Slashdot Mirror
Over the Antarctic, the Smallest Ozone Hole In a Decade
hypnosec writes "The ozone layer seems to be on a road to recovery over Antarctica; according to Europe's MetOp weather satellite, which is monitoring atmospheric ozone, the hole over the South Pole in 2012 was the smallest it's been in the last 10 years. The decrease in size of the hole is probably the result of reduction in the concentration of CFCs, especially since the mid-1990s, because of international agreements like the Montreal Protocol."
Correlation is not causation.
Perhaps this means that conservation efforts over the last decade have had effect? I don't know, I'm honestly speaking from a point of view that is ignorant of climate science. In any case, this is great news.
Surely if it's been shrinking all this time then you could have the same story every day: "ozone hole smallest size since $date". Has it grown occasionally for some reason?
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
... scientists recognized an environmental problem and demonstrated a clear link to human activity, the scientists told the politicians about it, the politicians acted, and now the problem's going away.
My God, this is terrible! We must ensure that no such thing ever happens again!
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Rather than going by your intuition, maybe you should go to eklima, where you can access all climate data from Norwegian weather stations since 1901. It's not impossible that it should have gone the other way here compared to the globe as a whole, but I doubt it.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
This demonstrates a problem seen on both sides of the climate change debate - people look at their short term local environment and extrapolate those experiences to the world as a whole without looking at actual relevant data.
Had a really hot summer? Boy, this global warming has gotten bad, it's going to wipe out humanity in a decade.
Terrible winter? Man, I'm tired of all those global warming alarmists - I wish it WAS warming!
But as far as the ozone hole goes... Given the very slow rate of exchange between the upper and lower atmosphere, it's hard to see how policy changes mainly implemented by western countries in the very recent past could fully explain this.
#DeleteChrome
Clearly, the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is helping close the ozone hole! Suck it, Al Gore!
(That's how it works, right?)
In other news, Microsoft Windows users are now covered under the Americans with Disabilties Act...
...in 3.... 2.... 1...
It's called "global warming", not "local warming". It's quite possible, and indeed expected, that some places will get colder as the world as whole gets warmer. In particular, collapse of certain warm-water currents in the Atlantic are likely to make Britain quite inhospitably cold if the ocean gets a little warmer. So stop being an ignorant, self-centered fool and learn about the issues before making stupid statements in public. Attitudes like yours endanger everyone.
Smallest in 10 years, you say?
Here's a story blaming the ozone hole for TOO MUCH ice
http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/8267243/Too-much-ice-for-Antarctic-penguins
After all, what does the data say? Higher temperatures, less Antarctic ozone? Looks like a correlation, and therefore....
I hate to even point this out, because idiots will claim I am a global warming denier, climate change denier or kicker of cute puppies...
But I really wish that the climate change folks would take a note from the whole ozone thing. CFCs and other contributory substances (ozone-depleting substances (ODS)) were proven to have an impact. CFCs were replaced with hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and other alternative solvents with minimal costs. And the problem was economically solved for the most part.
Folks proved what the problem was (ozone depletion), what was a very significant contributor (CFCs), how everything happened (in a scientific "can be repeated, with the same results every time"), set up accurate and provable models (Single Layer Isentropic Model of Chemistry And Transport (SLIMCAT), CLaMS (Chemical Lagrangian Model of the Stratosphere), etc), and how to economically mitigate the bad stuff by using less bad stuff. The last stage is arguably the most important. All of the climate change research and proof in the world is nice. But it doesn't mean jack if it doesn't produce economically acceptable alternatives.
X is bad? Fine. Accurately prove how they are bad, in a way that is relatively easy to proof in a repeatable way. Gimme alternatives that are viable (ie can be realistically implemented in a reasonable manner), that are economic (preferably cheaper, but no more than 5-10% more expensive) that are effective (preferably better, but no more than 5-10% less effiicient).
I spent time in former Soviet countries and third world countries. I'm aware of how bad pollution can be. It can be horribly nasty. I'm also not a moron, so I realize you have to be able to realistically solve the problem if you want to mitigate it. I'll bet myself $1 that I get called a climate denier, right wing puppy kicker or whatnot anyways.
zow, probably the best collection of reliable sources ever quoted.
Seriously - reason? mises? redstate!
Watch this Heartland Institute video
This is going to upset the alarmists.
It depends on the topic really. Not skeptical at all about the Holocaust, no, mostly because my Grandfather was at Burgen Belsen in 1945 with the British Army. And attempts to lump everyone who is skeptical of one thing together with anyone who's skeptical about anything is just a poor debating tactic.
Reducing CFC's was a good thing regardless of ozone holes, etc. They are toxic and bad for the environment, period, ozone holes or no.
Reducing the carbon footprint is also a good thing as it means using things efficiently vice producing so much waste, regardless of climate effects.
Why do we need a 'spin' to somehow make it real?
Inefficiency leads to waste leads to rapid depletion leads to the disappearance of valuable resources.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
wait, redstate isn't a science blog?
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
I believe the correct scientific term is The Global Puckering!
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
Had a really hot summer? Boy, this global warming has gotten bad, it's going to wipe out humanity in a decade.
Terrible winter? Man, I'm tired of all those global warming alarmists - I wish it WAS warming!
BTW, it's called "climate change" now, so you can blame both events on it.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
I am not a particle physicist, but your explanation of the ozone layer sounds like a "canary in a coal mine" and not a red herring. If the energy from UV radiation is transferred to oxygen high in the atmosphere, that means that less of that energy is hitting the surface of our planet. If the O_3 content drops, that probably implies some combination of reduced UV energy input and reduced energy absorption. The former is fine, but the latter means more high-energy particles will reach habitable altitudes.
| It's so much easier to win arguments with imaginary opponents who can be vilified for saying outrageous things.
| ... beloved by Lefties in particular, that "economics doesn't matterâ.
Thanks for the great example of the strawman argument.
I still have about half a can of vintage contact/tuner cleaner.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The problem isn't that they are rightwing nutjob sites (though they are), it's that they're politcal sites.
Why go to political sites for information about science?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
[wikipedia.org][redstate.com][reason.com][mises.org]
If your best source is Wikipedia, you should re-evaluate where your get your information. Try Google Scholar for a start. Libertarians may have a good take on liberty, but, sadly, many libertarian-leaning organisations have shown a disdain for science that does not jibe with their politics. I would like to be free of gravity, sometimes, or of the relationship between calories in and body weight. But no matter how much I like freedom, we ignore physical reality at our (or, in some cases, our children's) peril.
Stephan
That climate change deniers will use this to argue there is no such thing as 'global warming'.
When the lesson to take from this news is that we can reverse the negative impact of our actions on our environment with decisive action.
I call bullshit on their saying the CFC ban has anything to do with it. Let's wait for it to get bigger next year.
You are wrong. CFCs are chemically stable, non-toxic and non-flammable. There only so many permutations possible in chemistry, and CFCs are truly a wonder of chemistry. Alternatives are only partially up to be replacements, and are more than often corrosive, toxic, unstable.
You are correct on the facts.
Banning CFCs was at best a big mistake, if not outright a crime. It is inevitable that CFCs prohibition is ended at some point, because it simply makes no sense at all.
You are totally wrong on the conclusions. Long term destruction of the ozone would have been a disaster.
So now what BS excuse are commercial fishermen going to use to explain the collapse of the krill population. As usual, they are loathe to admit that it is overfishing, instead coming up with fanciful explanations such as the ozone hole to explain the collapse of the krill and the devastation of the Antarctic ecosystems....
You need to know a system before you can conclude if it is out of balance. You need to objectively consider all possibilities as to the cause. Before interfering with a system, you need to evaluate the costs and risks of your actions.
You mean like the careful evaluation we did before dumping CFCs into the atmosphere, and the one we did before digging up fossil fuels and burning them like there is no tomorrow? Or the one we do before we all send all our cattle onto the common grazing ground?
Science is not perfect, but it has very good self-correcting measures. I'm impressed if you are able to independently understand the CFC/Ozone relationship, as well as the complexities of climate change. But if you do, why do you point to crappy political sites which have no scientific value at all?
Before accepting a research institution's recommendations as "The Word Of Science", you need to scrutinize both their data-gathering methods as well as any potential biases that could affect how the data is processed and interpreted.
But science does not rely on the word of a single researcher or a single research institution. Science is a collaborative effort, with many different actors cross-checking, verifying, and, where possible, refuting their respective results. It is not perfect, but it is, to a high degree, self-correcting.
And of course the government itself is literally dying for a global climate crisis to justify its on-going existence, and create many opportunities for expanding its power.
"The government" actually is many different governments, which, in many areas compete. Moreover, we have had governments in all advanced societies for the last 5000 years or so - basically, since we had advanced societies. It hardly needs to "justify its ongoing existence".
My politics are based on reason.
Does your reason tell you that to substantially engage in any single field of science, you typically need a long, expensive, and arduous education? How do you know that your "reason" is sound? Or at least sounder than that of hundreds of talented people who often spend years or lifetimes trying to discover the nature of reality?
Stephan
You're right, the US Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs,) only affect the USA, and had no impact on the ozone layer (well, except the one banning CFCs, see below.)
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs,) on the other hand, have had a scientifically-demonstrated effect on the ozone layer, and have been banned essentially world-wide since 1994.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
so, basically, anything that you believe is fact, and everything that you don't is a conspiracy. and there is nothing to debate here son. Just nut cases like you trying to pretend you have a legitimate basis for your BS.
No, I didn't say it was a conspiracy. I just think it's wrong, that's all. Your abuse doesn't really help your argument here.
The insulting and cowardly bit is the "Fred isn't a wife beater - maybe George can learn from him" style bullshit - but of course you know that since it was obviously intentional. You've taken something good and are merely using it as a blunt instrument to push party dogma.
Another bit is bringing in arguments about unknown economic costs of unknown solutions as an excuse to avoid trying to identify problems - moving the goalposts to make it impossible to justify in economic terms because costing is about twenty steps down the track. You consider economic factors after you've got a clear list of options you can work out costs on, not when you are still working out the problems.
The real icing on the cake is casting yourself as a victim right at the start so any refutation of your insulting bullshit comes across as bullying. What a class act you are. What would your parents think? Call me a bully if you like, but at least I'm not trying to mislead people here just to shove a side effect of blind tribalism style politics down their throats. So the party line is now "experts are not experts if they are in field X" - what do you do if your field suddenly becomes unpopular with the party? Climate science is not my field but the arguments used to pretend it's not a science can be applied to just about profession that the party wants to scapegoat.
Well, I actually appreciate you winning me that dollar. I knew someone would scream their head off that because I want to intelligently make decisions based on yanno, science and whatnot that I'd be a no-good darn puppy kicking climate denier. Despite the fact that I haven't kicked any puppies and I believe humans do impact the environment. Instead of arguing from a position of emotions, some folks (myself included) would like numbers so sensible decisions could be made. You used insults and personal attacks instead of logic and reason. That is the problem, and that is what will hold back real solutions.
Feel free to continue. Tis your right to an opinion. Just remember you will alienate folks, and rightly make them question the validity of your side. Which is a shame, because as I previously said, I've seen how horribly bad that insanely lax environmental policies can be. People dumping trash into the same water sources they get their drinking water from. Burning coal with no filtering. Dumping chemicals into the ground. The Soviets were not down with taking care of the planet. It was bad, and will take decades to even partially mitigate.
Nothing will change until a) enough folks care to improve things and b) we know how to actually improve things. B is equally important. Without valid and accurate results, we will be flailing around in the dark. At best, we waste a lot of money, time and effort with mild and inefficient gains. At worst, we actually make the situation worse.
Look kid, saying "I know people will get upset at this" first is no excuse for insulting lies later even if you've seen such bad behaviour on Fox.
This site is going way downhill with such idiots spewing political propaganda using techniques out of their party playbook instead of actually using their brains for something useful. If I wanted to read an anti-science site there's plenty of other places I can go so I'd rather not have such bullshit here.
You've used the ozone issue as nothing but a trojan horse to push your own political agenda - that is an insult to the readers here that prefer to read something better than things excreted from the arse end of the batshit insane wing of US politics.
I'm not sure why your post is tagged -1, but yes 2012 seems like 2002.