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."
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.
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?
What an appropriate captcha: emotions.
I can't believe the number of science deniers out there. So many people are agreeing with you, but it's obvious they did not read the article. The article mention that the ozone above 18 km is recovering and follows the pattern predicted by scientific research.
The portion just below 18km is showing recovery above that predicted research results. If you just pay attention to the graph, that area below 18km looks like an anomoly and it's not even a dramatic concentration of ozone. The article isn't even clear about how much above the prediction that anomoly appears to be.
Is that ozone 10% more, 100% more, or 1000% more? There's no indication. Yet, you and all the deniers are jumping on this data as if it was 1000% more. 30 years of science has determined that CFC's and ozone layer thickness closely matches. Sure, corelation != causation, but those of you who like to spout that phrase aren't generally the scientist and generally don't have all the data. You just see the limited information reported by some news media and take that as the complete picture.
The facts do speak for themselves, but you can't selectively choose your facts. You must look at the entire picture and see all the facts. Science is about gathering and sorting all the facts before making a determination. Sure some scientists might falsify data, but there is a thing called peer review. The fakes will be caught eventually.
The lack of a good education in science in the U.S.A. must be partly to blame for this lack of credence in science and the jumping to conclusions on a single data point. I can only see it getting worse as some states just approved the teaching of a completely unscientific "intelligent design" as science. Those children will only grow up becoming stupid about true science and scientific method.
Yeah, it's those same people who insist that poverty still exists in the U.S. and that the holocaust happened. Damn liberals even say that improving our energy efficiency while reducing greenhouse gasses will improve our economy. We all know that God controls the climate directly and that the rest of those things are liberal lies.
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.
Yeah, who cares if the increasing oceanic acidity due to the absorbed CO2 prevents organisms from building the shells that would allow the CO2 to be deposited in ocean sediments. Just imagine water from your local reservoir being pre-carbonated. It'll be nice to have a cool fizzy beverage on the hot days to come.
Support SETI@home
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.