Slashdot Mirror
'Healing' Detected In Antarctic Ozone Hole, Says Study (bbc.com)
kheldan quotes a report from BBC: Researchers say they have found the first clear evidence that the thinning in the ozone layer above Antarctica is starting to heal. The scientists said that in September 2015 the hole was around 4 million sq km smaller than it was in the year 2000 -- an area roughly the size of India. The gains have been credited to the long term phasing out of ozone-destroying chemicals. [The study also sheds new light on the role of volcanoes in making the problem worse.] The ozone-destroying chemicals, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), have been shown to be declining in their influence, causing the ozone layer to grow once more. "Even though we phased out the production of CFCs in all countries including India and China around the year 2000, there's still a lot of chlorine left in the atmosphere," Prof Solomon told the BBC World Service Science in Action program. "It has a lifetime of about 50-100 years, so it is starting to slowly decay and the ozone will slowly recover." Scientists also believe that volcanic sulphur can form tiny particles that act as seeds to Polar Stratospheric Clouds, where chlorine chemistry occurs that destroys the ozone.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-11-16/ozone-hole-closing-up-research-shows/727460
Look at the fucking date.
Said chlorofluorocarbons man made could not damage the Ozone we would no Ozone now and no future on the planet.
https://science.slashdot.org/story/13/02/10/1930214/over-the-antarctic-the-smallest-ozone-hole-in-a-decade
https://science.slashdot.org/story/11/05/20/2038228/signs-of-ozone-layer-recovery-detected
https://slashdot.org/story/06/10/21/0548245/nasa-announces-record-ozone-hole
https://slashdot.org/story/06/05/27/0654216/ozone-layer-improving-faster-than-expected
https://science.slashdot.org/story/04/10/02/1346252/ozone-hole-getting-smaller
Again, look at the fucking dates.
How the fuck is it "news" that the antarctic ozone hole is healing, if it's previously been reported that it had been getting smaller?
Am I missing something or NASA already confirmed that ten years ago?
Elok
This. The scientists already voted this is a problem so disagreeing with it is the typical antiintellectualism of Republicans.
Republicans are the party of death so this is why they are killing us this way.
A bunch of climate change conspiracy theorists pipe in
The levels of microplastic masses in the ocean will surpass that of all fish by 2050. So it would be nice to start to 'heal' that issue now also, were we doing so whatsoever, instead of continuing to accelerate the rate at which plastic bits are dumped into our global food supply.
...Maybe we can do it again for greenhouse gases.
testing, we just happen to not do those anymore.
The vote is over. This shouldn't be legal to talk about.
Agreed, bit since republicans hate science they don't recognize that vote.
So the ozone is Holeir-than-Thou
Table-ized A.I.
off topic: You know what's funny, there is nothing more stupider than a theist or a troll, using the sentence Atheist's god. This demonstrate a complete lack of understanding on how atheist think. Or the utter inability to think out of the box and understand that others (be it atheist or ...) can think vastly differently in scope and conclusion. It is really similar to that "you atheist in reality believe in gods/God and you are just angry of them/him" meme which demonstrate an utter inability to really think outside of their religion. /off topic
http://science.nasa.gov/scienc... we already knew the ozone hole was reducing in size. It seems to me the reduction is faster though... ?
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
You don't know what you're talking about. The entire world is not using "biodegradable plastic" in everything they do, you moronic lying cunt lol.
This. The scientists already voted this is a problem so disagreeing with it is the typical antiintellectualism of Republicans.
The vote was over 99% to less than 1%, so yes it should be illegal.
Actually this is new and is about clearing up all of the doubts around the other times and explains the expansion last year.
The other stuff was dumbed down headline.
The healing is taking place because of the cooperation of those such as yourself! Thank you!!
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
When I was growing up, the propaganda du jour was that the ozone damage was 100% permanent and there was no possible way to do anything about it.
Not it wasn't, you retard. There was international cooperation to limit the release of CFCs. This was largely successful and it was expected that the ozone hole would gradually improve. That is exactly what has happened.
Are you sure you have finished growing up BTW? Your brain seems to have been left behind.
It's not a matter of whether it breaks down or not - even the "non-biodegradable" stuff will be destroyed by UV rays. It's a question of how fast this happens and how quickly we dump that crap into oceans.
Ezekiel 23:20
Only a democratic president could bring about such great change. Trump will just put his business profits first again and try to revert all these emission restrictions to make a few extra bucks next quarter.
It is all thanks to me of course. I stopped using all those ozone hole producing products like soap, shampoo, deodorants. I completely stopped taking showers and baths, I stopped shaving and washing my cloths. I did everything to close the hole in the ozone layer and with success! But do you think someone thanked me for all my efforts? Of course not. People just avoid me, they say that I stink, I can't even get a proper job.
Conservatives like simple solutions to problems because complex reasoning eludes them. It's why they can't understand things like weather is not climate and always spout off nonsense denying climate change the first time it snows anywhere.
A variation on that is the 'your initial prediction wasn't 100 percent accurate therefore the whole thing was wrong' line of reasoning, followed in short order by 'you changed your prediction after doing more research. You're falsifying data to get rich off of grant money' or some other utter nonsense. The capitalists who get super rich by polluting and generally wanting us to pay for the external costs of their business--they just ignore their vested interests or parrot their bought and paid for soundbytes. They have to think less that way.
That's nice. When I was growing up, the propaganda du jour was that the ozone damage was 100% permanent and there was no possible way to do anything about it.
No, no it was not. That is a lie, and you are a liar. I bet you think there was a scientific consensus on global cooling, too.
including "The polar ice caps will be completely melted in 15 years" and "Global cooling will turn the planet into an icicle."
Yep. Idiot or troll. Please log in so you are easier to ignore.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's my understanding that most of the cfc compounds that were banned were actually heavier than air. Just how the heck did they get up in the upper atmosphere?
Also, doesn't sea water contain a great deal of chlorine(sodium chloride)? Doesn't that get in the atmosphere as well? Also the patents on these cfc compounds coincidentally expired about the same time they were being banned. Replaced by other compounds, patented by the same companies.
Follow the money....
-AC
fearmongers unite and find a new alarmist message! like the ozon hole is growing unexpectedly, quite cleary this is man-made, and we are all going to die!
bullshit
I'll start
Evolution v Intelligent Design - a small subset of Republicans, perhaps 20%. And many Evangelicals don't vote (and some still vote Dem)
Fraking is evil - Dems
Vaccination - leans Dem
Stem cell research - Republican have problem only with embryonic research
GMO - Democrat. GMO and Embryonic stem cell are opposed for much the same reason. It's morally wrong
Interesting about the stem cell research - embryonic cells have not been very fruitful. (And don't say it's because it's illegal to research. US government funds are not going there. Private R&D is legal. And let's not forget the research being done in England, France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, Korea and other places.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Yes, honey, this is Slashdot. I'm not sure why every liberal needs to preface their comments with this phrase, but the rest of us know what website we're on.
Oh, and the hole in the ozone layer was undisputably, undeniably caused by chlorofluorocarbons. The effects of man-made CO2 on the climate cannot be accurately determined yet due to a number of factors, not the least of which being falsified data. Full stop.
Madness?
No.
This.
Is.
Slashdot!!!!!!!!
You missed a few issues there.
And what is anti scientific about being against fracking? Science shows that it causes problems.
Something is producing excess ozone!!!!!
Contrary to the 97% of scientists who agree, ozone just doesn't come out of thin air. It's not a living organism.
Hope whatever is producing it stops before we're all mandated to use aerosol sprays again!
Learn to read faggot.
Theres good evidence that frakking creates geological instability and pollutes the water table, not through the fractured shale but through the bore hole/surface spills, in addition to air pollution and frakking being a regression and encouragement to remain in a hydrocarbon based economy at a time when we as a species really need to be moving to renewables.
Theres also good reasons to oppose GMOs or heavily regulate, mostly due to the nature of seed markets these days: its very easy for Monsanto or other seed providers to fuck up everything and create a situation where any other alternative to a potentially harmful genetically modified crop is extinct via being pushed out of the seed market before we realize the crop is a shit choice.
You're right about the vaxxers though, dumb fuckers need to get their heads out of their asses before we are all screwed by polio again.
Your debating skills are without equal.
A variation on that is the 'your initial belief wasn't 100 percent accurate therefore the whole thing was wrong' line of reasoning, followed in short order by 'you changed your doctrine after doing more research. You're falsifying history to get rich off of believers' money' or some other utter nonsense.
Ironically, I've often heard these same kinds of arguments from argumentative atheists.
That's nice, I guess, but if I'm going to believe in mythical figures, then I'd much rather 'believe' in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy, because they all bring you nice stuff, and your so-called 'god' only ever seems to bring hate, destruction, and death to everyone. Then to make matters worse, he/she/they/it (whatever the fuck your so-called 'god' is supposed to be) runs around using aliases, like any criminal would do, and commits even more crimes against humanity, like for instance convincing those assholes in the Middle East that they've got license to run around and cut off people's heads and turn little girls in to sex slaves! I mean seriously, if your so-called 'god' was just some guy, he'd be serving out multiple life sentences in a super-max prison right now, if not hauled into The Hague and tried/convicted for mass crimes against humanity and summarily executed. LOL, if this so-called 'god' of yours is what you willingly believe in and 'worship', then all I have to say is, you need to go see your psychologist and have your meds adjusted, or perhaps you should just check yourselves into an institution since you might be a danger to yourself or others. Meanwhile I think I'll just continue being rational and relatively sane, and not waste my time on imaginary nightmare figures like your so-called 'god', and have a much more enjoyable life.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
The comic book science I was fed in middle school was about that simplistic.
But that wasn't adult level propaganda. It was perpetrated by ex-hippy teachers operating on their own limited understanding of science.
Just like now, kids were being indoctrinated.
Watch this: The number one source of stratospheric ozone is UV light hitting oxygen. Which explains why 'holes' only form in polar winters. Everywhere else there is an equilibrium process going on as ozone is steadily created and destroyed.
Someone will be along to call me a liar and shill any second.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Science has time and again proven that fracking is perfectly safe, and the places with flammable water had the issue before the fracking due to the nat gas being in the rocks already.
Being against fracking is anti intellectual.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
since it takes control from those of us that want to promote AGW.
Not in the least. It is a good example of the world coming together and doing something effective about a problem, exactly what we should be doing more of in regard to AGW as well.
Watch this: The number one source of stratospheric ozone is UV light hitting oxygen. Which explains why 'holes' only form in polar winters. Everywhere else there is an equilibrium process going on as ozone is steadily created and destroyed.
What you say is true. But it's also true that CFCs increase the rate at which ozone is destroyed causing a lower equilibrium point unless the rate of creation goes up somehow.
I'm thinking your post is tongue-in-cheek but I'll respond anyway. Ozone is produced naturally in the stratosphere when an ultraviolet photon hits an O2 molecule splitting it to 2 oxygen atoms that then combine with another O2 molecule to produce O3. This is a process that has gone on for billions of years ever since there was significant oxygen in the atmosphere.
Evolution v Intelligent Design - a small subset of Republicans, perhaps 20%. And many Evangelicals don't vote (and some still vote Dem)
Unfortunately, this is quite wrong. The numbers you get depend heavily on how you ask the question, but recent polling suggests that a plurality of Republicans (48%) believe that humans have existed in their present form since the beginning of time vs. only 27% of Democrats. About a third of *all* adults in the U.S. hold this position. If you ask whether God created humans in their present form, it's closer to 40%, and has been for decades. You can find other polls here showing similar results.
Regardless, overall popular support turns out to be less important than one would hope. What matters more is who's politically involved -- who votes in primaries, who runs in school board elections, who causes trouble when politicians vote the "wrong" way. The Republican party is also much more disciplined than the Democratic party, so you'll regularly see the Republican-controlled House and Senate voting in lockstep against even against ideas that have majority support among their base. (Gun control laws are the most recent example.)
Visit the
Gun control is supported by the GOP base? WTF?
I don't consider theists to be anti-science. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. Even such as Ann Colter (sp) bring up this point. The irrational, anti-science types are a much smaller percentage than you make out. The majority of the polls are trying to bring forth a narrative as opposed to understanding a complicated set of beliefs.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Gun control is supported by the GOP base? WTF?
You'd be surprised. It depends heavily on which question you ask. Often questions about specific policies get way more support than more abstract questions. Here's an example from a Quinnipiac national poll from a few days ago (N=1610, MoE = +/-2.4%). For the question:
Do you support or oppose stricter gun laws in the United States?
26% of Republicans answered "support", while 69% answered "oppose". But that same poll also asked:
Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?
For this question, "support" won 90%-9% among Republicans. The poll also asked:
As you may know, individuals on the U.S. government's terrorist watch list are not allowed to fly on planes. Would you support or oppose banning those on the U.S. government's terrorist watch list from purchasing guns?
which was supported 85%-12% by Republicans. Other polls show similar results. These are both measures that have been debated since the Orlando shootings. PollingReport is a good site for finding polls if you want to see more results for yourself.
You can see this sort of behavior in other issues as well. Health care reform was a big one -- the individual provisions were popular, but when asked about "Obamacare" people gave very negative opinions.
I don't consider theists to be anti-science. Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive.
Of course not. Polls on evolution are careful to distinguish between evolution being "guided by God" and evolution as a purely natural process for that reason. But there does seem to be a floor of about 30% for support for Creationism no matter how the questions are asked. More specific polls are rare, but there's a 2005 Harris poll with some dismaying results (N=1000, MoE=+/-3%).
Do you think human beings developed from earlier species or not?
Did 38%
Did not 54%
Do you believe all plants and animals have evolved from other species or not?
Have 49%
Have not 45%
Do you believe apes and man have a common ancestry or not?
Do 46%
Do not 47%
This seems to have had a priming effect on the standard question:
Which of the following do you believe about how human beings came to be? Human beings evolved from earlier species. Human beings were created directly by God. Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them.
Evolved from earlier species 22%
Created directly by God 64%
Powerful force/intelligent being 10%
And finally, the most relevant question for this discussion:
Regardless of what you may personally believe, which of these do you believe should be taught in public schools?
Evolution only. [READ IF NECESSARY: Evolution says that human beings evolved from earlier stages of animals.]
Creationism only. [READ IF NECESSARY: Creationism says that human beings were created directly by God.]
Intelligent design only. [READ IF NECESSARY: Intelligent design says that human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them.]
All three.
Evolution only 12%
Creationism only 23%
Intelligent design only 4%
All three 55%
None+Unsure 6%
I don't think there are necessarily a ton of people who are hard-core anti-science ideologues, but the people who are functionally anti-science (in cases that make them uncomfortable) are not a tiny minority by any stretch.
Visit the
For Your Interest, I used to work for a (uranium) mining company as an environmental scientist and write reports sprinkled with special phrases just so people like you would make a post like this.
I think the benefits of uranium outweigh the risks so I'm OK with that, personally I wouldn't work for frackers on ethical grounds.
Nice work pawn, dig deeper if you want to be informed..
I'm a big 2nd A supporter and will answer yes to a generic question of background check. But the devil is in the details isn't it?
The problem with the no-fly list is the lack of due process. It's a list which can be abused too easily. Put in the basic checks:
1. Make the list public.
2. Be able to see the reason you're on the list
3. Due Process regarding evidence
Interesting isn't it as it is the Democrats who are opposed to due process. I wonder why?
Re evolution - that is a hard one to use to label someone as anti-science. I know several engineers (electrical) who are very religious and who would probably "flunk" the evolution / creationist sniff test. And yet - they are competent electrical engineers working for some well-known companies. I'm working with programmers many of whom have undergrad degrees in math and physics (not to mention CS) who believe in the Word as put forth in the Bible.
I have a hard time calling them anti-science as well.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Yeah, sure, keep up the fud.
If you understand the technology behind fracking, you might understand how it is not possible for it to pollute the water table, but keep acting like you know everything about the subject.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?