Slashdot Mirror


Hole In The Ozone Layer Smallest In 29 Years (weather.com)

An anonymous reader quotes the Weather Channel: The hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica is the smallest it's been since 1988, NASA said. According to a press release, the hole in the Earth's ozone layer is 1.3 million square miles smaller than last year and 3.3 million square miles smaller than 2015... This year, the hole grew to 7.6 million square miles. NASA and NOAA scientists said warmer temperatures and a stormier upper atmosphere helped keep damaging chemicals chlorine and bromine from eating ozone from the layer that protects the Earth's surface from harmful ultraviolet rays... The hole that hovers over Antarctica has been slowly recovering, scientists say, due to an international ban on harmful chemicals that were previously used in refrigerants and aerosols.

The hole was its largest in 2000 and measured 11.5 million square miles. Although recovery is underway, the size of the hole remains large compared to the 1980s, when the hole was first detected, NASA noted. And while there has been significant healing of the ozone layer in recent years, some scientists say full healing is a slow process and will not occur until sometime in the 22nd century, Yale Environment 360 reports. Others expect the Antarctic ozone hole to recover back to 1980 levels around 2070, NASA said.

181 comments

  1. This shows we can handle environmental problems by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a really good demonstration that we can handle serious environmental problems if we put in the effort, and we can do so without substantial economic impact. Yes, global warming is a more large scale problem than ozone depletion but the basic point remains. We've now essentially solved both the ozone hole problem and acid rain, through a combination of market forces, better technology, and government incentives. We can do the same for global warming. Let's actually do that. Unfortunately, over the last few years, some aspects of the right in the US have become so against helping the environment that they are blocking any serious attempt to deal with these issues, and we'll all going to suffer as a result.

    1. Re:This shows we can handle environmental problems by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We've mostly "mastered" it because industries found inexpensive replacements for pollutants and they managed to use imposing pollution standards as a way to stem competition from poorer nations that cannot match environment standards and thus can't enter markets that require industries to heed standards.

      It's not that easy this time. China is way ahead in its "green" industry efforts while your head honcho is trying to push coal. If you forced environmental standards onto industries, the US would not be among the winners this time.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:This shows we can handle environmental problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      your head honcho is trying to push coal

      Correction: Clean Coal

      Clean American coal is the future for America and America's energy supply

    3. Re:This shows we can handle environmental problems by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 2

      Indeed.

      This is the reason I'm still (cautiously) optimistic about humanity: scientists discovered chlorofluorcarbons were destroying the ozone layer, and you know what? Humans PHASED THEM OUT.
      Sometimes humans DO do the right thing.
      http://www.theozonehole.com/im...

      We've mostly "mastered" it because industries found inexpensive replacements for pollutants and they managed to use imposing pollution standards as a way to stem competition from poorer nations that cannot match environment standards and thus can't enter markets that require industries to heed standards.

      Citation needed. And to a credible source, please. Or, to phrase this more bluntly: you're wrong.

      The drop in production of ozone destroying CFCs started well before the Montreal protocol-- humans stopped using the ozone-destroying CFCs without being legally required to.

      It turns out, actually, that humans are very good at solving problems. Once we clearly identify a problem, there are a lot of people who are willing to work hard at finding solutions.

      It's what we do.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    4. Re:This shows we can handle environmental problems by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      No no no, you got it all wrong!
      It is a clear case that the alarmists 30 years ago had no clue at all!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:This shows we can handle environmental problems by datavirtue · · Score: 0

      First it was hair spray...now it's car emissions. What's next? Cow flatulence?

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    6. Re:This shows we can handle environmental problems by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Of course. Clean coal - right up there with military intelligence and forced consent.

      "Clean Coal" covers a wide range of unrelated technologies,most aimed at reducing traditional toxic pollution. The only way it helps with global warming is if you're specifically doing *extremely* effective CO2 capture. And then only if you've come up with something to do with the captured gas - so far we haven't really - all the remotely affordable "sequestering" suggestions appear to only contain it for a few decades - which helps today, but makes the future problem even worse.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    7. Re:This shows we can handle environmental problems by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      We've mostly "mastered" it because industries found inexpensive replacements for pollutants

      Which they wouldn't have been looking for if we hadn't forced them to.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    8. Re:This shows we can handle environmental problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very insightful, just thought to let you know.

    9. Re:This shows we can handle environmental problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clean Coal is for retards who don't understand science

  2. agw by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's why we have global warming. Shouldn't have covered it up so some of the steam can come out, keep things cooler. I don't know what NASA is doing, I think for three minutes and I come up with better ideas than all of NASA scientists. This is why Donald Trump got elected wake up.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:agw by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I can't tell if you're serious or joking. I reread your post about 5 times and I just can't tell.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:agw by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      That's nothing. Wait till I tell you what I read in the Voynich manuscript. The noodle is going to blow your mind. IFOs all over the place (for those people who are not yet awake, an IFO is like a UFO but I. People like you are why we got stuck with Trump). On the seventh page of the manuscript it clearly states poe's law is the best law.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:agw by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      On the seventh page of the manuscript it clearly states poe's law is the best law.

      Thank goodness!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    4. Re:agw by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I get why people modded me troll or funny but I'm a little concerned about the chap who modded me insightful.......

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:agw by Desprez · · Score: 1

      Perhaps some new meta brand of sarcasm? I hope?

  3. Thank Bush 41 by known_coward_69 · · Score: 4, Informative

    he pushed through an amendment to the clean air act in 1989 to ban the use of ozone depleting chemicals

    1. Re:Thank Bush 41 by whoever57 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Which shows how crazy the current crop of Republicans are.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. Re:Thank Bush 41 by known_coward_69 · · Score: 0

      The parties switched ideologies in the last 15 years or so. The current republicans under trump are the democrats of 30 years ago. pushing a protectionist agenda to benefit people who refuse to change. The democrats are all about working with business to push the country forward

    3. Re:Thank Bush 41 by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It remained 'controversial' until Dupont found replacement chemicals that worked almost as well. At that point, everyone was happy to ban them.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re: Thank Bush 41 by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Which is why the hole is exactly the same as it always was.

    5. Re:Thank Bush 41 by gtall · · Score: 1

      Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are working with business? How do you figure? They still kowtow to the unions which are generally anti-free trade, at least their leaders are.

      The Republicans have kicked all the smart people out of the party. Now it is left with dolts from the Religious Right, the Ditto-Heads of Rush Limbaugh, and Russian stooges.

    6. Re:Thank Bush 41 by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Bernie is against free trade, but he clearly does not represent the democratic party, he only represents the people. He was an independent until recently and the party did everything they could to keep him out of the presidency.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    7. Re:Thank Bush 41 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Both parties represent by harmful extremes, because they are dominated by extremists.

      No, the democrats are not "all about working with business to push the country forward." They are about maintaining power for the democratic party, and paying lip service to whatever currently-popular idea will do that, and then turning around and consolidating their power base, just like the republicans do.

      You want to believe that the democrats are right and the republicans are wrong. Your mind will accommodate this by emphasizing, in your awareness, everything the democrats do that you approve of, and de-emphasizing everything they do that you disapprove of. And vice versa for the republican party. You see, you are one of the extremists, and you can't see this because of the depth of your bias.

    8. Re:Thank Bush 41 by packrat0x · · Score: 1

      DuPont had the patent on R-12, which was expiring. Just in time, they "discovered" and patented other CFC's (like R-134a); R-12 was banned. Maybe I'm too suspicious...maybe not.

      --
      227-3517
    9. Re:Thank Bush 41 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DuPont had the patent on R-12, which was expiring. Just in time, they "discovered" and patented other CFC's (like R-134a); R-12 was banned. Maybe I'm too suspicious...maybe not.

      Let's see, R-12, aka, Dichlorodifluoromethane. That started usage as a refrigerant in the 1930s. The ban? Phased in over decades from the 1990s.

      Not a very convincing argument.

    10. Re: Thank Bush 41 by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      You could at least RTFS.

    11. Re: Thank Bush 41 by Bartles · · Score: 0

      Yes smallest since 88. Which means it was smaller in 87, when FC production was literally orders of magnitude higher than it is today . And we're looking at basically 40 years of observations and thinking we know all about it.

    12. Re: Thank Bush 41 by Bartles · · Score: 1

      It was smaller in 1988, rather. Dur.

    13. Re:Thank Bush 41 by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The parties switched ideologies in the last 15 years or so.

      A convenient but false narrative. Convenient because it allows people to rationalize their support of the party of racists and bigots.

      What has happened is that the center of politics has shifted to the right, so that the Dems are now where the Republicans were a few years ago and the Republicans are far to the right.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    14. Re: Thank Bush 41 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be awesome if it worked that way. But, a law passed banning CFCs doesn't mean all products previously sold and in use containing CFCs magically ceased to operate or exist.

    15. Re: Thank Bush 41 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why the hole is exactly the same as it always was.

      Not true. The hole before 1980's was like a hundredth of the size we have now.

    16. Re:Thank Bush 41 by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      We can also thank Congress as well. And I don't just mean the party in charge of Congress (at the time the Dems), because the bill passed with overwhelming support in both houses (401-21 and 89-11).

      I point this out for 2 reasons. One is to remember a time when the parties did actually achieve things working together. The second is to give credit and also hold responsible the correct branches of government for various actions. Our tendency nowadays to lay everything at the feet of the President is why certain problems will 'never' be fixed. For example, the national debt.

      We constantly blame Bush 43 and/or Obama for our huge debt, when in reality the fault lies in the Capitol, not the White House. Congress passes budgets and decides how much to tax, period. We could elect Ebeneezer Scrooge himself President and it will make no difference until we start electing Senators and Representatives who will only pass surplus budgets until the debt is paid off.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    17. Re:Thank Bush 41 by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      FYI, Bernie Sanders is once again an Independent. I believe he became one again almost immediately upon losing the nomination.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    18. Re:Thank Bush 41 by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      I think it depends on whether you are looking at fiscal policy or social policy. On the former, I agree. On the latter, not so much.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    19. Re:Thank Bush 41 by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      I think that this is all down to gerrymandering.

      Districts get gerrymandered to make them 'safe' for a given party. However, this also allows those with more extreme views to win, because they don't have to win as many (or sometimes any) moderates or independents. In turn, this makes the previously moderate candidates become more extreme to avoid being challenged by someone even more extreme.

      This perfectly fits the pattern we see now. Honestly I think it's worse on the Reps' side, simply because it will always be worse on the side of the party that is more heavily gerrymandered (i.e. has more safe districts).

      Objectively you can say this is the Reps because of how they can retain control of the House in spite of losing the overall congressional vote. Currently, the Dems would be unable to win the House without also trouncing the Reps in the overall vote (~13% is the number thrown around by 538, IIRC, I cannot find a specific source). I also think this is reflected in the inability for the 'party establishment' of the Reps to retain control (although, whether that's a bad thing in general is debatable). Why should the Freedom Caucus (e.g.) care about losing party establishment support when their district is so safe it doesn't matter?

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    20. Re:Thank Bush 41 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't think you understand what a racist and bigot is. If you did, you would see that there are just as many (if not potentially more) in the Democratic party as in the Republican party. Did you forget that the democrats intentionally started targeting black people just to get their votes, not because they wanted to help? Did you forget which party voted to free slaves, which one voted to give them full voting rights, and which one fought to end segregation? Did you forget which party was almost unilaterally *against* those previously mentioned efforts?

    21. Re:Thank Bush 41 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, David Cop-a-feel!

  4. Thanks to international government regulations by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a good thing this happened in the 70's and 80's when conservatives were still reasonable. The montreal protocol would have never passed today. Australians and those in the southern united states would be red and blistered and hollering about "hands off my fridge" and liberal conspiracies about invisible rays.

    1. Re:Thanks to international government regulations by rmdingler · · Score: 2
      So true, although it's important to note that still reasonable applies to both sides of the aisle nowadays.

      It seems counter-intuitive that we would be moving backwards in so many ways, with the free proliferation of information currently available to everyman; yet, that's where we are, with every fringe belief able to find something on the interwebz that seems to confirm his/her preconceived notion of the way things are.

      More access to information seemingly does not promote clarity, but confusion, as the volume available obfuscates even science and uncommon sense.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:Thanks to international government regulations by hey! · · Score: 1

      Conservation is the most conservative of the liberal positions, if you think about it.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Thanks to international government regulations by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nonsense, as usual from the far left wing. Maybe you should examine the facts instead of the rag you read that espouses those collectivist views you adore so much.

      But who cares. We are in charge now. Maybe it's now time to shut down all left wing press, thought, websites, groups, since you're so completely off the rails and unreasonable.

      Just a thought.

      While throwing out the 1st Amendment or maybe the whole Constitution.

    4. Re:Thanks to international government regulations by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      nope, there were no thoughts in that post.

    5. Re:Thanks to international government regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because politics is no longer about the reasoned discussion of ideas. It is all about tribalism. Just as democrats are required to decry anything and everything President Trump says as being racist and supporting Nazi Germany, the Republicans are required to mock anything having to do with Global Intergalactic man made climate change. This is human nature. The real question you should be asking is who is bringing about this national division.

      Your enemy is not the republican or democrat next door; it is the media that wants you to hate your next door neighbor because she or he is an ('Enemy of democracy' / or terrorist or faggot, or homophobic, whatever the pejorative term for a bad person) is at this moment.

    6. Re:Thanks to international government regulations by thrich81 · · Score: 2

      I well remember all the crying and whining about how we'd have to give up refrigeration and air conditioning when this happened. Exactly the same sentiments when the laws phasing out leaded gasoline came into force -- we were going to have to give up cars. Now those people were the real doom and gloom snowflakes -- civilization ending because we needed to make some technological changes to existing infrastructure and technology.

    7. Re:Thanks to international government regulations by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 2

      But who cares. We are in charge now. Maybe it's now time to shut down all left wing press, thought, websites, groups, since you're so completely off the rails and unreasonable.

      Perhaps you could round up undesirable groups into concentration camps. I'm sure you would like to.

    8. Re: Thanks to international government regulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking montreal protocol that failed to excluded CFC for pharmaceutical usage. Thanks to that protocol I lost the only drug that was able to control my chronic rhinitis.... Some asthmatics can blame that protocol for the awful Ventolin-HFA (less effective, more side effect) that replaced the Ventolin-CFC.

    9. Re:Thanks to international government regulations by wyHunter · · Score: 2

      The left has been pretty good about throwing out the whole constitution too - not ordinary people, but leftist leaders.

    10. Re:Thanks to international government regulations by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      So true, although it's important to note that still reasonable applies to both sides of the aisle nowadays.

      That seems like false equivalence to me. The left seems willing to compromise on most issues. The one notable exception is whether or not police should be able to shoot black people consequence free, but the elected left-wingers aren't really doing much about that either, and left-leaning voters aren't bothering to elect those that are.

      At the very least, you can't tell me that there's the same AMOUNT of irrationality on the left as there is on the right.

    11. Re:Thanks to international government regulations by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      Irrationality is a difficult measure to gauge. Blaming one party for the ills of society conveniently simplifies things for the root for us or them crowd. The fact that there are only two national platforms from which to align ideologically virtually guarantees that there's at least a plank in either party's platform that gives pause, no matter where you find yourself, left-middle-right, on the spectrum.

      I suppose the right's blemishes are currently enhanced by the panderer-in-chief, yet the Dems would be in an arguably similar position had their candidate prevailed. FWIW, I consider the current President an embarrassment, and though I would rather see anyone else (including, shudder, Mrs Clinton) in the Oval Office, I understand why he was elected.

      The one notable exception is whether or not police should be able to shoot black people consequence free...

      No, the police should not be able to shoot black people free from consequence, but they should also not be forbidden from ever shooting a black person because of some make-up call for past and current injustices.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

  5. False by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are no holes in the ozone layer. Fake news!!!

  6. Note to Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Montreal Protocol is an international agreement to reduce emissions of ozone-depleting gases. It was ratified in 1989 with leadership from the United States, and has been very successful at reducing the ozone hole. President Reagan and President Bush (41) both supported the Montreal Protocol. Reagan overruled members of the cabinet who opposed the agreement. The State Department under the Bush administration warned that we cannot wait on acting to prevent climate change. History should remember these Republicans favorably as accepting science and taking action to mitigate climate change. Modern Republicans should take note. The Republican Party was not always willing to deny science for the purpose of helping big business.

    1. Re:Note to Republicans by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's really crazy about this is that the older ones of us will remember Reagan well.

      If I told you in 88 that Reagan will be considered in hindsight to be a level headed, sensible, intelligent and fairly moderate Republican, you'd probably have looked at me like I had three heads.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Note to Republicans by boudie2 · · Score: 0

      Lot of similarities to the Reagan administration. Wasn't Reagan shot just a few months after becoming president? Things were pretty well run by Bush after that.

    3. Re:Note to Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Republican Party was not always willing to deny science for the purpose of helping big business.

      Denying science has never helped big business ultimately. But that's evolution at work where the remains of the giants are pillaged by the vultures who have had their 20% or more in return of investment, or nations that emerge from the corporate structure.

    4. Re:Note to Republicans by Faluzeer · · Score: 1

      From what I remember things seemed to be run by Nancy Reagan...

      As for Bush senior, he was supposedly out of the loop, at least where things like Iran-Contra were concerned...

    5. Re:Note to Republicans by rmdingler · · Score: 2
      Tip O'Neil, "Bedtime for Bonzo" jokes, and "I didn't vote for Nancy" bumper stickers... Bush 41 calling Reagan's trickle-down tax breaks for the wealthy "Voodoo Economics" before joining him as his running mate.

      Lest our propensity to wax nostalgic gets too far out of hand, let's not forget that during The Reagan's time in office is when the War on Drugs really ramped up and there was that Iran-Contra debacle...

      Sigh! Compared to what we have today, it does sound pretty dreamy!

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    6. Re:Note to Republicans by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      As for Bush senior, he was supposedly out of the loop, at least where things like Iran-Contra were concerned...

      Right, former head of the CIA was just blindsided and amazed by the whole thing! So plausible! Honest!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Note to Republicans by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Things were pretty well run by Bush after that.

      No. Bush and Reagan did not like each other. Bush was not part of the White House inner circle, and he had very little influence during Reagan's presidency. In 1988, Reagan gave him a late and lukewarm endorsement as his successor, 20 minutes into a pre-recorded speech focusing mostly on other issues.

    8. Re: Note to Republicans by Bartles · · Score: 1

      No, it was successful at reducing the use of CFCs. It did nothing to reduce the size of the ozone hole.

    9. Re:Note to Republicans by boudie2 · · Score: 1

      Old George H.W. did pretty well for himself for a fellow who according to you was on the periphery. The last couple years of Reagan's 2nd term his biggest problem was staying awake.

    10. Re:Note to Republicans by gtall · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And, Reagan got snookered by Tip O'Neill. Reagan would get his tax cuts and O'Neill would cut the appropriations. O'Neill never followed through and knew that his caucus didn't give a flying rat's ass what O'Neill promised Reagan, it was an empty promise.

      Reagan at least knew that cutting taxes would increase the deficit and hence wanted the appropriations cut. When that didn't happen, his administration discovered voodoo economics. The economy was fueled by deficit spending and the beginnings of the tech revolution. Also the business cycle recovered from Carter's years.

      The current lot of Republicans never learned that lesson. They somehow believe that since Kennedy cut taxes and increased tax receipts as a result, they can do the same thing. When taxes are that high (over 70% in some cases), that works. When taxes are relatively low like now, it doesn't work. They figure if they give companies and rich people more money, they'll invest in more business. What they leave out is that demand hasn't changed. Businessmen and rich people aren't stupid, they won't invest to meet non-existent demand.

      Republicans also feel nostalgia for Bill Clinton and the boom economy of the 1990s. That happened because of the tech boom and the race to fix Y2K. Once that was over, in approx. April-May of 2000, the economy started tanking.

      Believing a lie is never a recipe for success.

    11. Re: Note to Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It reduced CFCs which has led to the reduction in the size of the hole.

    12. Re:Note to Republicans by Carewolf · · Score: 2

      What's really crazy about this is that the older ones of us will remember Reagan well.

      If I told you in 88 that Reagan will be considered in hindsight to be a level headed, sensible, intelligent and fairly moderate Republican, you'd probably have looked at me like I had three heads.

      That would be an insane statement to make. You forget the word "relative to modern idiots". He was still an belligerent dumbass, with fiscal policies so dangerous they are still running the US into the ground today. (loan money and spend them to prop up the economy, and just give tax cuts and ignore the giant hole in the budget they leave, people will love you for it!)

    13. Re:Note to Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, so you mean when Ultra-Tolerant Liberals called him Hitler, just like Bush was Hitler, just like Mccain was Hitler, just like Romney was Hitler, just like Trump is Hitler right now? You mean we're all a bunch of hyperreactive nitwits that govern based on their reptile brains? No way! It must all be their fault. You know, them.

    14. Re: Note to Republicans by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      You need to audit your accountant. You're doing everything wrong if you're not an outright victim of embezzlement or something. Or, you're full of shit and should fuck off.

    15. Re: Note to Republicans by Bartles · · Score: 1

      In 1988 the hole was smaller than it is today, and FC production was literally orders of magnitude higher than it is today.

    16. Re: Note to Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to audit your accountant. You're doing everything wrong if you're not an outright victim of embezzlement or something.

      Or, you're full of shit and should fuck off.

      He's probably adding together income tax, property tax, sales tax, automobile tax, alcohol tax, etc.
      There's a number of ways his total tax bill could be 53.5%.
      For example, suppose he inherited a $500,000 house in Connecticut and his only income comes from delivering pizzas. The property taxes alone could easily be over 50% of his income.
      In any case, I agree that he's full of shit and should fuck off because he provided no numbers nor explanation of how his taxes should be so high.

    17. Re:Note to Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, so you mean when Ultra-Tolerant Liberals called him Hitler, just like Bush was Hitler, just like Mccain was Hitler, just like Romney was Hitler, just like Trump is Hitler right now? You mean we're all a bunch of hyperreactive nitwits that govern based on their reptile brains? No way! It must all be their fault. You know, them.

      And FFS even Jimmy Carter was called "like Hitler", and this back in 2006.
      https://www.mediamatters.org/v...

    18. Re: Note to Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes the effects of things take a while to accumulate.

      If you half fill a 100L bath which drains at 5L per minute but continue to add 10L of water per minute, the level of water will still increase, even though the amount you are adding has reduced to only 20% of what it was. If you get to the point of only adding 4L of water per minute then the level will start to go down.

      If the bath drained at 100L per minute then the level would briefly represent the amount tipped in during that minute before it drained away, but the processes that remove CFCs and regenerate ozone are not that fast.

  7. and the warmest it has ever been in 29 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Causation or correlation?

    1. Re: and the warmest it has ever been in 29 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CFCs are greenhouse gases. Reducing CFC emissions with everything else held constant would result in cooler temperatures. Of course, carbon dioxide emissions have accelerated since the Montreal Protocol was ratified, so things have not at all been held constant.

    2. Re:and the warmest it has ever been in 29 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cause you say so?
      I live in Canada and it it warms up i say great the planet has been warmer in recorded history it only made things better for all.
      If the price is it makes life worse for people in southern California i don't have a problem with that your are all far to arrogant in L.A. you live on stolen water and act like you are better than the rest of the country. You could always stop living in a desert.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0q4o58pKwA
         

    3. Re: and the warmest it has ever been in 29 years by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't fault all of California or Canada for thinking they are better than YOU. You set a low bar.

  8. Proves we can fix the environment by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    It just takes concerted effort combined with some scientific advancements.

    1) Things we do can affect the earth.
    2) If we don't like the affect, we can take actions to undo it.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  9. CO2 ppm - next target by millertym · · Score: 2

    Humanity could fix the CO2 global warming issue as well, faster than expected, if united in focus on changing the current status quo.

    1. Re:CO2 ppm - next target by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry to tell you, but they won't. They're too busy inventing new digital watches and largely concerned with the movement of small green pieces of paper.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:CO2 ppm - next target by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Humanity could fix the CO2 global warming issue as well, faster than expected, if united in focus on changing the current status quo.

      Unlikely. The ozone layer was badly affected by a few chemicals for which we found alternatives. The vast majority of our energy production comes from fossil fuels and there's more people who want a higher standard of living every day. Even with a massive increase in renewable energy, green technology etc. total emissions are going up and will likely continue to rise as a billion Indians follow China, they're now roughly where China was 25 years ago. You can get a big report here (PDF) that'll break it down in more detail, long story short bringing the rest of the world up to western standards of living is another +50-100% added to CO2 emissions. Those who want to make cuts just draw lines downwards and ignore that there are huge structural reasons for increases that need to be offset before we're even stable.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:CO2 ppm - next target by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Then make the reduction of CO2 benefit the movement of small green pieces of paper. By that I mean, make "going green" profitable. Energy is big business. People will spend a lot of money on anything that can replace coal, oil, and natural gas. Don't force people to reduce their carbon footprint with taxes, mandates, peer pressure, or whatever. Make reducing carbon output cheaper than the status quo and no one will be forced to switch, they'll do it on their own for those little green pieces of paper.

      Think of the main uses for coal, oil, and natural gas. Natural gas for heating is facing real competition with heat pumps, at least in new construction. Even in the relatively cold US Midwest were I live I'll see lots of new houses with heat pumps. Adding it after the fact can be very expensive but that may change too. Oil is mostly used for vehicle fuels, and if the claims on electric propulsion is to be believed then we are near the tipping point of it replacing everything else. We are replacing fossil fuels with electricity

      The hard part, in my estimation, is coal. Coal is still big in electricity generation. We might see natural gas replacing coal at the top but that only cuts the CO2 output in half, rather than make it a fraction of what coal produces like other choices before us. We need something "green", cheap, reliable, and safe. We have that now, but no one dares mention it's name. The fact that no one dares go where logic leads tells me that very few people are serious about solving this problem.

      We have the solution to our CO2 problem, and it's not wind or solar.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    4. Re:CO2 ppm - next target by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      The CO2 problem will be fixed in one of two ways:

      1. The world will unite and through a massive coordinated and concerted effort will move away from carbon based sources of energy and more towards long term sustainable sources limiting and eventually reducing global warming over the next couple of centuries.

      2. The world will continue it's divisive and pointless quibbles as the world heats up, eventually leading to massive resource wars that will all but end humanity thus eliminating CO2 production and bringing the world back to it's natural level over the next several centuries.

      Either way, the nature wins. Whether or not we're here to celebrate it's victory is on our shoulders. Considering the current political climate with alt-right neo-fascists gaining traction throughout the world, odds are favoring massive global conflict wiping us out by the end of this century.

      Interesting times.

      --
      ~X~
    5. Re:CO2 ppm - next target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fusion power. I which it would come any year now. Status Quo wouldn't change much in the legal atmosphere over-saturated with IP lawsuits.

    6. Re:CO2 ppm - next target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what a load of shit

  10. Thank the maker! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank the maker that millions of Antarcticans don't have to worry any longer about being cooked by UV rays!

    Oh wait...

  11. This doesn't fit on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've had, what four stories this past week on global warming. Now one on the hole in the ozone is shrinking? Can we just stick to tech stuff?

  12. Poe's Law [Re:agw] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 3, Informative

    I can't tell if you're serious or joking. I reread your post about 5 times and I just can't tell.

    Poe's law. You really can't tell sarcasm from cluelessness any more.

    http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/poes-law

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  13. This is good news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People laughed at me for storing them, I can now use my cache of 70s era hair spay. Who's laughing now, suckers?!?!?

  14. Travel to Antarctica Prohibited for Flat Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Antarctica Treaty prevents travel to the outer known limits of Earth. Territorial claims in Antarctica are sector-based, ending at the 'south pole', whether the claiming country travelled there or not. This is because Antarctica is not a single place, but rather the outer edge of the flat earth.

    Space is fake. The Earth is flat.

  15. It's a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The hole in the ozone layer is just a myth. It's always been there. It's a result of natural processes. It would cause too much economic damage to fix. We don't have enough evidence. The debate is still occurring. The science is unsettled and we shouldn't rush to a decision before we reach consensus. It would be give other nations an unfair advantage if we crippled ourselves. We will adapt to living without an ozone layer.

  16. Re:Globe is a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes. Just one extra detail: The Earth is flat. The Eclipses show it.

  17. Myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The hole in the ozone layer is a myth.

  18. Clear and present by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Before we pat ourselves on the back, we should remember that the Trump administration just appointed a man to the EPA advisory board who believes that the air in America is, "a little too clean for optimum health".

    No, I'm not joking. That's what he said. .

    https://www.independent.co.uk/...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Clear and present by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you ever read "Guns, Germs and Steel" It written by a liberal, so you might take it into consideration. The central thesis is that 'white people' became the dominate race because whites are a bunch of filthy assholes who live in close proximity to dirty farm animals. By living next to dirty disgusting animals we were able to develop a superior immune system and eradicate all the cleaner, more civilized races. This central thesis was written by a liberal, so you might want to believe it.

      If this is the case maybe we are 'too clean' for our own good. I know I witnessed a Latino mother feeding her child food that was picked up off the floor. If this mom had been white of black CPS would have been called our right away. This child, thanks to his parent not being indoctrinated by the prevailing wisdom of the times, will have not asthma. However the white or black child who was feed food that did not come off the ground will in all likelihood face lifetime of asthma and chronic fatigue syndrome. Hence our society is too clean for its own good.

    2. Re:Clear and present by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Actions speak louder than words. I can point to all kinds of statements from previous administrations that contradict their actions. Let's see what the EPA does rather than focus on any single statement made by someone within it.

      I've also seen the EPA in the past get involved into far too many details of our lives. I'd appreciate an EPA that would not (or was unable to) declare every mud puddle "navigable waters" and therefore under federal jurisdiction. I'd prefer an EPA that doesn't take a decade to approve of a clean energy source like a hydroelectric dam but will approve a new natural gas plant in a week. Maybe we shouldn't be shutting down dams that provide drinking water, irrigation, and electricity production, because a very common fish population is threatened. People need food, heat, and water. Maybe this means taking a step back and coming up with a less "green" solution in the short term so that people have a better future in the long term.

      Saying the air is "too clean" is pretty stupid. If it makes energy cheaper, so we can make more windmills at a competitive price, then in the long term we could be better off.

      Also, it's one thing to say "the air is a little too clean" and another to say "let the world burn". Equating the two is disingenuous and fear mongering.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    3. Re:Clear and present by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Maybe this means taking a step back and coming up with a less "green" solution in the short term so that people have a better future in the long term.

      We've been coming up with less "green" solutions for a couple hundred years. Maybe let's try something else.

      Also, it's one thing to say "the air is a little too clean" and another to say "let the world burn".

      Oh, that was only one example. How about Energy Secretary Rick Perry saying, three days ago, that burning fossil fuels can prevent sexual assaults.

      I'm sorry, my friend, but the current administration is very specifically, and very literally saying "let the motherfucking world burn" every single day. If you really want me to give you many more examples, let me know, but it will have to wait until tomorrow, because I'm relaxing and listening to some music right now.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Clear and present by blindseer · · Score: 1

      We've been coming up with less "green" solutions for a couple hundred years. Maybe let's try something else.

      Yes, let's try something else. Perhaps we should aim for what is possible instead of was it perfect. If we listen to moonbats like Helen Caldicott then we'd be reading books by candlelight, drinking beer from steel cans (assuming she "allows" us that luxury), and trying to power the industry on solar energy. Such a "perfect" world ignores so much of reality that nothing we do would be good enough. What also prevents us from such perfection is that so many people have their own definition of "perfect" that there will always be someone dissatisfied.

      Oh, that was only one example.

      I'm sure it is. With public figures having cameras being shoved in their faces and reporters asking a barrage of stupid questions I'm sure that there is just a trove of quotes to pick from to make any political party, or other similar group, look like complete morons. I just did that myself by equating the entire "green" movement with Helen Caldicott. Put her on camera for a half hour or so and let her talk and I'm amazed anyone would want to be associated with her. Yet, she's been leading her own brand of environmental protection for decades now.

      I'm sorry, my friend, but the current administration is very specifically, and very literally saying "let the motherfucking world burn" every single day. If you really want me to give you many more examples, let me know, but it will have to wait until tomorrow, because I'm relaxing and listening to some music right now.

      As I said before, I don't want words, I want actions. What did these people do? I believe that the Trump administration has had only a few months so far to set an agenda. The US Senate has been a circus on getting approvals for appointed top level government officials tied up. The House is quite the mess as well. I believe that the Trump administration won't really get much done, domestically at least, for another year. We'll probably see small victories from them though, like getting more natural gas to replace coal.

      I also have my view of "perfection", and that includes one gigawatt of new nuclear power capacity every month. That's not adding new generation capacity, only making up for currently planned shutdowns on existing coal and nuclear. If we see that then I know that the Trump administration is serious about the USA being able to produce safe, "green", reliable, and inexpensive power. A less perfect solution is replacing that retired capacity with a mix of wind, natural gas, and nuclear power. Not using any nuclear power is not a solution, not even a less than perfect one, it's just more of the same of people talking about the problem and doing nothing about it.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    5. Re:Clear and present by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So many words, so little thinking.

  19. At last! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    I'm happy to know that after almost three decades of hard work, we finally saved the end zone layer.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  20. Not necessarily a sign of improvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ozone does not form well at very low temperatures. While a reduction in CFCs is definitely helpful. The only permanent cure for a hole in the ozone layer over the poles is warmer polar temperatures. What we are seeing can certainly be attributed to warmer polar temperatures.

    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/cold-chemistry-extent-antarctic-ozone-hole-influenced-cold

    Very cold temperatures interfere with the formation of ozone (https://phys.org/news/2012-01-temperatures-ozone-degradation-arctic.html) as does free H2 in the upper atmosphere. Not good news for those promoting a hydrogen economy.

    https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/study-says-hydrogen-leakage-could-harm-earths-ozone-layer-but-society-has-time-to-prepare-for-potential-impact-of-hydrogen-economy/177435.article

  21. Re: This shows we can handle environmental problem by Bartles · · Score: 1

    Excuse me? It looks more and more like the ozone hole had nothing to do with CFCs. It's a natural phenomena and it's probably been there a lot longer than humans have been around.

  22. Good news but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget to order your own personal hazmat suit for those days when sunscreen isn't going to cut it.

  23. Thank got he's not here anymore... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to push his Khmer Rouge agenda on anyone.

  24. Irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump supporters are trapped in some form of religious stupor. They will continue to support Trump, regardless of what he might say or do. And no matter what he does, they'll always find some intellectual loophole to claim that it is somehow a good thing, even if he drags the world into a nuclear war.

    Heck, they would continue to support Trump even if he himself told them to their face that they're all fucking morons. In fact, he already did:

    "I could stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot someone, and people would still vote for me."

    And they elected him President for it.

  25. Re: This shows we can handle environmental problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You might want to back that up with some evidence.

  26. Re: This shows we can handle environmental problem by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    It looks to me like your head has been stuffed up another sort of hole for some time.

  27. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A fat man thinks he's John Carmack
    barely has change for the 25
    His name is Chris

  28. Re: This shows we can handle environmental problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly! If the ozone hole had been caused by CFCs as claimed, it would have been gone long before now.

  29. We can, but likely won't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can't really solve Global Warming until people drastically cut down on meat and dairy consumption. Dare I say go Vegan without drawing out all the trolls? Animal Agriculture pollutes more than the transportation sector.

    Yet, time and again, I'm faced with the fact that people don't change. They're selfish. They want others (industry, government, manufacturers) to change, yet they won't change behaviors that drives much of the demand.

    Too bad that selfishness will impact everyone but that's how it goes.

    1. Re: We can, but likely won't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beef isn't the only form of meat, dumbass. Going Vegan is really nothing more than a narcissistic circle jerk.

    2. Re:We can, but likely won't. by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      First it was hair spray...now its car emissions. What's next? Cow farts?

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    3. Re: We can, but likely won't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't read anywhere in your parent's comment about beef or it being the only form of meat... This seems to be a case of knee meet (or meat?) jerk.

    4. Re:We can, but likely won't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modern cow diets (corn and soy) are not their traditional diet (grass). It makes them grow faster and fatter, but aleo gives them indigestion and, yes, more farting.

      Not sure what your entire point is... other than whining about how human activities has consequences on the environment. I guess that’s par for the course of modern man: unlimted wants, zero responsibility.

  30. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "That's nothing."

    No, your poetry and karma are nothing, Chris.

    " I post a comment and my trolls' IQ drop into the toilet."

    Weird, I could have sworn I commented first, you bloated narcissistic fart machine.

    " They reply with the most stupidest things."

    As stupidest as your crammar, Oh Despicable One? Just more backside noise from our favorite low-carb obesity enthusiast.

  31. Re:Global warming HOAX! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One belch from a volcano screws up the weather more than man can do.

    Gobal warming is about climate, not weather, so what a volcano does to the weather is irrelevant.

    Now, in the past couple of years, after cycle 23, the trend has been for cooler overall temperatures.

    How did 2016 end up the warmest year on record if it is cooling?

    Cycle 23, just ended, and with it, ended what REAL scientist call the modern maximum (1950's through early 2000's)

    Apart from WW2, and to a lesser extent 1916-18 (which were above trend) the trend has been pretty constant from about 1905 until present, so why quote only 1950s to 2000s?

  32. orly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh really?

    Time to explode a couple more nukes in Antarctica and then blame resulting fallout on people's refrigerators!

    Makes dollars, thats for sure!

  33. Ha - fix one, break another by DCFusor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Fixing the ozone hole (freon) by replacing freon with hydrofluorcarbons was a big mistake, they are far more potent greenhouse gases. Don't pat humans on the back yet, we're not that smart. Ref: https://phys.org/news/2017-11-... Citation provided.

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  34. Re: Global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lol, nice post but you still lost. Move on my friend. We've got this.

  35. Save the Ozone Hole! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's time we stopped discriminating against ultraviolet light! It travels so far to reach our beautiful planet, only to be rebuffed at the border. Only the great nation of Antarctica has welcomed these ultraviolet pilgrims, and now they are bowing to political pressure! Sad!

  36. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    barely has change for the 25

    Creimer takes the express bus from San Jose to Palo Alto. An express bus pass is $140 per month that he has to pay for out of pocket. The three-letter agency he works for isn't enrolled in the Eco Pass program that allow employers to provide free passes to their employees. An express bus pass is also valid for all bus and light rail services in Santa Clara (not San Diego) County. Whether he has change or not, creimer can get anywhere in Silicon Valley. Don't let this inconvenient fact get in the way of your stupidity.

  37. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weird, I could have sworn I commented first, you bloated narcissistic fart machine.

    Pay attention, class! Noticed how this goat fucker is replying to the WRONG THREAD. Creimer is proven correct that the IQ of his trolls drop into the toilet after he posts a comment. Here's a fine example.

  38. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How exactly is this inconvenient?

  39. So you're saying the FBI is stingy?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you're saying the FBI is stingy??

    1. Re:So you're saying the FBI is stingy?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever you are your fucking worse than APK.

    2. Re:So you're saying the FBI is stingy?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So many Russians in Silicon Valley. Not enough money to track them all. The Trump investigations continues.

    3. Re:So you're saying the FBI is stingy?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want you to understand that there are at least 3 people trolling you, someone apparently from Japan "Lilly", me, and somewhere between 1 and 65,535 other apparently native English speakers all who don't like you.
      Also I am a highly respected Slashdot moderator and commentator who has now taken notice of you.

      Look!

      https://i.imgur.com/ymAzn7U.png

      Now you should understand how intractable your situation is. Why don't you stop using Slashdot or make a new non-cashews account and refrain from doing things that you know darn well antagonize the other users here! I can almost singlehandedly downvote you and all of your sockpuppets to -1 from now till eternity if I want.

    4. Re:So you're saying the FBI is stingy?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had no idea that Lilly, you and 2^16 of Slashdot hated APK. I thought it would be bigger a number. Then again, after 20 years, Slashdot may only have 2^16 + 2 users left.

    5. Re:So you're saying the FBI is stingy?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod down that FatCashewsLovesMe account. Out of all the cashews account, it's the only one still posting shit. All the others are obeying the cease fire to deescalate the situation. Mod that fucker down!

    6. Re:So you're saying the FBI is stingy?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That account is
      1) Already posting at -1
      2) Not Creimer anyhow

    7. Re:So you're saying the FBI is stingy?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of the other cashews account belonged creimer either. Those belong to ACs that love trolling creimer's trolls. The only reason why we stopped is because creimer requested a ceasefire. So much fun to watch the three of you accused every AC as being Chris. Or Lilly. ROFL

    8. Re:So you're saying the FBI is stingy?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was never a ceasefire. The deal is go away and optionally make a new account. If you make a new account and if you. Conceal your identity, don't antagonize users here with inane made up stories or attempts to grift money, and start over if you want. I'll leave you alone even if I suspect that the new account is you.

      Pretty generous.

    9. Re:So you're saying the FBI is stingy?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this talk of a ceasefire? You talk, it's stupid, people make fun of you. It's obvious when an AC is really you, Chris, because you write in a particular brain-damaged style.

    10. Re:So you're saying the FBI is stingy?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ACs telling other ACs to shut up is kinda funny. I doubt any AC will take you up on your offer.

    11. Re:So you're saying the FBI is stingy?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can someone please mod this shit down?!

    12. Re:So you're saying the FBI is stingy?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "belonged creimer either"

      Oh no, Chris, more crammar! belonged creimer either!! LOL

      "Those belong to ACs that love trolling creimer's trolls."

      1) If they have accounts, they're not AC, Chris. That should be obvious even to a mental slug.
      2) If they love trolling your trolls, why would you ask for a "cease fire"?

      You are a very strange and simple-minded person.

      "ROFL"

      Yes, you're totally not Chris at all! He never used that expression!

    13. Re:So you're saying the FBI is stingy?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Chris, we won't.

  40. A win ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... for AGW!

    warmer temperatures and a stormier upper atmosphere helped keep damaging chemicals chlorine and bromine from eating ozone from the layer that protects the Earth's surface from harmful ultraviolet rays

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  41. Re: This shows we can handle environmental problem by datavirtue · · Score: 0

    First it was hair spray...now its car emissions. What's next? Cow flatulence?

    --
    I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  42. Largest CFC114 source retired in 2013 by MrKaos · · Score: 2

    Until 25 years ago every can of spray and every fridge was "powered" by CFCs, since we abolished them the Ozone layer is recovering slowly.

    However the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant was the largest emitter of CFC114 into the atmosphere for many years due to the miles of pipes that it used to pump the gas to enrich uranium in the form of Uranium hexafluoride or "Hex". CFC-114 was one of the gasses known to deplete the ozone layer and was regulated by the Montreal Protocol. The Nuclear Industry had an exemption to the M.P so it could use CFC114 in the enrichment process and while it was still operating it leaked over a ton of CFC114 into the atmosphere each day of those 25 or so, years. The plant was closed down in 2013 so it isn't very surprising that the hole in the ozone layer is starting to recover.

    CFC114 is the primary chemical input to enriching Nuclear fuel prior to its use in Nuclear Reactors. Several years ago I was curious about this and I used data available from the US EPA web site on licenced CFC emitters and discovered that the largest emitter there was from the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Its a shame the EPA has had so much of their potency knobbled for political expediency of both sides because this is a great example of how it produces positive results in the long term.

    It shows humans can fix problems when we are open and honest about the data and what it means, that our systems can work when we let them.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  43. Re: Global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you are saying the fact that the US is so screwed up is the fault of the Republicans? Great point.

  44. Trump Is Wrong Yet Again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump said I'd be tired of all this winning, but I'm not.

  45. I have 45 mod points a week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I pledge to downvote all Creimer accounts.

    All you have to do is link to them from the latest post in his cdreimer account and I'll get around to inspecting them to see if they are really him and I will downvote them into oblivion so that he can no longer circumvent the moderation system here and generate miles of frustrated spam.

    Balance is restored to the system and Creimer's reign of terror is over.

    PROOF: https://i.imgur.com/ymAzn7U.png

    If you are a metamod please return the favor by always making sure to rate his posts offtopic so I continue to get these points.

    1. Re:I have 45 mod points a week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you will have 15 mod points tomorrow and the rest are expired. Except for FatCashewsLoves, all the cashews account are obeying the ceasefire. Creimer does post once or twice a day, but he's already at -1. I'm not sure who you're threatening with your puny cock waving. The ACs? Yeah, mod all those fuckers down.

    2. Re:I have 45 mod points a week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can mod down your AC posts if they're annoying. I get 15 mod points every 2 days. Just get a new account and act like a normal person.

    3. Re:I have 45 mod points a week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could mod comments objectively and stop modding people you dislike. In fact, you're a bigger problem than creimer. Using the mod system for personal vendettas is driving away "normal" users. You have read at -1 to see any comments on Slashdot these days. Sad.

    4. Re:I have 45 mod points a week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Creimer has the third highest name recognition on Slashdot and probably more comments than anyone else over the last 20 years of Slashdot. You should respect your elders.

    5. Re:I have 45 mod points a week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what I normally do. I rarely even downmod anyone. If Creimer is creating sockpuppets to keep posting at +1 and mod his Creimer account back up obviously that's an edge case the moderation system wasn't designed for. In the past he'd get dealt with by Slashdot staff but that's not something that happens in late life Slashdot. You might not know the whole story here but for reasons this is the best for Creimer too.

  46. Editing? by SeaFox · · Score: 2

    ...the hole in the Earth's ozone layer is 1.3 million square miles smaller than last year and 3.3 million square miles smaller than 2015... This year, the hole grew to 7.6 million square miles.

    If the 2017 size is 1.3m sq mi smaller than 2016, how did the hole "grow" to 7.6 million sq miles?

    1. Re:Editing? by Pretzalzz · · Score: 1

      It gets bigger and smaller every year much like the arctic ice cap. So it grew to a maximum of 7.6 million sq miles which was a smaller maximum than 2016.

    2. Re:Editing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...the hole in the Earth's ozone layer is 1.3 million square miles smaller than last year and 3.3 million square miles smaller than 2015... This year, the hole grew to 7.6 million square miles.

      If the 2017 size is 1.3m sq mi smaller than 2016, how did the hole "grow" to 7.6 million sq miles?

      The hole grows from near zero size in Antarctica's winter to a max size in Antarctica's spring-summer every year
      In the case you mentioned, it grew from zero to 7.6 million square miles. So last year it grew to a max of 8.9, this year to 7.6.

  47. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, you sure seem to know a lot about creimer. Boyfriend?

  48. Re: This shows we can handle environmental problem by clovis · · Score: 3, Informative

    The annual ozone hole is a natural phenomenon, but historically the hole was a small fraction of the size than what we have had since the 1980's.
    https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.g...
    Compare the 1979-1982 ozone hole size and Antarctica ozone levels before 1983 to after.

    That the ozone depletion/ozone hole continued to grow after the Montreal agreement was predicted.
    The problem we faced is that the rate of production of CFCs vastly exceeded the rate of degradation of CFCs in the atmosphere so we were facing an accelerating rate of ozone depletion. The ozone hole was growing rapidly in size every year, and the global ozone levels were decreasing.
    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/...

    The problem CFCs and related compounds have a very long lifetime in the lower atmosphere, on the order of a century, and on the order of decades in the stratosphere. Once a CFC is degraded by UV and releases a free chlorine or bromine, the free Cl or Br atom can continue to catalyze ozone to O2 for a few years before the free atom binds with hydrogen and falls back down to the lower atmosphere and get washed out.

    Here's a document with graphs showing the continuing post-Montreal increase and subsequent drop-off in atmospheric concentrations.
    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/...

    Here's an executive summary of the situation in 2014.
    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/...

    Actions taken under the Montreal Protocol have led to decreases in the atmospheric abundance of controlled ozone-depleting substances (ODSs), and are enabling the return of the ozone layer toward 1980 levels.
          The sum of the measured tropospheric abundances of substances controlled under the Montreal Protocol continues to decrease. Most of the major controlled ODSs are decreasing largely as projected, and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and halon-1301 are still increasing. Unknown or unreported sources of carbon tetrachloride are needed to explain its abundance.
          Measured stratospheric abundances of chlorine- and bromine-containing substances originating from the degradation of ODSs are decreasing. By 2012, combined chlorine and bromine levels (as estimated by Equivalent Effective Stratospheric Chlorine, EESC) had declined by about 10–15% from the peak values of ten to fifteen years ago. Decreases in atmospheric abundances of methyl chloroform (CH3CCl3), methyl bromide (CH3Br), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) contributed approximately equally to these reductions.
          Total column ozone declined over most of the globe during the 1980s and early 1990s (by about 2.5% averaged over 60S to 60N). It has remained relatively unchanged since 2000, with indications of a small increase in total column ozone in recent years, as expected. In the upper stratosphere there is a clear recent ozone increase, which climate models suggest can be explained by comparable contributions from declining ODS abundances and upper stratospheric cooling caused by carbon dioxide increases.
          The Antarctic ozone hole continues to occur each spring, as expected for the current ODS abundances. The Arctic stratosphere in winter/spring 2011 was particularly cold, which led to large ozone depletion as expected under these conditions.
          Total column ozone will recover toward the 1980 benchmark levels over most of the globe under full compliance with the Montreal Protocol. This recovery is expected to occur before midcentury in midlatitudes and the Arctic, and somewhat later for the Antarctic ozone hole.

  49. UNEP Ozone Reporting Tool by MrKaos · · Score: 2

    It turns out, actually, that humans are very good at solving problems. Once we clearly identify a problem, there are a lot of people who are willing to work hard at finding solutions.

    True that.

    The drop in production of ozone destroying CFCs started well before the Montreal protocol-- humans stopped using the ozone-destroying CFCs without being legally required to.

    Whilst not speaking to cause the UNEP ozone secretariat does report on ozone consumption per its obligations under the Montreal Protocol. It reports consumption and effect of ozone through reporting mechanisms.

    The US's consumption can be clearly seen using the Data Reporting Tool and it is in line with the consumption of the producer, The Paducah nuclear fuel enrichment facility for the years it was operating.

    I think you are right to say that industry did a good job of reducing their consumption, they did. I looked at the EPA data in 2009 and Paducah facilities consumption was five times that of the second largest consumer in the US. Consequently if you look at the UNEP data the US submitted for the years 2000-2016 you will see Paducah's consumption during operation, winding down and retirement was large enough to maintain the hole in the ozone layer.

    I would post a link to the EPA data however it is no longer available online.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  50. Re: This shows we can handle environmental problem by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

    The conflict in Syria was largely caused by a major drought which from 2006-2011 wiped out 75% of farms and 85% of the livestock across the country.

    Yeah, environmental concerns are totally overblown.

    --
    Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  51. Re: This shows we can handle environmental problem by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 0

    That the ozone depletion/ozone hole continued to grow after the Montreal agreement was predicted.

    It astounds me that people on /., who are supposed to be technically competent, don't understand the difference between non-linear short term effects and long term linear effects.

    If you were to place an oscilloscope on a 5V power supply, and capture the signal as I increased the voltage to 10V, you would be able to see a ton of non-linear ringing etc. where the voltage actually decreases over certain time intervals. Yet for many on this site, apparently that would prove to them that I did not actually increase the voltage at all!

    --
    Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  52. Re:Global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like all climate deniers, you are a stupid (and indeed, selfish) cunt.

  53. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  54. Re: Global warming by deathguppie · · Score: 1

    hmm, the last time we had a balanced budget was when Clinton left office. Now I've heard the excuse that it was because of the republican congress but that doesn't line up with the fact that the republicans had both congress and the presidency before and after Clinton and in both cases drove up the debt. Obama inherited an economy that he had to duct tape together to keep stable and you can make all of the excuses in the world but that is just what happened.

    --
    once more into the breach
  55. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  56. This news out just after a satellite destroyed.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....that was orbiting regularly near the same area:
    https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/11/06/0229237/the-us-has-destroyed-a-critical-sea-ice-measuring-satellite

    Mighty coincidental.

  57. Re: Global warming by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

    Yes indeed. The flying ozone monster is most pleased. Praise be to manbearpig

  58. Because creimer is a shitposting pest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because creimer is a shitposting pest. I didn't know who jimmy seville was until he was revealed to be a nonce. I wouldn't be able to tell you who dahmer was if he didn't have a dozen frozen dicks in his freezer. Just because a botnet holds the world record for emails doesn't mean it's got anything interesting to say.

  59. a good one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there need to be strict laws to protect our planets from degradation. man doesn't just care what may happen in the next 50years when producing consumables and these chemicals could have adverse effects if not properly handled