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
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?
ok - so if I read this right it's saying that things aren't going as predicted. the implied message seems to be something like "science got it wrong" - but the whole point of science is to improve knowledge
Part of the problem with this system is that things like the Montreal Protocol are not science. It aims to solve a problem that might exist with remedies that might fix it. Note the usage of the world "explains" instead of "predicts". Most scientific theories are like economics: they can 'explain' plenty, but they can't really predict anything. Ultimately, all this talk about the weather is not science because we can't do experiments. There is simply no way to do scientific experiments with the global climate, and so theories about it don't quite make it all the way.
Using such theories to make worldwide policy is not exactly scientific when there is no actual evidence they have the verified power of prediction.
I don't accept this simplistic formula, that science is only science if it involves experimentation. There are plenty of knowledge-creating practices that I would describe as "scientific" that do no use laboratory or strictly experimental methods: meteorology and climateology are two of them, as are different types of evolutionary and behavioral sciences (some animal behavior study is lab-based, but the more important work is field work.) Observing patterns and creating models based on observed patterns, and making predictions based on those models, is, as far as I'm concern, a scientific posture.
And the "verification" is the same as it would be for a laboratory model: the model needs to explain the extant data, whether laboratory-produced or gathered from the field. Using models to make policy based on field-gathered data is substantially more "scientific" than using wishful thinking based on economic self-interest.
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.
This is something that is studied by scientists in a scientific (ie critical and fact based) manner, and then considered and debated by other scientists in the field of study. And you think it's not science?
You can't experiment on the planet as a whole, but
- measure the levels of ozone and see a reduction
- measure the levels of CFC output and see an increase
- determine through experiments (or simple chemical knowledge) that CFCs reaction with ozone
and deduce that the increased levels of CFC are decreasing levels of ozone. That's science, through and through.
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?
Weather can fall into 4, 5 or 6, not 1 (because we don't know the generalized laws), 2 (because we can't experiment on a sufficient scale) or 7 (because it ain't precise). (emphasis mine)
Did you read your own post?
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (emphasis mine)
Observation is just as valid a method of getting information as is experimentation; it just takes longer and you have to be more careful to gather sufficient data. Climatology and meteorology, like geology/geophysics/geochemistry, astronomy/astrophysics, and large sections of biology including all of paleontology and, at the opposite end of the temporal scale, most of epidemiology, rely largely on observation, testing specific hypotheses with experimentation when possible (which, these days, is more often than you might think.) Are you seriously denying that all of these are sciences?
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Yeah - true - there are spoilt children everywhere. I often hear them shouting "it's not fair ... but you PROMISED" when things don't go as planned & expected. and in discussions like this, the "children" are over 20 who should know better
all science can do is make predictions based on current knowledge, known facts, and best hypothesis. If "many people" can't accept that ... well what can you do?
I know that a million tons sounds like a lot, but consider that the total atmosphere is estimated at about 5,000 trillion metric tons. A million is only .00001% of a trillion.
I think that as humans we tend to think about things in relation to our own scale. If we live in a city, we look around us at the density and activity of other humans and extrapolate that as the norm. We forget that the majority of the earth's surface is undeveloped. Also, 6 billion people sounds like a lot of people, but they would all fit comfortably in the grand canyon.