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."
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"
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
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.
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.
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)
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.
.. 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.
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.
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?
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.