Slashdot Mirror
NASA Announces Record Ozone Hole
Drewsk writes "NASA has announced that the ozone hole over the Antarctic has broken all records. 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. If the stratospheric weather conditions had been normal, the ozone hole would be expected to reach a size of about 8.9 to 9.3 million square miles, about the surface area of North America.""
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.
four days ago.
.mp3 players get higher billing than planetary changes - on the planet we live on?
Besides all the technical trinkets, is this where science ends up on Slashdot?
Pretty sad, if you ask me - game consoles and
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
/.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.
And this comes from a long time
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
From TFA: ... 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.
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.
GLOBAL COOLING!!! I don't know what's happening here... warming? cooling? What does it mean anyways, that Antarctica is colder than usual?