Slashdot Mirror
Upper Ozone Depletion Declining
Silas writes "This SF Chronicle article (and many others) reports that destruction of the upper part of Earth's ozone layer has slowed because of the international effort more than a decade ago to ban ozone-damaging aerosols. More about the study and techniques used is here. We're still a long way away from recovery, but it's a nice example of humans taking an active role in reversing some of the damage we've done."
No. It's an example of us stopping screwing it up quite so quickly.
The rate of depletion has slowed != everything's OK again.
When people's ozone depletion increases, ozone decreases.
When Ozone decreases, people die faster.
Logical assumption: There is an equilibrium between how much ozone there is, and population of people.
Guess: It doesnt matter.
Does less wrong make a right?
Karma: Bad due to google bombing - Robert Watkins woz 'ere.
I have the same question.
According to this article, "Since ozone is created and destroyed by solar UV radiation, there is some correlation of ozone concentration with 11-year sunspot cycles." (article also give a number of other natural causes of ozone layer change). The SF Chronicle said, "Between 1997 and 2000, the average growth rate of the ozone hole has slowed by approximately 7 percent per decade" That was the exact period of a spike in sunspot activity.
So how can we prove that it was the meager efforts of us humans that made the change, and not just a natural cycle?
So how can we prove that it was the meager efforts of us humans that made the change, and not just a natural cycle?
We can't, of course. But saying it's a "natural cycle" doesn't allow the environmentalists to go all crazy and predict the imminent death of humanity, which they love to do.
Environmentalists don't need any so-called "facts" or "proof". The fact that they've managed to convince so many people that the ozone hole is humanity's fault, with so little proof, is quite amazing, actually.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
She's changed Tuesday's menu from Mexican burritos to Tofu burgers.
The fuck they are. Ever smell a tofu fart?
So this is where the chess club wound up.
> So how can we prove that it was the meager efforts of us humans that made the change, and not just a natural cycle?
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. But surely thats no reason for us to avoid doing things that we know will fuck it up to some extent?
"When I grow up, I want to be a weirdo"
I don't recall blaming the Republicans for the Ozone hole depletion. I think everybody worked together to help reduce this problem.
However, I think you have mistaken O3 depletion for global warming; and yes, I do blame the Republicans for failing to take corrective action on that. If it appears that we have minimized our warming threat, I'll give credit where credit is due. That is unlikely to be to the GOP, however, as they fail to recognize that it's a problem, yet.
I would have bothered to find links to support my position if you hadn't of posted as an AC, and weren't already at -1. As it is, I wasted enough of my employer's time. That I blame myself for.
--
$tar -xvf
I heartily disagree, and yes IAC (I am a chemist :>). The mechanism is proven, but the problem is that atmospherics and fluid dynamics that keep the radical species concentrated near the poles. Basically what happens is that long-term-stable weather patterns set up, keeping the nasties bottled up. However, these things do change eventually, like recently when the ozone hole split in two.
So we have nowhere near enough data to determine whether the current *global* concentrations of CFC's are responsible for the greater portion of ozone decay, or rather the weather cycles near the poles. Now, I will say this cuts both ways - it could tell us that we aren't all that responsible for the problem, or it could mean we aren't responsible for the recent good trends, either
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Both should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism and analytical thinking and extensive fact checking should follow.
But nah, we're too lazy for THAT...
And the second cycle doesn't show fewer rays hitting anything...it shows fewer rays hitting per cycle. As there are the same amount of rays coming it, that just means the cycles will run faster...like I said, the sunlight's just going to hit more O2 and turn it into ozone. That's how the damn thing stays stable anyway!
In other words, the ozone layer is a buffer against UV radiation that is formed by UV radiation, which is, of course, the best and most stable kind of buffer. To alter it, you'd need to vastly alter the chemical composition of the atmopshere. Meanwhile, you can't point at changes in it as some sort of horrible thing we humans have done, because it's equally likely that's the buffer acting exactly how it's always acted...reacting to the sun with slight lag.
Not, BTW, that I'm not a little glad that we stopped using CFCs. The moment we started detecting they got up into the ozone layer, we needed to stop and say 'Hey, where else are these things getting?'.
I just think the decision to stop using them was made because of junk science, professional panicers, and profits. We don't know anywhere near enough about the ozone layer to pretend we 'hurt' it or that it's 'healing'.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?