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.
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!!!
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.
Doesn't that usually happen when you fuck with a hole?
said Paul Newman, atmospheric scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
/end sarcasm sequencer
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.
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...
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!!"
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.
What's a few million square miles between friends?
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
.
"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.
...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).
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
Is it me? Or is it getting hot in here?
the headline makes it sound as if it's something to be proud of.
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.
"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?
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
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
Not too different from the area of North America.
My english is sow-sow. Sowhat?
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?
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!
I think congratulations are in place, that's quite an achievement. Guinness' Book will now be such a bore though.
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
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.
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.
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?
No mention of the hole that is made every time the space shuttle punches through.
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.
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.
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..
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~
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
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
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.
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
I thought it was repairing itself!
"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
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
It was only five months ago that we were being told: Ozone Layer Improving Faster Than Expected.
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.
Why didn't you contribute this article 4 days ago, then?
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.
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
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.
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?
A bunny slope of 75/4?! Where the fuck do YOU ski? Check this graph from this report
-Peter
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~
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.
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...
One thing that can make a response look like political banner waving is simply presenting unsubstantiated statements as fact. To-wit...
_ myths.htm
"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
A goal is a dream with a deadline
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.
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?
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.
If you want to eat bugs, go ahead. No-one's stopping you. I'll stick with cows, thanks.
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?
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
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
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.
Even more interesting (time lapse video):2 64/
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003200/a003
Heard any good sigs lately?
"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"
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."
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.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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.