Ozone Hole Getting Smaller

Hope this isn't used as an excuse... by kentmartin · 2004-10-02 02:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

While this is good news, I hope it isn't seen by governments as an excuse to ease their environmental burdens in favour of bowing to economic/corporate pressures, and, I really hope it isn't seen as yet another excuse by the US government to duck out for even longer on signing the Kyoto Accords.

I realize the above accords don't directly affect the ozone layer, but, ask anyone on the street - the hole in the Ozone layer and the "Greenhouse Effect" are the same thing right? Maybe the hole lets more heat in or something...

It is a sad state of affairs when one feels so cynical, that the first thing that occurs when a hint of good news comes along, is, how will those in power exploit this?

Re:Hope this isn't used as an excuse... by Lars+T. · 2004-10-02 04:51 · Score: 1, Insightful

Did the U.S. Senate vote against ratifying the Kyoto Protocol?
A. No. The protocol has never been submitted to the senate for ratification. The Bush administration has referred to a vote on the non-binding Byrd-Hagel resolution, which registered views on some aspects of protocol negotiations. The vote on the Byrd-Hagel resolution took place prior to the conclusion of the Kyoto agreement, and before any of the flexibility mechanisms were established. The resolution was written so broadly that even strong supporters of the Kyoto Protocol, such as senators Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) voted for it. In doing so, Sen. Kerry said: "It is clear that one of the chief sponsors of this resolution, Senator Byrd . . . agrees ... that the prospect of human-induced global warming as an accepted thesis with adverse consequences for all is here, and it is real.... Senator Lieberman, Senator Chafee and I would have worded some things differently... [but] I have come to the conclusion that these words are not a treaty killer."

--
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters. by Misinformed · 2004-10-02 02:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Of course scientists caution this would have to continue for at least a couple more years to be a trend or anything to get excited about. Move along, nothing to see here.

--
-- Slashdot: Racism against Indians OK. China bad, USA good. Blue pill in water supply.

Science news dilemma by squaretorus · 2004-10-02 02:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

Reporting this suggests everything will be OK in 5 years - 20% in a year - just 80% to go hey!!

Of course this could be nothing to do with anything - and simply be an anomoly, a measuring error, a rogue reading, or true. Until everyone has a basic degree of scientific understanding this kind of news will hit the headlines and be presented as a Good Thing. Which is isn't - its neither good not bad.

A bit like the medical researcher on the radio every few weeks being introduced as talking about a 'newfound cure for cancer' and saying 'this is certainly an exciting development' being asked 'so when will it actually be used to cure cancer' and having to say 'well... possibly never, ... certainly 20 years, actually I never claimed.' 'THANK you very much its 8:59 time for traffic'

Re:Pardon my ignorance. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 02:48 · Score: 0, Insightful

For the same reason that it is likely human activity had a little to do with the holes creation.

The atmosphere is really really big.

Kyoto isn't ment to work by DAldredge · 2004-10-02 02:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

It exempts most, if not all, of mainland china from it's rules. Please tell me how exempting the fastest growing, most poluting economy on the face of the planet will make one bit of difference.

Re:Kyoto isn't ment to work by TykeClone · 2004-10-02 02:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Because it will cause the intended pain on the US economy.

--
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Re:Kyoto isn't ment to work by jeffehobbs · 2004-10-02 02:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Please tell me how exempting the fastest growing, most poluting economy on the face of the planet will make one bit of difference.

Progress that's not all-encompassing still continues to be progress.

~jeff
Re:Kyoto isn't ment to work by tkittel · 2004-10-02 03:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why do you think that China is the most polluting economy? Of course having ~1 billion inhabitants it is going to be quite high up there, but the worlds most polluting economy must in all fairness said to be the US, where 4% of the worlds population produce 25% of the worlds greenhouse gases (according to this link)

Of course wikipedia tells us that China comes second.
Re:Kyoto isn't ment to work by Ed_Moyse · 2004-10-02 04:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

How the flying fuck is that insightful? Okay, I'll probably get modded down as flamebait now but frankly I don't give a shit.

The kyoto agreement is NOT about screwing the US, it's about trying to protect the environment for our species. The restrictions will affect the european countries as well, and if it affects the US more, that's only because per capita it is a far worse polluter.

Yes, it is a great shame that China et al. are exempt and no, it is not a perfect treaty. But it's a start, and to suggest that it's intended to screw over the US is ignorant and stupid (not least because the world economy depends on the success of the US economy).

Re:hrmmm by PrionPryon · 2004-10-02 03:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

CFCs are not released by volcanoes. The article clearly states that it is the sulphur from volcanoes that generates PSCs, which are the surface catalyst required for ozone chemistry. It is obvious that at this time we cannot do anything about sulphur releases from volcanoes but we can do something about CFC production and release. Is your arguement that since we cannot solve all of the problems we should not try to solve any of them?

ahhh by Doc+Ruby · 2004-10-02 03:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes, and we're part of the cycle. We stopped making CFCs 10-20 years ago when we proved they destroy ozone, and now the hole is getting smaller. How much more correlation do you need, after laboratory and in the wild, to stop denying the science that is saving your life right now?

--

--
make install -not war

Re:ahhh by tsg · 2004-10-02 03:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

Science has not, nor will it ever save my life. I am going to die, and science can not stop that. We're all dying.

Yes, but science has greatly increased the lifespan and quality of life of the average person. Unless you don't consider that worthwhile...

It's like the housewife who goes to the mall to buy several pairs of shoes. "I saved fifteen dollars!" "Yes dear, but you spent $70."

If she was going to buy the shoes regardless if they were on sale, then she did save $15.

--
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.
Re:ahhh by DAtkins · 2004-10-02 05:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

I like how we "suddenly grew a conscience". It's not like when they were invented they proved to be highly useful, and then after decades of use we noticed a problem.

No, we knew it would cause a hole in the ozone from day one, but kept going at it to make a buck. Take that you fsckin Europeans!

In other news, the man who invented asbestos is currently under trial for attempting to give everyone cancer. He is expected to use the "we made it to stop fires and it took awhile for the cancer to show up" defense. He is also expected to make a comment later along the lines of "fsck the world, we got'z an economy to think about".

A wise man doesn't attribute to malice what can easily be attributed to ignorance.

Of course his last sentence was funny, so I'm just bitchin' about nothing.
Re:ahhh by crashnbur · 2004-10-02 07:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Correlation doesn't mean a thing if you can't prove that the factor in question was the only cause of the result. An entire planets climatic tendencies are much too complicated to assume that one thing caused another without consideration of the uncountably many other changes that have taken place all the while. You're not a scientist, are you?
Re:ahhh by Mentorix · 2004-10-02 09:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't see any correlation between us stopping with CFC's and the ozone hole getting smaller *compared* to the measurements dating back oh... 5 years or so!

We don't know jack shit about the cycles in our atmosphere, stating that there is a correlation shows you're not dealing with this objectively.
It's the same as with all these people claiming catastrophic temperature changes in the near future.

Yes, they might happen, but face it temperature on this planet doesn't have a baseline, if you check the data from the records we kept the last few hundred years and the clues we discovered in the antarctic ice there's only one conclusion. Temperature averages wobble all over the place and it's been that way all the friggin' time!

Re:hrmmm by k98sven · 2004-10-02 03:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

Nobody ever proposed such a thing.

First, if you're going to be a smart-ass perhaps you should get your facts right. Volcanos don't spew CFCs. They spew other chemicals (mostly sulphur compounds) which destroy the ozone layer.

You're argumenting that since volcanos damage the ozone layer, it's OK if we humans contribute further to the destruction.

That's stupid. We can't do anything about the former, we can certainly do something about the latter. Why shouldn't we? UV radiation has been an increasing problem in the polar regions.
I live in Sweden. The skin cancer rate here has tripled since the 50's.

By the same rationale, we shouldn't bother about nuclear waste either. After all, there's natural background radiation out there which causes cancer too.

This has already been suggested... by innerweb · 2004-10-02 03:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

...But, once again, man causing a more extreme situation than what would have existed before is still not a good thing. Ozone depletion has a deadly potential... just think Microwave Oven Earth. Though I would be surprised if there were not a natural cycle like all things in nature (magnetic poles, ice ages, volcanic activity ...), we do not need to play baby God with it.

The Earth is fairly resillient, much more so than we humans are. The Earth will survive just about anything we do to it, but we are at risk. The argument that there are no (or minimal) dangers ignores the fact that skin cancer exists. It ignores the fact that there is a hole in the ozone. The Montreal Protocol has been a major step forward to eliminating/minimizing those chemicals that we know deplete the Ozone layer.

The other thing that may contribute to the Ozone layer growing back would be global warming, as the ozone depletion effect requires very cold temperatures to do the spectacular damage it has done to the pole. (see Univeristy of Cambridge.)

Some interesting facts:

1 person dies of melanoma every hour.
One in five people will develop skin cancer.
UV exposure increases your risk of going blind, causing cateracts and macular degeneration.

InnerWeb

--
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.

Re:hrmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-02 03:19 · Score: 1, Insightful

Ya know, I coulda SWORN that we banned chloroflorocarbons a while back...

Every nation on earth banned CFCs? You learn something new everyday.

Scientific Bias by Zoc_All_Alone · 2004-10-02 03:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

So, lemmie get this straight:
The hole gets 2% bigger, scientists freak out, instantly blaming pollution and saying we need to change. Then, when the hole shrinks by 20%, "scientists caution this would have to continue for at least a couple more years to be a trend or anything to get excited about."

Is it just me, or does it seem these scientists are protraying the facts in such a way to continue their funding?

Re:Scientific Bias by Orne · 2004-10-02 04:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hey if the government can do it to the scientists, why can't the scientists do it to the government?

It just reminds us that everyone has an agenda. Science used to be unbiased, but thanks to the "crying wolf" over the environment, we can't trust that anymore.
Re:Scientific Bias by Watts+Martin · 2004-10-02 07:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is it just me, or is there always a charge of "the environmentalists are just trying to protect their funding" from the "it's junk science" crowd, without even a glimmer of acknowledgement of the irony? A single corporation that feels "threatened" by an environmental study makes more in a day than their environmentalist critics do in a year. If protecting your income is enough to get you to lie about something like this, organizations with a lot of money invested in, and a lot of profits riding on, the status quo have a much better reason to vigorously dismiss their opponents calling for change. (The scientists, after all, can go on to get funding for something else with much less "economic disruption" than industries can usually change.)

I'm not arguing one way or another about the ozone layer here, but this is a "bias" that the all-regulation-is-evil crowd doesn't seem to ever want to acknowledge. A hundred scientists at a hundred universities, they're all hacks motivated by something other than real science--but the folks in the coal power industry, they don't have any interest in the outcome, so let's accept their word uncritically?

Incidentally, the ozone hole over the southern hemisphere was, in a 2002 report, about 40-50% larger than when the hole was first reported on in the early 80s, not "2% bigger." In some local areas it was up to 70% for short periods. (The "hole" contracts and expands seasonally, and these are averages.) Shrinking by 20% presumably means that, on average, it's now 32%-40% bigger than it was when first reported--and yes, it's probably too early to know if that's a trend, because that's implicit in the definition of the word "trend." Ozone-depleting chemicals in the atmosphere have been trending downward over the last decade, and the recovery of the ozone layer was expected in that 2002 report--the 1987 Montreal Protocol has been followed pretty well. (And as strange as it may seem, there are no documented examples of industry collapse and economic ruin due to this onerous government intrusion into business.)

Ice shelves by Anonymous+Writer · 2004-10-02 04:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

Could this have something to do with the increasing collapse of ice shelves in the Antarctic? Perhaps there is some relationship between the Ozone hole beginning to shrink and the collapse of the Larsen B Ice Shelf, which both coincidentally happened in 2002. Maybe the collapse and accellerated glacier movements triggered some environmental chain reaction that affected the Ozone hole, but in a superficial way that temporarily masks a continued climate change.

Re:hrmmm by fatman22 · 2004-10-02 04:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Like I said, you pick your data carefully and you can justify any theory you want. Your example graph runs from 1958 to 1982 and apparently only has measurements from October in it. What about the other 11 months, the years since 1982, and the centuries prior to 1958? Extrapolated ice core sample data would suffice.

Re:hrmmm by BurritoWarrior · 2004-10-02 05:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

There's not a single point made in the grandparent's reference that is countered in your reference.

In fact, your reference is full of logical fallacies as well, including Prejudicial Language, False Dilemma, Appeal to Consquences, Popularity, and doesn't address the points brought up by people that disagree, but attacks HOW those that disagree have voiced their opposition. It hadrly speaks to the merits of the arguments of the ozone "naysayers" at all.

Re:hrmmm by reedmon29 · 2004-10-02 07:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

Just because the cancer rate rose doesn't mean it's from the ozone hole. The United States also has a similar cancer problem, and we're not close to either pole. And no, the background radiation does not cause cancer, or at least it doesn't at the current dose you're getting. It's not a 0 dose, 0 problem correlation. Too much radiation can kill you, but people in higher background radiation areas (e.g. mountains) live healther lives than elsewhere, with fewer instances of cancer.

Why Is It? by joeyGibson · 2004-10-02 14:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

Of course scientists caution this would have to continue for at least a couple more years to be a trend or anything to get excited about.

Isn't it funny that when there is good news about the climate, "scientists" tells us that we shouldn't "get excited about it," yet when there is apparently bad news, these same scientists demands that we must act "before it's too late."

27 of 352 comments (clear)