Antarctic Ozone Hole Leveling Off

twistedfuck writes: "An Irish Time article reports that the size of the hole in the antartican ozone layer is levelling off and should begin reducing in size. It seems like it should be welcome news but it is tempered by the fact that more UV radiation will reach the southern hemisphere this year because the hole will persist longer. Unfortunately I can not find any details regarding the NOAA report on their website." Update: 11/06 17:31 GMT by H :Thanks to Isaac Lewis, NOAA Sysadmin and Slashdot reader, for pointing out more information, as well as pointing out the ozonelayer site.

Comments

This is probably redundant already..

[D Anderson n'Swaart]

..but I thought I'd throw in my 2c (0.8c US) as someone living in New Zealand. Although the ozone hole does affect South Africa, where I moved to New Zealand from, the problem is definitely worse in the Land of Sheep(tm). The sun is more intense, even late in the afternoon, and I find that while the shade is a good indicator of the real air temperature, I get much hotter in the sun than I did in South Africa, despite the fact that air temperatures average around 5 C cooler.

Just as a flame-worthy side note, there is a lot of antagonism in New Zealand towards the US because of Bush's decision to boycott the Kyoto(sp?) Protocol. The United States is demonstrably by far the worse offender with carbon dioxide emissions, and the general consenus in the scientific community is that these emissions are causing, or at least accelerating the hole in the ozone layer. To be honest, Usians aren't the most popular people (as a society, not individuals--I personally have met several and they were wonderful people), and this is just one more straw on the proverbial and cliched camel's back, with the United States saying what is effectively "Stuff you, we'll do what we want and who cares about your ozone hole causing rising skin cancer and medical costs".

I didn't mean that as a flame, just a point of view. I'd rather you respond than just mod me down...I'm aware that I am oversimplifying it; this is merely the general trend of thinking in Kiwiland.

This theory of mine.. Global Warming is Bunk

[ldopa1]

Global warming is a self correcting phenomenon. Yes, we may be accelerating the process, but it's essentially self correcting.

Ozone is created (primarily) in our atmosphere by sunlight hitting high altitude free floating water molecules, which break up into hydrogen and Ozone (O^2). The hole in the Ozone layer allowed sunlight to pour through onto the Antarctic ice cap, sublimating (look it up) ice into water vapor. The increase in water vapor allows larger amounts of water to make it to the higher altitudes where the high energy photons break it up into ozone, closing the hole.

Similarly, ice caps melt, causing water and clouds to form, the clouds shield the earth from sunlight, the temperature drops and ice forms again. We start the cycle all over again.

Of course, I'm not a scientist, but it makes sense to me and I've always thought this was true. With the exception of sunlight, the Earth is essentially a closed system, self reparing. The Earth is essentially a Raid Sunlight Motel: Energy checks in, but it doesn't check out.

Moreover, those nutty-crunchy-granola grannies who stand at the corner of Saks 5th Avenue protesting Fur and Leather don't seem to realize that hey, those plastic shoes they're wearing came from animals too, just 10,000 years deceased.

Most of the environmentalist bunk over the past few decades is exactly that: bunk. It generally hasn't been well thought out. -Why- do we care if the left-handed spotted ocelot is wiped out? There is no reason we should care. We're on the top of the food chain. We have no natural predators (except tigers, but we've pretty much taken care of THAT, and again, why do we care, except that they're pretty?). The Earth is at our disposal. I challenge anybody to point to one single endangered species that if we it wiped out, its dissapearance would significantly affect Mom and Dad Public's life. Whales? Whalers would be affected (and maybe the perfume industry, but they don't use whale oil any more), but there aren't a whole lot of whalers out there. Last time I checked, it was illegal to whale anyway (more run away envrionmentalism). Go on, find me one. And don't tell me the Cow is endangered.. You might just change my mind.

George Carlin had a point which I think applies here: euphemisms are basically an attempt by people to salve their conciences. Same thing with environmentalism (in general, there ARE exceptions). Environmentalist causes are by and large taken up by guilty, rich, well-fed white people. If you doubt this, take a look at the protestors on the corner. How many of them need a bath or a meal (except by choice: I know many envrionmentalists who need a bath, and most vegetarians need a steak, but it's not because they don't have the resources, it's because they choose it)? Almost none. They have the time to protest because they can afford it. They have the time. You don't see many homeless people protesting, because they're too busy trying to get a meal and a bath. I can tell you this because despite being a well fed white man myself, I have personal, visceral, experience with the "transient lifestyle". (Quoth George Carlin: "If you want to know what a moronic word 'lifestyle' is, all you have to do is realize that in a technical sense, Attila the Hun had an 'active, outdoor lifestyle'" Take my advice, homelessness is a crime of violence. Avoid it if you can.

Re:Hooray for regulation?

[errxn]

Yeah, but it's the "socially acceptable" pseudoscience! You don't need actual facts and evidence to back up what anything you say as long as it is deemed politically correct.

Jeez, didn't you learn anything in college?

Environmentalism.

[mad_clown]

Rabid environmentalism cracks me up. It's one thing to reduce pollution to make the sky look less brown, or to reduce respiratory diseases and such, but all this "Save the Earth!" crap is such a lie. It's all about saving HUMANS, not the Earth. If we launched 600 high-powered thermonuclear warheads, life on Earth (on the surface at least) would probably be wiped out, or close to it. But don't forget that there's life TEEMING in the oceans, in pitch black, on thermal vents on the ocean floor that are far more inhospitable than we can make things on the surface. The Earth can take care of itself. It's made it to this point from being a molten ball of rock. No matter what harm we do, give our planet a couple million years, and it'll be back to normal... for instance, check out the surface of the planet... do you see many impact craters? No. Why? Because the Earth, unlike, say, Mercury or our moon, experiences alot of volcanic/weather activity that really helps to erase cataclysms. People ought to stop pretending that they're really trying to save the Earth and admit they're looking out for the species instead. This planet's been through alot more than humans, and once we're gone it'll continue to go on until the sun eventually envelops in when it grows into a red giant. Earth can take care of itself. It's people who need saving.