Slashdot Mirror
Arctic Ozone Hole Will Be Severe This Year
dirutz writes "Thought this year's weather patterns were odd? Next year's might be worse because of the thinning of the ozone layer. Looks like there's something to add to that list of New Year's resolutions/hopes/dreams."
I knew it!
The hip way to get your IP. No ads, ever.
Rush Limbaugh says The ozone layer is a Liberal Myth.
The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.
Maybe after everyone else has died from skin cancer, geeks will inherit the earth. That 'outside' thing was always overrated anyway.
Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -Anonymous
The entire country has been covered with snow this winter. So much for global warming!
Logic, macros, and more
Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes and world health is and has been dramatically improving. The median world life expectancy goes up every single year. So, unless the earth is a real person that throws out earthquakes just to be a dick, the earth isn't trying to tell us anything. If you want to argue that the climate is changing, go for it, but arguing that earth quakes have anything to do with global warming is just stupid and ignorant.
Climate variability is natural. The climate is a complex system which produces unpredictable, and sometimes dramatic, fluctuations from season to season. The so called "severe" changes do not lie outside of the posible range a variablity.
The fact is, we have no idea exactly what impact we are having on the climate, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or uninformed. The only thing we do know with any confidence is that we are having an impact, but what that might be we just don't know.
how the thinning ozone layer affects weather patterns? I understand that increased UV causes skin cancer and all that, but what does it have to do with the weather?
Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
The article does not say that severe weather causes ozone thinning. In fact, it says the opposite: the severe weather increases ozone thinning. The only result of ozone thinning that is mentioned is increased UV rays, and thus an increased risk of skin cancer.
The hole won't just shrink right away. If anything it should get much worse before the ozone layer can start healing its self again.
=====
The stratosphere, where the ozone layer lies, has seen its coldest winter for 50 years; there have also been an unusually large number of clouds.
=====
There is a simple cure for this ozone problem, lets just heat the planet up a little bit. umm, wait, that'll piss off all the global warming types.
Dunno who to believe anymore, think I'll just head out and shoot a spotted owl, I've heard they roast up pretty tasty....
I was under the impression that the US was doing pretty well when it came to phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals, which leads me to ask: who farted?
What about the polar bears?!? Has anyone thought of the polar bears?!??
No, he says that global warming is a liberal myth and goes on about Kyoto.
Speaking of Global Cooling...
The ozone hole shows seasonal effects from increased solar influence. Some folks have been saying that the overall trends over multiple years can be due to solar activity varying over years.
So any shrinking trends, over any small time period (less than 5, maybe) are not as important as the radical increasing trend thats been there for the last 25 or so.
How can you possibly claim to be having an impact on something but absolutely no idea what that impact is? Unless you measure something you can't make the first statement, and if you do measure it you can't make the second statement
Didn't we already give up CFCs and thus saved the ozone layer? What gives? Why is the ozone layer still opening if we gave up using CFCs?
For those of you who don't know, CFCs are an all-around useful chemical. Not only is it completely harmless to human (save asphyxiation), it retards all kinds of fires instantly. The Navy used to use it on all of their ships to put out fires instantly. Guess what? Since it was deployed. hardly anyone got injured due to fire. Nowadays, fires on our Navy vessels are too common.
CFCs are also extremelty useful as a refrigerant. No other chemical has approached CFCs in this realm. All the newcomers are much more expensive to manufacture, and quite dangerous in their own right.
CFCs are also very heavy. They don't float up to the upper atmosphere as some scientists thought. Instead, they stay down here on the surface of the earth where they cause no harm.
Maybe we should re-examine why we got rid of DDT. Did the condor ever come back after we abolished using it? Insect-borne viruses and diseases sure have. Nothing would've saved so many lives from malaria in the tsunami-stricken region like a good dousing of DDT.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
One of the problems is that the stratosphere is warmed by the absorption of UV light by ozone; depleting the ozone reduces the warming and lengthens the period when conditions cause further depletion.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
You can get rid of all of those at once by engineering things so that they no longer need oil, or need a much smaller amount. No amount of re-engineering a refinery is going to cut the emissions from the H2 Hummer it feeds, but you could slash both refinery and vehicular emissions (and OPEC volume) by going to plug-in hybrid vehicles.
Yeah, like putting up roadblocks to DDT and phosphate detergents pissed people off by saving the American Bald Eagle and dozens of lakes from turning into disgusting masses of overgrown, stinking rotting algae. We still kill bugs and get our stuff clean, so where's the roadblock?Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
If you really wanted to be funny, you'd suggest fighting warming and ozone depletion with sulfur emissions (which make reflective clouds) and NOx and HC emissions (to replace stratospheric ozone with ground-level ozone, aka smog).
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
You can always make more polar bears. Just take Cartesian bears and put them through a coördinate transform.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Gravitational pull on large cold air masses can be seen using this tool.During full and new moon events, large cold upper air masses move away from the pole .They are pulled down in the direction of the equator.Because they move in the direction of least resistance, they travel over the land and not the warmer oceans.During the other phases of the moon they return to the arctic and revolve around the pole in a counter clockwise motion.kinda like the musical chairs game.I have been observing this event over the last 6 years.The system stalled this year leaving a large cold air mass over the north east part of the contenent.It has also allowed warmer ocean air to slide in behind it.I think this is what they are missing in their observations.I think The stalling was caused by a unbalance of temp,mass and gravatational pull on large cold hi pressure systems.
http://www.weather.unisys.com/upper_air/ua_nhem_50 0p.html This link may help if you are interested.
I think humans contribute to the ozone problem.But a clearer understanding of climatology and weather is possible. The same equations observed in the arctic upper air ciculation patterns, can be reversed to define tropical weather patterns near the equator.These patterns occur between new and full moons and deal with warm air masses moving over the oceans.The only difference is that cold air masses roll and warm air form funnels.These are only my observations.I would like to know if they are correct?Use the moon for your outhouse,quit pissing on my planet you corporate slugs.
Shell and Exxon-Mobil are probably too big to survive the coming changes. If we get something like the artificial-photosynthesis systems which produce hydrogen straight from sunlight and water, changes could come very fast. A company which has bonds outstanding and suddenly has falling income from its major operations plus devaluation of its major assets (petroleum reserves) could be forced to liquidate. A quick look at Exxon-Mobil's balance sheet doesn't show a lot of debt that could precipitate such a crisis, but in the runup to a collapse that would be likely to change.
There, I'll agree with you. However, alcohols are well within a factor of 2, and we don't necessarily have to get either of them from fossil sources. If we get artificial photosynthesis, you'll be able to turn any old stream of CO2 into methanol; just add hydrogen.Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
If you are not a trained chemist and you mix two chemicals together and they fiz, you know you had an impact, what that impact was, you don't know, all you know is that it fizzed.
You mess with your cars engine and now it makes a noise and you don't know what it is. You know you had an effect but you don't know what is causing the noise.
Same thing here. We know we are having an impact, we just don't know what the long term and short term effect will be on a global scale. We know by satalite that the ozone layer is going away and this is melting the icecaps, we don't know what effect this is going to have on the rest of the planet.
If this gas is SO important and we already use it to purify water. Why can't we make a shit load of it and send it up to the stratosphere?
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
No sunbathing at the north pole this year.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
I have to say, these articles do help the everyday sheep learn what the ozone is, and what it does. I will always remember meeting a lady at the gas station. She was driving herself (and only herself) in her huge SUV. She was then commenting on how interesting the front page article about global warming was, and that I "should read it". I would like to point out that I was driving a 40mpg little car at the time (and still have it, 9 years later).
If this is true, why do we have birds today? We used DDT very, very heavily back in the days.
I looked up the DDT scare and it was claimed it threatened one species of bird that was on the verge of extinction. Even then it wasn't proven that it was the cause. After all, every chicken rancher know that birds need calcium to build a good eggshell. If they don't have enough, the shell is weak. Perhaps the birds near the city had a hard time finding calcium? Oh no, that would only make too much sense! Let's ban DDT instead!
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
CFC makes it worse, how?
(1) Refrigerators and air conditioners would be a lot more efficient and cheaper too. They would be safer as well.
(2) Places where fire is dangerous can install the fire extinguishers that use CFCs, saving hundreds if not thousands of lives. If such a system were installed in the World Trade Center, the building would not have burned and it would not have collapsed. Of course, if they had finished the installation of asbestos, it would not have fallen either, but government strikes again, and now thousands are dead because of it!
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.