NASA Announces Record Ozone Hole 190
Drewsk writes "NASA has announced that the ozone hole over the Antarctic has broken all records. From the story: 'From September 21 to 30, the average area of the ozone hole was the largest ever observed, at 10.6 million square miles,' said Paul Newman, atmospheric scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. If the stratospheric weather conditions had been normal, the ozone hole would be expected to reach a size of about 8.9 to 9.3 million square miles, about the surface area of North America.""
I read about this (Score:2, Interesting)
Besides all the technical trinkets, is this where science ends up on Slashdot?
Pretty sad, if you ask me - game consoles and
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's because these global warming news are super depressing, anti-american, pro-terrorism and bad for the economy. We should collectively hush-hush these fairy-tales of evident destruction of human kind and just live in four year periods. Now, go back reading console news and smile. Remember - ignorance is strength!
Re:I read about this (Score:4, Funny)
It is a user contributed site (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty impressive, considering NASA's original press release came out just 36 hours before this submission was accepted by a ./ editor as fiting the criteria of news for nerds. All of the other news sites reporting this story are referencing that same press release.
Where on the 17th did you read about this?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you'll ever get your packages delivered if that's all the accuracy you've got to offer.
Sometimes... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Sometimes... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sometimes... (Score:5, Informative)
Although the presence of ozone in the atmosphere has been known for a bit over 100 years, knowledge of the presence of a permanent ozone layer is rather more recent. Man did not reach the south pole until 1912 and did not fly over it until 1929. The first permanent observation station at the south pole was not established until 1957. Meanwhile the ability measure the thickness of the ozone layer, from either ground or satellite is concurrent with the discovery of the ozone hole. Mid 70s through mid 80s. Although ballons have been flying into the stratosphere for a couple ticks over 100 years, we only got a good idea of its structure in the mid 80s when we sent up an instrumented U2. OP is right to the extent that we really know squat all about the history of the ozone layer.
Go back to eighth grade science class, then come back and post on slashdot.
I had just finished my undergraduate studies in physics when we first started acurately measuring the thickness of the ozone layer indirectly; and thus being able actually map it. Perhaps you have the advantage on me of only recently being out of the eighth grade.
KFG
Re: (Score:2)
Err, 20 years actually. My doesn't time fly?
Re: (Score:2)
The hole got bigger? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, that Paul Newman (Score:5, Funny)
Is nothing enough for Paul Newman? It's not enough that he stars in movies with Robert Redford, or that I'm forced to by his Salad Dressings and Microwave Pop-Corn... now I must apparently take his word on the o-zone layer. I suppose in 20 years he'll show up in a computer animated film as some sort of washed-up radio telescope convinced to go for one more shot at the big time.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm.... (Score:4, Funny)
NASA announcement raises questions... (Score:5, Funny)
- Yes, but will it be available in retail before the holiday shopping season? What will availability be?
- Can it run Lunix? Duke Nukem 4? NetBSD? Can I make a beowulf out of them?
- Shouldn't we wait for Rev. B?
- Why didn't they mention any pricing in the article? It's totally a vaporware mock-up, like that keyboard!
- Did they use clean energy to manufacture it?
- Isn't the one from RKA/ESA/JAXA superior? NASA only makes hoaxes anyway -- Was this "ozone hole" actually on a sound stage in Nevada?
Re: (Score:2)
Steve Martin Quote (Score:2)
If anything happened to ozone layer, all those farts would fall back to earth. And NOT on their original owners.
A new record?! (Score:2)
Oh....wait.....
It's not a good thing?
Statistics (Score:5, Interesting)
900 million cows for mcdonalds is part of the sim? (Score:2)
that beef thats needed, and how much shit those cows make and how much they fart methane!!!
Did you add 600 billion cubic meters of methane!?!?!?!?!?!?
Cows are bad choice for food, they take a long time to grow, eat heaps, pollute the air. Require massive
amounts of land. They are UDDER Crap!
On a per tonne of wate and acre statistic, INSECTS provide way more protein than cows, if people got over
the fact o
Re:900 million cows for mcdonalds is part of the s (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, people fart too. I hope you're wearing your butt-plug, my fellow eco-warrior...
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, on an individual basis, cows are a great deal less annoying than people.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case we are observing the *same* ozone hole multiple times so the statistic to use is the repeated measures T-test or "paired" T-test. A paired T-test is a statistic on the derivative between dependent observations (e.g. site specific). It is possible to conclude with normal confidence bounds that the derivative is
You misunderstand.. (Score:2)
That sounds to me like this is an estimate predicted from a model, not actual measurements. Also, the problem here isn't the margin of error for measurement, it's the variability. The a
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations (Score:2)
I think congratulations are in place, that's quite an achievement. Guinness' Book will now be such a bore though.
Finally! (Score:2, Funny)
Re: Ozone Hole (Score:5, Interesting)
With the highest rates of melanoma skin cancer in the world due to the lack of UV protecting Ozone and predominantly clean air. These two countries bear the full brunt of the impact of the hole. At the height of summer, sunburn can occur in as little as 6 minutes!! of sun exposur. Anyone outside without SPF30+ sunscreen, glasses, a shirt and a hat should be considered a fool. This is what its like to live with a hole in the Ozone above your country.
If this is what is was like above your country in summer, when you would just like to enjoy yourself and "Catch some rays, down at the beach". You certainly wouldn't be arguing about how it was cause or who caused it, you'rd be trying to find a way to fix it!
Sometimes, I wish the hole could be moved to somewhere move deserving.
Re: (Score:2)
I, for one, welcome our new Kiwi, Lord of the Ring loving overlords.
~X~
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would include links, but this comment doesn't deserve to be modded up.
~X~
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just who do you think is more deserving of this?
Australia is a modern society that used CFCs for years.
Yes it sucks that it effects you but you are no more or less deserving than any other nation.
This is perfectly normal (Score:3, Informative)
CFCs need to leech from the troposphere to the stratosphere. The troposphere is very easy to travel through, as temperatures decreases as you approach the stratosphere. This allows for the warmer air near ground level to rise to the top of the troposphere, where it cools and sinks back to the ground (which then warms again, etc). This makes sure that pollutants such as CFCs travel very well throughout the troposphere.
However, the stratosphere warms as you go higher. The cooler air down below sinks back into the troposphere, making it hard for pollutants to enter it. The stratosphere is where the ozone is. The only way for the gas to get into the stratosphere is to diffuse very slowly into it, where it can do its damage.
This is why there is such a big hole now. Diffusion into the stratosphere takes many years. Scientists have predicted a peak in CFC levels in the stratosphere around about now. Slowly, all the CFCs we've produced will diffuse, react to become relatively harmless free radicals, and the ozone layer will be restored. Until then, sit tight.
I wish studies could agree (Score:2)
I wrote a journal entry on this topic yesterday (Score:3, Interesting)
It contains contextual information about what is ozone, who the main players are / were that contributed to the ozone cycle discovery, who first discovered the Antarctic ozone hole, and why it is believed that it will begin to shrink in the near future (decades).
Hope it is of interest.
Ozone "Hole" (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not a hole—it's a depression.
Ozone concentration increases smoothly going from the poles to the equator. It's never zero.
The size of the so-called Ozone Hole isn't a discovery, it's a decision. Pick a threshold value and everything below that value is your "hole"—pick one value and you have a big hole, pick another and it's tiny. Different scientists at different times have used different threshold values, so it's hard to believe any comparison without checking the raw data to make sure they are comparing apples to apples.
Using thresholds destroys interesting information. There's a real difference between a big shallow depression and a big deep depression. The total extent of the "hole" could be just a bit below the arbitrarily chosen threshold, so that a tiny change in the threshold would result in a very tiny "hole". Gotta see the data.
Caused by BELOW average temps in Antarctica (Score:2, Interesting)
From TFA: ... The temperature readings from NOAA satellites and balloons during late-September 2006 showed the lower stratosphere at the rim of Antarctica was approximately nine degrees Fahrenheit col
The temperature of the Antarctic stratosphere causes the severity of the ozone hole to vary from year to year. Colder than average temperatures result in larger and deeper ozone holes, while warmer temperatures lead to smaller ones.
Re:Was Wondering... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not a big jumping to conclusions kind of person, but there are signifigant environmental impacts on the creation of new upper atmospheric ozone as well. I think, although I could be wrong, that most atmospheric ozone is created by lightning causing chemical reactions. There could be some relationship there that's gone unaddressed. Regardless, this is hardly good news to hear.
Where the ozone comes from (Score:5, Informative)
Now, if you want to get confused, CFCs are both catalysts of ozone breakdown and greenhouse gases. To make you even more confused, upper tropospheric ozone is a greenhouse gas, not as important as CO2 but worth taking into account.
Re: (Score:2)
I heard it mentioned on the radio this morning that the ozone hole had been measured as the biggest ever so far. Confusingly, an interviewed scientist was also commenting that people shouldn't panic, because it was on a downward trend and was still expected to heal itself over the next so many decades. I'm not quite sure exactly what was meant, because under most circumstances I wouldn't intuitiv
Re:Was Wondering... (Score:5, Informative)
There are two possibilities that don't defy logic:
Re:Was Wondering... (Score:5, Informative)
The article states the following:
"these ozone-depleting substances typically have very long lifetimes in the atmosphere (more than 40 years).
Obsoleting Freon has helped, however it will take tens of years for the existing CFC/HFC/HCFC's etc gas levels to drop to acceptable concentrations.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Nic
It never went away (Score:5, Informative)
I live in New Zealand, the current position and shape of the ozone hole is a regular feature of TV weather reports.
Re: (Score:2)
New Zealand. Isn't that where Lord of the Rings [imdb.com] was filmed?
Near an ozone hole...solar radiation...mutations...Hobbits?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Was Wondering... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not long ago I was wondering, "whatever happened to the ozone hole?" It seemed that Global Warming had taken over as the looming apocalypse. So the obsoleting of Freon hasn't helped?
No, NASA needs more money.
Everytime they run out of money there is another hole in the ozone layer.
Some years ago they also announced an ozone layer hole above eastern Europe.
They didn't count on the the Belgian KMI (Koninklijk Meteorologisch Instituut) which announced that the hole in question wasn't as big as NASA said it was
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember how this was supposed to be a global-warming induced horrible hurricane season?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I remember correctly...
Ozone is created by lightning from thunderstorms.
The warmer the surface, in general, the more likely it is that thunderstorms will occur.
Antarctica is the coldest place on earth, therefore it is less likely that thunderstorms will occur in Antarctica, and less ozone will be produced in that area.
Consequently, we can assume that global warming would reduce the size of the ozone hole if that warming could be focus
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Damned if you do..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps it's just now that we're so widely knowledgeable (if not intelligent) about our world at large, we realise just how many people will be outright fucked over by the coming changes. I'm sure humanity will survive, regardless of what happens. Anyone recall Daisyworld and biodiversity versus adverse conditions from biology class?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Damned if you do..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of us have, anyway.
Sure, the earth has seen some big cataclysms in the past, which haven't wiped out all life on the planet. The big ass meteor that made the Yucatan peninsula 65 million years ago only wiped out about 90% of all species.
But even within, as you say, the lifespan of humanity, there've been some major catastrophes, that haven't wiped us out. A couple of ice ages, we weathered through (so to speak). And even more recently, plagues, war, famine, huge volcanic eruptions. Sure the human species have survived. Villages, towns, cities, nations, even entire civilizations have been wiped out, but humans survive.
Mostly, I just don't want to be part of one of the civilizations that gets wiped out.
The same can be said about population pressure. The more people there are, the greater the chance some big disease will come along to take care of the problem, or some asshole pushes the button and nukes us back to the stoneage. Either way, nature will adjust. She's just not as picky as I'd like about her methods.
Re:Damned if you do..... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, when most people say this, by "discerning" or "picky", they automatically assume that THEY would be part of the population favored by such choice...
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, when most people say this, by "discerning" or "picky", they automatically assume that THEY would be part of the population favored by such choice...
Of course, Nature would obviously favor a staggeringly handsome and intelligent person like me.Re:Damned if you do..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Something repeatedly bothers me. We act like global warming caused by humans means the end of days, but surely the earth has undergone far more cataclysmic changes (such as after supervolcanoes), even during the lifespan of humanity, and we've lived to tell the tale?
Oh yes, we have survived. But barely. According to the Toba Catastrophe Theory [wikipedia.org] the Lake Toba eruption reduced the total number of human beings to 1000-10000. We also survived the plague, which killed of a third of Europe's population in the middle ages.
But surviving doesn't mean a walk in the park. Yes. We would survive sea levels rising a couple of feet. I live in Holland and we've been fighting the water for centuries. Now, we're more prosperous than ever so we'll be able to build the dykes. But countries like Bangladesh (which floods like every two years already) would be in serious trouble and would not be able to do a thing about it.
Perhaps it's just now that we're so widely knowledgeable (if not intelligent) about our world at large, we realise just how many people will be outright fucked over by the coming changes. I'm sure humanity will survive, regardless of what happens. Anyone recall Daisyworld and biodiversity versus adverse conditions from biology class?
You are right if bare survival is your criterium of success. But I'd prefer to aim a little higher than that.
Oh and of course I am aware that I'm talking about global warming, which has very little to do with the hole in the ozone layer. But the point remains valid.
Re: (Score:2)
And you, along with anyone else, is free to try that -
but I am a player of Defcon, and understand that victory can mean less than 100,000 survivors.
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't be a problem. We probably came out of the last ice age with 100,000. We should be able to get through the next one with that many. Of course it will suck for the 5,999,900,000 who will die miserably. Of course scientists could try to figure out how to interrupt the ice age cycle, but then Al Gore might sneer at them, and they're pretty sensitive about that.
Re:Damned if you do..... Slammed if you dont? (Score:2)
Well, let's just make sure THIS Paul Newman doesn't take up race car driving for a hobby... (tires, oil, exhaust emissions...) But, this one can stick to salad oil if he wants...., hehehe
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, which means that either A) a rise of 1 degree at the equator would mean a rise of 12 degrees at the poles, or B) Al Gore is the biggest gas bag in the history of the world, and every time he opens his mouth he melts more glaciers with his hot air than all other man-made causes combined. I'm going with........ B.
Re:Damned if you do..... (Score:5, Informative)
Tropospheric ozone is created by many things but is very reactive and does not last long. Lightning does produce ozone in the troposphere as does certain chemical reactions between anthropogenic pollutants.
Stratospheric ozone is created when high-energy ultraviolet light from the sun splits diatomic oxygen (O2) into oxygen atoms (O) which can combine with O2 to create O3. UV also splits O3 into O and O2, and there is constant creation/destruction of O3 in the strasophere. It reaches an eqilibrium which is a function of a bunch of things, but the end result is (a) the creation/destruction of O3 in the stratosphere "absorbs" the most energetic UV from the sun (which is good for life) and (b) this process heats up the stratosphere, making it one big inversion which has the nice side-effect of keeping thunderstorm updrafts from blasting into the mesosphere.
In order to undertsand why there is an ozone "hole" over Antarcitca you have to understand about the dynamics of the atmosphere. Most ozone is actually created in the tropical latitudes and is advected southward/northward via the Hadley Cell circulation. The polar vortex over Antarctica tends to inhibit mixing across its boundary, so stuff that gets in it tends to stay there. Ozone depletion due to CFCs tends to be greatest around this time of year when the Antarctic is entering Spring and the sun is beginning to interact with polar stratospheric clouds which are a major catalyst to the ozone depletion.
Anyone could look this stuff up in a recent undergraduate meteorology textbook. Just about all of the "Mod 5 : informative" posts in this thread are laughingly incorrect.
Same goes to the douche who thinks "CFCs are too heavy to get into the Stratosphere". I'm not going to bother to explain that one to you.
And finally, don't ever mention "global warming" and "ozone hole" in the same sentence as if they are related. They are not.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'd really like to hear an explanation. I'm not going to claim to know anything about CFC's, but if these gases really are heavier than air and don't readily mix with air, how exactly does a bucket of them in my back yard elevate itself to the upper atmosphere?
Re:Damned if you do..... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, I'd really like to hear an explanation. I'm not going to claim to know anything about CFC's, but if these gases really are heavier than air and don't readily mix with air, how exactly does a bucket of them in my back yard elevate itself to the upper atmosphere?
Think of it this way: What is "air" in the first place? To a good approximation within the troposphere, it's a mixture of molecular oxygen (molecular weight = 32 grams/mol, 21%), molecular nitrogen (MW = 28 g/mol, 78%) and argon (MW = 40 g/mol,
The troposphere (tropos in Latin means "turning" or "mixing") is well-mixed and the relative ratio of the three aforementioned permanent gaes to one another is constant. If you introduce a heavier gas (higher MW) it will still get mixed into the lighter gases over time due to the winds. Brownian motion will also cause heavier gases to diffuse in a calm environment.
CFCs will spread laterally across the globe by the horizontal winds. Whenever there is a strong thunderstorm, updrafts will slam air, which originates near the ground, into the tropopause, the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere. Very strong updrafts can intrude into the bottom of the stratosphere where the tropospheric air mixes into the stratosphere. Once something gets into the stratosphere (if it's got a very small terminal velocity - think about strong volcanoes spewing ash) it tends to stick around because the stability of the stratosphere is so high (due to the temperature inversion I mentioned before).
Back to "heavier gases" for a moment. It is true that if you "pour" a heavy gas onto the ground it will spread out before mixing. There have been cases where CO2 (MW = 34) has seeped out of the ground and spread laterally, suffocating people (google Lake Nyos). But given a few hours of typical winds, the heavier gas will be diluted and over time mixes into the rest of the atmosphere, contributing slightly towards the atmosphere's own average molecular weight.
Re: (Score:2)
You guys missed the Funny button when modding him up. Try again.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)
A) Chlorine, Bromine, and their Ozone cappin' friends stay in the atmosphere for decades. Even with a significant drop in emissions (its precipitousness is reminiscent of the bunny slope) it will be a very long time before significant positive effects accrue. As the article points out, we can expect about 0.1% to 0.2% per year in the near term.
B) This record breaking event is the culmination of several phenomena, including large-scale, seasonal factors that completely overshadow the tiny bit of healing the layer has done in the last few years. "This slow decrease is masked by large year-to-year variations caused by Antarctic stratosphere weather fluctuations."
One thing the article does NOT mention is any cry of "Wolf!". There isn't any environmentalist finger-wagging, just some scientists saying "holy shnikes, take a look at the SIZE of that thing!!"
Re: (Score:2)
-Peter
both parties are scum (Score:2)
Major parties are in cahoots and evil, toe the part line, be part of the in crowd, no independent thought, bend over to big brother.
Vote #3, remember what number 1s and number 2s mean in the toilet. Thats what they are!!
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, that's such a mature and thought-provoking argument, I'm going to start voting for #3 right away!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Could you at least try a reliable source? Or even try to answer the questions?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Your questions answered (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe not, but they're there. All the same tools that tell us whats in other planets' atmospheres works equally well on our own. Further more, as surprising as it may be, if you lay down on the ground, you're not likely to asphyxiate unless someone dumps a sufficient amount of a heavy gas right next to you, since the atmosphere mixes up rather easily. As for how they move, I'm going to suggest things like the Jet Stream for moving them around the planet, and equatorial heating to carry CFCs into the upper atmosphere and down towards the pole.
Chlorine in the ice
Interesting theory. Where did the chlorine come from? A molecule of Cl2 (total atomic mass 71 [wikipedia.org]) is more massive than N2 (28), O2 (32), and CO2 (44), or does "too heavy" only count when it's you saying it? Could it possibly be that the Cl in your ice is the same Cl in CFCs?
thus turning your refrigerator into a potential BOMB.
Aside from someone else already pointing out that it's not benzene, I guess you're too young to remember the days of early ammonia refrigerators, now those were the BOMB!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe not, but they're there. All the same tools that tell us whats in other planets' atmospheres works equally well on our own. Further more, as surprising as it may be, if you lay down on the ground, you're not likely to asphyxiate unless someone dumps a sufficient amount of a heavy gas right next to you, since the atmosphere mixes up rather easily. As for how they move, I'm going to suggest things like the Jet Stream for moving them around the planet, and equatorial heating to carry CFCs into the upper a
Re: (Score:2)
Point one is correct, otherwise this is just a cleverly worded troll. Unless every shred of Earth Science theory has been torn to pieces in the past 5 minutes, none of what this poster claims is even remotely true - or even very believable, for that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say you need to take a ten-year break from posting on Slashdot to grow up some more. Come back when your balls have dropped.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But but by your argument there should not be any stratospheric ice, since water is heavier than atmospheric gases.
In fact, if we accept your theory then we wouldn't be able to breathe at sea level, because atmospheric CO2 woul
Re: (Score:2)
During the winter a polar vortex forms which keeps moisture and warmth away from the stratosphere, stopping practically all mixing. So how do the CFCs stick around long enough to get broken down in the middle of winter and what keeps them aloft?
Re: (Score:2)
You yourself touched on this: "During the winter a polar vortex forms which keeps moisture and warmth away from the stratosphere, stopping practically all mixing."
Re: (Score:2)
Now answer the question.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that so?
Even though a Nobel Prize was given for the supposed link between CFCs and ozone depletion, no-one has ever explained how CFC molecules which are much heavier than air, can rise up in the stratosphere, travel all of the way to Antarctica before being broken down into chlorine and fluorine and reacting the O3
They aren't so heavy that the wind can't take them up. Dust particles are much heavier than CFCs and seems to get into the strat [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Even more bingo! Some eco-warrior claims it must be caused by mankind. Ergo the extremely safe stable CFCs are replaced with benzene, thus turning your refrigerator into a potential BOMB.
As I recall, you also have hydrochlorofluorocarbons or HCFCs. Not as good or safe as CFCs, but considerably less damaging to the ozone layer. Might still meet the eco-warriors' threshhold for a dangerous chemical since it has scary chlorine all over it, and it technically does harm the ozone layer.To the Trolls who marked my original reply down (Score:2)
1. Stratospheric ozone has nothing whatsoever to do with tropospheric ozone. Stratospheric ozone is formed by cosmic rays hitting oxygen molecules and forming O3 molecules.
2. CFCs have nothing whatsoever to do with stratospheric ozone. Even though a Nobel Prize was given for the supposed link between CFCs and ozone depletion, no-one has ever explained how CFC molecules which are much heavier than air, can rise up in the stratosphere, travel all of the way to Antarctica before being broken down into
Re: (Score:2)
I've got news for you. Science is never settled, and certainly not by someone making the claim that such-and-such a theory is os overwhelmingly robust. Any scientific theory can be falsified by a single experiment, which is the fundamental principle of scientific inquiry that a theory be falsifiable.
Since chlorine atoms don't come stamped with "I was once part of a CFC" this makes it difficult to falsify in the scientific sense.
Google is your friend as well. Unfortunately Google tel
you should reference your statements (Score:2)
"First, the ozone hole opens and closes each year- it doesn't just sit there gaping open. Its part of a natural cycle."
Says who? also, I think the article indicated this particular event as an anomoly, are you refuting that?
"Second, even evolutionistic meteorologists deny the theory (THEORY mind you) of global warming."
Got a name for us? Most of the studies I've read woul
Re: (Score:2)
Givin the Earth's average radius 6,372.797 km and the ozone is concentrated between 15 and 40km, calculate the area of ozone covering the equivalent of the land area of the United states, which is 9,631,420 km for anybody who has forgotten. Bonus points for taking into consideration the Earth's less than spherical shape. Also bonus points for not ju