Global warming vs Ozone depletion?

The two concepts are usually distinct, though the specific gases involved may have dual functions and affect both. Both concepts are today usually applied when discussing the impacts of humans on the environment, though. So when talking about global warming you are talking about the human impacts on it -- anthropogenic global warming -- because that is the part we can do something about. Same thing with ozone depletion -- talking mostly about certain halons (which are under no circumstances of natural production -- so much so that they were used in the 1960's as "dyes" to "stain" the atmosphere so they could watch air flows as they moved around the world to support weather research.)

Human injection of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere affects both global warming (usually a media or political term to mean the rise of average global or hemispheric temperature due to human causes [scientists talk about 'global warming potentials']) and may also affect ozone depletion, too. For example, halocarbons (particularly the smaller chlorofluoromethanes) significantly impact ozone in the stratosphere because they are perfectly inert in the troposphere and do not react until they reach the stratosphere in atmospheric upwelling nearer the equator, where they are "smacked apart" by higher energy wavelengths arriving from the sun and the chlorine and bromine can act catalytically via the ClO dimer and Br mechanisms (especially in the presence of frozen nitric acid.) But they are also very significant greenhouse gases, as well, when present in the troposphere. So they do "double duty" so to speak. CCl₂F₂ (CFC-12), for example, is very destructive to ozone in the stratosphere but also very effective as a greenhouse gas because of the sheer number of vibrational modes that "thermalize" (convert vibrational modes into molecular motion through many and frequent collisions due to the very short mean free path in the troposphere) efficiently in longer wavelengths not already occupied by other gases. So while in the troposphere and before they do ozone depletion damage, they work as very effective greenhouse gases in trapping outgoing longwave radiation. Then they move up into the stratosphere, break into bits, and start another cycle of problems (particularly in the colder regions where accelerated catalysis occurs and where less natural ozone is produced.)

See links below. The first is the IPCC AR4 article on greenhouse gas effectiveness and relative impact today. The second is a nice paper on ozone depletion details.

Global warming is an increase in the long-term average temperature of the surface, oceans, and atmosphere.

Ozone depletion is the reduction or loss of stratospheric ozone.

They have very little to do with each other. Ozone loss doesn't cause any significant warming (or cooling), and the primary gasses that cause warming don't directly affect ozone loss (though there are some indirect effects, and many gasses that cause ozone loss are also potent greenhouse gasses). About the only things the two problems have in common are that they have to do with stuff we put in the atmosphere, and a certain percentage of anti-environmentalists like to pretend there is no problem.

Global warming is the global increase in atmospheric and surface temperatures.

Ozone depletion is the decrease in Total Column Ozone levels, between the Sun and Earth's surface.

Global warming lofts more water vapor, which increases ozone depletion.

Ozone depletion lowers stratospheric temperatures, but lets more UV-215 thru UV-280 absorb into the soil and heat Earth's surface. The net positive feedback effect on global warming is small, since less ozone lets more heat to space at the same /\T.

Ozone depletion has been 'fixed' by the Montreal Protocol. CFC's are not being added to the air anymore and in about 30 years the CFC's that are up there will have all been destroyed. No more problem.

Global warming is roaring ahead. We are seeing 'extreme weather' effects now. We are adding CO2, and destroying forests, etc., at an increasing rate due to China, India, and the rest of Asia coming into economic power.

That's the big difference: solved and unsolved. Effects diminishing; effects increasing.

In the current context, Global Warming is increased temperatures worldwide due to extra carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere (attributed to the burning of fossil fuels).

Ozone depletion

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

is the catalytic destruction of ozone by atomic halogens. The main source of these halogen atoms in the stratosphere is photodissociation of man-made halocarbon refrigerants (CFCs, freons, halons). These compounds are transported into the stratosphere after being emitted at the surface.

Reduced ozone allows more ultra violet radiation to reach the earth surface and is thought to be a risk factor for skin cancer.

Global warming is the accumulation of greenhouse gases (predominantly by CO2 & others like methane) which have not been recycled back by nature's laws. Since traffic is on a standstill, these gases are trapped in the atmosphere. These gases come mostly from desertification of land. Since carbon is the major component of the soil, evidently these trapped gases come from the 60% desertification of arable land that was reported in 2005 at Millennium Development Goal. The 60% desertification has already grown or increased because of continued droughts, forest fires & floods yearly.

Carbon emitted from fossil fuels (extracted only in limited regions) is less than the emitted carbon of soil's organic matter and carbon from plantations.

Since earth's agriculture & forestry have been greatly paralyzed, photosynthesis & chemosynthesis (i.e., absorption of CO2 and in turn, release O2) could not rightfully perform in accordance with nature's laws. So if earth is experiencing a temporary shortage or loss of O2, it cannot replenish O3 in the stratosphere. The more carbon takes O2 in order to form CO2, the more earth loses O2 supply in the atmosphere. So, O3 breaks away and goes back to O2. If O3 is being depleted, we experienced O3 holes in the stratosphere.

Carbon emission reduction could not solve the depletion of the O3 layer, it must be photosynthesis & chemosynthesis to regenerate, reproduce and replenish O2 back that can help repair the stratosphere.

It is all about politics, economics, and fascist control of the masses. Global Warming is a myth and the hole in the ozone is a myth.

There is no difference between the two.

There was a man who was walking down the street. When he got to this corner he saw this fellow in a strange outfit snapping his fingers.

He walked up to the man and asked him, "Why are you snapping your fingers?"

The stranger looked at him and said, "I'm scaring the elephants away."

The man was amazed and said, "But this is Kansas and there isn't any elephants within two hundred miles."

The stranger looked at him and nodded, "See what a good job I'm doing?"

That makes more sense than man curing the 'hole' in the ozone.

Dupont started that rumor when their patent was about to run out and they had a huge stock of R-12. You could buy it at the time for $0.30 a lb. Now you can't get it for under $45.00. Of course the EPA got on the bandwagon and changed it to all CFCs.

SUCKERS! The substitutes are less efficient so more gas is used for an automobile and more electricity for the house. It just adds to the carbon footprint.

global warming is horrible