Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Ozone Hole Getting Smaller 352

Posted by CowboyNeal from the things-looking-up dept.
snark42 writes "According to Reuters and some other sources the hole in the ozone layer shrank 20% this year to a mere 9 million square miles. Of course scientists caution this would have to continue for at least a couple more years to be a trend or anything to get excited about."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ozone Hole Getting Smaller More

Ozone Hole Getting Smaller

Comments Filter:

  • hrmmm (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rdc_uk ( 792215 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @09:36AM (#10412991)
    20 years from now, we'll have discovered there's a natural grow/shrink cycle we never knew about...

    • Re:hrmmm (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Ya know, I coulda SWORN that we banned chloroflorocarbons a while back...
      The earth has a tremendous capacity to heal itself, every lightning strike adds ozone to the atmosphere, but the problem is that it takes many years for the newly created ozone to reach the ozone layer.
      Humans have the ability to fuck up the environment pretty bad, but we can also do a lot to help it.

    • Re:hrmmm (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mrmeval ( 662166 )
      Or that it was outright fraud. Ozone hole fraud. [jamesphogan.com]

      • Re:hrmmm (Score:5, Informative)

        by jsebrech ( 525647 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @12:02PM (#10413791)
        That does sound very convincing when you first read it, because the author is an excellent politician. But you should beware of people who use strawman arguments (the young man at the panel discussion) and unfounded ad hominem accusations (accusing the government of being infected by irrational environmentalists who want to destroy industry) in support of their case.

        Anyway, here's a generic rebuttal to the ozone naysayers [wunderground.com].

        Any scientific issue, no matter how rooted in facts it is, always has naysayers. Even the round earth theory had considerable opposition. For someone to dispute accepted scientific theory requires extraordinary evidence, and frankly this james p. hogan doesn't provide much in the way of actual evidence.

        Oh, and in general, paying attention to whether a text contains logical fallacies [datanation.com] is very helpful too in weeding out truth from falsehood.

        • Re:hrmmm (Score:3, Insightful)

          by BurritoWarrior ( 90481 )
          There's not a single point made in the grandparent's reference that is countered in your reference.

          In fact, your reference is full of logical fallacies as well, including Prejudicial Language, False Dilemma, Appeal to Consquences, Popularity, and doesn't address the points brought up by people that disagree, but attacks HOW those that disagree have voiced their opposition. It hadrly speaks to the merits of the arguments of the ozone "naysayers" at all.

    • ahhh (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Doc Ruby ( 173196 )
      Yes, and we're part of the cycle. We stopped making CFCs 10-20 years ago when we proved they destroy ozone, and now the hole is getting smaller. How much more correlation do you need, after laboratory and in the wild, to stop denying the science that is saving your life right now?

      • Re:ahhh (Score:5, Informative)

        by DAldredge ( 2353 ) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Saturday October 02, 2004 @10:05AM (#10413168) Journal
        The entire planet didn't. China still uses very large amounts of CFCs.

        An example, google for more.

        THE PROCESS TO phase out the use of CFCs in polyurethanes from the 1,000 or more foam factories in China has started to accelerate.

        The phase-out is being undertaken in accordance with the Montreal Protocol, which established a timetable for developing countries to phase out the use of CFCs by the year 2010. With financial support from the Multilateral Fund supplied by the United Nations, it is estimated that about 10% of Chinese foam processors have now substituted CFCs with other foaming agents, such as pentane, C[O.sub.2] and water. Companies that have completed ...
        • Shhhhhh....the eastern world consists entirely of people who live in caves or grass huts and live like it's the late Bronze Age. Don't be bringing the truth into play, here.

      • Re:ahhh (Score:4, Informative)

        by Dun Malg ( 230075 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @10:42AM (#10413353) Homepage
        We stopped making CFCs 10-20 years ago

        We did? Who's "we"? The US stopped in 1996, but China is still cranking out tons of the stuff, and doesn't plan to have it phased out for TEN MORE YEARS. Furthermore, it's not the production of CFC's that release them into the atmosphere-- it's the venting of it from leaks in CFC-using equipment . It'll take at LEAST 10 years before we see a significant reduction in CFC venting due to equipment replacement.

      • You are making falacious logical deductions based on facts that may or may not be related. If we could monitor this ozone hole for a hundred years before and after this event, then we could argue with some certaintly whether there was a connection.

        The Montreal Protocol banning CFCs was not based on science. It was based on a media scare campaign initiated by people who had agendas. There's no evidence that CFCs were really bad, nor that my life is being saved without them. Essentially the full scienti

      • Re:ahhh (Score:3, Insightful)

        by crashnbur ( 127738 )
        Correlation doesn't mean a thing if you can't prove that the factor in question was the only cause of the result. An entire planets climatic tendencies are much too complicated to assume that one thing caused another without consideration of the uncountably many other changes that have taken place all the while. You're not a scientist, are you?

      • Re:ahhh (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Mentorix ( 620009 )
        I don't see any correlation between us stopping with CFC's and the ozone hole getting smaller *compared* to the measurements dating back oh... 5 years or so!

        We don't know jack shit about the cycles in our atmosphere, stating that there is a correlation shows you're not dealing with this objectively.
        It's the same as with all these people claiming catastrophic temperature changes in the near future.

        Yes, they might happen, but face it temperature on this planet doesn't have a baseline, if you check the

      • Re:ahhh (Score:3, Funny)

        by aardwolf64 ( 160070 )
        10-20 years ago I stopped picking my nose (in public anyway), and now the hole is getting smaller. According to your logic, my public nose-picking caused the hole in the ozone layer.

    • Re:hrmmm (Score:3, Interesting)

      by fatman22 ( 574039 )
      That cycle was discovered a long time ago during the IGY. The "Ozone Hole" over the Antarctic was larger in the mid-50's than it is today. If you carefully pick your measurement time during it's natural grow/shrink cycle, you can use the data to support any theory you want.

  • Hope this isn't used as an excuse... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kentmartin ( 244833 ) * on Saturday October 02, 2004 @09:36AM (#10412992) Homepage
    While this is good news, I hope it isn't seen by governments as an excuse to ease their environmental burdens in favour of bowing to economic/corporate pressures, and, I really hope it isn't seen as yet another excuse by the US government to duck out for even longer on signing the Kyoto Accords [theglobeandmail.com].

    I realize the above accords don't directly affect the ozone layer, but, ask anyone on the street - the hole in the Ozone layer and the "Greenhouse Effect" are the same thing right? Maybe the hole lets more heat in or something...

    It is a sad state of affairs when one feels so cynical, that the first thing that occurs when a hint of good news comes along, is, how will those in power exploit this?
    • at the very least, we'll have a lower instance of skin cancer among penguins, which tux appreciates.
    • It exempts most, if not all, of mainland china from it's rules. Please tell me how exempting the fastest growing, most poluting economy on the face of the planet will make one bit of difference.
      • Because it will cause the intended pain on the US economy.

        • intentsity (Score:2, Flamebait)

          by Doc Ruby ( 173196 )
          Exempting China from Kyoto lets American corporations manufacture there, keeping their costs low. That has some terrible effects on some parts of the American economy, but boy is it great for those corporations' particular economies. Too bad about that darned environment, but it isn't intentional, so it's OK, right?
        • How the flying fuck is that insightful? Okay, I'll probably get modded down as flamebait now but frankly I don't give a shit.

          The kyoto agreement is NOT about screwing the US, it's about trying to protect the environment for our species. The restrictions will affect the european countries as well, and if it affects the US more, that's only because per capita it is a far worse polluter.

          Yes, it is a great shame that China et al. are exempt and no, it is not a perfect treaty. But it's a start, and to suggest

      • Re:Kyoto isn't ment to work (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jeffehobbs ( 419930 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @09:57AM (#10413122) Homepage

        Please tell me how exempting the fastest growing, most poluting economy on the face of the planet will make one bit of difference.

        Progress that's not all-encompassing still continues to be progress.

        ~jeff
        • And where did you get the idea that China is the worlds largest polluter - "common knowledge" is that it is the US by a long golden chalk.

          I stand corrected, I was just wandering around trying to find a reference to to worlds worst polluter and had great difficulty finding it. This material just isn't that commonly available - people not interested in it?

          After great effort, I found this [usatoday.com] which contains the phrase "China is the second-biggest producer of greenhouse gases, after the United States".

          This [globalissues.org] is a
      • I don't know if the China is the worst polluter, a while back it certainly wasn't. It's definitely not the worst polluter per inhabitant.

        Not that there's any excuse for being exempt from the Kyoto agreement.

        ~phil
        • I suggest you google on the topic of China and polution.

          It's very bad, very very bad. We are talking about dumping totally unprocessed high level toxic was directly into rivers and streams by large factories.

          • I'm probably stating the obvious here, but for a country that big, and so strongly under the hand of the government, you'd expect better. By polluting the water, I'd expect they're mostly harming themselves (in addition to the environment) by reducing the quality of the drinking water.

            Then again, with a population like that, I suppose the government doesn't really care about a few thousand poisonings, especially since they can make the media shut up about it.

            I wonder how that one will pan out then. Not mu

            • Then again, with a population like that, I suppose the government doesn't really care about a few thousand poisonings, especially since they can make the media shut up about it.

              I wonder if Slashdot is banned in China? This discussion could be percieved as propaganda against the state there. :/

            • Eastern Europe (the Soviet Bloc) used to have the worst pollution in the world. We are talking cities in twilight at mid-day because of coal smoke, things like that. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union most of the sources of this pollution have closed, and the environment has improved radically.

              China has not had this improvement. Beijing still relies on coal burned in individual coal stoves [pnl.gov] for domestic space heat, and some cities emit so much soot that the lack of light reduces agricultural production d

          • An Kyoto is about dumping toxic waste in the rivers, right?
            • No, it isn't directly. But google for China and CO2 emmisions and see how much they relase now and understand they kyoto treaty would not reduce that one bit. It also helps show how little China cares about the env. You may also want to check on the ship graveyards/striping areas in India.

              China wants as many factories as it can get because control of said factories will allow them to exhibit a large amount of control over the world economy.

        • "Not that there's any excuse for being exempt from the Kyoto agreement."

          Perhaps not if you're a full believer of the Kyoto treaty being Gods gift to mankind.

          Only it isn't so. AS explained earlier, Kyoto is supposed to redistribute wealth from "rich" countries to "poorer" countries on a psudo-scientific basis.

          That is, you're using lies to transfer values. Now, explain to me how this is unexcusable to say NO THANKS to ?
      • Bah. You already know the answer. China might be the "most poluting[sic] economy" (I'm not sure, you didn't provide any numbers), but it's far from the most polluting per capita. Reduce the average per capita CO2 generation, and your way of reasoning might be considered fair. Eventually, China will need to stop increasing the CO2 generation, as well.
        On the one hand people whine that reducing CO2 emissions will hurt the highly developed economies of the rich countries, on the other hand the same people argue

      • Re:Kyoto isn't ment to work (Score:5, Insightful)

        by tkittel ( 619119 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @10:15AM (#10413230)
        Why do you think that China is the most polluting economy? Of course having ~1 billion inhabitants it is going to be quite high up there, but the worlds most polluting economy must in all fairness said to be the US, where 4% of the worlds population produce 25% of the worlds greenhouse gases (according to this link [met.gov.na])

        Of course wikipedia tells [wikipedia.org] us that China comes second.
      • "Please tell me how exempting the fastest growing, most poluting economy on the face of the planet will make one bit of difference."

        Co2 emissions isn't pollution. Carbon gas emissions are a completely natural part of organic life and use of energy to further human goals and allow humans to achieve prosperity.

        Claiming that Co2 emmissions are pollution only shows that you have jumped on the pseudo-scientific (and pseudo-environmentalist) bandwagon. Kyoto my be seen as an environmentally good initiative, but
        • Co2 emissions isn't pollution. Carbon gas emissions are a completely natural part of organic life and use of energy to further human goals and allow humans to achieve prosperity.

          While CO2 emissions are not pollution in itself, emissions big enough to change the CO2 levels in atmosphere certainly are. Many chemical substances' emissions are not pollutions in themselves, they become pollutions when they are large enough to change the environment to the detriment of living species. In certain circumstances,
      • Well, if Bush would have signed, thus acknowledging that the US economy is just as robust as those from say Sweden or other sissy countries, it would have helped, the US being the second most polluting (note spelling) economy on the face of the planet...

        Of course Kyoto is totally inadequate. Doing nothing will however be a lot better, proven time and again to be the best method to let confusing things go away - at least off the White House Radar...

        Anybody can spell hurricane?

    • Re:Hope this isn't used as an excuse... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Keebler71 ( 520908 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @10:14AM (#10413227) Journal
      Actually, the US has signed [wikipedia.org] the Kyoto protocol, however it was a purely symbolic gesture by the Clinton administration. The Senate had voted 95-0 (and yes, Kerry was one of the 95) for a resolution stating that the US should not sign the protocol. Since the senate is the body with the US government that ratifies treaties, neither the Clinton or Bush administration pushed the issue further.

    • Re:Hope this isn't used as an excuse... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Daimaou ( 97573 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @10:39AM (#10413341)
      Why would the US want to sign the Kyoto Accords? If I was the sane leader, or wannabe leader, of a sovereign nation I wouldn't sign it either.

      That's probably because I'm contrary and because I think environmentalists are insane.
    • If I have the details right, global warming is a threat to ozone for two reasons:
      1. As the IR opacity of the atmosphere goes up, the depth of the troposphere (the part where heat is transferred by convection instead of radiation) increases. This cuts into the size of the stratosphere and decreases the amount of air in it, and thus the ozone it can hold.
      2. As the IR opacity of the troposphere increases, the stratosphere cools and conditions become more favorable for the formation of the ice crystals which are th
  • Of course scientists caution this would have to continue for at least a couple more years to be a trend or anything to get excited about.

    Move along, nothing to see here.

  • Pardon my ignorance. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Moby Cock ( 771358 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @09:40AM (#10413021) Homepage
    This may be a stupid question *but*...

    Why can't we 'reseed' the ozone layer? We can make ozone in a lab, so why don't we get some high flying aircraft and strap some ozone filled bottles to the fuselage and start spraying? It'd be like dusting crops only a lot different.

    Although, it is good news that the hole is smaller.
    • If we put every aircraft on the planet in the atmosphere, would it be enough to make a dent in nine million square miles? That doesn't seem likely.

    • Re:Pardon my ignorance. (Score:5, Informative)

      by PrionPryon ( 733902 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @09:50AM (#10413081)
      Ozone is destroyed in a on going chemical process that is balanced by the creation of new ozone through natural mechanisms. The equilibrium level ozone is what we get. With CFCs introduced the equilibrium levels get shifted to lower concentrations. The introduction of man made ozone would be of little consequence as it couldnt be done a scale necessary to offset the CFC destruction. It would also need to be a continuous input which would make it very expensive and time consuming. A better plan, as we have done, is to attempt to reduce the CFCs and shift the equilibrium levels back to more favourable conditions.
    • One word: chemtrails.
    • actually the answer has little to do with the natural balance of creation and destruction. the answer is that while we can make O3 in the lab, it has properties that distinguish it from natural ozone [wikipedia.org], which cause it to fall back into the lower atmosphere where it's of little to no use. what is produced in labs is called industrial ozone. also methods of producing ozone have nasty byproducts, such as nitric oxides from the corona discharge [wikipedia.org] method (where particles are charged with electricity similar to creat
      • the answer is that while we can make O3 in the lab, it has properties that distinguish it from natural ozone, which cause it to fall back into the lower atmosphere where it's of little to no use.

        No it doesn't. Ozone is ozone. It's a simple molecule. O3.. three oxygen atoms. If it's got three oxygen atoms, it's ozone. There no difference. Identical molecules are not distinguishable. They have no difference in properties.

        You are drawing ridiculous conclusions from the facts here. The facts are that there i

    • Re:Pardon my ignorance. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Dun Malg ( 230075 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @10:27AM (#10413289) Homepage
      Why can't we 'reseed' the ozone layer? We can make ozone in a lab, so why don't we get some high flying aircraft and strap some ozone filled bottles to the fuselage and start spraying? It'd be like dusting crops only a lot different.

      Ozone (O3) is basically created when UV light hits O2 molecules. When there's less ozone to block the UV rays, it stands to reason that more ozone would be created because more UV radiation is getting down to the level where the atmospher contains more O2. Even those that believe the hole is caused by human activity don't describe it as a problem caused by lack of ozone production; rather, it's theorized that atmospheric chlorine is breaking the ozone down faster than the UV + O2 interaction can replace it. Suggesting we "spray ozone" completely fails to appreciate the scale at which this is happening. We're talking BILLIONS OF TONS of ozone. It's like suggesting that we fight a 100,000 acre wind-driven wildfire with bucket brigades and garden hoses.

  • I am reminded of a scene from Batman Returns when The Penguin says:

    "Stop global warming. Start global cooling. Make the world a colder place!"

    Maybe that's what's happening. The Penguin is taking over the world. Yay. We'll have Linux world domination yet!

  • Science news dilemma (Score:5, Insightful)

    by squaretorus ( 459130 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @09:41AM (#10413026) Homepage Journal
    Reporting this suggests everything will be OK in 5 years - 20% in a year - just 80% to go hey!!

    Of course this could be nothing to do with anything - and simply be an anomoly, a measuring error, a rogue reading, or true. Until everyone has a basic degree of scientific understanding this kind of news will hit the headlines and be presented as a Good Thing. Which is isn't - its neither good not bad.

    A bit like the medical researcher on the radio every few weeks being introduced as talking about a 'newfound cure for cancer' and saying 'this is certainly an exciting development' being asked 'so when will it actually be used to cure cancer' and having to say 'well... possibly never, ... certainly 20 years, actually I never claimed.' 'THANK you very much its 8:59 time for traffic'
  • How can this be possible. In recent years, if anything our environment has gotten worse. How could the ozone possible be healing itself?

    • Re:What? (Score:2, Funny)

      by ndavidg ( 680217 )
      It's because it's an election year. Once the year is over, the promises of more ozone will be broken.

    • Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Dun Malg ( 230075 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @10:03AM (#10413162) Homepage
      How can this be possible. In recent years, if anything our environment has gotten worse. How could the ozone possible be healing itself?

      Because ozone is created by the interaction of O2 and UV radiation. It's not some finite mass of rare elements. It's O3. The reason it's "coming back" is that human activity has a negligible effect upon it. The "hole" is a cyclical phenomenon more closely related to solar activity than anything else.

    • In recent years, if anything our environment has gotten worse.

      "Our environment" is messed by many different things, all leading to different problems. Greenhouse gases are just one aspect of the problem, besides waste (nuclear, landfill, toxic, etc), exhaust fumes, clearcutting of forests, you name it. Amongst all this pollution, the reduction of ozone layer depleting substances has been reasonably successful. Perhaps we are seeing the results, though it is much too early to tell.

      Besides, has our en

  • According to Reuters (Score:4, Informative)

    by egon_b ( 797454 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @10:00AM (#10413134)
    In 2002, the ozone hole suddenly shrank, raising hopes it had turned the corner and was starting to close but some scientists later put it down to an abnormality caused by atmospheric conditions.

  • This has already been suggested... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by innerweb ( 721995 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @10:07AM (#10413178)
    ...But, once again, man causing a more extreme situation than what would have existed before is still not a good thing. Ozone depletion has a deadly potential... just think Microwave Oven Earth. Though I would be surprised if there were not a natural cycle like all things in nature (magnetic poles, ice ages, volcanic activity ...), we do not need to play baby God with it.

    The Earth is fairly resillient, much more so than we humans are. The Earth will survive just about anything we do to it, but we are at risk. The argument that there are no (or minimal) dangers ignores the fact that skin cancer exists. It ignores the fact that there is a hole in the ozone. The Montreal Protocol has been a major step forward to eliminating/minimizing those chemicals that we know deplete the Ozone layer.

    The other thing that may contribute to the Ozone layer growing back would be global warming, as the ozone depletion effect requires very cold temperatures to do the spectacular damage it has done to the pole. (see Univeristy of Cambridge [cam.ac.uk].)

    Some interesting facts [epa.gov]:

    • 1 person dies of melanoma every hour.
    • One in five people will develop skin cancer.
    • UV exposure increases your risk of going blind, causing cateracts and macular degeneration.

    InnerWeb

  • Aquanet from 1980s (Score:4, Funny)

    by vcjim ( 602423 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @10:10AM (#10413197)
    Generally, it takes Aqua-net approximately 15 years to escape the earth's atmosphere. The residual Aqua-net from 1980's groups like the Cure and Poisen , as well as teenage girls, who are now fat 30-somethings, has escaped the stratosphere. So long as fashion trends to not revert to high bangs and glam-band hair... we will survive.

  • We all know what this means! (Score:4, Funny)

    by toupsie ( 88295 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @10:22AM (#10413267) Homepage
    It's all George W. Bush's fault!!! He didn't sign the Kyoto Accord and look what happened. The Ozone hole got smaller. He is evil and hates the environment.

    Ok, on to the next conspiracy...

  • It is a trend... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ari_j ( 90255 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @10:28AM (#10413298)
    This was in the news at least 2 or 3 years ago (here on Slashdot, I believe). Sounds like a trend to me.

  • You see! (Score:2, Funny)

    by lsmeg ( 529105 )
    Bush has been good for the environment! Under his watch the ozone is actually shrinking. And since correlation always equals causation, clearly this is due to Bush's leadership!

    If he had signed the Kyoto Treaty, how much bigger would the ozone be now? I shudder to think about it...

    Four more years!

    ;)

  • That was fast considering that... (Score:3, Funny)

    by p0 ( 740290 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @10:33AM (#10413316)
    ... russia only approved the Kyoto Protocol just yesterday!
  • ".... mankind has been very lucky and that things could have been truly catastrophic, with an "ozone hole" occurring everywhere, if industry, instead of chlorine, would have produced similarly large quantities of bromine-containing compounds...."

    http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/INF/lectures/Koopmans /koopmans_crutzen_2003.html/ [iiasa.ac.at]

    Simple chemistry, unknown at the time industry chose to use chlorine, marginally cheaper, over bromine, in freons etc.

    Bromine in those applications would've wiped the upper ozone la

  • Long predicted (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 02, 2004 @10:48AM (#10413381)
    Highlander II [imdb.com] already said this in 1991.

  • Scientific Bias (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zoc_All_Alone ( 177585 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @10:50AM (#10413383) Homepage
    So, lemmie get this straight:
    The hole gets 2% bigger, scientists freak out, instantly blaming pollution and saying we need to change. Then, when the hole shrinks by 20%, "scientists caution this would have to continue for at least a couple more years to be a trend or anything to get excited about."

    Is it just me, or does it seem these scientists are protraying the facts in such a way to continue their funding?

    • Re:Scientific Bias (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Orne ( 144925 )
      Hey if the government [slashdot.org] can do it to the scientists, why can't the scientists do it to the government?

      It just reminds us that everyone has an agenda. Science used to be unbiased, but thanks to the "crying wolf" over the environment, we can't trust that anymore.
    • C'mon, he's right. The reaction to a 20% increase would have been a resounding condemnation of all human industrial processes plus a descrying of all nations that haven't signed on to Kyoto, etc.

      Maybe what it all means is that we still have very little understanding of our environment and that any statements to the contrary are really politically motivated.

    • Re:Scientific Bias (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Watts Martin ( 3616 )
      Is it just me, or is there always a charge of "the environmentalists are just trying to protect their funding" from the "it's junk science" crowd, without even a glimmer of acknowledgement of the irony? A single corporation that feels "threatened" by an environmental study makes more in a day than their environmentalist critics do in a year. If protecting your income is enough to get you to lie about something like this, organizations with a lot of money invested in, and a lot of profits riding on, the stat
  • Companies like DuPont made billions from "ozone-layer friendly" coolants, so let's just all be happy for them and all the enviro-hippies who were their unwitting marketing tools. Never mind that the Sun drives the earth's climate, let's make everyone think man does, and that we need to upgrade our toys to save mother earth!

  • Wow, that's only one and a half times as big as the entire USA (including Alaska). Almost nothing!

  • Ice shelves (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Writer ( 746272 ) on Saturday October 02, 2004 @11:06AM (#10413479)
    Could this have something to do with the increasing collapse of ice shelves [nsidc.org] in the Antarctic? Perhaps there is some relationship between the Ozone hole beginning to shrink and the collapse [nsidc.org] of the Larsen B Ice Shelf, which both coincidentally happened in 2002. Maybe the collapse and accellerated [nsidc.org] glacier movements triggered some environmental chain reaction that affected the Ozone hole, but in a superficial way that temporarily masks a continued climate change.

  • Why Is It? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by joeyGibson ( 30462 ) <joey@@@joeygibson...com> on Saturday October 02, 2004 @09:43PM (#10417425) Homepage
    Of course scientists caution this would have to continue for at least a couple more years to be a trend or anything to get excited about.

    Isn't it funny that when there is good news about the climate, "scientists" tells us that we shouldn't "get excited about it," yet when there is apparently bad news, these same scientists demands that we must act "before it's too late."

Slashdot Top Deals

You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.

Close