Slashdot Mirror
Signs of Ozone Layer Recovery Detected
polar red writes "22 years of banning CFCs is starting to pay off. Researchers have finally been able to measure a reduction in size of the ozone layer hole, after finding the source of its fluctuations. 'Salby's results reveal a fast decline in ozone levels until the late 1990s, then a slow rebound that closely matches what theoretical calculations had predicted, says David Karoly, a climate scientist at the University of Melbourne, Australia. "It is the sort of result that was expected, but is the first to provide detection of an increase in Antarctic ozone levels," he says.'"
Why is it that the scientists can detect an ozone hole, provide a fix, show that the fix solved the problem, and then be LOUDLY IGNORED by the liars in congress.
Oh. The CFL manufacturers had less money than the oil people. Sorry. I forgot...
Haven't you heard? The end is tomorrow.
Carl Sagan quotes get you an automatic +5 on all posts.
But the only solution they have for global warming is world government and regulating wealthy nations. This raises the cost of living and such which has indirect effects to global warming too, so it doesn't seem like a good situation. Poverty is a huge cause of environmental problems, and the more you raise the cost of living, the more people go into poverty. Also, a major point: Which would you rather have: A bigger and world government doing its governmental best to regulate something as nebulous as global warming, or our regular old crappy governments with less power doing nothing. I know a lot of people hate giving the government extra power as abuse of this power is the rule not the exception.
Now maybe we can start using CFCs again, and stop with these inferior coolants.
evidenced by the fake clouds/'weather'. time to get real, or suffocate not trying. disarming might make a big difference
In the theory, that is, not the ozone layer...
1. CFC's are much denser than air. The lightest possible CFC, which would be CH2FCl, would have an atomic weight around 62, much heavier than N2 at 28. How can something that wants to stay so close to the ground, even in the presence of normal Brownian motion, affect something so high up?
2. Ozone is also denser than air, by roughly 50%. Isn't it being produced up there by ionizing resulting from absorbing UV rays? Thus, ozone is the evidence, not an ingredient, of ultraviolet blocking?
I'm very interested in a summary explaining why my junior high chemistry and physics are wrong in this case.
You're absolutely right, AC. We will. The only question is: why.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
disabling the out of control greed based weapons peddlers among US would definitely help.
too bad tomorrow is the end.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
Oh gods, I am going to @$&*! die a @#% virgin!
Just get a few dozen earths, divide them into control and experiment groups. We'll prove this hypothesis once and for all!!!
Oh, wait... that's right, you CAN'T, can you?
Hurry indoor children, the sky is falling.
So PROVE this is what has brought it back and that it wasn't just a natural cycle of the earth. The earth is a hell of a lot bigger than us, and will do what it wants regardless if we are around to predict it or not.
Without hard proof Its all theory, and statistics, which ALWAYS lie..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/ozone-hole-gone/
Maybe not.
The natural cycle of the ozone extent may have just shifted to the increasing phase of the cycle.
Maybe, like "global warming" it was just a power grab for commercial reasons.
We have no long term data on the ozone hole, it could have been waxing and waning for millennia.
The purported physics and chemistry of CFCs may have seemed plausible (like the idea that CO2 traps heat), but they real system may be too complex for such simple models. C02 doubling increases temperatures only a degree or so, and any scare scenarios are based on controversial and unproven feed back mechanisms. Some of which may be negative according to some recent research.
Because our bodies cease to function if certain requirements are not met. The more interesting questions are: How? And when?
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
was on the original CFC propellant. It was about to expire & suddenly, the outcry of "it blows away the ozone layer" started. Funny how DOW chemical also had the patent on the "next-gen propellant" too, eh? They also don't mention that the size of the ozone layer depends on the position & tilt of the earth towards the sun while in orbit as well, so, depending on where you measure it and what time of year it is, it changes as well (which also, of course, NEVER gets noted in the research of "climate change experts" either, who are ALL bought & paid for lobbyists of a sort). The same shit goes for global warming: We don't have enough historical data to NOT know it's not just part of a normal "seasonal change" (which may be eons/epochs long in duration between cycles) of the planet itself. Consider these things people, & realize that MILLIONS to BILLIONS of dollars in grants for R&D are on the line here as well, & who lives off of those? Scientists & Educators largely. It's ALWAYS ABOUT THE "BENJAMINS" PEOPLE, always. So follow the money, & you see the constant scams & selling the easiest thing there is: FEAR (ask any life insurance salesman about that).
Global warming is caused by the emission of gases, mostly CO2, but also CFC replacements that are 1000s of times more potent than CO2.
Fixed that for ya. Apparently Nature doesn't provide free lunches :(
No, you fixed nothing, you just failed to take into account numbers.
CO2 isn't harmful just because it's a global warming gas. It's so harmful because it's emitted in several orders of magnitude more than other gases.
Another gas may be 1000 times more potent, but if only a billionth as much as CO2 is being emitted, then so what?
your willingness to whore for the deniers shows you to be devoid of any shame. Care to try another excuse to avoid accepting responsibility?
that your opinions are of no concern to the adults around here.
Record loss of ozone over Arctic
Ozone is created by the sun, the Arctic ozone layer gets smaller during the winter because there is no sun to cause the chemical reaction. Unfortunately nobody ever calls them on this minor fact. CFCs has zero impact on the ozone.
CFCs effects on ozone are well documented. But the potential widespread use of H2 as an alternative 'clean' energy is not often associated with its effects on O3. Hydrogen is quite reactive with O3 and can cause severe problem by causing excessive cooling in the upper atmosphere. Lest we forget that the ozone hole over Antarctica is partially due to extreme cold in the upper atmosphere.
I was starting to enjoy the milder winters. =(
One thing that I never got was how an volcano in Antartica actively emitting hydrogen chlorine cannot contribute to stratospheric chlorine. Anywhere else, HCl would just stick to a water droplet and rain down, but we are talking about the most arid continent on earth, with very little precipitation.
Umm, how exactly is O3 being created again? I musta missed that part of the lesson.
Look out your window. Notice the complete devastation of pristine land. Hours upon hours of farm after fucking farm, as far as the eye can see.
I'm not saying farming is bad; I am quite in favor of growing food. But to say man cannot affect the earth; that the earth will 'do what it wants'; is asinine.
!. Environmental alarmists scream about the alleged dangers of CFC until Congress passes laws banning CFCs.
2. The ozone layer, waxing and waning in its normal, natural way, completely unrelated to the activities of man, experiences an increase.
3. Environmentalists start yelling, "See! See! The laws we demanded are saving the planet! You must always do what we say because we are so credible and important! (Also, we are doing such great and important work. Why not send us some money?)"
The amount of CFCs manufactured, not merely released into the atmosphere when CFC production was at its peak, was dwarfed by the natural production of CFCs. It wasn't even close. The quantity of CFCs manufactured didn't even show up in the noise of the natural production.
Intense equatorial sunlight provides the activation energy needed to create CFCs from the vast quantities of kelp and decaying sea life in the gigantic expanses of the pacific ocean. Chlorine and fluorine, of course, is provided by the sea water and the carbon comes from the kelp and dead krill and algae.
The whole "CFCs are creating ozone holes" scare is a crock of shit. So is giving credit to a reduction in the size of ozone holes to legislation banning the use of CFCs. Man has not even had the capability of measuring ozone holes long enough to make any substantial statements about their causes or the consequences of their expansion or contraction.
For almost a decade, Ozone projections have been famous for being completely wrong, and the ozone levels being completely unrelated to the supposed mechanism and emissions. I'm glad they finally got something to match, but we'll have to see in the coming years if it has any predictive power.
I can't say I'm surprised with them publicizing they finally saw an increase in ozone layers, seeing as how awkward the data had been up to this point.
The chlorine from CFCs are supposedly effective at destroying the ozone layer.
But what about the humongous amount of chlorine from salt in the seawater,
that gets into the atmosphere from wave froth? I would think that was much
more.
Don't forget the sunscreen. I sure as hell wouldn't want to get a sunburn there.
Come on you knee-jerk nigas, say it witme, correlationisnotcausation, What! Am I's suddenly wrong! Lighten up.
Awesome, does this mean I can start using aerosol hair spray again?
We need to get China and India to stop this. China a LONG history of not caring about the environment. The issue is that they will continue this because it is profitable to them. Even now, it is growing 15% a year, which is INSANE.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Some of you might recall Candidate Bush calling Al Gore "Ozone Man" for his stance on this. So much for the foolish mockery. Who's looking like the fool now?
Repairing the ozone layer is increasing global warming. Ozone is a greenhouse gas, and a global layer of ozone will have warming effects. The question is, can we reduce the other greenhouse gasses to the point where the ozone layer can exist without being an issue?