Over the Antarctic, the Smallest Ozone Hole In a Decade 174
hypnosec writes "The ozone layer seems to be on a road to recovery over Antarctica; according to Europe's MetOp weather satellite, which is monitoring atmospheric ozone, the hole over the South Pole in 2012 was the smallest it's been in the last 10 years. The decrease in size of the hole is probably the result of reduction in the concentration of CFCs, especially since the mid-1990s, because of international agreements like the Montreal Protocol."
HypnoToad says (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:HypnoToad says (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And by the way, moderating dissenting voices "troll" is totally beyond the pale. Science is about skepticism. Physicists are highly skeptical of each other's results. When it comes to Earth Sciences, why is it that people crowd the paradigm like it's a sacred tome? Debates here would be far more interesting if they were actually allowed.
Re:HypnoToad says (Score:5, Informative)
Good job misrepresenting that. Here, let me post the abstract, literally the first thing you'd read:
This Letter reports reliable satellite data in the period of 1980–2007 covering two full 11-yr cosmic ray (CR) cycles, clearly showing the correlation between CRs and ozone depletion, especially the polar ozone loss (hole) over Antarctica. The results provide strong evidence of the physical mechanism that the CR-driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules plays the dominant role in causing the ozone hole. Moreover, this mechanism predicts one of the severest ozone losses in 2008–2009 and probably another large hole around 2019–2020, according to the 11-yr CR cycle.
The paper does not say it's dependent on cosmic rays exclusively, instead it points out that cosmic ray activity seems to play a significant role in determining the activity of halogenated molecules destroying ozone. Guess which one of those parameters we've totally screwed around with from the 1970s onwards?
I'll give you a hint: it's not cosmic ray irradiation.
Re:HypnoToad says (Score:4, Insightful)
This Letter reports reliable satellite data in the period of 1980â"2007 covering two full 11-yr cosmic ray (CR) cycles
This should be a warning sign for you. Small data sets(and here, over short time scales) can indicate correct results, but they can also be highly misleading.
Re:HypnoToad says (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Very true, but only time can give us more data. Sure, we'd all like to see 10 more cycles, but that will necessarily take 110 years to collect. For now, we'll just have to deal with 2 cycles and limit claims with phrases like 'suggestive of' and 'points to'. In 2019 we can look at the analysis of another cycle and feel slightly more (or less?)confident in the results.
Re: (Score:2)
Also no reason to rail against the consensus.
Re: (Score:2)
Also no reason to rail against the consensus.
Lack of data is a great reason to rail against consensus.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
*sigh*. If you're going to quote the scientific literature in support of your argument, you need to at least make some effort to understand it first.
The paper says that cosmic rays strongly correlate with ozone depletion. The data point to cosmic-ray driven reactions of halogenated molecules as being the cause of the correlation. The *only* halogenated molecules present in the stratosphere in any significant concentration are CFCs. I'll repeat that: where the paper talks about "halogenated molecules", it
Re: (Score:2)
*sigh*. If you're going to quote the scientific literature in support of your argument, you need to at least make some effort to understand it first.
The paper says that cosmic rays strongly correlate with ozone depletion. The data point to cosmic-ray driven reactions of halogenated molecules as being the cause of the correlation. The *only* halogenated molecules present in the stratosphere in any significant concentration are CFCs. I'll repeat that: where the paper talks about "halogenated molecules", it's talking about CFCs, HCFCs and other man-made chemicals.
"Coastal waters of the tropical Western Pacific produce natural halogenated organic molecules involving chlorine, bromine and iodine atoms that may damage the stratospheric ozone layer. "
"Micro-organisms such as macro-algae and phytoplankton form natural halogenated organic molecules, which are released into the air, where they eventually find their way into the stratosphere."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120201093105.htm [sciencedaily.com]
Re: (Score:2)
*sigh*. If you're going to quote the scientific literature in support of your argument, you need to at least make some effort to understand it first.
The paper says that cosmic rays strongly correlate with ozone depletion. The data point to cosmic-ray driven reactions of halogenated molecules as being the cause of the correlation. The *only* halogenated molecules present in the stratosphere in any significant concentration are CFCs. I'll repeat that: where the paper talks about "halogenated molecules", it's talking about CFCs, HCFCs and other man-made chemicals.
"Coastal waters of the tropical Western Pacific produce natural halogenated organic molecules involving chlorine, bromine and iodine atoms that may damage the stratospheric ozone layer. "
"Micro-organisms such as macro-algae and phytoplankton form natural halogenated organic molecules, which are released into the air, where they eventually find their way into the stratosphere."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120201093105.htm [sciencedaily.com]
And yet - as was pointed out in the paper - the concentration of CFCs in the atmosphere is carefully monitored these days, and has been static since about 1992 which correlates with treaties and provisions phasing out CFC use in industry. The quantities man put up are staggering compared to any natural production.
Re: (Score:2)
The quantities man put up are staggering compared to any natural production.
Could you please source that statement? Since we've only recently discovered some of the natural sources it does surprise me that we would know anything about the ratio.
Re: (Score:2)
The quantities man put up are staggering compared to any natural production.
Could you please source that statement? Since we've only recently discovered some of the natural sources it does surprise me that we would know anything about the ratio.
Given how CFCs work, if significant natural sources existed then we would have observed a significant ozone hole well before human production of CFCs started up. They're long-life molecules which do not fall out of the atmosphere easily, but we know there was no pre-existing ozone hole before the invention of CFCs and their use in industry.
This is a decent report on the matter: http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap2-4/sap2-4-final-ch2.pdf [climatescience.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
but we know there was no pre-existing ozone hole before the invention of CFCs and their use in industry
We most certainly do not. The ozon "hole" was discovered first time we looked (after a hypothesis was formed as to how CFCs could impact stratospheric ozone) and we have no data whatsoever as to how the concentration of ozone has fluctuated over history. Thus, we have no baseline to compare natural vs human sourced influence with.
(The report you link to does not contain any data on the subject)
CFCs have been produced and used since the 1930's. The first reliable ozone hole measurements were done in the earl
Re:So tell me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed.
The decrease in size of the hole is probably the result of reduction in the concentration of CFCs, especially since the mid-1990s, because of international agreements like the Montreal Protocol.
It was urgent that CFCs be phased out not because of atmospheric damage but because DuPont's patents on them were about to expire. Anyone who works with refrigerants knows how "fucked" the replacements are compared to their predecessors.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's bullshit. R-12 and R-22 were long out of patent by the time the phaseout started.
That, unfortunately, is true.
Re: (Score:2)
The really screwy part is that the new 'blessed' refrigerants are themselves pretty harmful. We'd be much better off going with propane, but that would be cheap and non-patentable, so of course that would be a travesty of epic proportions.
Re: (Score:2)
I still have about half a can of vintage contact/tuner cleaner.
This is great news. (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps this means that conservation efforts over the last decade have had effect? I don't know, I'm honestly speaking from a point of view that is ignorant of climate science. In any case, this is great news.
More Flame Wars (Score:1)
Re:This is great news. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the clarification.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, except for the fact that ozone is an important GHG -- one of the three most important ones, from the spectroscopic data -- albeit one that is most common in the stratosphere where it warms the tropopause from above, rather than in the troposphere...
rgb
Re: (Score:3)
Well, except for the fact that ozone is an important GHG -- one of the three most important ones, from the spectroscopic data -- albeit one that is most common in the stratosphere where it warms the tropopause from above, rather than in the troposphere...
rgb
It's also in staggeringly low quantities there. The ozone-layer is about the reduction of UV-irradiation, and in the troposphere it has a very short half-life because it's no reactive (hence why depletion in the stratosphere is a problem).
Re: (Score:2)
GP was talking about "conservation efforts", which is a broader class than just 'climate change or greenhouse gasses'. In this case, the conservation efforts included regulating/banning the use of CFCs which are a major contributor to the hole in the ozone layer. And yes, those efforts were successful.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps it's entirely a natural occurence and that all the efforts were for nothing at all...
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, perhaps there is no physics and it's all unpredictable magic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There's also a correlation between cosmic rays and the ozone hole. Just saying.
There is also a correlation between Russia's population decline and the ozone hole. Just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First thing that came into my mind.
Re: (Score:1)
The earth will repair itself eventually, with or without us.
Re:This is great news. (Score:5, Funny)
That's what the Martian's said, too!
Re: (Score:3)
What's a 'said'? What did it do?
Re: (Score:2)
GP used a Martian apostrophe, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
That Earth would repair itself?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry my humour is a bit dry for some people. And no sir, whoosh to you!
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that these arguments mean fuckall to Nature.
The earth will repair itself eventually, with or without us.
Mhm... but eventually in geological terms, so hundreds of thousands or millions of years.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, no. It's broken, all right. And we're the thing that broke it. But the earth will fix the problem. See "super-volcano", LOL.
Non-story? (Score:2)
Surely if it's been shrinking all this time then you could have the same story every day: "ozone hole smallest size since $date". Has it grown occasionally for some reason?
Re: (Score:1)
"The depletion in the Ozone layer is more prominent in the South Pole as compared to the Arctic Circle because of high wind speeds that results into a fast-rotating vortex of cold air which leads to lower temperatures."
Guessing the hole in bigger in winter.
Re:Non-story? (Score:5, Interesting)
The ozone "hole" expands and contracts with atmospheric temperature. The colder it is, the thinner the ozone, and thus the larger the hole. So the size of the hole is both seasonal, and coupled to polar temperatures. I believe the hole is the smallest ever because the temperature has been warmer, not necessarily because less ozone is destroyed by man made chemicals.
Re:Non-story? (Score:5, Informative)
Surely if it's been shrinking all this time then you could have the same story every day: "ozone hole smallest size since $date". Has it grown occasionally for some reason?
For reasons that are sufficiently messy that I certainly couldn't do them justice(and there really isn't any point in copy/pasting a pretend understanding from wikipedia and just wasting space) ozone levels vary considerably over time, both because of natural seasonal weather patterns and because of changes in the presence of various ozone-depleting synthetic compounds.
My understanding is that trends on atmospheric concentration of more or less all of the really nasty ozone-depleting compounds have been positive since regulation went into effect; but that the size and shape of the ozone hole has been a great deal more chaotic from season to season(shape counts, for our purposes, because ozone thinning over the antarctic is a bad sign; but the number of epidemiologists who care about penguin melanoma is limited, while ozone thinning over Australia is directly troublesome).
Re: (Score:2)
As a southerhemispherer I remember being able to go outside without sun protection. Because the sun protection was, you know, the upper atmosphere. No chance of that now.
Re:Non-story? (Score:4, Funny)
Graphical representation of a hole?
NO NO I will not post a link to GOATSE !!!
Must resist temptation
In other words ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... scientists recognized an environmental problem and demonstrated a clear link to human activity, the scientists told the politicians about it, the politicians acted, and now the problem's going away.
My God, this is terrible! We must ensure that no such thing ever happens again!
Re: (Score:2)
nah.... the denialist 'experts' will simply claim that a volcano... erm.... ate all the.... carbon dioxide.... an stuff
Re: (Score:3)
Re:In other words ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The important thing to remember is that if unregulated, industry would have fixed this eventually. Like, after we were all dead.
Assuming correlation is causation... (Score:2)
Clearly, the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is helping close the ozone hole! Suck it, Al Gore!
(That's how it works, right?)
cue global warming denialists.... (Score:1)
...in 3.... 2.... 1...
Re: (Score:1)
Global warming is at BEST a hypothesis.
Get back to me when its cast as a reproducible law.. and not by simply tweaking computer models to get the results you want... and make sure it goes all the way back to the planets formation... not just 100 years of questionable recorded data.
That's how it works.. consensus is not part of it... no matter how many hack statistical only scientists clamoring for acceptance and a group hug say otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Global warming is at BEST a hypothesis.
Get back to me when its cast as a reproducible law.. and not by simply tweaking computer models to get the results you want... and make sure it goes all the way back to the planets formation... not just 100 years of questionable recorded data.
That's how it works.. consensus is not part of it... no matter how many hack statistical only scientists clamoring for acceptance and a group hug say otherwise.
I honestly can't tell if this is satire, or just slashdot being slashdot.
Ozone hole causing too much ice for the penguins (Score:2)
Smallest in 10 years, you say?
Here's a story blaming the ozone hole for TOO MUCH ice
http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/8267243/Too-much-ice-for-Antarctic-penguins [stuff.co.nz]
Blame it on global warming! (Score:2)
After all, what does the data say? Higher temperatures, less Antarctic ozone? Looks like a correlation, and therefore....
Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)
But I really wish that the climate change folks would take a note from the whole ozone thing. CFCs and other contributory substances (ozone-depleting substances (ODS)) were proven to have an impact. CFCs were replaced with hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and other alternative solvents with minimal costs. And the problem was economically solved for the most part.
Folks proved what the problem was (ozone depletion), what was a very significant contributor (CFCs), how everything happened (in a scientific "can be repeated, with the same results every time"), set up accurate and provable models (Single Layer Isentropic Model of Chemistry And Transport (SLIMCAT), CLaMS (Chemical Lagrangian Model of the Stratosphere), etc), and how to economically mitigate the bad stuff by using less bad stuff. The last stage is arguably the most important. All of the climate change research and proof in the world is nice. But it doesn't mean jack if it doesn't produce economically acceptable alternatives.
X is bad? Fine. Accurately prove how they are bad, in a way that is relatively easy to proof in a repeatable way. Gimme alternatives that are viable (ie can be realistically implemented in a reasonable manner), that are economic (preferably cheaper, but no more than 5-10% more expensive) that are effective (preferably better, but no more than 5-10% less effiicient).
I spent time in former Soviet countries and third world countries. I'm aware of how bad pollution can be. It can be horribly nasty. I'm also not a moron, so I realize you have to be able to realistically solve the problem if you want to mitigate it. I'll bet myself $1 that I get called a climate denier, right wing puppy kicker or whatnot anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
> CFCs were replaced with hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) ...
> the problem was economically solved for the most part.
Excep that HCFC turns out to be more of a problem
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/September/25090702.asp [rsc.org]
HCFC Phaseout Schedule | Ozone Layer Protection - Regulatory ...
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/hcfc.html [epa.gov]
To learn more about the HCFC phaseout, including frequently asked questions, please visit this link.
Producing HCFC-22 also produces, as a byproduct, HCF-23.
Oo
Re: (Score:3)
"Excep that HCFC turns out to be more of a problem
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2007/September/25090702.asp [rsc.org] [rsc.org]"
So where in the article you linked does it say that HCFCs are more of a problem than CFCs? All I could find was the following, "They replaced the older and even more ozone-damaging chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the 1990s, but were never meant to be permanent substitutes." No matter what happens with the HCFCs, it seems we are better off without the CFCs. Going to HCFCs seems to h
Re: (Score:2)
> more of a problem
More of a problem than they were expected to be
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Interesting)
X is bad? Fine. Accurately prove how they are bad, in a way that is relatively easy to proof in a repeatable way. Gimme alternatives that are viable (ie can be realistically implemented in a reasonable manner), that are economic (preferably cheaper, but no more than 5-10% more expensive) that are effective (preferably better, but no more than 5-10% less effiicient).
While I'm in agreement with this view, I'm also aware of how much messier the AGW situation is than the CFC situation was. Anything beyond "anthropogenic gases are probably adding about 0.2% (1.6 W/m**2) to the Earth's heat budget at the surface" is extremely model dependent, and models are just not that good at predicting the detailed response of such a complex system.
I am a computational physicist, and it is very clear after digging in to climate models a bit that climate models are not written by computational physicists, who typically have dealt with much simpler systems in much better controlled (and experimentally accessible) situations, which gives us a very healthy awareness of how inadequate our simulations are at capturing anything but the gross features of reality.
If a computational model of a radiation detector comes within 10% of reality you're generally doing pretty well, and radiation detectors of various kinds are about as simple as you can get in terms of physics.
So anyone who claims that climate models are adequate or even particularly useful as guides to policy response is likely not tightly coupled to reality. We don't really know what areas are likely to be affected by what kind of events. Even apparently simple things like an increase in hurricane force winds, or possibly an increase in the number of hurricanes, are hotly debated. No one, to the best of my knowledge, predicted ocean acidification as a likely outcome of increasing levels of atmospheric CO2, but this is likely going to be one of the more significant impacts. And so on.
As such, it behooves us to pursue a number of policies that won't address any specific threat, but which will a) reduce human greenhouse gas emissions and b) increase our ability to respond the climate-driven humanitarian disasters. In the former category would be nuclear power development and other green power sources, and in the latter things like increased funds put aside for international relief via existing organizations.
These positive actions have zero political support, however: people who are beating the drums regarding AGW policy are almost uniformly putting it in terms of controls and limits and restrictions on other people, which we know from far too much history never ends well, and certainly never solves the problem it was supposedly intended to address.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Informative)
The reason banning CFC's was so easy was because it was a relatively small target, and replacement technology was almost immediately available.
The reason there is so much noise about climate is because it affects *everything* and there is no cut and dried solution available. Entrenched interests have been pouring money into FUD on the scientists themselves for years for that reason. And because they are suicidal, apparently...
Re: (Score:2)
it's a different situation with climate change. the solution to using the CFCs that were destroying ozone was just to use a different set of chemicals that were already in the can anyways. it was literally the easiest environmental crisis we've ever had to deal with.
climate change is a whole different kettle of fish. if you had any idea how insanely cheap fossil fuels have been (and still are) you wouldn't be asking for economic alternatives.
Re: (Score:2)
"CFCs were replaced with hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and other alternative solvents with minimal costs. And the problem was economically solved for the most part. " -- Not if you were to believe the wailing and crying at the time the CFC phaseouts were being discussed. It was going to be the end of the civilized world because there were "no substitutes for CFCs". We'd all lose our air conditioners and refrigerators, leading to general collapse. Exactly the same arguments were made (probably by the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
X is bad? Fine. Accurately prove how they are bad, in a way that is relatively easy to proof in a repeatable way. Gimme alternatives that are viable (ie can be realistically implemented in a reasonable manner), that are economic (preferably cheaper, but no more than 5-10% more expensive) that are effective (preferably better, but no more than 5-10% less effiicient).
The second and third criteria seem a bit artificial. Why not just cost vs benefit? On economics, did you mean factoring in externalized costs? If one were to demonstrate that switching to nuclear from coal would save more money from having to deal with climate change than we'd save by sticking with coal, then the smart move to make would be to switch, unless you're a coal fired power plant owner or remarkably short-sighted. Efficiency makes even less sense to me if you're talking in terms of energy prod
Re: (Score:2)
And what happens if there doesn't happen to BE a cheap fix? Kill 'em all and let God sort it out?
It's really nice when a cheap fix is readily available, but it isn't always the case. Sometimes you can't have a pony.
In this case though, have a look at nuclear with appropriate reprocessing.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Informative)
You are a denier. Because you put "economics" a.k.a short term profits first. Basically you say "If I cannot earn money polluting, fuck you".
And the Lack of Reading Comprehension Award goes to the guy who wrote the above, putting words in the GP's mouth and then maligning them on the basis of that fantasy.
It's so much easier to win arguments with imaginary opponents who can be vilified for saying outrageous things.
With regard to economics: while it does not explain all of human behaviour, it is difficult to defend the hypothesis, beloved by Lefties in particular, that "economics doesn't matter".
Economics matters, and it is not "putting economics first" to say this, but rather recognizing that economics imposes constraints on any solution to the problem of anthropogenic climate change. The anti-AGW community are firmly convinced that the pro-AGW community consists solely of people like you, who think that the reality of AGW is somehow justification to impose your own anti-economic agenda on the rest of the world.
By responding as you are, you are playing exactly the role the anti-AGW community wants you to play, bolstering their support amongst the public, who will see you for what you are: a left-wing nutjob who has grabbed on to the AGW mantra as an excuse to further your political agenda, not because you care about the future of the planet (because as the GP correctly points out, any viable solution to AGW will have to take economic constraints into account, as as such people like you who deny economic constraints are important are actually an impediment to dealing with AGW.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
anthropogenic climate change imposes constraints on all solutions to the problems of economics
FTFY
CC.
Doh! (Score:2)
| It's so much easier to win arguments with imaginary opponents who can be vilified for saying outrageous things.
| ... beloved by Lefties in particular, that "economics doesn't matterâ.
Thanks for the great example of the strawman argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, wenn the strawman arguments go against "left wing nutjobs" like me, they aren't strawman, they are downright patriotic, didn't you know?
Re: (Score:2)
And here is where you are wrong. You see, the kind of economics you and GP worship only work because they conviniently ignore most, and - by shifting production to China - even all of the externalities associated with said production and distribution. If that weren't possible, the "if I cannot make a quick buck, fuck you and your environment" economics would fail at once.
But, alas, the modern economists are convinced that "long-term thinking" means "next quarter", not "next quarter century", and for some re
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He does have it there as a hard constraint with numerical values and is using some sort of "I'm not saying ..." weasel bullshit to pretend it isn't.
It's just using one topic to attack another when you boil it down. I don't think it's reasonable to directly compare a small system over a short time period (ozone depletion each summer) to a global system considering effects over a timespan of decades.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to change things you need to be realistic, and economics is (amongst other things) the study of the allocation of resources.
Also he didn't claim they were equivalent problems.
He claimed that the ozone solutions were implemented because the science was sound, the theory was consistant, the experiments repeatable, and the solutions
Re: (Score:2)
Which of course is a way to say they don't already have those standards and are thus not good enough - it's just insulting bullshit delivered in the style of a cowardly weasel. It's OK from a cocaine addled former DJ on Fox who gets paid to look like a fool but
Re: (Score:2)
I'm arguing for accurate numbers so we can realistically do stuff. You can call that insulting and cowardly, tis your right. But that is how things are actually accomplished, from my experience. If I may ask, what is your preferred methodology if you don't care for the questions I asked?
I'm actually serious. I'm curious to what flaws you see in my viewpoint of the situation.
You know what you did - but here it is for others (Score:2)
Another bit is bringing in arguments about unknown economic costs of unknown solutions as an excuse to avoid trying to identify problems - moving the goalposts to make it impossible to justify in economic terms because costing is about t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look kid, saying "I know people will get upset at this" first is no excuse for insulting lies later even if you've seen such bad behaviour on Fox.
This site is going way downhill with such idiots spewing political propaganda using techniques out of their party playbook instead of actually using their brains for something useful. If I wanted to read an anti-science site there's plenty of other places I can go so I'd rather not have such bullshit here.
You've used th
Re: (Score:2)
I do love how "climate denier" has become a catchphrase for anyone you dislike. I've noticed "racism" is pretty much the same thing as well. Climate changes all the bloody time. I have zero dou
Eek! The sky is rising, the sky is rising! (Score:2)
This is going to upset the alarmists.
Why does it have to 'ozone' or 'climate change'? (Score:3)
Reducing CFC's was a good thing regardless of ozone holes, etc. They are toxic and bad for the environment, period, ozone holes or no.
Reducing the carbon footprint is also a good thing as it means using things efficiently vice producing so much waste, regardless of climate effects.
Why do we need a 'spin' to somehow make it real?
Inefficiency leads to waste leads to rapid depletion leads to the disappearance of valuable resources.
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong. CFCs are chemically stable, non-toxic and non-flammable. There only so many permutations possible in chemistry, and CFCs are truly a wonder of chemistry. Alternatives are only partially up to be replacements, and are more than often corrosive, toxic, unstable.
You are correct on the facts.
Banning CFCs was at best a big mistake, if not outright a crime. It is inevitable that CFCs prohibition is ended at some point, because it simply makes no sense at all.
You are totally wrong on the conclusions. Long term destruction of the ozone would have been a disaster.
I don't doubt.... (Score:3)
That climate change deniers will use this to argue there is no such thing as 'global warming'.
When the lesson to take from this news is that we can reverse the negative impact of our actions on our environment with decisive action.
Krill are rejoicing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than going by your intuition, maybe you should go to eklima [oslo.dnmi.no], where you can access all climate data from Norwegian weather stations since 1901. It's not impossible that it should have gone the other way here compared to the globe as a whole, but I doubt it.
Re:Still freezing my butt off (Score:5, Insightful)
This demonstrates a problem seen on both sides of the climate change debate - people look at their short term local environment and extrapolate those experiences to the world as a whole without looking at actual relevant data.
Had a really hot summer? Boy, this global warming has gotten bad, it's going to wipe out humanity in a decade.
Terrible winter? Man, I'm tired of all those global warming alarmists - I wish it WAS warming!
But as far as the ozone hole goes... Given the very slow rate of exchange between the upper and lower atmosphere, it's hard to see how policy changes mainly implemented by western countries in the very recent past could fully explain this.
Re: (Score:2)
Had a really hot summer? Boy, this global warming has gotten bad, it's going to wipe out humanity in a decade.
Terrible winter? Man, I'm tired of all those global warming alarmists - I wish it WAS warming!
BTW, it's called "climate change" now, so you can blame both events on it.
Re: (Score:1)
It's called "global warming", not "local warming". It's quite possible, and indeed expected, that some places will get colder as the world as whole gets warmer. In particular, collapse of certain warm-water currents in the Atlantic are likely to make Britain quite inhospitably cold if the ocean gets a little warmer. So stop being an ignorant, self-centered fool and learn about the issues before making stupid statements in public. Attitudes like yours endanger everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
zow, probably the best collection of reliable sources ever quoted.
Seriously - reason? mises? redstate!
Re: (Score:2)
wait, redstate isn't a science blog?
Re: (Score:2)
[wikipedia.org][redstate.com][reason.com][mises.org]
If your best source is Wikipedia, you should re-evaluate where your get your information. Try Google Scholar [google.com] for a start. Libertarians may have a good take on liberty, but, sadly, many libertarian-leaning organisations have shown a disdain for science that does not jibe with their politics. I would like to be free of gravity, sometimes, or of the relationship between calories in and body weight. But no matter how much I like freedom, we ignore physical reality at our (or, in some cases, our children's) peri
Re: (Score:2)
You need to know a system before you can conclude if it is out of balance. You need to objectively consider all possibilities as to the cause. Before interfering with a system, you need to evaluate the costs and risks of your actions.
You mean like the careful evaluation we did before dumping CFCs into the atmosphere, and the one we did before digging up fossil fuels and burning them like there is no tomorrow? Or the one we do before we all send all our cattle onto the common grazing ground [wikipedia.org]?
Science is not perfect, but it has very good self-correcting measures. I'm impressed if you are able to independently understand the CFC/Ozone relationship, as well as the complexities of climate change. But if you do, why do you point to crappy pol
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a particle physicist, but your explanation of the ozone layer sounds like a "canary in a coal mine" and not a red herring. If the energy from UV radiation is transferred to oxygen high in the atmosphere, that
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, the US Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs,) [wikipedia.org] only affect the USA, and had no impact on the ozone layer (well, except the one banning CFCs, see below.)
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs,) [wikipedia.org] on the other hand, have had a scientifically-demonstrated effect on the ozone layer, and have been banned essentially world-wide since 1994.