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
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
The best lecture on global warming I've ever read is this:
s _quote04.html
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeche
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
God? Everyone knows it is really the Flying Spaghetti Monster that controls these things. If we would just increase the number of pirates in the world (http://www.venganza.org/) then global warming would reverse!
Can someone tell me why the above idiotic pablum is rated at a 4? Saying that CFCs "separate from air like oil and water" because they differ in molecular weight is so unbelieveably incorrect as to be lughable. and blaming the current "energy pinch" on the abandonment of CFCs in favor of HCFCs? hilarious. the above post is little more than contrarian cospiracy weaving cluelessness. hint: posts SOUNDING informative are NOT always such!
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
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.
Hint: this has been the case since we started killing other animals for food and started growing our own crops. GM foods change this not one bit.
Neon fish loose in the wild?
Which will die off rapidly because they aren't fit to survive in the wild, being more noticable to predators.
Crafted strains of corn contaminating traditionally (painstakingly) *bred* varieties?
ROFL. "traditionally bred varieties". Do you have any idea the contradiction you've introduced? "Bred" varieties *are* genetically modified, in that we used selective breeding to choose the genes we wanted expressed. The only difference, now, is that we have the technology to specifically manipulate DNA, rather than relying on the crude method of selective breeding.
Reproduction is a crucial part of the genetic information exchange equation.
And we've been messing with it for centuries, your example of the mule being an excellent case in point (thanks for making it for me, BTW).
And then you bring up non-sequitors about nazis and birth defects. Good to see you're up to arguing rationally, as opposed to responding with weak emotional pleas.