The 1989 Montreal Protocol led to the phaseout of those chemicals, but their long
atmospheric lifetime means that seasonal ozone losses will persist well into this century.
Not exact matches
All this
means that scientists now reviewing the Montreal Protocol should consider expanding the agreement to also regulate substances like CH2Cl2 that have
atmospheric lifetimes of less than 6 months, Schofield says.
I think I know what you
mean here but in the context of the previous Much Ado about Methane article with discussion of the difference between
atmospheric lifetime of a CO2 molecule vs.
lifetime of an increase in concentration, this could also be put more clearly.
Phil The time spent by an individual molecule in a particular state is extremely small at
atmospheric conditions, orders of magnitude less than the
mean radiative
lifetime which is why emission is extremely unlikely, and most of the energy ends up thermalized.
Thus their
atmospheric destruction rate is slow, which
means HFCs and PFCs can have very long
atmospheric lifetimes, of the order of thousands of years for PFCs.
E.g., N2O has a
mean atmospheric lifetime of 121 years.
Bromine, the ozone - depleting element found in methyl bromide, is nearly 60 times more effective at destroying ozone than the chlorine found in CFCs.9 This
means that even though its
atmospheric lifetime is quite short (a little over a year) 31, the immediate impact of changes in methyl bromide emissions on the ozone layer is very high compared to other chemicals.