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."

Comments

The Green Brigade will be foaming at the mouth

[bheer]

but this is how science progresses. Wherever you see a scientist take a stand saying, "hmm, that's odd, I wonder why that happened" there's a chance that real discovery and a real increase in our understanding can happen.

People who trot out wildly extrapolated results from global warming simulations ("OMG NY will under water by 2100!") sound to me like the same people who predicted city-sized computers back in the 50s because there was no way their simulations could have predicted microelectronics.

Climate is a complex system with many variables, human output being only one of them. Frankly, I've always held the greens would have a much better case if they focused on quality-of-life improvements brought about by cleaner air than by trying to create artificial energy regulations in the name of global warming (which *is* happening, but it doesn't necessarily follow that humans are the sole factor).

But hey, there's a reason green and left politics go together-- sticking it to big industry is a good way of sticking it to the Man.

Re:science wrong so science wins

[malsdavis]

I think its all about 'margin of error'. Predictions may have a 1%, 5% or even 15% margin of error. The complex nature of ozone layer recovery (like all climate predictions) means the error margin is bigger than say predicting radioactive decay (which has a very small but still definate error margin). What pisses me off is when idiots (normally with vested interests) take that 10% possible margin of error and try to pretend it means that the theory could have a 100% margin of error. As a very small group of certain 'so called scientists' are still trying to do with global warming.

Re:This brought to you by...

[ccarson]

Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 10 years. I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in sub-atomic physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be effected by magnetic fields. I keep hearing about the increased activity of our Sun (it's been getting hotter) and I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth and the Sun is spewing out more heat, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this? Besides, how can you explain the recent same climate changes on Jupitor and Mars. I've been bouncing this idea in my head for a while now and I can't see why this MAY not be true.

More important than money

[Alfred, Lord Tennyso]

Yes, there are, but who gets to decide what they are?

Science gets a special place in making those decisions. If it says, "The sky is going to fall if you don't do this, no matter what it costs", they (we, actually; I'm a scientist) merit special attention. People stopped using CFCs on scientists' say-so, for an ozone hole most people never noticed.

That means that they have to be right. Scientists get that pass because they're so often right. When they're wrong, especially on big stuff, it chips away at that special voice scientists have.

You're right that there are things more important than money. But we have to agree on what those are; no individual gets to say, "The ozone hole is the most important thing in the world and you have to spend your money to fix it!" The same applies to any other issue: global warming, fisheries management, logging, etc.

You may spend your money any way you like, but when you start reaching into somebody else's pocket to solve problems you'd better be damn sure you're right.

Re:Unexplained phenomenons

[porcupine8]

Simple selective breeding was having enormous effects on domestic plant species long before we could go right into their DNA. Creating things that could never evolve in a humanless wild environment, and could not survive outside of domesticity today. There's little evidence that this is an inherently bad thing - in fact, I'm currently reading a book that posits that domestication of plant and animal species was actually an evolutionary step to symbiosis that benefitted the plants and animals more than the humans initially, though now it benefits both equally. And certainly, domesticated species seem to have a huge evolutionary advantage over their rapidly-dwindling wild relatives thanks to their symbiotic relationship with humans.

Most of the arguments I've heard against GM are based on the idea that it's just a creepy and icky thing to think about. Personally, I also think that eating bugs is creepy and icky to think about, but people do that all over the world.