Ozone Depletion
Module 7 – Writing Assignment – Ozone Debate
The debate over whether or not the ozone is actually depleting or not has been a hot topic for some time. However, it becomes a hotter topic when scientists find out it is a lower level then usual. We don’t here much from the debate when it has replenished itself to some amount, which it does do during certain seasons. Between the two sides we are to take, I am basically right in the middle. I do believe what the NASA website stated about it when it said “the ozone is extremely valuable since it absorbs a range of ultraviolet energy.” However, I don’t believe that the whole issue is potentially cataclysmic. For the sake of this paper, I will take the side of their being bigger environmental issues elsewhere. One the main reasons I believe there are bigger issues is because we simply do not have enough data to back up the ozone depletion theory. The first time the ozone was even discovered was in 1839 by Swiss chemist, Christian Schonbein, but it wasn’t measured reliably until 1918 by Robert Strutt. Having only 100 years of evidence, considering how old the earth is reported to being, doesn’t make the claims that are being made valid enough to rely on them as fact, and as a problem. Another reason I don’t believe the data is reliable enough is because we are witnessing the ozone replenishing itself season after season, especially in Antarctica. Each year the ozone develops a hole in it caused the unusual atmospheric conditions that exist during the Antarctic winter. However, it fills back in again by mid-summer. Manmade Chloro-fluoro-carbons (CFCs) are capable of destroying ozone, but they aren’t the only substances that deplete the ozone from time to time. However, the Montreal Protocol was introduced about 20 years ago to limit and control the level of CFCs, and other compounds, released into the earth’s atmosphere. The NASA website states that the protocol has been a huge success, which furthers my
The debate over whether or not the ozone is actually depleting or not has been a hot topic for some time. However, it becomes a hotter topic when scientists find out it is a lower level then usual. We don’t here much from the debate when it has replenished itself to some amount, which it does do during certain seasons. Between the two sides we are to take, I am basically right in the middle. I do believe what the NASA website stated about it when it said “the ozone is extremely valuable since it absorbs a range of ultraviolet energy.” However, I don’t believe that the whole issue is potentially cataclysmic. For the sake of this paper, I will take the side of their being bigger environmental issues elsewhere. One the main reasons I believe there are bigger issues is because we simply do not have enough data to back up the ozone depletion theory. The first time the ozone was even discovered was in 1839 by Swiss chemist, Christian Schonbein, but it wasn’t measured reliably until 1918 by Robert Strutt. Having only 100 years of evidence, considering how old the earth is reported to being, doesn’t make the claims that are being made valid enough to rely on them as fact, and as a problem. Another reason I don’t believe the data is reliable enough is because we are witnessing the ozone replenishing itself season after season, especially in Antarctica. Each year the ozone develops a hole in it caused the unusual atmospheric conditions that exist during the Antarctic winter. However, it fills back in again by mid-summer. Manmade Chloro-fluoro-carbons (CFCs) are capable of destroying ozone, but they aren’t the only substances that deplete the ozone from time to time. However, the Montreal Protocol was introduced about 20 years ago to limit and control the level of CFCs, and other compounds, released into the earth’s atmosphere. The NASA website states that the protocol has been a huge success, which furthers my