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."
Do not look at record-setting solar storms with remaining good eye.
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
man has yearned to destroy the sun.
I'm done using their Java. Here I come Microsoft.
There is only one solution...
Nuke the sun.
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"
... 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.
Watch the Teaser Trailer for "The Lightning Thief" Her
You have to hand it to chlorofluorocarbons... All those years in the pokey and they never fingered their co-conspirator - the sun.
I'm a big tall mofo.
...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.
Save the galaxy!
In our next story, the drafters of the Kyoto Protocol have revised the agreement so that solar storms count toward each country's polution limits.
hate everyone that can afford things you can't
or likes things you don't
This article focuses on solar flares and CFCs, neither of which have anything to do with engine exhaut.
Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
Yes humans are probably affecting the Earth, but every problem is presented as humans doing all the damage, and there is no possible way that Nature could be doing any of this damage.
Gee, the Sun affects the Earth, what will they consider next?
With winters getting warmer every year, it's only a matter of time before we are up to our necks in industrially poisoned ocean.
It's interesting, though, that with all the talk from liberal groups like the Sierra Club about how industry is the culprit, that we come to find out that it might be the SUN ITSELF that's depleting the ozone layer! In the wake of the recent CBS debacle, maybe it's time we started viewing such activists with a more suspicious eye.
Maybe it's time we stopped looking for more problems on earth, and start looking to controlling threats from outer space -- threats like solar storms and asteroids. With our current level of intercelestial preparedness, it would take only one oversized meteor or a solar storm to fry this intergalactic backwater we call earth to a crisp. We need to step up efforts to expand orbital missile defense and lunar and martian defense outposts or we'll have only ourselves to blame when some freak cosmic event destroys life as we know it.
A Proud Member of the Reality Oriented Community.
Such is the way of the world. And please be able to take care of the joke.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
seriously, the editing has been pretty bad lately... I wish I could stop reading it, but I can't stop hitting refresh... refresh... refresh...
damnit!
If you missed the Aurora Show this fall, you missed something special. The Aurora were intense and visible in most urban places. (Including me in Minneapolis)
For information on when flares and aurora are possible, see the following pages:
aurora alert- http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlkop/auralert.html/
for more of a daily "this is cool stuff in space" see
SpaceWeather.com http://spaceweather.com/
Fun Stuff.
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
Recent events have showed us that we MUST cause a regime change for the Solarians. No longer must they live under the titanical rule of Sunddam Hydrogen.
This evil dictator has created weapons of mass destruction, and has used them against nearby planets. A few years ago, we had them open their weapon factories to us so we could be sure they destroyed them all. But it has now come to our attention that they have weapons that could destroy the entire world.
We can NOT stand by and let them do this. We must unite and attack them before they can destroy us. Anyone who is not with us, is with them. There is no other choice.
The Earth must attack Sol.
Would you kindly mod me +1 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
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.
High in the atmosphere, some oxygen (O2) molecules absorbed energy from the Sun's ultraviolet (UV) rays and split to form single oxygen atoms. These atoms combined with remaining oxygen (O2) to form ozone (O3) molecules, which are very effective at absorbing UV rays. The thin layer of ozone that surrounds Earth acts as a shield, protecting the planet from irradiation by UV light...Ozone is produced naturally in the stratosphere when highly energetic solar radiation strikes molecules of oxygen, O2, and cause the two oxygen atoms to split apart in a process called photolysis.
Linkage
So, yeah, the sun is the bad guy, but really, the sun is the good guy, too. =)
I bet he wont take it too lightly when the G8 goes after his @$$ for 80 billion in global damages.
Hey, somebody had to mention it.
Storm
Probably in a couple of years when the editors enter the 9th grade. :)
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Damn asians anyways. Except the Asians really have no control over the sun. At all. We hope. I do not want the ChiComs in control of the sun.
Since the dawn of time man has yearned to destroy the sun. -Monty Burns
It's scientifically proven, that CFCs destroy ozone in the lab. Now weather or not it contributes to significant depletion of ozone in the upper atmosphere, is of question.
Maybe people will finally start paying homage to Ra again.
TFA itself says "The upper-level ozone layer has thinned dramatically in the Southern Hemisphere in recent decades, creating a dangerous hole through which UV rays stream. The decline is due largely to man-made chlorofluorocarbons released into the atmosphere."
CFC's are incredibly heavy. In order to reach the ozone layer, the CFC's have to be super-heated.
The ozone cover of our atmosphere is a dynamic process meaning that ozone is formed and destroyed at a constant rate as we speak. True that solar flares cause it to be destroyed but such phenomenon does not happen too often. In the time span between two such events the ozone can re-create itself. On the other hand, destruction of ozone by human made CFC's, freons, etc are spontaneous and hence causes permenant depletion.
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.
However to say that we should not act because there is no proof is not wise. By the time we have proof it will be to late. Rather, we should act on the best, and most conservative, evidence of the day.
Analogy: Go run around in the street with your eyes shut. Just because you can't see any cars does not mean this is a safe thing to do.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
this causes global warming, not the other way around
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Just because something is not proven doesn't mean that you should ignore it.
If the severity of the conclusions is high, and the probability of correctness is substantial, then it deserves respect.
You first.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
We can save ourselves any time. We just need the merciless peppers of Quetzlzacatenango!
668: Neighbour of the Beast
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.
Looks like there may be something the "scientists" hadn't considered. Could be that there is a bigger influence than a few spray cans... Has anyone considered the fact that the whole solar-system is experienceing a temperature rise? Not just here on good ol' Terra firma.... Haven't we been told that if they tax everything we use that they could lessen the ozone layer depletion?? Sorry, as suspected, money ain't gonna fix this one kids....
/*Dave
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)
In a nutshell, more nitrogen was created
um ... is it April 1st?
No, seriously>?
This "theory" has got a few problems. First of all we know without a doubt that for the last number of decades the major source of solar radiation - the Solar Energetic Particle events (SEPs) - are quite modest. This is known from ice core samples. I've seen the reports of the data myself and it's quite conclusive. In a nutshell our current space age has occurred during a very quiet, very benign time. To attribute solar sources to any current trends is ozone depletion is simply disregarding the data. While solar events certainly do effect the ozone to attribute any such current depletion is FUD.
"Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
Yea but have they looked at the impact of having a newly OSS solaris ???
This is because of climate conditions that happen only in the poles: a) vortices that concentrate ozone and CFCs and prevent difusion of the damaged area with the rest of the ozone layer and b) extra cold temperatures that freeze nitrogen from the atmosphere thus allowing the CFCs to interact (nitrogen is a slows the process). These are both more prevalent in the southern pole rather than the northern pole. If we had a major hole over the northern pole there would be a lot more damage since the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere are much more populated than the higher latitudes of the south.
Patrik
----------
Just your ordinary BOFH
http://killertux.org
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'
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.
Ok, what else could it be?
Sun Storms.
Now, go into the lab, does it look like Sun Storms that have been about forever in my case or CfC's that have been about for most of my lifetime. because I'd rather be on the side of the CFC cautions than the Sun Storms skin cancer 1337 any day.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
But you are ignoring the data. The earth's magnetic field has of course been around for as long as the Earth has but we are experiencing a dynamical trend now. So why is it happening now? Well ice core samples have shown conclusively that we are currently in a very calm period in terms of solar activity. That means that the Sun cannot possible be responsible for the current trend. Sure, the sun does have an effect on the ozone layer, but to attribute any current (within the last number of decades) on solar radiation is ignoring the data and is nothing but FUD.
"Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
There is much more data to show the ozone depletion is caused by humans.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
hey, america/europe are the ones making all the pollution in the world. china's barely started technology
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.
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.
No it wasn't.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Along a similar thread, aerosols and other pollutants end up reducing global warming by seeding clouds and increasing cloud cover, which generally reflects more sunlight energy away from the ecosphere. ( ref ) So could more pollution be a way to counter global warming? Do we even have a planned response for when global warming finally does occur, other than to head for higher ground?
It does seem like governments are spending more time setting arbitrary controls on resource consumption and waste production, when they should be tracking quantitative measurements and setting cumulative budgets on system inputs & outputs.
Ultimately, if we don't want to take the blame for anything we do, we'd want to become fully self-sufficient... balancing our system inputs and outputs such that all of our waste byproducts are processed, treated, and cleaned. That way, we won't be leaning on the environment for cleaning up our exhaust, and we'll achieve some form of population scalability. Almost like making sure everyone can live in their own isolated biosphere. But in our current system, there's very little incentive to pursue this (other than maybe for long-term space colonization... ha)
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
Yes, another THEORY.
Note that it is one of many. As gambit3 pointed out, nobody is confident enough to present anything as fact.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
Individuals aside, I think this whole planet is going to be toast (literally), in the long run, courtesy of our friendly neighborhood star. Now there is irony for you. Think about it. (But not too much, if you are really smart, life is even more of a bitch than if you are not.)
Remember, kids, this has all been covered before, see Existentialism in any handy encyclopedia.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
they usually didn't live long enough to get cancer, either.
Clear, Dark Skies
It appears large amounts of discussion here are happening with people not understanding anything at hand. I will attempt to clarify some things to the best of my ability. Please excuse me if this is not as great as it could be, as my source here is my memory augmented by google.
The atmosphere is a very complex thing in both composition and behavior. For purposes of this slashdot discussion, though, about the only important thing about its behavior is that different gases exist in different compositions in different parts of the atmosphere, and these different gases block and reflect different frequencies of radiation. (Most of these gases exist in a cycle, where they are emitted out of the earth, usually by volcanic sources, then slowly fall out of the atmosphere, and are subducted back into the earth, where they're eventually re-emitted.) There are two specific important aspects to this. The first is a layer of ozone which blocks certain higher frequencies of incoming radiation from the sun. The second is a layer of "greenhouse gases" which block a lower frequency. This lower frequency of radiation is not so much important coming from the sun; however, it is important because when radiation hits the earth, it is absorbed and re-emitted as "longwave radiation"-- and this radiation has a frequency such that it is partially blocked by the greenhouse gases, keeping it inside the earth. All of this is very convenient for the forms of life currently common on earth, since the higher frequencies the ozone keeps out are harmful to this life and the lower frequencies the greenhouse gases keep in provide useful heat, keeping the earth from just being a big ball of ice like mars is. Perhaps if the atmosphere were different, life would have evolved differently and less or more heat, or more high-frequency radiation, would not be a bother. But it is the forms of life that live on earth right now we care about, specifically humans.
The ozone layer is the important thing as far as this article goes. The problem is that the ozone layer has been depleting in recent years, starting around World War II, and accelerating in the 60s and 70s. In recent decades the problem has become so bad that the ozone layer actually is developing holes in it, around the north and south poles, mainly the south. This depletion has corresponded with increased levels of chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere. Chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, come from a number of sources. For example volcanoes put out CFCs in great quantity every time they erupt. When placed in the vicinity of certain gases-- specifically the gases found in the ozone layer of the atmosphere-- these CFCs catalyze chemical reactions which destroy ozone, converting it to oxygen. An individual CFC molecule, when it gets into the ozone layer, will thus cause this process pretty much continuously, until like all gases it falls out of the atmosphere. There isn't particularly any question about this, as these processes are easily experimentally reproduced. The other thing that isn't particularly a question is that the increased CFC levels from WWII on were a result of human industrial processes. CFC outputs by human industry after its first uses dwarfed the natural sources of same, leading to a continuous and steady increase in cfc levels far beyond what atmospheric processes are accustomed to. By 1987 it became clear that this human CFC output was having a negative impact on the ozone layer, leading to the adopting of the Montreal Protocol, a treaty which drastically reduced human CFC output with the goal of eliminating human CFC production entirely worldwide by 2010. The impact on CFC levels of the montreal protocol was dramatic and immediate; you can see here yourself that as soon as the significant human CFC sources stopped at the end of the 80s, the steady increase in CFC levels flattened out and became constant. (I am afraid this graph comes from a
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Greenhouse gases (linked to global warming) and CFCs (linked to ozone depletion) are not related. Please see my other post in this thread.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
and 1/15th or 7% of what it has also been in the past.
The earth is tad bit more than 300,000 years old, creationisim aside.
Especially if you've read up on the level of sunspot activity ever since scientists actually monitored such activity since the 1600's when telescopes became widely available.
There was a period for around 100 years during the 17th and 18th Centuries called today the Maunder minimum, a period of NO sunspot activity. That period perfectly coincided with a period of unusually cooler than normal temperatures (a Little Ice Age), where the Thames River through London froze over every winter.
In short, the best predictor of the Earth's climate is to monitor solar activity, which we are now doing with numerous ground-based solar telescopes and several space-based observatories.
Did it say how greenhouse gases were causing the solar flares?
I think if we all start driving to work at night, instead of when the sun is out, that would help a lot.
It seemed to fit the context
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
RFC 1925
How exactly does one "take it in to account"?
The fact that there are other inputs into the environmental system than those under our control doesn't mean it isn't important to consider the effects of those aspects which are under our control.
Perhaps you are suggesting they should go further, not only campaign to reduce man-made negative effects on our environment but also be proactive and devise ways to resist naturally occurring changes to our environment which may effect us negatively? I suppose we do that on a fairly localised basis anyway.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
How many times can you look at the sun through a telescope? . . . . . . Twice. Once with your left eye, once with your right eye.
-Palal
It's a viscious cycle.... but we're skewing it :(.
-Palal
Finally someone looks at NATURAL causes instead of using junk science to explain things. Here's a site to look at.
Let's see how many enviro-crack-pots claim that humans are STILL a significant detrimental factor in the depletion of the ozone.
Today, there is little stigma associated with most types of cancer. 70 years ago, cancer was often covered up. You didn't discuss cancer. It was like having some kind of STD I guess, really shameful.
So of course melanoma appears to be more common now. This doesn't mean it actually is more common.
Carbon-14 is created by cosmic rays and nuclear explosions. The ultraviolet rays blocked by ozone are far too anemic to create or destroy C-14. What is the supposed link in your bolded text? My bogosity meter is mid-scale.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
FYI, check the ozone over Switzerland. It doesn't show the extreme cuts of the spring ozone holes, but it ought to show you that depletion is not just a polar phenomenon either. (There's a more general mid-latitude graph down near the bottom of this page.)
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
> Do not look at record-setting solar storms with remaining good eye.
Thanks for the advice. Instead, I'll use my new-fangled fluorine-carbide-chlorate-powered telescope that throws off several million metric tons of CFCs every moment it's in operation...
Yep, looks like the sun is destroying the ozone layer, according to my observations.
Solomon Chang
"Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
The entertainment value of /. is priceless. WTF would mod that post as insightfull, until I think of the context (/.) and the reference (a black hole). Long may /. continue :=)
Earth has been both much cooler and much warmer than it presently is.
However the data we have indicates that it has never increased this rapidly before for this long, as it has since the beginning of the industrial era. This is the entire problem. The surprise here is not the earth warming, the surprise is a rapid shift away from the climate human life has become accustomed to.
There is nothing to indicate that these warming and cooling trends won't continue and there's nothing to indicate that had we never evolved on this planet (and thus never 'polluted') that the Earth wouldn't still be the temperature it currently is.
I am not sure what this sentence is trying to say. If you are trying to say there is nothing to indicate humankind's existence has not directly effected the climate, this is flat out wrong. There is, in fact, a mountain of both evidence and theory saying not only has specific human action effected the behavior of the atmosphere, but describing an exact process by which it happened.
This evidence has to be satisfied somehow. If not the hypothesis reached by scientific consensus, then how? Are you claiming you can explain the climate shifts if the human-produced increase in carbon dioxide levels that have accompanied them are just a coincidence? Are you claiming you can explain how, if our basic understanding of how carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere and what it does and is so fundamentally wrong that everything we know about climate models is false, jpw these things happen in truth? If your answer is that these things are unknowable, this isn't a good answer. Science is based on the assumption that we can, in fact, find some plausible explanation for natural phenomena if we only look. So far this assumption has held extremely well.
You can claim the evidence is insufficient but to claim the evidence doesn't exist...? This seems to say you aren't interested in whether the evidence is sufficient or not, but rather you simply desire to wish modern science away.
To attribute global temperature change to humans is egoism on our part.
Single species can, and have, drastically changed the earth's atmosphere before. Humans are still not history's biggest polluters, what the blue-green algae did is still worse.
Terraforming is not really that hard.
hurricanes
A poor example since a hurricane's strength is directly linked to the ocean temperature underneath it.
Surprised are we that the sun can have such a dramatic affect on our ozone layer?
I do not see anyone reacting with surprise to this except you, and the effect described here doesn't appear to be dramatic enough except on small timescales to even begin to explain the behavior of the ozone layer over the last century.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
So why is it happening now?
Because it's always been happening?
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
This study is stupid. Of course solar storms destroy the ozone - that's how ozone protects us from the sun. Ozone is consumed by absorbing lethal UV rays from the Sun before they hit us nearer the surface. The next idiotic study will say "ironicly, bullets destroy the bulletproof vests that protect us from bullets!", or some blather about how crashes destroy the helmets that protect us from crashes. This is obviously more jerking around from some polluter which wants us to accept ozone-destroying pollution, because ozone destruction is "natural". Well, nothing is more natural than dying - I recommend it more to some researchers than to others.
--
make install -not war
0 minutes. See the post following yours.
All we have is 2 decades of data which is like sampling 1 person on this planet and assuming their opinion represents everybody. In summary we know nothing, and claiming that the hole's current growth is being solely caused by Industrialisation is nothing but FUD.
I'm wrong because I can disprove the accepted enviro-political dogma via an objective scientific discourse? Or am I wrong because "everybody just knows it", the way everyone once "knew" that there were only four elements?
This isn't a troll.
Sure it is.
Your tone gives it away. C'mon, just "think for a second," idiot.
is this the article or did I click on the wrong link?
Scientists Prove Ozone thinning caused by Solar Flares
Scientists at NASA have proven that thinning of the ozone layer is a natural cycle caused by solar flares. The ozone layer protects Earth from harmful ultraviolet rays and it was previously thought that ozone thinning was caused by chlorofluorocarbons which were banned because of this in the 90's.
"We have determined that this is not, in fact, the case." says Dr. Scion. "Solar flares cause all ozone thinning. Simply thinking about it scientifically proves that this is the case." Dr. Scion says he thought about it for a long time before coming to the conclusion. "We had determined that solar flares were damaging the ozone, but we could not determine how much of an effect this had. However, we realized that Earth must go through natural cycles, so therefore solar flares must be causing the majority damage and CFC's have little, if any, effect."
Evidence of the extent of the effect of solar flares on the ozone layer was presented at a press conference Saturday. Scientists have shown that, due to the composition of CFC's, they cannot possibly make their way into the upper atmosphere. NASA reported that "if one thinks about it, obviously they cannot get up there, especially all the way to the Arctic" and hence, "any CFC's that we have found are being created by the Sun somehow converting ozone into chlorine, which is simply a chemical mechanism we do not understand."
NASA says they will continue researching how the Sun creates CFC's, and suggests that the CFC's themselves are possibly the product of a "liberal conspiracy."
I didn't realize Sun Microsystems had a server called the Storm. Either way, something must be done about these ozone depleting servers. Shame on you, Sun!
:-P
No wonder I gasp for breath when I use Java
Table-ized A.I.
They never look at the real causes, which are people, destroying the planet with their greedy consumerism, and termite farts.
The ozone layer depletes. This causes annyoing activists to spam washington with mail. Because of the influx of mail, an important set of intel lis lost before it reaches a politician. As a result, the politician enters a conference with a third-world nuclear power without sufficient knowledge of local customs. He inadvertently offends the dictator of the small country, who orders the country's one, inactivenuke fired at the US. US laughs, nukes small country into volcanic glass. Carbon-14 results.
I mean, duh. Anyone would know that.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
> It's Bush's fault.
Sarcasm gets a -1 Troll?
Capable of getting used to it, that is.
Between advances in the biochemical sciences and developments in cybernetics, I'd say that the human race will pretty soon be able to take pretty much anything Gaia or Sol cares to throw at us. Maybe not individual humans, but a lot of individual humans can't survive on earth the way it is now, either. Look at the Atkins diet guy. Slipped on a patch of ice and died... defeated by a naturally occurring phase of the most plentiful chemical in our local environment. How embarassing.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
However, if we find that nature is flowing at a high value of the Reynold's number (Re > 4000), then these so called "natural cycles" are just local, temporary eddies, which will disappear or reaorganize quickly over time and change of location.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Wow, if drawings are valid evidence, I really want to go back in time to the days of the Raphaelite painters to ask all those women how they keep their skin so pale dancing around naked in the sun all the time.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
The problem with petroleum vehicles is that they create compunds which produce ground level ozone (nasty). The problem in the article is that things are messing with our atmospheric (good) ozone.
Also, I don't think the article claimed one way or another about human effects. Only tested for solar effects.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
China invented gunpowder, which started europe out on combustion technology. They also make toys for happy meals... those things have got to release tons of poisonous molecules into the air, otherwise McDonalds would lose its fast food lisence.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
S T A T F I G H T!
(p.s. - you are winning)
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Did the release of all that radiation really affect the EARTH, which was the topic at hand I believe? It would appear not. Sure it affected people but that is irrelevant. If you told me how it caused a tsunami or even a large sinkhole thousands of miles away it might be more interesting.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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!
Above I said that the study attempts to explain a surge of ozone depletion in 2003. This is not the case; I misunderstood the timeframe the article referred to. The study spoken of explains a surge of ozone depletion in the northern hemisphere in part of 2004.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
(1) Arbitrarily assign to your opponent an easily defeated argument.
(2) Defeat this argument.
Quick, and easy!
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
One too many slash's there > http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlkop/auralert.html
What?
Did you read the story links?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
No, seriously. The thing about science is that everything has to be proven, and everything _can_ be wrong or superceded by a better theory.
It means that yes, you're _supposed_ to question everything, be it the theory of relativity, or gravity, or global warming theories. That's what science is all about. Trying to see if you can improve the existing understanding of the world, instead of joining the lemming parrade.
The moment you've found absolute truths, evidence be damned, that's no longer science. That's _religion_.
It doesn't matter if it's about Christ, or lung cancer, or global warming. The moment you have your absolute truth and don't need no stinkin' scientists telling you about experimental evidence, or worse yet start accusing them of hidden agendas or being the enemy... congrats, you've reinvented the Inquisition. What lies that-a-way is not science, it's not environmentalism, it's religion.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
>However the data we have indicates that it has never increased this rapidly before for this long, as it has since the beginning of the industrial era. This is the entire problem. The surprise here is not the earth warming, the surprise is a rapid shift away from the climate human life has become accustomed to.
And we are humans, and therefore our data must be complete, comprehensive, and correct, for all time > 0
>A poor example since a hurricane's strength is directly linked to the ocean temperature underneath it.
And atmospheric pressure, and prevailing winds, and latitude, and... just about everything else
In January, the a European scientist warned residents of the far north to basically stay out of the sun.
No, he's not saying that in the linked article. He's saying it may affect our health, and a hole could affect these areas. And he's certainly not saying "don't expose yourself to the sun!"
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I consider myself a tree-hugger. That said, the whole ozone thing is a scam by scientists who see bad news as a way to obtain research grants and funding and - dare I say - notoriety masquerading as prestige.
Consider:
1) 90% of industrialization and associated emissions is in the northern hemisphere
2) The coriolis effect keeps the earth's northern and southern airstreams seperate (very little mixing)
So why is the ozone hole over Antarctica? Why not the North Pole seeing as this is the hemisphere supposedly cursed by industry? Use Occams' Razor - it ain't our fault...
Regards...
Two things: First, unless you're knocking 80, I'm guessing your grandfather was farming in the 30's and 40's at the earliest, so industrialization, mores and medicine had all changed by that point.
I also suspect that skin coloration was a big factor - if anyone in *my* family had tried that trick they would have been in a lot of pain from permanent sun burn. I also strongly doubt the women of his time showed as much skin and worked as hard on their tans as women have for the past 30 years.
inally, according to the Annals of Surgical Oncology severity of melanoma is correlated with age. You might also want to read this PDF from Supportive Oncology which talks about how the aging population of the US is going to cause an explosion in the number of cancer cases - because cancer in general is correlated with age. For melanoma, it says: The incidence of melanoma, for example, peaks at around age 45 years in women and 60 years in men... This makes sense since the most reasonable theory of cancer is that it is caused by cumulative genetic damage - it would be quite difficult for a child to get a cancer causing dose of UV while a 40 or 50 year old probably passed the danger threshold 10 years prior.
Clear, Dark Skies
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
... is that you believe the cranks over at keelynet. This shows that you have a defective bullshit detector.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
You're a troll.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Second: Ozone is created by sunlight as part of a feedback loop. Is it any shock that, during the 4 months of eternal polar night, the ozone supply would weaken where the sun don't shine?? That would be part of why CFC's have so much obvious an effect up there -- It's already naturally depleting.. The man-made chemicals accelerate the action and shift the equilibrium point. (I.e. They don't create the ozone hole, they enlarge it, and most sane literature describes it that way).
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
First I must admit, I am not a scientist. However, I am quite confused about ozone depletion. We have things like the sun, and CFCs that deplete the ozone, and that is bad. On the other hand, jets and other transportation equipment are criticized for creating ozone among various environment toxins.
Why is machinery that creates ozone a bad thing if we have things that are depleting our ozone. (like the sun.) I seem to recall that ozone in and of itself has bad health risks for people with asthma as well as old folks and children.
If you'd like to check out the ozone levels for yourself, click on my URL. It will connect you to a computer down the hall from me that will happily graph up data from sites around the US and world.
If you ever get a chance, read Frank Herbert's story "Frogs and Scientists". It was published in a short story collection named "Eye". Two frogs, using scientific observation methods, discuss human anatomy...and arrive at interesting conclusions...
The Egyptians knew about the dangers of skin cancer from exposure to the Sun. One way the construction workers of the pyramids used to protect themselves from sunburn was to slap on clay mud on themselves. There is a carving or scroll which documents the time when the workers actually went on strike when they ran out of the stuff.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
It's not a question of whether we're "allowed" to change the environment. It's not really a moral issue. The real question is whether the changes we are causing are dangerous to our own survival.
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
>Sun Storms Deplete Ozone, Too
/. without Microsoft or Sun (as in this case) bashing!
I just knew it - not a single day cannot pass here on
Nope, you've got to be a troll. Nobody could be that ignorant/stupid and still be able to use a computer.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
Elemental chlorine is significantly heavier, but chlorine gas is not very dense at all, meaning that a bit of wind or convection will stir it up quite nicely in a standard atmosphere.
Jw
It should serve as a lesson to you that your actions can have effects beyond your backyard. That's impossible.
This is crazy science.. next they'll be saying that the sun destroys the skin cells that protect us from UV damage. Where do they come up with this stuff?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
If we think that activity X *might* have bad consquences or we don't have evidence that it won't, then we should probably not do it. hence my traffic analogy: Just because we can't see the cars does not make it safe. In the case of global warming, perhaps this is all just greeny bullshit, but there is some evidence that suggests we're doing damage then we should limit what we're doing.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I was using the local environment = surface of the earth = 70% water line of reasoning, but yeah, that wouldn't be any fun either. Freezing your shoe off and then falling over and dying... lame.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Now there'll be a bunch of people who say, basically "Well, since the sun can detroy the ozone layer, it's okay if we don't pay attention to anything _we_ do that might destroy it."
Which to me is like saying "Well, since my house already has radon gas buildup, I might as well take up smoking and rubbing dioxins into my skin"
Or perhaps I'm just being cranky.
With the amount of goods we buy from China and their enormous population and the lack of decent pollution controls, I would be surprised to learn that we produce less pollution than them.