Slashdot Mirror

Please get this out there. There is a number of studies that demonstrate that H2 is bad, very bad, for the Ozone layer. The problem is that H2 is light, very light and it is subject to atmospheric escape (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape). On its way up and out it will pass through the Ozone layer where H2 is highly reactive to O3. The result is H2 + O3 > H2O +O2. So you end up with either water or hydrogen peroxide in the ozone layer. That is bad for 2 reasons. 1) it causes stratospheric cooling which impedes the production of ozone 2) Water at this layer interferes with the ozone production while providing not protection benefits.
http://web.stanford.edu/group/...
http://www.theozonehole.com/hy...
https://www.caltech.edu/about/...
https://sciencing.com/hydrogen...
https://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/~dst...

You are, again, another binary person. When you are talking about measurement, it is not talking about on the same day or at the same time. This is the issue involve time span. Take a look at history of Ozone hole. When you are talking about a situation which involves time, you aren't looking at only one specific time but rather a length of time. Please stop being a troll.

The pattern of the environmental movement somehow continues to go unnoticed by the public: Environmentalists start paying attention to X, notice that their expectations for what X is like were wrong, then suggest that X is in danger from humans. But, in each case, the decision to announce a catastrophe can be shown to either be technically questionable, or simply premature.

Here's an example:

1979: First satellite measurements of ozone

"On September 17, 1979 (top left), the first year in which ozone was measured by satellite ..."

1983: Ozone hole first detected

"... a compilation of monthly averages in a suggestive sequence of time-lapse stills, also from Cambridge’s Centre for Atmospheric Science, reveals the expansion of the violet blotch almost appear from nowhere in about 1983, when it was first detected ..."

1985: Ozone hole declared a threat to the world

"When was the hole in the ozone layer discovered?

The discovery of the Antarctic 'ozone hole' by British Antarctic Survey scientists Farman, Gardiner and Shanklin (first reported in a paper in Nature in May 1985) came as a shock to the scientific community, because the observed decline in polar ozone was far larger than anyone had anticipated."

In terms of process, it is historically important to observe that the ozone hole was declared an emergency before a full solar cycle was observed with satellite.

Similar critiques have been made about these coral claims:

Professor Ridd
James Cook University

"I have published numerous scientific papers showing that much of the 'science' claiming damage to the reef is either plain wrong or greatly exaggerated. As just one example, coral growth rates that have supposedly collapsed along the reef have, if anything, increased slightly.

Reefs that are supposedly smothered by dredging sediment actually contain great coral. And mass bleaching events along the reef that supposedly serve as evidence of permanent human-caused devastation are almost certainly completely natural and even cyclical. These allegedly major catastrophic effects that recent science says were almost unknown before the 1980s are mainly the result of a simple fact: large-scale marine science did not get started on the reef until the 1970s.

By a decade later, studies of the reef had exploded, along with the number of marine biologists doing them. What all these scientists lacked, however, was historical perspective. There are almost no records of earlier eras to compare with current conditions. Thus, for many scientists studying reef problems, the results are unprecedented, and almost always seen as catastrophic and even world-threatening."

Similar arguments can be made about climate change arguments, because the Sun itself is still not well understood, and in particular, we do not even know what happens to the solar plasma which enters into the Earth's ionosphere. In fact, Piers Corbyn's successes at predicting long-range extreme weather events is highly suggestive that environmentalists have failed to understand certain crucial solar, plasma and magnetic parameters which may be externally altering climate parameters in ways that are difficult to untangle:

Could gambling save science? Encouraging an honest consensus
Robin Hanson

"Consider the example of Piers Corbyn, a London astrophysicist who has been unable to get academic meteorologists interested in his unusual theory of long-term

Indeed.

This is the reason I'm still (cautiously) optimistic about humanity: scientists discovered chlorofluorcarbons were destroying the ozone layer, and you know what? Humans PHASED THEM OUT.
Sometimes humans DO do the right thing.
http://www.theozonehole.com/im...

We've mostly "mastered" it because industries found inexpensive replacements for pollutants and they managed to use imposing pollution standards as a way to stem competition from poorer nations that cannot match environment standards and thus can't enter markets that require industries to heed standards.

Citation needed. And to a credible source, please. Or, to phrase this more bluntly: you're wrong.

The drop in production of ozone destroying CFCs started well before the Montreal protocol-- humans stopped using the ozone-destroying CFCs without being legally required to.

It turns out, actually, that humans are very good at solving problems. Once we clearly identify a problem, there are a lot of people who are willing to work hard at finding solutions.

It's what we do.

OK, I'll answer to myself: the bad cases seem to be relatively stable. 2015 was not a good year, so the 2007 news was premature (as you'd expect for a single data point).

> Don't forget the Ozone layer.

Because of early warnings, we were able to halt the destruction of the ozone layer.

> We were all supposed to be long dead from skin cancer by now.

For some people in Australia, this is still true.

> 1970's Smog

People being killed annually by smog are counted by the thousands.

> I wonder why I no longer buy it.

Because you're an idiot?

Bullshit! The ozone "hole" was originally found over the poles because we suddenly had the ability to see it via satellites. Scientists scrambled to understand why and blamed everyone's favorite boogy man, ourselves. After all, we all know that everything that happens is a direct result of our actions, right? Isn't that how the raid dance came to be? Anyway, everyone freaked and banned CFC's. Then, the hole closed and everyone said, "See, it was the CFC's. We banned them and saved the world." just like you did. Then the hole opened again, and scientists wondered why. Finally, they figured out that the hole opened and closed based on a natural cycle.

Over the course of two to three months, approximately 50% of the total column amount of ozone in the atmosphere disappears. At some levels, the losses approach 90%. This has come to be called the Antarctic ozone hole.

In spring, temperatures begin to rise, the ice evaporates, and the ozone layer starts to recover.

Sure, you're going to see many scientists claim that it was the ban on CFC's that saved the world. Then again, what are they going to say? "OOOOPSie! My bad! Sorry for the alarm everyone. Please go back to using your deodorant spray's and air conditioners." Of course they won't. They put their credibility on the line and they are not going to give that up now. They have grants to earn.

So, please. Don't call people who you disagree with names like, "idiot". It appears that you didn't have all the facts and just made yourself look like a "sheeple" that believes whatever the networks tell you to believe. Please, learn to think for yourself and don't attempt to insult those that already do.

Please extend this reply to everyone else that said a CFC ban saved the world. Also, expect that when global warming DOES NOT destroy the earth, people will say the same thing, replacing CFC with Carbon.

Interesting enough he's also a believer im the theories of Tommy Gold which propose that there is an abundance of OIL in the earths mantle and was not produced by biological processes in ancient times. So we should all carry on our current energy policies and use OIL in the certitude that none of these activities will have a serious impact on human life on this planet. Of course if he's wrong humanity will be reduced to a pre-industrial marginalized existence.

This reminds of certain utterances by James Watson regarding the inferior intellect of the non-white races. Just because you're clever in one area don't mean you necessarily know anything in another.

'There is no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer, but the warming is not global'

Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

Ice-free Arctic could be here in 23 years

In the past 60 years or so human activity has contributed to the deterioration of the ozone layer

This damned global warming has almost prevented me from putting a jacket on today. I recently read that the ozone holes near the north pole are getting smaller.

For every environmentalist bullhorning about the environment, there are just as many with the opposing viewpoint. Not everyone agrees that the environment is in bad shape. There is a majority that think the war is bad, and those same people don't want anything to do with Iran either. This whole environment thing is like a screaming monkey designed to avert our attention from the more important topics. The election, the war, the law, the real news suffers when useful information is replaced by fluff.

LOOK AT THE MONKEY! LOOK AT THE MONKEY!

be embarrassing if the hole was just the result of variations in various decades long solar cycles, after all we haven't been observing it for very long. we may have gone environmentally apeshit for no reason with regards to FHCs.

Ozone is manufactured by the sun. So, there must always be a drop in ozone at the pole during the winter. I wonder what part of the current drop in antarctic ozone is our doing, versus what part is inevitable?

Or more precisely: I wonder if it is even possible to know what part is our doing?

I too am saddened by slashdotters(and many others) who apparently couldn't care less about the environment, until the 'sky falls down on them'...ozone hole anybody. NASA and NOAA Announce Ozone Hole is a Double Record Breaker

You seem to think the whole world is a very reasonable and honest place. I'm sorry to break it to you, but that just isn't so.
Thanks for the newsflash, kid. Your conclusion seems to be that there is no hope for nations to cooperate, ever, because not everyone is 100% honest and reasonable. Bullshit.

India has a shitload of people who would be threatened by sea level rise. China has atrocious air quality, and at some point their citizens are going to be pissed about their kids dying from asthma (increased wealth leads to people caring about these things- see: US, Clean Air Act). Keep in mind China has a wee problem with civil uprisings already.

You are asking me to provide The Solution. I'm not that smart. But if you have a global carbon emissions cap and trade system, for instance, who benefits? Perhaps those countries with, say, low-cost labor that can crank out solar panels at $0.50 per Watt? Whom might that be? And would it be advantageous to have an agreement that stimulates global demand for such products?

The point is, it's conceivable to have a framework that are potentially beneficial for these countries, and not overly injurious to us.

Your powers of recall appear weak. Canada says it remains in Kyoto climate pact, posted 12 hours ago. Australia didn't follow through because the US didn't. Sure, Canada's waffling and having a hard time. But that doesn't exactly excuse the US for failing to offer any constructive alternatives to the (admittedly flawed) Kyoto protocol.

In the CO2 game, compared to our peers in Europe, we are the bad guy, if you think CO2 is a problem. If you don't, we're frickin heroes. I am rightly critical of the US when our leaders do not act in a fashion that is consistent with our country's greatness. I criticize not because I hate my country, but because I love what it stands for.

Do you remember the Non-Proliferation Treaty? It was created at the height of the Cold War. I would submit that the world is collectively much, much better off than if this treaty had never come into place. Sure, you have Iran and North Korea, and we have to deal with that.

And how about the Montreal Protocol on CFCs? Did we have to go to war over that one? Or did countries see a mutual problem and actually agree to do something? Did the switch to CFC alternatives lead to massive economic upheaval?

War (used to) require an immediate threat. No one (myself included) is going to send their kid to die invading another country to reduce their CO2 emissions. The threat is too vague. Like CFCs, it'll have to happen through diplomacy.

Anyway, I'm done here. Good luck.

> in Brisbane (Australia)

Australia does have increased risk factors including neing near to the ozone hole over the Antarctic.

Australians suffer the highest rates of skin cancer in the world. Each year, around 1,200 Australians die from what is an almost totally preventable disease. Everyone can develop skin cancer; however, some people may be at higher risk than others, due to a range of factors.

Australia exposed to more UV
Ultraviolet (UV) radiation levels in Australia are higher than in Europe, even during summer. Being located close to the ozone hole over the Antarctic means much higher, more severe levels of UV radiation get through to ground level.

During summer, the earth's orbit brings Australia closer to the sun than Europe during its summer, resulting in an additional seven per cent solar UV intensity. This, coupled with our clearer atmospheric conditions, means Australians are exposed to up to 15 per cent more UV than Europeans.

High in the atmosphere, some oxygen (O2) molecules absorbed energy from the Sun's ultraviolet (UV) rays and split to form single oxygen atoms. These atoms combined with remaining oxygen (O2) to form ozone (O3) molecules, which are very effective at absorbing UV rays. The thin layer of ozone that surrounds Earth acts as a shield, protecting the planet from irradiation by UV light...Ozone is produced naturally in the stratosphere when highly energetic solar radiation strikes molecules of oxygen, O2, and cause the two oxygen atoms to split apart in a process called photolysis.

Linkage

So, yeah, the sun is the bad guy, but really, the sun is the good guy, too. =)

By the way, how do you expect magnetic reversals to impact climate? I don't know of any theory that it would matter.

When the magnetic field is in 'mid-phase' or lower than average, we have don't the protection from Sol radiation that we normally enjoy today.

Core samples show that our magnetic field has been reducing for quite a while and has also switched north and south numerous times in the past.

Without shielding from Sol's direct radiation, all sort of 'not so nice' things are likely to happen. Here are some links about our 'flakey' shielding from Sol: (some people see it as the Northern Lights) It's what deflects most dangerous Sol radiation:

Nova
Wikipedia
About the field
More stuff

Changes in that shielding will directly change our climate. After all, if the Earth is unprotected for a few days, things will heat up quite a bit unexpectedly. (Not to mention the damage to life forms without protection from that sort of intense radiation)

Since human beings put ten thousand times as much CO2 into the air as volcanos it's safe to presume we can do something about it. Look at what happened with the ozone layer. It took a while but the ozone hole is getting smaller. That's a direct result of humans stopping the use of hydrocarbons.

I just don't get the people who think that humans have no impact on the earths atmosphere, air, seas or the land.