Slashdot Mirror
Severe Arctic Ozone Loss
iONiUM writes
"The BBC reports that 'Ozone loss over the Arctic this year was so severe that for the first time it could be called an "ozone hole" like the Antarctic one, scientists report. About 20km (13 miles) above the ground, 80% of the ozone was lost, they say. The cause was an unusually long spell of cold weather at altitude. In cold conditions, the chlorine chemicals that destroy ozone are at their most active.' This is the first time in observational history that the Arctic ozone has been depleted to such extensive levels (abstract). This will mean high UV problems for Russia, Greenland and Norway."
Global warming due to CO2 == heat is trapped in the troposphere => less heat lost => colder stratosphere.
If the global warming was due to the Sun, the whole atmosphere would be warming.
On the other hand, Venus has runaway greenhouse effect and its stratosphere is abnormally cold.
since the environuts have lost the polar bear debate
In whose mind? Compare global warming awareness today to 10 years ago - there are significant policies in place and continued effort at carbon emission reductions....
> But hey make up your mind, is this Arctic cold snap caused by Global Warming too, or what?
Yes. The colder air than usual in the stratosphere is caused by the fact that greenhouse gases insulate so much that less heat escape to space. Common sense actually. So yes, this phenomenon is a very good indication that the greenhouse effect is both real and increasing.
Really, only the anti-science loony fringe denies global climate changes now a days, the scientific evidence for man made influence on the present climate change keep on coming, and is getting confirmed from many different sources. AFAIK, not a single scientific study trying to find other causes than human influence, have succeded in explaining what is going on.
--
Regards
The air has been exceptionally cold up there? Where is all that global warming everyone is speaking about?
Mr. Republican/Tea party member, the correct term is "Climate Change".
Enjoy the rest of your science bashing day.
Can you point to a time... any time in history when earth was NOT experiencing "Climate Change"?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Wait, so you link to articles about an accelerated loss of the ozone layer in the Arctic due to cold weather then say nothing came of it in the comments to an article discussing the first hole in the Arctic ozone layer? Using your timeline this seems like a rather reasonable progression of events but the tone of your post makes it sound like this is par for the course.
Holes in the ozone layer can have very significant effects on humans in regions were those holes exists. The ozone layer protects the surface of the Earth from some of the UV flux emitted by the sun. UV light is known to cause skin cancer in humans. Having a hole above a populated area of the world (unlike where the Antarctic hole usually forms) can have lasting effects on those populations. These effects may not be obvious for years due to the varying timelines for cancer development.
Please just try to address information objectively before imposing your beliefs on it. Be critical of any argument put forward and prepared to change your view point to fit new facts. Skimming an article and asserting it is the same old thing when it is blatantly not serves you and those who listen to you poorly.
How much are you willing to bet that this will be used to try to debunk global warming because there is an area that has colder then average weather.
As much as I would be willing to bet that this will be used to try to prove global warming because there is an area that has colder than average weather.
We can deal with only one problem at a time. And Carbon won by popular vote.
Actually, the ozone layer won, because we actually did something about it back in the 70s and 80s. But you are right, the next problem came along and everybody thought the hole in the ozone layer was solved.
How much are you willing to bet that this will be used to try to debunk global warming because there is an area that has colder then average weather.
I would not bet a thing. This bozo already beat you to it!
The concentrations of O3 in question are quite small. Would manufacturing (or capturing surface ozone, which is a pollutant when here with us surface dwellers) O3, lofting tanks on high altitude balloons over the poles and releasing it help?
I realize how insane this sounds.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
So the ends justify the means.
Ozone hole deniers and global warming through CO2 deniers are both the same, people who refuse to believe that physics works.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
it would be nice to be able to reach through the screen and tear him a new asshole, or rip off his head and shit down his neck
This is the hallmark of pretty much all fanatics everywhere. Well done. Why don't you throw in a couple Allahu-ackbars too, before you decapitate me?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I am not a climate scientist. I am a former telecommunications engineer (I contributed to 802.11n standardisation process) who now works in market making (gotta follow the dollar when you have young mouths to feed). Explain to me in a way that I can understand why insulation that reduces heat escaping into space causes air in the stratosphere to be colder than usual. By my uninformed logic, I would expect air to be warmer if less heat is escaping.
Not trying to troll - just looking for an explanation that makes sense. I'm not uneducated, stupid, poor or unwilling to learn. I don't work in an industry that stands to lose if we have to cut back on carbon pollution. I'm just a curious guy who wants to know why the logic that appears to be contradicted is wrong.
Can you point to a time... any time in history when earth was NOT experiencing "Climate Change"?
Can you point to a time... any time in history when the earth experience warming on the scale that it is now when it should have actually been cooling.
The people who spend their lives studying the climate are quite familiar with the way it changes over time. You didn't really surprise them with this stunning revelation. The problem is not that it is changing, but the rate of change.
But then you knew that, because it has been pointed out to you time and time again and yet you still spew out the same uninformed one-liners that are supposed to counter the volumes of research that has been done on this subject. But you might as well keep it up, because the surveys show that it is actually working. It appears that stupidity is catching after all.
The Ozone hole has never got close to NZ or Australia. In fact it has never been within a 1000 miles.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
isn't it always half a degree colder in NL than elsewhere?
rewriting history since 2109
It was a Nature article. The Weather Underground has a thoughtful discussion.
No, of course he can't. Climate changes due to natural events and cycles. I don't think anyone denies that.
However, he can point out that according to the best figures we have, the climate is currently changing at a far greater rate than has occurred previously (outside of major extinction events), and that that pace of change cannot be explained by natural causes alone. We are seeing changes over decades-to-centuries time frames that would normally take millennia (or longer).
Actually, Venus is a good example because people best undersand extremes. If you want to demonstrate the effects of greenhouse gases, what better way than to point to a planet where they compose the vast majority of the atmosphere? Venus is what would happen if all of the Earth's atmosphere were to be replaced with greenhouse gases.
If you look at, say, Mars and Venus, you have the two opposites. Earth stands somewhere along the two; global warming is inching us closer to Venus. We'll never actually reach Venus levels, obviously, but the comparison is still apt.
I am sure that recent volcanic activity alone has affected the global climate far more than human activity.
Well, you're DEAD WRONG. Volcanoes emit about 1% as much CO2 as human activities. Look it up. The main effect of volcanoes is *cooling* caused by ash, which only lasts a couple of years max.
Every time you see someone mention volcanoes as the culprit in a discussion about GW, you can be sure that they don't have a frigging clue what they're talking about, and everything they post can be safely ignored.
You are correct. The environuts won the polar bear debate when they got them listed as a "threatened species", even though there are more polar bears today (by a factor of several magnitudes) than at any time since scientists started counting them.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
WTF? So we banned CFCs in the 80s to save the ozone layer but in a cruel twist of fate the increase in CO2 causes the air down here to get warmer and the air way up there to get colder and that makes the CFCs more efficient and therefore better at destroying the ozone? Yeah? So we are supposed to... do... what? How do we know that banning all carbon would not have some other unforeseen issue? These people have no idea what they are talking about or they do but are not saying anything productive. It will be news if one of these guys knew how to fix any of this mess or had something productive to say. The truth is that we are fracked no matter what and we should really focus upon what we will leave in the fossil record and enjoy the time we have left!
http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/arctic_thinning.html
The "coldness" of the pole is related to the strength of the winds (polar vortex) around the pole in the atmosphere. The south pole generally has strong winds circling it, which works to cut off the south pole's atmosphere from the rest of the world, especially during the southern hemisphere winter. Part of the reason for a stronger vortex is due to ocean surrounding the south pole on all sides, with land masses far away. In addition, the southern hemisphere in general has more ocean compared to land than the northern hemisphere.
In the northern hemisphere, the polar vortex generally has more waves or pertubations in the polar vortex, which help to mix in air from lower latitudes. Some of this is caused by planetary waves that propagate vertically in the atmosphere. These planetary waves are formed generally due to land masses and mountains affecting the atmospheric flow (not this simple but this is the general idea). Generally, the factor that causes the difference in the north and south polar vortices is land mass.
Now relating this all to climate is a bit tricky. It has been seen that as the troposphere warms (lowest layer of the atmosphere), the stratosphere cools. This has been seen in observations in the last 30-50 years (you may argue that 50 years might not be enough to define a long-term trend). The reason for this cooling is basically radiative balance (though I'm oversimplifying it here). If the troposphere warms due to increased greenhouse gasses, then the atmosphere above must cool above it. There cannot be more heat coming in than is leaving the Earth. A good analog to this is Venus. Venus has huge concentrations of greenhouse gasses. We know its surface is very hot (over 400 degrees C), while its upper atmosphere is much cooler than Earth's (gets down below -110 degrees C, compared to about -80 C on Earth).
The tough part is separating the stratospheric cooling due to greenhouse gasses and ozone destruction from CFCs (although we may know this answer once all the CFCs are out of the atmosphere in the future). Increased greenhouse gasses will warm the troposphere and cool the stratosphere. This will lead to more polar stratospheric clouds, leading to more reactions sites for ozone destruction. More ozone destruction means less UV light is absorbed by ozone in the stratosphere. Less UV absorption means a cooler stratosphere which further intensifies the problem.
You're lying in bed at night in a cool room with one blanket on. The blanket is warmer on the bottom next to you and cooler on the top. The top of the blanket is still warmer than the air in the room and it loses heat. Put on a second blanket. You get warmer underneath the two blankets, the top of the blanket layer is cooler than before, and less heat escapes into the room. The troposphere without additional CO2 already has about a dozen blankets on, because we're 33K or so warmer at the surface than our effective radiative temperature into space, and the recent excess CO2 is just adding another blanket to add a few more K to the surface warming. But the main point for this is that the stratosphere is mostly outside the blankets and is getting less heat.
You are incorrect. http://www.skepticalscience.com/polar-bears-global-warming.htm
The polar bear population was estimated in the 50s and 60s to be 5k-10k. This was based on anecdotal evidence of hunters and explorers, so it likely underestimates the population back then. Today, it's estimated to 20k-25k. That is not even one order of magnitude, let alone several.
Additionally, a scientific analysis of polar bear sub-populations shows that the number of increasing sub-populations is declining (only 1 of the 12 sub-populations with sufficient data is increasing), the number of stable sub-populations is declining (3 now), and the number of decreasing sub-populations is growing (8 now); 7 sub-populations lack sufficient data.
That suggests population loss is accelerating - even after they are listed as a threatened species.
:(){
The CFCs are still a problem that had lessened, but because of abnormal temperatures in the Arctic, their remaining effects were magnified a great deal.
This isn't like that. Stratospheric cooling due to heat trapped in the troposphere is an easy phenomenon to see and is clearly related to the basic expectations of global warming.
This is just more environmental fear mongering and finger pointing without scientific proof.
Exactly how would that be different from what you're doing?
Other than the people supposedly doing the fear mongering and finger pointing are scientists and have evidence, where as you aren't, you don't, and you have already demonstrated the depth of your ignorance on the topic. You are demonstrating the classic symptoms of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
So, how exactly did a level of CFCs that are now a fraction of a percentage point of any modern-era level -- to the point where they're now banning fucking *asthma inhalers* -- somehow cause the largest "ozone hole" in recorded history?
Because it can take up to 2 years for a CFC molecule to make its way up to the ozone layer. And after that, it's not the CFC that directly breaks down the ozone, it's when the molecule itself is broken down by radiation that it then reacts, which can take decades. So banning CFCs won't instantly fix the problem; it takes time to see the results - perhaps till around 2030-40.
Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
So, how exactly did a level of CFCs that are now a fraction of a percentage point of any modern-era level -- to the point where they're now banning fucking *asthma inhalers* -- somehow cause the largest "ozone hole" in recorded history?
So, how did you jump to the conclusion that CFC levels are the only factor affecting ozone levels?
As someone who got hit with a $1,800 AC repair bill ~9 years ago for something that should have been a $65 refill (because they had to basically tear out and replace the car's entire air conditioner),
Uh no. Because Freon is $50/lb, or more and your car would take probably 1.5 lb or more, the freon alone would cost you $75. Of course, it's only that expensive because we outlawed its production in this country, but seriously, you will only come off as a luddite if you rail against that. Harmful compounds are harmful.
It's too bad you had to pay $1800 for a conversion, which basically consists of dismounting the compressor and dryer, draining the compressor, removing the orifice tube, blowing solvent through the lines, putting some oil in the compressor and a new dryer, installing the orifice tube and the compressor, and recharging the system with any A/C-specific tools except the connection that comes with the fill kit. You might need a separator for snap lines, but you can get a plastic cheapie set for under ten bucks.
You were robbed, but that's not R-134a's fault.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That applies to a solitary chemical reaction. Atmospheric chemistry deals with equilibria. Equilibria shift with temperature.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
CFC might be a good name for a band. I've heard worse....
If a bunch of people presumably smart enough to run a particle accelerator can't figure out how to recycle CFCs - something every car mechanic on the planet figured out decades ago - you should check your dosimeter reports very carefully.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
It's mostly true that reactions dependent on kinetics speed up with temperature. Ozone holes, though, are a very very different process. The ozone hole results from surface reactions on polar stratospheric clouds. The colder it gets, the easier it is for those clouds to form, and the more severe the rate of ozone depletion.
Do some homework before calling "bullshit".
(I am an atmospheric chemist, I am not your atmospheric chemist, etc...)
The Science News story has some words of caution of equating this 'hole' to the Antarctic hole:
(sorry, Slashdot still protects us against dangerous quotation marks)
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
What we are "supposed to do" is just wait.
the ban only took effect in 1996 (phasing out was started in 1991), with some CFCs (CFC-13, 111, 112, various halon variants, etc.) only getting fully eliminated last year.
The issue is that CFCs are very long lived. It takes decades for them to break down. We won't really start seeing the effect of the bans on the ozone layer for another 20-30 years. Until then, we just have to deal with it.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Global warming of about 0.8 deg C over the last 100 years. Mt. Pinatubo's 1991 eruption cooled the earth by 0.6 deg C. Looks to me that one good volcanic eruption can cancel an entire century of global warming. Now add up all the volcanic eruptions we've had in the last century... I think you'll find they affect the climate a lot more than than man-made CO2.
It can cancel it ... for a couple of years. Then of course when the ash and sulfur falls out of the atmosphere, temperatures go right back up. We don't get the biggest volcanic eruption in a century as an annual event.
FFS - does anybody here have reasoning skills beyond a 3rd grade level?
The cold in question is in the stratosphere, not the troposphere. It hasn't been particularly cold on the surface.
How about you deal with the science and cut the smug egotism, asshole. Some scientists believe the climate is warming due to human activity released CO2. Some do not. Either say why you believe the first group of scientists, and why you are not bothered by the politics and the lying which have been exposed - or SHUT THE FUCK UP. Your choice. Demonizing those who do not willingly accept force-fed imperatives is not productive. Yeah, I can't force you to do this, any more than you can reach across the internet and tear me apart.
I can think of valid arguments supporting anthropogenic climate change, but I cannot think of a proof. I can also think of both positives and negatives if the change does occur, for WHATEVER reason. What I haven't seen is any indication of is a complete cost benefit analysis of tearing apart the world economy and grossly lowering the standard of living of those most vulnerable. Hey, there may be an analysis which could convince rational people of the advisability of radical action but, like, IT NEEDS TO BE DEVELOPED AND DEBATED RATIONALLY.
Passion can be a useful and laudatory thing, but it has to be harnessed. And it ain't easy, believe me. Just look how we both got all worked up now.
The proof is in frequency, average temperature, average rain fall and yes greenhouse effects mean heat is trapped at the surface and the stratosphere get's dramatically colder.
This is also the argument proposed by some scientists that suggest such huge differences in localize temperature, could themselves become a powerful heat engine, creating a scenario for a hyper-cane or some weird weather phenomenon like it. Such a storm would be much taller than normal and pull supercold air down through its eye, flash freezing whatever the storm tracked over. However models for these odd beasties don't look at all like the disaster movies, instead they are only a few tens of miles in diameter (more like supercells gone wild as opposed to normal hurricanes.) The real problem is that they would horribly chew up the remaining ozone, and it would take more than a few of these storms to to create a global ozone depletion problem.
The cold in question is in the stratosphere, not the troposphere. It hasn't been particularly cold on the surface
Polar amplification (faster warming of the polar troposphere) and stratospheric cooling are both successful predictions of the much maligned climate models. By successful I mean they were found in 1980's models and have since been observed in the real world.
Stratospheric cooling has something to do with pressure, I don't fully understand the physics but it goes something like this....A GHG molecule in the stratosphere can travel a further distance before hitting another atom/molecule and is therefore more likely to lose energy by emitting absorbed photons into space rather than passing the energy to another particle via a collision (heat)....As I said I don't fully understand the mechanism so corrections/expansions to my description are welcome.
Of course psudeo-skeptics such as Bob Carter dishonestly use stratospheric temperature records to claim the surface is cooling.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Problem with that is no model has ever worked without including the effects of CO2.
Well, I live and learn. Today I've learned that, although overshadowed by climate change denialists in the larger environmental debate, there are anthropogenic ozone depletion denialists as well. And they have research from "think tanks" to back them up.
Predicting the size and shape of the ozone hole basically amounts to weather prediction plus additional complicating factors. Weather prediction is hard enough already, so if no-one has an exact model that predicts the size of the ozone hole, I can understand that. It hardly proves in any way that man-made CFCs aren't a major factor in the destruction of stratospheric ozone. The simple fact is that pretty much all natural substances that can also cause the same problem are water soluble and have a very short stay in the atmosphere to begin with and a very hard time even getting to the stratosphere.
In any case, in four decades or so, when the long tail of the CFC ban has actually taken effect. We can compare notes again and see how the ozone is doing. Either that, or we can start using CFCs again, and look at the ozone layer in five or six decades. If we take the first route, and it turns out that the ozone layer hasn't really changed, then we say whoops, our bad and start using CFCs again. If we take the second route, and it turns out that the ozone layer is gone, we'll then have to ban CFCs again and wait another half century for it to come back again.
There's this whole thing about erring on the side of caution if you must err that the denialist types never seem to get. Like the people who deny that we'll ever run out of energy-positive fossil fuels (some of them insist that the fossil fuels aren't actually biogenic, and it's possible that they're at least partly right, but I'm still going to refer to them as fossil fuels). Even if they're right, which seems less and less likely with every passing year, it makes sense to conserve as much as possible, just to be on the safe side.
The denialists tend to be in such awe of the sheer size of the earth that they can't imagine how human action could ever damage it in any way and seem to remain blind to all the obvious evidence right in front of their eyes. The fact is, there's only about 5 and a quarter acres of land for each human on earth. There's about 715,000 tons of atmosphere per person and 193,000,000 tons of water per person. All that seems like a lot, except for the 5 and a quarter acres. Considering the ~11 kilowatts (counting all sources, not just the ~300 watts of home electrical use) of per person power usage in the US. The 5 and a quarter acres seems like a fairly small amount for a single person to be able to mess up. As for the atmosphere, those numbers mean that a single person accounts for about .1 ppm of their share of the atmosphere by body mass. Doesn't seem like that much until you consider how very small changes in some atmospheric variables can cause some pretty big changes. Consider that 11 kilowatts of power use again and consider each person's share in all their household goods, their housing, all the infrastructure they have a share in, etc. Just think about how many times their weight in garbage a single human produces in a year. As for the water, well there, a single human being by weight is .35 ppb, so it should seem like we're on safer ground, but consider that maximum contamination levels for mercury are about 2 ppb. Then consider all of that garbage over a lifetime along with the energy use, then consider the fact that mercury bioaccumulates, we eat seafood, and that mercury is only one of the contaminants that we have to worry about. Considering all of this, I have to conclude that the world is big, certainly, but the parts we inhabit just aren't that big compared to the sheer size of the human race and our civilisation. We certainly exist on a scale big enough to alter the world, and do so faster than it can bounce back. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.