So why doesn't anyone talk about the ozone layer any more?

because the montreal protocol was a success in limiting the damage

>>8730480
wrong

>>8730655
you seem to be smugly waiting for your chance to post some article about ozone levels from 1970 onward, dick in hand. Let's have it then, no need to keep people waiting.

have ozone levels returned to pre-1950 levels? or not?

>>8730658
if i had an article i would've posted it you big black dick nigger

don't get a big dick

File: CFC_HCFC_trends.png (43KB, 495x386px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 495x386px

>>8730472
CFCs are class I ozone depleting substances (lifetime up to 100 years), HCFC is class II, less depleting (lifetime up to 25 years).

>>8730672
Looks like the nasty stuff will stay with us for a long time.

everybody is more concerned about greenhouse gasses so the hole in the ozone layer isn't a big deal

Same reason no one talks about sea levels anymore.

Same reason people will stop talking about global warming in couple of years

>>8730887
>>8730900
people need new thrills/trends/names for things to keep them interested/entertained, even if it's the same old shit sold in new package, otherwise they get bored, because our attention span is of a fucking cabbage

>>8730472
It stopped getting thinner