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.'"
The CFL manufacturers had less money than the oil people. Sorry. I forgot...
Didn't the 'ozone hole' only become an OH MY GOD WE'RE GOING TO DIE problem after the patent on CFCs in air conditioning expired?
No, but I'll be sure to read all about it on Sunday.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
You know, when there is a physical mechanism connecting two phenomena AND a correlation between them, that correlation != causation thing is simply, well, bullshit.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Hope your plane doesn't crash from all those flying Christians getting sucked into the jet engines.
In a nutshell, because the thermal, i.e. kinetic energy of atmospheric molecules is way too high to get separation by weight. They are moving in random directions too fast to settle down. As for the ozone layer being where it is, yes, it is being produced up there. The layer is a dynamic process - ozone being produced from oxygen by UV activation and reacting back. You get the layer at a certain height where you have the right balance of O2 concentration and UV intensity. CFCs are a catalyst that shift that equilibrium to the side of oxygen, removing the conditions that lead to the dynamic formation of the layer in the first place.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
It's because most of the evidence supporting global warming thus far is comprised of correlation studies. As I like to say, a good correlation paper can win you a high school science fair. A good causation paper can win you the Nobel prize. Which is precisely what happened with ozone depletion. A trio of scientists came up with an elegant, predictive, and empirically accurate mechanism to explain exactly how ozone depletion was occurring, and won the Nobel prize in Chemistry for it.
Come up with a comprehensive, predictive, and empirically accurate model for climate change, and you will probably win the Nobel prize (in something like physics, not a trophy prize like peace) and simultaneously convince the world's government that they must act. The problem with correlation studies is that they're always open to dispute since you never identify or test the actual mechanism causing the problem. That's what happened with cigarettes - for decades the medical community had tons of correlation studies saying that smoking was bad. But the government restrictions and bans didn't come about until medical researchers began to identify and confirm the mechanisms by which smoking was causing cancer.
The causation paper for climate change would win you zilch at all, since the basic mechanism has been published by Arrhenius about 130 years ago. All the open questions are more in the realm of systems theory, not in the realm of basic mechanisms.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Nice crackpot you found there. My favourite - his acid rain piece. "Decades of monitoring to detect an effect". Right. Tell that to the deforested mountain ridges in my home county that have recovered just fine after SO2 was essentially removed from coal plant exhaust. As for that nature reference - you conveniently omit that this is not a paper, but a news blurb. Serious papers on the issue? Well, rather thin in that department. I met Paul Crutzen on several occasions and had some nice talks with him. Calling him a tool of special interest lobbying is quite... off the mark.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Oddly enough climate change is something that comes out of the physics models when you put in what we understand of the climate. It has nothing to do with correlation, it's pure mechanical causation. As it happens, the observations do confirm the model.
And it also happens, that the exact same people who were arguing against CFC -> Ozone hole causation and smoking -> lung cancer causation started arguing against climate change. They obviously can fool some of the people all of the time.
Oh, and the actual mechanism of how smoking causes lung cancer was partly revealed a few year back, but is still not completely understood.
The observation that would not fit the prediction would be little or no warming. The falsifiable hypothesis is that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes warming. There are literally hundreds of published scientific papers you can read about the topic. It's been a very active area of research for decades. I'll point you to just one short summary of the research results.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
The radiative equilibrium between incoming sunlight and blackbody radiation for Earth would result in a temperature about 20K lower than observed, when not taking atmospheric effects into account. Accounting for absorption and reemission by atmospheric CO2 you arrive at the actual average temperature. Said spectroscopic properties of CO2 are simply measurable in the lab. I actually did the experiment in a lab session about 14 years ago - part of the physical chemistry II lab. Are you seriously questioning the existance of the greenhouse effect as such?
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
If you send the nation into poverty to clean the air
I think this is the aspect of the debate that annoys me the most - the hyberbolic exaggeration of the economic effects of reduced consumption of fossil fuels. There are of course real costs involved, but nothing that scientists or mainstream policy-makers have proposed is going to cause us to sink to Third World levels of deprivation, or revert to a pre-industrial economy. Citizens of Western Europe have been living with drastically higher gasoline prices than us for decades, and they don't seem impoverished to me. Downgrading to a smaller and more fuel-efficient car is not a huge decrease in living standards relative to what the rest of the world has to endure.
There is no claim that "any level of carbon in the air is too high". You made that up.
Practically no one is saying to give up transportation or electricity. You made that up, too. Some people say we should reduce wasteful transportation and electricity consumption, make its provision more efficient.
No one is sending the nation into poverty to clean the air. You made that up, too. The opposite is true: people are trying to save the nation from the poverty that Greenhouse pollution is creating, by investing in the clearly highly profitable improvements and replacements for our Greenhouse pollution ways.
No one's sneering at "money". You made that up, too. There wasn't even a sneer in there, except the one you made up. Reducing carbon emissions 10 years ago, more gradually and cheaper, doing less damage than we're facing now, would have embraced money. Just not the money of the polluters. Who deserve more than a sneer - they deserve jailtime and deep fines.
Nobody attacked your money. Unless you're profiting from Greenhouse denial or Greenhouse pollution. Which, from the pile of stuff you just made up, seems entirely likely. In which case, you deserve an attack you haven't yet gotten, as well as jailtime and deep fines.
--
make install -not war
But you're responding with the equally hyperbolic fallacy of assuming that the sum total of fossil fuel consumption and carbon output is people driving cars, and that just getting SUVs off the road would fix everything.
I was cherry-picking an example; it wasn't intended to suggest a simple remedy. There are many more equally egregious wastes of energy in first-world countries; massive floodlights illuminating empty athletic fields at night are my favorite. Some of the culprits are seemingly trivial: I live in a relatively temperate climate (Northern California) where it almost never freezes, and a properly insulated residence needs minimal heating during winter. But I've ended up in several apartments or houses that were so poorly insulated that I had to choose between doubling my gas bill, or eating breakfast at 10 C. Gas is cheap, of course; insulating or rebuilding costs much more. But it isn't going to send us back to the Bronze Age; I just might have to wait another year to buy the Macbook Air. Heavily air-conditioned big-box stores are another example of extravagant waste and luxury - not that I have any moral objection to big-box stores or vapid consumerism (I also partake from time to time), but from the perspective of energy efficiency, we might as well just set gasoline on fire for fun. (Actually, we already do that: it's called NASCAR.)
More generally, we could make much better use of renewable and/or carbon-neutral energy sources (and I do include nuclear* in this category). Yes, most of these are more expensive, but none so much that we're going to suddenly find ourselves burning garbage to stay warm. The targets proposed for carbon emissions are exceedingly modest, and more than affordable for a country with huge amounts of surplus wealth. (And I don't mean that in a tax-the-rich way: even as a grad student living on a research stipend in one of the most expensive areas in the nation, I was still able to afford a car, Internet service, plane flights home on Christmas, occasional gadgets, etc., without going into debt.) I like money too, the more of it the better, but frankly, I can afford to pay more for energy if necessary, and most of the rest of the country can as well. Unless you have an absurd sense of entitlement, this is not an apocalyptic scenario.
I don't know what to suggest for the rapidly industrializing nations; it's much easier for us to adapt. However, it seems like the argument that "China won't cut back, so why should we?" is gaining increasing popularity. I don't think we should be using the Chinese government as a moral example for anything, let alone energy policy.
(* including fusion, if it ever works. It's appalling that we're spending a total of more than $300 billion on the F-35 when the industrial superpowers combined can barely get their act together to build ITER for less than €20 billion.)