However from a more detailed look at the two issues, it is clearly evident that both of them mean absolutely two different things. Similarities may however be linked to their possible effects on human life as well as some of their underlying courses. From a more scientific outlook, the two subjects are quite interrelated as one leads to the other and therefore can not be entirely divorced from one another. Although the two are different, activities leading to one always have some impact on the other.
Environmental issues are not all the same. Ozone, which is made of three oxygen atoms stuck together instead of two, which is what normal oxygen gas is made ofis vital to life on Earth.
It forms a layer in the stratosphere, the second layer up in the atmosphere, that is very good at absorbing ultraviolet UV radiation from the Sun.
UV radiation severely damages organisms if enough of it reaches the surface. In the middle of the 20th century, synthetic gases known as chlorofluorocarbons CFCs became popular for use in refrigerators and aerosol products, among other applications.
They were non-toxic, and did not react easily with other substances, so they were used widely. However, their chemical stability allowed them to last long enough to drift into the stratosphere after they were emitted. Free chlorine atoms Cl were liberated, a substance that is very reactive indeed.
Over the poles, the stratosphere is cold enough for polar stratospheric clouds PSCs to form. These PSCs provided optimum conditions for the most reactive chlorine gas of all to form: It turns out that Antarctica was more favourable for ozone depletion than the Arctic, both because its temperatures were lower and because its system of wind currents prevented the ozone-depleting substances from drifting out of the area.
Before long, there was a hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica due to the PSCsand concentrations were declining in other locations too due to the basic Cl reactions. The issue became a frontier for scientific research, and scientists Crutzen, Rowland, and Molina won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their work with atmospheric ozone.
This movement was largely successful, and the use of CFCs has become nearly negligible, especially in developed nations. The regulations are working: In contrast, climate change is a product of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Unlike CFCs, most of them are not synthetic, and they are released from the burning of fossil fuels coal, oil, and natural gasnot specific products such as refrigerators.
Rather than destroying a natural process, like CFCs do, they strengthen one to the point of harm: This phenomenon, which traps heat in the atmosphere, is absolutely vital, as the Earth would be too cold to support life without it.
Increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases with fossil fuels becomes too much of a good thing, though, as the greenhouse effect traps more heat, warming the planet up.
Just a few degrees Celsius of warming can cause major problems, as agricultural zones, wind and ocean currents, and precipitation patterns shift. The sea level rises, submerging coastal cities.
Many species go extinct, as the climate changes faster than they can adapt. Unlike the Montreal Protocol, efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have more or less failed.
Fossil fuels permeate every part of our lives, and until we shift the economy to run on clean energy instead, convincing governments to commit to reductions will be difficult at best. It remains to be seen whether or not we can successfully address this problem, like we did with ozone depletion.
Although these two issues are separate, they have some interesting connections. For example, PSCs form in cold areas of the stratosphere. Unfortunately, global warming is, paradoxically, cooling the stratosphere, as a stronger greenhouse effect means that less heat reaches the stratosphere.
Therefore, as climate change progresses, it will make it easier for the ozone depletion reactions to occur, even though there are fewer CFCs. Additionally, CFCs are very strong greenhouse gases, but their use has drastically reduced so their radiative effects are of lesser concern to us.
However, some of their replacements, HFCs, are greenhouse gases of similar strength. Finally, these two issues are similar in that ozone depletion provides a smaller-scale analogue for the kinds of political and economic changes we will have to make to address climate change: Unintended chemical side effects of our economy posed a serious threat to all species, including our own.
Industry representatives and free-market fundamentalists fought tooth and nail against conclusive scientific findings, and the public became bewildered in a sea of misinformation. Governments worked together to find sensible alternatives and more or less solved the problem.
Will we see the third as well?seeds or fruits in comparison to will accelerate ozone destruction and increase stratospheric ozone depletion. Ozone global warming can make ozone depletion much worse right. The ozone hole and global warming are not the same thing, and neither is the main cause of the other.
The ozone hole is an area in the stratosphere above Antarctica where chlorine and bromine gases from human-produced chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and halons have destroyed ozone molecules.
Ozone depletion and climate change, or Ozone hole and global warming in more popular terms, are environmental challenges whose connections have been explored and which have been compared and contrasted, for example in terms of global regulation, in various studies and books.
Ozone depletion refers to the thinning and loss of ozone whereas global warming refers to the widespread warming of average temperatures across the globe.. The ozone layer allows some energy in and some energy out. The ozone protects us from UV-B rays, which can be very harmful (these are the rays that cause skin cancer). seeds or fruits in comparison to will accelerate ozone destruction and increase stratospheric ozone depletion. Ozone global warming can make ozone depletion much worse right. Ozone depletion and climate change, or Ozone hole and global warming in more popular terms, are environmental challenges whose connections have been explored and which have been compared and contrasted, for example in terms of global regulation, in various studies and books.
Society; 9 Global Connections; and 0 Civic Ideals and Practices. 5 The purpose of this article is to describe some of the basic science that underlies the issues of global warming and ozone layer depletion, elaborate the rationale for including these issues in social studies, and provide related suggestions for social studies instruction.
Ozone Depletion vs Global Warming. In the layman’s approach, ozone depletion and global warming is mostly the same thing. However from a more detailed look at the two issues, it is clearly evident that both of them mean absolutely two different things.
Oct 19, · Best Answer: Global warming is the blocking of infrared light from the ground from escaping to space increasing the temperature of the planet due to more greenhouse gasses in the air, primarily carbon dioxide.
Ozone depletion is the reduction of ozone in the upper atmosphere that would normally screen out Status: Resolved.