Sentences with phrase «large ozone losses»

result in large ozone losses.

We knew that it would save us from large ozone loss «in the future», but in fact we are already past the point when things would have become noticeably worse,» lead author Professor Martyn Chipperfield, from the School of Earth & Environment at the University of Leeds, said in a press release.

There were measurements in 1958 that found large ozone loss in the Antarctic, but these measurement have been found to be false, due to instrument error.

Not exact matches

Rumen Bojkov, of the UN's World Meteorological Organization, says this might explain the large losses of ozone observed at lower altitudes in the stratosphere.

In addition, the larger than expected loss of UV light meant less stratospheric ozone up to 45 kilometers above the surface, but more above that line.

For various reasons ozone loss estimates for the past winter are more difficult than usual and the uncertainties of the final analysis will remain larger than for most previous winters.

Large scale ozone losses have occurred above the Arctic this past winter with over 50 % of the ozone destroyed at altitudes around 18 km.

Large losses of ozone in Antarctica reveal seasonal ClOx / NOx interaction, Nature, 315, 207 - 210.

Increasing greenhouse gases may therefore be at least partly responsible for the very large Arctic ozone losses in recent winters, and the situation may worsen in the future.

Spring 2011 has seen the largest - ever degree of ozone loss over the northern hemisphere, journalists at the EGU General Assembly in Vienna heard this morning.

«But ozone loss from a limited nuclear exchange would be more than an order of magnitude larger than ozone loss from the release of gases like CFCs.»

«The big surprise is that this study demonstrates that a small - scale, regional nuclear conflict is capable of triggering ozone losses even larger than losses that were predicted following a full - scale nuclear war.»

The ozone losses predicted in the study are much larger than losses estimated in previous «nuclear winter» and «ultraviolet spring» scenario calculations following nuclear conflicts -LSB-...] A 1985 National Research Council Report predicted a global nuclear exchange involving thousands of megatons of explosions, rather than the 1.5 megatons assumed in the PNAS study, would deplete only 17 percent of the Northern Hemisphere's stratospheric ozone, which would recover by half in three years.

These models may well be significantly affected by increases in marine boundary layer ozone loss, but since they have only just started to be used to simulate 20th and early 21st Century changes, it is very unclear what difference it will make at the large scale.