Slashdot Mirror
Ozone Layer Improving Faster Than Expected
SpaceAdmiral writes "Since the implementation of the Montreal Protocol, which limited ozone-destroying gasses like CFCs, the Earth's ozone layer has been recovering. However, new studies show that the ozone in the lower stratosphere is actually recovering faster than the Montreal Protocol alone can explain." From the article: "It's a complicated question. CFCs are not the only things that can influence the ozone layer; sunspots, volcanoes and weather also play a role. Ultraviolet rays from sunspots boost the ozone layer, while sulfurous gases emitted by some volcanoes can weaken it. Cold air in the stratosphere can either weaken or boost the ozone layer, depending on altitude and latitude. These processes and others are laid out in a review just published in the May 4th issue of Nature: 'The search for signs of recovery of the ozone layer' by Elizabeth Westhead and Signe Andersen."
This brought to you by the same people who INSIST global warming is man-made and it's time to kill our economy by placing unnecessary restrictions on it.
The world can take a lot more than we small humans are dishing out to it. The oceans alone can absorb 100 times more CO2 than we have ever pumped into the atmosphere without taking a blink. This is just more proof of nature's resilience. Don't bow to the environmentalist hype machine.
We're playing with chemicals, eating toxic foods, messing with nature's balance, wasting or restoring ozone layer beyond our comprehension, using electronics that cause tumors and other illnesses... and in this mess somewhere, the bare truth shines:
we know shit
Look - the chance of everything changing EXACTLY as predicted (by anyone) is almost nil. so headlines will always read:
XXXX is going BETTER/WORSE than predicted.
Really - nothing to see here - please keep moving
Thanks, but I'll take scientific research over seemingly unfounded Slashdot postings any day.
The world isn't black and white, the fact that CFC's break down the ozone layer doesn't mean that other factor don't also play a part and the fact that other factors influence ozone doesn't mean that CFC's don't break down the ozone layer.
Of course this brain-dead theory has about as much basis in actual science as yours. If you don't believe the measurements indicating that the ozone hole was increasing (back when it was) why do you believe the measurements now that it is decreasing?
It is really important that you recognize that, as with any scientific venture, and with logical argument, there is never undeniable "proof" of anything -- just evidence that points one way or the other.
And there's a lot more evidence pointing toward the idea that we *are* harming it than evidence that we *aren't*.
People want undeniable "proof" because the idea that we are harming it is so controversial, and otherwise they aren't willing to accept it. If this is the case, then like any other controversial scientific topic, it will be many years before the majority of people will even consider its validity.
What are you looking for? An article that says "Proof Humans Are Responsible For Global Warming?" There are already lots of those out there, but even the scientists behind the research used for these sensational articles would disapprove of the titles. It could be said that people need such articles because nobody is willing to read scientific journals and conduct research themselves -- and this is perfectly reasonable.
If you want lots of legitimate scientific studies about this topic, Google Scholar or your local university's libary can sure help out.
How did I know there'd be some rightwing nutcase jumping on this as some kind of vindication that idiots like Michael Chricton should be listened re: global warming and climate change?
Here's a thought for you - try reading the article. You'll notice that the vast majority of ozone is concentrated in the upper stratosphere above 18 km, and this is reacting exactly as predicted by current models. It is only in a small band of the lower stratosphere that improvements are being seen that have surpassed predictions.
This doesn't mean the science on reducing levels of CFC's is wrong. It certainly doesn't mean that the completely different topic of climate change is something that should be ignored.
Don't be an idiot, please. We have way too many of them.
(PS. If you'd really like to learn something current and accurate about climatology of all sorts, you should visit www.realclimate.org - it's a site that is run by climatologists to educate and inform. You may actually want to understand what you're talking about before spouting off...)
Sometimes, eco-freaks are just plain wrong. I guess they must be smoking some bad granola.....
-----
Why do people get offended when I give them my opinion after they ask for it?
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Thanks NASA, I'm confused now. Lets not slap the public with too much cold hard science at once. A diagram of the earth wearing sunglasses might help me understand how that can help it prevent skin cancer and other maladies. My two year can think of a better opener -- "I've got new shoes" seems to be slightly more informative.
"Do the chickens have large talons?"
"Boy I didn't understand a word you just said."
Autonomous Retard -- Is your camp safe? UnsafeCamp.com
Have you not ever heard that it's better to err on the side of caution?
Sure, but how do you define caution? To the extent that human activity can be directly associated with measurable, specific climate factors... and to the extent that specific changes in regulatory roles or carbon bartering, etc. will have some identifiable outcome, you've got something to talk about. But since there's absolutely no way to be that specific, we have to look at specific, economy-wounding proposals with a wary eye. Why? Because the only thing that will reduce emissions is better technology and the huge, culture-wide adoption of same.
And the only way that gets done is in the presence of a thriving economy that has the largess to invest in such things, and families with enough income to do things like build more efficient houses and take a net loss for driving a hybrid, etc. When you tax the bejesus out of people, or limit the high-tech economies most able to actually spend billions of dollars on researching/developing bio-fuels and other marginal improvements, you slow, rather than accelerate the cure for our part (such as it is) of the warming trend. But when the same protocols that would damage the most innovative economies allow the dirtiest (in terms of emissions and rapid growth thereof) economies (say, China, or India) to just blast away as if it were 100 years ago when no one knew any better... well, that's not "erring on the side of caution."
If you crush the profitable economies even as they are already leading the way to more efficient energy use... you're going to set back the progress more than by any other means.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So yeah, the planet is ridiculously big, and it's unimaginably old. But there are a lot of us, and we are going to town on that atmosphere.
You must be young. Let me add some other predictions I've heard in my lifetime:
Global cooling, resulting in a new Ice Age (never mind that we haven't yet finished leaving the last one)
Coastal cities flooded by 2000
Ozone layer destroyed by 1990
Stopping forest fires is the most important way to protect our forests
Starting forest fires is the most important way to protect our forests
No edible fish by 1985
No potable water by 2000
World War III (global thermonuclear war, of course) by 2000
Can't wait to see what the next doomsday scenario will be. More fun than riding a rollercoaster.
How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
Citing Michael Crichton in an argument about climatology is like citing Oliver Stone in an argument about history.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
He may not be a scientist, and he may be wrong about global warming. But he does have a point about science, consensus, and poitical agendas. Perhaps you are as wrong in critisizing him and calling me a stupid sheep as I am in calling his speech a good one. Or perhaps you're right. Either way, could we please keep the discussion civilized and free of offensive remarks about people we have no knowledge of?
I'm really fucking tired of this canard being spouted by people with no understanding of the issue. So let's get it straight, shall we: the issue is that YES we are causing global warming. The evidence is on the table. If you are qualified as a climate scientist and NOT in the pay of a major oil company, you may rebut. Otherwise, shut your pie-hole. You know nothing.
The other part of your statement, regarding killing the economy, is utter horse malarkey. The only reason it is uttered is to cause confusion and fear. The stance of 95% of the people who are worried about global warming is that we should be improving our energy efficiency as a matter of national policy. I have yet to see anyone credibly address how using fuel more efficiently can cause harm to our economy. I have yet to see anyone credibly address how using cleaner fuels could cause harm to our economy. I have yet to see anyone credibly address how it would cost our economy to invest in renewables. There are a number of easily-demonstrated examples where energy efficiency and CO2 reduction is easily attained, but of course that's at the expense of the retirement packages of charming individuals like this so of course we can't be doing THAT here!
The only people who are benefiting from our inefficient energy economy are a handful of undeservedly wealthy robber barons whose sum total contribution to our society isn't worth a fart in the wind. The rest of us won't miss them if they're cut loose and forced back into actually working for a living. They benefit because of the unique circumstances of having gotten into the business on the ground floor, and believe for some unknown reason that it's their right and privledge to always control the spigots of our energy flow. They are wrong.
My book, podcast
2) If you look at the rest of your list you will find that none of the other "predictions" were ever made in the scientific literature either. In fact, none of them ever represented a scientific consensus amongst the professional scientific community.
(However, many of your choices are blatantly misrepresented lies of yours based upon some truth that you no doubt wish to ignore. Forest fire management is complex. Lack of potable water is an increasing issue in today's world. Fish stocks have dropped to 10% of their pre-industrial levels, and many are already commercially worthless. WWIII was always a credible threat. And I can guarantee that no scientist in the respective field ever gave such timelines for effects. The fact that you quote spurious times above shows you for the troll you are.)
Now, Climate change IS a scientific consensus. It IS recognised and agreed upon by every single climatologist. It is also accepted to be anthropogenic (caused by man) by every climatologist except for a handful who work for biased interests (oil companies). There are thousands times more scientists who understand the science and principles who agree about anthropogenic climate change than the small fraction who dissent (and even the dissenters agree that it is occurring - they have just moved from denying it, to shifting the blame from anthropogenic causes).
Get it through your thick head - there is NO DEBATE. It is happening and your little stick-your-head-in-the-sand attitude is laughable. Get a fucking brain.