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
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.
Go somewhere random
That's because HP printers have Ozone Emissions. Thanks HP for saving the World.
My city: Barcelona.
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?
Did you read the article? "It concludes that about half of the recent trend is due to CFC reductions."
that geeks have lost their only excuse for not using deodorant ?
It's not like CFCs are fine now according to the article,
And later in the same article:
Secondly, the Montreal Protocol was about the ozone depletion in other areas like Northern Europe and Canada, not just the hole over Antactica.
If one wants to argue that ozone depletion was nothing to worry about or some kind of myth, one needs to refer to sources beyond this article since that's not what it says.
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.
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....
The people in the southern reaches of the southern hemisphere do not think it is a hoax: the incidence of skin cancer mushroomed in southern Chile as the hole in the ozone increased. Not the end of the world, but a real and ongoing health hazard.
There is proof that certain human activities are capable of damaging the ozone layers. Enough experiments were done that the possibility certainly exists.
The ozone layer was depleted more severely than known natural processes could account for. This is also pretty much fact.
Beyond that, it's basically an educated guess as to which of the following is more likely-
Are there ozone depleting natural reactions we are completely unaware are even possible?
Are the known natural processes happening with greater frequency than we currently are aware of?
Are human activities the primary cause?
Is the truth a mix of all three, and if so, what proportion is each effect?
And most importantly, regardless of the cause, is the question "What should we do about it?". Obviously we dont' want the ozone layer to go away completely. But whatever measures are taken to protect it must be moderated by an attempt to keep from throwing the rest of the ecosystem out of balance. It would do little good to restore the ozone layer only to throw the world into nuclear winter(extreme example, but it illustrates the point). It would be very bad to restore the ozone layer if an ozone depletion/restoration cycle was part of the Earth's natural housekeeping.
I haven't researched enough to really give many answers, just pointing out that there are important questions that almost never seem to get addressed in public releases. I'm sure a lot of this has been covered in the studies and experiments that led up to the ozone hole controversy, but very little of it seems to get into the public eye.
If the hole has been recovering since then why are scientists blaming mankind for the current increase in temperatures.
Because the ozone hole and global warming are two totally separate phenomena. They are both caused by pollution, but different kinds of pollution-- in simple terms, the ozone hole is caused by CFCs, global warming is caused by greenhouse gases. In the 80s, we stopped using CFCs, and since CFCs take a few decades to fall out of the atmosphere, now that a few decades have passed the ozone hole is starting to get better. In the 80s we did not stop our emission of greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide), so global climate change / global warming is still getting worse.
Of course, carbon dioxide takes longer to fall out of the atmosphere than CFCs, so even if we entirely ceased carbon dioxide emissions tomorrow (which we probably couldn't even if we really wanted to without bringing civilization to its knees) we shouldn't expect to see things returning to normal for maybe a couple hundreds of years. But at least we could stop making things worse.
Repairing the ozone hole is not helping global warming for the same reason that if your computer's power supply is on fire, you cannot fix this by reinstalling Windows. If you thought that repairing the ozone hole would stop global warming, it is because you are confused.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I'm a sociopath because I would protect the beaty that belongs to everyone from those who would destroy it for profit? I think you're confused.
Apparently the fumes given off by photocopiers are Ozone. I'm doing my bit for the enviroment by copying documents at work unnessecarily.
My boss says it's a waste of time and money though. He doesn't give a shit about the enviroment I guess.
Nobody of any real value has ever said that ozone has anything to do with global warming, they're completely different things.
Your tires being flat have nothing to do with your lack of washer fluid.
Ozone reflects UV rays (UVC I believe, or possibly UVA, I don't remember which), Ultra Violet is in no way responsible for the warming of anything. Pollutants and greenhouse gasses are what cause global warming (which, ironically could plunge us into another ice age), in greenhouse gasses do not do anything to ozone.
Chlorine is a catalyst in the breakdown of O3 (Ozone) into O2 + O (Oxygen molecule and single oxygen atom), being a catalyst means that it isn't affected in the chemical process (think about it as a traffic light, it lets the ozone break down, but the ozone has no effect on the chlorine).
In fact, I believe ozone, itself, is a greenhouse gas, so, were it the ozone hole the only thing to worry about, the planet would actually be getting colder. This is not to say that we should get rid of ozone because it's causing global warming, that's just being moronic. Ozone has a purpose, the purpose has nothing to do with heat.
I'm sorry, I must have got something wrong...
How exactly does this differ from our current situation?
Smog excluded, this is what every room with a smoker present looks like to me.
Ignore this signature. By order.
Can I get an "amen"?
No...seriously...I think we need one...
barack to the future?
People fart methane, not CFC... methane is a greenhouse gas; this joke is good, keep it for an article about global warming.
So say we all
You don't live in the southern hemisphere, do you? I used to live in southern Brazil, now I'm living in Spain. In the first few days I was here I could already tell the sun burns much, but much less here than there (and I had thermometers both there and here, so I say it's not the temperature). Reports were saying that the ozone layer where I used to live were already 27% thinner than what it should be. I couldn't go to the beach without a 50 FPS sunscreen. You say "bullshit", but I say "skin cancer risk".
So say we all
The best lecture on global warming I've ever read is this:
s _quote04.html
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeche
If you are going to do something, it is best to know what it takes to screw up your endeavor before approaching sucess.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Although decisions about balancing conservation with economic benefits have already been made democratically you choose to elevate your own opinions above the collective opinion of others. As a result of your self granted position of superiority you then choose to break the law and endanger the lives of employees of the timber and construction industry who are (after all) only trying to provide for themselves and their dependents.
And you think the GP is confused - geez . . .
Now seriously, don't let anyone ignore one of the sentences in the article:
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
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
Can this guy ever get a break? He just released a movie called An Inconvenient Truth telling us that the sky was falling. Now we learn its staying right where it has always been all along even with Chimpy McHaliburton in charge. My God, the next thing you will read is that the ice is getting thicker in Antarctica and Greenland.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Must be the better methods of detecting skin cancer and the wider access to medical services over time. If more people are being examined, more conditions will be found.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Well, I'm so glad you're a "rabid environmentalist". Too bad you're incredibly stupid as well. Do you realize that spiking trees only causes more of them to be cut down to replace the spiked ones (the spiked logs are rolled off and discarded -- wasting wood), the production of more steel saw blades to replace the ruined ones (causing more mining and energy usage) and the artifical increase of all wood products?
All this, just to satisfy some inner glee you have at causing a short and wasteful disturbance in the production line.
No, you are confused.
However what you've said is fascinating. You heard about the ozone hole and global warming at the same time so you've incorrectly held this belief that they are strongly related. The Bush government used a similar trick to sway the public into thinking 9/11 justified a war in Iraq; a poll found approximately 70% of US citizens believe that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attack. I wonder how many other misconceptions come into being because people heard two unrelated things at roughly the same time.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Since we have reduced CFC's in the past 20 years one would assume it would do something.
You know... We don't use CFC in our hair spray, styrofoam, air conditioners, and so on anymore.
Considering we've cut back so much... Wouldn't you think that would explain the ozone recovering?
That are we have more pirates these days.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I have been trying to filter through the conflicting reports over the years to decide what I believe about the condition of the ozone layer. It seems that there are several contributors to the condition and we don't have a good handle on their interactions or significance of contribution to the depletion or recovery of the ozone. If I understand correctly this article would have me believe that if I make a personal sacrifice to "help" the ozone layer it may contribute but my failure to make that sacrifice may be outweighed by some naturally occurring phenomenon that keeps the environment in balance...
The whole global warming was supposedly from the Ozone hole being as large as it was at the current point in time. If the hole has been recovering since then why are scientists blaming mankind for the current increase in temperatures.
I think I post for us all when I say: "YOU'RE A RETARD".
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
At the same time, I guess you don't believe things such as ice ages and other natural climate changes either. I don't argue whether humans are creating global warming or not. There is data going both ways. If there is data that suggests a particular event or substance can hurt the environment, than I'll support any policy that works towards eliminating it. That said, I still find it hard to believe that humans, as powerful as they can be, can alter a planet in such a limited time scale. Earth is measured in millions and billions of years, yet all the items you and other lists as killing the planet have only been around say 200 years. There's a few orders of magnitude difference in those.
I'll spend more money protecting the environment when activist realize the sky isn't falling and I'm not going to buy a freakin camel for transportation because we ignored economics and just drop everything harmful. And no, I don't drive an SUV. My car gets around 25 MPG (measured from its display).
Another article also notes that the city (can't remember which) with the highest level of skin cancer is exactly the same distance from the south pole as Washington DC is from the north pole. Last I recall, the ozone hole didn't extend over DC.
Why, it is about the same thing. Climate model were run about 6 months ago wich adjusted some details well within the margin of error for the data anmd the results were totaly different. Actualy the result showed nothing about global warming is the fault of driving SUVs and that it wasn't happening.
No you're a sociopath because you gleefully engage in activities that can kill people.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
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.
Deforestation and burning of fossil fuels. Just compare the effect that humans have had with whatever previous effects you can imagine, ie natural effects. Are human effects insignificant compared the natural effects when it comes to changing the environment on a global scale?
First the ozone hole over Antarctica. Is just idiotic. Sure it's there, but here's why. Ozone is produced by sunlight striking oxygen in the stratosphere, it splits and forms a heavy bluish gas O3 Ozone. Ozone is destroyed by UV radiation striking O3 in the stratosphere, breaking it back into single O, which then instantly forms into a combination of O2 and O3. Ozone is like the froth of water at the beach, it's always going to be there. You have to completely remove the water, or remove the beach to get rid of it. And just like the beach the amount of froth depends on the waves coming in, they change on a cycle with the tide. Well the sunlight striking the earth changes too. It's a 100 and some odd year cycle. The peak of that cycle was 1995. right around the time scientists noticed the thinning and holes. As we move away from 1995 the thinning will continue to go away, the holes fill in, and the planet cool until 100 years from now it will be global cooling not global warming on everyone's lips. Most of the ozone is produced over the equator, because it receives more consistant sunlight. So the Ozone that is produced is warm. Antarctica is a huge deep massive sheet of ice. It produces a very cold air above and around it. (Sailors discribe it as an instantanious wall, warm one second then get out the parka the next when sailing to Antarctica.) It's dark 6 months or so of the year because it's above the antarctic circle. Cold air displaces warm air. That's why a hot air balloon can float. The cold air of antarctica displaces the warm ozone out of the area. Since it's dark for the 'winter' months, no ozone is produced because no sunlight hits the area. Scientists have repeatedly stated, that the hole seems to fill in around October. (antarctic spring) and reform in March or April (the onset of winter). The hole isn't going anywhere, it's exists only because of the cold air. The north pole does not contain anywhere near as much ice, so does not experience the wall of cold that antarctica gets, so it is only thinning there during the winter months when it's dark.
It's been pretty well demonstrated that the damage to the ozone layer was helping to keep the earth cool. If it repairs itself, global warming will happen even faster! Quick! Everyone back to air conditioners that actually work and armpit spray! Hurry! Hurry!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
From TFA:
Indeed, the 2005 ozone hole was one of the biggest ever, spanning 24 million sq km in area, nearly the size of North America.
I guess your theory is wrong.
post hoc, ergo propter hoc , e.g. a logical fallacy, i.e. not necessarily causitive.
I'm cool like a fool in a swimming p-p-pfft-pool
Try 25%. And that figure's from the Bush DOE. I'll leave how that impacts your argument as an exercise.
Try 25%. And that figure's from the Bush DOE. I'll leave how that impacts your argument as an exercise.
So its pirates then?
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
From the article:
"While the ozone hole over Antarctica continues to open wide, the ozone layer around the rest of the planet seems to be on the mend."
OK, so the ozone hole over Antarctica "continues to open wide", and you're telling me that the ozoner layer is improving? WTF? O.o
Arguments like this always sound sensible to the uniformed and uneducated, but they are totally lacking in any predictive powers. The problem with your argument is that you fail to quantify any of your statements. Yes, sunlight produces ozone from diatomic oxygen, but at a rate that is dependent upon the solar flux and oxygen concentration. That rate can be measured in the lab. CFC's catalyze the destruction of ozone. The rate at which this occurs can also be measured in the lab. Going through all of the reaction processes, you can build up a set of coupled differential equations describing the change in the concentrations of the various molecular species with time. Your hand wavy description of your theory describes nothing. If you want to contradict the atmospheric chemists, then show where the chemical reaction rates are wrong, or show where they are missing a reaction pathway. That would be a convincing argument. This drivel is just a rationalization for ignoring the science. Why is the ozone hole important when the cold, long antarctic night indicates that we should expect the ozone concentration to decrease? Because it forms a natural experiment. Since sunlight mediates the production of ozone, removing that production term from the set of reaction pathways allows you to study the combination of terms which remove ozone from the atmosphere. What is important is the rate at which the ozone hole forms. It provides a sensitive test on the reaction pathways which remove ozone from the atmosphere. There are natural as well as anthropogenic source terms to the reaction pathways which affect the ozone concentration. Many of the natural terms are produced randomly, such as sulfuric acid production from volcanos. Long term predictions of these effects must use average values for these random terms. As a result they will sometimes be high and sometimes low. There is nothing surprising about the difference between the predictions and the current measurements. You would expect them to disagree somewhat. The issue is whether the divergence from the model predictions is larger than the expected variations due to the historic values of the natural source terms. The next step would be to inventory the actual production rates for the natural contributions and see if they differ from the average values used by the models in such a way as to account for the differences. Don't be surprised if they do. They chemistry is pretty fundamental and well understood.
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.
Ozone hole comes from CFCs.
Greenhouse effect comes from CO2 and H2O emissions.
The ozone hole thing was kind of crappy science anyway, when the sensors were created to look at the ozone layer, the hole was already there. There's no evidence it wasn't supposed to be there. And my understanding is it shrunk in Winter 2004-2005 versus Winter 2003-2004.
Plus, the angle the light hits the atmosphere there at the pole is so low that the UV is filtered out anyway, without the need for a thick UV layer (think of how at sunset when you view the sun at a low angle through more atmosphere the blue/violet is filtered out and so the sky turns orange).
The greenhouse effect is something different. The total scope of it is perhaps a bit up in the air too, but knocks against the ozone situation do not undermine the greenhouse effect.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
when was the last time you went to a lecture on the ozone hole?
I went to one last year where all those questions were addressed.
So you're using "Friends of the Earth" as a source URL ? They might be kind of biased.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
Perhaps this is just the result of a self-maintaining O2/O3 cycle, in response to our destruction of upper O3.
Oxygen can be broken by UV, but splitting it mixes a lot of free O atoms with the existing O2, encouraging Ozone production. Ozone blocks UV, and Ozone lifts itself slowly to our upper atmosphere, protecting the Oxygen (and us) below. So long as there's sufficient Oxygen available to feed this process, you can view this as a self-maintaining cycle, where depleted Ozone will be (slowly) responded to by increased Ozone production in the lower atmosphere, because O2 there is now being struck by more UV. That Ozone will rise and eventually protect the lower O2, and so presumably Ozone production would drop off again as the balance is restored.
So, perhaps the increase in lower stratospheric Ozone is perfectly explained by this self-balancing nature of sunlight, O2, and O3. The zone with increased production is exactly the zone you'd expect in this balance to increase production after a depletion in the upper atmosphere: the layer directly below, rich with O2. This could be tested for in part by testing for a recent reduction in O2 in the same area, in line with the increase in O3.
Other explanations include our increased O3 production (pollution) making its way gradually into the lower stratosphere. It's possible both of these are combining to cause this, as most natural events tend to be the result of many contributing factors.
So this means I can take off the sunscreen and glasses now?
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
You know, there can be more than one cause for a given phenomenon. Some parent post already talked about the polar holes being caused by weather so wouldn't it be logical to assume that they are cyclic in expansion/shrinking and therefore not considered for long-time trends?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Yes. Humans also accept gravity as a fact when it has never been proven.
You cannot prove physics because that would require testing ALL input configurations. Who knows, perhaps if you hold a stone the right way and drop it it'll fall up instead of down. "It's not proven" is a popular claim for nonscientific doubters of a theory but it's utter nonsense when we're talking about physics. You cannot prove ANY "law" of the universe. You can only observe how a system acts after reaching a certain configuration and draw conclusions to form theories but you can never prove your theory.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
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
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?
As you said, convenience; a hole that we have to take steps to fix is inconvenient, hence the disbelieve. A hole that is now closing faster than expected is very convenient, hence the belief.
You see the same sort of thing in all sorts of situations; people are naturally predisposed to believe the things that agree with the beliefs they already hold, and that make life easier for themselves. (There are of course people who tend to believe the worst, too, but they tend to be in a minority)
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Earth is measured in millions and billions of years, yet all the items you and other lists as killing the planet have only been around say 200 years. There's a few orders of magnitude difference in those.
What a strange argument. A bullet can end a life in milliseconds that had until then been going perfectly well for decades; that's a similar order of magnitude difference in timescale, and it's a man-made effect.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Mad parent -1 pseudoscience?
There's too many statments in that post that should have been qualified with "probably".
This is a problem with popular understanding of both sides of any politicised science debate.
Feel stupid yet? You may want to learn what a catalyst is. Especially the bit about how they don't get used up in reactions.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
Nobody has ever satisfactorily explained how periodic holes in the ozone at the poles threaten anyone other than those who live at extreme latitudes.
Oh well that's all right then isn't it? Just as long as the holes didn't get too big, and we didn't live too far away from the Equator, we'd be fine!
It's official. Most of you are morons.
My A/C isn't working in my car, so I scheduled a conversion from R-12 to R-134a for next week. I found a shop that did R-12 repair, but since everything is going R-134a I figured I might as well just bite the bullet and do the conversion. Any chance of R-12 making a comeback? Should I cancel the conversion and just stick to R-12?
Large swaths of the earth (i.e. a large part of China) were deforested centuries ago.
The conceit of many people who think 'we've screwed it all up in the last century' is staggering.
Once upon a time, Billy wanted a pet tarantula.
His parents thought it was A-OK for Billy to have whatever he wanted, and didn't have much concern for the World-At-Large, or for whatever shiny thing struck Billy's fancy.
Billy's Tarantula was exciting for about a month. During that time, it was a spectacle all his friends oohed and ahhed over. They talked about how hairy it was, what it would be like to be the same size as it, how they would ride it, and the wretched giddily when it molted.
Then Billy saw a show about a Moose. He let the tarantula go outside.
--This is the view from the selfish human perspective. Earth creatures slower or dumber than humans are free to do with what the humans please. Who cares what remains of them after a generation or two.
Neon fish loose in the wild?
Crafted strains of corn contaminating traditionally (painstakingly) *bred* varieties? (See: Transgenic Maize)
Reproduction is a crucial part of the genetic information exchange equation. See: Mule If you go messing around with the normality of reproduction, you get all kinds of unpredictable results The Nazis messed around with all of this before.. (Godwin!)Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
The melamona incidence rates in Australia and New Zealand are around four times higher than those found in Canada, the UK and the US. (from Cancer Council Australia).
Along with Australia, New Zealand has the highest skin cancer rates in the world. New Zealand also has the highest melanoma mortality rate in the OECD. (from Cancer Society NZ)
Pasty white english tourists coming from northern hemisphere winter with no tan and no sunscreen get sunburnt in 15 minutes in the midday sun of our summers.
Are you seriously suggesting that the US isn't as good at looking for and diagnosing skin cancer as southern hemisphere countries?Here is a website just chock fucking full of interesting facts about how our auto and energy interests have colluded to keep the costs of energy high enough to be massively profitable to them, and the barriers to meaningful competition from cheaper, more efficient energy sources outrageously high. In fact, as you can probably tell from the link title, there's shortly going to be a little film about the untimely death of the electric car, which would have for 90% of us suited just fine as an around-the-town vehicle. I would say that a car that kept demand for gasoline low and improved energy efficiency would have neutralized the phony "threat" from oil-bearing Iraq by kicking the props out from under Saddam's economy, had we started to implement it 10 years ago when it was introduced. Wouldn't that have been nice? We could have used meaningful economic sanctions against the bastard and forced him to come into the modern world. I'm sure 2,600 dead American soldiers would have been happy with that choice, as well.
My book, podcast
From the link:
"Large increases in UV-B associated with the AOH have been measured with increases in UV-B at 297 nm of up to 38 times those of similar days with normal ozone. Recently we reported significant increases in sunburns during the spring of 1999 on days with low ozone because of the AOH."
If the deforestation from 'centuries ago' was harmful, is that a sound reason to accelerate deforestation today?
This is exactly the kind of response I expected. These topics always bring out people with a political agenda skewing their science.
Unfortunatly those are all great details of the trees, but you just missed the big picture of the forest.
The Ozone hole is a natural phenomenon, a cycle of nature.
The hole is simply a product of a naturally thinning ozone layer, and cold air displacement. And these theories of CFC's eating the spare Oxygen molecules are a ridiculous stretch. No matter the concentrations of CFCs that your theory says might actually make it to the stratosphere, (dubious at best) it is still outnumbered billions to one by O1 and O2 that will more likely form O3 than become entangled with the CFCs.
What was the name of it? Who were the lecturers? Where are the papers?
ROFL
only trying to provide for themselves
So are drug dealers and common thieves. That's no excuse.
So, in other words, the thieves of our shared natural resources are going to be stubborn. That's their fault, not mine. If they want to harvest wood, they can grow their own wood on their own property. If they bribe the government into letting them steal public natural resources, their own property will be attacked and destroyed. Their stubbornness is not my fault or my problem. It just means I have to work harder to make their activities unprofitable.
Hi guys. We had the CFC-discussion here many years ago. Nice to see that you CAN change the world.
When I read about the Montreal Protocol, it comes to my mind, that there is another, VERY important thing, that should be done: the Kyoto Protocol.
Its so sad to see that America as on of the main emissioner of greenhouse gases has not joined the Kioto protocol which trys to lower emissions of greenhouse gases below the level of 1990. See Wiki.
The answer is yes, me.
Where do activist come in on this? If a total asshole tells me "driving at night with the light off is dangerous" - does that cause me not to switch on the light? Why should I care whether someone I don't like is right about something or not? In a "yes/no" situation even morons should be right 50% of the time, so we shouldn't be surprised to encounter morons on each side of a debate.
If deforestation from centuries ago didn't make the sky fall, why does chicken little think it will now?
You're the one with a political agenda. I'll listen to the side that presents data. So far, you have not. All you've offered is hand waving and bad analogies.
You're not serious about that analogy right? I would agree if you're comparing some massive weapon or soemthing hitting a very specific part of earth may end the planet as we know it. And I may even agree with you if you hit earth with an object with an equally as large/dense object things would change. What I was saying, and you obviously didn't get, is that we don't have enough experience or know-how to understand all the effects in our highly complex environment. The Earth goes through changes on its own. We could trigger one or alter one, but we just don't know. So I disagree with everyone one who has taken a side. Smog sucks, SUVs suck, but I have to get on with my life with what we have...that's plain economics.
If a total asshole tells you something that is obviously not true, that you'd be the idiot for not applying your own common sense. My common sense tells me we don't know shit about what is going on and that there are defintely ways we can improve, but just bashing SUVs is such naive comment.
I agree the current global warming science lacks a lot of, well, science. I think it's better than the ozone hole stuff, but it's far from iron-clad.
I have to admit I am a bit skeptical about the global warming stuff, since I too remember in the 70s how we were told of the concerns of global cooling. And I also remember how when I moved to California in 1993, the lack of rain was due to global warming, while now the huge amount of rain we receive is said to be due to global warming. And don't forget the ever-popular blaming of two more active hurricane seasons than normal on global warming.
Global warming is a Chupacabra. Everything we see that can't (and perhaps needent) be explained is blamed on it.
I'm not writing it off though, global warming might be true. And it might even be man-made. I don't know if I buy the end of the world (huge sea level changes) theories though, since if the planet's system were that unstable, it wouldn't have stayed so similar though years of sunspot/waxing/waning cycles and countless volcanic eruptions.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Must be the better methods of detecting skin cancer and the wider access to medical services over time.
If this were the case, then the deaths due to skin cancer should be going down.
They have been increasing in Australia and New Zealand.
Right on. Wish I could mod you up.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
I don't have alink to it. I heard about it on CNN or fox news while watching one of thier news programs. This study didn't show anyhitng about a link (or not) to global warming. It show how any number of things could be included or excluded to predetermin the outcome of a study on global warming.
The guy said that when you use certain items in the climate models without considering other aspects of the same data, you will automaticaly come to the predefined conclusion. He also said that when you include more information like maybe 50 more years of information, the outcome is radicaly different. There were plenty of isolated points of information that could take it one way or the other. In each pulished study, details could have been added that were included in other studies wich would have reversed the outcome. They discussed lots of those details but i don't remeber then off the top of my head.
It apears that most all global warming discusion is agenda driven. It may not exist otherwise.
...maybe - just maybe - CFCs didn't have as much to do with it as we were told. Maybe, just maybe, the atmosphere is more complicated than we understand and maybe, just maybe, it would be a good idea to study problems before we base public policy on suppositions. Of course, we needn't do that with global warming, after all, we've got all the information we need on that in order to commit trillions in public resources, excuse me, American resources. Everyone knows that the US is the wholly responsible for it. Just because Europe missed its quotas by billions of tons and the third world never had any is no reason to absolve the United States of its culpability, right? Right?!
SUVs are certainly not the root of all evil. However given that we have very strong indications that there is a climate problem, switching large sections of transportation from normal cars to SUVs is obviously counter productive. I don't think it's wrong to apply common sense there, too.