Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Arctic Ozone Hole Will Be Severe This Year

Posted by michael on from the spf-5000 dept.

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."

18 of 90 comments (clear)

  1. This can't be right... by Giant+Ape+Skeleton · · Score: 4, Funny

    Rush Limbaugh says The ozone layer is a Liberal Myth.

    --
    The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.
  2. Hmm, this could be a good thing by JFitzsimmons · · Score: 3, Funny

    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
    1. Re:Hmm, this could be a good thing by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Maybe after everyone else has died from skin cancer, geeks will inherit the earth. That 'outside' thing was always overrated anyway."

      Yeah but until it becomes fashionable for femmes to become geeks, we'll be the last great generation.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  3. Umm.. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    The entire country has been covered with snow this winter. So much for global warming!

    1. Re:Umm.. What? by NockPoint · · Score: 3, Insightful
      What country?

      Where I live (Northwest USA), the ski areas are closed down this winter due to lack of snow. Guess what: local weather varies a lot more than global average temperature. Global warming means global, not local. Your backyard will vary a lot, and that variation tells us very little about the global trend.

      http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/snowsports/2 002157838_skiworkers22.html

  4. doesn't matter by Madcapjack · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It doesn't matter what scientists say. All the conservative ideologues *know* that scientists are environmentalist whackos.

    --
    Logic, macros, and more
    1. Re:doesn't matter by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it's the greedy corporate interests that are being taken too seriously! Meanwhile, TRUE science is being swept under the rug in favor of profits and votes.

    2. Re:doesn't matter by LoveTruthBeauty · · Score: 2
      The idea that it must be either corporations or consumers to blame is too black and white. Most things are grey. I'd say its not only consumers and corporations to blame, but it is also the fault of voters, leaders, teachers and individuals.

      I agree with you that education is a noble goal. However, what you call 'harp[ing] on the cold-hearted motivations of corporations' could also be seen as 'educating the readers of this public forum'. Are you really saying that environmentalists should compromise their core beliefs because the oil industry has momentum? I suspect you don't believe the planet needs protecting, or you don't know the true impact of the oil industry.

      While you can make burning fossil fuels less polluting, you can never make it 'clean'. More importantly, you can never eliminate the CO2 emissions, which are looking increasingly like they will cause us even more strife than all the more toxic pollutants released by burning coal and oil.

      When the internal combustion engine was invented, nobody had any idea that there would soon be a billion or so of these engines dragging a tonne or two of steel around, day in, day out, all over the globe. There was no planning. There was no consideration of the consequences, no environmental impact statements, no projections nor even basic investigation of what might happen if that much fossil fuel gets burned over a such short timespan. Our love affair with oil is an experiment on a global scale!

      Now some people are trying to get the message out that there are consequences, and they may be catastrophic. It could well be too late. Anyone who has ever owned a car is now completely addicted. They are just too convenient. Our cities are literally designed to require them. Our economies run on oil. If the oil stopped flowing tomorrow there would be worldwide chaos, starvation and despair. It could literally end civilisation. Farmers couldn't farm, which is irrelevant, because they couldn't get their produce to market, which is also irrelevant because the produce couldn't get from the market to the consumer. There would be famine on a massive scale, followed immediately by chaos.

      Given our reliance on oil, it is not surprising that there is so much resistance to even considering and investigating the consequences of such widespread and massive use. Unfortunately our current dependence on fossil fuels does not mean that it is wise. Is it in our best interests to continue down this path?

      If incontrovertible and unanimously accepted evidence came in tomorrow that global warming was real and was going to cause floods, droughts, storms, and sea levels to rise enough to make all our coastal cities look like Aceh, how long do you think it would take for us to stop our greenhouse emissions? We can't just shut down all the coal fired powerstations and go back donkeys for transport overnight. Even if we could, the CO2 is already in the atmosphere - it wont go away overnight. An orderly technological transition will take decades at best. If we need to, can we do it fast enough? Is 'fingers crossed' the smart approach?

      --
      Which nations do you trust to use nuclear weapons responsibly?
  5. Earth Speaks To Me by Shihar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  7. Could somebody tell me... by FuturePastNow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Could somebody tell me... by Yokaze · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It doesn't. Makes one wonder, if Michael isn't maybe hired by the right to post easily disproved myths, which only discredit the green faction as wackos, which will believe in anything.

      Maybe one should do that to the right-wingers.

      Oh, they are doing it themselves.
      Brace yourself for:
      "No consent"
      "Not provable"
      "Global Cooling"
      "Little Ice Age"
      "Sun fluctuations"
      "Earth has been warmer"
      "Earth has been cooler"
      Corrolar: "We are in an Ice Age"
      "We puny humans have no influence in comparison to the might of earth"
      "We mighty humans will handle any problem earth will throw at us"

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    2. Re:Could somebody tell me... by Miriku+chan · · Score: 2, Informative

      increase in passing radiation means increase in energy in the layer. this energy has to be released through things like faster winds and changes to the pressure zones. those changes then will screw up normal style movement of air currents and water currents.

      more or less.

      --
      shaolin punk, activist post-industrial
    3. Re:Could somebody tell me... by agnana · · Score: 3, Informative

      True, but although the ozone hole does pass through shortwave radiation, it actually results in less absorption of longwave radiation. So in fact the ozone hole results in cooling rather than warming (stratospheric ozone is a greenhouse gas). The main impact of ozone thinning is likely to be on the location of the jet stream. Reference to this is Shindell and Schmidt, Geophys. Res. Lett, Sept. 25, 2004.

  8. RTFA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  9. He who smelt it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    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?

  10. Re:poor by eraserewind · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

  11. The heck with 'em by Tau+Zero · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.