Slashdot Mirror


Sun Storms Deplete Ozone, Too

An anonymous reader writes "Turns out the sun itself zaps the ozone that protects us from the sun. LiveScience is reporting that the record-setting string of solar storms around Halloween in 2003 (including an X28 flare) set off a cascade of events that depleted the ozone layer over the Arctic in early 2004. In a nutshell, more nitrogen was created, and an unusually strong vortex of high-speed winds aloft brought the nitrogen down, where it contributed to cutting ozone by 60 percent over the polar region. In January, the a European scientist warned residents of the far north to basically stay out of the sun. While chlorofluorocarbons are still blamed for ozone depletion, scientists said this study shows they don't properly account for the sun's impact."

29 of 467 comments (clear)

  1. [PREDICTION] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let us now see how long it takes for someone, either on a slashdot thread, in the public discourse, or on talk radio, to take the jump that "multiple factors exist in the depletion of ozone" immediately leads to the conclusion "claims human interference are a significant detrimental factor in the depletion of the ozone are false"

    1. Re:[PREDICTION] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is it that every time there is yet more evidence released that human contribution to global warming is even less significant someone has to try and dismiss or minimize it?

      Show me a 'humans cause global warming' case that doesn't use the deceptive hockey stick or only take data starting at a local minimum right around the time of the industrial revolution (remember, we're still about a degree C below the Medieval peak) and I'll listen. Eagerly. Up until now, it's all been smoke and mirrors with a political agenda.

  2. One more reason... by gambit3 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... why I don't believe the "Global Warming is being caused by greedy corporations" spiel..

    quite simply, it's because most people (scientists included) quite simply don't have enough information to say for a FACT that THIS or THAT is causing ozone depletion:

    "While chlorofluorocarbons are still blamed for ozone depletion, scientists said this study shows they don't properly account for the sun's impact."

    Before this gets modded as troll or flamebait, read it again. All I'm saying is that theories are one thing. Presenting theories as facts is another thing entirely.

    1. Re:One more reason... by aiken_d · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah, the old "sometimes true = always true" argument.

      Nobody, including the guy you're responding to, denied that CFC's deplete ozone. The question is, to what degree are CFC's responsible for the measured ozone depletion we've seen over the past 20 years or so.

      Nothing in a complex system is black and white. The whole point of this article, and the poster you replied to, is that this is a good example of why it's overly simplistic to link CFC's to ozone depletion and to believe that, therefore, reducing CFC emissions will necessarily have a significant impact on the rate of ozone depletion.

      More evidence is always good. Jumping to conclusions is generally bad. Black-and-white answers to questions raised by complex systems are generally flawed. Simple as that.

      Cheers
      -b

      --
      If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
    2. Re:One more reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Who the heck said anything about global warming?

      The following are facts:

      CFCs, when subjected to UV, destroy ozone.

      CFCs are present at ozone-layer altitudes. This has been detected by (among others) the NASA ER-2 high-altitude aircraft.

      Not to mention the fact that the ozone layer has recovered since CFCs were banned.

      This is not something which is up for any kind of real debate, unless you want to revert to pseudoscience. This is not the global-warming issue. This is something substantially different and far simpler and less speculative.

  3. Of course... by winstonmeister · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...this means in any minute now we'll get one of those charming "See? We don't need to worry about things in the environment being damaged by man-made processes, because it happens by itself anyway!" posts. Well, before that happens, I'd like to pose a question. Namely, if things have the potential to break, and if nature can break things on its own...how does that justify anyone making it break worse than it would just by itself? Using this logic, it would be okay if a factory artificially generated tornados all the time because, hey, it happens in nature.

  4. Suck It Enviros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    See? You have no idea just what's happening with natural systems. "Ooohh... my hairspray is damaging the planet! Ooohhh... look at the big bad scary humans, overestimating their importance!"

    "Only human arrogance assumes the message must be meant for man." - Spock, Star Trek IV

  5. Who'da thunk it? by DesScorp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wow....massive environmental changes can be caused by...OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL changes!

    This has been my biggest gripe with environmental groups. Almost none of them take into account the fact that the Earth has radically "re-organized" itself (for lack of a better word) several times BEFORE man ever came along, and we don't yet understand how or why. We've had several radical changes in global temperature, sea levels, atmosphere composition, etc, most before man ever walked the Earth.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Who'da thunk it? by rhysweatherley · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "Wow....massive environmental changes can be caused by...OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL changes! This has been my biggest gripe with environmental groups. "

      Actually, it's the anti-environmental lobby that latches onto the natural cycles argument, using it as an excuse to do nothing. Because doing something usually costs them money, or results in lawsuits, or whatever.

      Environmentalists understand that there are natural cycles but are concerned that the natural cycles are being upset by human action in ways that will be very difficult to reverse the longer the upset occurs.

      The Sun's involvement in ozone depletion has been a fixture of atmospheric conditions for millions of years, and has reached equillibrium. Inject human-generated CFC's and the equillibrium is upset. We can't change the Sun, but we can change the human factors.

  6. phew by potihani · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Indeed, the sun is in fact about half of the cause for ozone depletion involving CFCs. That's because that when CFCs drift up into the stratosphere photons, in their selfish and inexorable rush toward the earth, smack into them and bust off the chlorine . For shame, Mr. Sun. So, rather than eliminate the CFCs and thus the chlorine that breakz ozone down into 02 and free oxygen, we would do just as well to put up a Mr. Burns-style sun blocker. Now that would stop global warming. I gotta say, though, I'm really not willing to make the implied trade, I think I'd miss the aerosol hair spray a little less than food.

  7. yeah, it's all the sun's fault... by MSBob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and yet we had a melanoma incidence rate of 1 in 150,000 in the 1930's and it's around 1 in 75 now. Yeah, it's all part of natural world and nothing to do with the rate of industrialization.

    --
    Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
    1. Re:yeah, it's all the sun's fault... by farmhick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The quick reply to any rise in melanoma rates is that people are out in the sun more nowadays than 70 years ago. "In the sun" meaning 'laying on a beach wearing almost no clothing, for hours at a time'. Seven decades ago most people in the US and Europe wore long sleeve shirts and long pants went they went out in public.

      The not-so-quick reply is that people are living longer today too, rather than dying long before melanoma could develop. As more people survive lesser diseases such as the flu, more will die due to other diseases such as cancer.

      Other responses to your statistic would include radiation from microwave ovens and televisions, terrible dieting consisting of less nutritious foods rather than fresh vegetables, and the theory that the human body has cancer cells all the time which are routinely destroyed in healthy people but not in our modern bodies which are not healthy because of the previous two reasons which I just mentioned.

      --
      I have to stop wasting so much time reading Slashdot. It's interfering with my crystal meth addiction.
  8. my response by Khashishi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's ok that the Earth radically re-organized itself in the distant past before humans came along.

    It's not ok from a human standpoint for the Earth to radically re-organize itself now.

    Really, we should do everything in our power to keep the Earth rather like it has been for the last 10000 years.

    1. Re:my response by pipingguy · · Score: 1, Insightful


      Really, we should do everything in our power...

      When it comes to the earth, it's climate and other unpredictable fluid dynamics-type universal (chaos theory, anyone?) issues, we have no power. Get used to it.

      "Think globally, act locally" is mostly a leftist political meme, not a realistic point of view and should be replaced by, "Think rationally, act reasonably."

    2. Re:my response by joshv · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It's ok that the Earth radically re-organized itself in the distant past before humans came along.

      It's not ok from a human standpoint for the Earth to radically re-organize itself now."

      Really? Why? The most radical reorg came about when a strange new bacteria discovered photosynthensis. This little organism was wildly successful. It and it's descendent set about polluting the Earth's atmosphere with a previously poisonous gas - oxygen. This gas exterminated many of the species that came before, but helped some others that could figure out how to use the new gas (our ancestors). Replacing 20% of the atmosphere with oxygen most certainly wrought massive global climate change as well.

      This change was a direct result of the actions of a particular species on the planet. It's actions were no more or less 'natural' than those of homo sapiens.

    3. Re:my response by pcmanjon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It's not ok from a human standpoint for the Earth to radically re-organize itself now.

      Really, we should do everything in our power to keep the Earth rather like it has been for the last 10000 years."

      Well, really, we can't do anything to stop the Earth from reacting to the enviroment from which it lives in (space.) The Earth is going to react according to the forces around it, and nothing can change that.

      It would be within our best interest for our genes to do some evolution to better suit us for our changing world. Species are going to die out on this planet as a result of the changing Earth, that is for sure. Hopefully some or most species will be able to adapt to the new enviroment that they won't.

      It's natural selection, but who picks? The Earth, who tells the Earth? The Universe. We can't change the Universe, so lets hope that we can change ourselves.

  9. The more things change,the more they stay the same by suitepotato · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Think for a second... Has anyone PROVEN that there has EVER been an "ozone hole" ANYWHERE but at the poles? Like right over ANY of the industrialized nations that emit CFCs?

    Not to my knowledge or in any scholarly tract I have ever seen.

    It took until NOW for someone to think, "Hmmm... maybe the sun has something to do with the ozone layer..."

    The idea that a dynamic world affecting power source could create AND destroy isn't new. Witness the ring of fire in the Pacific Ocean. Subduction destroys, magma release renews.

    One wonders how any could miss the fact that the known ozone depletion spots happen to coincide with the planet's magnetic poles and thus where loads of solar charged particle radiation ends up, having to pass through the same ozone that the sun itself created.

    This isn't a troll. This is simple exasperation at the endless "human kind is responsible for all ills that plague the world". I'm sure superstitious islanders of the nineteenth century who survived Krakatoa agreed with that, but it ain't necessarily so.

    There seems to be some obsession among some people with the idea that everything should always remain as it is right now despite the fact that our own science proves to us that the world was different in multiple different ways over vast periods of time before we were ever a kink in the dna and logically will be short of our intelligent intervention and massive effort.

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
  10. The ozone layer has recovered??? by HornWumpus · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Responding to AC should know better.

    It claims: The ozone layer has recovered since CFCs were banned.

    My point is we don't really know. Nobody has been watching the thing long enough to understand it's habbits. Have we been monitoring it for a full solar cycle (only with ground level UV tests if that). It could all just be noise. Ozone holes could be normal, or they could be much worse then previously realized. You do realize most stratospheric ozone is produced by UV hitting O2? You'd kind of expect holes during six months of darkness.

    Further you realize CFCs were banned globally in what 1995? Refrigerants are still leaking.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  11. Sombody please explain to the poster... by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    more nitrogen was created

    Somebody please explain to the poster how elements work.

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  12. Is it just me or... by steve_vmwx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    .. is the "we ain't screwing the planet" lobby starting to sound like the tobacco lobby in the late 70's / early 80's ?

    "There's no definitive proof that smoking causes lung cancer..." Remember that one?

    Hmmm.

    We ain't going to Mars until we fix what we've done to this planet!

    Stevo

    --
    Forget the truth. Science is fact.
    1. Re:Is it just me or... by rob_squared · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "There's no definitive proof that smoking causes lung cancer..." And sadly, there still isn't. The best we can say is, it is possible that one causes the other. Until you put a group of smokers and non-smokers in a scientifically controlled enviornment for years on end, you won't get the evidence you want.

      --
      I don't get it.
  13. Re:The more things change,the more they stay the s by allrong · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The reason the ozone holes form above the poles and not directly above the CFC source regions is due to the very cold atmospheric conditions at the poles.

    During the winter polar night, sunlight does not reach the south pole. A strong circumpolar wind develops in the middle to lower stratosphere. These strong winds are known as the 'polar vortex'. This has the effect of isolating the air over the polar region.

    Since there is no sunlight, the air within the polar vortex can get very cold. So cold that special clouds can form once the air temperature gets to below about -80C. These clouds are called Polar Stratospheric Clouds (or PSCs for short) but they are not the clouds that you are used to seeing in the sky which are composed of water droplets. PSCs first form as nitric acid trihydrate. As the temperature gets colder however, larger droplets of water-ice with nitric acid dissolved in them can form. However, their exact composition is still the subject of intense scientific scrutiny. These PSCs are crucial for ozone loss to occur.

    Source

    It should serve as a lesson to you that your actions can have effects beyond your backyard.

    Most scientists I know recognise that there are "natural" components to phenomena such as the ozone holes (eg volcanic aerosoles) and global warming. The concern is that human activities may exacerbate the effects and that the rate of change may be much faster than would otherwise be the case.

    If you ever wonder what affect humanity's actions have on the world and our society, look at the ruined land due to salinity in Australia.

    --
    What is the inverse of the Matrix?
  14. My question: by djward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In January, the a European scientist warned residents of the far north to basically stay out of the sun.

    In January, residents of the far north have no choice but to stay out of the sun.

    No wonder no one took him seriously.

    1. Re:My question: by nels_tomlinson · · Score: 2, Insightful
      In January, residents of the far north have no choice but to stay out of the sun.

      Above the arctic circle, the sun stays down for months; coincidently, it's down for exactly those months that this sort of problem can arise.

      Below the arctic circle, you get a few hours of twilight around noon. The sun never gets more than a few degrees above the southern horizon, and so the sunlight is being filtered through many miles of southern atmosphere, probably including quite a bit of ozone.

      No wonder no one took him seriously.

      Indeed. There won't be any potential for overexposure until April or May ... long after the ozone problem has worked itself out. I see no reason to doubt that this sort of pattern was present long before we learned to measure it. No wonder we don't take the chicken littles seriously.

  15. Why bother warning us? by mylasticus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In January, a European scientist warned residents of the far north to basically stay out of the sun. Um..hello? There is no sunlight in the far, far north during the month of January, just ask anyone in Barrow, Alaska. It would be nice to have even dangerous sunlight to avoid.

  16. Wait! by patrik · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Some things about the article seriously bother me, like "creating nitrogen" and "nitrogen gas is known to destroy ozone". If the most common gas in our atmosphere destroys ozone then why does it exist at all? Nitrogen (not as a gas) is important in the depletion process but not as the article implies...

    Before anyone claims that humans are no longer the cause for the ozone hole, please realize the depletion was caused because of CFCs. Ozone is depleted as a result of many things, CFC is one of the key components and is a non-natural factor. The increased UV and polar vortices that were a result of the solar activity along with a colder winter increased the depletion, but, it would never have happened at above natural levels without CFCs.
    Please read: A simple explanation that I posted a while back and a more complete explanation on how the ozone hole is formed.

    These chemical processes are extremely well known: We know that CFCs are the cause, we know that there are a lot of them near the ozone layer, we know they are man made. Therefore, we know we are the cause. All that these researchers found out is that these conditions will speed up the process, not that they are the cause of the process.

    It is unfortunate that even with the CFC ban it will take 100-200 years for the ozone hole to repair itself to pre-industrial era levels...

    Patrik

    --
    ----------
    Just your ordinary BOFH ;)
    http://killertux.org
  17. Make up your mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Well it seems the earth is in a cooling trend right now so I was TRYING to put as much CO2 into the atmosphere as possible to counter the effect. Then everyone got pissed, so I stopped...

    And now you are telling me to go back at it to keep the climate stable? Make up your damn mind already!

  18. Re:Predating agriculture by b-baggins · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The best, most conservative evidence of the day says that human impact on global warming is negligible, and that, therefore, we really don't need to do anything at all.

    Now, of course, you aren't interested in the best, most conservative evidence, because you are all for doing something, anything right now, immediately before we all suffer catastrophic apocalypse.

    So much for taking the best, most conservative evidence.

    Global warming is nothing more than the latest tool of the ever with us tyrants to put themselves in power and tell you how to live your life.

    Remember, the tyranny that makes you feel morally superior is the tyranny you embrace, and the modern green movement is all about moral superiority.

    --
    You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.