NASA Announces Record Ozone Hole

Was Wondering... by jazman_777 · 2006-10-20 17:52 · Score: 1, Interesting

Not long ago I was wondering, "whatever happened to the ozone hole?" It seemed that Global Warming had taken over as the looming apocalypse. So the obsoleting of Freon hasn't helped?

--
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.

Re:Was Wondering... by i+kan+reed · 2006-10-20 17:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

It had shrunk, up until this time, I was under the (obviously mistaken) impression that it had stayed shrunk.

I'm not a big jumping to conclusions kind of person, but there are signifigant environmental impacts on the creation of new upper atmospheric ozone as well. I think, although I could be wrong, that most atmospheric ozone is created by lightning causing chemical reactions. There could be some relationship there that's gone unaddressed. Regardless, this is hardly good news to hear.
Re:Was Wondering... by omegashenron · 2006-10-20 18:17 · Score: 4, Informative

The article states the following:
"these ozone-depleting substances typically have very long lifetimes in the atmosphere (more than 40 years).

Obsoleting Freon has helped, however it will take tens of years for the existing CFC/HFC/HCFC's etc gas levels to drop to acceptable concentrations.

--
Excuses Are Like Assholes - Everybody's Got One
Re:Was Wondering... by Alioth · 2006-10-20 19:29 · Score: 0, Redundant

Obsoleting CFCs (not just Freon) has helped, but it will take decades - CFCs linger for an awfully long time, depleting ozone for an awfully long time.

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Re:Was Wondering... by jesterzog · 2006-10-20 19:37 · Score: 1

It had shrunk, up until this time, I was under the (obviously mistaken) impression that it had stayed shrunk.

I heard it mentioned on the radio this morning that the ozone hole had been measured as the biggest ever so far. Confusingly, an interviewed scientist was also commenting that people shouldn't panic, because it was on a downward trend and was still expected to heal itself over the next so many decades. I'm not quite sure exactly what was meant, because under most circumstances I wouldn't intuitively consider a "largest ever recorded value" to play any part in a measured downward trend. It's possible that people in the know have other reasons to believe that it's still likely to go away, however.
Re:Was Wondering... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-20 20:44 · Score: 5, Informative
Confusingly, an interviewed scientist was also commenting that people shouldn't panic, because it was on a downward trend and was still expected to heal itself over the next so many decades. I'm not quite sure exactly what was meant, because under most circumstances I wouldn't intuitively consider a "largest ever recorded value" to play any part in a measured downward trend.

There are two possibilities that don't defy logic:
- The depletion of the ozone is increasing but the rate of increase is decreasing. Logically there will eventually be a point at which the depletion rate reaches a zero value and then goes negative resulting in a regeneration of the ozone layer.
- The record size hole was a statistical anomaly in data that showed that over a period of many years that the ozone layer is rebuilding. As long as the value of the statistical anomaly doesn't fall further than say 2.5 times the standard deviation from the curve fit, then it could have been just due to random error. And if it wasn't then the error would be systematic error but could probably be explained by changing climate conditions (such as Antarctica being colder than normal).
Re:Was Wondering... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-20 21:13 · Score: 2, Informative

The real problem is a hundred years of devices using freon rotting in dumps worldwide. There were projections of it rising for a number of decades before it started to drop perminately. Actual recovery will take a couple of hundred years. Recycling of the devices would help but most of the world isn't willing to spend the money and even the US has a poor record for recyling old refridgerators and such. Just imagine all the millions of rusting cars leaking freon from old AC units. Most refridgerators in this country don't use freon but there's still some older ones in service and oceans of them in dumps. Add to that old paint spray cans and hair spray cans. Look on the brightside how bad would it have been if we hadn't stopped? Australia and New Zealand might have been covered by the hole by now. I spent some time in New Zealand a half a dozen years ago and skin cancer was common there. People didn't tan they burned. Better to start recovery now than waiting there is no ozone layer and everyone is getting skin cancer. When I was growing up I had never heard of skin cancer. Now I'm one of the few people I know over forty that hasn't had it and I know people in their twenties that have had skin cancer. Teens and children are getting it. It's one of the great unspoken plagues.
Re:Was Wondering... by RockModeNick · 2006-10-21 00:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

Freon is much more dense than air. Rotting devices in landfills are not getting CFC's into the upper atmosphere. I'd look to substances with significantly more potential to end up there, like jet fuel burnoff, as being the source of ozone troubles.
Re:Was Wondering... by Dunbal · 2006-10-21 00:52 · Score: 0, Offtopic

It had shrunk, up until this time, I was under the (obviously mistaken) impression that it had stayed shrunk.

Just like a penis. Just because it shrank doesn't mean it won't grow again, given time and the right conditions. Cold showers don't do permanent damage.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Was Wondering... by MasaMuneCyrus · 2006-10-21 02:42 · Score: 1

Professor: "And what's this layer of ozone. That's never been there before!"
Re:Was Wondering... by cluckshot · 2006-10-21 02:53 · Score: 0

Go here NASA's TOMS to get the story or A really cool movie
On this issue would anyone watching the movie please get their head on streight. If you will note there is a correspondingly intense increase in the ozone layer north of the "hole" where the atmospheric conditions that create the hole revert back to their normal state and as a result the inhabited areas of South America, Australia and New Zealand are actually more protected than usual. Now I am sure some idiot is going to flame me for coming up and pointing this out but the whole CFC story is a damned hoax. The film proves it. The whole issue is the polar vortex and is the result of temperatures at altitude going below -205 C. Once the atmosphere warms above this level the resulting situation is that the ozone reaction reverts back to operation and the missing ozone reappears with a vengance.
As to the whole CFC thing. This is pure physics stuff here. CFC 12 is one of the lightest CFC's. It is 5.5 times more dense than air. What is more CFC's were picked for the job, not because they were the most efficient, though they were highly effective. They were picked in the 1920's and 1930's for the job because the CFC's were inert, and they were immissible with air. This ment that they could be easily made to fall from the work area if they leaked and the only danger they presented to workers was asphyxiation. They were entirely non-toxic. Inside the machinery they didn't cause rust or breakdown and they were easily seperated from air. If somebody were to look at a bottle of the CFC's they would find warnings about the pooling of the gas in low areas. IT SINKS IN AIR!
For the geeks out there who haven't studied Archemedes Principal, that 5.5 times heavier than air coupled with the fact that it doesn't mix with air, produces the same effect when CFC's are dropped into the atmosphere as dropping a solid steel cannon ball into a lake. Since there are noted to be no large collections of cannon balls floating on lakes the obvious conclusion here is that CFC's are highly unlikely to float up to the high atmosphere and cause any problems. They can't do it. They fall out. In fact CFC leak detection even in presence of a spouting upwards leak with pressure (I have witnessed this in person) is difficult unless you go below the leak site. I have also watched parts washing with CFC's and there too the employees encountered no CFC's above the pan. The appearance of CFC's in the upper atmosphere is as likely as floating cannon balls. To use the Computer geek term NULL!
The appearance of chlorine in the upper atmosphere is not unusual though. The Sea is full of the stuff. (Salt) Meteors have a substantial content of the stuff. Volcanoes kick it out massively. If the appearance of chlorine in the atmosphere was a threat to life on the planet, the greatest threat would be the ocean itself. (again this is a NULL reality) I know it is a religion with some people that CFC's are a problem.
The eliminated refrigerants were replaced with highly reactive chlorine compounds which when properly labeled by their true chemical content would be either Phosgene Gas or some similar compound. These are truly dangerous to the staff who works with them. If they are not phosgene they burn easily and become it. This cause HCl gas to form on contact with water. Talk about your atmospheric chlorine! This gas is most able to go to the upper atmosphere!
The whole CFC thing was a myth kicked off by Dupont as their patents on CFC's ran out. They wanted to kick CFC's off the market and push in some new patented compounds so they could keep getting royalties. Acutally the real environmental damage is from the fact that the substitutes are not only dangerous, they use a lot more energy to do the same job. As a result they cause the use of more gasoline and more electricity. This results in massive increases in pollution.
No

--
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
Re:Was Wondering... by Spruitje · 2006-10-21 03:32 · Score: 1

Not long ago I was wondering, "whatever happened to the ozone hole?" It seemed that Global Warming had taken over as the looming apocalypse. So the obsoleting of Freon hasn't helped?

No, NASA needs more money.
Everytime they run out of money there is another hole in the ozone layer.
Some years ago they also announced an ozone layer hole above eastern Europe.
They didn't count on the the Belgian KMI (Koninklijk Meteorologisch Instituut) which announced that the hole in question wasn't as big as NASA said it was and second that it was always there around that time of year.
In fact, that it was smaller than the year before.
Go figure.
So, everytime NASA announces a hole in the ozone layer it seems that they ran out of cash and needs more money.
Re:Was Wondering... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-21 03:45 · Score: 0

Is that statistical anomaly caused by a systimic reaction called The One?
Re:Was Wondering... by Keebler71 · 2006-10-21 04:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Not long ago I was wondering, "whatever happened to the ozone hole?" It seemed that Global Warming had taken over as the looming apocalypse. So the obsoleting of Freon hasn't helped?
Remember how this was supposed to be a global-warming induced horrible hurricane season?

--
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
Re:Was Wondering... by letxa2000 · 2006-10-21 06:14 · Score: 2, Informative

For the geeks out there who haven't studied Archemedes Principal, that 5.5 times heavier than air coupled with the fact that it doesn't mix with air, produces the same effect when CFC's are dropped into the atmosphere as dropping a solid steel cannon ball into a lake. Since there are noted to be no large collections of cannon balls floating on lakes the obvious conclusion here is that CFC's are highly unlikely to float up to the high atmosphere and cause any problems. They can't do it. They fall out.

Nice try. Grains of dust are trillions of times heavier than a molecule of air or CFC, and don't mix with it, yet they can be blown miles into the atmosphere and across oceans without immediately settling to the ground. The suggestion that CFCs can't reach the stratosphere based on their relative weight is entirely bogus. It'd be true if there were no air currents agitating the atmosphere, but that's not the case.
Re:Was Wondering... by Ninjaesque+One · 2006-10-21 06:20 · Score: 1

. . . Why shouldn't we give the people who are trying to get to Mars(and eventually rescue our now-far-more-intelligent butts off the planet whenever the sun decides to blow up) more money in order to get to Mars?

--
Ninjas and pirates. How piquant.
Re:Was Wondering... by Broken+scope · 2006-10-21 08:46 · Score: 1

When the sun blows up mars is gonna get taken out to buddy.

--
You mad
Re:Was Wondering... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-21 09:08 · Score: 0

Here is an interesting case where, for the matter of a reversal of summary judgment, an appeals court found that Freon in a mall air conditioner unit could be changed into phosgene gas.

If CFC's are as you say they are, why don't the world's physics and chemistry departments say something? Is DuPont truly that powerful?
Re:Was Wondering... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-21 09:40 · Score: 0

Not long ago I was wondering, "whatever happened to the ozone hole?" It seemed that Global Warming had taken over as the looming apocalypse. So the obsoleting of Freon hasn't helped?

Legislators/Regulators are not chemists.

I can guarantee that banning chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) will have had virtually no effect, as industry and manufacturers simply started using unregulated fluorocarbons (FCs) instead, which have essentially the same deleterious effect on the ozone layer.

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry as I watched that happen, but oh well, nobody ever listens to people who know. Today's profit is far more important than tomorrow's life support.

As for global warming, I'm sure the same kind of crap will happen. The trick is not to care. Fuck the future, we're here for a good time, not a long time.
Re:Was Wondering... by Alamais · 2006-10-21 11:05 · Score: 1

Exactly. When the sun goes red giant, we've at least got to be on Europa by then!
Re:Was Wondering... by tubapro12 · 2006-10-21 17:43 · Score: 1

Here's a novel idea... how about we trap stuff being put out by those old ionic air cleaners and "ship" it up to the stratosphere and release the stuff?
Re:Was Wondering... by khallow · 2006-10-21 18:07 · Score: 1

Freon does diffuse into the upper atmosphere. Heavy molecules diffuse slower and reach equilibrium at lower densities than light molecules, but they do get up there.
Re:Was Wondering... by Broken+scope · 2006-10-21 19:25 · Score: 1

BURN BABY BURN!!!!!!!!!

--
You mad
Re:Was Wondering... by RockModeNick · 2006-10-22 12:03 · Score: 1

With CFC's released at earths surface released, I agree, but not ones pretty well sealed in air conditioners under tons of other garbage, not at an appreciable rate. We're piling plunty of new garbage on top to keep it down, too. I'd be more concerned with ozone depleting chemicals put out by jet exhause much closer to the problem.
Re:Was Wondering... by someonehasmyname · 2006-10-22 19:16 · Score: 1

El Nino toned the season down this year, and it's expected to do the same next year.

--
Common sense is not so common.
Re:Was Wondering... by Daemonic · 2006-10-23 01:41 · Score: 1

I followed your link, and was thereafter directed to a book here: http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_11/i ndex.htm Which said:
These studies have shown that stratospheric ozone loss is caused by chlorine and bromine catalytic reaction. The source of stratospheric chlorine ultimately comes from photochemical breakdown of manmade chlorofluorocarbons released in the troposphere from human activities.
Re:Was Wondering... by khallow · 2006-10-23 11:01 · Score: 1

Didn't even think of that. I wouldn't count on air conditioners staying well sealed (assuming they started that way) in a landfill. And freon is pretty indestructible. Freon will probably be released from landfills of the appropriate era for a long time to come. But I wouldn't be surprised if most of such freon has already entered the atmosphere.
Re:Was Wondering... by RockModeNick · 2006-10-23 11:38 · Score: 1

I was doing more reading on this, and found this article, I like how much junk science it points out on both sides of the debate.
Re:Was Wondering... by RockModeNick · 2006-10-23 11:41 · Score: 1

And it would help if I posted it: http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/Robert Bidinotto/OzoneDepletion.html
Re:Was Wondering... by FirienFirien · 2006-10-26 01:00 · Score: 1

> 10.6 million square miles

I think that should answer your question.

--
Browsing with +2 to insightful posts and a higher threshold makes the average post seen seem a lot more ingenious

Damned if you do..... by Chas · 2006-10-20 17:53 · Score: 1

The temperature of the Antarctic stratosphere causes the severity of the ozone hole to vary from year to year. Colder than average temperatures result in larger and deeper ozone holes, while warmer temperatures lead to smaller ones. So if it's warmer, the ozone hole gets BETTER? It's global warming man!

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!

Re:Damned if you do..... by wasted · 2006-10-20 18:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

So if it's warmer, the ozone hole gets BETTER? It's global warming man!

If I remember correctly...

Ozone is created by lightning from thunderstorms.

The warmer the surface, in general, the more likely it is that thunderstorms will occur.

Antarctica is the coldest place on earth, therefore it is less likely that thunderstorms will occur in Antarctica, and less ozone will be produced in that area.

Consequently, we can assume that global warming would reduce the size of the ozone hole if that warming could be focused on Antarctica, or was at least proportional.

If anyone knows more than I on this, (yes, I am an old weather forecaster, but if you are sure of your data,) please correct me.
Re:Damned if you do..... by thre5her · 2006-10-20 18:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

According to Al Gore, a rise of 1 degree at the equator would mean a rise in 12 degrees at the poles. So, it seems that yes, global warming would foster the creation of ozone closer the poles. However, I don't think anyone wants to see more ice shelf fall into the oceans and turning Europe into a giant ice cube.
Re:Damned if you do..... by Andrew+Kismet · 2006-10-20 18:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

Something repeatedly bothers me. We act like global warming caused by humans means the end of days, but surely the earth has undergone far more cataclysmic changes (such as after supervolcanoes), even during the lifespan of humanity, and we've lived to tell the tale?
Perhaps it's just now that we're so widely knowledgeable (if not intelligent) about our world at large, we realise just how many people will be outright fucked over by the coming changes. I'm sure humanity will survive, regardless of what happens. Anyone recall Daisyworld and biodiversity versus adverse conditions from biology class?
Re:Damned if you do..... by beckerist · 2006-10-20 19:10 · Score: 3, Funny

holy crap, but the fact he just used Al Gore as a reference doesn't bother you?
Re:Damned if you do..... by pluther · 2006-10-20 19:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

We act like global warming caused by humans means the end of days, but surely the earth has undergone far more cataclysmic changes (such as after supervolcanoes), even during the lifespan of humanity, and we've lived to tell the tale?

Some of us have, anyway.
Sure, the earth has seen some big cataclysms in the past, which haven't wiped out all life on the planet. The big ass meteor that made the Yucatan peninsula 65 million years ago only wiped out about 90% of all species.
But even within, as you say, the lifespan of humanity, there've been some major catastrophes, that haven't wiped us out. A couple of ice ages, we weathered through (so to speak). And even more recently, plagues, war, famine, huge volcanic eruptions. Sure the human species have survived. Villages, towns, cities, nations, even entire civilizations have been wiped out, but humans survive.
Mostly, I just don't want to be part of one of the civilizations that gets wiped out.
The same can be said about population pressure. The more people there are, the greater the chance some big disease will come along to take care of the problem, or some asshole pushes the button and nukes us back to the stoneage. Either way, nature will adjust. She's just not as picky as I'd like about her methods.

--
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
Re:Damned if you do..... by Chas · 2006-10-20 21:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

"She's just not as picky as I'd like about her methods."

The problem is, when most people say this, by "discerning" or "picky", they automatically assume that THEY would be part of the population favored by such choice...

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Re:Damned if you do..... by Da+Fokka · 2006-10-20 23:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

Something repeatedly bothers me. We act like global warming caused by humans means the end of days, but surely the earth has undergone far more cataclysmic changes (such as after supervolcanoes), even during the lifespan of humanity, and we've lived to tell the tale?

Oh yes, we have survived. But barely. According to the Toba Catastrophe Theory the Lake Toba eruption reduced the total number of human beings to 1000-10000. We also survived the plague, which killed of a third of Europe's population in the middle ages.

But surviving doesn't mean a walk in the park. Yes. We would survive sea levels rising a couple of feet. I live in Holland and we've been fighting the water for centuries. Now, we're more prosperous than ever so we'll be able to build the dykes. But countries like Bangladesh (which floods like every two years already) would be in serious trouble and would not be able to do a thing about it.

Perhaps it's just now that we're so widely knowledgeable (if not intelligent) about our world at large, we realise just how many people will be outright fucked over by the coming changes. I'm sure humanity will survive, regardless of what happens. Anyone recall Daisyworld and biodiversity versus adverse conditions from biology class?

You are right if bare survival is your criterium of success. But I'd prefer to aim a little higher than that.

Oh and of course I am aware that I'm talking about global warming, which has very little to do with the hole in the ozone layer. But the point remains valid.
Re:Damned if you do..... by Orp · 2006-10-21 00:26 · Score: 4, Informative

My God where did you get your meteorology degree?

Tropospheric ozone is created by many things but is very reactive and does not last long. Lightning does produce ozone in the troposphere as does certain chemical reactions between anthropogenic pollutants.

Stratospheric ozone is created when high-energy ultraviolet light from the sun splits diatomic oxygen (O2) into oxygen atoms (O) which can combine with O2 to create O3. UV also splits O3 into O and O2, and there is constant creation/destruction of O3 in the strasophere. It reaches an eqilibrium which is a function of a bunch of things, but the end result is (a) the creation/destruction of O3 in the stratosphere "absorbs" the most energetic UV from the sun (which is good for life) and (b) this process heats up the stratosphere, making it one big inversion which has the nice side-effect of keeping thunderstorm updrafts from blasting into the mesosphere.

In order to undertsand why there is an ozone "hole" over Antarcitca you have to understand about the dynamics of the atmosphere. Most ozone is actually created in the tropical latitudes and is advected southward/northward via the Hadley Cell circulation. The polar vortex over Antarctica tends to inhibit mixing across its boundary, so stuff that gets in it tends to stay there. Ozone depletion due to CFCs tends to be greatest around this time of year when the Antarctic is entering Spring and the sun is beginning to interact with polar stratospheric clouds which are a major catalyst to the ozone depletion.

Anyone could look this stuff up in a recent undergraduate meteorology textbook. Just about all of the "Mod 5 : informative" posts in this thread are laughingly incorrect.

Same goes to the douche who thinks "CFCs are too heavy to get into the Stratosphere". I'm not going to bother to explain that one to you.

And finally, don't ever mention "global warming" and "ozone hole" in the same sentence as if they are related. They are not.

--
A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous, got me?
Re:Damned if you do..... by TheGavster · 2006-10-21 03:40 · Score: 1

Same goes to the douche who thinks "CFCs are too heavy to get into the Stratosphere". I'm not going to bother to explain that one to you.

Actually, I'd really like to hear an explanation. I'm not going to claim to know anything about CFC's, but if these gases really are heavier than air and don't readily mix with air, how exactly does a bucket of them in my back yard elevate itself to the upper atmosphere?

--
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
Re:Damned if you do..... by pablo1neum · 2006-10-21 04:00 · Score: 1

Stratospheric ozone is created in the upper stratosphere by ultraviolet. There is no lightning production of ozone in the stratosphere. The extremely cold stratospheric temperatures at an altitude of 20 km above the surface are part of the problem. Very tenuous clouds, called polar stratospheric clouds, form in the stratosphere during winter. Chemical reactions occur on the surfaces of the cloud particles to release chlorine into a form that leads to rapid ozone destruction. During 2006, the temperatures were much colder than average, making the ozone losses worse over Antarctica this year. it's important to recall that the cold temperatures would not do anything if chlorine and bromine levels were at their natural levels. Unfortunately, chlorine and bromine released from CFCs and halons are at very high levels right now, and will continue at high levels for at least another decade. Fortunately, production has been regulated and the ozone hole will probably be gone by about 2065. Greenhouse gases will actually cool the stratosphere. Hence, climate change will possibly make the problem worse over Antarctica. This cooling will probably not overwhelm the decreases of CFCs that will be seen in the coming decades.
Re:Damned if you do..... by Orp · 2006-10-21 04:18 · Score: 5, Informative

Same goes to the douche who thinks "CFCs are too heavy to get into the Stratosphere". I'm not going to bother to explain that one to you.

Actually, I'd really like to hear an explanation. I'm not going to claim to know anything about CFC's, but if these gases really are heavier than air and don't readily mix with air, how exactly does a bucket of them in my back yard elevate itself to the upper atmosphere?

Think of it this way: What is "air" in the first place? To a good approximation within the troposphere, it's a mixture of molecular oxygen (molecular weight = 32 grams/mol, 21%), molecular nitrogen (MW = 28 g/mol, 78%) and argon (MW = 40 g/mol, .9%). If the heaviest gases simply sunk to the bottom, we would be suffocated by argon near the ground and all of the nitrogen would be on the top of the atmosphere, with the oxygen in the middle.

The troposphere (tropos in Latin means "turning" or "mixing") is well-mixed and the relative ratio of the three aforementioned permanent gaes to one another is constant. If you introduce a heavier gas (higher MW) it will still get mixed into the lighter gases over time due to the winds. Brownian motion will also cause heavier gases to diffuse in a calm environment.

CFCs will spread laterally across the globe by the horizontal winds. Whenever there is a strong thunderstorm, updrafts will slam air, which originates near the ground, into the tropopause, the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Very strong updrafts can intrude into the bottom of the stratosphere where the tropospheric air mixes into the stratosphere. Once something gets into the stratosphere (if it's got a very small terminal velocity - think about strong volcanoes spewing ash) it tends to stick around because the stability of the stratosphere is so high (due to the temperature inversion I mentioned before).

Back to "heavier gases" for a moment. It is true that if you "pour" a heavy gas onto the ground it will spread out before mixing. There have been cases where CO2 (MW = 34) has seeped out of the ground and spread laterally, suffocating people (google Lake Nyos). But given a few hours of typical winds, the heavier gas will be diluted and over time mixes into the rest of the atmosphere, contributing slightly towards the atmosphere's own average molecular weight.

--
A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous, got me?
Re:Damned if you do..... by Illserve · 2006-10-21 04:27 · Score: 1

Antarctica is the coldest place on earth, therefore it is less likely that thunderstorms will occur in Antarctica, and less ozone will be produced in that area.

You guys missed the Funny button when modding him up. Try again.
Re:Damned if you do..... by nodrogluap · 2006-10-21 05:10 · Score: 1

It's a question of costs: displacing people, abandoning low lying structures, etc. It's enormous... in the trillions depending on how much sea level rises.
Re:Damned if you do..... by SailorThor · 2006-10-21 09:39 · Score: 1

Granted, electrical storms create ozone, but the bulk of the ozone related to the "ozone layer" is produced by UV ray incidence upon oxygen in the air. UV strips O2 into 2O-, and each O- then finds another O2 to "get with," hence O3. This is a highly dynamic process, and certain gases, when in the same layer of air, can interfere with the process.

--
We are only immortal for a limited time - Rush, Dreamline
Re:Damned if you do..... by Andrew+Kismet · 2006-10-21 13:03 · Score: 1

You are right if bare survival is your criterium of success. But I'd prefer to aim a little higher than that.

And you, along with anyone else, is free to try that -
but I am a player of Defcon, and understand that victory can mean less than 100,000 survivors.
Re:Damned if you do..... by khallow · 2006-10-21 18:05 · Score: 1

The problem is, when most people say this, by "discerning" or "picky", they automatically assume that THEY would be part of the population favored by such choice...
Of course, Nature would obviously favor a staggeringly handsome and intelligent person like me.
Re:Damned if you do..... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-21 20:56 · Score: 0

I too don't understand why these green terrorists want us to believe is human fault. Global warming is part of the normal cycle of weather in the earth, there have been other global warmings before, and we survived.

It's just part of live! The fittest ones will survive, so what? Isn't that what should be happening allways?

Other part is about the inconvenience and the economic cost of following the ideas of green terrorists, if we trash petrol the occidental civilisation will be lost! the cost will be enormous, and we will not prevent anything. I say, consume all you want, and live your life. Why care so much about preventing something that will happen anyway?
Re:Damned if you do..... by E++99 · 2006-10-23 05:01 · Score: 1

According to Al Gore, a rise of 1 degree at the equator would mean a rise in 12 degrees at the poles

Ah, which means that either A) a rise of 1 degree at the equator would mean a rise of 12 degrees at the poles, or B) Al Gore is the biggest gas bag in the history of the world, and every time he opens his mouth he melts more glaciers with his hot air than all other man-made causes combined. I'm going with........ B.
Re:Damned if you do..... by E++99 · 2006-10-23 05:12 · Score: 1

I am a player of Defcon, and understand that victory can mean less than 100,000 survivors.

Shouldn't be a problem. We probably came out of the last ice age with 100,000. We should be able to get through the next one with that many. Of course it will suck for the 5,999,900,000 who will die miserably. Of course scientists could try to figure out how to interrupt the ice age cycle, but then Al Gore might sneer at them, and they're pretty sensitive about that.

How High is the Ozone Layer? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-20 17:54 · Score: 0

The summary states that the whole is as large as North America, but what is the area of the ozone layer above North America?

Re:How High is the Ozone Layer? by gomoX · 2006-10-20 22:33 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Not too different from the area of North America.

--
My english is sow-sow. Sowhat?
Re:How High is the Ozone Layer? by Stripsurge · 2006-10-21 14:39 · Score: 1

Good question. Time to bust out some math here. This would make good grade exam question. Sorry I forget what grade this'd be for. All facts from Wikipedia.

Givin the Earth's average radius 6,372.797 km and the ozone is concentrated between 15 and 40km, calculate the area of ozone covering the equivalent of the land area of the United states, which is 9,631,420 km for anybody who has forgotten. Bonus points for taking into consideration the Earth's less than spherical shape. Also bonus points for not just averaging out the 15 and 40km.

Forget bonus points. Lets call the ozone layer 27.5km up. So add 27.5km to Earth's radius: 6,372.797 km = 6400 radius to the middle of the ozone layer. (Nice coincidence huh?

Now lets compare the ratios between the circumference at the earth's surface and the circumference at 27.5 km up

(pi*R(1)^2) / (pi*R(2)^2 ) = cancel out the Pis and 6400^2 / 6,372.797 km^2 = 1.0086

So the ozone layer would only be 1.0086 times bigger than the actual land mass.

_____________
=9 713 811km.|

In short... not much of a difference. You would have received full credit for simply stating "not much difference. The earth's diameter is huge compared to the thickness of the atmosphere."

I read about this by vought · 2006-10-20 17:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

four days ago.

Besides all the technical trinkets, is this where science ends up on Slashdot?

Pretty sad, if you ask me - game consoles and .mp3 players get higher billing than planetary changes - on the planet we live on?

Re:I read about this by tehSpork · 2006-10-20 18:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Meh, MP3 players and consoles come and go with a rapid speed that requires many news posts to keep track of. I haven't seen a Planet 2.0 with new and improved mineral deposits slated for release yet, my guess is that the project went overbudget and got cancled. :)
Re:I read about this by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-20 18:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

Pretty sad, if you ask me - game consoles and .mp3 players get higher billing than planetary changes - on the planet we live on?

It's because these global warming news are super depressing, anti-american, pro-terrorism and bad for the economy. We should collectively hush-hush these fairy-tales of evident destruction of human kind and just live in four year periods. Now, go back reading console news and smile. Remember - ignorance is strength!
Re:I read about this by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-20 18:36 · Score: 4, Funny

I for one, am looking forward to our improved sun tanning opportunities. UV kills parasites too. It's win-win here. Ozone layers are over-rated.
Re:I read about this by bruno.fatia · 2006-10-20 20:01 · Score: 1

We live on Earth, the 3rd planet on the solar system located in the Milky Way
Re:I read about this by Random+Destruction · 2006-10-21 02:05 · Score: 1

"...the solar system in the milky way?"

I don't think you'll ever get your packages delivered if that's all the accuracy you've got to offer.

--
:x
Re:I read about this by WilliamSChips · 2006-10-21 02:10 · Score: 1

Nah, the Magratheans are just sleeping.

--
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Re:I read about this by k-vuohi · 2006-10-21 03:04 · Score: 1

Section ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha?
Re:I read about this by CoderDevo · 2006-10-21 04:10 · Score: 1

I read about this four days ago.

Pretty impressive, considering NASA's original press release came out just 36 hours before this submission was accepted by a ./ editor as fiting the criteria of news for nerds. All of the other news sites reporting this story are referencing that same press release.

Where on the 17th did you read about this?

Sometimes... by God+of+Lemmings · 2006-10-20 18:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sometimes I wonder whether or not the ozone hole has always been there and we just noticed the hole one day and thought it was something special. I mean, the Earth is slightly egg shaped, doesn't it kind of make sense for the atmosphere to also not be spherical?

--
Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.

Re:Sometimes... by vought · 2006-10-20 18:10 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Sometimes I wonder whether or not the ozone hole has always been there and we just noticed the hole one day and thought it was something special.

Sure! Your intuition is far more powerful than 100 years of scien-ma-tific observation.

I mean, the Earth is slightly egg shaped, doesn't it kind of make sense for the atmosphere to also not be spherical?

Sure! As my butt is slightly egg-shaped, you can expect my farts to be egg-shaped as well. Wha? My farts intruded on your space? Must be bad science.

For fuck's sake, chief. Go back to eighth grade science class, then come back and post on slashdot. Willya?
Re:Sometimes... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-20 18:14 · Score: 0

amen, brother
Re:Sometimes... by vxvxvxvx · 2006-10-20 18:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sure! Your intuition is far more powerful than 100 years of scien-ma-tific observation. Well, admittedly science wasn't exactly at the same level in 1906 as it is today, especially for things like upper atmosphere composition.
Re:Sometimes... by Zorque · 2006-10-20 18:23 · Score: 2, Funny

And your fart joke certainly isn't of 8th grade calibur.
Re:Sometimes... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-20 18:32 · Score: 1, Informative

Well considering the hole in the Ozone layer was discovered in the eary/mid seventies and we have only been watching it since then, I'm guessing you need to go back to school and learn some basic math skills.
Re:Sometimes... by GimliGloin · 2006-10-20 19:00 · Score: 1

Sure! Your intuition is far more powerful than 100 years of scien-ma-tific observation.

Mod parent down as something other than funny... Its not...
Mod Grand-Parent up also because he has a good point.
Dude, his point was that it may be very possible that the O-Hole was always present before we had the means to measure it. You know, like "maybe" Pluto was around before it was discovered or that "maybe" global temps were fluctuating before man learned how to start fires...

It certainly seems possible that the fluctuating Ozone hole may be a naturally occuring process that has been happening for many many centuries AND thats its not because of BAD-HUMANS...

GSG
Re:Sometimes... by antifoidulus · 2006-10-20 19:09 · Score: 4, Funny

Dude, if your farts have a "shape" I would recommend some pepto bismol......

--
Monstar L
Re:Sometimes... by kfg · 2006-10-20 19:34 · Score: 5, Informative

Sure! Your intuition is far more powerful than 100 years of scien-ma-tific observation.

Although the presence of ozone in the atmosphere has been known for a bit over 100 years, knowledge of the presence of a permanent ozone layer is rather more recent. Man did not reach the south pole until 1912 and did not fly over it until 1929. The first permanent observation station at the south pole was not established until 1957. Meanwhile the ability measure the thickness of the ozone layer, from either ground or satellite is concurrent with the discovery of the ozone hole. Mid 70s through mid 80s. Although ballons have been flying into the stratosphere for a couple ticks over 100 years, we only got a good idea of its structure in the mid 80s when we sent up an instrumented U2. OP is right to the extent that we really know squat all about the history of the ozone layer.

Go back to eighth grade science class, then come back and post on slashdot.

I had just finished my undergraduate studies in physics when we first started acurately measuring the thickness of the ozone layer indirectly; and thus being able actually map it. Perhaps you have the advantage on me of only recently being out of the eighth grade.

KFG
Re:Sometimes... by Beefslaya · 2006-10-20 19:48 · Score: 1

"Sure! Your intuition is far more powerful than 100 years of scien-ma-tific observation."

Yes and I totally trust your great-great Uncle Ned sticking his dick in a hole in the ground, telling us what the relative humidity and humidity was 100 years back.

Get real man, the ozone knowledge and global warming studies are in the infantile stages. We have just developed the equipment within the last 10 to measure this shit.
Re:Sometimes... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-20 22:38 · Score: 0

Interestingly, when speculation about the hole first surfaced, scientists looked at the readings from a satellite set up to observe the ozone layer and said, wait, there's no hole htere. Then upon deeper inspection, they found that the software was programmed to throw out values outside of a certain range as bad data.

The ozone hole is not due to the shape of the earth, but rather wind patterns and the icy cold weather of Antartica. The ice crystals at high altitudes crack apart the ozone molecules. So it's possible that there's always been a hole down there, but it might be bigger or smaller depending on ozone levels elsewhere in the world, due to the wind patterns. It also varies by season.
Re:Sometimes... by Dunbal · 2006-10-21 00:43 · Score: 1

We have just developed the equipment within the last 10 to measure this

Err, 20 years actually. My doesn't time fly?

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Sometimes... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-21 01:07 · Score: 0

that "maybe" global temps were fluctuating before man learned how to start fires...

Durrr. Of course it was. And when it did a lot of stuff died. So answer this: Do you want to live? Or do you want to whine about how expensive it would be to try to save mankind and that we should all just give up now and have a big orgy and go out with a bang?

Personally I kind of lean towards the latter, but siding with corporate whores and sociopaths makes my skin crawl.
Re:Sometimes... by Woldry · 2006-10-21 03:03 · Score: 1

Is there a signup list for that orgy? I'm just askin' ...

--
How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?

Great by pete-classic · 2006-10-20 18:04 · Score: 0, Troll

So, after a precipitous drop in CFC emissions the problem continues to worsen. Any chance we were duped? If so, any reason I shouldn't assume we're being duped with all the bleating over carbon emissions?

-Peter

Re:Great by PhB95 · 2006-10-20 18:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

I heard when all this started that CFC made its way to upper atmosphere in a matter of 2-3 decades. So if dropping CFC helps, it may only become visible in the next decade... But I can't help thinking you may be right here :-)

--
One of those Europeans...
Re:Great by Apparissus · 2006-10-20 18:18 · Score: 5, Informative

RTFA. It kindly mentions that

A) Chlorine, Bromine, and their Ozone cappin' friends stay in the atmosphere for decades. Even with a significant drop in emissions (its precipitousness is reminiscent of the bunny slope) it will be a very long time before significant positive effects accrue. As the article points out, we can expect about 0.1% to 0.2% per year in the near term.

B) This record breaking event is the culmination of several phenomena, including large-scale, seasonal factors that completely overshadow the tiny bit of healing the layer has done in the last few years. "This slow decrease is masked by large year-to-year variations caused by Antarctic stratosphere weather fluctuations."

One thing the article does NOT mention is any cry of "Wolf!". There isn't any environmentalist finger-wagging, just some scientists saying "holy shnikes, take a look at the SIZE of that thing!!"
Re:Great by pete-classic · 2006-10-21 04:08 · Score: 1

A bunny slope of 75/4?! Where the fuck do YOU ski? Check this graph from this report

-Peter
Re:Great by jbengt · 2006-10-21 06:01 · Score: 1

CFC production has only been recently ended. CFC use is still widespread in systems made before the ban on new CFC systems went into effect. Every one of those installations has the potential to release CFCs.
HCFC production has not yet been phased out, and though those chemicals are not considered to be as destructive to the ozone, they still contribute to ozone depletion.
CFCs and HCFCs are very stable, and it will be decades before the amount already in the stratosphere, let alone ongoing releases, declines enough to have only a negligible effect on the ozone.

The hole got bigger? by Warbringer87 · 2006-10-20 18:05 · Score: 4, Funny

Doesn't that usually happen when you fuck with a hole?

Re:The hole got bigger? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-20 18:31 · Score: 0

Seeing as you're posting on Slashdot, I can see why you wouldn't know
Re:The hole got bigger? by davidsyes · 2006-10-21 15:41 · Score: 1

Well, don't some holes close up from overstacked detritus near the opening? Or is something pushing up from the bottom or inside? (I don't know if "holey moley" or "holy shit" applies here...)

--
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"

Just give it an animatronic hat... by gardyloo · 2006-10-20 18:06 · Score: 0, Offtopic

...and tell it to let down its skirts a bit. Can't hurt, right?

Wow, that Paul Newman by jeffkjo1 · 2006-10-20 18:10 · Score: 5, Funny

said Paul Newman, atmospheric scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.

Is nothing enough for Paul Newman? It's not enough that he stars in movies with Robert Redford, or that I'm forced to by his Salad Dressings and Microwave Pop-Corn... now I must apparently take his word on the o-zone layer. I suppose in 20 years he'll show up in a computer animated film as some sort of washed-up radio telescope convinced to go for one more shot at the big time.

/end sarcasm sequencer

Re:Wow, that Paul Newman by freeweed · 2006-10-20 23:50 · Score: 1

Shuuuuuuuut up, or Paul Newman's gonna have my legs broke.

--
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.

Where the ozone comes from by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · 2006-10-20 18:26 · Score: 5, Informative

The ozone we're concerned about here is formed by solar ultraviolet in the stratosphere. Almost all thunderstorm activity is in the troposphere. The ozone that thunderstorms and photochemical smog produce only lasts a few weeks.

Now, if you want to get confused, CFCs are both catalysts of ozone breakdown and greenhouse gases. To make you even more confused, upper tropospheric ozone is a greenhouse gas, not as important as CO2 but worth taking into account.

Meh. by FrizzleFrylok · 2006-10-20 18:31 · Score: 1

What's a few million square miles between friends?

Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-20 18:53 · Score: 0

Bother! They warned me about the ozone hole, but I went outside today and mowed the lawn. When I came inside and went to the bathroom, I looked in the mirror and my skin had gone a funny orange colour and it's glowing slightly. Not sure if I like the effect - might have to borrow some of my wife's make-up till it goes away. It will come right in a day or two, right?

Congratulations by noigmn · 2006-10-20 18:40 · Score: 0, Offtopic

We have achieved a record once thought unattainable of by our forefathers. This is a grand day for all men. Contratulations to all involved.

I'd like to thank....

--
Slashdot is powered by your submission.

Obligatory by Tablizer · 2006-10-20 18:43 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Itsa beowulf cluster of Goatse's

--
Table-ized A.I.

Sad ... but by kramulous · 2006-10-20 18:58 · Score: 1

If I were releasing scientific visualisations regarding some simulation science (my guess regarding the images), I'd be making sure that those images looked right. The second is a little off, making me question the model they're using.

I know, a bit of a tough bastard, but ... ?

--
.

Obligatory Futurama Quote by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-20 19:00 · Score: 1, Funny

"And what's this layer of ozone? That's never been there before." - Professor Farnsworth before discovering that the ship had been taken back in time 1057 years to 1947.

The religion of environmentalism by AlphaWolf_HK · 2006-10-20 19:04 · Score: 0, Offtopic

When I hear people talk about the evils of the "religious right," it makes me think a bit. The left are equally religious, the difference is that their religion doesn't center around any deity or spiritual beliefs. Instead it centers around this psuedo-scientific faith called environmentalism.

The religious right always talk about how its better to believe in god, and how you should change your lifestyle to accomodate the bible or the qu'ran or whatever holy book they might have, because if they are right and god exists, then you're doomed to eternal damnation, and if they're wrong...well then no big deal. Ok whatever *cough*bullshit*cough*. They are pretty sure in their beliefs though, and they even believe that modern science can prove their beliefs. But none of them have ever been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

The religious left do the same thing, only with a different argument. They believe that the earth is this extremely precious ecosystem, and if we don't stop driving SUV's, and adjust the crap out of our lifestyles to follow the findings of their psuedo-science in order to stop "polluting" the environment, then we're all doomed to die in some hellfire called global warming. But they too acknowledge that if they are wrong, then no big deal, but we should still alter our lifestyles anyways just to accomodate their beliefs anyways rather than risk a fiery end. And like the religious right, their beliefs have never been proven either, and IMO are equally retarded.

FWIW (and slightly off topic) I know some of you are thinking "what side of the aisle does this blasphemous polluting asshole sit on?" well, unlike people like Michael Moore who attempt to decieve by hiding their political affiliations, even though they are in fact democrats, I believe in being honest. I am an Atheist libertarian who has a long history of voting Republican. There, I said it. As a person who votes Republican, I am a minority of the slashdot crowd, and in all likelyhood I am going to be downmoderated as a troll by at least one person because of that fact. Unless of course they read that sentence and actually think about how predictable they are, in which case they would take a route I often take: when in doubt, or if you just don't know, then don't vote.

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK

Re:The religion of environmentalism by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-20 19:18 · Score: 1, Interesting

As a person who votes Republican, I am a minority of the slashdot crowd,
That is very doubtful. Back in the early hip days, that would have been true. Now, I think that the majority are republicans. You will still be modded as a troll (because you are), but I have seen loads of mods that are clearly republican in nature.

And this comes from a long time /.er(I did not register until much later) Libertarian who votes against politicians that run up deficits, kills off our rights, evades the constition, takes bribes, molest pages, and lies about it all.
Re:The religion of environmentalism by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-20 19:42 · Score: 0

Libertarian who votes against politicians that run up deficits, kills off our rights, evades the constition, takes bribes, molest pages, and lies about it all.
Well, it sounds like you cancel all of Alpha Wolf's votes.
Re:The religion of environmentalism by AlphaWolf_HK · 2006-10-20 20:32 · Score: 1

Well, in the US we have something carefully crafted by the founding fathers called the electoral college system, if you've ever heard of that. My votes reinforce those of us in my state of Arizona who have 10 electors (and quickly rising,) and also have a history of being a red state. Odds are he lives in a different state, so his vote probably doesn't impact mine at all.

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Re:The religion of environmentalism by Deitheres · 2006-10-21 07:58 · Score: 1

Interesting that your response was essentially "nyah nyah I live in a republican state" (if this were fark, I'd imagine a "suck it libs" after that) rather than "no I wouldn't vote for politicians that run up deficits, kill off our rights, evade the constition, take bribes, molest pages, and lie about it all"

--
Just like driving a car:
(D) to go forward
(R) to go backward
Re:The religion of environmentalism by AlphaWolf_HK · 2006-10-21 08:35 · Score: 1

It was a fair response to "nya nya his vote cancels out yours," don't you think?

But are you trying to say that democrats don't do these things?

Gray Davis didn't put California into a multi-billion dollar defecit?

The democrats didn't approve of laws allowing the government to take your property and hand it over to private corporations?

Bill Clinton didn't have this woman arrested for excersizing her right of free speech?

Democrat Representative from Louisiana wasn't caught taking a $100,000 bribe from an FBI informant, and still denied it anyways?

Gerry Studds wasn't caught having sex with a 17 year old boy, and wasn't still re-elected by liberals anyways for another 5 terms? Hell, at least Foley had the decency to resign, and unlike Gerry Studds he actually admitted to it when he was caught, and Gerry Studds didn't admit it until much later.

But to be honest I don't really like conservatives much either. Like I said, I am a "little l" libertarian (as in I don't associate myself with the Libertarian party.)

There's a quote by somebody who you've no doubt at least heard of before, which I am reminded of:

"I hate conservatives, but I REALLY fucking hate liberals." -- Matt Stone

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Re:The religion of environmentalism by oc255 · 2006-10-23 07:02 · Score: 1

I guess I believe that if either side had their answers handed to them it would play out like this:

1. Religious right (as you say) get their answer.
There is a God, he appears in the sky and announces his existance, performs miracles and day-to-day life changes ala The Garden of Eden (or whatever you believe). In other words, faith/questioning is gone.

My belief is that people would change. Humans would do good and know that judgement was there. Because unlike the law, God is everywhere and there is no possibility of not being judged.

2. Environmental left (as you say) get their answer.
We are screwing the Earth over and there is no possibility to colonize anything within reach. Clear science from everyone available proves that human activity is warming the earth.

My belief is that people would not change. They would act as smokers do. No judgement would fall upon them. People would drive their H2 SUVs (empty with no cargo) and easily afford the lifestyle they like the most. We would not turn off our datacenters, machines, lights, factories etc. We depend on the system and no amount of regulation and leadership would change the fact that "I need to go to work and have my latte".

This is just my belief. We've always moved forward, by matter of hope or blindness. ie: The system is too huge to tell Brazil to stop logging. ie: We'll come up with something. "Save the rainforest" is laughed at. "Treehugging" is a weak force in the world, a world in which the kudzu wins and the pansies lose in nature. God revealed would be a dramatic and powerful change while "save the earth" would easily be ignored by people who don't want to lose creature comforts.

Hmm.... by Lars512 · 2006-10-20 19:08 · Score: 4, Funny

...increased cancer for us Australians this year. Not to worry though, in 60 years, whatever skin we have left on our face and arms after the melanomas have been removed will be safe(r).

-snicker- by Beefslaya · 2006-10-20 19:41 · Score: 1

Is it me? Or is it getting hot in here?

what the hell. by timerider · 2006-10-20 19:43 · Score: 1

the headline makes it sound as if it's something to be proud of.

It never went away by astro-g · 2006-10-20 20:09 · Score: 5, Informative

certainly not for those of us who have to live under it.

I live in New Zealand, the current position and shape of the ozone hole is a regular feature of TV weather reports.

Re:It never went away by rapidweather · 2006-10-21 12:37 · Score: 1

Hmmm...

New Zealand. Isn't that where Lord of the Rings was filmed?

Near an ozone hole...solar radiation...mutations...Hobbits?

--
Rapidweather's Linux Screenshots.

NASA announcement raises questions... by the_tsi · 2006-10-20 20:15 · Score: 4, Funny

"NASA Announces Record Ozone Hole"

- Yes, but will it be available in retail before the holiday shopping season? What will availability be?

- Can it run Lunix? Duke Nukem 4? NetBSD? Can I make a beowulf out of them?

- Shouldn't we wait for Rev. B?

- Why didn't they mention any pricing in the article? It's totally a vaporware mock-up, like that keyboard!

- Did they use clean energy to manufacture it?

- Isn't the one from RKA/ESA/JAXA superior? NASA only makes hoaxes anyway -- Was this "ozone hole" actually on a sound stage in Nevada?

Re:NASA announcement raises questions... by TrancePhreak · 2006-10-20 22:48 · Score: 1

One of the few funny posts of slashdot.

--

-]Phreak Out[-

Steve Martin Quote by pipingguy · 2006-10-20 20:45 · Score: 1

Do you ever wonder where all the farts go? They go into the atmosphere and form the Fart Zone. It's just above the ozone layer. This is why we MUST PROTECT THE OZONE LAYER.

If anything happened to ozone layer, all those farts would fall back to earth. And NOT on their original owners.

Wrong. by Kizor · 2006-10-20 20:50 · Score: 1

You'd really think that people had, by now, learned to think before making obviously reasonable statements.

Citizen: "This supports Bush, right?"
Us: "Well, yes, this is about his administration's approach to global warming--freezing Europe, sinking Japan..."
Citizen: "Where do I sign?"

A new record?! by ross.w · 2006-10-20 21:32 · Score: 1

Way to go! break out the champagne.

Oh....wait.....

It's not a good thing?

--
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?

Statistics by agentcdog · 2006-10-20 21:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

I am a scientist trained at the undergraduate level (so I claim no authority). They beat statistics into us. I now read things with my statistical-skeptic hat on. Here's my problem: .2% decline only matters if there is a margin of error that is small enough for .2% to be significant. Let us say, for argument's sake, that the error in our readings is around 3%. We then model the system and have check it against the data that we have. Is there any way for us to have enough data to make the statement that we expect a .2% improvement? Statistics come with confidences. I'd be shocked if the confidence level on this data is above 50%. Does anyone have any insight here?

--
If I understand Dirac correctly, his meaning is this: there is no God, and Dirac is his Prophet. -Pauli

Re:Statistics by eh2o · 2006-10-21 05:17 · Score: 1

First of all there is no a priori reason to assume any particular margin of error, since error is data-dependent. Scientific instruments often produce lots of data with good tolerances.

In this case we are observing the *same* ozone hole multiple times so the statistic to use is the repeated measures T-test or "paired" T-test. A paired T-test is a statistic on the derivative between dependent observations (e.g. site specific). It is possible to conclude with normal confidence bounds that the derivative is some non-zero value even if the extrapolation of that value still leaves the aggregate mean within its original error margin.
Re:Statistics by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-21 10:05 · Score: 0

I am a scientist trained at the undergraduate level (so I claim no authority). They beat statistics into us.

Let me guess... biology? Anything that ends in "ology" is by definition not a science. People use the term scientist far too loosely.
Re:Statistics by agentcdog · 2006-10-21 13:46 · Score: 1

Physics you tard.

--
If I understand Dirac correctly, his meaning is this: there is no God, and Dirac is his Prophet. -Pauli

900 million cows for mcdonalds is part of the sim? by cheekyboy · 2006-10-20 21:42 · Score: 1

I wonder if any one inputed the effect all mcdonalds/burgerking chain stores have on the hole, re with all
that beef thats needed, and how much shit those cows make and how much they fart methane!!!

Did you add 600 billion cubic meters of methane!?!?!?!?!?!?

Cows are bad choice for food, they take a long time to grow, eat heaps, pollute the air. Require massive
amounts of land. They are UDDER Crap!

On a per tonne of wate and acre statistic, INSECTS provide way more protein than cows, if people got over
the fact of eating worms/bugs and stuff. Hey, people eat lobsters and prawns, they are really the INSECTS
of the SEA!!! And they are yummy, which im sure if cooked right, land based insects would be as nice. 300% more
protein, no fat, easy to grow, as they eat any thing and dont require difficult taking care off, and if lots of them
die, BIG DEAL, eat em all!!

I'll have a McBug Super size with extra worms thanks

--
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.

both parties are scum by cheekyboy · 2006-10-20 21:45 · Score: 1

Vote for the little man.

Major parties are in cahoots and evil, toe the part line, be part of the in crowd, no independent thought, bend over to big brother.

Vote #3, remember what number 1s and number 2s mean in the toilet. Thats what they are!!

--
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.

Re:both parties are scum by Kymermosst · 2006-10-21 08:42 · Score: 1

Vote #3, remember what number 1s and number 2s mean in the toilet. Thats what they ar

Wow, that's such a mature and thought-provoking argument, I'm going to start voting for #3 right away!

--
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.

Your questions answered by DiamondGeezer · 2006-10-20 22:04 · Score: 0, Troll

1. Stratospheric ozone has nothing whatsoever to do with tropospheric ozone. Stratospheric ozone is formed by cosmic rays hitting oxygen molecules and forming O3 molecules.
2. CFCs have nothing whatsoever to do with stratospheric ozone. Even though a Nobel Prize was given for the supposed link between CFCs and ozone depletion, no-one has ever explained how CFC molecules which are much heavier than air, can rise up in the stratosphere, travel all of the way to Antarctica before being broken down into chlorine and fluorine and reacting the O3
3. The real reasons why ozone is depleted is

a) the temperature above Antarctica has fallen in the last fifty years (and not a single climate model predicted that one) and in the ice clouds that form high in the stratosphere in the early Antarctic spring the temperature drops below -80C. Chlorine in the ice reacts with the ozone.

b) the solar cycle is heading towards a minimum. This decreases the magnetic field, increasing the ozone but also increases production of chlorine.

Bingo! An ozone hole forms over the Antarctica - an entirely natural phenomenon.

Even more bingo! Some eco-warrior claims it must be caused by mankind. Ergo the extremely safe stable CFCs are replaced with benzene, thus turning your refrigerator into a potential BOMB.

Or did I miss something? Weren't we supposed to have solved the ozone problem?

--
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question

Re:Your questions answered by jez9999 · 2006-10-20 22:22 · Score: 2, Informative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#CFCs_ in_the_atmosphere, and the text below that section, seem to call bullshit on your assertion that CFCs have no effect on the ozone.

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Re:Your questions answered by gomoX · 2006-10-20 22:41 · Score: 1

Actually they are replacing CFCs with Butane. Benzene is a carcinogen. You don't find it on many things because of this.

--
My english is sow-sow. Sowhat?
Re:Your questions answered by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-20 23:20 · Score: 5, Informative

no-one has ever explained how CFC molecules which are much heavier than air, can rise up in the stratosphere, travel all of the way to Antarctica before being broken down into chlorine and fluorine and reacting the O3

Maybe not, but they're there. All the same tools that tell us whats in other planets' atmospheres works equally well on our own. Further more, as surprising as it may be, if you lay down on the ground, you're not likely to asphyxiate unless someone dumps a sufficient amount of a heavy gas right next to you, since the atmosphere mixes up rather easily. As for how they move, I'm going to suggest things like the Jet Stream for moving them around the planet, and equatorial heating to carry CFCs into the upper atmosphere and down towards the pole.

Chlorine in the ice

Interesting theory. Where did the chlorine come from? A molecule of Cl2 (total atomic mass 71) is more massive than N2 (28), O2 (32), and CO2 (44), or does "too heavy" only count when it's you saying it? Could it possibly be that the Cl in your ice is the same Cl in CFCs?

thus turning your refrigerator into a potential BOMB.

Aside from someone else already pointing out that it's not benzene, I guess you're too young to remember the days of early ammonia refrigerators, now those were the BOMB!
Re:Your questions answered by freeweed · 2006-10-20 23:54 · Score: 1

Mods, wake up!

Point one is correct, otherwise this is just a cleverly worded troll. Unless every shred of Earth Science theory has been torn to pieces in the past 5 minutes, none of what this poster claims is even remotely true - or even very believable, for that matter.

--
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Re:Your questions answered by hey! · 2006-10-21 00:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

a) the temperature above Antarctica has fallen in the last fifty years (and not a single climate model predicted that one) and in the ice clouds that form high in the stratosphere in the early Antarctic spring the temperature drops below -80C. Chlorine in the ice reacts with the ozone.

But but by your argument there should not be any stratospheric ice, since water is heavier than atmospheric gases.

In fact, if we accept your theory then we wouldn't be able to breathe at sea level, because atmospheric CO2 would sort to the bottom, forming a thin layer of pure CO2,over which there would be thick layer of pure O2, over which there would be a very thick layer of N2.

However, below 100km, the weight of gas molecules is completely irrelevant to their atmospheric concentration due to many, many mechanisms that mix the atmosphere.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Your questions answered by Actinide · 2006-10-21 00:36 · Score: 1

The scientific case for a CFC origin for the Antarctic ozone hole is so overwhelmingly robust that the case was effectively closed over ten years ago. For anyone mistakenly concerned that the parent post's sentiment is even remotely factual, do a bit of reading - Google is your friend. An old, but good starting point is the ozone depletion FAQ - e.g. http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/. There are countless others..
Re:Your questions answered by DiamondGeezer · 2006-10-21 01:08 · Score: 1, Insightful

Maybe not, but they're there. All the same tools that tell us whats in other planets' atmospheres works equally well on our own. Further more, as surprising as it may be, if you lay down on the ground, you're not likely to asphyxiate unless someone dumps a sufficient amount of a heavy gas right next to you, since the atmosphere mixes up rather easily. As for how they move, I'm going to suggest things like the Jet Stream for moving them around the planet, and equatorial heating to carry CFCs into the upper atmosphere and down towards the pole.

An active imagination is a wonderful thing.

1. CFCs are not found in the stratosphere any where on the planet, they're simply too heavy. Chlorine is. The most obvious source would be from volcanoes. By the by, Antarctica has its own source of chlorine called Mount Erebus.

2. Laying on the ground won't kill you, thats true, there is some mixing. But how a heavy molecule gets up into the stratosphere and travels all the way from (usually) the Northern Hemisphere to the South Pole is not simply a difficult problem, but completely impossible.

3. The Jet Stream doesn't go anywhere near the Equator, and even if it did, there's no mechanism to keep CFCs aloft all the way to Antarctica.

Could it possibly be that the Cl in your ice is the same Cl in CFCs?

Very, very , very unlikely. What about from salt carries high into the atmosphere and then broken down by a decent sized cosmic particle? Erm. Didn't want to consider alternatives did you?

In any case, there are more plausible ways to get chlorine into the stratosphere than by CFCs.

Oh, and you missed the final bit: if CFCs have been legislated away by the Montreal Protocol then why, ten years after we thought the problem licked, does a massive ozone hole appear over Antarctica?

--
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
Re:Your questions answered by DiamondGeezer · 2006-10-21 01:11 · Score: 1

You quoted Wikipedia, the weblog that anyone can edit, just so long as they agree with the admins.

Could you at least try a reliable source? Or even try to answer the questions?

--
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
Re:Your questions answered by DiamondGeezer · 2006-10-21 01:16 · Score: 1

They don't mix that well between the stratosphere and the troposphere is the straight answer. The bigger problem is the one you avoid: how to get CFCs into the stratosphere when they're so heavy and then down to Antartica.

During the winter a polar vortex forms which keeps moisture and warmth away from the stratosphere, stopping practically all mixing. So how do the CFCs stick around long enough to get broken down in the middle of winter and what keeps them aloft?

--
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
Re:Your questions answered by DiamondGeezer · 2006-10-21 01:21 · Score: 1

"The Science is settled".

I've got news for you. Science is never settled, and certainly not by someone making the claim that such-and-such a theory is os overwhelmingly robust. Any scientific theory can be falsified by a single experiment, which is the fundamental principle of scientific inquiry that a theory be falsifiable.

Since chlorine atoms don't come stamped with "I was once part of a CFC" this makes it difficult to falsify in the scientific sense.

Google is your friend as well. Unfortunately Google tells it like it is - the Internet is full of crap.

--
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
Re:Your questions answered by DiamondGeezer · 2006-10-21 01:24 · Score: 1

It's interesting that I get called a troll for something that is a very current debate in the field of atmospheric chemistry.

I'd say you need to take a ten-year break from posting on Slashdot to grow up some more. Come back when your balls have dropped.

--
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
Re:Your questions answered by hey! · 2006-10-21 01:37 · Score: 1

I'm guessing you never studied fluid dynamics in a rotating frame. All kinds of non-intuitive things on large scale, for example gradients in temperature and density that superficially seem to deny gravity or thermodynamics (e.g. thermoclines and haloclines).

You yourself touched on this: "During the winter a polar vortex forms which keeps moisture and warmth away from the stratosphere, stopping practically all mixing."

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Your questions answered by Actinide · 2006-10-21 02:31 · Score: 1

"Unfortunately Google tells it like it is - the Internet is full of crap."
YMMV, but in general technically proficient people have long since learned to tell the difference between credible and crackpot in terms of stuff they find on the web. For instance, anyone is able to contrast a selection of what they find in the results of these two web searches, and is free to make up their own mind:
http://www.google.com/search?q=ozone+hole+fraud+ho ax
vs
http://www.google.com/search?q=ozone+hole+science
Re:Your questions answered by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-21 02:47 · Score: 0

1. Ozone molecules in the straosphere are created and destroyed by ineractions between oxygen and ultraviolet light (that's not a cosmic ray).
2. Yet, the CFCs are in the stratosphere. And the chlorine in them is stable, thus destroying many more ozone molecules than pure chlorine.
3. a. I don't know about the chlorine in ice clouds, but TFA does say that colder conditions make a larger ozone hole.
b. Solar minimums don't reduce the earth's magetic field, (they do reduce the interaction between the solar wind and the field). And a decreasing magnetic field couldn't increase ozone, or decrease chlorine, at least not directly.

No, you won't find benzene in your refrigerator. CFCs are for the most part being replaced by HFCs. You might find propane or butane in some industrial refrigeration systems, but not in your home. You won't find sulfur dioxide or ammonia systems in a residential setting either.

And yes, since CFC and some HFC production has stopped, as soon as all those remaining CFCs and HFCs in use are destroyed, that is after the useful life of the equipment is reached and stocks of recycled refrigerants are exhausted, we will no longer be putting CFCs into the atmosphere. Then several decades after that, the chlorine-containing compounds will naturally break down and that part of the ozone problem will be solved.
Re:Your questions answered by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-21 02:56 · Score: 0

Sure, ammonia can burn under the right circumstances, and occassionally even explode, but how about the sulfur dioxide systems that were also popular in the past. With them, a simple leak could kill you in your sleep.
Re:Your questions answered by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-21 03:49 · Score: 0

Maybe not, but they're there.

Awesome. As long as you take an environmentally-correct position, you can get your AC post modded up to +4 Interesting with "Maybe not, but they're there."

Funny, some Bible-thumpers in another thread were just complaining that a similar post of theirs was modded down to -1, Troll... where it damned well belonged.
Re:Your questions answered by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-21 04:54 · Score: 0

Geezer Wrote:
CFCs are not found in the stratosphere any where on the planet, they're simply too heavy

That's flat-out wrong. For measurements of CFC (NOT Cl) in the statosphere see:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987P&SS...35..657B
http://umpgal.gsfc.nasa.gov/www_root/homepage/uars -science/CFC.html
for two easy examples.

Also see
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cairns/teaching/le cture16/node2.html
http://www.thespacerace.com/glossary/index.php?ter m=290
http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search? id=homosphere1
where we read that the atmosphere is well-mixd below 100 km. (Stratosphere starts around 12 km).
Re:Your questions answered by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-21 07:46 · Score: 0

What about from salt carries high into the atmosphere and then broken down by a decent sized cosmic particle? Erm. Didn't want to consider alternatives did you?

What was that? I couldn't hear you, I heard something like "what about heavy particles carried up into the stratosphere?"

Someone else found the actual research, I wasn't going to bother looking it up to refute "your heavy gas can't get into the stratosphere but my heavy gas can, so nyah!"

Oh, and you missed the final bit: if CFCs have been legislated away by the Montreal Protocol then why, ten years after we thought the problem licked, does a massive ozone hole appear over Antarctica?

Because they are mostly nonreactive, and their reaction with ozone is simply as a catalyst where they are not consumed. As for why now, who knows? Maybe we'll go take more samples and find that the CFC concentration has doubled or something. Maybe Africa has decided to release a bunch of it for shits and giggles? Maybe a bunch of companies in America decided that the law was bunk and started using and releasing it again? Who knows, maybe we're all wrong about CFCs and we're all just going to be baked by solar radiation no matter what we do so we should just pump the air full of shit anyway.
Re:Your questions answered by Kymermosst · 2006-10-21 08:48 · Score: 1

2. CFCs have nothing whatsoever to do with stratospheric ozone.

Is that so?

Even though a Nobel Prize was given for the supposed link between CFCs and ozone depletion, no-one has ever explained how CFC molecules which are much heavier than air, can rise up in the stratosphere, travel all of the way to Antarctica before being broken down into chlorine and fluorine and reacting the O3

They aren't so heavy that the wind can't take them up. Dust particles are much heavier than CFCs and seems to get into the stratosphere just fine (hint: the bit where it says "principally wind-blown dust").

--
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
Re:Your questions answered by khallow · 2006-10-21 18:11 · Score: 1

Even more bingo! Some eco-warrior claims it must be caused by mankind. Ergo the extremely safe stable CFCs are replaced with benzene, thus turning your refrigerator into a potential BOMB.
As I recall, you also have hydrochlorofluorocarbons or HCFCs. Not as good or safe as CFCs, but considerably less damaging to the ozone layer. Might still meet the eco-warriors' threshhold for a dangerous chemical since it has scary chlorine all over it, and it technically does harm the ozone layer.
Re:Your questions answered by DiamondGeezer · 2006-10-21 21:47 · Score: 1

Actually I have studied fluid dynamics in a rotating frame - I studied oceanography and physics.

Now answer the question.

--
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
Re:Your questions answered by oc255 · 2006-10-23 06:41 · Score: 1

Wikipedia is a wiki. Everyone is admin (that's a lot of shared experience out there) except for pages that get defaced. Maybe it's not a reliable source but it's not blog.

Ozone Layer Free Planet Earth? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-20 22:29 · Score: 0

Well, granting that some species might actually survive ultra-high UV levels,
all that radiation should up the mutation rate -

Maybe evolution will get get overclocked and the Dolphins will finally get the opposable thumbs they have been waiting for...

Humans are in trouble!
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28315

Congratulations by Rob+Kaper · 2006-10-20 23:27 · Score: 1

NASA has announced that the ozone hole over the Antarctic has broken all records.

I think congratulations are in place, that's quite an achievement. Guinness' Book will now be such a bore though.

Finally! by SilentOneNCW · 2006-10-20 23:32 · Score: 2, Funny

Alright everyone, our goal has been achieved. Take a little break and we'll meet back here for more ozone depletion in a few aeons, mm'kay?

--
games journalism blog

Re: Ozone Hole by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-20 23:43 · Score: 5, Interesting

I don't think the severity of the Ozone hole, regardless of its fundermental underlying causes, can really be accepted or apprecciated by any-one living in the Northern Hemisphere. Its appears to be something akin to "Ah well, that sound bads, nevermind" BUT .. Anyone living in Australia or especially New Zealand, the coutries on the edge of the hole, know too well what it will mean for them this summer...and it not pretty.

With the highest rates of melanoma skin cancer in the world due to the lack of UV protecting Ozone and predominantly clean air. These two countries bear the full brunt of the impact of the hole. At the height of summer, sunburn can occur in as little as 6 minutes!! of sun exposur. Anyone outside without SPF30+ sunscreen, glasses, a shirt and a hat should be considered a fool. This is what its like to live with a hole in the Ozone above your country.

If this is what is was like above your country in summer, when you would just like to enjoy yourself and "Catch some rays, down at the beach". You certainly wouldn't be arguing about how it was cause or who caused it, you'rd be trying to find a way to fix it!

Sometimes, I wish the hole could be moved to somewhere move deserving.

Conflicting studies? by majortom1981 · 2006-10-21 00:13 · Score: 1

Wasn't there just recently a report by nasa stating the ozone hole was shrinking and by a certain year it will be gone? Now they are saying its the biggest one ever?

Funny ..... by snoggeramus · 2006-10-21 00:19 · Score: 1, Redundant

No mention of the hole that is made every time the space shuttle punches through.

Re:900 million cows for mcdonalds is part of the s by Dunbal · 2006-10-21 00:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

and how much shit those cows make and how much they fart methane!!!

You know, people fart too. I hope you're wearing your butt-plug, my fellow eco-warrior...

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

Re: Ozone Hole by Xyrus · 2006-10-21 00:52 · Score: 1

However, in a few generations the populations of those countries will become resistant to UV radiation. Which means if the whole spreads, everyone else dies except for the southern countries.

I, for one, welcome our new Kiwi, Lord of the Ring loving overlords.

~X~

--
~X~

This is perfectly normal by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2006-10-21 01:16 · Score: 3, Informative

Here's a brief explanation:

CFCs need to leech from the troposphere to the stratosphere. The troposphere is very easy to travel through, as temperatures decreases as you approach the stratosphere. This allows for the warmer air near ground level to rise to the top of the troposphere, where it cools and sinks back to the ground (which then warms again, etc). This makes sure that pollutants such as CFCs travel very well throughout the troposphere.

However, the stratosphere warms as you go higher. The cooler air down below sinks back into the troposphere, making it hard for pollutants to enter it. The stratosphere is where the ozone is. The only way for the gas to get into the stratosphere is to diffuse very slowly into it, where it can do its damage.

This is why there is such a big hole now. Diffusion into the stratosphere takes many years. Scientists have predicted a peak in CFC levels in the stratosphere around about now. Slowly, all the CFCs we've produced will diffuse, react to become relatively harmless free radicals, and the ozone layer will be restored. Until then, sit tight.

--
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.

Re:This is perfectly normal by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-21 09:51 · Score: 0

Slowly, all the CFCs we've produced will diffuse, react to become relatively harmless free radicals, and the ozone layer will be restored

Please get a clue and research the subject before posting such tripe. The sad thing is that people will believe you. Read up on the radical chemistry of halocarbons and ozone and you'll see just how absurd your comment sounds.
Re:This is perfectly normal by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2006-10-21 13:11 · Score: 1

That's the sad thing. I have read up about it. And from an old high-school chemistry textbook. It's the truth. The chlorofluorocarbons/bromochlorofluorocarbons diffuse into the stratosphere, where one or more C-Cl/C-Br bond breaks, leaving a Cl/Br radical. Now, from memory, these radicals react with some molecules/radicals in the air, which incorporates the the halogen in a relatively stable radical. However, due to some process in the Antarctic region, with snow in high-speed winds working as a surface catalyst, these radicals break down, and chlorine radicals are released (hence the hole that occurs over Antarctica). I don't know how these radicals permanently escape the ozone layer or permanently stay as harmless radicals, but I do know that the ozone layer will eventually be restored. First of all, we need to wait for the CFCs to do their damage.

--
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.

But but but.... by SnowCzar · 2006-10-21 01:17 · Score: 1

I thought it was repairing itself!

I wish studies could agree by scdeimos · 2006-10-21 01:24 · Score: 1

It was only five months ago that we were being told: Ozone Layer Improving Faster Than Expected.

WHAAAAMBULANCE by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-21 01:33 · Score: 0

Want some frenchcrys?

The real threat exposed by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-21 01:35 · Score: 0

The refrigerators are going to KILL US ALL! Head for the hills! Women and children first!

It is a user contributed site by everphilski · 2006-10-21 02:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why didn't you contribute this article 4 days ago, then?

Sun + O2 + Stratosphere = 03 by hottoh · 2006-10-21 02:24 · Score: 1

Antarctica is the coldest place on earth, therefore it is less likely that thunderstorms will occur in Antarctica, and less ozone will be produced in that area.

Consequently, we can assume that global warming would reduce the size of the ozone hole if that warming could be focused on Antarctica, or was at least proportional.

Stratospheric [15-30 mi up] ozone is created by the sun's radiation. Lightening is does produce O3, but it is the sun is responsible for the Ozone layer in the atmosphere. Ozone absorbs far ultra violet, and far ultra violet light Ionizes organic molecules and inorganic molecules. So you do not want too much of the far UV to reach the surface.

Ground level Ozone from Lightening [O3 is byproduct of pollution as well] is a problem for us because O3 really wants to give up an Oxygen atom. I hope you see that Oxygen atoms randomly inserted into organic molecules as bad, because it is really unhealthy when your cells oxidize from the outside in. Ground level Ozone is bad because it can filter out too much UV and that is bad for photosynthesis.

I wrote a journal entry on this topic yesterday by maynard · 2006-10-21 02:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

link

It contains contextual information about what is ozone, who the main players are / were that contributed to the ozone cycle discovery, who first discovered the Antarctic ozone hole, and why it is believed that it will begin to shrink in the near future (decades).

Hope it is of interest.

Cheers by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-21 03:03 · Score: 0

Woohoo! We did it! We set the record! Yea! High fives! Lets Par-T! We could have done it without you George W!

Re:900 million cows for mcdonalds is part of the s by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-21 03:07 · Score: 0

Excellent idea, let's kill all the cows! They're killing the ozone layer, it's only fair.

hi! by SuperStretch · 2006-10-21 03:14 · Score: 0

So I guess its kind of funny reading down through and seeing all these pro-environmentalist rebuttals to seemingly absent arguments. Then I noticed that they've all been modded down- troll, bad karma, off-topic, etc.

Someone posted that the majority of /. ers are now red... well the mods aren't.

Two points I thought I should bring up.

First, the ozone hole opens and closes each year- it doesn't just sit there gaping open. Its part of a natural cycle.

Second, even evolutionistic meteorologists deny the theory (THEORY mind you) of global warming.

So go ahead and mod me down.. I've already got bad karma from a politic-related post.

--
Help me get a new laptop - http://nocreditcard.yourgiftsfree.com/?id=3012

Re: Ozone Hole by Angostura · 2006-10-21 03:48 · Score: 1

You don't really understand natural selection, do you? Or are you really expecting massive fatalities among non-restant people sufficient to stop them breeding?

Re: Ozone Hole by Xyrus · 2006-10-21 05:03 · Score: 1

Um, actually I was expecting people to take it as a JOKE. If you're not familiar with the concept of humor though, you can google it. You may also want to investigate the related concept of comedy.

I would include links, but this comment doesn't deserve to be modded up.

~X~

--
~X~

Re:900 million cows for mcdonalds is part of the s by fyngyrz · 2006-10-21 05:19 · Score: 1

Plus, on an individual basis, cows are a great deal less annoying than people.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.

I get it! by Garridan · 2006-10-21 05:37 · Score: 1

This all explains why they demoted Pluto from planethood. Nobody wanted to accept that a planet could fit through the hole in our ozone layer. Demote Pluto, and we don't have that problem. Watch out, Mercury...

you should reference your statements by StressGuy · 2006-10-21 05:40 · Score: 1

One thing that can make a response look like political banner waving is simply presenting unsubstantiated statements as fact. To-wit...

"First, the ozone hole opens and closes each year- it doesn't just sit there gaping open. Its part of a natural cycle."

Says who? also, I think the article indicated this particular event as an anomoly, are you refuting that?

"Second, even evolutionistic meteorologists deny the theory (THEORY mind you) of global warming."

Got a name for us? Most of the studies I've read would indicate the exact opposite of that statement.

But ya know, I just googled "global warming myth" and found this little gem:

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/382_ myths.htm

--
A goal is a dream with a deadline

Re: Record Ozone Hole by hisstory+student · 2006-10-21 06:21 · Score: 1

Speaking of records, it's quite enlightening to look at all the last three years worth of these images
ftp://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/omi/images/global/

--
Heard any good sigs lately?

Ozone "Hole" by thethibs · 2006-10-21 06:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's not a hole—it's a depression.

Ozone concentration increases smoothly going from the poles to the equator. It's never zero.

The size of the so-called Ozone Hole isn't a discovery, it's a decision. Pick a threshold value and everything below that value is your "hole"—pick one value and you have a big hole, pick another and it's tiny. Different scientists at different times have used different threshold values, so it's hard to believe any comparison without checking the raw data to make sure they are comparing apples to apples.

Using thresholds destroys interesting information. There's a real difference between a big shallow depression and a big deep depression. The total extent of the "hole" could be just a bit below the arbitrarily chosen threshold, so that a tiny change in the threshold would result in a very tiny "hole". Gotta see the data.

--
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.

Re:900 million cows for mcdonalds is part of the s by letxa2000 · 2006-10-21 07:21 · Score: 1

If you want to eat bugs, go ahead. No-one's stopping you. I'll stick with cows, thanks.

Caused by BELOW average temps in Antarctica by uber_geek9 · 2006-10-21 07:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

The increased hole size is caused by BELOW AVERAGE temperatures in Antarctica.

From TFA:
The temperature of the Antarctic stratosphere causes the severity of the ozone hole to vary from year to year. Colder than average temperatures result in larger and deeper ozone holes, while warmer temperatures lead to smaller ones. ... The temperature readings from NOAA satellites and balloons during late-September 2006 showed the lower stratosphere at the rim of Antarctica was approximately nine degrees Fahrenheit colder than average, increasing the size of this year's ozone hole by 1.2 to 1.5 million square miles.

GLOBAL COOLING!!! I don't know what's happening here... warming? cooling? What does it mean anyways, that Antarctica is colder than usual?

a great line from the article : by Wizzerd911 · 2006-10-21 07:50 · Score: 0

Colder than average temperatures result in larger and deeper ozone holes, while warmer temperatures lead to smaller ones.

Well there you, global warming will cancel it out ;) We better not go dropping a giant ice cube in the ocean every year then.

--
Is it just me or is it not going to upgrade to Vista in here?

Re: Record Ozone Hole by hisstory+student · 2006-10-21 10:15 · Score: 1

Even more interesting (time lapse video):
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003200/a0032 64/

--
Heard any good sigs lately?

Re:Damned if you do..... Slammed if you dont? by davidsyes · 2006-10-21 11:48 · Score: 1

"From the story: 'From September 21 to 30, the average area of the ozone hole was the largest ever observed, at 10.6 million square miles,' said Paul Newman, atmospheric scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md."

Well, let's just make sure THIS Paul Newman doesn't take up race car driving for a hobby... (tires, oil, exhaust emissions...) But, this one can stick to salad oil if he wants...., hehehe

--
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"

To the Trolls who marked my original reply down by DiamondGeezer · 2006-10-21 21:50 · Score: 1

FUCK YOU.

1. Stratospheric ozone has nothing whatsoever to do with tropospheric ozone. Stratospheric ozone is formed by cosmic rays hitting oxygen molecules and forming O3 molecules.
2. CFCs have nothing whatsoever to do with stratospheric ozone. Even though a Nobel Prize was given for the supposed link between CFCs and ozone depletion, no-one has ever explained how CFC molecules which are much heavier than air, can rise up in the stratosphere, travel all of the way to Antarctica before being broken down into chlorine and fluorine and reacting the O3
3. The real reasons why ozone is depleted is

a) the temperature above Antarctica has fallen in the last fifty years (and not a single climate model predicted that one) and in the ice clouds that form high in the stratosphere in the early Antarctic spring the temperature drops below -80C. Chlorine in the ice reacts with the ozone.

b) the solar cycle is heading towards a minimum. This decreases the magnetic field, increasing the ozone but also increases production of chlorine.

Bingo! An ozone hole forms over the Antarctica - an entirely natural phenomenon.

Even more bingo! Some eco-warrior claims it must be caused by mankind. Ergo the extremely safe stable CFCs are replaced with [benzene is wrong] butane, thus turning your refrigerator into a potential BOMB.

Or did I miss something? Weren't we supposed to have solved the ozone problem?

--
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question

Re:To the Trolls who marked my original reply down by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-22 06:25 · Score: 0

I call bullshit on Diamond Geezer. I am forced to consider that he is speaking for some Washington think tank that pays him to say such things. He carefully throws in insignificant truths to bolster his position, such as cosmic ray generation of ozone and the relative independence of stratospheric and tropospheric ozone. He is dead wrong about explaining CFC's in the stratosphere. Perhaps there is a shred of truth to what he says if he implies the stratospheric CFC's must travel to polar regions before the become reactive. Which still allows for the likelihood of CFC's can certainly be broken down at low lattitudes with the breakdown products reaching the poles.

The only mystery I found in the article is the report of higher chlorine levels and declining chlorine levels.

But what really caused it is... by EDinNY · 2006-10-22 17:29 · Score: 1

I have seen the articles about the ozone hole. As usual there is an explanation.

In most articles I have read, you need to read down to the last paragraph to see that the size of the ozone hole varies with themperature and that the temp in August at the South Pole was 9 degrees cooler than average, and that cool weather increases the size of the ozone hole. So much for global warming, Al! Perhaps what we call global warming is a change in tilt of the earth?

But before we even think about what causes it, we need to put this in historical perspecive. We have been measuring the size of the ozone hole for about 10 years. This is not enough time to judge any trend, and they do find that the size varies from year to year...it is NOT increasing every year. We don't have a baseline on how big the hole was 100 years ago before we had a fridge in every house, so for now, these measurments are simply a curiosity and filler for the papers.

What causes the ozone? Sunlight hits the atmosphere and ionizes it. When you are at a pole in the winter there is almost a 24 hour night. No sun, no ionization.

They say that the reason we need a layer of ozone is to protect us from the ultra-violet light that causes skin cancer. Of course at the South Pole in August since there is no sun, we need no protection! Good engineering design if you ask me.

Re: Ozone Hole by LWATCDR · 2006-10-23 04:32 · Score: 1

Do you own a fridge? Have an AC. Have a car with an AC?
Just who do you think is more deserving of this?
Australia is a modern society that used CFCs for years.

Yes it sucks that it effects you but you are no more or less deserving than any other nation.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

You misunderstand.. by Vellmont · 2006-10-23 04:55 · Score: 1

I take it you're referring to this statement:

As a result of this slow decline, the ozone hole is estimated to annually very slowly decrease in area by about 0.1 to 0.2 percent for the next five to 10 years. This slow decrease is masked by large year-to-year variations caused by Antarctic stratosphere weather fluctuations.

That sounds to me like this is an estimate predicted from a model, not actual measurements. Also, the problem here isn't the margin of error for measurement, it's the variability. The area the ozone hole takes up varies immensely due to weather. A .1% or .2% decrease from year to year would be impossible to measure if the area taken up varies by 20% due to weather conditions. You'd only be able to measure a decrease that small over a long period of time where the variability evens out.

Really the point of talking about the slowly decreasing size of the ozone hole is to dissuade any doubters that CFCs cause ozone depletion and the ozone hole. CFC use has been dramatically cut over the past 10 years, but yet the ozone hole is bigger now than it's ever been. Unless you understand the nature of the slow decrease over time, and the natural variability of the hole do to weather conditions, you might conclude that CFCs have nothing to do with ozone depletion.

--
AccountKiller

I want my CFC's back. by E++99 · 2006-10-23 05:40 · Score: 0, Flamebait

So... They told us a story of a pending cataclysm coming because people are using hair spray and freon, then some well-connected people made 500 gazillion dollars on CFC-free equipment that the rest of us were forced by law to buy, and now that scary hole in the atmosphere is embarrassingly growing bigger than ever and we're embarrassingly still alive. I want to know A) how I can sign up for the class action law suit against these pigs, and B) can we please not do the same thing with global warming?

Re: Ozone Hole by oc255 · 2006-10-23 06:48 · Score: 1

I thought you were serious, so I guess it's not funny. Maybe "in a few generations they become glowing super-human sun-resistant mutants" would have be better. At least it's obviously exaggerated for Internet interpretation.

It's All About the Interactions by Plekto · 2006-10-25 03:09 · Score: 1

It's easy to focus on the "hole" and "warming" and so on, and point out what dangers we have overcome in the past, but the real dangers are in the interactions. - The #1 danger is that the hole will stay large when the temperatures go up again in Antarctica. Most of the ice in the world is down there and if it all melts, well, we are in serious trouble. Greenland also has a lot of ice, and it's melting quite fast recently. Of course, politicians look at icecaps melting like an inflation graph or something else that's roughly linear in nature, but the reality is that it's clearly not. The ice reaches a certain point and poof - it all melts. Btw - they expect the Arctic Ocean to be clear of ice(technically not clear, but a few inches of ice near the pole won't hinder any cargo ship at all) year-round in about 50-60 years. Of Antarctica goes as well, we're looking at the world's oceans rising by 20-30ft. That's not a lot, but it would take out many costal areas in countries that couldn't afford to make proper dikes. - The more ocean we have, the warmer it(the water) gets. If it rises high enough, all of the various ocean curents stop due to the temperature difference being too small and the planet gets cold. Ie - Ice age. This is the planet's built-in thermostat at work. So, in a way, this is good - or at least the politicians will tell you. It's going to get colder in 100 years. Unfortunately, it means that large areas of the world(almost all being poorer nations) will be flooded and the carrying capacity of the world, since the U.S. and Europe will be hard-pressed to grow crops, will drop to about 2-3 billion. That's the real threat here. Not the warming or climate changes, but our food supply's inability to cope with it. Of course, to most leaders who have never spent a single day of their life wanting for food, a food shortage in some third-world country hardly gets on their radar. http://www.popco.org/irc/popclocks/index.html The number of useable hectares and the population are listed because some scientists believe that the numbers are about 1:1 in global terms. That is, our carrying capacity is about the number of useable hectares, or about 8.5 billion. Not a huge margin, but enough. Now imagine that dropping to 3-4 billion in the next 100 years. So, yes, global warming is a huge issue. By all accounts, if we stop it, we will have another thousand or two years before the next Ice Age. If we continue as we are, we will end up with one in about 50-100 years.

Slashdot Mirror

NASA Announces Record Ozone Hole

190 comments