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
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
The best lecture on global warming I've ever read is this:
s _quote04.html
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeche
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!"