperatures slow chemical reactions.  This is the basic premise of refrigeration to keep food fresh.  The bacteria can't grow as fast.  Below even the freezing point of water, most life (chemical) processes slow to a crawl.  A similar situation is true for higher temperatures but for an entirely different reason.  If things get too hot, chemicals separate and cannot react.  Solids become liquid and liquids become gases.  \n \nIt may be interesting, but it's really just the physics of our universe.  I'll take a nice 12" sand trout.
401989
The Earth's climate in general is going slowly thru a warming phase much as it has many times. How do you think the ice age ended? Global warming... way before man could have possibly affected the climate. Global warming comes from the sun, period. There are a few slight factors involved. Greenhouse gasses, such as carbom dioxide, hold the Earth's heat from escaping back into space. Gasses commonly called pollution, such as sulfur dioxide, reflect the sun's energy back into space. Here's where it gets tricky... over the last 30 years or so, we've cleaned up the pollution but have added more carbon dioxide to the Earth's atmosphere. Now, more of the sun's energy reaches the surface and more is held in, hence "global warming". \n\nFor the second part of your question... All of the so-called "experts" predicted a nasty hurricane season again this year. What happened? Did the republicans somehow blow the hurricans back out to sea to increase their chances of re-election? If so, they should have advertised it, 'cause they didn't do so well...
330777
if the earth gets warm enough to melt the polar ice caps, then  massive flooding will occur...like global flooding. changes in wind currents will probably kill a lot of species on earth. \nmaybe once the hole in the ozone is big enough, either we'll all get skin cancer and die, or a meteor will come and hit the earth and destroy us all.\nsolutions? probably too late for that.
55138
Yes it is. We are destroying our planet for our grandchildren. You will hear a lot of nonsense about how the temperature has only gone up a certain number of degrees in the last how ever many years and how that increase is not significant enough to warrant changes on a global scale. \n\nPoint one) There are not as many cars, oil refineries, etc now as there will be in five, ten, fifty years. Our output of pollution will go up exponentially.\n\nPoint Two) Any change in our planet's climate is significant. It's not just temperature. It effects weather, global health, crop production, etc. As humans, we have pretty narrow envirnomental parameters in which we can survive. And we're messing with that to make a buck. Unreal.\n\nPoint three) It takes pollutants about one hundred years to have effects on our atmosphere. Think about that. That means that the effects of global warming that we are experiencing now are caused by the pollution in 1906. Think of the explosion of industry which has taken place in the last 100 years, and how much worse it will be in 100 years...\n\nWe need to take some responsibility for the mess we've made. Yeah, we've made trillions of dollars destroying this planet. It's time to spend millions if not billions fixing it. A child can only live in a filthy room for so long before it's time to clean up, go on a diet, and pull it together, man.\n\nGood Luck!
639179
Defiantly, I think that's how the world will end. I think and can all but prove my theory. Ozone is what protects us from the sun. all of the nine planets in our solar sys have had ozone at one time. out of the the first 4 planets we are the only planet left with ozone the other 3 are all charred and burned. THAT'S THE  EXACT THING THAT WILL HAPPEN TO US IF THAT HOLE IN OUR OZONE CONTINUES TO GROW . WE WILL BURN AND BECOME THE FOURTH CHARRED PLANET. along with mercury Venus and mars. That's what happened to them. Their ozone depleted and they burned.
175498
Is global warming to our benefit?  \n\nI say this because global levels of environmental Carbon(13), an isotope of Carbon(12), is used by us geologists as a way of identifying paleo-glacial maximums.  A high Carbon(13) level coincides with periods of high glaciation (i.e. ice-age).  \n\nRight now the levels of environmental Carbon(13) are at a level that should indicate the beginnings of an Ice age.  Clearly things are getting warmer, not cooler.  So the question is: is human Carbon Dioxide/Carbon Monoxide input actually holding back the impending Ice age?\n\nAlso, why do so many people think that the atmosphere should be static.  The global temperature is always increasing or decreasing.  It's never static.
26118
The previous answer is incorrect that there is no relation between the two problems. UNEP reports that global climate change may be slowing the healing process of the ozone layer. Warming of the atmosphere near the earth's surface actually causes cooling of the stratosphere and the cooler temperatures accelerate the chemical reactions that destroy ozone molecules.  Further, the US EPA reports that increased levels of ultraviolet-B radiation can be expected to worsen global warming by reduction of plant and phytoplankton populations. The two problems are tied in complex ways that involve feedback from both systems affecting the other. \nHere is the US EPA booklet:\nhttp://www.epa.gov/ORD/WebPubs/stratoz.pdf\n\nThe UN formed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change that resulted in the controversial Kyoto Protocol in 1997.  The UN has an excellent website that gives details on the history, the text of the protocol, some of the science, and status. \nhttp://unfccc.int/2860.php\n\nThe UN is also involved in trying to solve ozone depletion. In 1987 the Montreal Protocol was signed by international parties. They agreed to phase out chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform usage which all cause ozone depletion in the atmosphere. These chemicals are used in dry cleaning, fire extinguishers, and in refrigeration. Many of these chemicals had begun phase out in the United States prior to the protocol due to EPA regulations. The UN's World Meteoroligal Organization and UNEP sponsor assessments of the ozone hole regularly. \n\n\n\nWhile the Montreal Protocol produced positive results during the late 1990's the problem has recently gotten worse- and then improved again!. Here is a NOAA graph showing that:\nhttp://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/sbuv2to/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png\n\nThe US EPA has an impressive list of links to ozone depletion information. \nhttp://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/#specinfo
499295
Articles at end.\n\nCO2 is 30% higher than it has been for 650,000 years. Methane is 130% greater. These are two of the main pollutants humans put into the atmosphere in excess, and they are two of the primary greenhouse gases.\n\nLook at the 'hockeystick', which shows a dramatic warming since 1950 after a fairly stable climate for 1000 years. In fact, the 10 hottest years in recorded history have all happened since 1990, with 2005 being the hottest, and 2006 is shaping up to maybe break that record.\n(see links below)\n\nHow's that for proof of man's fault in this? There is ample proof, any real scientist will tell you that.\n\nThere has NEVER been an article doubting man's influence on global warming published in a peer-reviewed journal. A recent study of almost 1000 proved that.\n\nYes, the earth naturally heats and cools, but the rate and amount we are warming now is unprecedented in the recent geologic past. We are doing this, and we must stop it. This is not some political statement or rhetoric. This is science trying to educate a crass, ignorant public of the damage they are doing. The magnitude of temperature increase ALREADY is about 10x that of the 'little ice age' of the middle ages, and rate and amount are only going up. \n\nJust to be clear, glacial and interglacial cycles are mainly controlled by astronomical fluctuations, but we have a detailed record of the last 7 cycles, and what the climate and CO2 is doing now is way different and extreme. The rate of increase is much higher than in the past AND the value itself is much higher.\n\nHI CO2: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm\nHOCKEY STICK: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5109188.stm\nGeneral climate stuff: \nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3897061.stm
591057
I don't think a lot of people read this. It is interesting information. I had to take a tree hugger science last year and one of the things the professor admitted to is that another one of the destructive gases to the ozone that they beleive is causing the global warming is ethanol, and uria, which are both caused by natural body occurances, the ethonal comes from Pooh, while the uria comes from Urine. Not just human but animal as well. I personally don't know, but am refreshed to see another prospective on the whole thing. Now they can prove all of it, inclucding the CFC part Maybe we can all use Aqua Net again.