Slashdot Mirror
Your Thoughts on the Great Ozone Debate?
Hrodvitnir asks: "Yesterday the BBC reported that the hole in the ozone layer above the Antarctic is the largest on record. Today CNN says that it is recovering, or at least stabilized. Do we really know what's going on? Is this more bad science/false studies, or are they both partially right?"
This is not likely to be any easier for science
Man, you really need that seminar!
They're both partially.
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
someone call guiness, i want this verified.
[an error occurred while processing this sig]
Does the hole over the antarctic have anything to do with the fact that there is no or very little plan vegetation down there? I guess if so the same hole might be over the arctic. But still, why does the hole end up over a magnetic pole?
I am quite sure it is.
-----
Let's see who we have:
Who are you going to believe?
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
The hole is a seasonal ozone hole over the South Pole. It comes and goes, sometimes it's bigger than usual. This has been used by environmentalists since the 80's to scare people.
i dont think we know all there is to know yet, but i have to think that much of what man has done has had some effect
The science is right rest assured. I have been recently doing prelim testing on my Ozone Hole Generator ® in my quest for world domination. I have choosen using the antartic as my test bed since I didn't want to tip my hand too soon. But things are shaping up quite nicely I will be submitting my demands... err offer soon, actually I like to think of it as my IPO Muahahahahahah.
but that does not imply its improving all over, esp with moves like US denying to join the grp to reduce or check emissions..
The ones that think we are harming the earth and the ones that think we aren't
neither side have any idea what is going on with the earth.
the earth will be fine, now and long after humans are wiped from the planet. are we speeding up that process? maybe, maybe not.
Fox! After all, they're fair and balanced!
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
It stopped growing, but it's still the largest on earth.
:D
Ta-da!
Bad science? More likely bad reporting. The public likes their news in small, easilly digested sound bites, but something as complex as environmental policy issues don't fit that template. So one scientific paper says the ozone hole isn't as big as before (even if the previous case was a record breaker) and the press says that things are recovering. That's just misleading.
What we need are better educated reporters. And a better educated public. But I'm not holding my breath for that, no matter how polluted the air is.
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
As long as you don't have a consensus on the facts, you assume and act according to the worst case scenario.
The owls are not what they seem
The fourth paragraph of the BBC article says:
"There have been signs over the last two years that damage to the ozone layer has reduced, but a full recovery is not expected until around 2050."
Sounds like the same thing CNN is saying to me.
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
The earth has been here for millions of years....
Scientists measuring the ozone layer have only been here for about 30 years.
Real measurement for 30 years verses millions of years of unknown history.
Extrapolation is easy if you really don't care.
Ted Turner doesn't work for CNN anymore, and the BBC is definitely not politically neutral. The BBC is accountable to the government, and their news agency was recently threatened to lose their funding, then had to back down, because they were running stories critical of the Iraq War.
Here's a good link to the story...quite a bit of detail not present in either article cited in the submission.
Interesting that the sources that hold that the hole is gtting worse are European, while the sources that state everything's OK are American.....hmm....
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
I guess you are like the person who wrote the caption on the following photo... because these people are white, they "found" this food in a store:
0 50830071810_shxwaoma_photo1
8 0/ladm10708301649
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050830/photos_ts_afp/
Yet this black guy didn't find stuff, he looted it:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050830/4
Uh huh.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
It really depends on what the political agenda of the person writing the story/the station is. On one hand the intention might be to make Bush look bad in which case, it is the biggest ever. On the other side, reduce panic and therefore say its recovering. If cnn said it was the biggst ever, they migth be accused of scaremongering.
Go look at some stories on democratic underground and you will see stories saying that Bush was responsible for hurricanes because of global warrming and a ton of "scientists" backing that. Look on michael moore.com and cindy sheehan has a post about jews who took soldiers away for war in iraq and not being here to stop the looting ( hello posse comitatus) in New Orleans.
My point, "News" is basically the blog of some reporter with about as much factual basis behind it. (See jason blair)
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
The articles do not contradict each other, both say the problem is slowly fixing itself but it will take decades. The CNN article doesn't even mention the hole over the Antartic that the BBC article is talking about.
In the BBC article, it states that this year's hole is "ONE OF the largest on record". It also states that the ones in 2000 and 2003 are still the largest on record. This year's could get larger, sure, but we won't know for sure for a few weeks.
Nova did a story on this and when you saw the change in the magnetic field at the poles it looked like an outline of the ozone hole.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/
It amazed me to hear that there are areas in the southern hemisphere that a compass does not work at all.
This is another case of science being used to push an agenda. Is the "hole" there, sure, I'll take their word for it. If I really cared I could establish if that fact was true or not. Everything after that fact is opinion and probably biased. Some people may believe it's a problem and will change the earth for the worse forever. Other people may believe it's part of the natural evolution of the earth which may lead to a new great era. Others may believe it's part of Intelligent Design so it must be implicitly good. Who is right? Probably none of the above. My opinion is that the effects will be both bad and good. It's part of life, learn to deal with change.
We rather have our cities covered in 30 feet of water than care about the environment.
BBC: They show that the Antarctic ozone hole was larger in mid-August this year than at the same period in any year since 2000.
Not the biggest depletion ever, just the largest in five years.
The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
I, for one, could use the extra sun. Being a nerd, I'm pretty white.
"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies." -Thomas Jefferson
That is because you green enviro-idiots won't let them build any nuclear power plants. At least here in Franch they don't care.
So what if it is seasonal, if it is getting worse and worse every year that's a bad sign.
That's like saying global warming doesn't exist because it still gets cold in the winters. What differnce does it make as long as it's not as cold as it used to be in the winter, and is hotter in the summer?
And ozone doesn't have anything to do with plants. It is produced from lightning. I believe there tends to be less ozone over the magnetic poles because the poles pull in ionizing radiation from the solar winds which breaks up the ozone.
This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with bias in media. The real question is who is lying and who is telling the truth? My money is on the folks who say global warming is happening because they have quantifiable data to back their claims up. The people who are opposed to those findings have yet to produce reliable proof. But getting back to the question at hand, where does the bias come from? The news media corporations have many companies behind them. And those companies have investors backing them financially expecting a return on their investment. And not just a reasonable return, but unrealistic expectations. This drives those parent companies to cover their asses every which way as long as whatever they are doing makes a profit. They could be putting newborn babies in crash test simulators and if there was a tidy profit to be made from it, they'd do it and then try to hide the fact that they're doing it. Meanwhile, the media companies that they control aren't going to leak a word of the story because the parent company could shoot them down permanently. It's gotten out of hand and I suggest that some people at the tops of many corporations need to be handled in the way that Pat Robertson suggested that Hugo Chavez be handled. ;P Seriously. All the investors need to put down the crack pipes and realize that they are indirectly responsible for a lot of really rotten things. Don't just bury your head in the sand. Accept the fucking responsibility.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
lol..how did that get past the lameness filter?
BTW, did you know that because of the huge ozone hole, Chileans from the extreme south have to wear sunscreen all the time ?
The Raven
Well aren't you a good anti-racist! The black guy has garbage bags full of items, obviously looting. The whites carrying bread and soda, absolute necessities, don't deserve to be ridiculed.
hmm i thought i read this same comment posted some where else earlier today ;)
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Wait a dogone minute.... is there link between be coal power and ozone? I thought the Ozone Hole was do to CFC release into the air and Comsic Rays. In fact, burning coal releases ozone.
Why the US? You should be focusing on China and India. While the US did not sign Kyoto, it is still taking some steps on the environment (amazing considering the prevailing attitude of the party in power). China and India signed the Kyoto treaty - in which they made no committments (not sure why signing was a big deal, honestly, since they don't have to do anything).
Kyoto was intended to keep polution at 1990 levels (I would argue to reduce it from there - but just keeping it there was a start). China and India are countries of 1.3 and 1.0 billion people where pollution is skyrocketing, and no one is talking about it. The pollution in some cities in China and its health effects are astouding - nothing in the modern US or Western Europe compares. Why can't we agree that ALL countries need to go back to 1990 levels - and then work to reduce from there.
The big unspoken reason the US rejected Kyoto was it put US manufactures at a disadvantage versus ones in China (and India, but less of a consideration), because of different environmental requirements. You must have a level playing field to compete, and the US rejected Kyoto's attempt to create a system that favoured China.
If you look at the trends out to 2050 and 2100, the US is NOT the problem - it's China and India.
Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
A big problem with listen to any debate is the understand that while people who are talking are equal, their knowledge is not necessarily equal. For any subject you can find, you can easily find ten people arguing on one side and ten on another. In the end, it comes down to two possibilities: Global warming is happening, global warming is not happening.
Unfortunately, America has lost responsibility in the press. It used to be about finding and reporting facts. Now it is about finding both sides to argue so as to make more money printing the same things over and over. In the end, whether or not global warming is happening or not, it makes sense that if there are things we suspect that are screwing the Earth up, we should take care of it. Americans are used to suing when you do something stupid and want to get out of it. There is no one to sue or a way to get a new Earth.
Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
Maybe because of that, there always was and always will be an ozone hole over the Antarctic in their winter-time? And some years it will be larger or smaller than average?
Or we could blame it on Bush and Global Warming.
I live in Canada. Did you know something like 50% of Ontario's power comes from Nuclear plants? "Green enviro-idiots" pretty much ONLY applies to the US. Funny (ironic?), considering you're the only country to ever use nuclear weapons.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
So, the ozone layer is stabilizing... meaning that it is shrinking by less each year. It's still shrinking, however, so the hole will continue to grow for a bit.
Also, there is a 26-month cycle for equatorial winds that affects the size of the Antarctic hole, so there's a quasi-biennial cycle to the ozone layer hole.
So, the only question is, how do you want to spin it?
The hole is still getting bigger. We need to step up pollution controls. Or
Nothing to see here, the hole is stabilizing at it's current size and we expect it to go back to normal within 50 years, so our current ozone-depleting-compound-pollution policies are fine.
Are we doing the best we can in re: O3 layer? No.
Do we need to do better? I dunno, and apparently, neither does anyone else.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I guess you are like the person who wrote the caption on the following photo... because these people are white, they "found" this food in a store
In your pictures the white couple is obviously carrying bread. No one is faulting anyone that is taking food, diapers or other supplies from flooded stores so they can survive. OTOH, the second picture is of a man pulling two large garbage sacks of items. To be fair, it's impossible to tell what's in those garbage sacks, maybe food for his family that didn't want to get wet.
The news last night did show many people, predominantly black, looting. They were stealing TVs, clothes, shoes, display cases, etc... These people were obviously NOT just getting supplies to get through the disaster.
I'm not exactly sure what the article submitter is trying to imply or ask?
The submitter seems to be trying to say that the BBC and CNN articles contradict one another. However, this isn't the case at all. The BBC article is talking about the size of this year's hole; CNN seems to be talking about the size of the hole in a more general over-years sense. CNN is saying that the ozone hole is levelling off in a long-term sense; the BBC is talking about year-to-year fluctuations. The BBC itself even says: There have been signs over the last two years that damage to the ozone layer has reduced, but a full recovery is not expected until around 2050, seeming to support the CNN article.
Moreover, the article submission is misleading. The submission says the 2005 is the largest on record. The BBC says the 2005 hole is one of the largest on record. The BBC itself says: They show that the Antarctic ozone hole was larger in mid-August this year than at the same period in any year since 2000. The 2000 ozone hole was still larger than this year's hole!
CFCs take a certain amount of time to fall out of the atmosphere, and the damage they cause lasts a certain amount of time beyond that. There is no sign in the news here that the Montreal protocol is anything but working; we're jolting back and forth within a certain area but at least the ozone hole is no longer getting worse constantly.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I remember reading not too long ago-I cannot recall where, sorry, that the hole is cyclical, and is based on the severity of the storms in the region.
But wait...it's still just a hole? And it's ONLY over the Antarctic? How can this be? I was assured by "science" that the hole was growing and that eventually the ozone layer would be gone. Now you're telling me that it's not only still over the Antarctic, but it's STABILISED?
Loooooooocy, you got som' 'splainin' to do!
I keep a can of it in my car, helps kill the "herb" aroma when the coppers pull me over...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Another question is, what about the magnetic field around the earth? Why is it changing? Is it because of hair-spray? Or is it due to a natural occurance of Mother Earth?
Time is comparison of movement to other movement.
You need to learn some science. Ozone depletion and global warming are NOT the same thing. Carbon dioxide does NOT deplete ozone. Chlorine, in the form of CFCs, DOES deplete ozone. Thanks to an international treaty, most CFC production has ceased and CFC concentration in the atmosphere is dropping. And while there are hints that global warming may exacerbate ozone depletion, this is by no means certain. Most models suggest that ozone depletion is stabilizing and will recover in a few decades. At least in this sense, we're reducing our damage. Now is the time to concentrate on other, more pressing issues like global warming.
the earth will be fine
Sure, but wouldn't be nice if the biosphere sitting on it would make it too?
Watch a bit of New Orleans news, and think about how readily people dismiss the warnings about increasing severity of storms and other atmospheric extremes due to global warming.
You can't take the sky from me...
I predict that the ozone layer will vanish one day, not because of first world countries, but because third world countries dont have the cash for the more expensive ozone-friendly chemicals.
When that happens, a whole bunch of people are going to die from skin cancer and/or will go blind from cataracts, while the survivors who are more resistant to UVs will procreate.
I'd give anything to be around at that time, only to see how the creationism/evolution debate turns out.
Almost all the ozone in the atmosphere is produced from the sun. Ozone has a very short half-life, it quickly decays into oxygen. Sending a CFC balloon into the atmosphere (I saw that on an episode of GI Joe as a kid) may destroy a quantity of ozone, but it would probably regenerate to its previous levels within a few hours. The only thing humans can do to reduce ozone is to steal all the oxygen, or convert it to solid matter (metal oxides and what not). Fact is concentrations of CO2 and O2 change very, very little.
So to answer your question poster, I speculate the reason for the hole over the antarctic is because it doesn't get enough direct sunlight, you can actually see the sunlight coming in at the Aurora Borealis, it never makes it to the upper region of the poles because it is traveling at a more acute angle, penetrating much longer distances of atmosphere as it comes in. I bet the concentrations of ozone in the aurora are very high because of this.
The articles linked are both right in some sense, the article submission is wrong... the slashdot summary here says the 2005 hole is the "the largest on record", the BBC article it links says it is the largest on record since 2000, which was the actual all-time record...
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Pesonally I lik the e-zone much better than the ozone. But its just a personal preference.
.. since It's All Bush's Fault(tm)
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
Doesn't it hurt when your knee jerks like that?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
so how can we cause it?
/content/anchorman.guest.html
Everything that happens on earth is not a manmade problem, nor an American-made problem. If it's hot one day and not hot the next day someplace where it's cool, it's not man made. It's not our fault. And I'm not going to sit here and accept the premise that somehow we are to blame for this. And that's what worries me the most about you liberals. Why can't you just accept that there are powers greater than us, greater than we have that may have influence over this over which we have no control? There's not one climactic event that we can stop, that we can alter, that we can detour. We cannot stop it raining harder; we cannot move thunderstorms; we cannot weaken hurricanes; we cannot steer them out of the way; we can't stop snowstorms; we can't stop drought; we can't do diddlysquat about all this, so in my mind there's no way we can cause it. You can't have one without the other. If we're causing it, then we can stop it. We can't stop it.
so saith rush
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_083105
full post:
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: This is Paul in Burlington, Connecticut. Welcome, sir, nice to have you with us.
CALLER: Hey, Rush. How can you say you're grounded in reality when you keep denying the issue of global warming? And it seems to me that the -- the answers don't fit your politics, and you're afraid of what the left has to say about this and their solutions, why aren't the conservatives on board? I think is the real issue. There's enough evidence. There's enough people saying it is, that we can't all be, you know, blame-America-first, freedom-hating sort of people -- and I've listened to you long enough to know you changed your position on it [sic]. You used to deny it existed. Now you've come to some sort of terms. "Well, it may be happening. It may be sunspots," and where are the conservative answers?
RUSH: Wait.
CALLER: It's obvious it's happening whether the hurricane was caused by it or not.
RUSH: Wait. Wait.
CALLER: Maybe it was; maybe it wasn't.
RUSH: Wait, wait. No, no, no. It's not obvious that it's happening in the sense that you guys mean it. The only stipulation I've made is, "There may be global warming, because I'm not an idiot. There have been warming cycles of the earth and freezing cycles, ice cycles, for as long as the earth has been around. We may be in a naturally warming cycle." Where I part ways from you is that man is causing it. There is no evidence of that, zilch, zero, nada. There's nothing more than a 25-year shrill campaign to create subconsciously the idea in everybody's mind that when it gets hot in July and hot in August it must be global warming; when it gets cold and a snowstorm happens in January, and happens to be a little bit more intense than it was last year, it must be global warming. Nobody can prove it. Nobody can prove that man is causing it. To me the proof that man is not causing it is there's nothing we can do to stop it. This hurricane was said to be caused by global warming. Well, this hurricane weakened right before it hit and it had nothing to do with the ocean temperature. It had to do with some dry air that it had encountered and pushed it further east (story).
But the problem that I have with you guys on global warming is it's become a political issue by which you seek to advance the liberal agenda. It's nothing more than a platform for you. Whenever I see anything designed to advance the liberal agenda, I'm going to oppose it because I hate the liberal agenda. I disagree with it. It's destructive; it's damaging, and it doesn't do anybody any good -- other than if you define it by spreading misery equally as the New York Times accurately headlined today in their coverage of the hurricane. If you want to believe it, go ahead, but I'm not going to accept you
as long as Azeroth has no ozone holes who gives a shit
i don't care
Its likely if an american news agency such as CNN is boasting such positive studies on our ozone layer, then its likely that the situation is far worse than it seems. Katrina wiped out New Orleans, maybe cause of the higher ocean temperatures and increased fresh water content is starting to produce super storms. Hmmm... and we're not even at the peak of hurricane season yet. Assuredly the next storm is gonna be much worse. All because the environment of our little blue planet is far more messed up then they are lieing to the public about.
If i wanted to hear bullshit, i'd go to church.
My girlfriend is a redhead and extremely sensitive to U.V. She travelled a lot and told me she never experienced stronger UV than in Antartic - even in places with similar conditions (all white)
\u262D = \u5350
source
The bbc article, unfortunately, is a bit harder to track down...
Yeah, the earth will probably go on its merry way oblivious to the "damage" humans inflict upon it. I think the point of understanding this phenomenon is to prevent the "humans are wiped from the planet" bit from happening sooner than later, particularly due to our own actions.
But if the earth somehow can and does care, I think it'd rather be rid of us sooner....
Some thing the answer is to ignore it, and the environment will adapt. Someone tell that to the people in New Orleans or any other coastal city that is vuln to hurricanes.
bad_outlook
--
Is this vague enough for you?
It's obviously a scam! I mean c'mon. Who exactly do they expect to fool with such nonsense?
.. and now, ..it has a hole in it!"
"So there is this invisible thing around the earth
I'm not falling for it.
[alk]
Both of these articles present exactly the same conclusions, people. In a nutshell: The ozone layer is recovering; slowly, but it IS recovering. Some areas show improvement now, others are still getting a bit worse but the net toatl is improvement that may have us near pre-industrial layers of Ozone aorund 2050. Many of the comments on this topic bring to mind another thing about the modern world that I find even scarier than loss of ozone: People who think they have a clue when they do not even know a thing about the topic on which they speak.
Linux computers, watercooled, photography
People arent ready to realize that the planet is slowly dieing, But people also dont care about cutting pollution of inconvincing there lives, its the normal human attitude. There are plenty of people who care but can not do anything because the mass have better things to worry about like paying off there bills which is more important to them. The Pratical solution to the problem is that they wont have to handle it
Fox! After all, they're fair and balanced!
FoxNews: Superficially (2) and aesthetically pleasing (6a).
You can't take the sky from me...
There is no need for panic! sophiwm is THE tool to combat this problem.
A hole, like the the one in the ozonlayer, is only a whole compared to it's surroundings for which the comparison is used (which would be the ozon surrounding the whole).
Clearly, this points to an obvious solution to the problem: just wait until there is no ozon anywhere around the world, and consequently, you won't have a hole in the ozonlayer anymore, since there is no layer to start with!
Problem solved!
(and, as a bonus, you can all keep using your SUVs!)
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
THAT is fucking hilarious. Go racism! /sarcasm
"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies." -Thomas Jefferson
I'm not familiar with this issue in particular, but BBC > CNN for essentially all values of news.
Props to the guy who has has the sense to put his food in black bags to prevent it coming into contact with the flood water which is contaminated with sewage and has had dead bodies floating in it.
Naaah, he's probably just a no-good looter - i'll bet those bags which are floating on the water are really full of, erm, DVD players, Hi-Fi gear and televisions. Yes, that's it - there's barely anything in the cases these days, so they'll float no problem! Ahem.
"It's part of life, learn to deal with change"
You win the award for most idiotic opinion.
By your way of thinking, if my home's roof developes a leak, I should just live with it. It's part of life.
The worst case scenario: Any possible source of carbon dioxide or methane is a significant danger to the environment.
Solution: Exterminate all non-plant life on this planet, for the good of the ozone.
Never confuse volume with power.
Look, folks, it's really quite simple; the researchers who go along with the thundering herd get the research grants. The researchers who don't go along with the thundering herd don't get the research grants.
Thus, the same researchers who were once yelling about 'global cooling' are now yelling about 'global warming.' Why? Because that's where the money is these days.
Keep this in mind when the next 'environmental crisis' hits the headlines.
Regards;
I'm not studying the phenomina personally. I don't have access to the raw data, and devices collecting said data. Who am I supposed to trust when it comes to stuff like this anymore? Especially after Scientist Says Most Scientific Papers Are Wrong. Everyone is pushing their own agenda at this point so its hard to know just what to believe anymore, especially if the information is from anywhere other than first hand.
"To lead the people, you must walk behind them"
Carbon Dioxide has no impact on the ozone hole.
The ozone hole, which this article is about, is not connected to the separate problem of global climate change as a result of human-produced greenhouse gases. The ozone hole is also a problem which is easier to deal with; the CFCs and particles which cause ozone layer damage fall out of the atmosphere much faster than carbon dioxide.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
When I was in college I had a professor that was friends with the "discoverors" of the whole ozone thing. It was quite an interesting story he (the professor) had to tell. But when it all boiled down to it he said that they were injoying the're time down under and wanted to stay there. They needed more govenrment funding so they created this story to get the additional funding that they needed.
;)
This was in a geology lab and we learned that the whole greenhouse effect and ozone evidence has existed for millions of years. You can learn a lot from a rock
The news last night did show many people, predominantly black, looting. They were stealing TVs, clothes, shoes, display cases, etc... These people were obviously NOT just getting supplies to get through the disaster. Everyone knows white people only loot Goodwill donation sites.
and isn't it currenlty kinda dark (or just starting to get light) over the south pole?
Who wants ozone? Believe it or not, Los Angeles!
The city water department makes ozone to disinfect drinking water. It produces essentially zero carcinogens compared to chlorine. Because ozone can't be relied on to prevent contamination downstream of the treatment plant, chloramine is added as a final step. Any excess ozone is destroyed by catalytic degradation.
I saw this plant roughly 18 years ago when it was dedicated. It's near Sylmar, and was installed to treat water from the formerly prisine, but now less so, Owens Valley.
The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
Did you even read the captions? The white couple "found" food in a grocery store, while the black man "looted" food from a grocery store. Sure he has a big plastic bag, but if you look closely, you will see the bag is floating. It is not full of expensive items, it has been inflated to make carrying a few light items through chest deep water easier.
Don't you think there may be some of the same kind of bias going on in determining which looters get on the news? Even if the reporters are liberal, editors are almost always conservative, and they can pick and choose what clips to show.
Consider also that most of the people who were too poor to evacuate were black, that they had lived in a city with massive income disparity. Left to die in a city that obviously didn't give a rat's ass about them, what would you expect them to do?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Do we really know what's going on?
No.
There, that was easy. Now, as I read somewhere around here the other day, science is not truth nor is it fact. It's a method that attempts to discern both of those things. It's a good method and as time goes on the results of our discoveries show in the things we build and the advancement of our society. So before I continue, I'm not anti-science and have no desire to be branded as some sort of Bible thumper. (Which seems to be the title given to anyone who dares question the perfection of our holy scientists.)
The problem is that humans (whether religious zealots or scientific zealots) rarely want to admit they're on the path to truth. They want to say they've found it, they know what it is and that's all she wrote. No one wants to say that they're trying when they can say that they're successful and make a really big deal out of it. For instance:
People who defend sensational scientific beliefs are just as contradictory as religious nuts. When they're talking about evolution they point to the fact that the changes and cycles take thousands and thousands of years. Geological changes? Even longer. Nature, as a whole moves in very slow patterns and makes very slow changes. It's not in a hurry. However, suddenly we analyse weather for what... 100 years? 200 years? We pluck out a pinhole sized chunk of a 4,000,000,000 year old pie and think that it really tells us anything that's truly long term?
I really love George Carlin's routine on the environment. He make a single statement that really brings it all into focus. Are humans so arrogant that we think we can destory the earth let alone save it?
I have a pretty simple policy on whether or not I believe a particular scientific theory/"discovery" and it works like this: If a "discovery" is made that yields cool new gadgets that improve my quality of life (TV, computers, polyester, bath puffs) then I believe it. If a "discovery" is heavily debated and spends a lot of time coming out of the mouths of the far left and/or the far right, I can usually ignore it and move on with my life. Politically pushed and motivated science is the worst kind. In an ironic twist, science should be scientifically motivated.
Stop telling me we know how everything works or that our methods are perfect and all that's left is time and discovery. In 250 years they're going to poke as much fun at what we know now as we do the science of 1750. Our medicine will be viewed as barbaric and primitive and our ideas on things like quantum physics will be viewed as remedial at best. In fact, with the speed discoveries are made now, the gap may be even bigger in 250 years. Again, this doesn't mean everything we know is bogus, it just means you shouldn't treat it like the be all end all.
Use science as a guide and use it to the best of your abilities. However, putting the level of faith in sensational theories that fundamentalists put in a literal 7 day (24 hours a day) creation of the world really isn't any better.
Scientifically, we're moving in the right direction. We're doing our best. However, deal with the fact that a lot of so-called "science" is politically motivated bullshit. Also deal with the fact that some things that we hold dear now are going to be discarded as we learn more about the universe and its laws and mechanics. With the exception of spotting a huge space object heading for the planet, doomsday science can be summarily ignored.
I guess you are like the person who wrote the caption on the following photo... because these people are white, they "found" this food in a store
In your pictures the white couple is obviously carrying bread. No one is faulting anyone that is taking food, diapers or other supplies from flooded stores so they can survive. OTOH, the second picture is of a man pulling two large garbage sacks of items. To be fair, it's impossible to tell what's in those garbage sacks, maybe food for his family that didn't want to get wet.
The news last night did show many people, predominantly black, looting. They were stealing TVs, clothes, shoes, display cases, etc... These people were obviously NOT just getting supplies to get through the disaster.
The reporter was aware of where these items came from since they wrote "after looting a grocery store".
Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
or are they both partially right?"
Well, how the fuck should I know?
The cat barfed on my iOzone(TM) detector.
Maybe the garbage bag is to prevent the food he just "looted" from coming into contact with the sewage water he's wading through?
3) Ted Turner hasn't been intimately involved in what goes on with CNN for a decade (he sold CNN in 1995) and conservative Walter Isaacson moved the network very much to the right when he took over in 2001.
The researchers at MIT are unbiased. They analyze the facts: billions of vehicles and aircraft churning out billions of tons of toxins and carbon monoxide. Then, the researchers assess that this damage to the environment causes global warming and the ozone damage.
Even Bill O'Reilly says that the folks at MIT are right, to the chagrin of Jerry Falwell and Ann Coulter.
I am putting my money on Bill O'Reilly.
The industrial revolution pumped tons of gasses into the atmosphere in record quantities, and we continue these practices to this day. Much like introducing a foreign species to a new ecosystem, chances are this is going to f up the status quo. Good or bad or whatever, somethings going to happen. Since us humans have adapted to this whole ozone thing, chances are any changes in it are going to cause adverse situations. That much is what I'm certain of.
But anyone claiming the sky is falling and we're all going to need SPF 900 in 5 years is an extremist with either a political agenda or a distorted view on reality. The earth is huge, and although humans are capable of long-term effects, we're not very good at dramatically changing the planet. So I ignore the extrememists. I also ignore anyone saying that there's absolutely no such thing, only because all that CO2 is doing something up there, and like I said, it's probably not good.
You see, the BBC article quotes data taken from European satellites, where as the CNN article quotes data taken from American satellites.
It is clearly a problem with the European satellites.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
You, sir, are racist.
"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies." -Thomas Jefferson
Yeah, but there's a good reason for favoring China & India. The USA has had its chance to destroy the world. It's only fair to give China & India the same opportunity. At least, that's the argument I hear used.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
People of color. We white folks are going to die off. Sure, nerds like me who never visit the big blue room may survive, but if what you predict is true, the caucasian race is dead.
Herbert Hoover wasn't personally responsible for the Great Depression, but he is forever associated with the Crash of '29. In a similar way, Lois XIV is associated with the excess of the French Aristocracy. I hope that Bush isn't associated with the end of the American Century, but I have a sinking feeling that the US is courting disaster. It will not be GW's fault, but he isn't going to be part of the solution either.
Think global, act loco
Not to mention that since Ozone is a greenhouse gas, when the Ozone layer recovers it will contribute to global warming.
Technically smog contains ozone. The trouble is its at the wrong altitude. What we REALLY need are very, very, very tall smokestacks. Problem solved! /sarcasm
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
Who gives a flying fuck?
Once again the lack of a proper education rears its head. There are two answers to two different questions. It's ignorance that leads one to ASSUME the questions are the same. If you don't read the questions how can you understand the answers?
Lots of the arguments below are of the variety, "We've only been measuring it for 30 years, and the earth has been around for billions, so we don't know if this is normal or not".
They do measure carbon dioxide and other atmospheric gasses using core samples that go back tens of thousands of years. The makeup of the atmosphere has changed more dramatically in the last 100 years or so than it has in a very very long time.
And for the big things, like life and death, I prefer to err on the side of caution, even if it means I can't drive a big-ass SUV (I don't).
The collapse of the Atlantic cod is a perfect example. Scientists said it was on the verge of collapse. People with a vested interest in fishing said it wasn't. The US and Canadian government did not err on the side of caution, and now there is no cod fishery on the east coast. The same thing is happening with the salmon, halibut and pacific cod fishery on the west coast (some say that the pacific cod is already gone, and halibut is close).
That's just fish (well, and a part of a complex eco system we don't really understand). Imagine if hurricanes like Katrina were yearly events, and didn't just the Southern US, but were all up and down the east and west coast. I think I'd prefer to err on the side of caution. I like my house above the waterline, thanks.
The best, smartest scientests in the world say weather and the earths atmosphere is far more complex than they can realistically model - how can a politician make a decision (especially someone like Bush). The best solution is to avoid antagonizing a marginally-stable system so that we can avoid making it a very unstable system.
Where is the weather control we were promised in in 1950??
No! Ain't No global warming! Ain't No greenhouse gases! Ain't No CFCs!
Here is the proof!
1- arctic permafrost is melting and methane is escaping into the atmosphere at historic levels
2- petrofuel consumption is at record levels pumping CO2 into the atmosphere (gas prices also at record levels)
3- slash-and-burn for agriculture continues in all major rain forests (and trees take carbon and make oxygen)
4- fish and bird migratory patterns have changed due to temperature increases
5- hotest summers ever accross north america
6- antarctic iceflows are decreasing in size
7- wilder and more frequent storms accross the world
8- CFC use in the third world has increased since 1970 (so CFC production has increased)
The scientists haven't got a clue! And all that crap data at nasa is lies lies lies!
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
Has it occurred to anyone that this is most likely a cyclic aberration? This action is caused by whatever mechanism it is that drives it.... I've also read that it may also be due largely to sunspot activity...
/*Dave
This topic has filled up so quick it just reminded me of how much politics plays into this one issue. People need to start thinking about the simplictic issues involved and let the scientists debate harsh technical issues like global warming and the ozone layer and get back to us when they have something that's closer than "we think that there is a possiblity that this might...etc." I mean who can argue that: Gas costs alot, Smog smells bad and makes your city look gross(Mexico City), Dirty/Toxic water=no good for anyone, No Rainforest=no oxygen=death city Getting caught up in your high and mighty point of view always lets you look past these simple things. My best example is post WWII Japan. They went crazy into heavy industry until people came down with diseases because of how bad the pollution was in some areas. So they cleaned it up. Shitting on your enviroment just doesn't make sense. Because the enviroment is what we eat and breath and pretty much what we are. I know that I don't like eating shit, breathing shit, or being shit either. So don't use the fact that you don't believe in the ozone whole or global warming to do whatever you want and believe their are no consequences. And don't use the fact that you do believe in those things to be a self-righteous jerk who tells everyone what to do and bust up people's SUVs. Just do the right thing and remember that living in a clean place is much more worthwhile than having just a little more money. Especially when you would probably spend that money to go somewhere cleaner than where you live.
I am and always will be a stereotype, because who in their right mind prefers mono?
Wow, my only chance to use the only latin phrase I know:
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
This guy invented BOTH tetraethyl lead (leaded gasoline) and CFCs. Talk about a bad batting average.
Lead addititves started being used in fuel in 1923 and after that date humans have 625 times more lead in our blood than humans from before that date. Atmosperic lead is permantent.
CFCs have an almost unlimited lifespan so even though we have stopped using CFC's, the CFC we did use will be up there forever causing destruction of the ozone layer.
Thanks again Mr. Midgley.
And tech can get us out. Now that we've taken care of the root cause, it's time to use the profits from the root cause to solve the symptom. A few million weather balloons with spark gap generators ought to do the trick to cut that 50 years down to something more reasonable.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Just out of curiosity, has anyone bothered to compare the atomic weight of CFC's to say, general atmoshpere of comparitive volume (espcially of the higher O3 areas?). Seems to me it would be mighty diffucult for the CFC's to traverse up that high due to their weight.
Oh, wait a sec! They also only collect AT THE SOUTH POLE. Must like it cold or something.
One ought to do some research on the effects of CFC with Ozone (O3). All fine and dandy the local scientists are panicing we're killing the atmosphere with R12 (much less any other Chlorine-based CFC). Or the ozone hole is getting bigger (did they use AREOSOL hairspray before the TV press release? tsk-tsk!).
Hmmm.... when did DuPont's patent expire for R12? When did the "studies" first appear about CFC's interaction with O3 as a depletion catalyst?
Gee.... this is getting toooo convenient. Need a new CFC based refrigerant because the current industry standard one's patent is expiring? Heck, let's "fund" some studies that say our current CFC is killing the earth, and we'll magically formulate one that is enviromentally-friendly.
I agree with an above post. Dissenting voices cause society to label one as a "nutcase" or "extremist" Isn't science all about finding logical explanations to the world around us? I say, follow the money trail, and you'll find who concocted the stories of global warming, global cooling, ozone holes.
This site is well-known for its large crowd of climatologists, so I'm sure there will be the usual wealth of useful and informative comments.
Professor Harte responded that with the changes we've made around the globe that the ozone layer is recovering.
I was a little worried that this would be a boring talk, but I was pleasantly surprised to the contrary. Professor Harte was a wonderful speaker and knew how to explain it in a way that left me astounded at the seriousness of the problem.
Sort of like when you hear stranded people in New Orleans being rescued and saying that they didn't think it would be that bad. Well folks, global warming is bad. Changes that life has had hundreds of thousands of years to adapt to in the past are going to have less than a century to change.
But then this is about the ozone:-)
If you'd like to have Professor Harte come speak to your group, here's the info I have on him.
Professor John Harte, Ph. D. U.C, Berkeley Energy and Resources Group and Ecosystem Sciences Division, College of Natural Resources
Abstinence is a government conspiracy. www.SafeSexZone.co
I'm sure science will find a way to synthesize ozone to replace what's missing, or better yet, create a new type of ozone that will be tougher than the previous layer of ozone! Then we can begin to use again all the CFC laiden products that we want! Then maybe they can market it to the whole world and make countries pay royalties that need protection from the Sun's ever present death rays seeping through the "old" ozone above their country!
Ok, ok, I'm off my nut here, but give me a break. I just got back from lunch. I need a nap.
Generation Trance: What generation are you?
Jesus Tapdancing Christ! Ozone has NOTHING to do with CO2/global warming. How stupid are you people?!
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
you will notice that the white people do also have full backpacks.
sum.zero
There's a reason people came up with the global warming theorey in the first place and it wasn't just because they like animals and plants or whatever the fuck. Certain gases break down ozone. Pump enough of them out year after year non-stop and eventually the gases will do something other than float around.
The BBC story talks about only the Antarctic ozone hole, which is larger than in previous years (though it's rate of growth has slowed). The CNN story talks about the average thickness of the ozone layer globally, which has shown some slight improvement and stabilisation. These two facts are not contradictory. RTFA.
The CNN article claims the Ozone has stopped depleting and the layer is getting thicker in places. The BBC article claims that the "vortex of doom" over Antartica is preventing fresh Ozone from entering. So the rest of the ozone could become 10 miles thick and we could theoreticly still have a hole above Antartica. -Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Of course, the Ozone hole was created on the seventh day! Damn evolutionist environmentalists! They can take my CFCs when they pry them from my cold dead fingers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signature_bloc
Simple. There both right. Just look at the chart.
DISCLAIMER: The table below is 100% made up. It exists only for the sake of being an example.
Year Size (% increase over previous year)
1999 12.0 sq km -----
2000 14.4 sq km 20.0%
2001 18.5 sq km 28.5%
2002 25.8 sq km 39.5%
2003 32.9 sq km 27.6%
2004 42.0 sq km 27.7%
2005 53.5 sq km 27.4%
In the above chart, the ozone whole is the largest it has ever been, yet the growth rate of the whole could be interpreted as stabilizing or at least slowing down.
So both are right. Your agenda determines how you will use the numbers.
Maybe if the U.S. Government would stop superheating the upper ionosphere see haarp we could at least get a reasonable baseline for measurement. We can't even begin to comprehend the implications that such a project might have on our planet.
What on earth does constructing convoluted excuses to misrepresent the words of random democrats have to do with the ozone layer?
They are both probably right to some degree.
Now, wouldn't it be better just to favour the environmentally friendly approach a bit more?
Imagine if the rush of talent and resources of the Internet had been diverted into a more 'holistic' approach to energy production, efficiency and general environmentalism instead of bombing out in a big negative spin. We could have had sustainable advanced technology today. Guilt free techno lust! Instead we have oil panics. So much for far sightnedness.
Speaking as someone outside the United States, youse guys need to play the moral high horse card more, instead of basically saying you are victims of the world economy and need to keep polluting to keep up.
Go ahead, shame Europe (countries like Germany are strong in every way, including aggressive environmental policies), I'll say American Is Great along with whatever president you have at the time if you can actually organize enough to do something greater than turning your country into a bunch of self righteous bureaucratic predators.
The linked article is a troll! It claims that the German minister somehow accused Bush of causing this hurricane, but that's not actually what the minister said. According to the (supposedly quoted) article in the Frankfurter Rundshau (German), the minister makes the following claims:
"Mankind shares the blame for climate change, which makes storms and floods more likely. Greenhouse gasses must be drastically reduced. The USA, too, should not close their eyes to this."
"The USA has, up till now, closed their eyes to this necessity. With only 4% of the world population, they contribute 25% of the worlds greenhouse emissions. An American produces about twice the emissions of a European of equal life standard. However, the Bush administration holds back international environmental protection goals, stating they would be harmful to the American economy."
That's about as far as it goes in terms of attacking Bush. All of these statements seem completely reasonable to me. Nothing outrageous like claiming Bush is personally responsible for this particular hurricane (which the article the parent links to does claim).
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
unlike these little buggers that poisoned the earth's atmosphere forever.
> The big unspoken reason the US rejected Kyoto was
> it put US manufactures at a disadvantage versus
> ones in China (and India, but less of a
> consideration), because of different environmental
> requirements. You must have a level playing field
> to compete, and the US rejected Kyoto's attempt to
> create a system that favoured China.
Hm.
The Chinese emit 2.3 Tons of CO2 per capita per year
Americans emit 20.1 Tons of CO2 per capita per year.
Clearly any idiot can see that the Chinese are the problem.
http://savingiceland.org
Therefore, no contradiction with "stabilizing", which the BBC article also asserts.
I suppose there's "no such thing as a bad question", but if there were, this would be one. So, bad editing.
mt
Stratospheric ozone (O3) and O2 exist in an equilibrium, constantly being converted to and from one another by reaction with UV light. Free chlorine in the stratosphere in the presence of a substrate like SO2 or PSCs (polar stratospheric clouds) can "tilt" the equilibrium toward O2 (O3 + Cl- => O2 + ClO). The Antarctic has a far more extensive PSC layer because of its larger cold air mass relative to the Artic, thus the ozone hole there is larger even though most sources of stratospheric Cl are in the northern hemisphere. In the Antarctic night, when no new O2 is being created by the UV raction, the Cl-influenced equilibrium swings dramatically toward O2, causing the famed "ozone hole". Stratosperic chlorine is almost entirely man-made. Volcanoes and sea water produce water soluble forms of Cl that wash out in precipitation before reaching the stratosphere. CFC's and similar Cl- and Fl-containing molecules are mostly insoluble in water, and when released mix in the atmosphere at as "trasporter" molecules. They mix in the stratosphere where the Cl molecule is released by the strong UV light at that altitude. Supervolcanoes like the one under Yellowstone would definitely alter the Cl budget in the upper atmosphere. But even Pinatubo, the largest volcano of the 20th century, changed stratospheric Cl by only 6-7%. Volcanoes do inject SO2 into the stratosphere in singificant amounts. That SO2 can act like a global PSC layer, depleting ozone world-wide. Hope this helps....
CFCs destroy ozone.
Yes, but do they have any significant effect compared to say solar flares and the like?
Its a complicated universe.
What was it, overpopulation in the '60s? 5 billion humans and not enough Soylent Green for everyone?
Then it was the "new" Ice Age in the '70s. . .
Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were going to kill us all by starting WWIII in the '80's. . .
The 90's was the decade of Holes in the Ozone and let's not forget Y2K and airliners packed full of screaming passengers falling from the skies. . .
Now it's Global Warming(TM) and OMFG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
Some folks just aren't happy unless they're being scared half to death.
What?
We haven't even beed measureing the ozone layer for 30 years. all of a sudden everyone is a expert on this small window of time. Get a grip. 100 years ago we were spewing out tons more gasses and all of a suden the "hole" is growing crazy is the last few years. What to do about nothing.
Before jumping to too many conclusions about the ozone hole over Antarctica, we should remember it was first observed in 1958 -- a time when CFC use was just beginning. In those days, there was interest in the upper atmosphere and considerable research efforts because of its importance to HF radio communications.
The British Antarctic Survey group that made the observations was expecting to find an ozone hole because of the predictions of their atmospheric model. In 1958, UV spectrometers used vacuum tubes, were big and heavy and carting them to the Antarctic was quite an undertaking. They had good reasons to expect a positive result.
I am not an atmospheric physicist so the following might be a little naive. However, here is my understanding of their theory:
1) Ozone is made primarily at low latitudes
where vacuum UV has direct access to
the upper atmosphere. Little vacuum UV
reaches the atmosphere at high latitudes
because it has already been absorbed by
low-latitude air.
2) Ozone reaches high latitude locations
by the natural convection processes in
the atmosphere. If the earth did not
spin, air would rise at the equator
and fall at the poles, transferring
the ozone there from the equator.
3) The rotation introduces Coriolis
force and deflects the movement to
the "trade wind" pattern we know. It
also produces a phenomenon called the
South Atlantic Vortex -- an air-flow
pattern that greatly reduces
interchange of air from the equator
to Antarctica.
4) With little air interchange, there
should be little ozone over Antarctica.
There is now so much spin surrounding CFCs and Ozone Holes we will probably never learn whether or not their theories were correct. It is not something any atmospheric scientist can afford to challenge and still get his next research grant.
As a final thought consider the business aspects of CFC use. When you go business school, one of the first things you are taught is, "never let your product become generic." When your patents are about to expire, you must find a way of making your old product obsolete and replace it with a new one. Otherwise, generic manufactures will duplicate it for a lower price.
Drug companies frequently keep a few safety studies up their sleeves for this purpose. Of cause, they have a new version of the drug, with some minor changes to an inactive part of the molecule, which fixes the problem.
When NASA rediscovered the Antarctic ozone hole, in the 80s, it was really good news to CFC manufacturers who were facing their own "generic problem." We will never know if their public relations departments helped along the CFC scare but...
The enhanced strength of Katrina has been attributed to the 90+ temperatures in in the gulf at present which are supposedly up significantly compared to recent times. Do wonder what the temps were way back in 1988 for Gilbert at 175 mph with gusts over 200, and just how strong it might've been today.
Chris Mooney's War on Science might provide some additional perspective.
The Ozone Hole...
That's the religious icon of the "educated" class prior to Global Warming. So they passed a bunch of laws and now it will cost me $2000 to fix (make that "replace") the AC in my car. But the damn hole is still there and they have no f--king clue why.
I predict they will be just as clueless in a few decades when the temperatures are below their current Chicken Little prognostications.
This is what happens when Science is replaced by Politically Correct fanaticism.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Hold as many Uno games as you can beneath the hole. The hole is bound to start shrinking with that many reverse cards being played. Just make sure it is an odd number.
All of which proposed reasons are silly to the point of not needing to be aired or refuted (except apparently for on Rush Limbaugh's show where he's continued to confuse prehistoric volcanoes with ones that erupted in the 1990s), and none of which do anything whatsoever to address the enormous weight of peer-reviewed science on the topic of global warming.
So, you know, you just did prove that point, by making arguments on the level of low-attention-span rubes and the news machines that feed them.
I hear a lot of people pointing at hurricanes lately as a result of global warming who don't even understand how a hurricane is formed. Warmer ocean water and cooler air. The claim with global warming is that the air is getting warmer. You can't have it both ways.
Boy, it's funny -- that idea has been getting zero play in the popular media, which is what we're talking about, and I haven't heard person one making that connection. Also hilariously oversimplified argument about the warm air. Nice straw man. It flies in the face of what the geophysical fluid dynamics laboratory at NOAA (for one example) says about Global Warming and Hurricanes. Sample:
Oops! Your "cold air vs. warm air" argument turns out to be, again, an oversimplified silliness committed by a lay person who cares about making plausible-sounding arguments rather than about the truth.
But let's discuss global warming, you seem to want that. Imagine that the sea level has risen, and that New Orleans is hit by a more intense hurricane. Does this sound like it's worth avoiding? Relative to the risk of nuclear war in the 1980s, which we spent untold billions to address, how much is it worth to us to prevent global warming -- which essentially every reputable scientist believes is already happening? I'm not looking for sophisms like the goofy ones you offered before. I'd rather have you face the real risks. Take a look at the images from New Orleans, and tell me again how a few degrees hotter would just mean Minnesota was more like Kansas.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Yes we are part of nature, and species go extinct all the time. Get ready.
I'd rather try and dodge the bullet, rather than pretend it doesn't exist.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
So, by washing daily in this water, you slowly bleach your hair?
// TODO: Add comments
I'm sorry, I miss the irony. What was your point again?
The question is, due you want to believe the fine folks at the EU's intelsat (which is the BBC link) or the US NOAA satellites.
Keep in mind, one group is known for lying about global warming due to certain policy decisions - and the other one has no interest in lying about it.
But I was reading on ScienceDirect a paper on the Antartic Ozone Hole growth just recently, based on US data, which said that it indeed was growing at a record pace, so take that for what you will.
Now if we could just get some data from, say, China or Japan's satellites, that might clarify the issue.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
While I very much agree with all of your post, there is one thing I want to point out:
"if you don't cut emissions by X sea levels will rise by Y"
Rising sea levels are about the least thing we have to fear. At worst, that's going to affect a few coastal areas. What's far more threatening is the changes to wind and rain. I think the recent floods in Europe could very well be caused by global warming. The weather has been getting stranger in recent years. Temperatures aren't right for the time of year, record amounts of rain, snow in a normally hot area of Spain (IIRC), etc. And yes, the hurricane in New Orleans could also have been caused or strengthened by climate change.
But, I'll restate it: I'm not convinced climate change is our fault. There are other damages to the environment that can be directly traced back to human activity, but global warming isn't such a clear case.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Most Environmentalists are really just anti-Capitalists in sheep's clothing. When they say that our rain forests are disappearing, what they are really saying is that "those evil greedy Capitalists are messing up our planet. You should vote for us on the left."
What they forget is that humans are part of nature and that Capitalism is one of the most natural forms of an economy one could have. One can be both pro-Capitalism and pro-Environment.
Unfortunately, since they have abused the issue so much, us pro-Capitalist types start to disregard all warnings about environmental harm as being leftist propaganda.
Wasn't there just a story on /. which claimed that 50% of all scientific studies were flawed and incorrect? ...do the math with this thing... It's not too hard to figure that there's still a hole, and it's probably fluctuating up and down... As the amount of crap that we pumped into the atmosphere breaks down, the hole will likely get smaller, but we need to continue to not put the damaging substances into the atmosphere...
Besides the ozone hole, having less UV hit the planet, might, just might, help to keep the oceans from warming up and might, just might keep such huge hurricanes from forming...
There's *no* "the great debate" on ozone. Just like there's *no* "the great debate" on global warming. Just like there's *no* "the great debate" on evolution.
I bet it is possible to figure out ozone presence by measuring the effect of ultraviolet radiation on the remains of carbon rich fossilized materials. Or maybe even silicon materials.
You can't handle the truth.
In science, you can make two broad sorts of errors.
- you can fail to find something that's really there, and suffer from its effect,
- or you can find something that's not there, and suffer from spending time/effort/money/angst/blather on it needlessly.
In this instance, we'll could miss figuring out the ozone and suffer the consequences. If that happens, we'll need to make more ozone.
Or we could be wrong about the perceived ozone problem. If that happens. we'll need to make more time/effort/money/angst/blather.
I'm guessing it's going to be easier to come up with replacements for time/effort/money/angst/blather than it will be to order up some replacement ozone.
That's based on our existing experience with replacing resources. This year, between the tsunami and Katrina, we'll be seeing what happens when entire cities, including a modern first-world one, have to be brought back to functioning literally stick by stick, brick by brick.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
to come out of the rise in oil prices, it's the fact that it's raising good discussion about alternative fuels. This has got to be good not only for commuters and companies but also the ozone, which is arguably more important than the other two combined.
Basically, CFCs long life allows them to reach the stratosphere. There, they slowly break down, releasing a constant supply of chlorine ions.
And how does this differ from the chlorine ions that reach the stratosphere from volcanic eruptions and a host of other mechanisms?
We're on a planet 3/4 covered with a salt-water ocean. The bulk of the salt is chlorides. The air is FILLED with small crystals of salt, loose ions from it, traces of diatomic chlorine, and a host of other chlorine compounds, due to the evaporation of salt-water spray from wind and wave action. Two things save the ozone layer from total destruction.
One is that the upper atmosphere is stratified. But that stratification is not absolute. A number of processes project chlorine ions, radicals, and compounds into the upper atmosphere, where they participate in ozone destruction as above, regardless of their source. Freon happens to be one of the ways it gets there. But though it's a new thing it's hardly the only thing.
The other is that the ozone layer is also full of oxygen and ultraviolet light. While the chlorine is busy breaking the ozone down, the ultraviolet light is busy making more.
Except at the south pole just now: It's the dead of winter there. That means the sun has SET and will be DOWN FOR MONTHS. Oops: No ultraviolet! Once the ozone breaks down, no more is made - near the pole. The only way for it to get there is by upper-air circulation and diffusion, and part of the point of the stratosphere is that there isn't much wind there.
So there's no ozone to block ultraviolet light from getting farther down. But there's also no ultraviolet light to block. Go a bit farther north, to where there's some light, and you fine ozone again. Golly! Guess it's not the end of the world after all.
We wouldn't even know the hole was THERE if it hadn't been for satelite sensors noticing it. Any bets on whether it was there when the dinosaurs were abroad?
Sure the size of the hole varies somewhat from year to year. (It's a weather phenomenon - which has only been observed for a few years so it's too soon to extrapolate annual differences into trends.) More chlorine (from freon, volcanos, forest fires, etc.) moves the edge out a bit further into the dim light where the sun is on the horizon. Different upper-atmosphere winds move the cholrine and ozone about differently from year to year. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for the ozone layer to disappear worldwide.
For starters, removing the layer lets UV down further, to where it finds more oxygen. So you get ozone a little lower. It's a long way down to the tropopause and the salt spray below it in the weather-busy troposphere.
Meanwhile, isn't it just an amazing coincidence that the study that claimed to find a connection between Freon and Ozone was funded by Dow Chemical, just as their patent on Freon was about to expire (making it possible for everybody in the world to make this cash-cow cheap)?
So suddenly Freon is banned worldwide just before it would get cheap and everybody has to build new refrigerators (or recharge old ones) with a NEW, patented, compound.
And it costs more. So lots of people in poorer regions can't afford refrigeration. And a bunch of them die from food poisoning.
Not as bad as the malaria death rate increase from the DDT ban (which appears to have been based on totally bogus pseudo-science claims rather than bogus conclusions hyped from an apparently real phenomenon). But still no fun.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I am Pro Ozone; we should keep it.
I have no problems with the science of 1750.
That was the year the Milky Way was first postulated to be a spiral galaxy. The Royal Society had been going for nearly 100 years, and awarded its Copley medal to George Edwards. All in all, a reasonable year.
Does B Paladin think that only science from the last ten years is of any consequence? Let him read Roger Bacon then, and see how Einstein's ideas from the 1920s were anticipated in the 1260s. Friar Bacon's work is neither barbaric nor primitive, and may only be considered remedial in the sense that most practicing scientists could do with reading it today.
Of course, Mr Paladin may really be talking about the non-science which is so distressingly prevalent. In that case, I would direct him to look to Creationist theory, from the 1990s rather than the 1750s, for a better example.
Objectivity is one of the greatest challenges of science. To achieve it, a scientist must move against the current of the fashionable thinking of his peers, as well as his own personal bias. If a scientist discovers an unfashionable truth, fashion will be unchanged by it, and the fashionable alternative to the truth will persist amongst the scientific community at large. It has always happened that way, and there's no reason to think that it's about to change now.
This is true for merely scientific fashion and truth, but if the issue is also an emotional, global, political issue, any such tendancies away from the truth will be magnified a thousand times. Thus if you are attempting to find the truth about global warming via the consensus of the scientific community, you are seriously misguided; and if you believe that you can discern the truth yourself by reviewing the results of scientific studies, there is a very good chance that you are delusional in respect to your own objectivity.
I have a hard time understanding the logic of inaction on environmental problems. Yes, we probably haven't been studying earth-changing effects over a long enough period of time to say definitively the causes, cures and extents of problems.
But does that mean we shouldn't do anything? If the something like 80% of scientists who do believe in global warming, ozone degradation, melting of polar ice caps, etc are right, and that the result of them being right is that the planet becomes inhospitable to human life, then shouldn't we do something? Especially if the measures are minor, only requiring some businesses to spend money and not pollute quite so much. If they were wrong, well, crap. We have a cleaner planet. That would suck.
Is that really the only reason to do nothing? That it hurts big businesses that find it convenient to pollute? It can't possibly hurt the economy more than perpetual war in the middle east.
That we're worried about ozone depletion, and yet they make us burn oxygenated fuels to keep down the ozone?
The Brits have been plodding around Antarctica for a while: their earliest ozone measurements date to 1957.
H ole/
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/Key_Topics/The_Ozone_
Their data revealed typical seasonal patterns for about 20 years, then some disturbing changes. In 1985, the Antarctic ozone hole was reported.
The link above shows an interesting chart, showing a steep drop in atmospheric ozone over the Haley station after about 1977.
First, we don't know what the condition of the ozone layer over the poles was prior to CFC build up and have no idea if the holes were there before and if so, how big and what if any were the variations and with what periodicity and synchronicity re:orbital wobble, aphelion/parahelion, solar activity, etc. For all we know, the holes have always been there as a function of solar charged particle radiation following the Earth's magnetic field lines which we know for a fact happens to bring us auroras among other things.
Second, if the majority of scientists believed in G-d, which they most likely do, does that overall consensus mean G-d's existance is proven? Fark no. Nor would the consensus of the majority of children between 3 and 6 believing in a monster in the dark under their bed prove it either. What scientists choose to believe is irrellevant. What is imporant is preponderance of the evidence and we have no such thing.
We don't have it with global warming, ozone depletion, overpopulation, or any of a dozen other shibboleths the social engineering left seizes on every few years. By this time, we were all supposed to be radiation mutated zombie cannibals freezing to death under a new ice age with a planetary population of sixty billion. Predictably when it didn't happen, they took credit for it by claiming their warning was enough to change it.
I therefore would like to take credit for the saving of the world from the disaster that would be flying pigs if they are created through genetic engineering. I believe it is at least possible and I'm sure a sizeable consensus could be made that agreed with that and since I am warning all of you, you obviously will agree that pig dung slamming into your windshield and nailing you in the head would be bad. Not to mention the problem of flying pig hunters and errant shootings by mistake. Having been warned, you will no doubt via the chaos theory at the very least cause it to not come about.
You may genuflect starting now.
THAT is the nature of much of this environmental pseudo-science. We know that certain processes can happen in labs and in nature. We DO NOT know with any certainty that they happen at all or if they do to what degree in nature in concert or against unknown numbers of other unknown influences. Meanwhile we ban Halon fire extinguishers and other useful things and in the end definitely cause negative effects on society simply because of someone's theory held so tightly only because it jives with their cherished personal sociopolitcal beliefs which might as well be faith.
As rational and useful as claiming your faith means that G-d created the world in seven days. Faith and proof have nothing to do with either. We don't let creationists off the hook for purposely confusion the two and we need to stop the extremists on the other side from doing the same.
Unfortunately, one side of the political spectrum's religious faith has become intertwined with the scientific disciplines, activism made the order of the day, and the intellectual arrogance of mistaking raw intelligence as being superior to wisdom and experience all by itself has been encouraged.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Are humans so arrogant that we think we can destory the earth let alone save it?
It's not the earth I'm worried about destroying, it's my ability to comfortably inhabit it! The earth doesn't give a rats arse about us. It will exist whether or not we boil ourselves away. Nature has adapted throughotu the earht's history, and life is presently living in many extreme biomes. But the fungus that is human can destroy itself without destroying the earth.
Hey I have a different idea. If you find this silly you can let me know.
Why don't we set *one* quota of pollution that can be exhausted per world citizen, irrespectable of where this citizen lives? Sounds like a fair plan, doesn't it? Actually, you may be surprised to learn that China and India have acknowledged to proceed in this manner and attack global warming on an equal basis.
Next, hurricanes are expected to be stronger because of warmer surface temperatures, otherwise known as El Nino, doesn't have anything to do with global warming, it's a naturally occuring cycle. These scientists will tell you that. The more telling part of their comments:
You see, there is no evidence that global warming influences the size of hurricanes. *bonk*
And in response to your last paragraph, despite the fact that it's based on your misunderstandings pointed out above, I'll tell you what we need to do: build stronger houses. ;)
Its the basic thing there is american news organisation giving objective information, while rest of the worlds news agencies gives simply blatant false information on their self interest that is contradiction to American political interest. Its something that everything that is published about pollution and atmosphere its the same thing. The rest of the world has VERY bad bias in there.
Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
http://nobelprize.org/chemistry/laureates/1995/cru tzen-lecture.pdf
... AND THINGS COULD HAVE BEEN MUCH WORSE
..... .... ... we would have been faced with a catastrophic ozone hole everywhere and at all seasons during the 1970s, probably before the atmospheric chemists had developed the necessary knowledge to identify the problem and the appropriate techniques for the necessary critical measurements. Noting that nobody had given any thought to the atmospheric consequences of the release of Cl or Br before 1974, I can only conclude that mankind has been extremely lucky ...."
QUOTE
"
Gradually, over a period of a century or so, stratospheric ozone should recover. However, it was a close call.
the nightmarish thought that if the chemical industry had developed organobromine compounds instead of the CFCs
END QUOTE
(This was written a decade ago, before the Arctic ozone hole opened up and it became apparent that recovery was not going to be happening soon if at all -- we may in fact not have dodged this crisis.
Kind of like when the storm misses you and then, a day later, the levee collapses. Same problem, slower.
Either that, or do you know how utterly stupid you sound?
NBC: Commercial Broadcaster, USA (largest contributor to global warming).
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
There is no doubt that the so-called "ozone hole" (a thinning of the ozone layer above the South Pole)changes in size and density. What is at issue is the cause.
Because experiments show that chlorine destroys ozone, and HFC's (Halogenated Fleurocarbons) contain chlorine, we have banned HFC's. However, no one has directly linked the chlorine in HFC's to the destruction of the ozone layer. Chlorine is available from many sources. For instance, the evaporation of seawater from the oceans EACH YEAR emit chlorine in quantities millions of times greater than the total amount of chlorine ever used to produce HFC's. The same is true of volcanic activity. The same is true of biomass decomposition.
I don't believe anyone has even tried to distinguish the sources of chlorine in the Troposphere. How do you tell one molecule of chlorine from another?
Nor has anyone clearly illustrated why HFC's are even the most likely culprit: HFC's are much heavier than air, and unless aerosolized and agitated, they tend to sink rather than float. (You can pour Freon into a glass and it will sit there for years. I knew a guy who did that.) We need to SHOW how HFC's get to the Troposphere before we can identify them a part of the cause. Many theories ahve been put forth as to how they get up there, but most of them are speculation and very incomplete. Oh, yeah, HFC's do NOT easily decompose. Why do we think they would decompose before sinking back to earth if they ever did get up there?
Furthermore, one book (slightly biased) called, The Holes in the Ozone Scare" by Robert Maduro, et al., have some cool graphs showing that the conclusion of a trend of growing ozone thinning was based on statistics taken from only a dozen years, and if you took other 12-year samples you could conclude that the hole was becoming smaller or even making no significant change. The length of time we have been keeping statistics is not long enough to determine whether this is a natural variation or influenced by man.
The hypotheses lacks credible correlation and proof. I think politicians went along with the theory just to mollify the French.
Now Global Warming is under the same political pressures as the Ozone Hole hypotheses. There is no doubt that mankind affects weather and climate, the question is: how much can does man really contribute and how, and what can be logically ascribed to Mother Nature's own variations.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
"Fix it.Fix it.Fix it.Fix it.Fix it"
".....Fix it.Fix it."
and no for the part where I add line to ge around the filter. Otherwise you wouldn't get to read my incredibly funny post, excellant spelling, and my run on grammer nazi hating sentance that you are currently reading. You were warned that this was just tex tto get around the filter, but you keept reading anyways, one word ofter the next as if you were caught in some sort of grammer hypnosis where I rearange you living room while you read slashdot;which brings me to the story when I was back in WWI...
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Sustainable implies the ability of natural processes to cope with the waste products that we are producing. Not garbage, but CO2, heat and sewage.
Sorry, but we passed the point of "sustainability" about 1850. We're banking on using up all of the available land to store the non-gas waste products so we can disguise that there is a problem.
You want a solution? There are two: utilization of resources from off Earth and a rather drastic decrease in population. Most environmentalists and Europeans would certainly vote for population decrease. I believe around 100 million people would do it. Not a decrease of that number, but that being the total sustainable population of Earth.
We're about 1200 times that number now and growing every day.
Exactly -- the ecosystem as a whole is in much less danger than humanity specifically. Plus, a slogan like "Save the Planet" is no way to market a political message. The problem with appealing to a voter's sense of altruism is that you're assuming he has one; appealing to his sense of self-interest is a much safer bet. That's why, to be both more scientifically accurate and more politically effective, the slogan should be changed to:
Save the Humans!
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
Neither might be his fault, but they are both his responsibility.
The Mayor of New Orleans though that Katarina was enough of a threat to order mandatory evacuation Sunday. GW finally got arsed to get off his vacation and back to DC 4 days later. Today he is finally out talking his platitudes, but he should have been out there leading the country (you know, the job he was elected for?) since Tuesday at the latest, when it was painfully obvious the magnitude of the disaster the country was looking at. He might have even put some resources in motion Sunday. The New Orleans flooding is bad, but Mississipi isn't exactly having a picnic either.
Instead he was enjoying a few holes of golf and playing country star. If he wants to "Just get on with his life" I'd suggest he resign and let someone who actually wants to do the job of leading this country be President. Same for the rest of those lazy, incompetent bums inhabiting the White House right now. They are downright disrespectful to this country and her people and anyone who voted for them should be ashamed to have done so.
Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
Most of these arguments are based on selective data :
"Biggest since 2000"
"increasing since 1976"
and reinforced by anecdotal evidence :
- entire flocks of sheep on some southern island are blind (testifying to the increased UV radiation)
- skin cancer increasing hundredfold over the past 30 years
The way I understand it, the ozone layer is still measured the same way Dobson first discovered it.
-Records indicate that the hole was actually larger in Dobson's time than it is even now.
Looking at the entire record of the ozone layer thickness, it appears nearly cyclical.
- Informed scientists report that there will always be a 'hole' at the south pole, even if there were NEVER any human involvement. This is because of the nature of the solar mechanism of ozone generation, and the rotation and flow around the globe.
- The sheep that are so often cited in the stories are actually blind genetically, due to decades of inbreeding (they're on a small isolated island, after all).
- Skin cancer increases : of course it's increased since 1950 ! More leisure time in general, and lax attitudes toward body exposure since the 1950s has increased our exposure to the sun. Take a look at the size of the swimsuits today versus history, as well as the popularity of beaches, beach resorts, cruises, tanning booths, etc.
I'm totally against pollution and needless use of harmful chemicals, but the environmentalists have no more scruples than the capitalists - they will LIE about whatever it takes to achieve the desired end.
Cut pollution for sure - but don't make up scary lies just to convince the public that we need to pass laws to restrict industry.
Be honest about the reasons.
People (usually) can tell when they're being bulshitted.
Though I'm not sure how this moved into a conversation about atheism, I guess I'll jump in. I consider myself a logical person. I believe in God. I don't care about your defense, your attack, or how passionate you are. I respect your opinion, but I don't share it. Since we won't find out who's right pretty much until we're both dead, the debate does us little good.
Google is your friend:
"ozone layer" +chlorofluorocarbon +catalysis
will supply the information you say doesn't exist.
The Nobel Prize committe on the one hand, the disinformation manufacturers on the other.
Read both sides, at least, and consider that you may be misinformed.
You should read the science. Really, you should.
It is astonishing how lucky we were that bromine, rather than chlorine, was just slightly less cheap and more difficult to use as a basis for highly stable fluorocarbon compounds during the years before the problem was understood.
It could have been over by now.
Read. Please, read.
You say you consider yourself logical; yet you brought no logical framework to the table. You say "I believe" and then without engaging logic in any way, you make the specific claim that "finding out" must wait until death. You offer no justification for that claim, any more than you did for your stated belief in God, you simply throw it down as if it was supposed to mean something -- but, without some rationale behind it, what could I possibly be expected to make of it? Why dead? Why both of us? Says who, or implies what, or inevitably due to what force or manifestation? Why do you believe that death is the arbiter of your beliefs? Where, to be specific, is the logic behind the conditions you describe? How is your claim any different, in any way at all, from another individual's claim that something else otherwise not in evidence (unicorns, etc.) exists and that we will know the truth of that claim at death?
Which puts us here:
Do you think your presentation qualifies as "debate"? Or as a reasonable substitute for debate? I don't see it, myself.
If you'd like to engage on the issues, explaining what your logical approach is, and how your logical approach leads to belief in God and revelation of truth at such time as we are both dead, I'm certainly paying attention. Otherwise, thanks for responding, no problem.
It's not about passion, or attack, or defense. It's about the power of reason, replacing fear of the unknown with curiosity, and learning what appropriate levels of confidence are.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Ask Slashdot:
I have some questions of my own that I wondered about and I thought I'd ask the Slashdot population at large.
What do you think of intelligent design? Is it really a covert form of creationism?
Are people who advocate patents correct or are they just hoarding software?
Have the Republicans really been more concerned about the environment than Democrats? If not, can you explain why?
I don't think the one-button mouse on Apple computers are more userfriendly. Is this true?
Emacs or vi?
Linux or Mac?
Ford or Chevy?
And does anyone else think that the editors of Slashdot post contraversial articles as trolls just to get more hits?
Do you know when we discovered the hole in the ozone layer?
-When we developed the equipment to detect the ozone layer.
Do you know what makes most of our ozone?
-Trees, or other photosynthetic life.
Now, what is the flora of Antarctica?
-Nonexistent, at least in enough quantity to sustain a constant creation of ozone.
So, considering these facts, the hole in the ozone layer may have been there for centuries, millennia even, never causing any problems b/c the fauna there have all adapted to handle the UV rays, which are indirect to begin with. It has constantly fluctuated, sometimes getting bigger, sometimes getting smaller.
You got it all wrong.
Lower pollution = Higher efficiency
Higher efficiency = less fuel inputs
less fuel inputs = less money wasted
Less money wasted = more profit
Of course these efficiency improvements have an initial capital cost. In a short-sighted economy where short term profit is rewarded by investors, these capital improvements look expensive, even if these save *lots* of money down the road.
This is one of the primary reasons Japan kicked our economic butt in the 1980s. Because they responded to the 1970 oil crisis with improved efficiency - we didn't. By the 1980s they were producing 40% more output using the same energy. And it took us years to catch up. So no, signing Kyoto is *not* a disadvantage!
Ironically, GW Bush, in not signing the Kyoto Protocols and the ensuing U.S. laws, taxes, and incentives on energy use - has driven oil demand, thus driving up the cost of oil up to the point that we are saving as much energy because of high fuel costs than if we just signed Kyoto.
Unfortunately, because we didn't sign Kyoto, our money is now going to Saudi Arabia instead of, if we signed Kyoto, to our own federal government in fuel taxes - which could have been funneled towards domestic energy projects such as renewable energy.
Dumb move.
Sirs:
You dont see an aircraft that is going to hit you until its really, really close. Same with the Ozone.
A tiny break in the data ( 1 yrs vs 30yrs ) everybody gets their panties in a knot and
YELLS WE'RE SAFE. YOUR BEING LIED TO!
See for yourself:
This is the NASA TOMS SATALITE LINK PAGE.
http://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Current Scientific though is NOT BEING PUBLISHED!
http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/fall98/wn_fal l98silenced.html
"Silenced Science: Arctic Ozone Loss
by Jim Scanlon
Vital information on environmental change is being withheld from the public by the print and broadcast media."
Another post by Jim Scanlon:
Subject: Atmospheric Effects of Aviation Ignored
From: jscanlon@linex.com (Jim Scanlon) ( Refrence JimScanlon @ The Coastal Post )
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: sp110.linex.com
Message-ID:
Sender: news@linex6.linex.com (news admin)
Path: linex6!sp114.linex.com!user
Organization: none
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 03:29:26 GMT
Xref: linex6 sci.environment:124887
sci.geo.meteorology:31554
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology
In March 1997, the Third Meeting of "Ozone Research Managers" took place.
The managers are responsible for informing the signatories to the
"Montreal Protocol" on substances that deplete the ozone layer. I have included the full executive summary below. It is very gloomy reading.
I wish to call particular attention to one recommendation in the Summary
The interactions between ozone and climate and the impact of aircraft emissions need to receive a high priority in research.
I first read of the interaction of the ozone layer on climate in John Gribbin's book, "The Hole in the Sky:Man's Threat To The Ozone Layer" which was published in May 1988. I am not sure when I read the book, but it was before I traveled to Patagonia in the Spring of 1990 to look around for myself.
For those who may have forgotten, the intense concern for the viability of the ozone layer started in the 1970s. The concern was the impact that oxides of nitrogen emitted by jet engines would have on the ozone layer.
(The health effects of sonic booms were also important considerations)
Nothing was known about the effects of CFCs etc., or heterogeneous reactions on ice or acid aerosols or soot or metals or of the Antarctic
Ozone Hole. It was all the effect of aircraft emissions and gas phase reactions.
When the US aircraft industry abandoned its plans for a fleet of Supersonic Civil Transports because of financial reasons, the issue of aircraft affecting the ozone layer went into deep hibernation, where it remains today.
The most accurate estimate I know of indicates that the thousands of aircraft that fly the North Atlantic Flight Corridor
fly in the stratosphere 44% of the time (JGR Vol 28 D12 12/20/93).
Other estimates I have heard are that civil aircraft fly in the stratosphere from 17%, to 25% of the time.
This flight time will increase as the fleet grows (perhaps 200% by 2020) and newer generations of sub sonic jets, being introduced right now, which fly higher, longer, enter service.
Through inattention, a global industry has been allowed, without debate, to routinely enter the stratosphere, where the affects of its activities may prove dangerous or disastrous to life on earth.
Jet aircraft are not to Boeing and Airbus what CFCs were to Du Pont. Jet aircraft are not to all global societies what CFCs are. It seems evident that the optimism so universally expressed in the success of the Montreal Protocol has been misplaced!
There is a painful difference between "good" as "not good enough"!
Our political systems seem completely inadequate in merely evaluating the effects of technological let alone having any effect on the implementation of any technology w
Remember the BBC are the ones that decided the terrorists in London were not in fact terrorists, but "bombers" - and retroactively changed text in news articles already published.
If they are going to seek to spin other stories in some way, why should you really trust them on any topic?
The decline of the BBC as a reliable source of news is one of the sadder aspects of media in recent years.
The econutters scream that the "hole" (in effect an area of lower concentration and not a hole at all) is "larger than ever before" and blaming it on mankind.
Nothing new there, they blame everything on mankind and never bother to back up their statements or put them in perspective.
In reality of course the thickness of the ozone layer is linked to the solar spot cycle.
Just happens that the cycle is once again at a point where it causes the ozone layer to be at the thin end of its own cycle.
No news...
"Now all of that is compeletly mute because you cannot"
Saying "mute" when you meant to say "moot" makes you appear careless and intellectually lazy. It undermines your position.
You guys are all being willfully ignorant. If you wanted to know when the ozone hole appeared you could have just looked it up.
/ faq5.html
http://www.al.noaa.gov/WWWHD/pubdocs/Assessment98
Jesus Christ. You're just parroting what has been said up-thread.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
In A letter to JGR, Drew Shindell, and Paul Newman pushed back the recovery of the ozone hole from 75 years to 150 years.
WHY IS NO ONE INTERESTED?
:-) Except Buddhists! :-)
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
What you need to understand here is a marketing concept, not a scientific one. People will make decisions based on emotion and try to bend the facts to support them. The emotional decision here is simple. Anti-darwinists - oops sorry, freudian slip there - anti-CO2ists realise the impact on their way of life resulting from the overwhelming evidence from thousands of studies in global warming being true.
Of course most normal scientists who deal with atmostpheric processes accepted the correlation between CO2 / methane and global temperature decades ago. I did my geology degree between '94 & '97 at UCL here in London and it wasn't even a subject for debate. People we were using the concept of correlation between atmospheric carbon and sea / atmospheric temperature to go back in time before ice-cores, using the geological record. Rather than using bubbles of air you use fossils of the animals that used that air, dissolved in sea-water, for respiration. Micropalaeontology and micro-fauna aren't my thing at all but scientists at UCL were (and are) well into it.
So why the small, but vocal, opposition to
1.) the role of atmospheric carbon in global temperatures.
2.) the concept that human intervention has lead to an increase in atmospheric carbon.
The answer is of course simple. The changes we will all have to make when these idiots eventually give in to overwhelming scientific evidence are profound. In fact given the current US attitude of completely ignoring even the Kyoto agreement, which in itself is a drop in the ocean compared to the emissions reductions that WOULD be required, the changes would be catastrophic for some.
Imagine having to pay the kinds of prices for gasoline that we do here in the UK. Our gas is the cheapest in the world but one the most heavily taxed, we pay getting on for £1/litre which is ~$6.84 / US gallon. The tax is designed to stop people using their cars and move them onto public transport or at least into more environmentally friendly transportation.
The emissions quotas and laws here in the EU are strict especially wrt the production of energy.
All this is to try to leave the planet by and large as we found it, for the generations to come. All of which falls on deaf ears if the US, a nation consisting merely 2% of the world's population, continues consuming 25% of the world's resources and pumping the waste from this consumption into the atmosphere, into the sea and into the ground.
The onus is on the US to become less wasteful and the anti-CO2ists are desperately clinging to any straw they can find to delay such moves which would require taxes to be raised far beyond what current presidents could lose their tenure over.
Of course the other alternatives are:
1.) The rest of the world gangs up against the US and forces changes through.
2.) US citizens get it into their heads that the current environmental nightmares being experienced along the gulf coast are driven by the changes in the carbon cycle. Regardless of the truth of this (it's a bitch to prove) if it were to cause mass-hysteria and panicking there MIGHT be the political will to deal with it.
But our anti-CO2 friends shove their fingers in their ears and sing "la la la can't hear you, you must be wrong because I say so" or stick their heads in the sand.
OK I'm a scientist and I'm telling you this has f### all to do with El Nino.
El Nino is about a bulge in warm water in the pacific WHICH IS CYCLICAL.
It happens once every 8 - 11 years. Then it stops. Then it builds up. Then after 8 - 11 years it happens again.
Then it stops. Then it builds up. Then after 8 - 11 years it happens again.
Then it stops. Then it builds up. Then after 8 - 11 years it happens again.
Then it stops. Then it builds up. Then after 8 - 11 years it happens again.
Then it stops. Then it builds up. Then after 8 - 11 years it happens again.
Do you get the idea of cyclical?
Are you sure?
Good.
Now tell me whether there were massive destructive hurricanes flooding New Orleans / the rest of the gulf coast 8 - 11 years ago. And 8 - 11 years before that. And 8 - 11 years before that. And 8 - 11 years before that. And 8 - 11 years before that.
No?
Then it's not caused by El Nino is it?
Well not quite - hurricane Andrew was about 9 years ago, again an El Nino year. However what needs to be compared here is intensity. The trend is for bigger hurricanes over time as global sea temperatures rise (global warming has almost nothing to do with atmospheric temperatures - the consequences of oceanic warming are far scarier)
So, to summarise, all scientists are completely biased all of the time? This is garbage.
Objectivity is one of the greatest challenges of science
Actually, the attempt to achieve objectivity is the whole point of science, since without it you could never make progress. You will note that progress has been made.
To achieve it, a scientist must move against the current of the fashionable thinking of his peers, as well as his own personal bias.
This is a somewhat bizzare statement. Firstly, in many frontier areas there will be no 'current' anyway, or several competing 'currents'; so the statment about this is clearly wrong. Secondly, the idea that there are unchangable fashions is also clearly wrong, since it would prevent progress from ever being made. You are, as far as I can see, simply trying to assume your conclusion.
This is true for merely scientific fashion and truth, but if the issue is also an emotional, global, political issue, any such tendancies away from the truth will be magnified a thousand times
Prove it. Unless, of course, you don't wish to believe the results of scientific research and are hence trying to find excuses to disregard it, such as claiming that scientists are all biased.
Thus if you are attempting to find the truth about global warming via the consensus of the scientific community, you are seriously misguided;
Really? What would be a better method.. listen to a minority viewpoint? Although you should only agree with expert consensus on subjects which are not your speciality on a contingent basis, there is no rational alternative. For a non-expert to assert that a minority scientific viewpoint is correct is simpe political posturing.
and if you believe that you can discern the truth yourself by reviewing the results of scientific studies, there is a very good chance that you are delusional in respect to your own objectivity.
So basically, you are trying to 'poison the well' here; anyone with different opinions to yourself is already biased and therefore you can pretend they your opinions are just as valid as anyone else's. This kind of postmodern calptrap may sound clever, but it's just an excuse for ignorance.
From dictionary.com; God- A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. The term "being" is extremely hard to pin down in this case. As far as I understand it, at the scale of the Universe, there is only one place for a God-like being to exist. Taking the multiverse interpretation, would could envision God as a sort of processor which condenses the Multiverse into the single, continuous Time-Space we as humans experience. Alternatively, picture all particles as units of information, when quantum interaction occurs, God could be envisioned as the force which determines the outcome of the interaction. True, these interactions follow certain statistical measures, but at the same time we also know that under certain extremely unlikely conditions they can lead to what a human observer would rightly call a miracle (Elephants floating up into the air, all of the particle in your body spreading in different directions at once, that sort of thing). I'm not saying this is what most Christians think of when they visualize God. But perhaps some of those scientists could be following the same sort of reasoning. God deciding the outcomes of all particle interactions in the Universe or God as a processor churning through the infromation that makes up the Universe and outputting a path which all of us in the Universe follow. [I'd just like to point out that I'm just throwing the idea out there for debate. I wrote this very quickly and didn't spell check.]
The worst case for the human race is that global warming destabilizes our cozy Western civilization. Our global trade/transportation networks break down. People starve, nations go to war, the earth is vastly depopulated (dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the process), and the pockets of survivors (and there will be plenty), pick up thier stone tipped spears and begin human civilization phase II.
Hahaha, you're a scientist. Ok sure. El Nino has EVERYTHING to do with hurricanes, moron. Where the f### did you study?
Intensity of the storms is normal. I'll pay attention when they come up with a new category 6 hurricane rating. Andrew was just as bad as this Katrina, but Katrina hit a more vulnerable area of the continent, slightly more vulnerable, the devastation was just as bad.
So you wasted all that space, repeating yourself, and then you contradict yourself? What the fuck is wrong with you man? Your brain is mush. You're a tentacle of the global warming political machine.
Like I said, build stronger houses, and ignore self-proclaimed "scientists" like yourself.
To paraphrase Gandhi's answer, when asked what he thought of Western civilization:
It would have been a good idea.
As I said, "I" want to dodge the bullet. I'd rather have civilization around, and am not presumptive enough to think I'd be one of the lucky(?) survivors.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
El Nino & La Nina have everything to do with summer hurricanes. I'll agree.
But the warming is indisputable. Even anti-CO2ists agree that.
Possible cause might be human carbon output. As posted by others more eloquent than myself, if you think you're doing something to screw up the world isn't it a good idea to take remedial action? Even if you're not 100% sure that your action is causing the problem you should take action.
Hahaha I'm a scientist? Love to see your geology degree mate. Mine's from University College London.
Dude! Trivial, sophomoric and incomplete articles all over the place! If I wanted to read "science" articles aimed at grade school students, I'd read something more like this: http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/ozone.htm
Now this article, from the Universtiy of Michigan, no less, admits that naturally occurring chlorine is a threat to the the ozone layer. However it claims that naturally occurring chlorine only accounts for about 15% of the damage, yet doesn't say WHY that would be true. The diagram clearly shows that chlorine is the single element that "ping-pong's" (so to speak) between individual atoms and compound binding with ozone. The associated atoms such as flourine are only necessary (I'm using that word sarcastically) to provide a molecule for chlorine to get knocked out of so it can be free to associate with the ozone. If chlorine is the culprit element, and there are many millions of times as much naturally occurring chlorine than ever used to produce HFC's/CFC's, why is it more likely that the rare, heavy chemical is supposed to be the more likely cause? Most of the public literature is as loose and deficient as this one.
I do read the literature. I'm not a chemical researcher nor an atmospheric physicist, but I've been following both sides of the debate for a number of years now. I actually subscribe to a couple of lists that are devoted to sharing info and argument on this "ozone" problem. Molina and Sherwood are exemplary scientists, but I think we are possibly seeing a political bias on the part of so-called independent science. While I think there MAY be a connection between ozone depletion and HFC's/CFC's, I reserve the right to doubt the conclusion until my criteria are met: Explanations for "How does it get up there in quantities able to cause massive damage?"(with empirical proof that it does), "What are the actual proportions of CFC-produced chlorine to naturally occurring chlorine?" and (perhaps answered by explanation number two) "Why doesn't multi-million-fold greater quantities of naturally occurring chlorine produce a greater effect than HFC's/CFC's?"
BTW, are you in high-school or junior high maybe? Who else would think that Google is a sufficient resource on scientific research?
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
You are pretty dense. The money was already allocated and the Bush administration slashed it by 80%. Since the Iraq war, the lion's share of the Army Corp of engineers time , man power and our tax dollares are going in to a futile effort to rebuild Iraq instead of the U.S.
You probably are aware by now that you have been thoroughly debunked, but just in case...
From the Chicago Tribune. The levee that failed had already had the work that wasn't funded for the others. It is a non sequitor. Get over it.
Additionally, raising the levees is a moot point. They didn't overflow, they BROKE.
Your the one being irrational. He is doing something completely wrong, diverting $300 billion dollars in to the otherside of the world in to a bottomless pit, while the U.S. goes down the tubes.
Yes, because we all know that the decision to invade Iraq in March of 2003 was made on August 31,2005 as Katrina was wreaking havoc on the Gulf Coast.
Do you guys have any informed or otherwise sensible criticisms? That would be nice. But right now you are talking out of your ass out of hatred of a man whom you have never met but for whom you have, nonetheless, developed a very unhealthy obsession, it appears.
Also (I guess this is as good a place as any)... the problems in New Orleans post-storm have very little to do with the federal government. The mayor of N.O. (the guy bitching on the radio today) waited until Sunday to order the evacuation of the city, despite the pleading of President Bush to order an evacuation on Saturday.
They sent people to the Superdome, with no means of distributing relief supplies once they got there--in fact, there were NO SUPPLIES there. They just shoved them in an arena.
None of the cities transportation resources were used to evacuate those who couldn't evacuate themselves. There a pic floating around tonight of hundreds of school busses sitting unused in a flooded parking lot. The city also has hundreds of mass transit busses that weren't used.
The national guard wasn't mobilized immediately (for the ignorant amongst you, the NG is under the control of the GOVERNOR, not the president).
After the storm, the city government was virtually AWOL. There was little or no police presence. Looters were completely unchecked.
The federal government moved very quickly as the true extent of the problem became obvious early Wednesday... remember, on Monday night and Tuesday N.O. had "dodged a bullet" (the phrase du jour in the media that day). On Wednesday, convoys of navy ships were deployed to N.O, including the USS Bataan--which carries helicopters and is capable of making drinkable water--and the USS Comfort for medical care.
I live in Orlando, Florida, and I experienced THREE hurricanes last year. In each of them, it was the city and county who organized the relief operations, and who appealed to the state for aid, who in turn worked with the feds. FEMA is at the disposal of the local and state governments who are coordinating the relief.
Unfortunately, the local government in New Orleans is run by an incompetent, apparently, who would rather blame everyone in the world except for himself. The federal agencies can't do much good if the people running the effort in the city/state don't have a clue. They are designed to build on a foundation that simply was not set up by the local officials. Now that the feds and other city governments are involved (like Houston, for example) things are working much more smoothly. You are completely misplacing blame here... it's sad that you felt the need to start blaming people at this juncture in the first place, to be honest.
It's a pity that so many here are so mired in irrational loathing and can't recognize the good that is now being done.
You don't take action to prevent a problem that you don't know exists. Besides, the simple response to this virtual problem is to plant more trees. Plant more trees and you fix the problem. Deforestation is by far the biggest environmental disaster we face today, look at what is going on in Haiti. We dont need a bunch of fuck nuts going berzerk over the kyoto protocol.
> You don't take action to prevent a problem that you don't know exists.
No we know the problem exists, even George Bush's friends in the oil industry recognise that the problem exists. They just don't think that we're definitely causing the problem. All I'm saying is that even if we're not sure about the extent of our contribution we should err on the side of caution with regards to the impact we intend to make on the environment and take steps to reduce carbon emissions in case we are causing the problem.
> Besides, the simple response to this virtual problem is to plant more trees.
How many? Sorry - how many millions of acres. And what about when we've normalised the CO2 concentration do we then cut down the trees so that they don't remove too much CO2? And how much CO2 do we emit planting trees? And what about at night when trees absorb oxygen and emit CO2? Or do we uproot them every evening?
> Plant more trees and you fix the problem.
Most scientists agree that oceanic absorbtion is the method that will work. Over about 900 years.
> Deforestation is by far the biggest environmental disaster we face today, look at what is going on in Haiti.
Haiti? OK - let's look at a slightly longer scale at slightly larger parts of the planet than Haiti. Let's look at Brazil where there's no political or business will to reduce deforestation. Let's look at the levels of deforestation not over the last 50 years but since the start of the industrial revolution. Vast forests across Europe, Russia, America and Africa have been destroyed since the 1700s. And also in Haiti since you mention it.
> We dont need a bunch of fuck nuts going berzerk over the kyoto protocol.
I didn't realised that the elected president of the United States of America was a fuck nut (Clinton was pro Kyoto). I didn't realise that the majority of governments of the developed world were a bunch of fuck nuts. You may know better than me but remember just how much environmental research designed to disprove human contributions into global warming is funded by American oil companies.
"both sides of the debate"
There's your problem. You read this as a political debate.
Google takes you straight to the Nobel Prize information, it's the top of the search results.
There's no debate about this in the science articles. Artificial, very stable chlorine compounds don't break down rapidly, that's why they were created. Atmospheric mixing carries them to the stratosphere where they catalyze ozone breakdown in the presence of ultraviolet, particularly below the temperatures that produce high ice clouds.
Naturally occurring chlorine compounds aren't longterm stable in the troposphere and don't reach the stratosphere except from some volcanic eruptions; even when they do, they're not longterm stable and degrade within a few years.
You knew this already, if you read the Nobel Prize documents.
There aren't two sides and there is no debate.
Yes, intelligent design _would_ have been a good idea. Pity we're on our own, eh?
Think.
Sorry, but I don't agree with you. Science is never complete, and scientific conclusions are sometimes wrong. While the Nobel Prize is is one of the most credible awards in Science, it is not, itself, Science, and other Nobel Prize winners have seen their conclusions superceded or refuted by subsequent research. (Some of them have been pilloried even when they were right: Witness B. F. Skinner.) When I say debate, I mean scientific debate, not political debate. Politics is sometimes defined as the vying for scarce resources, while science is defined as the discovery of knowledge. The debate is more on what's right than who's right. The discussion and research over the "hole in the ozone" is far from over, and may, in fact, have just started. (Certainly there will be many papers written to "piggyback" on the most popular politically correct conclusions, whether the thinking is right or not. Witness all the dissension in the field of nutrition. Grants and academic position are "scarce resources" and subject to political influences.) The questions are not all answered simply because someone wins a prize.
If you are trying to tell me that a chlorine atom is different simply because it broke off from a naturally occuring molecule rather than a man-made molecule, I will have to strongly disagree. At this time there is not a sufficient amount of empirical evidence to support the claim that the majority of the chlorine in the troposphere is composed of chlorine from man-made sources.
If you want to try thinking on your own instead of accepting everything handed to you, try reading, "Science and Sanity" by Alfred Korzybski, or, if that's too much for you, "Taming your Mind", by Ken Keyes. The scientific arguments for man-made sources of chlorine as the major "cause" of the ozone hole lack sufficiency in both Aristotelian and Non-Aristotelian metas. Read the research, not the summaries.
BTW, the instability of naturally occurring chlorine compunds in the upper atmosphere is an argument FOR the possibility of naturally occurring chlorine being the most significant chlorine source.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
Philosophy vs. physical chemistry, eh?
Meat for midnight bull sessions in the dorms indeed.
I refute it thus!
You might find Buber's "I and Thou" in the same reading list.
Consider the difference between a solitary chlorine, and one in relation.
Take chlorine as a single atom. What happens? Nothing.
Take another one -- at a good distance away. What happens? Nothing. You're right, there. They're all alike, as atoms -- one at a time.
How many electrons around each one? What's its potential to react, if there were anything else near it?
You know this, right?
Bump them together. What happens? A chlorine molecule.
Take another isolated chlorine. Bump it against almost anything else. What happens? A chloride, chlorate, or some other reaction product. The chlorine goes out of circulation, fast, and stays bonded.
Most chlorine reacts before it reaches the stratosphere, and what the occasional volcano pushes up doesn't remain available for long -- chlorine gets taken out of circulation by chemical bonding.
If you've ever mixed bleach and ammonia, you know what happens. Kids, don't try this at home. Chlorine is a very reactive gas.
Now, consider the universe around that single chlorine atom.
This is where a chlorine in any other compound differs from a chlorine in a chlorofluorocarbon -- that's by design.
This is why they were invented, because the CFC is a very stable compound compared to anything else used for the purposes it was invented.
That's not philosophy, that's industrial chemistry. Something very stable was needed. CFCs looked like the answer to a great many problems in industrial chemistry.
Take chlorine bonded to most any naturally occuring chemical. What happens? Various things, but none of them especially surprising.
Take chlorine bonded to make a CFC. What happens?
1) extreme long life and stability. Very useful.
2) catalytic action on stratospheric ozone. Oops.
So, yes, chlorine in a CFC behaves very differently and in ways no one imagined -- until the ozone catalysis was observed and explained.
The Nobel Prize was given for that research.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
OK, we've finally agreed on something: We both know how chlorine reacts to other chemicals. Now we are where the debate goes on with other knowledgeable scientists. I have no stake in being right on this, so I'm just going to wait until I see some proof that satisfies me. There may be a couple thousand people in the world who are the "experts" in this area, and I'm not one of them. I am, however one of the 5-7% who have a background and ability sufficient to follow the reasoning behind the claims for the "cause" of the "hole in the ozone". The cause must be both necessary and sufficient for the effect, but it must also be empirically proved before I will accept it. What I've seen so far fails both criteria, so I'll just wait before I form a conclusion. After all, it's not necessary for me to have a conclusion on everything. In order to bring a conclusion to this interesting discussion, I will agree to have my subject line ammended to "Incomplete Science, insufficient thinking".
I have read Buber, but not for years. (Required reading at one of the Universities I went to in the early 70's.) I've read Korzibsky twice (and some of his other writings besides) because I think it has practical applications. I'm sorry I didn't take the time to compose my statements in E-prime, but it wasn't all that important to me. You sond like you have an opion based on more than headlines and summaries (which wasn't the case in your first reply), and I'll just let you have your conclusions. After all, they MAY be right...
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
Important -- checking what we're told.
... did some calculations for the long record since 1931 of ozone measurements at the permanent station in Arosa, Switzerland.
You quoted Maduro as saying the ozone statistics are based only on one 12 year period showing change, and the previous one shows no change.
Th
That was true, twenty years ago.
QUOTE:
ROWLAND
"... people had been asking since 1974, "Is there any evidence for ozone losses over the United States or Europe?" And, for 11 years, statisticians had been doing very elaborate calculations and had always concluded that no evidence for any ozone loss had been detected."
So -- for early 1980s -- Molina confirms what you were told about the statistics.
Maduro's giving you old info based on the false premise that ozone depletion must logically happen all year round, despite observations to the contrary.
The crux of the matter is that ozone depletion happens in a brief period when the sun reaches the polar stratosphere after the long cold dark six months of winter.
Looking at the statistics by month rather than averaged by year -- and since the 1930s rather than for just 11 years -- showed the ozone depletion clearly.
That was done -- 20 years ago. Maduro's telling you something disproven two decades ago.
And that happened just after the U-2 aircraft flew through the polar stratosphere during several weeks just as the sun came up in the spring, and documented the sudden loss of ozone.
The quote above and continuation below are my excerpts from the full text, Roland and Molina's published speeches and collected references and discussion, found here:
http://www.ncseonline.org/NCSEconference/2000confe rence/Chafee/ChafeeMemorialLecture2000.pdf.
QUOTE
"... Neil Harris
He divided the record into 1931-1969 and 1970-1986 and compared the before/after averages for each calendar month, and found that there had been less ozone over Arosa in the winter months after 1970 than before. Then, as part of a sub-group of the Ozone Trends Panel, we extended this to all of the ozone-measuring stations with records for at least 22 years, that is, for the length of two solar sunspot cycles [because it was known that ozone levels varied a little with sunspot activity].
These calculations were simply the average over the winter months for one 11-year period, and then for another period of 11 years, subtracting one from the other. Every station in the northern hemisphere north of 30 degrees N latitude had
shown less ozone in the second 11-year period than in the first.
The statisticians had missed this because they had assumed that if there were any ozone loss that it would be uniform all through the year. And it had been known for many years that the summer months had much less natural variation in ozone, so, if the summer had much less natural variation, then obviously, you should look at the times where a change would most easily be detectable. What the Ozone Trends Panel showed was that there was clearly a wintertime loss, and no significant evidence at that time for a loss during the summer. These calculations were the first evidence that ozone had been lost over heavily populated latitudes of the northern hemisphere.
MOLINA
The scientific evidence was really accumulating by that time. Here we have a statement from by a colleague of ours at the Ozone Trends Panel press conference on March 15, 1988, "We've found more than the smoking gun. We've found the corpse." So, no surprise, ten days later after all of these findings really became evident, the Dupont Company, the largest manufacturer of CFCs, changed their mind and decided they would no longer manufacture these compounds.
The scientific evidence was extremely clear. I believe that was a very important turning point for the chemical industry."
END QU
Oh, trust me on this: The US most certainly IS the problem.
they pulled the caption.
There's a press release too, "To Yahoo! News readers:
In recent days, a number of readers of Yahoo! News have commented on differences in the language in two Hurricane Katrina-related photo captions (from two news services). Since the controversy began, the supplier of one of the photos - AFP - has asked all its clients to remove the photo from their databases. Yahoo! News has complied with the AFP request.
Yahoo! News regrets that these photos and captions, viewed together, may have suggested a racial bias on our part.
Neil Budde General Manager Yahoo! News"
So talking about it does help.
For those who may not know - AFT is the French news service - the ones that wrote the "white" caption. It is worth mentioning, at least in passing that many people in Lousiana have a strong historical connection with France.
The AP photo is still online with its original caption. One thing that may be lost here is that the photographers may have actually observed what happened, and know more than what is just captured in the one picture.
Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0